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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Flora of Madagascar

Nominator(s): Tylototriton ( talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The land of the 900 orchids, the baobabs, the spiny thickets, and the traveller's tree, which suffers so much economically and ecologically, deserves a decent article on its flora! I've been working on this on and off for nearly two years. Did some last checks and think that it's not too far off from meeting the FA criteria now. Looking forward to your comments and criticism! Tylototriton ( talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Osbert Lancaster had three careers at once: cartoonist, stage designer and architectural historian and polemicist. I've expanded his article and, I hope, covered all three aspects appropriately. I have had the benefit of expert guidance here and here on the use of unfree images showing the three areas of his work, and have had a peer review from colleagues including some of Wikipedia's leading producers of featured articles. Further comments on text and images will be most welcome. Lancaster was a very English phenomenon, but I hope readers from other countries will find him interesting. Tim riley talk 09:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

  • what is "prowenochess"?
    • A typo, now corrected.
  • are you averse to using {{ sfn}}? It makes everything so much easier, esp. including providing a link between notes and references, and the ability to cross-check them...  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I find sfn hideously difficult, ugly and inflexible. I have used it when collaborating with editors who prefer it, and follow it as best I can when adding to an article that uses it, but in none of the FAs for which I have been flying solo have I used it, and hope never to have to. Tim riley talk 11:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said:

  1. Now I have to go through a process of copy/pasting your refernces onto a text file, massaging them in various ways, copy/pasting from there to a word doc, sorting, and then manually eyeballing each and every one, one by one, to compare them with your sources. That would be almost OK if I find no errors, but for many editors I find many very egregious errors. In that latter case, it is difficult for me to consider their actions as anything other than simply selfish.
  2. Moreover, as I also said, sfn creates a clickable link between references and sources – a service to the reader...

I'll start copy/pasting now. I'll check back in a while.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This has never been raised as a problem by any reviewer in any of the 30+ FACs I've taken articles to. Perhaps you might leave reviews of non sfn articles to reviewers who do not object to them as you do. Tim riley talk 12:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Done checking. I do not object about yours; yours are perfect. I am unhappy (as I said) when people use "I hate templates" as an excuse to leave large numbers of egregious errors on the page in hopes that either a) no one will see them, b) someone else will see them and clean them up, or c) someone else will at least save them the trouble of finding all the errors. I humbly suggest that you might chew your pencil tip in frustration if you had to check that kind... I don't think I could point out examples, as that would of course fluster the editors. But there are some repeat offenders. No problems in formatting or reliability here. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
That's a relief, anyway. Thank you for the check. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. With the addition of the extra information into the reputation section, this now rounds out the only area I thought lacking at the PR. This is an excellent article, fully within the FA criteria and a pleasure to read. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, SchroCat. Input at PR and here much appreciated. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Participated in the PR, and all points raised there were resolved. Very nice work indeed. Ceoil ( talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support ditto on the PR, ditto, ditto. Well done as always.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm most grateful to both Ceoil and Wehwalt for excellent input at PR and for support here. Tim riley talk 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support, with a few uncontentious observations:
Early years
  • "The headmaster, Stanley Harris, was a celebrated amateur footballer and cricketer..." Celebrated footballer, perhaps, but distinctly modest as a cricketer. Perhaps amend to "...celebrated amateur footballer and occasional first-class cricketer"?
  • Odd to see Thackeray described as an "artist". Perhaps he illustrated his own books, but so for example did Evelyn Waugh, and you wouldn't really include him in a list of artists.
  • (Aside): gaining a fourth-class degree after four years' study doesn't suggest he made much of a "belated effort"!
1930s
  • "...the diverse gifts of contemporary artists from Edward Burra to Giorgio de Chirico, Edward Wadsworth and Paul Nash." Do the last three represent collectively the other end of the range from Burra? Or is the intended sense "the diverse gifts of contemporary artists such as..." etc?
Postwar
  • What was the nature of the "centrepiece of the Festival Gardens" that Lancaster and Piper designed?
  • The sentence beginning "He illustrated or designed covers..." is in my view rather too long and over-complicated through punctuation. It could I am sure be stated more elegantly.
Later years
  • I'm not sure why you specifically mention the "Labour government" in relation to plans demolish the front of the Tate Gallery. A couple of sentences earlier you mention the actual demolition of the Euston Arch without naming the incumbent government.
Stage design
  • Nitpick: do we include the "Sir" when we refer to such as Geraint Evans (and, see below, Roy Strong)
Reputation
  • Superfluous "But" in line 2
  • "Sir Roy Strong, when he was just Roy a section or two back.

That's all. The article has the grace and style that we expect from the Riley stable, and is thoroughly deserving of elevation. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Adventure

Nominator(s): JOE BRO 64 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

In 1996, audiences were taught that a Mario could wall-jump. Now, it was time for them to see what a Sonic could do. Sonic Adventure, released for the Dreamcast in December 1998, is one of the most significant video games of all time for several reasons. For one thing, it was the first 3D Sonic game (there was an attempt that ended in disaster a few years before); therefore, expectations were high. It is also one of the first sixth generation video games and showed players the potential of a 128-bit system.

