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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Gospel of Jesus' Wife

Nominator(s): MagicatthemovieS

This article is about the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, a text which implies that Jesus was married, but that scholars believe is a modern forgery. MagicatthemovieS ( talk) 02:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege

Nominator(s): Pres N 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Dungeon Siege is a bit of an odd duck of a video game, beginning with the title, as the game contains no besieging of dungeons. It got great reviews and sold 1.7 million copies, enough to still be the 70th-best selling PC game even as the market continues to expand... and yet it's considered only the 3rd-best computer RPG of 2002, behind Neverwinter Nights and a claim that Dungeon Siege represented the turning point where RPGs shifted from experiences focused on deep stories and characters to shallow thrill rides that emphasized "loot", number treadmills, and massacring hordes of enemies for paper-thin reasons.

And yet, Chris Taylor did one thing incredibly right by pushing so hard to release extensive modding tools and documentation—because some of the mods and total conversions people made with this game are still some of my fondest gaming memories, and therefore despite all its flaws Dungeon Siege will always have a place in my heart. I hope this article represents the game well, and if it inspires you to play it... well, you should probably play Morrowind instead, honestly, but I hope you like it anyways. Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N 17:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • I believe the infobox image needs an ALT text. I believe ALT text is required for all of the images in the article.
  • The Media data and Non-free use rationale box needs to be completed for the image in the "Gameplay" section. There are a few spots with "n.a." shown that need to be filled in.
  • When you describe how you can change the main character's appearance, I was wondering if you could change the character's gender as well. Would it be worth to noting that? This is more of a clarification question.
  • In the lead, you mention that the Krug are "resurgent after being trapped for 300 years" yet that information does not appear to be directly present in the "Plot" section (at least to my knowledge). Could you possibly clarify this?
  • This is not a major issue, but I am a little curious about the image used in the "Development" section. It is definitely appropriate for the content, but the image's quality seems rather low. I am leaving this point for whoever does the image review, but I was curious if you could possibly get a higher-quality image. If not, then it is fine; just wanted to point this part out.
  • IGN should not be shown in italics in the Reference section. Same for Metacritic.
  • Would it be worth noting that the films were directed by Uwe Boll considering that he directed many films based on video games and has a rather infamous reputation?

Wonderful job with this article; it was an interesting read. There is not much that I noticed that needed improvement. I would be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: Responding in order:
  • Alt text added to all 3 images
  • Thank you. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Updated the FUR
  • Thank you. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes you can, added
  • Thank you. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a combination of a couple lines from Plot- that the Seck brought down the Empire of Stars and were then imprisoned underneath Castle Ehb, and the first line that the kingdom of Ehb was created 300 years prior at the dissolution of the Empire of Stars.
  • That makes sense to me; I assumed that it was addressed somewhere in the section and that I was just overlooking it. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I went searching before nominating, but I couldn't find a better free-use image of Taylor (or fair-use I could ask to be re-licensed)
  • Just wanted to make sure; the image appears appropriate for the section, but just wanted to check on the quality. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • (handled below)
  • Yes, I think so. Added. -- Pres N 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments; this was a very fascinating read. I will support this nomination. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could add some comments for my current FAC. I completely understand if you do not have the time or energy to do so though. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments from TheSandDoctor
  • I have added an ALT text to the infobox image as mentioned by Aoba47.
  • Regarding the comment by Aoba47 about IGN and Metacritic being italicized, isn't that something just to do with the cite template used? I looked at the source and at the references and saw a lot of |work=[[IGN]] but no '' (which would indicate it being italicized).

-- TheSandDoctor ( talk) 19:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • It was a small factor that I noticed while reading through the article. If it is something caused by the cite template used, then I understand and it is fine as it currently stands. Thank you for adding the ALT text. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Aoba47: About to run to a meeting so I haven't gotten to these yet, but yes, any website that's in italics in the references is because the cite web template italicizes whatever's in "work", which IGN is with Ziff Davis as the "publisher". My understanding is that trying to counter it by italicizing it again inside the parameter is contraindicated as it makes some very weird html as the output. -- Pres N 19:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries, thank you for clarifying this for me; then I will strike out my comment as it has already been addressed. Good luck with your meeting! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Great white shark

Nominator(s): Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe this article should be featured because it is well referenced with over 125 inline citations, was the most popular fish related article during April 2017 according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages, and the information looks pretty complete according to a scan of references from Google scholar.......I had a brief discussion with admin Casliber. The issues with the admin have been addressed......

This article is about...The Great white shark species Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

The text is in need of a copy edit. So far, I've come across the following issues

  • There are a few duplicate links, some of which, like California, barely needing to be linked once
  • "however" is seriously overworked and nearly always unnecessary
  • According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated to be as long as 70 years or more, well above older estimates->According to a 2014 study the lifespan of great white sharks is estimated as 70 years or more, well above earlier estimates
  • 59,413 kg (130,983 lb).— tonnes/tons seems more natural
  • It is also known to prey upon->it preys upon
  • ranked first in having the most recorded shark bite incidents on human->has the most recorded shark bite incidents on human
  • its first scientific name, Squalus carcharias—something missing there
  • which means sharp or jagged, and odous, which means— close repetition of something that doesn't need to be there anyway
  • According to J. E. Randall— he and other people are given without a link, nationality, profession, or any indication of why what they think is significant.
I'd like to see the text tightened up before I continue reviewing, I'm picking up infelicities which may be minor but seem too numerous as it stands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose: on the count of the nominator has not been a major contributor. LittleJerry ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 ( talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth studio album by American rock group Marilyn Manson (band). I've edited the article significantly since it was last nominated here [it's been nominated a total of 6 times since 2011], and I believe it meets the FA criteria. This would be my second FA, after The Pale Emperor. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn. I've accidentally created an eighth archive. Can an admin please delete it? Sorry. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

M-1 (Michigan highway)

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about what is arguably the most important state-level highway in Michigan. It's the only All-American Road in the state and home to many of Detroit's historic sites as well as the city's entertainment districts. It's been a state highway for over a century. I think it's a subject worthy of evaluation for inclusion among Wikipedia's best work. Imzadi 1979  03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at the previous FAC and have reviewed the changes since then and still feel this article meets the FA criteria. Dough 4872 03:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I reviewed this article several years ago at the ACR stage, and commented extensively in the previous FAC. While I felt that there were some nitpicks that could have made the article better, I felt that the article was FA quality. I still feel the same way today, even after reading through the controversial Culture section. However, I do have a few comments:
    • Later, the street was home to the jazz clubs of the 1910s and 1920s - this is a bit vague/awkward. All the clubs? And just those of the 1910s/1920s?
    • During the 1940s, ministers lobbied for a law to prevent the issuance of additional liquor licenses in their neighborhood; the law was overturned in 1950 - missing context, or perhaps the order of the last 3 sentences in the paragraph should be rearranged
      • I think I clarified these two points together, trying to tie in the notion of transition from "sacred" to "profane" as noted in the quote at the end of the paragraph. Imzadi 1979  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • undergone a renaissance - a bit vague
    • important entertainment fixtures - according to?
      • Added a citation, tweaking the wording a bit to match. Imzadi 1979  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    • The district is the most compact collection in any American city - needs an "according to"
    • "huge crowds" - be more specific or drop it entirely. Rs chen 7754 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I moved up the specific example from later in the paragraph to clarify. Hopefully this helps, Rschen7754. Imzadi 1979  11:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - issues resolved. -- Rs chen 7754 02:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "enough so that two of them were stolen in the first months after installation": There's a continuing discussion at FAC over whose opinions and actions are significant enough to warrant inclusion in featured articles. Some people want to see only those opinions with the highest levels of gravitas; others believe that polls of popular opinion are just as inclusion-worthy. No one has been arguing that the actions of vandals count as data to back up opinions. Some of the paragraph feels a little bit promotional to me, but it's not my call.
  • Everything else looks great, so far. Back soon. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for the work so far. I've removed most mentions of theft-related issues to the signs, but since they are sold to support roadway maintenance, I don't feel it's too promotional to retain that angle, Dank. Thoughts? Imzadi 1979  21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Now I don't have a problem with it at all. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Through various approvals in 2011, and subsequent changes including a bus rapid transit system with a dedicated Woodward Avenue bus lane.": Not a sentence.
  • "The line was to have 20 different stations serving 12 stops", "The line will have": The line has opened, so "was to have" is wrong, and "will have" should be replaced by how many it has.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Image review

  1. File:Michigan 1 map.png: Use of image is obviously appropriate. Wondering if the file may merit a better name, but not strictly relevant here. What is the provenance and copyright status of the basemap? The file description is a bit unclear.
  2. File:M-1.svg: License and use OK.
  3. File:DetroitWoodwardAvespringsummerday.jpg: License(s) and use seem OK to me. Is that really the starting point of a highway?
  4. File:Wayne State U-Woodward Avenue.jpg: License and use OK.
  5. File:M-1 at I-696.jpg: License and use OK. Looks already more like a highway in that point.
  6. File:M-1 in Bloomfield Hills.png: License and use OK, curiosity wonders about the lack of EXIF.
  7. File:Woodward tribute.jpg: Same issue as below, although it's closer to meeting NFCC#8.
  8. File:Woodwardsign.jpg: Concerned that the non-free image does not meet the f its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding NFCC#8 standard; it certainly does not help me understand anything about this highway.
  9. File:Fox theatre Central United Methodist church.jpg: License and use OK.
  10. File:Woodward Dream Cruise Batmobile.jpg: License and use OK.
  11. File:Old map 1807 plan.jpg: License and use OK, might want to add a commons:Template:PD-scan template to dot the i's.
  12. File:Judge Woodward.jpg: Use OK, but how do we know that the image is free to use?
  13. File:Woodard Avenue & Windsor.png: License and use OK, might want to add a commons:Template:PD-scan template to dot the i's.
  14. File:Woodward Ave Detroit 1942.jpg: Use OK, license in source a bit vague.
  15. File:Woodward Avenue in winter attire, Detroit, Mich.png: Use OK, license in source a bit vague.
  16. File:Test train at Campus Martius station, May 2017.jpg: License and use OK.

There is some incomplete ALT text. I am guessing that it is supposed to be completed by the caption, yeah? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbering your points, Jo-Jo Eumerus for specific replies:
1. The naming scheme for the map files is over a decade old, and as time allows, the maps on the Michigan state highways (M-) are being replaced to match the updated style used by other articles with a better naming convention for the new map file. The entire map, save the inset, is from the same dataset, and the result is entirely the creation of the cartographer who made the map, again save the inset.
3. I'm unsure of the meaning behind the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" That is south of the M-1 segment of Woodward Avenue, which doesn't start until the intersection at Adams Avenue on the north side of Grand Circus Park. Not all state highways are rural roadways or freeways, and many follow what otherwise appear to be city streets in whole or in part. The photo is included to illustrate the southern segment of Woodward Avenue, which is discussed in the article in the adjacent paragraph.
6. That photo was taken by me with an old iPhone and then processed in Photoshop CS6 to correct the perspective and color tint from the car windshield. I believe the phone didn't record the same range of EXIF data that the current models do, and what it did record, Photoshop may have discarded in the editing.
7 & 8. These two images are illustrative of the topic (sign, tribute) discussed immediately adjacent to their usage.
11. Added.
13. Already had that template.

As for the alt text (which isn't a FA requirement), yes, it's supposed to be supplemented by the captions. Imzadi 1979  21:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Eumerus. Hard to spell name? Anyhow, the query "Is that really the starting point of a highway?" was more an offtopic curiosity question seeing as as highways are a fairly alien thing for me. The problem with #8 is that it's not at all clear that the article would lose much if at all if it were removed. And non-free images are generally only kept if there is a good "keep" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Blame auto correct sneaking back in on that one, Jo-Jo Eumerus. As for the sign, it's illustrative of the National Scenic Byway/All-American Road status of the roadway, which is why it was put in the section discussing it, although it could be argued to be just as identification-based as the main M-1 marker in the infobox. Imzadi 1979  22:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if that logo is particularly helpful. The signs, sure, if that highway is well used many people driving on it are bound to see them. But the logo strikes me as useless. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Pacific blue-eye

Nominator(s): Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the second fish I caught and the first I kept in a fish tank. A common and hardy little critter. It's as complete as I can make it. Anyway, have at it... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

I'm very close to supporting this outright, just a few quibbles:

  • from a specimen collected in Sydney and taken to Vienna by the SMS Novara in 1858. You need to make it clear that the date 1858 was for the collection and not the taking to Vienna - presumably it didn't reach Vienna till the Novara Expedition finished in 1859. It might be worth briefly mentioning that it was colected on that expedition.
duly tweaked - the Novara Expedition is unfortunately a redirect Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You're usually very thorough, but I'll check - any information about its closest relatives in its genus?
Cant' find anything - we have infraspecific analysis but no infrageneric.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I figured if there was you would have included it, but I had to ask. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Alternative names include southern blue-eye and northern blue-eye.[7] - why not make it explicit which subspecies goes with which common name - it is obvious but it would fill out a very short paragraph. Otherwise maybe move common names to after where you introduce the trinomials
Here's the (annoying) thing. I can't find a ref that explicitly states which name goes with what. Also, the species itself is the southernmost so the name "southern blue-eye" I cannot exclude being used for the species as a whole. I might have to try some offline sources.. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • noxious introduced eastern mosquitofish I can find no evidence that this species is poisonous.
By noxious I mean highly invasive and deleterious to local species (which it is).... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise all good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Support. Happy with those answers (well, I still think noxious means poisonous). Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI, term "noxious" meaning "destructive" applied to Tilapia fish Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

I bring no special knowledge of content to this review, but I can comment on prose, logic, and Manual of Style issues. I made a few minor edits to the article; please revert any you find to be misguided. Here are my questions and suggestions:
General
  • The date of Kner's description is given as 1866 in the lede and in the main text, but 1865 is the date in the infobox. Maybe they refer to different things, naming or describing, not sure.
'twas an error. Duly tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Taxonomy
  • ¶1 "British entomologist William Sharp Macleay named a "curious little fish" collected from the Bremer River, a tributary of the Brisbane River, by one Mr Jameson of Ipswich, Atherinosoma jamesonii in 1884, which was later classified as the same species by Australian ichthyologist James Douglas Ogilby in 1908." – A few too many clauses for comfort. Perhaps "In 1884, British entomologist William Sharp Macleay named a "curious little fish" Atherinosoma jamesonii that had been collected by one Mr Jameson of Ipswich from the Bremer River, a tributary of the Brisbane River. In 1908, Australian ichthyologist James Douglas Ogilby later classified it as the same species as Atherina signata."
'split sentence Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 "...though it has been split by some into northern signata and southern signifer, with the former found from Ross River northwards and the southern from the Calliope River south. The division occurs at a biogeographic dividing point known as the Burdekin Gap." – The gap isn't a point or a line. In addition to the link, it might be helpful to mention the width of the gap and perhaps briefly describe it.
  • ¶1 "were more highly variable than different to each other..." – Different "from" rather than "different to"?
Duly tweaked Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ¶1 In 1979, Hadfield and colleagues analysed the variations described and felt both species were more highly variable than different to each other, and that no characteristics enabled people to distinguish either species." - To eliminate repeating "variable", "variations", perhaps collapse this to "In 1979, Hadfield and colleagues analysed the variations described and felt that the species could not be distinguished from one another." Or something like that.
This was tricky. I tried rewording, how does that work? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Description
  • ¶1 "Populations north of the Burdekin Gap become larger as they move further north, and exhibit no size difference between sexes." – This sentence might be taken to mean that a particular group of fish grows larger as it migrates north. Maybe "The size of Pacific blue-eyes found north of the Burdekin Gap varies directly with increasing distance from the gap and is the same for both sexes."
  • ¶1 "However, south of the Burdekin Gap, the species exhibits marked size difference between sexes, which becomes more pronounced as one moves further south." – The Manual of Style frowns upon using the pronoun "one". Maybe "However, south of the Burdekin Gap, the species exhibits marked size difference between sexes, which becomes more pronounced as the distance from the gap increases."
  • ¶1 Link dorsal fin and pectoral fin?
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat
  • ¶2 "of slower-moving water (less than 20 cm (8 in) per second)" – I'd suggest a pair of em dashes instead of the outer parentheses in order to eliminate double nesting of parentheses.
done Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Metallurgical Laboratory

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, one of the key sites of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atomic bombs. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 23:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have one query. In British and Australian English, "down tools" means stop work as a form of industrial action. I take it from your edit that this may not be understood by American readers? So I have re-worded it. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Correct. In American English, your edit "taking action" is fine. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A year later the opening paragraph, much less the opening sentence, still doesn't say what the Metallurgical Project is. What is it, by the way? I think if no one is willing to do the most basic work on an article to address issues already raised, it's premature to nominate it for FA status. See old ignored post on article talk page. -- 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:BA ( talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It is in the article. Added to the lead. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
One word? Is it a building? A project (if so to do what)? A group of scientists? A mission? Wasn't the Met Lab the group that was supposed to design the first production pile? The first sentence is more about the Manhattan Project, the second about the Metallurigcal Project, then we move confusedly onto when it was established, whatever it is, some Nobel laureate, a university. The Metallurgical Lab is a cat. What is it? If it can't be said outright without all these asides that seem to be obscuring a lack of insight, I'm not sure there's enough information to write a FA. I disagree with it being a good article with this lead. I'm pretty sure it's the mission for creating the production pile, but not positive. -- 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:87 ( talk) 01:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It already says it all. If you cannot comprehend something so simple, you cannot review the article. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 11:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No it doesn't. The lead is obscured by asides everywhere. It talks about everything the Met Lab is part of, people who had Nobel prizes and led universities. Maybe you know what the Met Lab is. So, why not say it? "A rocket is a ...." "An electron is a ...." "The Metallurgical Laboratory is a ...." Not what it's part of. What it is. Not where it was. What is the Metallurgical Laboratory? What is it?
Even here, you want to bring it to FA, but you discuss me rather than say what the Met Lab is. -- 2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB ( talk) 11:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's some examples from other parts of the Manhattan Project: "The Alabama Army Ammunition Plant (ALAAP), was a United States munitions plant ...." "The Alsos Mission was an organized effort by a team of United States military, scientific, and intelligence personnel ...." "The Ames process is a process by which pure uranium metal is obtained." "The Ames Project was a research and development project." Then after saying what it is the articles go on to say where and the topic's role in the Manhattan Project. -- 2601:648:8503:4467:7CC8:575D:70A0:E5EB ( talk) 12:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I have re-organised the lead. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. My only opposition was the lead, but I don't know how to do a strike through, maybe someone could take care of that?. I think the lead is not only better but quite good. Thank you. -- 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:54 ( talk) 04:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Jerome, Arizona

Nominator(s): Finetooth ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the boom and bust town of Jerome, Arizona, site of two of the richest copper deposits ever discovered. William A. Clark, one of the Copper Kings of Montana, owned the first, and James Douglas, Jr., a friend of Georges Clemenceau, owned the second. Both men financed mines, railroads, smelters, and company towns (Clarksville and Clemenceau) in or near Jerome. When the mines played out, the workers left, and Jerome's population shrank from about 5,000 in 1930 to about 250 in 1960. Today the town is home to about 450 people who rely mainly on a tourist economy. Finetooth ( talk) 18:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Comment: in light of this RfC, some additional sourcing will be needed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks. That RfC, which I had never seen before, squares with what I think about trivia sections. I have eliminated the "In popular culture" section entirely. Finetooth ( talk) 22:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Another editor has reverted my deletion, and I have written to him here to explain the section deletion and to ask him to reconsider. Finetooth ( talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Getting no reply from the editor who reverted, I reverted the revert. Fingers crossed. Finetooth ( talk) 16:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a case you may not have heard of if you are not an American lawyer. If you have, and you hear the name of this case, very likely you will respond with "the package exploded" or "the scales hit her" or similar, because it did and they did and this is a case you remember. I've tried to be sensitive to recent commentary on the case and give due attention to the people of Palsgraf. Wehwalt ( talk) 17:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Smurrayinchester

What an odd case! From a modern perspective, the fact that no-one seems to have cared much about the guy who actually brought live explosives to a busy rail station seems very strange. A few comments:

  • In the intro, "assail" seems like too violent a word (although maybe it's normal in legal commentary).
  • "But in the process, the man lost the package, which dropped and exploded, apparently containing fireworks." Sentence seems to have got mangled in editing. The "apparently containing fireworks" should be earlier in the sentence, and presumably it fell and exploded.
  • "She testified to trembling for several days, and then the stammering started." As written, it sounds like the stammering started after the testifying.
  • "The Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Benjamin N. Cardozo, was a judge who was greatly respected; he would end his life on the U.S. Supreme Court, the second Jew to serve there." "End his life there" sounds like he committed suicide there. "he would serve on the U.S. Supreme Court until his death" would be clearer. "The second Jew to serve there" is a dangling modifier (in general, I find the article's repeated mentions of the ethnic background of the judges odd, since it doesn't seem relevant to the case, but I guess it's no less relevant than the rest of their biographical history).
I felt Cardozo's Judaism was relevant and so mentioned it, I did not mention it in the case of Lazansky.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Another editor has cut it. I'm not putting it back.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Though some state courts outside New York approved it, others did not, sometimes feeling that foreseeability was a jury question." This feels like legalese that may not be clear to lay readers - it's not clear to me what a "jury question" means here.
Hope these are useful. Smurrayinchester 11:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes, and images need alt text. Smurrayinchester 11:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I think I've dealt with those. I agree it is an odd case.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:07, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 08:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Smurrayinchester, do you feel able to take a position on whether the article should be promoted?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 07:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, in case it wasn't clear, support. Smurrayinchester 07:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Seal_of_the_New_York_Court_of_Appeals.svg should include a copyright tag for the original design. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I've dealt with that. Thank you for the review.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 04:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

  • Support subject to quibbles. A most interesting and informative account, and not just for lawyers. I have, as ever, a few minor points relating to style and presentation, and for many of these it's a question of personal preference.
Lead
  • The semicolon in line 1 of para 2 looks to me to be at a natural sentence-end, and should therefore be replaced with (what we Brits call) a full stop.
  • In the same para I feel that the penultimate sentence (beginning "Cardozo wrote...") might benefit from a split.
Facts
  • Some of the detail appears at first sight to be rather trivial and irrelevant. e.g. "on a warm summer's day"; Helen Palsgraf's exact address (why do we need to know this?): "having paid the necessary fare" – this presumably to establish that she was a bona fide customer of the railway but the casual reader might not pick this up. Later in the article we are told the office addresses of the respective lawyers Wood and Keany (the latter of whom is a purely nominal figure in the case) – again, why do we need to know where they had their offices? I also think that the information regarding Palsgraf's separation from her tinsmith husband would be better placed when you first introduce her into the narrative, rather than tagged on to the end of this paragraph.
It's to emphasize the point made by Noonan and his school, that Palsgraf has been dealt with by the legal community without regard to the human beings involved. Although Palsgraf comes on as fascinating to each new year of law students, it rests on a mudsill of very real human tragedy to Mrs. Palsgraf. Keany is purely nominal, but he is listed as counsel for the LIRR in the court's opinion, and I felt I had to treat him briefly even though he apparently did not personally appear. Such things are usual in the law, I tried cases for years against the County Attorney's office but never in court against the County Attorney himself, who was always listed as counsel of record. The warm day is needed as it is a possible reason the train was running with doors open, and also there is a legend that the day was very hot, which it wasn't. As for the paying for the ticket, Cardozo mentions it and he's pared down the statement of facts to the essentials (possibly not even that) so like any good lawyer, I cite precedent.
Trial
  • "...the Gerhardts also sued the railroad, with Wood as their counsel": since you mention this, it might be worth adding a brief note summarising the outcome of this action.
The source doesn't say but I doubt they had much luck. The 'decision in Palsgraf would have defeated their case. Any injury to Mrs. Gerhardt would be even more remote than the injury to Mrs. Palsgraf.
  • Perhaps clarify that Judge Posner's opinion is not contemporary with the case, but was expressed much later. I also wonder what particular status he had/has, which makes his comment particularly significant?
He is prominent enough that most lawyers would be on a "heard of him" basis, and I see this article primarily aimed at lawyers and law students. Who else would've heard of Palsgraf? And there's a link. I've made it clear he's later.
Initial appeal
  • The first para begins: "The case was then heard before the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, for the Second Department..."; the second paragraph begins: "The case was argued before the Appellate Division in Brooklyn on October 21, 1927." Are these two sentences describing the same process, or two different stages of the process? If the former, I suggest you move the date to the earlier sentence and perhaps ditch the second sentence altogether. Otherwise, a little more clarification of a two-stage process is needed.
"Heard" is a fairly broad term in the law, equivalent to "considered". I've rephrased
  • In the second paragraph the information that the court affirmed the lower court's verdict appears at the beginnong and at the end. The second mention is redundant.
Cardozo's majority opinion
  • Who is "Professor Walter O. Weyrauch"?
Holding and discussion
  • I find this heading a little cryptic. I assume that the word "holding" is legalspeak for the establishment of some point in law, as in "It was held that...", but the term is a strange one to us non-lawyers and I wonder if it could be phrased more demotically.