I've been nurturing this article for a few months now, when I managed to restore its good article status over three years after it was delisted. Ever since then, I've greatly expanded almost every section of this article, making it the most complete resource about the game on the Internet. I'd also like to thank TarkusAB, czar, and Adam9007 for providing me print resources that I wouldn't have had access to. Now, I think this article is of (or close to) featured quality. I'd like to have it up to standards by December for its 20th anniversary. Thanks! JOE BRO 64 20:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll start with images and sources, because that's what I do best. I'm not the greatest prose reviewer, but I'll try to look at some prose a little later.
    • File:Sonic Adventure.PNG - looks to be appropriately licensed and used.
    • File:Sonic Adventure Dreamcast.png - Just nitpicking here: no such free equivalent exists because the game itself is a copyrighted work and therefore no free equivalent can exist.
      • Done.
    • File:Sonic design for Sonic Adventure.png - Looks pretty good, but also no free equivalent can exist because the character is a copyrighted character. I do think this would meet the qualifications to justify fair use in this article.
      • Done.
    • File:Sonic Adventure compared.png - Same as above.
      • Done.

Will filter sources a little later. Red Phoenix talk 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources - spotchecks not done.
    • Missing dates on some sources. Source 8, for instance, is dated June 20, 2003 on the article, and it's far from the only one missing a date. It's preferable to have the actual article date whenever you can, even if you have an archivedate and retrieved date; it can provide relevance to how recent the reviews or information was in relation to the game's release.
      • I've gone and done all of this. Damn, I love the Visual Editor. Some, like certain 1UP and AllGame didn't have dates, so I left them out.
    • Source 10 has the publisher and date in the link, but not cited as the magazine or the date itself. Check the formatting here.
      • Fixed.
    • What kind of source is #13? It's hard to tell, or where I can find it to review.
      • It's citing a video. The source is a video interview Sega released in 2003 to promote the GameCube/PC re-release. The problem is... it was added to the article a long time ago, and the original video link has been dead for years now. You can find a re-uploaded version here.
    • List publishers whenever you can. Retro Gamer, for instance, is Imagine Publishing (except for a few of the earliest and latest issues). Having publishers listed helps readers to establish the reliability of the sources.
      • All refs have publishers now.
    • Keep your sources consistent as well. IGN is linked several times at random, and not linked elsewhere. It is also italicized in various places as well; it should always be as the website, then either IGN Entertainment or Ziff Davis as the publisher. Take a scan over and look for consistency in your sourcing.
      • Consistent now—all have links.
    • Is #78 necessary? "Sonic Team (November 14, 2006). Sonic the Hedgehog. Sega. Level/area: Wave Ocean." What specifically is this reference to the video game itself citing? If the other source says Wave Ocean is based on Emerald Coast, that's all you need.
      • The source doesn't explicitly call it "Wave Ocean", so that's why I added it. I'll remove it though—I'm now realizing it's not necessary
    • Same for #84 and #85.
      • The first one is actually necessary. I couldn't find any secondary sources that provided the detail that Chaos is in Sonic Battle, so I just cited the game itself. I have found a Nintendo Life source that mentions the Chaos recreation, so I've added that.
    • I'm unfamiliar with #91; what makes this YouTube video a reliable source?
      • It's an interview with Sega associate brand manager Ken Balough from 2012, so it's acceptable as a primary source. The quote that supports what he's saying is "I know Iizuka-san has officially retired Big the Cat".

Sources all look reliable based on my knowledge of WP:VG/RS, so let's look at what's above and we should be good on sourcing. Red Phoenix talk 00:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Red Phoenix: I'll finish with fixing up the sources tomorrow. I've responded to a few of your points above. JOE BRO 64 01:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Red Phoenix: I think I've resolved all issues with referencing. Responded above. JOE BRO 64 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Since you reference Tails by his full name (i.e. Miles “Tails” Prower) at his first mention in the body article, do you think that you should do the same for the first mention of the character in the lead for consistency?
    • You're right. I've done this.
  • For the final sentence of the first paragraph of the “Gameplay” section, I am not sure if the use of the semicolons are grammatically correct (i.e. the use of semicolons in a list). The same comment applies for the end of the second paragraph in the same section. It could be correct, but I just wanted to draw attention to this.
    • I've changed them to commas. I looked at other video game FAs and they didn't use semicolons, just commas.
      • Actually, the semicolons are the correct way to go here. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on. I have changed them back. Indrian ( talk) 23:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (As they explore the hub, players find entrances to), I am uncertain about the use of the word “players”. To the best of my knowledge, this is a single-player game so I think it would be more appropriate to say “the player”. The “they” pronoun would still work with the singular as it would be gender neutral. Is the reference to “players” appropriate for this section? It is a nitpicky comment, but just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • I've changed it to "the player".
  • I have a clarification question about this part (Action Stages; some of which have to be opened using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field). The current word, specifically the reference to “using a key that is hidden in the Adventure Field”, makes me think there is only one key to unlock all of the entraces. Is this true? If not, then I would substitute “keys” for “a key”.
    • I've used your suggestion.
  • For this part (Chao can be taken with the player), I think you mean “Chaos” plural.
    • Actually, within the Sonic games, "Chao" is one of those words that can be single and plural, like "deer".
      • Makes sense to me. It has been a while since I thought about those little guys so I forgot about that lol. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you thik you should be put the GBA acronym after the first mention of Game Boy Advance?
    • Yeah, I've done this.
  • For References 30, 31, and 32, the titles should not be in all-caps.
    • Fixed.

Wonderful work with this article. I remember playing this game when I was younger. I only had a few brief comments. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate help with my current FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Souls (TV series)/archive1) if you have the time and energy. I hope that you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Aoba47: Thank you for commenting! I've responded above. I'll take a look at your FAC later. JOE BRO 64 21:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Hope you have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 ( talk) 21:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Indrian

The content of the article is fantastic. The prose is a little weak in places. The series of edits I have made myself while conducting this review and the below observations will help in that department, but even with these corrections, I am not sure the writing is quite up to FA quality yet. We'll see what we can do though!

  • The History of Sonic the Hedgehog is a book, so every time it is sourced the citation should include a page number.
    • Done.
  • "the player is placed in an Adventure Field—open-ended hub worlds that they can freely explore" - Singular versus plural agreement. The player is either "placed in one of several Adventure Fields" or an Adventure Field is "an open-ended hub world that they can freely explore." Whichever you prefer is fine.
    • I used the plural.
  • I do not believe the term "player character" is a hyphenate.
    • You're right. I've removed it.
  • "Through exploration, the player finds entrances to normal levels called Action Stages" - What exactly makes a level "normal"? Perhaps the word can be omitted?
    • Yeah, I've omitted "normal".
  • "Chao can be taken with the player by downloading the minigame Chao Adventure" - Poorly worded. Chao can also be taken with the player if they lug a Dreamcast to someone else's house. We need a better way to convey the portability aspect of the creatures.
    • Reworded. I've made it clear the VMU is a handheld and moved the information about the GBA connectivity in SADX to the release section.
  • "Players can also raise the status of their Chao's status"
    • Man, as much as I love the GOCE, sometimes weird things happen when they edit articles! Fixed.
  • "The story ends on a cliffhanger, with Sonic chasing Robotnik." - Chasing him where?
    • Uh, the game kinda just ends with Sonic chasing him. I've reworded it to say "chases him to places unknown".
  • There is an organizational problem in the beginning of the development section. In the prelude portion, the article makes reference to Naka being excited by the possibility of the Dreamcast allowing him to make "the best Sonic game ever," which implies that working on Dreamcast was the impetus for starting the game. However, in the next section, the article reveals development began on Saturn and only switched to Dreamcast a few months later. The material about Naka being impressed by Dreamcast should appear when the article discusses the shift to Dreamcast development.
    • I've restructured it. I split Naka's learning of the Dreamcast and the beginnings of development (i.e. Saturn development and Dreamcast transition/basics) into its own section, and added some information about how Naka didn't like Sonic X-treme and thought that only Sonic Team should make 3D Sonic games.
  • "as development progressed the team wanted to challenge itself 'with in this undertaking of recreating Sonic, the character, and his world brand new'" - This phrase makes no sense and appears not to track with the included quotation from the source. He is saying that it felt like the power of the hardware was challenging the team to recreate Sonic and his world in a new way. The current sentence construction does not convey that and is grammatically incorrect.
    • Goshdarnit, I knew there was something wrong with that sentence. Fixed.
  • "The designer submitted several concepts before one was accepted." - This sentence adds little to our understanding of the subject -- I think its understood that most designs go through several iterations -- while harming the flow of the paragraph. I would personally take it out.
    • Cut it entirely.
  • "Sonic was also given new homing and light speed attacks to make the 3D controls feel more comfortable" - How exactly these new moves make the controls more "comfortable" is not clear from the article.
    • I've clarified this and moved it down to the paragraph about the challenges of transitioning the series to 3D.
  • "Iizuka wanted to create a villain who would serve alongside Doctor Robotnik, which would have been impossible to make on older hardware." - I assume this sentence indicates that they wanted to create a villain design that would have been impossible on older hardware, but as written it states that it would have been impossible to have two villains on older hardware.
    • I've cut the part about him serving with Robotnik.
  • "they changed their stance when working on the 2001 sequel, Sonic Adventure 2, only including the elements they deemed necessary" - This fact would make sense in a series article, but not an article specifically discussing the first game. Maybe it could be worked into the Legacy section.
    • You're right—I've cut it entirely. I might try to take the Sonic series article to GA sometime, so I'll keep this fact in mind.
  • "and introducing new elements such as evolution" - Chao evolution is not mentioned in the gameplay section of the article. If its important enough to be discussed in development, then it needs to be explained what evolution is in the context of the game.
    • "Evolution" was supposed to be a paraphrase of "improve its skills". I've mentioned evolution in the gameplay section, and reworded the sentence in development.
  • "The band created the game's main theme" - What band? First time a band is mentioned.
    • Oops. That's a leftover of when someone tried to add that Crush 40 made the music for the game (in retrospective OST releases they are credited, but actually weren't formed until 2000). Fixed.
  • "downloadable content were also added" - What downloadable content? DLC is not mentioned anywhere else that I can see.
    • I've reworded the sentence to give a better explanation of the original's DLC.
  • "This version is based on Sonic Adventure DX and supports high-definition visuals but most additional features were removed and needed to be re-implemented by purchasing them as downloadable content" - What was removed? It need not be a complete list, but as written the article gives the reader no idea what is missing.
    • I was actually able to add all the stuff that was removed because it was only three (big) things: the Game Gear games, missions, and Metal Sonic. The latter two can be reimplemented with the DLC.
  • Many of the reviews are from the time of release, but the article mixes in several that are retrospective in nature. These are very different types of reviews that are evaluating the game on different criteria, as release reviews are based on what has existed to that point and retrospective reviews are also taking into account developments since that time. They should be clearly separated from each other.
    • Yeah, I did try to separate them, but they kinda got shifted around with later edits. To fix this, I've added each retrospective comment to the end of the paragraph they're in and signified that it was a retrospective analysis.
  • One and three-quarters paragraphs on Big is too much Big. I would attached the first sentence of the stand-alone paragraph ("Big's poor reception and perceived uselessness caused Sonic Team in 2012 to decide not to place him in any more games") to the end of the previous paragraph and delete everything that comes after. If you want to do it another way that's fine, but we need a smaller Big presence.
    • Done.