Otherwise, congratulations on a fascinating article. I'll add a sources review later, unless someone else gets in first. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and support. I've made those changes or at least played with it, except as noted.

Support. A quite fascinating read. Just a couple of comments I hope you can clarify:

  • "The judge told the all-male jury that if the LIRR employees "did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do in regard to passengers moving upon their trains, then there can be no liability. " I understand this is a quotation but it seems to me—unless I'm missing something—that the judge said the opposite of what he meant to say. Logically shouldn't it be "if the LIRR employees did nothing which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees shouldn't do ... there can be no liability. " Or "if the LIRR employees did everything which ordinarily prudent and careful train employees should do ... there can be no liability. " If I'm correct, maybe it's okay for you to cut this first sentence, because the next sentence clearly spells out the case of where there would be liability.
I went back and looked at the trial record, and that's what he's recorded as saying. Your cut seems very sensible and I've made it.
  • "The plaintiff's brief also suggested that the failure of the railroad to call as witnesses the employees who had aided the man should resolve any inferences of negligence against it." My understanding of the first part of this is that the railroad should have called as witness the two train employees—and if the railroad was so confident of its employees' lack of liability, there would be no problem calling them as witnesses; hence, the fact that the railroad didn't does not reflect well on its presumed lack of liability. If so, why does the "failure [to do so] ... resolve any inferences of negligence against it"? Wouldn't it be the opposite, i.e., it increases inferences of negligence against it? Moisejp ( talk) 05:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes terms mean one thing to lawyers, another to everyone else, and I guess this is one of them on "resolve". Changed to "decide"; you are of course correct in our interpretation. The LIRR was apparently not even willing to invest the cost of the day's wages for two employees in the case. Thank you for the review and support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 07:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

Painting about old age and aging by Jan van Eyck dated to c. 1434-36. Its great for several reasons, most of all because of how van der Paele, a significant operator in early 15th century Bruges, allows himself to be depicted without any regard to vanity, at all. Alas, Victoria is retired and will not be active on this FAC, so I'll have to do instead. Ceoil ( talk) 20:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review All images seem to be properly used and in proper format, with the following issues:

Ok. Have added licencing to the first, and replaced the second. Tks. Ceoil ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Have swapped out this now. Ceoil ( talk) 18:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I was watching you work through. Appreciate the edits and support very much. Ceoil ( talk) 22:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose

This is an interesting article, nicely illustrated. I bring no special knowledge of the subject to this review, but I'm able to comment on the prose, the logic, and questions related to the Manual of Style. Overall, the article reads well and has very few problems that I can detect. I made a few minor edits, mostly substituting en dashes for hyphens in page ranges. Here are my other thoughts:
General
  • Images need alt text.
  • When I read these alt texts, I try to imagine what they would mean to me if I were blind. Some seem helpful; "Representation of Eve shown on the arm of the throne" would allow me to imagine, at least to a limited extent, what the image is showing. Some, though, would not give me much to go on. For example, "The Virgin and Child with Canon van der Paele, Oil on wood, 141 x 176.5 cm (including frame), 1434–36. Groeningemuseum, Bruges" for the lede image doesn't tell me that there are two other people in the painting or how they are dressed or positioned or that the canon is kneeling. The alt text can't be enormously long, but many of these seem too skimpy to me to be helpful. Would you mind having another stab at these with blind readers in mind? Finetooth ( talk) 23:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, with the disclaimer, that the lead and body describe the paintings in detail, and the alt text should prob also adhere to the sources. Ceoil ( talk) 23:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Done. Can you take another look. Re sources: some of the alt descriptions are from other articles I and a few others had worked on earlier, and are well sourced...if needs be. Ceoil ( talk) 00:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. They are much better. I deleted "with an overhanging" from Madonna of Jan Vos because it made no sense to me, and the sentence made sense without it. Please adjust if I misunderstood. I'm now happy to support, as noted above. Finetooth ( talk) 02:41, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Lede
  • The third paragraph seems problematic to me in a couple of ways. The lede is to be a summary and should not contain information that is not mentioned in the main text. Examples: Is the oak frame mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the panel "contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting"? Is Illusionism mentioned in the main text? Or the claim that the work is "one of the earliest known sacra conversazione paintings..."? The other problem that I see is that some of the claims in this third paragraph are supported by citations, and usually the lede needs no citations if the claims are repeated and cited in the main text. My suggestion would be to move the direct quotations in this paragraph to appropriate places below and to cite them there and to make sure that other claims such as the one about the oak frame appear there also.
Commission
  • ¶2 "...to question his mortality..." – Perhaps "to reflect upon" rather than "to question"?
  • ¶2 "His bequest allowed him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week." – I'm not sure what this means. Perhaps "In return for his bequest, the church granted him a requiem mass, a daily mass and three votive masses a week meant to intercede with the divine on his behalf"? Some of this becomes more clear to me later in the section, but I think something is needed here. Adding something here might mean tinkering a bit with the stuff lower down to avoid repetition.
  • ¶3 "...is known to have actively sponsored..." – Delete "actively" since "sponsored" contains the action?
Panel
Figures
  • ¶1 "The Virgin sits on an elevated throne situated below..." - Delete "situated"?
  • That's all. Finetooth ( talk) 16:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you, all done now. Ceoil ( talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Source review from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)

  • Van Der Elst The Last Flowering of the Middle Ages appears to have a wrong ISBN - when I click on the ISBN link to go to WorldCat, WorldCat shows no entry for that ISBN number. I can find the book through searching the title, but not for a 2005 printing.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, have fixed the ref for Van Der Elst. Ceoil ( talk) 21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas Liber

Looks good - queries below: Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

...left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality and his position as canon. - I'd be tempted to switch to "left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." - gives it more gravitas..and can't be a canon if you are dead...?
do we have any clue as to van der Paele's illness? As a doctor I am curious about these things... oops, missed the footnotes. nevermind.

Otherwise looks all in order. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ta. I've moved the diagnosis from the notes into the article body; it was a good question and I think most people would wonder when reading. I agree also on the reflections of mortality; done. Ceoil ( talk) 20:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Johnbod

  • The detail pics should be redone from the decent main pic, rather than using old ones from the ropey Yorck Project pic. This doesn't take a moment with croptool.
  • Only 2 paras in the lead.

More later. Johnbod ( talk) 14:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Re the images - am intending to redo tonight per your suggestion. Re the lead; see comments above; also on my radar! Ceoil ( talk) 21:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any good reproductions to crop from. This is always an issue with the Groeningemuseum. Ceoil ( talk) 14:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Thank you for offering another stunning beautiful painting! I took the liberty to change some image positions, and the fixed sizes, "upright" is more considerate of a reader's preferences.

Lead

  • I'd prefer the explanation going from the things you see at a glance to those covering details, especially mention the Canon sooner. I fear that not every reader will know without a link what a Canon is, or - worse - may think to know. As usually, no other comments to the lead until I read the rest. Just one:
  • Not sure I know what a "sacred space" is.
    The lead was gutted last night, as it had a bunch of info not covered in the body. I agree with your approach; will be redrafting later. Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Commission

  • "... left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his mortality" - means he was unable to fulfill and unable to reflect, no?
This has been redrafted Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "'In return for his bequest, ..." - where does the quote end?
    EEk, wasn't a quote, stray punctuation. Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • chaplainy, chaplaincy?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "It was installed at the main altar" - what does it mean? As the main altar? Adjacent?
  • Should have been "On" (or in front of). Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Panel

  • Yes, there's a link to sacra conversazione, but how about a few words explaining, or at least a translation?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Check sentences beginning with "it" and "he" if it's really clear what is meant.
  • If Virgin and Child are linked again, how about other terms from the lead as well. New Testament didn't even appear there. (Common practise, to my knowledge: link in lead and first appearance afterwards)
  • Please decide Romanesque vs. romanesque, and St. Donatian/George/other vs. St Donatian/George/other. (I know the latter as strictly English.)
  • Romanesque is only in lowercase within a quote - looking at the others. Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Figures

  • Parrot? (The sources probably have it, but it looks less like a parrot than this one, - also a FAC, btw.)
    I need to follow up more on this - if it is a parrot, its one ugly example :) Ceoil ( talk) 21:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
    More to follow on the parrot / or not! Ceoil ( talk) 22:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence about the building's relic seems a bit too complicated, - split?
  • Yes, and trimmed Ceoil ( talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Inscriptions

  • Explain or link ADONAI?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • link to biblical source?
  • Not sure how, if you mean to the likes of 7:29. Can you help here? Ceoil ( talk) 21:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • How about explaining Mary's first, then the left, then the right?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Style and format

  • Can the image with the self-portrait go here, where it's mentioned? (... and the pilasters, not mentioned, elsewhere?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, for this and many more. Next wish: The Rolin to where it is mentioned, to focus on the Canon (and have his image right). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Provenance

  • "local French-speaking and national Dutch-speaking officials of Bruges" - to my knowledge, the locals speak Dutch, and the nation is divided Dutch and French, both official. I'd say Flemish, not Dutch, but have been corrected several times. This year, I have an image from Bruges on my user page, DYK?
Hmm. I have simplified this a bit. Ceoil ( talk) 21:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Gallery

  • Can the (last) image of the Canon's head go to where the rendering of his illness is described?
  • Done Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now, enjoyed it! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Gerda, glad you like the painting. Will be getting to these very helpful points this evening. Ceoil ( talk) 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Very nice, though hardly Maoist art:) Just a few comments.

  • "Mary is positioned at the center of a tight semicircular and space" is semicircular a noun?
  • The ending of the lede seems weak.
  • "An illness around 1431[3] left van der Paele unable to fulfill the role and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." I might substitute "function" for "role", or use some other term. Role doesn't really seem to fit. I might add a "caused" after the first use of "and".
  • "Art historian Barbara Lane speculates that van der Paele may have sought divine protection through prayers and the depiction of intercessors in the painting as relief from his long illness." I'm in doubt what the last part of this sentence means, whether vdP was hoping for a distraction or divine healing.
  • "There was a trend towards the sponsorship of requiem masses, often as part of the terms of a will, a practice that van der Paele, in his official capacity, is known to have sponsored. With this income he endowed the churches with embroidered cloths and metal accessories such as chalices, plates and candlesticks" In the second sentence, assuming the income spoken of is the gifts coming in and vdP had the responsibility of spending it, I might say "In his capacity as canon, van der Paele spent money paid for masses on embroidered cloths for the churches and metal ..." or some such.
  • "Most likely the work was first hung in the church nave as an accompaniment to an altar for Saints Peter and Paul and used for memorial masses for van der Paele and his family." How was the panel used?
  • "The painting contains one of the finest extant examples of Oriental carpets in Renaissance painting[" I might say "depictions" for "examples" unless I'm missing something. I might also switch to "of an Oriental carpet"
  • "Madonna of Jan Vos. Jan van Eyck and Workshop, 1441–43s." (picture caption) what's with the s on the date?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 05:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Wehwalt, all valid and useful points. I agree with all your observations; working. Ceoil ( talk) 07:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: All done. Ceoil ( talk) 23:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Support all looks good. Nicely done.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 00:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

These articles are one of the reasons I still hang about Wikipedia, though past my sell-by date. My review is limited to prose and presentation, and i have a few minor points. I'm not insisting you accept them all.

Lead
  • "who was then gravely ill" → "who at the time was gravely ill" (otherwise it might be thought that the illness followed the commission, rather than being the reason for it).
  • Why isn't St George linked, while Saint Donatian is?
Commission
  • "...a position which afforded him income from the various parishes under his remit, and allowed him to commission the best painter in the region". Suggest a slight rewording: "a position which afforded him sufficient income from the various parishes under his remit to commission the best painter in the region for his proposed work of art".
  • "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the function and to reflect upon his position as canon and his mortality." Again, a slight modification suggested: "An illness around 1431 left van der Paele unable to fulfill the functions of his office, and led him to reflect upon his position as canon and on his mortality".
  • "the donation" seems a bit weak; perhaps "der Paele's beneficence" (or "benefaction")
  • "It was donated to the church..." → "He donated it to the church..." (active voice)
Panel
  • Second para: Can anything be done about four "ands" in the second sentence?
  • The word "from" (second word in third para) needs deleting. "After from..." doesn't make sense.
  • "He abandons..." → "Van Eyck abandons..."
  • "and evidence the influence..." → "and evidences the influence..."
  • Link Romanesque architecture
Figures
  • "at the side of her lap" → "at the side of the Virgin's lap"
  • "c. 950". I believe that the use of such abbreviations in WP text is frowned on, so I'd make this "around 950" 9you use this form elsewhere) – and I'd specify AD (There are other instances of "c." in the text}.
Iconography
  • "According to Ward it is odd...": from the wording it's not clear what Ward considers odd – is it the symbols themselves, or their placement? If it's the symbols, shouldn't it be "they are odd"?
Style and format
  • Third para begins: "As with his..." Pronouns should not be used on the first mention of a person in a paragraph. Van Eyck hasn't been named since the first paragraph in this section.
Provenance and attribution
  • "and while it was in the mid-19th century going through a process of rediscovery..." Rather clumsy – suggest: "and while in the mid-19th century it was going through a process of rediscovery..."
  • "Memling" should be identified as Hans Memling, and linked.

A fine article as expected, and I look forward to supporting its promotion. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Sarawak

Nominator(s): Cerevisae ( talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about everything in Sarawak, a territory at the northwest Borneo. Notable of its old rainforests, Mulu cave systems and orangutans. This article has undergone extensive peer-review and copyediting process. All the issues in the previous FA nominations have been addressed. Therefore, I have decided to renominate this article for FA review. Thank you. Cerevisae ( talk) 02:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

Interesting article! A few comments:
  • "By 1912, a total of five divisions had been established in Sarawak, each headed by a Resident." A link to Resident (title) is essential here, and possibly a short explanation of what the Resident did (it sounds like it was more-or-less equivalent to a colonial governor?) - Done. Cerevisae ( talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In 1928, a Judicial Commissioner, Thomas Stirling Boyd, was appointed as the first legally trained judge. However, unfamiliarity with local customs led to an advisory Supreme Council, mostly consisting of Malay chiefs, being created to provide guidance. This council is the oldest state legislative assembly in Malaysia, with the first General Council meeting taking place at Bintulu in 1867. - This bit confused me. When was the council created? After 1928, or before 1867? - The council is created when its first meeting took place in 1867. Cerevisae ( talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, the second sentence sounds a bit awkward due to passive voice, and it's not clear who made it. I'd reword it to say "However, due to unfamiliarity with local customs, [Someone] created an advisory Supreme Council, mostly consisting of Malay chiefs, to provide guidance." - Done Cerevisae ( talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei People's Party, and Sarawak-based communist groups opposed the federation and in 1962, the Brunei Revolt broke out." This sentence is confusing because it mixes countries and parties. I'd say "The governments of the Philippines and Indonesia opposed the federation, as did the Brunei People's Party and Sarawak-based communist groups, and in 1962, the Brunei Revolt broke out." - Done. Cerevisae ( talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The table of districts and subdistricts seems to be incomplete. For instance, the article on Kuching District says "It is subdivided into three subdistricts: Kuching Proper, Padawan and Siburan", but Siburan doesn't appear in the table. In general though, I don't think you actually need the table - if you do keep it, it would good to link to the articles on the districts themselves. -The table is complete, actually. The Siburan subdistrict had been transferred to "Serian Division" since 2015. All the links to districts have been added. Cerevisae ( talk) 13:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The regiment, renowned for its jungle tracking skills, served in the campaign to end the intertribal wars in Sarawak, engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Japanese, in the Malayan Emergency (in West Malaysia) and the Sarawak Communist Insurgency against the communists." A lot of commas and clauses make this sentence hard to read. Maybe deleting the "engaged" and adding an "in" before "Sarawak Communist Insurgency" would make it a bit clearer, but perhaps it would be better as two sentences. - Done. Cerevisae ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Sarawak coastline is covered with mangrove and nipah forests, comprising two percent of the total forested area in Sarawak, and is most commonly found in the estuarine areas of Kuching, Sarikei, and Limbang." I think this should be something like "...and these forests are most commonly found..." - Done. Cerevisae ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cite 110 and 111 are identical! Having four cites in a row looks a bit messy, so you should bundle these. - Done. Cerevisae ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "A rail project was announced in 2008 to be in line with the transport needs of SCORE, but as yet no construction work has begun despite an anticipated completion date in 2015." Any update here? - No more updates from the project again but the Sarawak government proposed a new LRT project this year. Cerevisae ( talk) 14:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pagan Animism was the traditional religion among the Melanaus, but over time as the Islamic rule of the Bruneian empire dominate, 73% of the population is now identify as Muslims." This sentence sound a bit strange. "but due to the dominance of the Islamic Bruneian empire" maybe? Also, the citations in this sentence are weird. Why is one a footnote? - Done. The footnote is used to specify the exact page that the sentence is coming from, so readers can find the reference faster. Cerevisae ( talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "While the ethnic Chinese originate from a variety of backgrounds and speak many different dialects such as Hokkien, Hakka, Foochow, and Teochew and also the Standard Chinese." This seems to be a sentence fragment - is something missing, or does it just need rewriting? - Done. Cerevisae ( talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Hope these comments are useful! Smurrayinchester 09:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Cerevisae ( talk) 10:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
The second point, about the creation of the Supreme Council, is still not resolved to my satisfaction - it still talks about an event that happened in 1867 as if it happened as a result of something done in 1928. If the Supreme Council came before Thomas Stirling Boyd was appointed Judicial Commissioner then it should come first, or not be connected to him. All the other points look good. Smurrayinchester 13:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Smurrayinchester: Issue addressed. The appt of legal judge happens after the first general council meeting. Cerevisae ( talk) 22:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Great! All looks good to me. Smurrayinchester 11:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bach cantata, again, his very original approach to set the Magnificat by using the German, partly paraphrased version and quoting the Gregorian chant tune, - the only time he did such a thing: write a "chorale fantasia" not on a rhymed hymn but the chant. He did so at the beginning of his most ambitious project, the chorale cantata cycle, of which the work is the fifth cantata. I took the liberty to expand a bit on that beginning, as I compiled the chorale cantatas on Luther's hymns for the previous FAC, Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125. (Other "featured" Bach cantatas have included BWV 172 and BWV 165.) Expanding the article was another attempt to focus on 500 years Reformation in 2017. The article received a recent GA review by The Rambling Man. Much more could be said in an article, such as comparing it to Bach's Latin Magnificat, and about the movements, - the sources are there, but I feel it might be too much detail for general readers. I am open to discussion. Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Francis Schonken