That does it for this round. Its a fair number of changes, but they will really help whip the prose into shape. Indrian ( talk) 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@ Indrian: Thank you for the copyedits and review! I think I've resolved everything from this round; responded above. And I appreciate the comment that the content is fantastic—this is probably my favorite article that I've worked on. JOE BRO 64 21:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Acton

Nominator(s): SchroCat ( talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Eliza Acton was an English poet and food writer extraordinaire. She produced one of Britain's finest cookbooks, which, even 170 years later, remains fresh and engaging. The book is also important for being the first to provide a list of ingredients for each recipe, and timings for each step of the process. She was also a passable poet, and provided a later, scholarly work on the history and culture of bread making in England. This has been through a bit of a re-write recently and a very useful PR; any further comments are most welcome. - SchroCat ( talk) 15:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Eliza_Acton_1799-1859.png: where was this first published? Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No idea, I'm afraid! I'll have a hunt round to see if I can find it, but if not, I presume we're all good to have it as a non-free (only one, up in the infobox, etc)? Thanks Nikkimaria - SchroCat ( talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Gone for plan B after SarahSV established that this isn't Acton (the second time we've added an image and then found it wasn't the lady herself!) – SchroCat ( talk) 12:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

  • Humble, Nicola (2006). Sort error, expected: Hughes, Kathryn (2006-);
Done. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • David, Elizabeth (1968). CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Ray, Elizabeth (1968). "Preface". CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list; Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter? Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand some of these two, but what I have done is add the page numbers for both and put in the right ISBN (ISBNs were introduced in 1966, so this 1968 book wasn't too early). This is the original year of publication, so doesn't need the extra parameter, and an OCLC isn't needed because of the ISBN. If you could explain what the CS1 bit is,about, I'll see if I can sort that too. Many thanks. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, ISBNs introduced in 1970, unless Wikipedia is wrong. Your isbn is from a 1974 reprint of "Ray (1968) The best of Eliza Acton". Which source did you use, 1968 edited version or 1974 reprint? OCLC of 1968 is 123755053, but pagenums may be different, so pls verify.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, the infobox has brilliantly given an incorrect date, as the history section makes clear; some books in the late '60s carried the numbers. I'll check my copy later to see which one it is. - SchroCat ( talk) 14:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I think "a bit of a rewrite" is unduly modest; 504 words to 3,859 is rather more than that! I was a peer reviewer, and had my few, minor, queries dealt with then. One additional point that I must have missed (sorry!): in the Legacy section, last para, first and second sentences: "...indebted to Acton and her work. In her work...". Two points here: first there is a bit of a jingle in the repetition, and secondly the first "her" is Acton and the second "her" is David, and at first reading this is not clear till one gets well into the second sentence. I think you need to bring Mrs D in at the start of her sentence, like this or something similar: "Elizabeth David wrote in 1977 that The English Bread Book was a major influence on and source for her own English Bread and Yeast Cookery." That's all I can find. This is the third time I've read the article, and it has been a pleasure once more. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 16:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim, I'm much obliged for your comments at PR and here. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt

I also was a peer reviewer. Seems fine for FA.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks, Wehwalt, for your comments here and at PR, they are always extremely useful. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Gerda

Thank you for another interesting woman! I missed the peer review, and found only so minor points (which you may consider or not) that I can support right away.

Lead

  • "The first recipe for spaghetti" would be surprising, - first in England? Or first mentioning of the word in English*
  • "admired by and influential with" sounds (to me) like a phrase that is correct but perhaps not the most elegant way to put it.
    • Quite right; both done - SchroCat ( talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Early life

  • I'd move the image down a little, more to the context.
    • I work on a relatively wide screen, and if it moves down, it forces the next image down, which affects the triple image down. I know we can't mitigate for all screen sizes in the world of tablets and mobiles, but this is the way that affects least people. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cookery writer

  • St John-at-Hampstead: is she buried in the church, or on the church graveyard?
    • It's not clear from the sources, but as we say "at" the church, rather than "in" the church, we cover both possibilities. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Cookery

  • Imagine someone who goes from the TOC directly to there: "O'Brien", the first word. Who is that? Perhaps one line of summary before?
    • We outline who is is in the section just above (about poetry), so we should be OK as it is. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I hear you, only I thought - and said so - of a reader who comes via the TOC. Our readers have different interests, and not all read an article sequentially. Example: in a longer article about a composition, I repeat links in the Music section, because some readers may read there only, without background and history. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacy

  • I suggest you move the last line (1974) in chronology, to end on (2000) Seafood Lovers' Guide.
    • Yep, done. - SchroCat ( talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I love the flavour of the article, thank you! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies, understood, fine with me. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Chetsford

What a fascinating article. The only possible complaint I have is in this sentence: In 1861 Isabella's husband, Samuel, published Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management which also contain several of Acton's recipes. I'm not sure if "contain" should in fact be "contains" or "contained"? Maybe not. Chetsford ( talk) 19:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Chetsford, I've tweaked the point you raised, so it should be ok now. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil

  • lead: Well structured, and written in an engaging prose' - I dont think this phrasing is worthy of the lead, though I have no issue with the substance. Should be toned down and broken into specifics - ie describe the structure, which was certainly innovative.
    • I've removed it: we outline the structure in more detail in the opening para, so it doesn't need repeating. - SchroCat ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • lead: 'the book was successful - Better might be that the book sold in the region of x copies, and mention how this was way above numbers for anything previous and similar. Ceoil ( talk) 11:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I've removed this too. It would mean going into too much detail if we outline numbers sold, etc, and the following line says it was reprinted soon afterwards, which sums up the situation enough. Many thanks Ceoil - much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Only one thing struck me in this excellent piece Modern Cookery was not reprinted in full until 1994, and The English Bread Book was reprinted in 1990. since the later item is listed first perhaps link with although instead of and Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Jimfbleak - much appreciated; I've tweaked as you've suggested. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 16:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JM

A great topic; very much worthy of the star.

  • You use several different names for the The English Bread-Book (I use that title because it's apparently on the title page!) and it may be worth taking a quick look at the article on that book, if you find a few minutes; at the very least, the title and the (apparently not a) picture of Acton may need changing. (for shouldn't be capitalised, I think?)
    • I've clarified in the footnote. Although Bread-Book was hyphenated in the original, it wasn't in later editions, so I've used the hyphen almost all the way through as we tend to be talking about the first edition.
  • "Hardy considers the story as apocryphal" Is the as really needed?
  • Is "invalids" the best term? I worry that it's a little archaic. I may be wrong.
  • "referred in her preface that she was" Are you sure that works? I would have thought that she wrote in her preface that x, or referred in her preface to the fact that x?
  • "bread making" Dash? For that matter, what about "well received" in the lead? And "left over"? Maybe I'm wrong.
    • Bread-making and left-over now hyphenated. I'm not sure about well received. I think "the book was well received" is OK, but it would be a "well-received book". I think I have that right, but if a grammar bod wants to correct me for the nth time in my life, I'll do my best to remember it this time. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The food writer Alan Davidson considers that Modern Cookery "is" Surely he considers it to be, or says that it is?
  • The final paragraph of "Cookery": is your use of speech marks around recipe names consistent?
  • "The food historian Bee Wilson considers that many modern cookery writers are indebted to Acton and her work." How about "The food historian Bee Wilson considers many modern cookery writers to be indebted to Acton and her work."?
  • The second sentence in the final paragraph contains two semicolons; is that deliberate?

A really great read; I may not be back to look again (my time on Wikipedia is currently very limited), but I hope these comments will be useful. Finally: I made a few small edits; please double-check them. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, Josh. All sorted now, except "well(-)received", about which I am not sure. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Alex Owumi

Nominator(s): TempleM ( talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Nigerian basketball player Alex Owumi, who is best known for being the star player of a team owned by the family of Muammar Gaddafi on the cusp of the Libyan Civil War. He was trapped in his apartment for weeks during the conflict and struggled to keep himself alive. Owumi's story reveals the very best and very worst of being a professional basketball player outside the NBA. This is a very in-depth article on a subject that would interest all readers, not just basketball fans. Since its first nomination, which did not get enough attention, the article has gone through thorough improvements and should be able to pass FAC quite easily. TempleM ( talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero

I found this to be a very interesting article. I am relatively inexperienced at FAC, but I thought I would leave you some feedback to try and get this article to the next level. My impression is that it's not quite ready for FA, but it looks like you are making some steady improvements.

  • It looks like ref #1 (FIBA) has a broken link and it's not archived. You might use the GA Toolbox on the article's talk page to check your other links.
  • "Owumi currently plays..." - I know it's prevalent in sports articles, but "currently" may leave the reader wondering how current things really are. See WP:WTW.
  • Per MOS:COMMA, make sure you put a comma after the state or country when you have a city/state or city/country combination. In the first instance that I noticed - Boston, Massachusetts - I think you could just go with Boston by itself because it's one of the most famous U.S. cities.
  • "Immediately after college, Owumi failed to attract any attention..." - I think you could leave out "Immediately after college". Most players are attracting said attention during college. And the reader would probably assume that the next step occurred immediately after college.
  • "accepted a lucrative offer with Al-Nasr joining the Libyan team..." - comma after Al-Nasr
  • "British Basketball League (BBL)" - The full term and the acronym both appear twice in the league, and the article is wikilinked twice.
  • In the early life section, I don't think you need the comma after wealthy because wealthy and Nigerian Catholic are different classes of adjectives.
  • Why are there quotes around Prince?
  • In the college career section, what is meant by "did not officially play the position"? Do you mean that he didn't appear in a regular-season game at the position?
  • "began attending the Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) for the next year" - I don't think you need "for"
  • "the team did not bring one of its best defenders to the tournament" - This wording leaves the reader wondering. (Did they leave him behind in the airport terminal and not notice? Did they run out of plane tickets? :) )
  • "A two-star recruit, and the fifth-best junior college recruit in New York according to 247Sports.com, Samuel West and Jason Cable" - This is not grammatical because "recruit" refers to Owumi, not West or Cable.
  • "44–103 loss" - I think it's a little more common to list the higher score first, even referring to losses. In either case, pick one and stick to it. In the next paragraph you have a loss written with the big number first.
  • You end the college section and start the pro career section with sentences describing Owumi's hopes for an NBA career. Maybe combine those into one sentence?
  • "he worked out in Boston with the Celtics and in Orlando, Florida" - This is an odd word order if both workouts were for the Celtics; if not, specify the second team he worked out for.
  • Did he skip a practice to attend the Cannes Film Festival, or did he attend the Cannes Film Festival during the time he was benched? The wording is not 100% clear.
  • "did not have a future with the team" - Never signed with them? Signed but didn't appear in a game? Appeared a few times but didn't become a starter?
  • "... convinced him to find a new team immediately" - I am a little confused on the timeline. In the lead, I think you're saying he left at the end of the year. I'm not sure how close to the end of the year the event occurred, but maybe take out immediately?
  • "Owumi witnessed the deaths of about 200 people during the day" - maybe "deaths of about 200 people that day"?
  • "Going against his family's wishes, Owumi chose to follow his coach..." - Did Azmy go to El-Olympi? I don't think you specified that. Or by coach, do you mean this former player of Azmy's?
  • I'm confused by the sequence of events starting with the camp in Sallum. You refer to him being placed in solitary confinement, being released, sleeping outside, then escaping the camp. So he was released from solitary but still held at the camp (but outside) until he escaped? Could you clarify?
  • In this section, there are at least a couple of times where you refer to Owumi as "the Nigerian" or "the Nigerian guard" and it feels unnatural to begin referring to him that way this late in the article. I know that it can be boring to alternate between "Owumi" and "he" a thousand times, but his nationality is obvious by this point.
  • In the last paragraph of the Worcester Wolves section, I think Cheshire Phoenix needs to be linked unless I'm missing it earlier.
  • In the Surrey section, "He was strongly encouraged to join" - Did someone encourage him to play on Raftopoulos' team? Or are you just saying that he liked Raftopoulos' coaching style and decided to play for him?
  • In the personal life section, "After returning to the United States from Libya, his mother suggested" - Should be "After Owumi returned to..."; his mother did not return to the U.S. from Libya.
  • Link Daniel Paisner.