  • Oppose promotion to FA: too many idiosyncracies, and edit-warring forum shopping has begun to keep them in ([1]). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I live on voluntary 1RR, and began a discussion. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Please keep discussions in one place: I raised the issue here, please don't open the same discussion at another forum. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    I didn't. I opened it before I even saw your comment here, and I believe that Classical music is the better forum than FAC. It concerns all Bach works, and it has nothing to do with FA criteria. All previous FAs on Bach's cantatas have BWV bold. It's approved quality. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    But you agree I opened this discussion before yours, so there's no problem in closing discussions in the two other places with a link to here? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    Gerda now opened the same discussion in a fourth venue (which I promptly closed). @ Gerda Arendt: please stop the forum shopping / disallowed canvassing: how many times have I linked to that guidance? How much did you learn since? Not much, apparently. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:14, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    On the content and layout of the lead paragraph (which we still seem to be discussing in several places at the same time) I'd propose something in this vein:
    Meine Seel erhebt den Herren ( My soul magnifies the Lord), BWV 10, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach, based on Luther's German Magnificat. Consequently, the cantata is also known as Bach's German Magnificat. He composed it for the Feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724, which was the fifth occasion for a cantata of his second year in Leipzig. Like most of the other cantatas of his second year in Leipzig it was composed as a chorale cantata. In principle such a cantata is based on a specific Lutheran chorale. Luther's German Magnificat is however not a chorale: its melody is a psalm tone, and thus lacks the metre and harmonic structure which are typical for chorales. Nonetheless, the process with which Bach adopted text and melody of Luther's German Magnificat into his Meine Seel erhebt den Herren cantata was the same as the one he used for adopting chorales into the other cantatas of his chorale cantata cycle.
    Advantages of this approach:
    • Less cluttered lead sentence:
      • The translation of the text incipit is not copyrighted – it is a standard English translation of the opening sentence of the Magnificat (like the opening sentence of the cantata is a standard German translation of the same), e.g. Wikipedia uses it without reference or copyright notice in the lead sentence of the Magnificat article (hence I linked to that article from the English translation for those who are unaware of the cultural reference of this English sentence): that translation has been around way before Dellal put it on her website in 2012, so the first numbered footnote with the reference to that website can be omitted from the lead sentence (it can be put in the section that talks about the text of the cantata if it isn't already there).
      • Less boldface (less frequently used synonyms don't necessarily need boldface)
      • No explanatory footnote: such footnote can (and should per WP:ACRO) be replaced by a wikilink for the first occurrence of the BWV acronym
      • Luther (i.e. last name only) would be clear to most readers in the context, and if not the first name (Martin) would probably not help much for those readers who don't know who this person is (link would need to be clicked anyway).
    • Luther(an) context clear from first sentence (which over-all, apart from the music being composed by Bach, is probably the most significant general aspect of the context of this cantata)
    • Next I'd talk about the occasion (Visitation) and the chorale cantata format (will try something that is better organised and readable than the current lead paragraph if nobody else does so with a solution I can sympathise with) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    In a FAC, with several people commenting and making changes, you will never be able to maintain one position. The disadvantages of your lead sentence that I see are:
    • It is not consistent with other articles on Bach cantatas, FA, GA, and others.
    • Specifically: it lacks an early mentioning of time and place, for me the minimum service an article should give a reader.
    • Also specifically: It lacks BWV 10 in bold, which is 1) part of the article title, 2) an incoming link, 3) something not German, 4) distinguishing this article from Luther's.
    • I don't see the "consequently" sourced in the article, and met the term German Magnificat in none of the sources I used, so believe it's not even needed to mention it in the lead, and if mentioned, no need to bold it.
    Ideas welcome. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Re. "...you will never be able to maintain one position" – of course this is something I welcome.
    I completed my first draft of the intro rewrite proposal now. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    Thank you for your suggestion. The points above, worded earlier for only its first sentence, still apply. Please see also below that the article reads too technical. A previous FAC demanded that we don't surprise the reader with the "Easter egg" church cantata (going to the highly specialized Church cantata (Bach)), but establish Bach cantata first. A random reader should be told early that we deal with Leipzig in 1724, - we can't take knowledge about where Bach did what when for granted. I'd hesitate to mention Magnificat before clarifying Visitation. Please read how strange the term Magnificat is for some of our readers, on this Magnificat talk. I'd also prefer a sense of chronology: nobody at Bach's time would have talked about a "German Magnificat", therefore I'd mention it much later, and probably not bold. That term doesn't appear in books by Dürr, Wolff and Jones, but yes in the preface by Großpietsch. To me, it looks like an attempt to set this German Magnificat apart from the Latin one, and perhaps where that is mentioned in the article would be a good position to mention the term. The greatest difference seems to be that the Latin was repeated for high holidays, and revised, while the German seems restricted to Visitation. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Other suggestions:
      1. The article doesn't explain very clearly why Luther's German Magnificat isn't a chorale (it being in a bible translation is hardly the reason). FYI: Metre (hymn) explains that a hymn (or chorale) has a metre: Luther's German Magnificat has no such metre for the text, nor has the melody to which it is sung a metre in the musical sense. Hence the melody also has no Zahn number, while it is in fact a reciting tone (reciting tones have no metrical structure). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        This point needs attention: the intro has been changed twice now regarding this (change 1comment 1; change 2comment 2)... I suppose these changes without understanding what this is about will keep recurring until the explanation in the body of the article is updated. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      2. Language should be clearer in the article: Luther's German Magnificat is called a chorale throughout, apart from the single sentence that says it isn't. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        Good idea, I used now "reciting tone", alternatively with "psalm tone" (which was already there), and placed "chorale" in quotation marks to indicate it's not strictly a chorale. Do you have a suggestion for saying that Bach (of course) gave the psalm tone a meter? Can we still say "chorale fantasia"? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        Another point: while the English "chorale" seems not to include Luther's German Magnificat, the German Choral does, just compare Gregorianischer Choral ( de), Choralbuch ( de), Choralschola etc. That is the the culture in which Bach composed. Could that be explained? If yes, the lead seems not the right place. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        Zahn classified what he called "Die Melodien der deutschen evangelischen Kirchenlieder", giving each a number. Luther's German Magnificat (and its melody) is not included in that classification. So one can safely say that it is not a "deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied", in other words (while it is certainly "deutsch" and "evangelisch"), not a chorale. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 19:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
        Do you realize that the German word Choral is not restricted to "German Protestant Hymn" (Deutsches evangelisches Kirchenlied) but includes Latin chant before the Reformation? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Dürr/Jones 2006, p. 32: "In ... BWV 10 ... the melody is no longer that of a hymn ..." -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      3. I suppose Spitta discusses the cantata somewhere? Maybe a summary of such discussion or at least a page number of where he discusses it (preferably of the English edition) would be welcome? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
        Feel free to add. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
        Spitta is probably the key to the (erroneous) "c. 1940" date of the LOC website. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) Good point, I will use the sources you kindly provided, but not immediately (see below), - you are also welcome to do it yourself. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Now two sources are added, and 1740 is not mentioned in the article. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        Spitta's erroneous chronology is at pp. 89–99, and endnote 3 (p. 285ff.) in Vol. 3 of the English edition. In both cases BWV 10 happens to be the 25th of the listed cantatas. (for clarity this is neither of the sources Gerda mentions in her comment immediately above – this history of the chronology is not yet in the Wikipedia article). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      4. [2] -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) What do you think is not complete in the sentence in "A critical edition was published by that was deemed "opened the same discussion in a fourth venue" and "forum shopping / disallowed canvassing" above. Can we try to stick to content? - This weekend, I have little time, - both "my" groups sing in a mass, + I will listen to a concert tomorrow. It's not that I neglect this, but also no rush. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Sorry about the Latin... {{ non sequitur}} is however the English Wikipedia name of the template that seemed most appropriate to indicate the situation (see template documentation by clicking the link). The half sentence tagged with that template is however not a continuation of the "Carus"-related sentence. That previous sentence ends with a period (followed by a reference), after which the "non sequitur" half-sentence starts without a capital letter. There is no apparent relation between the half-sentence and the preceding full sentence: they speak about different publishers (Carus vs. Bärenreiter) and different editors (Großpietsch vs. Uwe Wolf). The English translation seemingly mentioned in the context of the Bärenreiter publication ("Now my soul exalts the Lord"), is also not the same as the one mentioned for the Carus publication ("Magnify the Lord, my soul") -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
        Fixed, I hope. I must have inadvertently deleted the beginning of the second sentence. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I see in a hidden comment that you'd like more clarification. What I see is that Großpietsch is named editor of the Carus edition, which I think is no conflict to Wolf being chief editor, - the chief editor can't do everything. The later Bärenreiter clearly lists Wolf as the editor, but do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited? - Could you please raise questions here, not in a hidden comment? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "do you think it can be seen as an update of the NBA which he had edited?" – I don't know, but it seems rather unlikely that Wolf, while being a Chief Editor at Carus, would produce a new critical edition for Carus' competitor Bärenreiter. My guess is that Bärenreiter recycled Wolf's 1995 critical edition of the score (I also don't suppose the English translation of the libretto was a new one for the 2015 publication), and published it with a new introduction (the introduction of the 2015 edition is not by Wolf), thus producing something that could be sold as "new". Now, none of this can go to Wikipedia's mainspace without references to reliable sources (the story might still be different from what I suppose it to be), but that Wolf would have produced "another" critical edition for Bärenreiter's 2015 publication, i.e. another one than the one he had produced in 1995, is currently unsourced (no reliable source seems to say that), and what reliable sources say seems to go in another direction. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I tried it differently, making it a reissue. Where would we find if the first NBA had an English version? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        NBA editions are in German exclusively (not a word in English before the NBArev sequel). Here's what usually happens: a NBA volume is, on first publication, a new critical & Urtext edition, usually containing several compositions (e.g. 4 or 5 cantatas). Shortly after that, Bärenreiter publishes (outside the "complete editions" series, so in this case outside the NBA set of publications) extracts (e.g. separate cantatas), performance parts, translations, vocal scores (i.e. voices with a piano reduction instead of the full orchestral score), etc. based on the new Urtext (they don't wait 20 years with that). I documented that for Bach's Magnificat (see Magnificat (Bach)#20th century, start of second paragraph of that section). I suspect the English translation of BWV 10 being published in the late 20th century, with maybe the only new addition to the 2015 publication being a new introduction (if such introduction contains some updates to the former critical commentary the whole publication can be sold as a "new" critical edition...). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        I thought the "reissue" solved that problem, no? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
        Yes and no: what we get now is a somewhat WP:WEASELy declaration that may or may not be correct: I "suspect" the English translation of the 2015 edition not being new at that time, but for a FA grade article I expect clear information: when was that particular English translation first published (still possible that Bärenreiter had a new English translation produced for their 2015 edition), and who was the translator? I suppose some footwork is needed, e.g. Anna-Lena Bulgrin's introduction of that edition may be enlightening (is there no way to find it in a library or so?) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        I don't believe that we need the name of the translator, nor the date of translation. Nice to have, when available, but not adding much, imho. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "hidden comment":
        1. It is not "hidden", it shows up on mouseover (one does not need to go to edit mode to read it);
        2. Sorry, was in a hurry when I wrote it
        3. Nonetheless, I'll use tags and/or comments here whatever works most efficiently to make clear what a problem is (won't write a paragraph here when I see a straightforward issue that can be made clear with a simple tag) and/or will solve the issue myself when I have time to do it. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 22:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
        I had no idea about the mouseover, thank you. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
      5. "He performed it at least once more in the 1740s":
        1. This sentence is in the Readings, text and tune section: a first suggestion is to place this somewhere else in the article or, alternatively, update the section title while this information doesn't fit in the readings, text or tune domain. The same goes for the preceding sentence ("Bach first performed the cantata on 2 July 1724"): that information is already elsewhere in the article, with other references (so maybe this sentence can be removed from this section, and applicable references grouped with where this information is first introduced after the lead section). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          Good point, a section "Performances" might be a good idea. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          For now, the performance on 2 July 1724 is mentioned early, and no other because doubtful. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
          Currently the article provides the context of the Visitation/Magnificat compositions of 1723 (period of Bach's first cantata cycle) – maybe an idea to cast that "context" net a bit wider: Magnificats and Visitation cantatas associated with Bach which were performed in Leipzig before his first cantata cycle and/or after his second cantata cycle (if solid sourcing turns up for a 1740s performance of BWV 10 that can be added to the overview):
          1. 1715 or earlier: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV Anh. 21 (Nicknamed "Little Magnificat", 1329, by Bach's predecessor Melchior Hoffmann)
          2. Visitation cantata (no date): Meine Seele rühmt und preist, BWV 189 (the text of this cantata is a Magnificat paraphrase, its composer may be Bach or Hoffmann, and the cantata has audio files at Commons)
          3. Visitation 1725: Meine Seele erhebet den Herrn, BWV deest (BDW 1672, libretto extant, not certain whether Bach composed its music – if so it may belong to his third cycle)
          4. Visitation 1726: 8303, performed by Bach, associated with his third cycle)
          5. Visitation 1728: Meine Seele erhebt den Herrn (libretto extant, third cantata of Bach's fourth cantata cycle)
          6. c. 1733 (Visitation?): second version of the Magnificat, BWV 243
          7. Early 1740s: Bach copies and modifies Caldara's Latin Magnificat for performance (the modified movement is 1268)
          8. Around 1742 Bach copies a Latin Magnificat for double SATB choir ( 1338)
          Not sure whether all of these need to be mentioned, but at least the Visitation cantatas of 1725 and 1726 seem interesting enough to mention (if we mention the Magnificat/Visitation cantatas of the preceding first cycle, seems only logical to also mention those of the ensuing third cycle). I'd only mention the early 1740s Latin Magnificats if a repeat performance of Bach's German Magnificat around the same time can be ascertained. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
          Feel free to write that section, and be a conom. I thought that it was good to know what Bach had done before (not later). The readers interested can find most of the information in Church cantata (Bach) under Visitation. This article is for readers of this cantata. Again, what do others think? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        2. Gardiner 2010, the only reference given for the 1740s performance, is a concert program (CD booklet of a concert recording?) that doesn't cite any research as basis for its assertions. I submit that a concert program or liner notes not citing any sources are insufficient WP:V-wise for this assertion (not even talking about the possible COPYVIO of the site that presents the PDF of this text linked to from Wikipedia). This ties in with "1740"-related issues probably based on obsolete 19th-century assumptions already mentioned before: sources contradict, and Wikipedia's current partial rendering of that contradicting information appears (at least) confusing to the reader and/or substandard for a FA candidate. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          The information about a second performance "1740s" or "between 1740 and 1747" is found in many other sources, even distinguishing use of the CF instrument in #5 for both versions. I will look. Comment out so far. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:32, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
          Suggesting two more sources (mentioned at the Bach Digital Work page 0012):
          • Dürr Chr 2 (i.e. "Alfred Dürr. Zur Chronologie der Leipziger Vokalwerke J. S. Bachs, 2. Auflage: Mit Anmerkungen und Nachträgen versehener Nachdruck aus Bach­-Jahrbuch 1957. Kassel, 1976"), p. 16.
          • NBA I/28.2 – Critical report (1995), p. 67
          Alas I have currently access to neither, but they may be instrumental in getting the confusion sorted. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
      6. "Selected recordings" section
        1. I don't like to see the word "Selected" in a section title: a "selection" is always someone's POV, thus in most cases not compatible with the WP:NPOV content policy. Suggested title for such a section: either "Discography" or "Recordings". Neither or these titles suggests necessarily a full list of *all* recordings, but it is more open-ended for future updates. Also: what if the list of recordings happens to be "complete"? – calling it a "selection" seems silly then. See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria for the actual guidance of what I'm trying to explain in short with my own words here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          Selected recordings is the present title in all Bach cantata articles (including FA and GA) where the listing is not complete. Would you have a better suggestion? Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete. I'd be interested what others think. The selection here (of those listed by Bach-Cantatas) was made because a complete list seems too long. The criterion is simply that the conductor is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The more complete listing from Bach-Cantatas is easily seen and can be compared, and more added, - why not? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "Saying just Discography or Recordings implies - for my understanding - that it is complete" – imho your understanding is incorrect. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        2. The current selection criterion for inclusion in the list (being listed "on the Bach-Cantatas website") is imho a wrong approach. Each listed recording should have its own reference, and for a FA candidate I expect more than a copy-paste (with added layout and wikilinks) of a list found elsewhere on the web. Has none of these recordings, for instance, been discussed in a magazine like Gramophone? Wikipedia should give more information than just a plain list copied from elsewhere (see e.g. the 7th point of WP:NOTDIRECTORY) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          The section appears like that in most other articles on Bach cantatas, including FA (exception BWV 4) and GA. It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles. It would be no problem to give each line it's reference, but seems needlessly complicated. - What would a review add? Should we link to the complete cycles of some of the conductors? It's in Bach cantata, and some have their own articles. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "It's mostly to connect to the performers' articles" – too much of a "let's create a WP:LINKFARM" argument to my taste. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
          Revisiting this suggestion: the situation is a bit more complicated (and worse) than I thought: a Wikipedia editor selected (without clear selection criteria) 15 recordings out of the 21 at the Bach cantatas website:
          1. It is wrong to base a selection on a single source (e.g. this webpage lists over 30: some are obviously re-issues, but the Bach-Cantatas website is not the only one listing recordings) – this is what I already wrote about above
          2. Any list should have clear inclusion criteria: "some Wikipedia editor made a selection" is the opposite of such clearly established criteria (e.g. if in 2018 there is a new recording issued an editor shouldn't have to wait until the Bach-Cantatas website is updated before they can add it to the list in Wikipedia) – for that that reason I added a tag to the article ([3] oops, made a typo in the edit summary, this is in fact additional suggestion No. 6). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
            See above: the selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor. - The listing is compatible with other FA articles. - I don't see anybody writing a PDF of that list. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            Re. "selection criteria are not personal but notability of a conductor":
            • These selection criteria are not clear for the reader of the article (thus falling short of the guidance on introductory paragraphs for lists)
            • Notability is not "inherited" (I): the most famous conductor does not necessarily make the most memorable recording for every work they have on their repertoire, or the other way around: the most memorable recording is not necessarily made by the conductor that is over-all most famous.
            • Notability is not "inherited" (II): this is also a Wikipedia principle regarding notability (see e.g. WP:Notability), thus this would make a bad selection criterion. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
            • Further, was Ton Koopman a famous conductor in the 20th century (his 1999 recording is listed) but no longer in the 21st century (his 2003 recording is not listed)? – so the criterion, besides being questionable, further also appears to have been applied subjectively... -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            You may not like it but the way to present the recordings has a tradition of more than ten years (long before I edited), compare 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015. If you want to change it, approach the project. This article should be consistent with other articles on the topic. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            Re. "the recordings have been listed in such a way for more than ten years" ([4]) – the rules for such lists have changed a lot in the last 10 years, so much so that until this morning a relevant policy page linked to sections in guidance which no longer exist (instead of linking to the up-to-date guidance). The discography section has to conform to current guidelines when considering a FA promotion today. Whether or not it conforms to former or outdated guidance (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style – I don't see why one should talk to a project that declares its guidance dormant while policy- and guideline-level guidance is available) is not the assessment we're making today. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
            Several FAs are like this (I don't count, but must be more than five, some listed above, for comparison). Around 150 cantatas are like this. I talk about tradition and consistency for the reader. If we get new rules which I think are detrimental for the reader, I will question them. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        3. The last column of the table ("Instr.") gives in fact additional information, not found on the Bach-Cantatas webpage. That information is however completely unreferenced (as the only reference for the entire section is to that Bach-Cantatas webpage). Hence my suggestion to give individual references per row, in which case the reference should at least cover all information of the row. However, see also my suggestion in 7.2 below if wanting to avoid footnotes in the table itself. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
          The information about period instruments is taken from the article about the ensemble. References could be copied from there, but it seems blowing up the sourcing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Most of my line of approach above can be summarized by pointing out that the current "Selected recordings" section seems to be failing Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines (e.g. "...it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points", see also suggestion 7.2 below) -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      7. Provisions for a table-less layout: Wikipedia's PDF export function omits all tables, so it makes sense to check whether the article would work sufficiently well without them. I have two suggestions in that respect:
        1. Explanations about tables that are in the article (a table's legend, or, for instance the second paragraph of Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#Structure and scoring: "In the following table ... ") can be enveloped in an otherwise invisible table so that the table-less version of the article doesn't give an explanation about a "table" that isn't there. Here is the syntax that can be used:
          {|
          |-
          ...[table explanation goes here]...
          |}
        2. A table's content can be summarized (with adequate references) outside the table's syntax: for instance the section on recordings can have an introduction mentioning some recordings that have additional sources (that is outside being listed at the Bach-Cantatas website). This has a double advantage: the table doesn't need to be cluttered with footnotes, and in those layouts where no tables are shown at least the recordings that received most press coverage are mentioned. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
      8. The reception of a piece is about more than scores (manuscripts + editions) and recordings. E.g. at the 2003 Leipzig Bach Festival Ton Koopman presented three Magnificats (BWV 10, Klassik.Com) were reviewed. The DVD is currently not selected for inclusion in Wikipedia's list. IMHO the BWV 10 article currently misses a "Reception" section where the reception topics can be treated more comprehensively than just "scores" and "recordings". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
        What would be interesting would be reception of the piece when it was first performed. - The reception by Bach scholars is part of the Music section. - The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music. - No other Bach cantata article has a reception section, but feel to write one. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "The reception of specific performances of the piece in our time often shows more about the reviewer's taste than about Bach's music": the same can be said about Scheibe's 1737 review of Bach's own performance – this has nothing to do with "in our time". The topic of reception is, in part, about how taste w.r.t. a piece evolves over time. This includes whether a specific performance of the piece receives attention via independent reviews in reliable sources (a new recording that is completely ignored in the press is thus somewhat less significant for reception history, except maybe for number of copies sold). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
      9. [5] – is this German version of the Gloria Patri specifically Luther's (it is not a part of Luke 1:46–55)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
        I was sure that the Kleine Doxology was also translated by Luther, as so many other texts, but found no support so far. I asked an expert, User:Rabanus Flavus. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
      10. Navbox collapse options (one of the idiosyncrasies I had in mind in this section's OP – I'm not sure whether the topic is part of a FAC assessment, anyway here it goes): the article currently has two navboxes, {{ Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} and {{ Bach cantatas}}. The first of these boxes is collapsed, the second is uncollapsed. The first lists the cantata BWV 10 in the context of Bach's second cantata cycle, so between the 4th and the 6th chorale cantata of Bach's second year in Leipzig; the second navbox lists the cantata in the context of the numerical values of the BWV catalogue, so between BWV 9 (composed a decade later) and BWV 11 (which isn't even a cantata, and also dates from much later). Currently the article goes in great detail about the first five cantatas of the second cantata cycle, linking to the four other cantatas of that series of consecutive cantatas. A reader who might be interested what Bach did next after the first five cantatas of his second cantata cycle (so the next cantata he composed after BWV 10) is not helped by the second navbox, neither is that cantata linked from the body of the article. For clarity: BWV numbers are completely random w.r.t. what happened in Bach's time and w.r.t. subgroups of cantatas by type, and moreover the latest published version of the BWV catalogue no longer collates all compositions according to their numerical value (case in point: in the latest printed edition of the BWV catalogue BWV 11, the one that follows BWV 10 in the second navbox, is now collated between BWV 249b and BWV 250 – see pp. 282–284 of the 1998 edition of the BWV catalogue – officially the number of BWV 11 has been changed to "BWV 11/249b->" to indicate its new position in the catalogue). The second navbox is probably of great use for Wikipedia editors who regularly edit articles on Bach's vocal compositions, but as far as I can assess of less use (or at least somewhat misleading in the context of current scholarship) to the average reader. My preferred option is to autocollapse both boxes. If, however, one of them should be preset to its uncollapsed state it should, imho, be the first. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        There are two navboxes, right. One is in every article on a Bach cantata, permitting convenient access to the other numbers. To have it open is another item of consistency. In order to see what Bach did before and afterwards, a reader can simply click on "show" in the other navbox, or - what I would do - don't use a navbox but read an article, such as Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata cycle, Bach cantata, - enough possibilities. All these articles are linked from the traditional basic navbox by number (but only when it is open), - I don't use the other nabox at all. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        (ec) – was still updating some of the text, underlined now. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
        Re. "what I would do" – "I don't use ...": yes, as I said, this is about idiosyncrasies. In this case deplorable idiosyncrasies, e.g. neither Church cantata (Bach) nor Chorale cantata cycle nor [6]), and I propose to treat a non-specialist reader/editor at least on the same footing as a specialist (i.e. both navboxes collapsed: I don't propose to uncollapse the first – but if anything, per user-friendliness principles a non-specialist reader/editor should get precedence over a specialist editor because a specialist would find their way around anyhow while the same can not be presumed of a non-specialist, but as said, that's not what I'm proposing to implement: just treat the specialist and the non-specialist on the same footing).
        Re. "I still believe the article is better without this outlook to something created later ... under a header it doesn't fit" ([7]) – The cantata for Trinity IV of a cantata cycle which would have contained ideally over 60 cantatas, covering more than a calender year, and starting with Trinity I, is situated at the "Beginning" of the cycle. Unless you mean "by composition date" of the first cantatas that ultimately got inserted into the cycle: in that case BWV 4, composed over a decade earlier would be "beginning" of the cycle: that cantata is not mentioned, so there's nothing unusual when indicating the cantatas for Trinity I–V, and for the two feasts that usually fall in this period, as the "beginning" of the chorale cantata cycle. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
      11. Re. "... the ref that I believe is best in detail and accuracy is: [8]. If you find a recording that is not in, write to Mr. Oron, and will include it." ([9]) – I too think that Mr. Oron's website is a great resource. However, in Wikipedia surroundings, it is not the most unquestionable of reliable sources:
        • The website hosts a lot of copyvio material. When using the website it is often a thin line not to cross the Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works policy (e.g. "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States ...")
        • As the website contains material copied from Wikipedia there's a danger of WP:CIRCULAR references to it (at least in one instance I had to remove material from Wikipedia while it was referenced exclusively to Mr. Oron's site, where it was referenced exclusively to Wikipedia...)
        • Mr. Oron's website isn't always clear about its sources (e.g. "2nd performance: 1740-1747 - Leipzig", see suggestion No. 5 above). Some of its content is referenced to discussion pages (see next point)
        • The website's discussion pages are somewhere in between of "peer review" (which would indicate reliability) and "user-generated content" (generally insufficient to be used as a reliable source in Wikipedia) – it is not always clear which one of these applies foremost.
        • Its original content is generally "self-published" (Mr. Oron being as well author, editor and publisher of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page) – WP:ABOUTSELF is the policy governing the use of self-published sources, indicating that original content of the Website can not be used in Wikipedia (unless in some cases where Mr. Oron writes about himself)
        • The website occasionally contains inaccuracies (if not errors), which I found out by consulting reliable sources and comparing these to the website's content.
        • PS: the reason I don't usually "write to Mr. Oron" is that I'm foremost a Wikipedia editor, not wanting to create more WP:CIRCULAR content on the other website. Each their own responsibility: the more Mr. Oron's website becomes reliable without our help, the more we can use it as a reliable source in Wikipedia. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Short answer: I don't speak about the website as a whole, but selectively the recordings. I know no other sources going after such details about instrumentalists, places of recording, liner notes etc. For biographies, I only reference the site (usually as a second ref, not a single) because it's English, which is more accessable to readers of the English Wikipedia than the German Großes Sängerlexikon, for example. Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata? I will only reply to questions about the cantata article from now on. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Re. "Can we please keep this page to discussion of this cantata?" – Yes, please. My suggestion above was so elaborate because you kept bringing up "In previous FAs on the topic, ..." or similar procedures not relating to this cantata (the last time in connection with M. Oron's website: [10]). I don't care how many GAs or FAs passed with references to other pages of Mr. Oron's website: these other GA/FA procedures are not a justification of whatever. That being said: whether or not, and if so under which circumstances, http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm can be used as a reference for Wikipedia's BWV 10 article is entirely within the confines of this FAC deliberation. E.g., linking to that webpage is linking to a website (and page!) that contains copyvio material – no amount of "previous FAs" will make that risk of infringing on Wikipedia's copyrights policy via the BWV 10 page go away. Now is the time to assess that risk. Similar for the other points above: only the second bullet doesn't seem directly applicable to the BWV10.htm page at Mr. Oron's website. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          In the last FAC, I was asked to mention similar articles as a help for new reviewers ("Well, that's what I was looking for - if there are other FA Bach cantata pages"). -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
          Fair enough. At least partially explains why some of the more unfortunate idiosyncracies have become so difficult to root out in this collection of FA articles. Can we return now to the assessment of the use of the http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV10.htm page in the BWV 10 article? My reply to your latest suggestion regarding the discography section depends on it. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Montanabw