Good luck to you as you continue working on this entry! EricEnfermero ( Talk) 07:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer that served during World War Two. This is the second review of the article, as previously it had issues with context, which I believe have now been resolved. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

Notes/References formatting is looking pretty good:

  • Whitley 1988, pp. 56-57. Hyphen in pg. range;
  •  Done
  • Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (21 with; 4 without): Friedman, Norman (2014); Grooss, Poul (2017); Stern, Robert C. (2015); Zaloga, Steven J. (2011).  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done
  • Again, as per the coin article, below – is this a sources review? Brianboulton ( talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign (British coin)

Nominator(s): Wehwalt ( talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... One of the world's longest-lived coins, which widely circulated over it in its time and is still popular as a bullion and collector's coin. Enjoy. Wehwalt ( talk) 01:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

  • Clancy, pp. 47. P/PP error? pp. 47.;
Fixed.
  • Journals of the House of Lords. 52. 1818. p. 515. Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
I can't find an OCLC for this, Google doesn't mention it and Worldcat turned up dry. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Clancy, pp. 64—67. P/PP error? pp. 64—67.;
Looks OK to me?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
it's an emdash or two dashes, prob the latter
Fixed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Cuhaj, George S., ed. (2009). missing location  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Location added. Thank you for the comments.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 01:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Note: Is this a full sources review? Please specify. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't sure. Lingzhi?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Source review: All clear here, captain!  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Much obliged, thank you.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 08:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support. A most enjoyable article, well and widely sourced and referenced, and evidently comprehensive. A few suggested BrE tweaks: percent → per cent (4 times); channeled → channelled; and Lloyd George is not hyphenated. And just checking that "enobled" in the Prince Regent's proclamation is so spelled in the original. The two notes, a and b, are to my certain knowledge accurate in every respect, but could nonetheless do, I think, with a citation apiece. That's all I can find to quibble about and I'm very pleased to support the elevation of this excellent article. Tim riley talk 14:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you indeed for the review and support. I've done those things. Regarding "enobled", it is how they spelled it in the House of Lords Journal, but I find that most other contemporary sources spell it as "ennobled", so I will assume their Lordships ere in error.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Their Lordships are never in error. I was at ENO's new Iolanthe last night, where we were reliably informed by the Earl of Mountararat that 'if there is an institution in Great Britain which is not susceptible of any improvement whatever, it is the House of Peers.' But I digress. The added cites to the two footnotes are exactly what were wanted. I look forward to seeing the article on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, all this did happen in good King George's glorious day ...-- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Excellent, can't find anything to criticise. Now, where did I put that Edward VIII sovereign? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Lol. Thank you for the review and the support.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Avenue Range Station massacre

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

While this is not the first article about an atrocity I've brought to FAC, it is the first one from the Australian Frontier Wars that I've nominated. At Avenue Range Station in 1848, two white settlers massacred at least nine Aboriginal people, mainly women and children, including a baby. The main perpetrator, James Brown, was charged with the murders, but it didn't go to trial due to settler solidarity and legal restrictions on evidence being given by Aboriginal people. Years later, a "pioneer legend" arose about Brown which downplayed the murders. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

The sources are in good order, and are of appropriate quality and reliability. My one issue of concern is that a number of books listed as "References" are not directly cited at all. An example is Cook 1965. The "Later account" sections gives various details from this book, including a direct quotation, but they are all apparently covered by a single citation to another book. Likewise, later, Newland 1893, Cockburn 1927, Hastings 1944, Banks 1970 and Durman 1978. Is it not possible to cite any of the material in these books directly – are they all impossible to obtain? Brianboulton ( talk) 21:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

G'day Brian, I cited them to provide the full information in case anyone wants to refer to them. I thought that was a useful addition, given they and their role in the development of the legend are discussed. The conclusions in the article that are drawn from those sources are made by others. Do you think they should be listed as "Further reading" and not cited? Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll leave that to you. It would have made more sense to me, but I dare say the general reader won't be fazed either way. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