  • Comment: I will do a FAC review on this article when the above issue settles down, but I find the above discussion a bit of a red herring, as the "oppose" !voter made a set of substantial changes in the article and then !voted after he was reverted. Thus a removing admonishments about NPA from his talkpage. Montanabw (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    ? – none of my "substantial" changes were reverted (only one of the "minor" ones). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    Poor grammar. Three minor changes way back appear to have been kept, but when your group of massive changes were reverted, then you !voted. Can't have it both ways, cannot both make a bunch of contributions and vote -- you're involved. Montanabw (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    @ Montanabw: please recuse yourself from performing a FAC review on this article:
    1. You continue to contend that my "group of massive changes were [ sic] reverted" (FYI: poor grammar, "group" is singular), which is not what happened – your judgement seems clouded
    2. I've shown my willingness to improve the article, and I've, for instance, received multiple "thanks", not only for the improvements I operated on the article in mainspace, but also for my suggestions for further improvements. Your indication that such improvements are not appreciated pollutes the air and stifles further work, which remains necessary to get this article to FA grade
    Until the current issues are sufficiently addressed I think I'm perfectly entitled to oppose promotion to FA, and I'll continue to collaborate positively in whatever way I can to make that promotion possible. Also, please note Gerda's invitation above: "Can we try to stick to content?", so I suggest to discontinue this discussion of whodunits, which, as you may notice, has been continued by you only in these last few days. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    Francis Schonken Your suggestion that I recuse is ridiculous; I have never edited this article, and all I pointed out is that first you made a bunch of edits to an article you had barely touched before, then when you were reverted, you !voted "oppose." That was rather WP:POINTy of you. One can edit the article, or one can review, one cannot do both. You have no neutrality in this matter, and if anyone should recuse, it is you. So, you want to close this matter, you are welcome to recuse yourself. Montanabw (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Media review

  • File:Magnif.jpg: what is this being transcribed from? A previous notated version? A recording? Memory?
The text is applied to the given psalm tone, - always the same melody, just a different distribution of the syllables. It's a 2010 image I took from Tonus peregrinus, which quotes the German Magnificat. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I see that the image is there, but how was the image produced, specifically? From what source was the specific distribution of syllables used here derived? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
We discussed the content of that image some time ago, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example. That discussion contains two external links afaics, maybe one of these (or both) could be used to demonstrate that the content of the image is correct? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In that discussion, the source was given as " Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch ( de), Nr. 529. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530". Could someone who knows how add that to the commons? (I corrected Evangelisches to Evangelische.) I looked in the current EG but can't find it, only in a regional edition of Thuringia. The Catholics have a different German version, and a similar tune, but simplified (beginning with F G instead of A C, and the second line right on G without the preceding A C, - so much less joyful, and not what Bach used), GL 631/4. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I just changed the "source" parameter at commons:File:Magnif.jpg from "Olorulus' personal library" to "Olorulus' personal library, from 'Evangelisches Kirchengesangbuch', Nr.529. Berlin: Evangelische[s] Verlagsanstalt, 1983, p.529-530 (see wikipedia:en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 59#A similar example)" – @ Nikkimaria: does this cover all of your concerns regarding the use of this image in the FA candidate article? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
File:Magnificat im 9. Psalmton deutsch (Luther).jpg was improved by Rabanus Flavus, - better? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
PS: for clarity File:Magnif.jpg has now been replaced by [11]). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to find a freely licensed performance that could be sampled? Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Where would I look? - I guess everybody interested would be able to find YouTube versions, example. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Some ideas:
  1. I performed a check of Commons as thorough as I could, not finding any audio file that would be remotely eligible for use in the article on the cantata :(
  2. scores:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)#Synthesized/MIDI has a synthesised (trumpet/organ) version of movement 5. It is available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (is that compatible with the Commons licensing policies if one would want to upload the file there?) – whether or not it could be legally uploaded to Commons or Wikipedia I'm personally no fan of such synthesised audio for vocal/orchestral music. The IMSLP page where that audio file is available is linked from the article's External links section, so not sure whether we should do anything if we want to have at least one audio file on or linked from the Wikipedia article.
  3. Similarly, CPDL has a midi file of the closing chorale at choralwiki:Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10 (Johann Sebastian Bach) – copyright: " Personal"; here also the CPDL page is linked from the external links section
  4. http://www.blockmrecords.org/bach/detail.php?ID=BWV0648 is a page on Bach Organ Works website with audio files of an organ performance of the Schübler Chorale based on the cantata's fifth movement. Maybe this page could be linked from Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10#5, to give at least an aural impression (non-synthesised) of the cantata's music (otherwise at least a link from the external links section might be possible?)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
    It is possible but belongs in the (linked) article on the chorales. I am sure that people who want to know how the cantata sounds will find a way outside Wikipedia. I hesitate to place external links, because it would be my biased choice. - MIDI is no alternative, awful, sorry. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Yunshui

Just a quick review of the text:

  • with the exception of verse 54 which he also kept in Luther's wording - I'd suggest " with the exception of verse 54 in which he also kept Luther's wording."
taken --GA
  • a Baroque instrumental ensemble of a trumpet, two oboes, strings and continuo - maybe link continuo as I for one had to look that up... it's linked later in the text, but who reads past the TOC these days?
Then I'd also to have to link violin etc, - there are all linked in Baroque instrumental ensemble, and then Baroque violin, not any violin. Please compare other articles mentioned in the intro. --GA
Fair enough - as I mentioned, it is linked later on anyway. 雲水
  • He was employed by the town of Leipzig to this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training - "He was employed by the town of Leipzig in this position, which made him responsible for the music at four churches and for the training" reads more easily to me.
It's probably something coming from German, where you'd first be employed, then have the position. Ideas? --GA
How about, "He was [offered/granted/given] this position as part of his employment by the town of Leipzig"? 雲水
Well, it was not offered, the town had hoped for a better man for the job, but their first two choices were not available. (Compare BWV 22, with details of the application. The sentence should clarify, that the term Thomaskantor could lead to the assumption that he was hired by a church, but instead he reported to the town, and was responsible for four churches. Would you have a better way to say that? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I think what Kirk's done in this bit is a good solution. 雲水
  • The gospel is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes, a biblical episode that is often represented in art - surely not the entire gospel; I assume this is meant to mean the Visitation?
You are right, not the whole gospel, just the passage mentioned as prescribed gospel reading for the day. I though that was clear. Ideas how to clarify? --GA
I'd just replace "gospel" with "Visitation" (and maybe include the link) - "The [[Visitation (Christianity)|the Visitation]] is, as the Bach scholar Klaus Hofmann notes..." 雲水
I think it's "bad enough" that Visitation links to the Feast once, then to Bach's works for it, let's not introduce a third. I tried it differently, please check. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, just adding "reading" is enough here, I think. 雲水
  • At Bach's time, the German Magnificat was regularly sung in Leipzig in vespers - should be "In Bachs time..."
taken -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the docology - presumably that last word should be doxology?
yes --GA
  • is kept in the Library of Congress since 1948 - "has been kept" agrees better with "since".
taken --GA
  • Johann Andreas Kuhnau, the composer and Christian Gottlob Meißner. - I'd use an Oxford comma here, but that's more a matter of taste than correct punctuation (at present, it can be read to mean "the composer named Johann Andreas Kuhnau, and some guy called Christian Gottlob Meißner").
right --GA
  • The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of he Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA) - "The cantata was originally published in 1851 in volume 1 of the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (BGA)"
fixed --GA

Haven't checked refs, media etc, this is just looking at the text itself (which is generally pretty readable, if a bit technical in places). Yunshui  13:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for good points. Could you explain by one example what you think might be less technical? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can skimp on the technical stuff - the Movements section is a good example (lots of other articles that need looking up in order to fully understand it) but without that information there wouldn't be much point in having that section. All the things that would need to be linked are linked, but just as an example, in the Movements #1 section, I would have to look up the following terms: chorale fantasia, doubling the violin, rhythmical propulsion, measures, cantus firmus, polyphony, melismas. As a non-musician it's not a super-easy read, but I would imagine the general reader of this article would have more musical knowledge than I do anyway! Yunshui  09:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I guess if such things should be explained, it should happen on a higher level, such as Bach cantata and Chorale cantata, not in every individual such work (around 200 cantatas, around 40 of them on chorales). Some of the terms I think even explain themselves, such as chorale fantasia (fantasy on a chorale) and cantus firmus (firm chant), even polyphony if you know other words starting with poly- (polygon) and ending with -phony (symphony, cacophony). Some of our readers would be bored if we try to explain measure and melisma. It's one of the great ideas of the Wikipedia links that a reader who needs it can dig deeper but the one who knows already can move on. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I linked "measure" now. "It is a trio of the violins and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violin, and the viola filling the harmony." that sentence tries to explain why the many instruments play a trio (three voices): the oboes double the violins, which means they play the same thing (voice) as the 2 violins, the viola plays (only) a supportive role, leaving the bass (= continuo = a group of players) for the third voice. How would you say that? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe something like: "It is a trio of the violins, viola and the continuo, with the oboes doubling the violins, and the viola filling the harmony." That makes the three voices of the trio clear (violin, viola and continuo) and then explains why the oboes aren't included in that list and what the viola actually does.
Sorry, I was not clear: the three voices of the trio are the two violins and the bass, while the oboes play the same as the violins, and the viola has no independent melody, just fills chords. Don't support too soon ;) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 22:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyhow, now that the above fixes have all been made, I'm happy to Support on text. Yunshui  08:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

About half done, no real issues. Some quibbles so far:

  • " Composed for the Marian feast of the Visitation 2 July 1724," there seem to be words missing after "Visitation". Some grammatical connection would seem called for.
That was changed (perhaps compare how the lead looked when I nominated), - I tried to fix the changed version now. --GA
  • "The prescribed readings for the feast day were from the Book of Isaiah the prophecy of the Messiah " I would say that there should be a comma in there after Isaiah.
yes --GA
  • "The cantata text is based on Luther's translation of the biblical song to German as part of his translation of the Bible, and the doxology." Two things, I would change the first "translation" to "rendering" or similar to avoid the repetition, and I think you need a "on" after "and" to avoid ambiguity and possible confusion.
I opened the piped link (to avoid the same word twice), and added "on". --GA
  • "He used the original verses 46–48 for the first movement, verse 54 for the fifth movement, and the doxology for the seventh movement. He paraphrased verse 49 for the second movement, verses 50–51 for the third, verses 52–53 for the fourth and verse 55 for the sixth movement, the latter expanded by a reference to the birth of Jesus." Your use of the serial comma seems inconsistent.
Commas are different in German and English, and sometimes I miss one, as here, thanks for pointing it out. --GA
  • There is an uncited sentence at the end of "Readings"
ref doubled --GA
  • "adding "Luther" for the movements kept in his translation, and "anon." if the unknown librettist elaborated on his translation. " I would avoid the repetition, possibly by changing "elaborated on his translation" to "added his own elaborations" or some such-- Wehwalt ( talk) 07:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Help welcome. "Elaborated" was introduced by Francis, in the table, where I found it too long when repeated for four movements. I'd usually say "paraphrased". Feel free to apply your wording skill, please. "added his own elaborations" would suggest - to me - that Luther also added "elaborations", but he only translated, in his free style of translation, of course.
Thank you for careful reading! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Eve (2003 TV series)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 ( talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is is about ... a UPN sitcom that revolves around two sets of male and female friends attempting to navigate relationships with the opposite sex. The series was developed originally as a vehicle for Eve following the success of Brandy in another of the network's sitcoms - Moesha. Critical response to Eve was mixed; some critics praised its inclusion as a part of UPN's line-up of black sitcoms, while others felt Eve lacked charisma, and the series was inferior to other sitcoms. The show was cancelled following UPN's closure to form The CW.

I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). I primarily based this article on my previous work on Love, Inc., which successfully passed through the FAC process at the end of last year. I look forward to receiving feedback for this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments/Support by PanagiotisZois

Lead section
  • I'd replace "With an ensemble cast" to "Featuring an ensemble cast consisting of". Also remove the ":".
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the series was developed as a vehicle for Eve, and Eve did star in the series, I don't think it's necessary to say "developed originally".
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there a specific reason UPN executives made Eve due to the success of Moesha? Is it cause both Eve and Brandy were/are famous singers rr was it due to both of them being black? If an explanation wasn't given then that's alright.
  • It was a little bit of both actually. I have added a small part to the lead to hopefully make this part clearer. Eve's appearance on the show also received comparisons with Queen Latifah's performance on Living Single, but I only included Brandy in the lead as that is the one primarily discussed by outside articles. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Though it was picked up by UPN". Simply say "After being picked up". Considering UPN approached Eve in the first place, it kinda makes it sound like the show was in danger of never being made. Or I might be reading way too much into this. :P
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The show was set in Miami, but filming took place" -> "While the show was set in Miami, filming took place".
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • When writing The WB's full name, include a capital "T".
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Did critics deem the show inferior in regards to UPN's other black sitcoms or just sitcoms in general?
  • Revised. It should have actually said other black sitcoms so thank you for pointing this part out for me. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know Aoba, I will offer additional comments; this are just for the lead section. Will move into the other sections as well pretty soon. I'm sure that once I've looked through the entire article, and any problems I find have been corrected, I will be able to support it.

  • Thank you for your initial comments. I am always the worst with the lead section (primarily because I wait to write them until I am done with the rest of the article). I believe that I have addressed all of your points and made the proper revisions. I look forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again! Aoba47 ( talk) 14:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Premise and characters
  • Seeing as UPN's full name is used in the lead, just write UPN.
Episodes
  • "with J.T., only to discover that he is afraid of commitment and has chauvinistic tendencies".
  • "but resists the temptation out of fear of ruining their friendship".
Conception
  • Is it necessary to say "of her single"?
  • Put a comma after "approached Eve".
  • Remove "serve to".
Production and filming
  • In "as one example of", does the author refers to other examples of the networks attempt to be diverse or is this the only one? In that case, it should say "as an example".
  • "Jake Austen identifies Eve as part of" not "was of".
  • Don't you mean "Bumper Robinson was originally scheduled to portray J.T."?
Critical response
  • Remove the "has" in "Eve has received".

Alrighty then, these are all the things I found in the article that need reworking. Still can't believe the main body's problems are more-or-less equal to those of the lead section. XD PanagiotisZois ( talk) 13:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

@ PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your review so far. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. Thank you again. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)|
@ Aoba47: Alrighty then, after having those minor things being changed I can offer my support to this very well-written and informative article. (thumbs up) PanagiotisZois ( talk) 18:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you as always! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Moisejp

Hi. This is generally a very well written article. Comments:
Premise and characters:

  • According to UPN, Eve revolves around "a woman whose fashion career is on the move[,] [b]ut her love life is a work in progress." It's slightly jarring to see "[,] [b]". Would "whose fashion career is on the move [but whose] love life is a work in progress" work? This would also flow more smoothly.
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I a little bit disagree with Panagiotis, and would tend to treat each of the lead and main text as being "self-sufficient", such that I would spell out UPN's full name again in the main text. But I know it can be hard in FAC to juggle editors' conflicting requests, so I won't insist on that. But if you were to take on the "self sufficiency of main text" idea even partly, you might consider this article begins a little abruptly, as neither UPN nor Eve are introduced in the main text before we're already describing what a particular TV station is saying the show is about. But, again, it may depend how much mutual awareness you consider the lead and text are supposed to have. So if you disagree with me about this point, no worries.
  • I agree with you, and I have done this with my successful FAC for Love, Inc. so I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding United Paramount Network. But I think I wasn't very clear. My suggestion was supposed to have two parts. The first part was to add United Paramount Network, which you did. But I was also trying to suggest the section begins a little abruptly. My reasoning was that if one considers the main text to be "self sufficient" then the show should be first introduced at a very basic level before stating what the network says about it—and not start piggybacking from the background information of the lead. However, I don't have a specific idea of what the basic introduction in the main text should be, or how other TV FAs handle this—only that it seemed a little abrupt to me. Unless you have an idea of how to make it less abrupt, I guess my suggestion isn't actionable, in which case we could forget about it. Moisejp ( talk) 04:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Moisejp: I see your point now. I have removed the UPN part completely from that section and moved the link down to UPN's first mention in the body of the article so that should make it better. Hopefully, the edit cleared that up for you. Aoba47 ( talk) 04:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that helps. Great! Moisejp ( talk) 05:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "seeking a college degree": I'm not sure it's clear specifically what this means. Is he applying to colleges, or already in college and working on a degree?
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Nick is described as "extremely picky" in both this section and in Episodes, so it is a bit repetitive. Also "picky" is possibly a little colloquial, and "extremely" is very strong, and may be subjective. None of these are major issues in themselves but they kind of add up as multiple minor issues. Alternatives for the two instances could be, for example, "quite selective" and "very particular about". These are just ideas, though. "Particular about" may not even be so much less colloquial than "picky", maybe only a little. If you happen to be happy with "extremely picky", could you at least change one of the instances to avoid repetition? Moisejp ( talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Moisejp: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The above changes look good, thanks. More comments:
Lead:

  • Minor point: "The show was initially promoted by UPN as a part of its new comedy block, one of four new comedies developed by the network." This is given importance by being mentioned in the lead, but in the main text the three other new comedies are not named, while the four returning shows are named. This is kind of counter-intuitive, as what is given the extra detail in the main text is not what is included in the lead. Suggestion: name the three other new shows in the main text, rather than the four returning ones.
  • Very good point and I am not sure how I missed that one. I have added the names of the three other new shows (All of Us, Rock Me Baby, and The Mullets) to the main article. I am looking forward to the rest of your comments. Thank you again. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

More comments to follow. Moisejp ( talk) 05:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The supporting cast of Landry, Desselle-Reid, Hooks, and Maguire were described as "peripheral" as they were written to "servic[e] the highs and lows of the romance between Shelly and J.T." " Could you include who described it as such?
  • Added the citation. Aoba47 ( talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Along with All of Us, Eve was the first time in which "the new network for African American adults has acquired the off-network rights to sitcoms currently airing on a broadcast network". " Did you have a special reason for quoting this rather than paraphrasing? It doesn't feel like a direction quotation is necessary here. Moisejp ( talk) 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Paraphrased this part. Aoba47 ( talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Moisejp: Just wanted to check in on the progress of the review? Aoba47 ( talk) 03:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm almost done my first read-through, Aoba47. I probably will do a really quick second read-through to make sure I haven't missed anything, but I expect my points for this will be minimal.

  • "However, he did note that the series had the potential to last for several years." Is this relevant to the reviewer's critical appraisal? I don't think he's saying this is somehow an indication of quality and that it changes in any way his negative review; rather he's just saying there is a market for this kind of star vehicle regardless of quality. But this is a minor point—no worries if you feel the sentence is worthwhile to keep.
  • That makes perfect sense to me. I have removed it as I agree with your point. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Clark was critical of the episodes' titles, writing that they indicated an overuse of "outrageous clichés that boob-tube audiences would come to know and love once reality TV hit its boon". " Could you include a couple of the examples that Clark mentions? This would go a long way towards helping the reader get a feel for how the reviewer may have thought the titles to be outrageous. Moisejp ( talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have included the three examples that Clark uses (and they are rather silly lol). Thank you for pointing this out. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The tables in the Episodes section and Ratings section show different dates. Is the premiere/finale different from first/last aired? Moisejp ( talk) 04:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure how I missed this one lol. I have revised it. Aoba47 ( talk) 14:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ready to support now, thanks for responding to all my suggestions. Please look at the three minor comments above as well. Moisejp ( talk) 05:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking the time to read through the article and provide comments. You have helped to improve the article a great deal and I greatly appreciate that. I look forward to working with you further in the future, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

I support this nomination. Neat little article. It was a pretty good read. Just a couple of quick comments though:

  • "which is nearly derailed when he cries while they watch Casablanca on their first date" — How did their relationship derail by this? Just asking.
  • Revised to hopefully make it clearer. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the "Critical response" section, you mention it received "mixed reviews". Then in the accolades section, it says "negative reviews". Do be consistent about it. :-)
  • Revised. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No mention.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

ALT text is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the image review! I agree with your assessment of the Ali Landry image; it is unnecessary to use an image of an actor in such a negative manner, especially since she was only mentioned in two reviews and the addition/emphasis on the image would cause issues by giving undue weight to those two reviews. I think I primarily added it just to put another image, which is not a good move either. I have removed it completely for those reasons. I am also uncertain about the source of the crop, and if there is anything that I can do to look into that further, please let me know. Thank you again for your review. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Comments

Have been really caught up in RL this past week, will go through this as soon as find some spare time. Most probably in the next couple of days. Numerounovedant Talk 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

  • No worries, take as much time as you need as this will most likely be up for several more weeks to receive more feedback/commentary. Hope everything is going well with you, and thank you for taking time out of your schedule for this. I am slowly getting better at being more patient with the process lol. Good luck with current/future projects on here and feel free to let me know if you need help with anything. Aoba47 ( talk) 15:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Boogeyman 2

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois ( talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the horror film Boogeyman 2. A sequel to the 2005 film, Boogeyman 2 takes place in a mental health facilty and focuses on a woman named Laura Porter who wintessed her parents' murder as a child and believes their killer to have been the Boogeyman. She currently is in the asylum to get over her phobia of the creature. This being a horror movie however, things quickly turn to shit, with her fellow patients being murdered one by one and their fears being used against them. I started working on the article in March and after about a month of editing, was able to get it to GA-status a few weeks ago in April. I also had it copy-edited very recently. I'm nominating for FA because I genuinely believe that, considering this is a relatively obscure direct-to-video horror sequel, the article is as informative as it can be. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • Please add ALT text for the image in the infobox and the image in the body of the article.
  • Done, though I kind of suck at alternative descriptions. I'm pretty sure I messed up the description for the second image.
  • In the sentence (Casting began in December of the same year with the casting of O'Connor, and Savre was cast as the star in January 2007.), I would avoid the repetition of "casting" and "cast" in the same sentence.
  • I think I might be having a brain freeze but I really can't think of any other way to write this.
  • Found good alternative. :D
  • Could you clarify the meaning of a "more grounded" version of the character? I am thinking that means a more realistic interpretation of the character, but some context or further information would be greatly appreciated.
  • Rewrote to "grounded and realistic".
  • Please link the Boogeyman in its first reference in the body of the article (i.e. the first sentence of the "Plot" section).
  • Done.
  • Please use the characters' full name when you first introduce them in the "Plot" section (where the characters have full names of course).
  • Done.
  • I would combine some of the paragraphs in the "Plot" section together as I am not sure the separation into smaller paragraphs is necessary beneficial to the reader, specifically the one sentence paragraph at the end.
  • Done. Though from what I've seen, mid or end-credits scenes are always placed alone.
  • I am a little confused by what you mean by "bogyphobia". A little more context would be greatly appreciated.
  • Added that bogyphobia is a fear/phobia of the Boogeyman. I did google it and it appears to be a legitimate phobia.
  • I am not sure that the separate subsections in the "Production" section are entirely necessary as they are pretty short. It may be better to remove them to avoid make the material appear choppy to the reader. Same comment applies to the "Release" section.
  • Followed the "Production" style (which usually goes: Development, Casting, Filming, Effect etc.) presented in other articles. Same goes for "Release", removing the sub-sections and placing them all together would muddle things and information up.
  • Makes sense to me; I will leave this up to more experienced reviewers to look at further. I actually think the subsections negatively affect the article more than help it as having one-sentence subsections (i.e. the "Box office" subsection" and short one-paragraph subsections (i.e. the "Effects" subsection) makes the information come across as choppy and a little underdeveloped. Removing the subsections and interweaving the information into a more cohesive narrative would be beneficial in my opinion to the article. I just wanted to clarify this point; I will keep my support vote up, but I would like a more experienced reviewer to provide some input on this matter if possible. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Do you have any information on how Bell modeled his performance after Dick Cheney?
  • Sadly not as this was the director's comment and he doesn't elaborate further.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The phrase "got cast" sounds a little too informal to me so I would revise this.
  • Rewrote to "was cast".
  • I am not sure the identifier "former Heroes actress" is appropriate for the article unless her ties back to the show was influential to the casting process in any way. I would just say American actress or just actress.
  • removed Heroes reference.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do you have any information on how the film performed commercially after debuting in theaters in Russia and Italy? I understand that this information may not be available, but I just wanted to ask about this.
  • I didn't find anything about Italy but in Russia it apparently made 362,724 dollars. However, the Box Office Mojo link to the movie's international gross does list Russia there. Additionaly, the amount of gross for Russia provided at Box Office Mojo is different than the one shown at KinoPoisk.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section needs to be revised to make it have a cohesive narrative tied together by clear topics (i.e. common areas that the critics pointed out or putting all of the negative reviews in one paragraph and the positive reviews in another). I would also use topic sentences to make this clear. I would highly encourage you to use this resource as a guide for revising this section.
  • The reviewes were placed in negative-positive order. However, in both paragraphs I placed the reasons for the reviewers liking/disliking the film and which elements were generally praised or criticized.
  • I would highly encourage you to archive all of your links to avoid having your work being lost due to link decay or link rot.
  • Trust me, I've learned to do that with every article.
  • Amazon.com and Rotten Tomatoes should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for Google Play and MovieWeb and Dread Central.
  • Done.

These are the primary things that I noticed while reading through the article. You have done wonderful work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 ( talk) 20:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've attempted to fix all of your comments. I'm not sure if the changes I've made are satisfactory, if not just let me know. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 00:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. Great job with this article. I will support it. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide some comments for my current FAC? Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 ( talk) 01:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support Aoba :). I'll look into Eve, hopefuly by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 16:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 ( talk) 22:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paleface Jack

Interesting choice for a featured article candidate. I've always said that every article has the potential to become FA or GA, and I did like the first film (hopefully that one gets worked on to GA status)... That being said, regrettably, I don't think this article can go beyond GA status considering there's not a lot of sources that make this stand out as FA material (From what I've seen, Featured Articles usually have a bare minimum of 50 references, although I have seen some with a slightly smaller number). Even though it's a great article, I think GA status is probably the best and highest grade this article can be given since, to me, doesn't feel like FA status material. Sorry man, although this is a good starting point, I wish you best of luck with all your other article projects.-- Paleface Jack ( talk) 00:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Michael Tritter (I primarily cite articles on fictional characters as that is one of my primary focuses on here). I have even brought up an article through the FAC process with a lower number of sources than this nomination and had them successfully promoted. Number of resources is not a part of the FA criteria so I do not believe the commentary and discussion on here should more so focus on the prose and other elements listed in the criteria. Thank you for putting up your comment, and this may be an interesting discussion for the FA talk page, but again I just have to respectfully disagree with you on this point of a source number requirement. Hopefully, a more experienced FA reviewer (and Wikipedia user/contributor) than myself will better address the point, but I just wanted to add my two cents to this. I apologize if I sound rude, and this will most likely be my last comment in this discussion to keep the focus on the review process. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand what you mean Jack, I too at first thought that if an article doesn't have enough sources, then it would be hard or impossible for it to become a featured article. However, as Aoba pointed out, featured articles are not about how many sources an article has. As I said on the film's talk page, featured articles need to meet four criteria in order to be considered for FA-status; having a bare minumun number of sources is not required and I do believe that Boogeyman 2 meets the four criteria necessary. This is my own opinion - outside of the criteria - but I believe that if an article, regardless of its overall length, provides enough information on the subject that it's talking about, in all important areas, then it has the potential to become a FA. This being a film we're talking about, the article does provide info on development, release and reception. Granted, the information provided is not as much as, for example Alien vs. Predator, but those are two very different movies. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 03:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Bluesphere

  • Use the Plainlist template where it is required in the infobox (i.e, producer, starring), and the gross should be condensed, rounded value ($4.3 million vs $4,282,637). Also, I don't think the runtime you provide is correct. The [12]
  • Alright, fixed all three points. I hope I used the right plainlist.
  • I notice that the article is not using a consistent date format. (On the one hand the inline citations use the dmy, and on the other uses mdy in the prose.) Since this is an article about an American film, dates should be formatted accordingly using the mdy format. And while we're at it, please add the publishers of those references you added.
  • Regarding the publisher, I believe I've added all of them, at least where possible. Regarding the date format, I might be confused a little but what you're saying is that while the text itself uses the MDY format, the references use DMY?
  • I took care of the date formats for you. What I meant about the publisher concern was that you separate the original work of the reference (putting it in the |work parameter), and the owner/entity of the source in the |publisher in the inline citation. For instance, ref 2 cites Bloody Disgusting which, according to its own article, says it's owned by The Collective. So Bloody Disgusting should be in the |work param while The Collective is in the |publisher. All the other ref must observe this accordingly.
  • As for the prose, everything is flawless. It's like I was enticed to watch the movie just by reading its introductory section. And I must say the same with the plot section. Blue sphere 15:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Glad to see I'm not the only one that's tempted to watch movies whose articles are well written. XD PanagiotisZois ( talk) 16:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I forgot, the identifier should go "edited and directed by Jeff Betancourt" in the introductory section since he's also credited as the film editor. And unlink his name in the infobox under editor parameter. Blue sphere 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I just took care of the last concern, although I'm not sure if I was allowed to do so. The references appear to be delicate so I archived them. Btw, you've done a pretty decent job with this article, and for that I give you my Support. Best of luck with the other reviewers. While you wait for the other reviewers, perhaps you could take a look at my FL nomination here? Blue sphere 07:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It was very kind of you to fix the references though you didn't have to. I would have done it by the end of the day. I believe large edits aren't encouraged with FAR but those were relatively minor edits and only to the references so I believe it's alright. Thank you for support and I will look into the list; hopefully by the end of the weekend. PanagiotisZois ( talk) 14:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Northern England

Nominator(s): Smurrayinchester 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Northern England is, well, the northern part of England. But it's also an increasingly distinctive cultural area, shaped by centuries of Celtic, Roman, Saxon, Danish, Norman and Scottish invasion and more recently by the rise and fall of heavy industry. In this article I've tried to summarise the region's history, its economy, and its culture to explain why there is such a North–South divide in England. Unfortunately it didn't get any feedback at peer review, but it has had some useful edits from members of Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom. Thanks in advance for any reviews, comments or suggestions. Smurrayinchester 12:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Media review

  • Generally speaking maps and diagrams should be scaled up, and as much as is possible the captions should help the reader understand what the colours and symbols used represent when no legend is present.
    • Scaled up where possible (although I haven't been able to check that the page layout still looks OK one the largest screens checked). All images now have legends (except EWHealthMap, which uses a continuous scale (which should be readable at standard resolutions) and instead has a note that "Lighter colours indicate longer life expectancy").
  • File:British_Isles_at_night_by_VIIRS_(cropped).jpg: source image includes a NASA tag, suggest this one should as well
    • Thanks - bug in the Crop Tool meant it wasn't carried across.
  • File:012298-Baltic_Flour_Mill_Gateshead_unknown_1950_(4075866463).jpg: the statement from Newcastle Libraries is not consistent with the licensing tag given - they do not appear to have been the copyright holder
    • Have rewritten the source info, but given that the library seem to be being slightly slack here, I've taken the image out (since can't be 100% sure it is public domain).
  • File:NorthernEnglandPopulationPie.svg: what was the source of the data used to create this diagram? Same with File:EWHealthMap.svg.
    • Sources added.
  • Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Impressive article, done through the bit on agriculture and only a few comments:

  • " The deindustrialisation that followed in the second half of the 20th century hit Northern England hard, and many Northern towns remain deprived compared to Southern England." I would cut the second use of Northern.
Done. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Charles had to call the Long Parliament," it wasn't Long when he called it. Suggest "what became the Long Parliament" or similar.
Done. Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "especially Pakistan and Bangladesh, in the 1950s and 60s " Bangladesh became referred to as such in 1971.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Have changed to say "starting in the 1950s" (the source also discusses Bangladeshi immigration in the 1970s and onwards, so that's fine). Before 1971 Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, so the sentence should still be correct without bogging the reader down in the details of the history of East Pakistan.
Thanks! Smurrayinchester 07:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "over the previous two decades" I might specify years, since you are saying previous to a two-year range, making exactly what you mean uncertain.
Done. This one was a bit tricky, because life expectancy stats are averaged over several year ranges. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Even before the Second World War, the Belgian coast at Ostend had become popular with Northern working-class tourists," There is a slight hint that the war caused the coast to become more popular with British tourists, which may or may not be true, but I'm not sure it's what you're driving for.
Clarified. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "of 24 national museums and galleries in England outside London, 14 are located in the North." I might put a "the" before "24" to make it clear these are the only such museums etc.
Done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Since The Guardian moved to London in 1964" This is the first time you mention it so a link would be appropriate, as might be a way of signaling to the reader that it used to be the Manchester Guardian.
Done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On media, can anything be said about electronic media? More generally, there doesn't seem a lot said about the internet throughout the article. Likely towns are installing wifi through the town centre, or otherwise encouraging technology.
Done. See Northern England#Communications and the internet. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the disbanding of the Cheshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire military bands" possibly a synonym for "disbanding", considering ...
Ha ha, good point! Went for "dismissal" Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • There is some unsourced matter under "rugby". Also under "Rail"
Assuming you're referring to the lists of rugby teams and list of light rail systems, done. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Jews were forcefully expelled from England by the 1290 Edict of Expulsion" This may be an ENGVAR thing, but "forcefully" comes across more as "energetically" in American English. Also, "expelled ... Expulsion". consider "forcibly banished" or some such.
Done - your wording sounds better. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Links between Northern cities remain poor," It's unclear to me if this sentence is a follow-on from the previous, about freight transport, or is a commentary on transport in general, which is the subject of the previous sentence, the topic sentence of the paragraph.
Have clarified. Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That's all I have.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 03:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Smurrayinchester 11:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Support Very nice article on a large and somewhat indefinite subject. I certainly learned a few things from it!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Peter Dinklage

Nominator(s): AffeL ( talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about actor Peter Dinklage, I have worked on this article for a while and I believe it meets the FA criteria. AffeL ( talk) 15:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JC

Oppose - I'm just going to take a look at the "Personal life" section for now, to get a feel for the article. Comments, suggestions, and questions as I read along...

  • Dinklage and Schmidt are expecting a second child. - Ideally, this would tell us when they announced that they were expecting a second child (or, failing that, "as of" the date of the source, so it's easy to tell whether this is up-to-date.)
Added when it was announced. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dinklage face - grammar.
Fixed. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • severely injured - "severely" seems like editorializing that isn't supported by the given source. I believe it's possible to sustain a large scar from an injury that falls short of "severe".
Removed "severely". - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • early 90's - per MOS:DECADE, present decades in four digits when identifying a period of time.
Done. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the scar notable at all? As far as I can tell, it hasn't really been discussed in-depth by any reliable sources, just the one interview and banal "x things you didn't know about Peter Dinklage" listicles. It just seems really trivial and out-of-place stuck at the end of a paragraph about his wife and family. If it is to stay, then you should explain how he became injured; just saying that he was in a band at the time doesn't answer any questions.
I have added how he got injured now, don't know if that's enough or if I should remove it all together? - AffeL ( talk) 11:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, are there any reliable sources discussing his time in the band? If so, I think that should be fleshed out a bit and moved into "Early life".
Not that I know of. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • he suggested that doubt is more needed than belief. - Really abstract and maybe not particularly important?
Removed. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dinklage has a form of dwarfism, achondroplasia, which affects bone growth. As a result, he is 4 ft 5 in (1.35 m) tall, with a typical-sized head and torso but short limbs. - What is the source for this information? The next citation, the Today article, doesn't support any of that, and in fact lists Dinklage's height as 4'6" instead of 4'5".
Added source. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You say "Dinklage has come to accept his condition", but he is later quoted as saying in 2012, "I don't think I still am okay with it. There are days when I'm not." Has his attitude changed significantly since 2012 or is this a discrepancy?
Fixed. - AffeL ( talk) 18:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Dinklage's wife suggested that he should say something, being that he is in a position to change the "way people look at people his size" - Say something about what? Was it his wife who suggested bringing attention to Martin Henderson?
Yes, Now fixed so it is more clear. - AffeL ( talk) 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, the dwarfism quotes seem to ramble on without saying anything new or enlightening. I would try to boil it down to the most pertinent snippets and fit them into one paragraph. In When talking about his sense of responsibility to other people who share his condition: "The idea is to get to that level where you don't have to preach about it anymore." the quote doesn't make a lot of sense in relation to its introduction. It's also redundant given that we're already told his opinion on whether he saw himself as "a spokesman for the rights of little people" in the previous paragraph.
I removed the last quote. - AffeL ( talk) 10:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Overall, I'm sorry to say that the section I've reviewed falls well short of FA standards. Aside from grammar and style errors, sourcing deficiencies, and unclear prose, the narrative about his dwarfism – an important part of his life, no doubt – is unfocused and underdeveloped. In fact, I believe the final paragraph may constitute plagiarism per our non-free content guidelines; the paragraph is composed almost entirely of material copied directly from one source. While quotations of non-free text are allowed, this probably falls under prohibited "extensive quotation of copyrighted text". On these grounds, I'm afraid I must oppose. Sorry, – Juliancolton |  Talk 01:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some redundant quotations and paraphrased others in that paragraph. Is that enough or should I trim it down a bit more? - AffeL ( talk) 11:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also another thing is that Dinklage happens to be a very private person, he does not do many interviews, go to any talk shows and so on. So not much is known about his personal life, making it hard to find different stuff to add for that section. - AffeL ( talk) 11:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@ http://www.hypable.com/game-of-thrones-video-peter-dinklage-delivers-commencement-speech-at-bennington-college/). I know "Hypable.com" is not a reliable source, but this particular source has a video of Dinklage talking about him growing up. Can I use it or just the Youtube video as a source? - AffeL ( talk) 11:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think it would depend on the information it's being used to verify. Even if the stories come straight from the man himself, they may well be exaggerated or embellished for the sake of an interesting commencement speech. I would personally prefer more rigorous sourcing, but perhaps there are some uncontroversial bits which can be gleamed from the speech (it would be nice to know what he got his degree in, for instance).

The section I reviewed looks a bit better, but I still believe there are too many irrelevant quotations. The first quote in the last paragraph is very difficult to parse, and contributes very little to our understanding of the subject's life. The bit about Martin Henderson seems to have been taken out of context, as you don't discuss any impact resulting from his being mentioned. this source says the speech brought attention to the act of this book seems like it might have some useful facts about Dinklage's upbringing and personal life. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Juliancolton: Added where he got his degree from and removed the first quote in the last paragraph, also added the impact of Henderson name being mentioned. Much of the other quotes has either been removed or re-written in my own words. - AffeL ( talk) 17:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Juliancolton: How about now?, How does it look? I have removed some and paraphrased the many quotations in that section, all expect the last little quote in the second to last paragraph. - AffeL ( talk) 11:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis

  • "in the 2019 Untitled Avengers film" -> capital letter not needed
Done. - AffeL ( talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Introduction could have two paragraphs instead of four.
Done. - AffeL ( talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "and appeared in NBC's 30 Rock." -> who did he play?
Added the name of the character he plays. - AffeL ( talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannister in HBO's Game of Thrones, an ada.." -> The paragraph needs to have some sort of date included, for instance, when he was cast and when the show premiered, or at least the year when he started playing the character.
Added dates. - AffeL ( talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • In the same section there is no indication how long he's been playing the character, how many seasons there are, or when is it gonna end etc. More background of the show is certainly needed, as GOT is the highlight of his career.
Added "as of 2011" in the beginning, also added how many seasons and when it will end. You said more background is needed, I already added his salary, casting information, awards won, reception, background on when the show started and will end, also added how many seasons the show will have. Should I add more or do you believe it's enough? - AffeL ( talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reference formatting needs A LOT of work. Many missing dates, authors, publishers, wrong links (such as Telegraph), 26 November 2016 -> November 26, 2016, New York Times -> The New York Times, etc.

Mymis ( talk) 12:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Mymis: I fixed those you mentioned and others, I'm quite sure I fixed all the missing dates, authors and so on. - AffeL ( talk) 16:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is still unclear what the show is even about. You could add one sentence about it, and how it links to his character. Also, " George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series." -> add genre (a series of epic fantasy novels), or/and add "drama" before the show's title.
Added sentence of what the show is about and his character, also added "fantasy drama" before the shows title. - AffeL ( talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "As of 2011, Dinklage plays Tyrion Lannist" -> "Since 2011, ...."
Done. - AffeL ( talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the movie hade a modest commercial success with" -> "had". Also, there is no source to prove "modest commercial success". Just because it earned 200M, it does not mean it was commercially successful.
Fixed "hade" to "had". Also the movie earned $245 million, with a $88 million budget. That's an $157 million profit. - AffeL ( talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • You need to add more timeframes in "Upcoming projects" section, for EVERY one of his upcoming role. "As of XXXX, ...", "In XXXX, ..." etc.
@ Mymis: Added timeframes for all projects. - AffeL ( talk) 08:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Mymis ( talk) 00:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Mymis: Is their anything else? - AffeL ( talk) 14:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The sentence "For this he won the Emmy.." in the second paragraph in the introduction could be reorganized in a less confusing way.
  • The "Upcoming projects" need to copyedited, there are multiple grammar mistakes and repetitive phrasing.
  • "He is set to appear in Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri and Three Christs in 2017" -> Those seem to be quite decent films, and deserve more than just a mention, I think.
  • Also, why do you think that Emmys and the Globes are literally the only awards that are worth mentioning? He has won and been nominated for many other awards.

Mymis ( talk) 21:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Kunersdorf

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This article is about one of Frederick the Great's catastrophes, brought about by his dismissal of Russian and Austrian military skills and his belief in their inferiority. The article is one of four I'm working on: Battle of Hochkirch just passed the rigors of Featured article assessment. One of Frederick's great successes, the Battle of Leuthen is currently undergoing its A class review. The Battle of Rossbach, another success, is presently in puberty. I present it to you for your consideration and look forward to your comments. auntieruth (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67

This article is in fine shape. I have a few comments/nitpicks:
Lead

  • the citation in the lead shouldn't be necessary, the material should be in the body done. added during discussion at A class review.
  • According to the body, Frankfurt was already in Russian hands at the time of the battle done

Seven Years' War

  • suggest replacing "the Silesian province" with "Silesia" done
  • link Company (military unit) I'm not sure what you want here. None of the units have articles (yet). To further confuse things, the units werenot numbered until 1806.'
  • Prussia had achieved done
  • "to pay himFrederick" done
  • suggest "to reinforce the army of Frederick's brother-in-law, the Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel." done
  • "and thehis brief occupation" done
  • "the successful" done
  • suggest "carve out a piece" done
  • suggest "had resulted in a draw" ok.done
  • I'm a bit bemused by the anglicisation of Feldmarshalleutnant. This is a unique rank, like the pre-NATO Generalmajor and Generalleutnant, that is easily mistaken for something else when anglicised. I prefer to see it in the original German. Iwould too. It came out in the GA review. I think I have them all now.
  • I would still pipe a link to Lieutenant field marshal, which is, in my view at the wrong title (for the same reason), but that is another matter.
  • suggest "Prussia was strategically on the defense;" done
  • Lieutenant General is not linked to Generalleutnant, but suffers from the same confusion. Modern readers would think this was equivalent to a modern-day LTGEN, when it was not, until NATO at least. the ranks were not even the same then. Generalfeldwachtmeister, etc. it's confusing.

Dispositions

  • In the situation in 1759 section, it says that Laudon joined Saltykov on 5 August, but in this section it says the two armies joined on 2 August. fixed. It actually takes a couple of days for armies to joinup.
  • commander-in-chief' needs an s after it done
  • unscrutable is an archaic form of inscrutable, which I think would be more familiar to casual readers done
  • suggest "they mistrusted each other's intentions" done
  • we've already had the ground explained, so "a ridge of small hills" is a repetition done
  • suggest "by using fallen trees to break up the ground on the approaches" done
  • "that the Frederick" done
  • perhaps "to the south east of the Allied position"? done
  • "feigning", do you mean "feinting"? done
  • one more in this section, the sentence that explains the plan for marching around the Allied position is confusing. It should include where he started from, and how he got from there to the start line for the assault. At present none of this is clear. It appears from map #1 that he started from Müllrose, marched north, skirting around to the west of Frankfurt, then crossed the Oder at Göritz then marched east to an assembly area north of the Allied position. Is that right? It needs to be explained in a similar way.
  • I have to say that the maps do not really help here. With no legend, I can't tell which units belong to the Allies and which ones are Prussian.