  • I'll take a look soon. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the infobox have dates?
  • The caption to the old image could be clearer. I wasn't even sure who it depicted from reading the caption, so would be good to say something like "James Brown (pictured here in 1927)". The date also gives context.
  • Brown was dead by the time the pic was published in 1927, so I added (pictured) to the caption to make it clearer. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 02:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "undeclared and covert war" WP:Easter egg links are discouraged, so maybe spell out the name of the wars after this.
  • "Eighty paces from the graves" A unit conversion could be handy.
  • "in which he listed the victims as one "old man blind and infirm", three female adults, two teenage girls (aged 15 and 12 years), and three female children (aged two years, 18 months, and a baby)" What was this precise list based on?
  • "Foster et al." Present and give a date for context at first mention in the article body, this seems very detached from the surrounding text. The intro probably isn't the best place to spell out the names of writers.
  • "the Wattatonga tribe" Link?
  • "Five years later" Probably better to just give a date. The reader has to jump back to the beginning of the previous paragraph to then calculate when that date is, which is unnecessary.
  • "a wonderful feat of horsemanship" Is this a quote? If so, needs quotation marks. If it is not a quote, it seems a bit flowery.
  • Is Eastwood's full name not known?

Sonic X-treme

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sonic X-treme is more than a canceled video game for the Sega Saturn - it's also in many ways a cautionary tale of corporate politics and the effects they have on a company. It's a captivating story of game development, I believe, whether you are a video game fan or not. I'm nominating this article because I feel it's a great read that meets the FA standards, and since its GA has undergone a major expansion to make it as comprehensive and well-sourced as it can be. It is the first article I've worked on since returning from a three-year absence on Wikipedia, however, so I welcome all the feedback I will receive and will do my best to address any concerns that arise. Red Phoenix talk 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64

Woohoo, another Sonic FAC! I'll finish reviewing this within the next day. JOE BRO 64 23:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Just as a general note for the article, there seem to be a lot of quotations (excluding the quote boxes). While this isn't a bad thing, I'd recommend paraphrasing most of these.
    • It tends to be, mostly because Senn and Wallis provided so much insight into the game development. I've actually already paraphrased a lot before we ever got to FAC, but I'll take a look over it and paraphrase some more where I feel I can without taking away meaning.
  • Lead designer Chris Senn states that he modeled and textured four main characters, as well as designs for 50 different enemies and an hour of music.[2] Later builds had Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles as playable characters.[1]—were the four characters Senn modeled Sonic, Tiara, Tails, and Knuckles? From the way this is written, it sounds like you're talking about different characters.
  • You mention STI in the premise section, but you don't explain what this stands for until the background section.
    • Oops. I restructured this article over and over so many times that I must've missed it. Fixed.
  • In 1991, they began development on several titles that would lead to the creation of Sonic the Hedgehog 2—several games were merged together into Sonic 2? Proposed change: In 1991, they began development on several titles, among them Sonic the Hedgehog 2
    • Used your wording, thanks.
  • David Houghton of GamesRadar described the prospect of "a good 3D Sonic game" on the Saturn as "a 'What if...' situation on a par with the dinosaurs not becoming extinct."[9] IGN's Travis Fahs called X-treme "the turning point not only for SEGA's mascot and their 32-bit console, but for the entire company", although he also noted that the game served as "an empty vessel for SEGA's ambitions and the hopes of their fans".[8] Dave Zdyrko, who operated a prominent website for Saturn fans during the system's lifespan, offered a more nuanced perspective: "I don't know if [X-treme] could've saved the Saturn, but ... Sonic helped make the Genesis and it made absolutely no sense why there wasn't a great new Sonic title ready at or near the launch of the [Saturn]".[30] In a 2007 retrospective, producer Mike Wallis maintained that X-treme "definitely would have been competitive" with Nintendo's Super Mario 64.[3] Senn has expressed his belief that a version of X-treme built by him with Alon's engine could have sold "quite well".[2]—this "A of B said C" structure should generally be avoided, since it's a bit dull and repetitive. See WP:RECEPTION.
    • I gave this a shot. Let me know what you think. I agree with WP:RECEPTION where it says, "even good writers have trouble with these sections".
  • I recommend archiving your sources.
    • Done. Wow, that was easy. I'd never heard of that bot before; definitely a tool I'll have to save for future article writing.

Overall, this article is in fantastic shape. I think this is an interesting story, and it's weird to think where Sonic would be if this game was released. Once my comments are addressed, I will support the promotion of this article. JOE BRO 64 12:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've addressed my concerns, so I'm happy to support this article's promotion. I found this article outstandingly comprehensive and informative; I'm sort of wondering if Sonic Adventure (which might be at FAC soon, wink wink) would have ever existed had X-treme been released. JOE BRO 64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, just a question: which version of the game engine is this? JOE BRO 64 01:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll respond to this one on your talk page. No reason to clutter up an FAC with this :) Red Phoenix talk 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Comments from Aoba47
  • Please include ALT text for the infobox image. The other images in the body of the article should also have ALT text.
    • Done. Forgot this was a thing; it's been a while.
  • For this part (then eventually to the Saturn and PC,), I am not sure if the “eventually” part is necessary.
    • Fixed.
  • I would use Knuckles’ full title (i.e. Knuckles the Echidna) on the first use of the character’s name in the body of the article.
    • Done
  • For Reference 1, Destructoid should be linked.
    • Oops, not sure how I missed that. Fixed.
  • Game Players should be linked in References 5 and 6.
  • I have been given this note in the past, but all of the work/publisher should be linked in the citations format. For instance, IGN is not linked in several of the citations.
    • Grouping the last two together: That's actually not what I was ever taught to do in any of my previous FA's. Past direction I have been given and I've used in all of my articles since was to link the site and publisher for the first reference that uses it on the list of references, but not to repeatedly link it in references beyond the first use due to overlinking. If it's something you've been given as an FA note, however, maybe we can ask for a second opinion on this one? Red Phoenix talk 04:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I will leave this up for other reviewers. Aoba47 ( talk) 17:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 02:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

1867 Manhattan, Kansas earthquake

Nominator(s): ceran thor 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This article has been a long work-in-progress. I recently expanded it a great deal, and it received an insightful peer review from Eddie891, FrB.TG, and Pseud 14 here. Besides one broken external link (waiting on the USGS to get back to me about restoring the page), I think this is ready. I look forward to feedback! ceran thor 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I'm a simple person. I look for little in a article. Besides great quality, comprehensiveness, and good prose. Good work! Eddie891 Talk Work 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. ceran thor 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support an interesting article. I had never heard of it. Just a few comments.