Battle

  • suggest the section starts with "The battle" rather than "It"
  • the description of the modified plan begs a few questions. From what directions were the two pincers to approach? I suggest referring to the pincers as left pincer and right pincer. The earlier confusion doesn't help.
  • yes, there are some better maps in Die Kriege Friedrichs des Großen. Dritter Teil: Der Siebenjährige Krieg 1756–1763. Berlin 1903 - 1912 but I don't have access to them.There's a series of 4 or 5 that show the entire battle laid out. auntieruth (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • PM, see if this makes better sense. I tried to clarify. Also could put in a bit on the effort to hold Frankfurt, and the orders Wunsch had to take Frankfurt back....21:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest stating that the semi-circle was around the eastern flank of the Allied positions
  • suggest "attack from the southeast" rather than approach, and a comma after southeast
  • the explanation that the three columns exposed them to Russian firepower might not be in the right spot, as battle hadn't been joined at this point
  • shtetl is an unfamiliar term that hasn't been introduced at this point. Could the fact that it was a Jewish settlement and its location be introduced under Dispositions? yes good idea
  • I might not be understanding the ground well, but if Saltykov's left flank was at the shtetl, wouldn't he have been facing northwest?
  • so Finck was going to attack as well, not just demonstrate? Was his the "northerly line" mentioned?
  • suggest the ground was uneven rather than unstable sources say unstable. I think there was quicksand
  • "the horse carriages" should have an initial cap
  • Seydlitz should be in full when first introduced

Turning the Russian flank

  • If Frederick emerged at 08:00 am, then how were the guns in place at dawn? different guns....clarified'
  • what was "the field" the Russian guns were trained on? fixed
  • what sort of soldiers were the first wave? grenadiers? 'probably. He favored mixed troops---guys with muskets, guys with swords,,, and grenadiers.
  • should it be from the Walkberge and...?
  • suggest "assault the well-defended" yep
  • I get lost again when the pincer's are mentioned. I thought the Russian left had been defeated by this point, yet there is mention of the second half of the pincer squeezing the Russian left. Was this Finck's corps attacking from the north, or another force element? It isn't clear what the left and right wings were or where they were located. I'm afraid this needs more work.
once the left was defeated a "new" left formed.  :) I need better maps. but have a look and see

Cavalry attack

  • suggest massed rather than massive, which is a bit puffy

Evening action

  • just check all the examples of Muhlberge for the umlaut yep
  • italicise the German ranks consistently throughout (or not). Rittmeister is italicised, but Generalleutnant isn't. yep

Aftermath

  • who was Frederick's brother? Prince Henry? This should be mentioned when he is first mentioned in the text fixed
  • The format of Duffy (2015b) doesn't match the other citations. I suggest, "The historian/author Christopher Duffy places..." then use the usual citation at the end of the sentence cited to him. Ok, that was some fancy smancy stuff another editor wanted me to use. I'm happier with simplicity
  • Carl Heinrich von Wedel should just be von Wedel or Wedel at this point fixed
  • I think it should be "Prussian kingdom"

Assessment

  • link abatis, which could bear being introduced in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this is the first mention of the causeway, this should also be mentioned in the Dispositions sectionfixed
  • the redans and bastions should also be mentioned in the Dispositions section fixed
  • this assessment should also mention the blunders pointed out earlier. Perhaps they could be moved to here, not sure...
  • here it is mentioned that the cavalry attack was piecemeal, but earlier it is "massive". I hadn't got the sense that it was piecemeal or that the abatis etc had broken up the cavalry charges until now.
  • Prussian Army should be Prussian army
  • Redman (2015) should be treated the same as Duffy above fixed

Overall

  • I'll let you work through these comments and I'll then re-read the article as a whole in a few days to see if there are any other suggestions I have. The lack of an easily interpreted map really detracts from the article overall, as the dispositions and Frederick's scheme of manoeuvre and the various attacks are fairly complex in my view. I'm still struggling to get a sense of all of the moving parts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi PM, @ Peacemaker67: I've overhauled dispositions and added a section on terrain, massively expanding the explanation of the ground. I found a couple of different maps, tried them out. See if this helps? Also incorporated your suggestions above. auntieruth (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, I'm just working through now, making minor c/e type tweaks here and there. Please check my work so I haven't changed meaning or inserted errors. A few more points:
  • One thing that still confuses me is in Allied dispositions; it says that Saltykov faced his troops to the northwest, and so did Laudon. Is that right? If he expected the attack from Frankfurt at that stage, wouldn't he have faced his troops to the west? basicallly the attack occurred in the reverse of what Saltykov originally expected.
  • Perhaps mention that Reitwein is 28 km north of Frankfurt when it is first mentioned rather than a sentence or two later.done
  • It now says that the assault across the Kuhgrund was Frederick's second blunder, but I believe the first blunder is no longer highlighted above. Perhaps it would be better to relocate the assessments of Frederick's mistakes to the Assessment section? done
  • Most of the references in the Bibliography don't have locations, and the foreign language ones could do with title translationsI don't believe in translating the titles. if someone can read German, the title is obvious, and if someone cannot, the title is superfluous. Lingzi convinced me to use this *&FO#HG template and this is what it gave me re publications. I read in one of the guidelines too that location was not necessary. auntieruth (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's me done (finally...). You've really improved this article significantly, Ruth. It is easy to follow now, a great read and captures the key aspects well. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Joachim-Bernhard-vp-2.jpg: when/where was this first published? Added
  • Same with File:Brief_von_Friedrich_der_Große.jpg added a publication don't know if it's the first though.,

File:Kleist-fällt-bei-kunersdorf.jpg. added publisher. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

250t-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The 250t-class were torpedo boats built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in the lead-up to and early stages of World War I. Almost all of them saw a fair bit of action during the war, but none were lost. They were divided among the Allied nations of Yugoslavia, Portugal, Romania and Greece after the war, with some surviving to see action in World War II. The last of them didn't go out of service until the early 1960s. The World War I section of this article has been expanded in recent months thanks to a series of articles in Warship magazine that provided details of their engagements. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 07:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 00:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Dan, as always! Regards, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)

  • Niehorster himself has a Ph.D in history, and has several books regarding German and US orders of battle published by Military Press (UK) and held by libraries like Oxford University and the US Air Force Academy. Used quite a bit in Featured Articles/Lists already. I've found him to be highly consistent with other sources when it comes order of battle information.
  • Smillie, John (2012). World War II Sea War, Vol 4: Germany Sends Russia to the Allies. Dayton, Ohio: Lulu.com. Lulu.com is a self-publishing site - what makes this a high quality reliable source? Note the lack of library holdings also.
  • Quite so. Deleted.
  • I also note the lack of citations on a number of the notes - (a through f)
  • They were relying on the citation for the whole table, but I've added them to each note for completeness.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Flag_of_Portugal.svg needs a US PD tag and date of death for the creator
  • Date of death of the designer was already there (1929), added PD-1923 as it was officially adopted in 1910.
  • Technically, Greek flag should also include a tag for the original design. Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:03, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think the exact origins of the design are known, but the flag itself dates back to 1822 or something. Should I use a PD-1923? Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:09, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Arlington, Washington

Nominator(s): Sounder Bruce 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Arlington is a small town of 19,000 located at the edge of Seattle's metropolitan area, and as a result has seen huge population changes and suburbanization in recent decades. Despite this, it has managed to keep its small town image and boasts a pretty nice little downtown full of historic buildings. It's one of the places I can call a hometown, and I feel like I've done it justice in this article. Sounder Bruce 03:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Finetooth on prose and comprehensiveness

This is very well-written, organized, and illustrated and appears to be comprehensive or nearly so. I made a couple dozen tiny changes; please revert any that you think are not improvements. Below are my questions and suggestions; none should be terribly difficult.
Lede
  • Paragraph 3: "seven city councilmembers" – Two words, "council members"?
  • Official city documents use "councilmember" as one word, so I opted not to split it into two.
  • OK. I see that it appears elsewhere as an acceptable dictionary variant. Finetooth ( talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
History
  • Paragraph 1: "while following fish runs" – Link "fish runs" to fish migration?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 2: "relocating the Stillaguamish tribe to trust lands" – What are "trust lands"?
  • Linked to term.
  • Paragraph 6: " The Great Depression of the 1930s forced all but one of the mills to close, causing unemployment to rise in Arlington and the establishment of a Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp near Darrington." – The cause-effect link between the mill closings and the CCC camp is a bit tenuous. Could the connection be made more clear?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 6: Link Darrington here on first use rather than in the last paragraph of this section.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 6: "brought the U.S. Navy to Arlington, who converted the municipal airport" – "Which" rather than "who"?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 7: "The plane was being flown by Boeing test pilots who were instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, suffering from the loss of three engines..." – The captain wasn't suffering from the loss of three engines. Maybe "The plane, flown by Boeing test pilots instructing a Braniff International Airways captain, lost three engines and suffered a fire in the fourth after a dutch roll exceeded maximum bank restrictions."
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 8: "in 1999 after a lengthy court battle with Marysville, who instead claimed Lakewood to the west" – Marysville is a "which", not a "who", and probably "in 1999" would scan better at the beginning of the sentence.
  • Done.
Geography
  • Paragraph 2: "Downtown Arlington is located at a bluff..." – Maybe "Downtown Arlington is along a bluff"?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: "During a recent eruption 13,000 years ago..." – Even though this is geologically recent, it might be less confusing to say simply, "During an eruption 13,000 years ago...".
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: " more than 7 feet (2.1 m) of sediment" – I would round this to 2 m since the 7 feet is approximate.
  • Done.
Subareas and neighborhoods
  • Paragraph 1:"The city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas in its comprehensive plan, which each contain neighborhoods and subdivisions of their own." – Better as "In its comprehensive plan, the city of Arlington divides the urban growth area into 10 planning subareas, each containing neighborhoods and subdivisions."?
  • Done.
Climate
  • Paragraph 1: "with an average of 7 inches (180 mm) per year" – Unlike rainfall or general precipitation, snowfall is generally listed in cm rather than mm.
  • Done.
2000 Census
  • Paragraph 1: "As of the 2000 census, there were 12,750 people..." – The "Historical population" table to the right of this subsection says the 2000 population was 11,713. One or the other is mistaken, it appears.
  • Corrected the statistics based on the 2000 census data. Someone must have forgot to cross-check between the city proper and urban growth area.
Economy
  • Paragraph 1: It would probably be good to specify a year for these statistics. They will vary from year to year.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "with approximately 19.3 percent, followed by manufacturing (18.5%), retail (11.3%), and food services (10.4%)." – It might make sense to round these for readability, especially since the numbers are approximate.
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 1: "Only 12 percent of employed Arlington residents work within city limits..." – The fractions listed in this sentence total 51 percent; where do the other 49 percent work?
  • Mentioned "other cities", which all have under 2 percent of Arlington workers each.
  • I tweaked your entry a bit. Please check to see if you approve. Finetooth ( talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 2: "The economy of Arlington relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing from its founding..." – A bit awkward. Maybe "Arlington's early economy relied heavily on timber harvesting and processing..."?
  • Done.
  • Paragraph 3: "As of 2012, the airport has 570 on-site businesses that employ 590 people, with a total output of $94.5 million annually.[72]" – The source seems to support this, but 570 seems awfully high, and it seems odd that 570 businesses would only employ a total of 590 people. In the Transportation subsection later in the article is a sentence saying, "Approximately 130 businesses are located on airport property...". This number sounds more plausible. In any case, I don't see how both numbers could be correct.
  • I mis-read the statistic as number of businesses when it was in fact number of jobs from on-site businesses. I've matched the number, but I feel that it could be redundant and repetitive.
  • I think the repetition is minor and OK. Finetooth ( talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Government and politics
  • Paragraph 4: "...50.6 percent of Arlington voters elected Republican Donald Trump, while 39.5 percent elected Democrat Hillary Clinton..." – Is "elected" the right word? Maybe "voted for"?
  • Done.
  • I tweaked the wording a bit to add variety. Finetooth ( talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Notable residents
  • "2nd Snohomish County Executive" – I'm not sure what this means. Is "2nd Executive" a title?
  • Simplified down to politician, without title.
  • Suggestion: Include only notable residents for whom separate Wikipedia articles exist. Without this limit, the list will eventually balloon out of proportion to its importance.
  • Done. I kept two that I have started writing articles for and would definitely pass notability standards. Created articles on the two remaining red links. Sounder Bruce 04:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Education
  • ¶3: "...but was put on hold and later cancelled..." – Ambiguous. Perhaps "but the offer was put on hold and later declined"? Or does this mean that Arlington put the offer on hold and later cancelled it?
  • Done.
Transportation
  • ¶1: "which serve as the main highways to the city. State Route 9 travels north..." – Since the direction in the first sentence is "to" the city, perhaps starting the next sentence with "From Arlington, State Route 9 goes north..."?
  • Done.
Utilities
  • ¶1: "a consumer-owned public utility that sources most of its electricity from the federal Bonneville Power Administration..." – What is the meaning of the word "sources" in this context? Does it mean "buys"?
  • Sourcing means both purchasing and the producer of the electricity. Reworded accordingly.
General
  • In the Utilities section, you might add something about Arlington's internet-service providers and telephone-service providers if reliable sources can be found.
  • Done.
  • The images need alt text.
  • Thank you for your thorough review and corrections, Finetooth. I hope I have addressed your points adequately. Sounder Bruce 04:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. This all looks fine to me. I made two minor changes to your changes, as noted above. Please check those two for accuracy. I'm happy to support this article on prose and comprehensiveness. Finetooth ( talk) 16:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments from JC

At a glance, the article looks great. I'm doubtful Finetooth left any meat on the bones, but we'll see if I can't find some things to complain about...

  • Maybe "northwestern" instead of "northern" in the lead, for precision plus consistency with the "Geography" section?
    • The "Northern" (North County) area is more of a cultural term than strictly geographic, like northwestern. As the eastern two-thirds of the county is mountainous and mostly uninhabited, Arlington is referred to as being part of "northern Snohomish County" far more often than "northwestern".
  • Arlington was established in the 1880s by settlers - Aren't all settlements settled by... well, settlers? Perhaps I'm overlooking some nuance in that term, but if not, I'd like to see something a little more specific.
    • Changed to entrepreneurs (the initial wave, described in following sentences). Actual residents didn't arrive in significant numbers until after platting.
  • What is "street foliage"?
    • Added a link to the term.
  • making it the ninth largest city in Snohomish County. - ninth out of how many? This is a bit of a jolt for someone from the northeast, where you're lucky if your county has one city...
    • Added the total, tabulated from the same reference. Out west, suburbs are just a patchwork of small towns that grew into each other.
  • Do we really need to present the 450% population increase fact twice (not including the lede)? I don't think anything would be lost if it were removed from the "Demographics" section.
    • I think it provides context for the next sentence (about 2025's projected population) and belongs more in the demographics section than the history. It's a pretty important indication of just how much suburanization has affected Arlington since the 1980s.
  • Was there a predominate species of timber that was used for the shingle production?
    • Added mention of cedar shingles (with a reference).
  • a safe swimming area - What will make this swimming area safer than non-safe swimming areas?
    • It's common for fast-moving streams to have designated swimming areas, but I can't find the term in anything mentioned about the park specifically. Removed and replaced.
  • I'm not normally a stickler for overlinking, especially in relatively long articles, but it might be good to take a look and see where you can eliminate any truly excessive linking. Arlington School District is linked four times, for instances.
    • Took a stab at removing links that were easy to access through nearby links. Will look over with a proper tool and keep paring down the links.

I think that's about it. I'm very impressed with the quality of the article, especially in terms of comprehensiveness... every noteworthy aspect of the city is discussed in suitable proportions, and the "History" section in particular tells a clear and engaging story without going into unwanted detail. A great deal of research clearly went into the crafting of this article. I'll be happy to support once my above points have been addressed. – Juliancolton |  Talk 02:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Juliancolton. I am uncertain on how to respond to two of your comments, but feel they can be resolved quickly with a decision from you or another editor. Sounder Bruce 03:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Support - Nice work, and thanks for the quick edits. I'm not concerned about the two outstanding points. – Juliancolton |  Talk 04:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth ( talk · contribs)

  • What makes http://www.historylink.org/File/8416 a high quality, reliable source? Also the other sources from historylink:
  • What makes Hastie, Thomas P.; Batey, David; Sisson, E.A.; Graham, Albert L., eds. (1906). "Chapter VI: Cities and Towns". An Illustrated History of Skagit and Snohomish Counties a high quality reliable source? I'll just note that these are local history books produced pretty much to a template, and it's unclear how reliable the "history" of them is. The goal of them was to sell the books to local people - so they are not strictly speaking produced by anyone we'd call a historian.
    • Finding high-quality sources for local histories that isn't sourced from residents is near-impossible, especially in smaller towns like Arlington. The acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors collected "accounts" from local newspapers and historians, which would be as accurate as anything you would find. Note that the book was published only 26 years after Washington had become a state (and Arlington had been established), so I consider this to be a contemporary source.
    • I can replace some of the references with a modern book (written in 2003), but it probably sources some of its information from the Illustrated History (as does a lot of local history books).
      • If the modern book is written by a historian, that would be better. They are trained to weigh sources such as these local histories and figure out what is good and what is bad in them. The point with all of these is that 1) we need high quality sources and 2) history has matured in the last 100 years or so, and we are always better off citing modern works when they are available. Much progress has been made in history in using archival documents for research. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
        • The facts of Arlington's founding and early history have remained unchanged from the time the book was written, to the point where local libraries still point to this book as the best resource for the area's early history.
  • Same for Hunt, Herbert; Kaylor, Floyd C. (1917). Washington, West of the Cascades: Historical and Descriptive.
    • The foreword/acknowledgements seem to indicate that the book's authors sought out the Washington State Historical Society for assistance, as well as local newspapermen and the dean of the University of Washington.
    • Removed and replaced with a citation from the Washington Historical Quarterly.
  • Likewise for Prosser, William Farrand (1903). A History of the Puget Sound Country: Its Resources, Its Commerce and Its People, Volume I.
    • Written by the founder of the state's historical society, which I think counts as a professional historian of the era.
      • As I pointed out above - "of the era" is the problem. And we need "high quality" sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
      • This citation is only used to identify the first mayor, an uncontroversial fact that is backed by a contemporary newspaper article (though missing his first name and his occupation), which I argue is a lesser quality source. Sounder Bruce 18:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Since this one is only being used to verify the first mayor, I can consider removing it entirely.
  • What makes http://www.livearlington.com/tabid/5559/Default.aspx a high quality reliable source?
    • Replaced with a search from the NCES and a map.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Ealdgyth: Thanks for your source review. I'm unsure if I can find suitable replacements for the books mentioned, as they themselves are a major source on the one modern book on Arlington's history (Arlington Centennial, A Pictorial History), which itself is a source for HistoryLink. Sounder Bruce 02:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Seems like everything got an ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review. The downtown image is of Olympic Avenue, the city's main street, so I feel it's appropriate. I might replace it with a better picture of Olympic shot from a hill when I have time to go shoot one. I also pared down the caption for the Lumber store to fit with the history a bit better. Sounder Bruce 20:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Nominator(s): R8R ( talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

One of those metals with most effect on humans throughout history. I've deeply enjoyed writing the article myself and from some comments I've got so far I see it must be good to read as well. Comments, positive or negative, are very welcome.-- R8R ( talk) 18:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I'll come back to the intro section later ... for the moment, it looks fine, but I might want to move one or two points up to the first paragraph. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not too important but: you use semicolons where commas would be better, in many cases.
  • "lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor from 3000 BC, from 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians; and in Athens, Carthage, and Sicily": That's not what "from" means in AmEng. ("were first worked ... in 3000 BC") Also, did it start in 2000 BC in Athens? If not, add "later" or something.
A good one, thank you; "since" seems more natural anyway.
It's hard to say when exactly it began in Athens; the source is only clear on Asia Minor and Iberia. I found a source, however, that claims the trade had extended to Greece by 1600 BC. Added this and updated the reference.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. Very accessible and a pleasant read, for a chemistry article. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your support and for your go-over with this article; it was quite good and made the prose a tad more concise.-- R8R ( talk) 08:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

  • My first comment is that the "Main isotopes of lead" table is a complete duplicate of the "Most stable isotopes of lead" so it is not required. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a part of a general discussion of a reform of the element infobox. It seems the isotope table is up to go from the main infobox or there will be a small table in the main infobox and a separate big table, not entirely sure. Now, however, that the tables are still exactly the same, I removed it from the main infobox for the time being.
I object the removal. An infobox is supposed to summarize information from the article (body), so a repetition can and should be expected. - DePiep ( talk) 15:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett, R8R Gtrs: I formally propose (request) to re-add the isotopes to {{ Infobox lead}}. Per WP:INFOBOX, it should summarize the article, and so repeating info that is in the body is by intention. One could propose to change that infobox header into 'Main isotopes' (not 'Most stable'), and adjust the list. To be clear: the table in the article section 'Isotopes' should be there to make the section complete & better by itself, not to replace an infobox function. - DePiep ( talk) 11:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
It is fair enough to be in the article body, but with more information. If any short lived isotopes are natural, they should be there. Other columns could be added such as spin or exact isotopic mass.
  • "Many pseudohalides are known." → "Many lead pseudohalides are known." so that sentence can stand alone.
Yes, done.
  • Plumbane is not an organic compound, even if it is an analog of methane. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Changed to "The lead analog of the simplest organic compound, methane, is plumbane." Leaving plumbane in the organic section, though, because it is commonly discussed with the organolead compounds.
  • "lead commonly used as the whitener" is not strictly correct as it was a compound. could this be reworded?
I used "in."-- R8R ( talk) 09:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added one based on the caption in the article.
I am quite confident this is not a subject to copyright, as it is a very simple graph of numeric data. There are licenses for such simple graphs if I recall correctly. Will check in a few hours.
I believe the original image would go under commons:Template:PD-text; from that perspective, I think, licensing must be okay?-- R8R ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am unconvinced. The actual text used, where it is placed on the graph, how it links to the graph points, the graph points themselves, the numbers on the scales are all part of a creative choice in making the whole graph. If the text was arranged in a different way, then you could get away with the PD-text for the text, but the graph still has quite a bit more creative elements subject to copyright. You can compare with the alterations in File:Evolution production plomb.svg which I think are OK. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look now. I am not sure if this is an aesthetical gain, but the alterations must be sufficient?-- R8R ( talk) 17:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think this is better. I would also convert 100 to 1 as it is a bit obscure, and 102 could go to 100 as it can fit. Also BP should probably change to a year as BP numbers is changing all the time! Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
We could fit even 1,000,000; but for logarithm-based scales, it's just plain easier to see the trend "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6" than "1--100--10^4--10^6"; when put before such a sequence, first first take half a second to transform that back to "10^0--10^2--10^4--10^6". This wouldn't be the case in any other context, but here, I think we should leave the powers as they are. Also, there is a convention about that BP that indicates the numbers will stay as they are (I was surprised, too!).-- R8R ( talk) 12:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair; done.
    • alt text for the flame test could be a bit more descriptive (for blind people) Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Expanded; should be good now.
    • alt text for lead(II) oxide calls it "red powder" but it looks more like cream powder.
Yes, we used to have a different picture there and this must be a remainder. Done.
    • alt text for Chart of the final part of the s-process can be much improved perhaps to say what element transmutes to what. It is not a "greed".
I see I have misunderstood the idea of what should be in alt text; now, I've read WP:ALT and things are clearer to me now. The new alt text must be better.-- R8R ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • for File:Elemental abundances.svg the alt text appears to be for something else.
Why? It is a line chart and the line indeed generally declines to its right?
Sorry, I meant to delete this comment Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • alt text for the Promotional poster should say what is in it. (boy with paint brush, and perhaps all the text in the ad)
I expanded it a bit; please see if it's good now.
    • alt text for Radiography of a swan says it is X-ray like, when in fact it is an X-ray!
Ha ha, you're right! Fixed.
    • There appears to be no alt text for the lede image in infobox. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 10:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Added.-- R8R ( talk) 11:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • number MOS violation in infobox −23.0·10−6 should be −23.0×10−6
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • According to MOS we should Link the first use of unfamiliar units: eg nΩ·m GPa (I note MPa is linked to Megapascal) neutrons/(cm2·second). I don't think we need to do this in the infobox where the property is linked as that link also covers the unit, but in the article text it should have a link.
I linked "nΩ·m" to ohm and meter; "GPa" to pascal (unit) (removing the MPa link); did not link "neutrons/(cm2·second)" to anything because there is nothing to link to and I think it's fair to say, nothing needs to be linked (it's quite intuitive: "per second per square centimeter").
Actually the first use, now "nanoohm-meters", is not linked. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Certainly should've been more careful about this one. Fixed.-- R8R ( talk) 23:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "They may be made by the addition of trimethyllead or triethyllead to alkenes or alkynes; these precursors may themselves be made from the corresponding lead halides and lithium aluminium hydride at −78 °C." This sentence may be true, but it appears that this is not the way that tetraethyllead was made. Trimethyllead or triethyllead appear to be ions or part of other compounds, not that important that they need a mention in the element article, so I suggest removing the sentence or replacing it. That sentence also makes the following "These compounds" unclear.
Removed, as this seemed most appropriate.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound" should be a standalone sentence as it is not related to its oxidising properties. Perhaps it should be moved up to the other bits on tetraethyllead.
It is related: I thought the current wording "The oxidizing nature of many organolead compounds is usefully exploited: lead tetraacetate is an important laboratory reagent for oxidation in organic chemistry;[80] tetraethyllead was once produced in larger quantities than any other organometallic compound.[81]" hints at that very well. Put an "and" instead of the semicolon to clarify it further.
  • "Retrieved 2017-01-30" and "Retrieved 2017-04-12" dates in wrong format
Fixed.
  • What symbol should be used in formulae to link molecules together? Is it "•" or "·". Personally I like "•" as it is easier to see. But whatever is used it should be consistent.
Used the former for the same reason.
Now I see there is inconsistent use of "•" or "·" for multiplication in units as well.
It didn't occur to me I'd also have to look in the infobox. I've turned to the smaller dot, which is in the infobox right now, because maybe some articles have complied with it as well, in which case I don't want to ruin it.-- R8R ( talk) 23:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Pb5Sb4S11" is messed up, in one place it appears to have spaces, and another new-lines. The Chem template is trashing it somehow by adding some sort of separator before each number. It is important to not insert separators for the case that the text is copied and used elsewhere or a "find" is used to look for something on the page. Either the Chem template can be fixed, or it should not be used in featured articles.
I do not see spaces added in my desktop nor in mobile view. But I do see "Pb 5Sb 4S 11" when copy/pasting (and I removed newlines here). That is by . - DePiep ( talk) 12:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Converted all formulas to the plain sup-sub style.-- R8R ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In "PbCO3" it inserts a space before the 3. (same template:Chem problem)
Same.-- R8R ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In the last sentence "The fungus Aspergillus versicolor is effective at removing lead ions.[252] Several bacteria have been researched for their ability to reduce lead, including the sulfate-reducing bacteria Desulfovibrio and Desulfotomaculum, both of which are highly effective in aqueous solutions." "reduce" is used in two different senses, chemical reduction, and making the amount smaller. We should probably ahve two different terms so that people do not think that lead-II is converting to elemental lead-0. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
A great catch; done.-- R8R ( talk) 12:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we need a Farenheit conversion in "tetraethyllead only starts to decompose at 100 °C (210 °F)" as other temperatures for reactions are not converted from °C.
Not in particular; removed.-- R8R ( talk) 12:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I had my doubts about "bis(disyl)plumbylene" being correct, so I checked the reference and the name is not there. Searching google scholar does not find it, and on Google it is mostly mirrors of this page. So this name need to be fixed or dropped. It probably should have "bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl" in the name perhaps bis(bis(trimethylsilyl)methyl)plumbylene (or lead)
I'll prefer dropping because such long formulas need to be mentally reconstructed back into their formulas anyway.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In "forty-three lead isotopes" normally the number wold be written using digits: 43 Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, done.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The unit-cell size is missing (from infobox). This only needs one number since it is a cubic structure.
  • A question about other registries: In chemical articles we include chemspider and pubchem and possible some other registry numbers in the infobox, not just cas. Should this happen for elements too? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll contact the WikiProject to work out a project-wide solution.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
These both questions cover essentially all of the elements (both would require alternations to {{ infobox element}}). Can we be satisfied for the purposes of this standalone review with the fact that the discussion on the matter has been initiated?-- R8R ( talk) 09:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There are two different punctuations in "lead-acid" and "lead–acid". The former used in a reference and the latter in text. I suspect that nothing has to change though.
There was one hyphen occurrence---in a quote---so I checked there is actually a hyphen in the original and left it as was.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "osmium— the densest metal" has space after mdash. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "profile" as used in Bairagi reference: Does it really use the typographic ligature "fi" instead of "fi"? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't; strange. Anyway, I removed the ligature.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed.-- R8R ( talk) 12:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
References

Now starting review of references.

  • My first comment is that I really do not like the two level references. I would much prefer to see one click from the text footnote to the full reference. The only place for double barreled referencing is where you have different requirements for page numbers from the same reference. In any case I will review the end references. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
When this new referencing system was being first introduced to the article, I was uneasy, too. What convinced me is that references look nicer and actually are available in one click (and one hover). I find that okay because when I want to know something about a ref, this is exactly what I do with it in general.-- R8R ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
You must have enable some extension for hover to work like that. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I just tried it on my smartphone. Yes, you have to suffer two taps.
I decided to check if other articles can do with just one, and I looked for a random wikilink to click and check. The link I clicked was Vespasian from one of our notes. The system there is even more complicated but, I believe, still acceptable. So I think we can agree that the current system is acceptable, too? Moreover, this system has happened to grow on me. I do think it has the good looks, which is a reason for a referencing style in first place.
From what I remember, fluorine passed an FAC in 2014 with a similar referencing style.-- R8R ( talk) 12:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Many reference entries could include more complete names of authors, but mostly all we see is initials. Authors are more likely to be identified properly when using known first name also. THis is useful for when we wikilink to the articles on the authors.
As far as I can see, this is something sort of a personal liking thing. I generally adopted the "Last, F." system because I wanted to give it a try and because I knew it wouldn't hurt me back if I do. Many universities use this in their referencing styles.-- R8R ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • eg "The memory of the women's white faces: Japaneseness and the ideal image of women" missing first1= Mikiko
  • We should have authorlink1 etc for notable authors. If we have no notable authors for all the references listed then I wonder have we picked the best ones?
Good call. Will add some.-- R8R ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I just went through the first two columns of the reference list. Added a few links. The third column and journals to be done.-- R8R ( talk) 22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 17:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • First mention of journals should also have a link to the article on Wikipedia. If this is done then ISSN is not needed for the well known journals.
I generally believe ISSN is not needed for any reference. This is well illustrated by how {{ cite journal}} this article heavily relies on doesn't list the |issn= parameter in any of the mentioned layouts in "Most commonly used parameters in vertical format."
As for journals: good one, too, will do.-- R8R ( talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Journals, as well as publishers, linked.-- R8R ( talk) 08:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Adsorption profile of lead on Aspergillus versicolor: A mechanistic probing" is a primary reference. Perhaps a secondary is "International Journal of Latest Research in Science and Technology ISSN 2278-5299 Volume 3, Issue 1: Page No.24-42 ,January-February 2014" Biosorption for metal ions removal from aqueous solutions: a review of recent studies NT Abdel-Ghani, GA El-Chaghaby - Int J Latest Res Sci Technol, 2014 - (Is that journal reputable?) Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I spent some time wondering if this was the case and then decided I'd go for a different citation with similar content published by ScholarlyEditions. I think this must be good.-- R8R ( talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The mentioning of the quasicrystalline lead with two references to Sharma's writings may be undue. They are both primary references, and I cannot see any reviews or textbooks that mention this. A high level article like this should probably not include details like this that are not found in secondary or tertiary references. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 03:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. Removed.-- R8R ( talk) 09:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Could this be re-instated as a note? Sandbh ( talk) 04:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
My initial response to a comment suggesting we should delete some information was just that: maybe we could put it in a note. However, I looked this through and the conditions under which it was discovered and it really seems such a minor detail. I am beginning to rethink the need to state that lead could be essential for pigs in trace amounts, because actually, this is super minor, too. A mention by itself gives a lot of credit, probably more than this fact is worth.
I'll take some time to think about it, though; but for now, I think we shouldn't.-- R8R ( talk) 06:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
It could go into some other article (if it exists) such as lead allotropes, solid lead or lead monolyer but not in a high level article like this one. There would be much more content that could be in this article, say on compounds, use, mining, minerals, but we don't have it here as it is too detailed, and can go into other articles. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That was precisely my line of thinking. I think I agree here. Also, will hide the bioessential stuff.-- R8R ( talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The line about a reported allotrope of lead was added in response to a question by User:Nergaal on wether there were any such allotropes, noting the many allotropes of carbon, silicon, germanium and tin. Allotrope formation is a distinctive phenomenon in this part of the periodic table, so it was a fair enough question. In all other relevant element articles we mention the existence of allotropes so it'd seem reasonable to do so here. The supporting references are primary so it doesn't warrant more than an 'It was reported in…' note. Of course, with things like compounds, use, mining, minerals, one could go into more and more detail but in this case there is only one allotrope and making a brief mention of it is the kind of high caliber information I hope to see in Wikipedia articles, especially at the FAC level. I'll go ahead and add such a note. I would've done so myself earlier but wasn't in a position to be able to do so. Sandbh ( talk) 22:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@ Graeme Bartlett: Graeme, thank you for your review. It was good as it did tighten the quality. (Again, I am sorry to say this days after the review itself. Please pardon my poor manners.)

Now, is there a question to which you believe you didn't get a satisfying response or is there anything you'd want to add?-- R8R ( talk) 14:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually I have not yet finished my reference review. So I am adding plenty to the delay myself! The idea is to determine if the best references have been used. Whether there is undue references used to support unimportant facts. Sometimes we get people keen to promote their own work dropping in a sentence and a reference to themselves. Though I have not seen this on the lead article yet. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of nutrition, an old textbook I have says a lead deficiency sign found in rats is hyperchromic microcytic anemia, and disturbed iron metabolism, but considers it not essential in humans. It covers lead far more as a toxic unwanted element in another chapter. [1]
  1. ^ Young, edited by Maurice E. Shils, Vernon R. (1988). Modern nutrition in health and disease (7th ed. ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger. p. 279,694. ISBN  0812109848. 
Sure. I think the article must be good in this respect, but you're very welcome to check this.
As for nutrition, the purpose why we even used to have that info was that importance in mammals may mean importance in humans. By itself, this is a biology-specific fact, very much so. Since we agreed the human info is of little relevance, then so is the animal info. We don't cover animals; nor because this is impossible or too difficult, but because this is unrelatable information for nearly all people and this adds little to the human information, which far nore relatable.-- R8R ( talk) 08:26, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
More reference review / source check
A
  • Acton: Book, seems to have little editorial input and is a collection of research statements, fact verified 1 use
  • Alsfasser: book, should be OK, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Amstock: book, exists, 1 use, but contents not viewed to verify fact 1 use
  • Anderson: secondary but old from respected magazine, fact confirmed, 1 use
  • Ashikari, journal article, is missing info, it actually has a first1=Mikiko issue=1; fact and quote confirmed. (on page=65)
  • ×Audsley, G. A. Book, exists 1 use; However it contradicts the "fact" in the article; The book says that pipes should be mostly tin, with a smaller proportion of lead, Any use over 25% lead requires an "elastic conscience". also this book says that the material (or how much lead) does not affect the tone. What is affected is the durability, and appearance of the pipes.
I never liked the organ material in the first place. Perhaps now is a great chance to remove it after all.-- R8R ( talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading the reference though. Perhaps the article can say "Organ pipes are often made from a lead alloy." How about that? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, why not. Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Australian Mining History Association, fact confirmed; better sources may be available in books; we don't actually know who wrote the web site content, or where they got information from. 1 use
I'll add this source instead: [1]. Here's what I could extract from the Google Books snippet view: "MINES AND QUARRIES. CHAPTER VII. Glen Osmond was brought into prominent notice by its silver-lead mines and its building-stone quarries. Silver-Lead Mines. It is generally accepted that Glen Osmond has the oldest mines in Australia"-- R8R ( talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
B
  • ×Bairagi doi and pmid correct; species name should be italic. Appears to have 0 uses, so should not be included, and no facts to check;
Will remove.-- R8R ( talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Baird, book, appears to exist, unable to confirm content facts
  • Bastasch, online newspaper; missing full date, which is important: 9 April 2015; fact confirmed. 1 use in a note
Why is full date important? Is it not better now that all references provide the same amount of data information?-- R8R ( talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
In any case, I think I'll rather move to this ref: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/nonlead-ammunition -- and avoid the question.-- R8R ( talk) 07:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The full date is important because 1 its a newspaper and you may want to find the print edition, and 2, it is connected to the article fact about when it happened.
The first argument makes sense to me. Anyway, as I said, I'll move to the new .gov source. This must be OK, right?-- R8R ( talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That ca.gov ref would be OK. For dates in references they should reflect how often the thing is published. For books just a year will do, most journals should have a month, but weekly or daily publications should have a full date. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The point that as I see you raise is unambiguity. Makes perfect sense to me and I'll follow. I'll note, though, that this is not really an issue for most scientific journals. They usually also have several issues per year or something. Rarely is the month ever an essential part of the info. That noted, I'll have your comment in mind anytime from now on.
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Beard: book; fact confirmed; M. E Beard appears to be the first editor. Second editor S. D. Allen Iske. It looks as if the chapter called "Imputing Lead Sources from Blood Lead Isotope Ratios" was written by Michael B. Rabinowitz.
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Becker primary research article; facts confirmed that it has oxidation state 3; Perhaps our article should mention this is called a "plumbyl radical". I am looking for a review article that covers this... It looks like a book chapter covers this: 10.1002/9780470666975.ch10 title=Stable Radicals: Fundamentals and Applied Aspects of Odd-Electron Compounds publisher=Wiley editor=Robin B. Hicks Year=2010 isbn=978-0-470-77083-2 Pages=381-406. authors=Konu, Jari, and Tristram Chivers. chapter="Stable Radicals of the Heavy p‐Block Elements." This radical is covered on page 391-2 of that. You can keep the discovery primary paper, but it is also good to include a secondary source to prove it is genuine.
Yes, the book covers this; will add.-- R8R ( talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ??Beeman missing doi=10.1140/epja/i2013-13050-7 retrieved and url inapprorpiate; primary research/synthesis. 1 use; Facts only partially confirmed, though all significant figures were removed perhaps our article should say 2.3×1025 to 3.4×10189 years ; each isotope has a wide range, and our article assumes the upper bound years with figures truncated to "1".
I don't understand; what's wrong with the url? As for ranges: the article assumes the lower bound of Pb-204 and the upper bound for Pb-207, both truncated to 1. It seems like an appropriate way to make these numbers a little less precise with the purpose of not fixing the reader's attention on these for too long for a secondary-importance fact that it is.-- R8R ( talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The link is not needed as doi goes to the exact same page. A url is useful if you can get to read the article somewhere else, such as supplied by the author. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable enough. Will remove.-- R8R ( talk) 16:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ×Berdanier reference does not appear to be used, the linked google books page does not appear to mention lead; so it should be dropped.
Will remove.-- R8R ( talk) 05:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 07:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bergeson one use; This reference is written by a person who appears to be an expert on the legal aspects, and not one the science and health side of things. I would suggest using an alternative medrs quality reference.
  • Bisel, chapter in book reference confirms facts, (and also some others nearby in the text) looks good. 1 use I used this google book URL https://books.google.com.au/books?redir_esc=y&id=3xfjyTqqR7IC&q=459#v=snippet&q=459&f=false but it needs transmutation for use here.
Added transformed url.-- R8R ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bisson, 3 uses; all facts confirmed (although p85 calls this Benue Rift instead of Benue Trough). suitable ref.
There is no difference. It doesn't matter.-- R8R ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ? Blakemore, book ref 1 use, superconductivity fact confirmed, but information about resistivity and comparison to other metals is not there - needs another reference.
Will add a reference to the CRC Handbook here.-- R8R ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Boltwood, B. B. 1 use. Primary reference. This is basically the person who first suggested that uranium and thorium decay to lead and helium. The reference suggests using the ratio of U to Pb as a dating method. It says nothing about the lead-lead dating or isotopes, so that previous sentence also needs a reference. A secondary or book reference should back this very old reference up with modern figures.
Replaced with a new reference: Levin 2009.-- R8R ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Bremholm 1 use primary research reference; The reference confirms nothing about PbS2 being a semiconductor, we need another reference.
This semicondictivity is not very useful since these are only stable at high pressures. Will change the claim to this per 1 and Bremholm.-- R8R ( talk) 17:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 18:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Burleson, book ref with one use, confirms lead use as flux for glazing. Looks OK. Could add &pg=23 to the url.
I am not particularly keen on adding &pg=23. We don't do this when we have multiple references to a source and uniformity is nice, I'd say.-- R8R ( talk) 16:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, I think the citation style used here sort of implies not having these links to exact pages. It seems more logically consistent this way.-- R8R ( talk) 16:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Bremner, 1 use, book reference, fact confirmed, looks fine
  • ?Burbidge, 3 uses, review reference. This is over 100 pages long, so specifying the actual page(s) used would be good. s-process p608-610, r-process also confirmed around page 641. facts confirmed.
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
C
  • de Callataÿ, review article, 1 use, fact confirmed
  • ?Casciani, reliable news source, 1 use, confirms statement, but statement in article is unclear " subsequent decreases in crime levels" was not due to exposure, but due to removal of lead.
Reworded; OK now?-- R8R ( talk) 17:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for making you wait for so long. Unfortunately, I'm going to be away from Wiki for a few days (one week at most, most probably less) and then I believe I should be able to return and edit at full strength and I will fix all issues you raise that are worth fixing. If waiting for me is what keeps you from posting more reviews, please don't let it be the reason. I'll be back very soon.-- R8R ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
R8R Gtrs: I am not actually waiting for you, I have been a bit busy and doing other things in my life. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ?Charles, primary research article, mentions fact in introduction, 1 use confirmed; a review or book reference would be better.
  • ?Chia, primary research reference, 1 use, fact confirmed, although most of what was prepared was a Pb(I) dimer. A review would be better.
  • Christensen book ref, 1 use, fact confirmed, could add page number 867 to url.
  • Copper Development Association, web site, 1 use, facts confirmed, book may be better
  • Cotnoir book reference, should add pg=35 to url, fact mostly confirmed. But alchemical symbol is not on this page. So another reference is needed for 🜪
Symbol ref added.-- R8R ( talk) 15:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cox The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance and distribution (should have capital D) book reference with one use in a note, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
Fixed that "D".-- R8R ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
D
  • Dart Book reference, page links to a section on lead, unable to confirm, but should be reliable.
  • ?Davidson book reference, uses 87a confirms only part, fails to mention Goldschmidt classification; native occurrence is mentioned on page 5 (so should be page 4 and 5); 87b confirmed; 87c partially confirmed, should also mention copper as an impurity; 158a confirmed, 158b confirmed; 159a, 159b, 159c, 159d confirmed; 162 also needs page 12 to confirm that sulfate is in the sinter; 165 confirmed; 168 - not all impurities end up in solution, as there is also anode slime which accumulates copper, arsenic, antimony, silver, gold, bismuth, germanium. The reference is good for the use given.
  • ?DeKock book source. appears not to confirm content it is cited for. But I cannot be sure.
  • ?Delile primary research article, facts confirmed, but review or book reference would be better. I am unconvinced that we need an exact quote: "unlikely to have been truly harmful".
The quote in question seems to be okay either in or out. We say, "According to archaeological research," and a quote seems appropriate. I won't insist on having it, though.-- R8R ( talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Deltares government report, 1 use, fact confirmed, OK
  • Duda, book ref, 1 use, facts confirmed
E
  • Emsley, J. book source, isbn appears to be for a 2001 edition. The page 280 does not include the information. ref 208 and 210 appear to be covered on page 226. No edition is specified in reference so what was consulted? I am looking at https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yhi5X7OwuGkC
No edition has been specified because I believe the year covers that well. I've corrected the isbn.-- R8R ( talk) 16:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Sandbh

  • Support on the grounds that it appears to meet, subject to Graeme's astute comments being addressed, all the FA criteria. I've been a significant contributor since being asked by the nominator for help with copy-editing. I particularly enjoyed the History section.
  • Re the duplication of the lead "Main isotopes of lead" table as the "Most stable isotopes of lead" table in the main body of the article, this duplication is likely a good thing given Wikipedia articles are commonly viewed on mobile devices. Sandbh ( talk) 10:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
At information level: a main infobox is supposed to summarize content of the article body, so some repetition of isotopes is to be expected. - DePiep ( talk) 14:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to respond; thank you!-- R8R ( talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from DePiep

  • My point re isotopes is: - DePiep ( talk) 23:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted above (re Graeme Bartlett), I think the infobox should list the most stable isotopes as is common in all element infoboxes. I am surprised by the addition of the comment [13] about decay chains and standard atomic weight specifics, after this FAC-ing. First of all it is textual so should be in lede not infobox (and I find it very hard to understand, of course because so much info is crammed in there), but more relevant: it may be important for lead, but that does not make it infobox-worthy. Also, the second half is more describing the effects on the standard atomic weight, and about not Pb-specific situations -- even less needed in an infobox. This info should be made clear in the section #Isotopes. But as a tertiary decay info --at best-- it is not fitting the infobox. - DePiep ( talk) 15:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I added it is that it means that the values we list in the infobox for abundances, a:s well as the atomic weight itself, may vary significantly outside the obvious range of variation. I agree that it was too long, but I think R8R has accomplished a skilful contraction that gets t;Isotopes in he main point here (a caveat lector sign, if you will!). Double sharp ( talk) 04:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
It now says: "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". True of course, and also superfluous (because Ar already says so; why not added there btw?), generic not Pb-specific (for example, 12 Ar=[interval] elements are much heavier involved into this; missing the word 'Earth'), and not infobox-level: details of the multi-layered concept of standard atomic weight itself, not the element (you'd always have to look this up before it has meaning). Let the section do this job. - DePiep ( talk) 07:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The fact that it varies this much is absolutely Pb-specific. The variation is small enough that it hasn't yet been changed to an interval, but large enough that you will very easily find samples outside the range given spanning almost the entire gamut from 204 to 208. Double sharp ( talk) 23:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
By now, the all-important 'variance of abundance' is well-described elsewhere. End of issue, all fine. - DePiep ( talk) 23:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Section Isotopes

Disclosure: recently I've tried to clarify " standard atomic weight" (created the article) e.g. being different from relative atomic mass and having derived values like "conventional value". It occurs to me that these subtleties are not easily recognised or distinguished even by scolars/editors, resulting in imprecise term usage in wikis (including wikidata). However, I understand that I should not push this perfection too far. For now & here, I ask awareness of the issue. - DePiep ( talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, acknowledged.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • About. Existing text: "(For this reason, the atomic weight of lead is given to only one decimal place.)[36]". While factually correct, I'd like to have this a more pleasant reading. Points:
Removing the () brackets would not disrupt anything IMO, so can be done (no need to make it a sidenote, atomic weight is quite relevant). If it is bracketed, it could be removed. If unbracketed, include it in text flow.
I like these parentheses. They are sort of editorial. I used to try to avoid parentheses in texts whenever possible but I don't anymore. This is a good tool when used right. Here, they smooth the transition from the standard atomic mass talk to the relative abundances change talk. Having them costs nothing, really.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
They have a reading effect, they make a sidenote. Then either it should be a crisp sidenote or a more complete side topic. IMO now it is neither. Always, main effort should be to do without them. If impossible, think & re-read why that is not possible: there is an editorial (write/read) issue in there. With my notes below, pls try to find an improvement for eadability. How does it feel when read aloud? - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)+
Sorry, I cannot clarify enough my points about brackets & reading, too subtle English language. I should leave it then. Maybe John could take a look. For me, it's out of my English lang league. - DePiep ( talk) 17:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I've lost the parentheses.-- R8R ( talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, out. - DePiep ( talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And btw, please do not use "standard atomic mass" (ouch) when I'm near ;-) ;-). - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Prefer writing "standard atomic weight" for "atomic weight" (equally correct, but 'atomic weight' is easily confusing, while adding the word 'standard' is removing all confusion easily). Also to check: use of short 'atomic weight' elsewhere, and adequate linking.
OK, will do.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Corrected in Isotopes; the occurrence in Bulk is vague and we don't need to refer to the standard.-- R8R ( talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Question. The sentence leaves much to be researched (homework), in how the abundances make the atomic weight. Could we have a more direct explanation, for example: "For this reason, the relative atomic mass Ar [not s.a.w.! DP] is x in normal samples and y in thorium ores", "... this variation shows as a large uncertainty in the standard atomic weight: 207.2±0.1".
I need another go to think on this one.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
You may know I love making texts accessible. Accessibility is my top priority. I've tried a few times to improve it but I honestly don't see what I could improve. Pretty clear, isn't it? Anyone should be able to handle it. Bonus fact: if a reader has to think something for themselves and then solves it, they're proud of themselves and keep going on, that's what happens often. The obstacle here is not too high; anyone should be able to do it.
Yet if something is actually unclear, please could you specify what it is?-- R8R ( talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
No I can not specify. My command of English—science—explain is too low, so I drop this. - DePiep ( talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Question. The source now for this remarkable abundance is: [36] Greenwood & Earnshaw 1998, p. 368. I have no access. If G&E adds details (such as various abundance calculations), it's fine. When it mentions just the value, maybe the source be {{ [14], which is by the defining institute IUPAC. - DePiep ( talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Checked both G&E and CIAAW2016. G&E supports the claim in its entirety; CIAAW does not. No changes are to be made.-- R8R ( talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Reasonable thinking. Will check.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
"... CIAAW does not" you say: weird. Alas, I drop it. (Sequence quest would be : what CIAAW report does G&E 1998 use, etc.). Done. - DePiep ( talk) 19:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The section's isotopes table ({{ Infobox lead isotopes}}) could/should contain all isotopes mentioned in the text. If so, missing are: lead-209, -111, -112, -114 (all with natural traces).
This is possible. Leaning yes here.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Added all without the decay energies (don't immediately know where to get them and I think we'll get rid of them very soon anyway because we don't use them in the text).-- R8R ( talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Decay energies are in the grand table Isotopes_of_lead#List_of_isotopes. For this isotopes infobox, removal of energy column is not discussed (so will stay). - DePiep ( talk) 08:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: this is a full infobox, hired from isotopes of lead. If this would limit good usage here by contradicting requirements between the two articles, a dedicated table could be made for this section. IOW, using that external infobox should not require compromises when writing a FA-level section in article lead. - DePiep ( talk) 09:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Isotopes in the top infobox
  • The footnote now says "Isotopic abundances may vary significantly". That better be like "Isotopic abundances [do] vary significantly".
I disagree here: if they do, then how? We may go for something like "Isotopic abundances vary significantly by sample." Is it OK with you?
OK, even better. Wanted to say: no need for 'may vary': they 'do' vary. - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Which isotopes in main infobox: The infobox should give a condensed resume of the article, not a copy. For this, I propose to remove isotope lead-202 from this infobox. As its mentioning shows in section Isotopes, it is an incidental fact not major for this element. (Earlier discussion here).
For the same reason, I'd ask reconsidering listing lead-205 and lead-210, though these could have better reasons to stay in there. I'd claim that having a long half-life alone is not enough (as a characteristic for Pb).
I see your point. Though if we remove all unstable isotopes, then there is no need for a table, as it is equally represented with a short one-line list of stable isotopes. Could we do it?-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If that's the outcome (four stable isotopes only), the infobox should cover it. No reason to feel restricted by this. Not the other way around. (Ask at WT:ELEM for table adjustment, see who responds). - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't feel restricted. I am ready to leave only four but we need to reorganize this part of the infobox in that case; otherwise the space will be wasted irrationally. Personally, that's what I'd want to do: only leave primordial isotopes in the infobox, and list only mass numbers and abundances.
If it is something that should be agreed on at WT:ELEM, then here is not the right to raise the issue in the first place.-- R8R ( talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: the main infobox should only list the main, characteristic, defining, calling isotopes. Then, if the result looks weird, we can change the look (but not the list). That look is maintained element-wide, not ad-hoc for lead. So, if the list only has 4 stable isotopes justified, its OK for this FA. And maybe we should improve the infobox — elsewhere. - DePiep ( talk) 19:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, done.-- R8R ( talk) 16:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Note: until some weeks ago, this infobox had headertext "Most stable isotopes of ...", today "Main isotopes of ...". This change relieves the main infobox of the obligation to give a complete list by half-life. Today, we can restrain ourselves to list only the important ones, preferably those as described in the article section Isotopes. My opinion is to be very restrictive here while being as complete as FA-needed in the section. - DePiep ( talk) 10:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The reference for standard atomic weight