  • "According to a report in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, the frequency between earthquakes within the state is between 40 and 45 years.[11] " do they give a lower limit on the Richter scale for this?
The article says "There were 2 moderately strong ones—on April 24, 1867, and January 7, 1906. A frequency plot reveals that a moderately strong earthquake occurs in the state approximately every 40 to 45 years." So it doesn't look like they explicitly define the limits. ceran thor 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I might find some way of conveying to the reader that minor quakes don't count.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I added "moderately strong". ceran thor 03:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "interfered with the stability of " I might simplify to "otherwise damaged".
  • " newspaper cases" What is a newspaper case?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The source refers to "cases" that "shook in a newspaper room". I changed to "cases holding newspapers". ceran thor 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I've encountered the term in connection with typesetting, which may or may not be relevant.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "sunk by 10 degrees.[25]" can you clarify? Did it become tilted at 10 degrees? A whole acre?
Changed to "sunk by 10 degrees, forming a perpendicular wall tilted at 10 degrees on each of its sides." Source says "a whole acre sank 10', leaving a perpendicular wall of 10' on all sides." Could mean inches, I suppose? ceran thor 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
That makes more sense. I was thinking that if an acre of land is flat but tilted at 10 degrees, one end is going to be at least 70 feet higher than the other.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Reference 13 is missing its newspaper. I'd update the 2010 accessdates throughout.
Thanks for the support. I am working through your comments now. ceran thor 00:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Wehwalt: Everything that I didn't reply to should be addressed! ceran thor 00:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, swell. Good job.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my peer review. FrB.TG ( talk) 16:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the peer review, and for your support. ceran thor 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. ceran thor 23:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my comments at the peer review. -- Pseud 14 ( talk) 05:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Pseud. ceran thor 16:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Minor comment: Haven't read through the article, but happened to notice a sentence beginning with "Originating at 14:22 local time, or around 2:30 local time". Did you mean to say "Originating at 20:22 UTC, or around 2:30 local time"? -- Usernameunique ( talk) 22:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That seems like something I messed up. I will double check that now. ceran thor 22:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Usernameunique: I think I fixed this. Good catch! ceran thor 22:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks good! -- Usernameunique ( talk) 23:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 7: March 2 1867 – year should be 1987, surely?
  • Refs 13 & 15: require page numbers in lieu of links
  • Ref 26: is returning 404 error

Otherwise the sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 19:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Brianboulton, first two comments have been addressed. For the third, I'm assuming you mean ref 15 for the 404 error. I have contacted USGS about the page and am awaiting a response. If I don't hear within the next few days, I think I can pull the same info from other sources. Thanks for your comments. ceran thor 00:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I got my knickers in a twist – it was 13 and 26 that required page numbers (now supplied) and 15 that returns the 404 error. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
No worries - I understood your intention. Haven't heard from USGS yet, so I'll probably end up replacing ref 15. Will keep you posted. ceran thor 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Brianboulton: Replaced, as it appears the USGS site was taken directly from the existing Stover & Coffman 1993, p. 236 source. Should be taken care of, but please let me know if I missed anything else. ceran thor 03:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk ( talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This is an article about a dinosaur that was made famous by the movie Jurassic Park, and is therefore one of our most popular articles about a dinosaur genus. The movie also took great "artistic" liberties with the dinosaur, so this article is a good place to set the record straight. Most of the other dinosaurs that featured in the movie are already FAs. I think this is a pretty definitive account, which may educate people who come here by way of the movie about what the real animal was like. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lingzhi

  • Inconsistent use of Location (11 with; 4 without); Holtz, T. R. Jr. (2012); Paul, G. S. (2010); Glut, D. F. (1997); Gay, R. (2005).
Added. FunkMonk ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Harshbarger, J. W.; Repenning, C. A.; Irwin, J. H. (1957). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Don't know how to find it, and anyhow, if I add it to one, wouldn't I have to add it to all? FunkMonk ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be kinda nice, but not at all required, to use |display-authors= for cases like "Xing, L.; Bell, P. R.; Rothschild, B. M." [B.M.! What an unfortunate set of initials.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What does "display-authors" do? FunkMonk ( talk) 16:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
The preview says one of the sources has double "pages" fields, but doesn't specify which. Maybe your script could show which sources that have duplicate fields, Lingzhi? FunkMonk ( talk) 00:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It was just removed with this[1] edit. FunkMonk ( talk) 00:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @ FunkMonk: Duncan, J. (2007). Missing Publisher;
Whoops, added. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll try to see what error msg you were looking at earlier...  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Support on prose, which is excellent here. Ceoil ( talk) 10:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk ( talk) 00:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Excellent article, but a few nitpicks to show I've read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, we still expect multiple refs to be in numerical order
Haven't seen it brought up during source reviews before, though? Is there an easy way to do this? FunkMonk ( talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Not AFAIK, I always do it because I've been