Is reference [1], for the standard atomic weight of 207.2(1), good enough? The source could be either the 2013 technical report (as it is now, see {{ webpage. IUPAC should be mentioned? Maybe someone more familiar with referencing could take a look at this. BTW, the source is coded in two infobox templates so a synchronising is needed. - DePiep ( talk) 19:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it's quite good.-- R8R ( talk) 20:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
OK then. - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I would support leaving only the stable isotopes in the Pb main infobox, since they are all much more important than any of the radioisotopes. (Removing some of them but not others doesn't sit well with me, but removing them all is fine).

For general elements, I'm not sure "primordial only" is the best thing, because 35 elements have no primordial isotopes at all. Also, I would want the decay modes at least for the unstable ones: the shortest I could stomach for potassium is "39K, 40K (β, β+, ε), 41K", and I would like to see the long half-life too because it is assuredly important enough for the text. So I'd say the primordials make it, plus a few case-by-case exceptions of extreme importance (for example, T, 7Be, 10Be, 14C, 18F, 36Cl). But this is off-topic here and we can discuss it elsewhere. Double sharp ( talk) 00:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from John

It's looking a lot better than last time around. I still hate the unnecessary duplicated pronunciation guide in the infobox. Looks stupid.

Helpful to me. Visually, shall we put them together in one line? - DePiep ( talk) 08:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
That might help, good idea. -- John ( talk) 11:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done. (punctuation between still ok?) OK? - DePiep ( talk) 23:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Couple of chemistry queries:

  • The difluoride was the first ionically conducting compound to be discovered (in 1838, by Michael Faraday).

That's quite a claim. Electrolysis was invented in 1785. Do we mean the first ionic melt?

The idea is that it was the first solid substance found to conduct electricity. Also, the date should be 1834. Both fixed.-- R8R ( talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I raise my eyebrows at the idea of a solid ionic substance conducting. Are you sure? -- John ( talk) 11:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Are we talking about fast ion conductors? Might be worth a link if so. -- John ( talk) 11:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Carbon (coke or gas) is added to the molten charge along with fluxing agents.

Are we talking gaseous carbon here? Or a gas containing carbon? If it's the former that's remarkable, if the latter we should clarify which gas we're talking about.

We're talking about coke gas. Added a wlink.-- R8R ( talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a redirect to coal gas which explains Coal gas contains a variety of calorific gases including hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and volatile hydrocarbons. Can we explain a little? -- John ( talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Coal gas was what I meant, of course. Perhaps it is best to add a note. Will do.-- R8R ( talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done.-- R8R ( talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Its prevalence in the human body—at an adult average of 120 mg[q]—is nevertheless exceeded only by zinc (2500 mg) and iron (4000 mg) among all metals.[209]

Really? More prevalent than calcium, sodium, or potassium?

This should be "heavy metals," of course. Added.-- R8R ( talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

May be more to come but I can see supporting this time, once these few wrinkles are ironed out.

  • Further thought: why are lead-acid batteries still so widely used in cars when we have better, safer, lighter, more energy-dense batteries now?
Because they're cheap :) -- R8R ( talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Could we source a sentence on that? -- John ( talk) 02:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Added. (Also, from what I see, mass is not too much of an advantage because mass of an accumulator is nowhere near comparable with that of the whole car.)-- R8R ( talk) 12:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Why is it diamagnetic? (This is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article!). -- John ( talk) 20:00, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
If you ask me, our infoboxes have a lot of information that shouldn't be there. I am struggling to convince WP:ELEM this is the case.
As for your question, here's an intriguing idea: Lead(0) itself is 6s26p1/22 [15]. (In addition to that, the next group 14 element, flerovium, has all paired electrons: [Rn]7s25f146d107p1/22; reasons for this are also found in lead, although to a smaller extent. Analogously, Bi+ is 6s26p1/22. [16].) This could very well be your answer. Not sure if we should discuss this in the text, though. (Not to mention I haven't yet seen a source saying that lead is diamagnetic because of this.) I need to consider it for a bit longer.-- R8R ( talk) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies; it might fit into the discussion of its superconductivity. Why does it superconduct at such a relatively high temperature? -- John ( talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Diamagnetic substances are characterised by having no unpaired electrons, as Pb2+ does. The inert pair effect explains why β-Sn is paramagnetic while Pb is diamagnetic, as R8R states, and since the inert pair's effects for chemistry are already mentioned I would support adding a little sentence about the effect on the magnetic ordering. (C, Si, Ge, and α-Sn are diamagnetic for different reasons, having molecular rather than metallic structures.) About the superconductivity of Pb – this is actually also interesting: having a close-packed fcc structure it should have too much damping of the electron-phonon interaction for superconductivity (you can imagine it as there being not enough room for lattice vibrations and hence Cooper pairing). The reason why Pb still superconducts has to do with its extraordinarily high modulus of elasticity (ref). Actually all the post-transition metals (including Zn, Cd, and Hg) are superconductorsat normal pressure, except for Bi which has a semimetallic band structure and needs to be pressurised: the absence of polonium from the list is probably more a case of absence of evidence than evidence of absence. I'm still searching for a source as to why its Tc is so high compared to the elements around it, though. Double sharp ( talk) 04:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The more I delve into this, the more I start thinking that this may very well be the sort of thing that cannot be explained easily without doubling the size of the section, but I shall keep trying for a while longer. Double sharp ( talk) 22:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Added diamagnetism without superconductivity; at this point I'm not even sure if the latter has an accepted explanation yet, much less one that won't drag the article's focus away for several paragraphs.. Double sharp ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I've read the rationale now and I'm afraid this is unnecessarily complicated. I don't think we should include this superconductivity stuff.-- R8R ( talk) 13:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • And I hope you can live with the trims I did here and here. In each case, we had a major repetition, of the nuclear uses and of the chemistry of lead water pipes. -- John ( talk) 21:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry to keep coming up with things. Why does lead have a different crystal structure from that of β- tin? John ( talk) 14:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
    • They're not completely different; the tin structure is distorted fcc (tetragonal). The inert pair effect is significantly weaker for Sn than for Pb, so I think what has happened is that while Sn gives up its 5p electrons with about as much completeness as Pb for 6p, Ca for 4s, or Sr for 5s (the examples we give), the 5s electrons are also contributing weakly, being still somewhat held by the individual Sn atoms and localised. I admit readily that this is completely my OR and I haven't found a source for it yet, but it is not unheard of elsewhere in the table: the α-γ phase change in Ce comes from the localisation of the 4f electron (source), so if the s-electrons are partially delocalised in Sn and not at all in Pb it would adequately explain the difference in crystal structures, and the partial delocalisation accounts for the structures being different but not completely different.
    • Well, my OR train of thought for this persuades me that this would be a good thing to include! Now to find a real source for it. Double sharp ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
John, that's alright with me. I have lost the idea that many stars is the thing to aim for and that every obstacle is bad. Inversely, I think obstacles are good as they pose chances for improvement.
As for this one: I don't know if I'll be able to find anything sourced, but I'll give it a try. Not yet sure if I want to have it in, but let's see when/if I have found a source.-- R8R ( talk) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Crystal chemistry of tetrahedral structures (Pathé 1964, p. 13) says that the structure of white tin can be derived from that of gray tin by compressing the tetrahedra of the latter along their cubic axes. So white Sn effectively has a structure intermediate between the tetrahedral structure of germanium and grey tin, and the fcc structure of lead, consistent with the general trend of increasing metallic character going down any representative group. Sandbh ( talk) 00:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I added a note to this effect. Sandbh ( talk) 01:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the answers. I could keep making suggestions for a while yet but I think we are safely above the level of a Chemistry FA. Inasmuch as I can comment after 130 edits I now support this candidate. -- John ( talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support and your improvements on prose! I've taken some notes from your go-overs on how to write my future texts.-- R8R ( talk) 17:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome, it's been fun and I've learned a lot. A further question, sorry. We have Like the lighter members of the group, lead exhibits a tendency to bond to itself; it can form chains, rings, and polyhedral structures. in the lead, and we have brief mention in the organometallic section of chains, but there's nothing about rings or polyhedra. This means the claim is not referenced either. Would it be possible to write something about this, or remove it from the lead? -- John ( talk) 23:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
The rings and polyhedra are mentioned above when discussing Zintl ions; I'll make it clearer that this is what they are. Double sharp ( talk) 00:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, added a brief explicit mention of rings and polyhedra. Double sharp ( talk) 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! If these are discrete covalently bonded moieties, could we call them "molecules" in the lead? -- John ( talk) 10:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking good...

lead deposits came to be worked in Asia Minor since 3000 BC - this sounds odd to me - I'd say from 3000 BC in this case.
since 2000 BC in the Iberian peninsula by the Phoenicians - ditto here
These two have actually been discussed in the beginning of this review and we've agreed "since" is okay for our AmE purposes here.-- R8R ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, missed that. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
In Europe, lead production only began to revive in the 11th and 12th centuries, - "revive" looks a bit funny here. I always think of it either as a transitive verb or in the passive
According to Merriam-Webster, intransitive "revive" is fine. Maybe that's another ENGVAR thing?-- R8R ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Probably. I couldn't imagine writing it this way in British English, but I'm pretty sure that I've seen this construction used in American English somewhere. Double sharp ( talk) 22:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with that. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
During the period, lead mining proved important - you can remove this - the next sentence spells it out anyway

:::A good one, done.-- R8R ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but lead is more common than most of these metals, and lead-bearing minerals are easier to mine and process than those of many other metals - cumbersome, why not just, "Many metals are superior to lead in some of these aspects but are [generally/for the most part] less common and more difficult to extract from parent ores"
Good, done.-- R8R ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
One disadvantage of using lead is its toxicity, which explains why it has been phased out for some uses --> "Lead's toxicity has led to its phasing out for some uses"
Good, done.-- R8R ( talk) 22:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

prose and comprehensiveness on point otherwise. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and your time! Much appreciated.
(Again, I'm sorry to have forgotten to say it when first replying to the comments.)-- R8R ( talk) 17:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

  • From the lead section (pun not intended), paragraph 1: "When freshly cut, it is bluish-white; it tarnishes to a dull gray upon exposure to air." The infobox shows the default tarnished appearance, but it would also be nice to see a comparison with the cut bluish-white appearance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The sentence seems too promising. It would still be gray when freshly prepared and would only have a bluish tint. Corrected that.
For the picture, see File:Lead-2.jpg (in the text).-- R8R ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not convinced that the picture demonstrates "when freshly cut, it has a bluish-white tint". I don't think that the sample has been cut at all. Also, I am disappointed that the reference is a 1986 book in Russian [Polyanskiy, N. G. (1986). Fillipova, N. A, ed. Аналитическая химия элементов: Свинец]. While technically I suppose that the book meets Wikipedia's requirements as a source, it is an unhelpful reference as verification for readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The point is not that the sample must be cut; the point is that the sample must be pure, and freshly cut samples are purer until they undergo passivation in the air.
The source says, "В свежем срезе свинец является блестящим металлом серо-голубого цвета, который сохраняется в сухом воздухе, но быстро тускнеет в присутствии влаги." Google Translate translates it to "In a fresh cut, lead is a glistening gray-blue metal that persists in dry air, but quickly fades in the presence of moisture."-- R8R ( talk) 11:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I replaced the Russian citation with an English one. Sandbh ( talk) 13:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe I did try doing this before and I generally like having English-language sources whenever possible. This is definitely sort of information that should exist in English, I just didn't get to find it (in English).-- R8R ( talk) 15:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The "new" reference ("Writers of Eminence") was written in 1880...? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Also, there are still many references to Polyanskiy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
From what R8R says (which accords with my experience looking for this), there may not be a good equivalent to Polyanskiy in English which is similarly comprehensive as a source. There are a great deal of good sources in other languages that languish untranslated (I am still waiting for a translation of the more recent editions of Holleman & Wiberg from German, for example), so I would be willing to make an exception for sources like this when they are very good. Double sharp ( talk) 01:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It is a soft, malleable, and heavy metal." In this context, soft and malleable are adjectives, but "heavy" is not a simple adjective. A "heavy metal" is not a "metal that is heavy". The list sentence needs to be re-phrased to avoid the implication that "heavy" is just an adjective. My suggestion: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:01, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Good one. Unfortunately, your suggestion won't work (see WP:SEAOFBLUE). The solution I found best was to remove the reference to the heavy metals in general, though maybe other possibilities exist.-- R8R ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that lead's status as a heavy metal is worth including in the lead section. "Malleable" is an English word that shouldn't necessarily need a wikilink. Moreover, " malleable" redirects to " ductility", and "ductility" is explicitly wikilinked in paragraph 4. If you are concerned about separate wikilinks in adjacent words, I suggest: "It is a soft and malleable heavy metal." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't object mentioning that lead is a heavy metal in general. As for "'malleability' is an English word": it is, but it is one that many people don't get right. Many people think "malleable" and "ductile" are synonyms, which they are not; for this reason, we even have a note in the article about this. Also, I prefer to separate the lead from the rest of the article, in counting first links etc. Many people who read the lead won't read any further and some people who want to know something in detail won't read the lead.
How about we move the reference the lead's heaviness to the paragraph on chemistry?-- R8R ( talk) 13:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe "It is soft and malleable, and is often classified as a heavy metal?
Copying the note here won't do because lead is both ductile and malleable, and mentioning both complicates the matter. Here, we only give a subtle hint the two are not the same.-- R8R ( talk) 13:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The wikilink that I refer to is in the lead section. Regarding your suggestion of "often classified", lead is one of three elements that fit all of the criteria of heavy metals. I think its status as a heavy metal is more important than being "malleable", more so given that we already say that it is soft. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I can agree on having "heavy metal" back, but does it have to be on expense of mentioning its malleability? Here's a solution close to what we've had before: "It is soft, malleable, and a heavy metal." Do you think it's okay to go?-- R8R ( talk) 12:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Reworded further; please see now.-- R8R ( talk) 14:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Both the above suggestion and the current statement are fine. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Atomic", paragraph 1: "The similarity in lead is caused by the lanthanide contraction—the decrease in element radii from lanthanum (atomic number 57) to lutetium (71), and the relatively small radii of the elements after hafnium (72)." The first wikilink goes to "atomic radius", which seems fine, while the second link goes to "ionic radius". Is this intentional? If so, the sentence should use the full names of the types of radii to make the distinction clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice one! Yes, that second link doesn't belong there. Removed.-- R8R ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Bulk", paragraph 2: "It is the origin of the idiom to go over like a lead balloon." Shouldn't this be "to go down like a lead balloon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
See the source: "go over" is AmE, while "go down" is BrE. We use AmE in this article, so it's "go over."-- R8R ( talk) 15:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe we should give both versions, though. BrE users will understand AmE spellings, but they might not know all the different AmE idioms. Normally this doesn't come up because idioms are not really used in the sort of writing found on WP, but when the idioms themselves are the things being covered, I think it is justified. Double sharp ( talk) 03:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. This is sort of a minor detail I wouldn't want to interrupt the text with, but I've added a note (this is a fine solution here, I believe) mentioning the British version.-- R8R ( talk) 17:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Works perfectly for me; thank you! Double sharp ( talk) 12:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 3: "Their isotopic concentration in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of other elements. For example, the relative abundance of lead-208 can range from 52.4% in normal samples to 90% in thorium ores." The former sentence needs further clarification. I suppose that what is meant is that the percentages of the different lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the quantities of elements from the three decay series. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you basically got that right. Does it look okay now?-- R8R ( talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The word "nuclides" could be referring to the isotopes of lead or to the uranium & thorium isotopes. How about this: "The concentration of lead isotopes in a natural rock sample depends on the presence of radionuclides from these three decay chains." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
It's only Th and U that matter (the rest being their daughters whose occurrence depends totally on that of their planets), so I'd just refer to them as "these thorium and uranium isotopes". Double sharp ( talk) 01:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've edited it to mention Th and U explicitly as the parents; it should be clearer now. Double sharp ( talk) 01:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Physical properties", subsection "Isotopes", paragraph 4: "Lead-214, -212, and -211 are present in the decay chains of uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235, so traces of all three of these lead isotopes are found naturally." Why are these isotopes listed in descending numerical order? Also, I recommend adding "respectively" to the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure.-- R8R ( talk) 11:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", paragraph 3: "Organic acids, such as acetic acid, dissolve lead in the presence of oxygen." That's interesting. Why is oxygen required? This reference discusses humidity, but doesn't seem to mention oxygen. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the source doesn't go into any detail here. It's a very respected source, though -- it even has a template for wiki citations: {{ Greenwood&Earnshaw2nd}}.-- R8R ( talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "A further sesquioxide Pb2O3 can be obtained at high pressure, along with several non-stoichiometric phrases." Should this be "phases"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. This has been fixed, though, but you spotted it well.-- R8R ( talk) 20:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Other oxidation states", paragraph 2: "Many of them show defect fluorite structures in which some oxygen atoms are replaced by vacancies." Should this be "defective fluorite structures"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • From "Chemistry", "Inorganic compounds", subsection "Organolead", paragraph 1: "The most well-characterized exceptions are the purple Pb[CH(SiMe3)2]2 as well as Pb(η5-C5H5)2." Is it relevant that the former chemical is purple? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support from Double sharp

I'll heartily add my support based on all the improvements that have been carried out for this excellent element article. Double sharp ( talk) 03:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and kind words! (I'd want to add another word, but nothing falls on my mind. So just thank you!)-- R8R ( talk) 17:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

One small thing about the s-process graphic: alpha decay of 210Bi is a very minor branch and I think it may be better to not mention it entirely (also in the text). Perhaps we should also deemphasise the cycling from 210Po and beyond, because the cross-sections for neutron capture of 208Pb and 209Bi are very low, so this is actually not a very major contribution (10.1103/PhysRevC.70.065803); a lot more lead (about one-third of 206Pb and 207Pb) actually comes from the r-process from the decay of the elements in the Po–Ac valley. Double sharp ( talk) 14:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I can agree on the Bi-210 bit. Will do. As for cycling, not yet so sure. IIRC, according to B2FH, this is an important factor. The paper you cite is more up to date, but I'd want to know that other authors confirmed this. B2FH has too much reputation to be simply overwritten by one paper.-- R8R ( talk) 17:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It's just a minor detail in the picture, and I think we currently leave it vague enough to be fine. For instance, we don't say how much the cycling factor multiplies the observed abundance of Pb and Bi, and by not saying how major it is we don't make readers wonder how come capture past the closed shell is totally fine in the s-process and disfavoured in the r-process. Removing the alpha branching of 210Bi is more important, I think. (B2FH treats it as important, but in that time the alpha-decaying isomer was thought to be the ground state: now we know that it is an isomer and will quickly de-excite in a stellar environment and have no time to go to A = 211 before terminating the chain.) Double sharp ( talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, let's leave it there. As for Bi-210, I'm trying to update the file and unfortunately, it won't work, but I'll keep trying.-- R8R ( talk) 07:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Must be a cache issue; it still shows the alpha decay of 210Bi at my computer at home, but it's gone on my phone. Given that, I have no further reservations. Double sharp ( talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Smurrayinchester

A well referenced and well written article on an important scientific topic. A few tiny points that don't really affect my support, but could be neater:

  • The white face became a "symbol of a Japanese woman", with lead commonly used in the whitener. Why is "symbol of a Japanese woman" in quotes? It's sufficiently vague that I don't think it needs to be marked as a direct quote, and if you do want it be a quote, it's not clear which of the three references cited in that sentence you're quoting.
Yes, it does seem like a phrase I'd rather treat as a quote rather than state. Moved one reference to show which one I am referring to and added a precise quote.-- R8R ( talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Exposure to airborne lead from the combustion of tetraethyl lead in gasoline during the 20th century has been linked with historical increases in crime levels, a hypothesis which is not universally accepted I'd add "...and subsequent decreases..." - the striking part of the hypothesis is the decrease in crime with the introduction of "unleaded fuel". Also, we actually have an article on the Lead and crime hypothesis which should be linked.
As for "decreases": yes, you're right. Done. As for link: this actually has been discussed this and I thought we'd reached an agreement on having that link! Added.-- R8R ( talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • As with European industrialization, lead has had a negative effect on health in China. Something like "As was the case during European industrialization" might be clearer - it sounds like it's saying that European industrialization had a negative effect on health in China. Smurrayinchester 12:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure.-- R8R ( talk) 13:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, support. Smurrayinchester 13:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much!-- R8R ( talk) 15:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes

  • Have I missed a source review for formatting and reliability above? If we still need one you can request it at the top of WT:FAC.
  • That aside, it looks to me that we've pretty well achieved consensus to promote here but pls jump in, reviewers, if I'm speaking too soon... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am still in the process of reviewing the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I am reviewing every source, but it will take a while. See above. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 01:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari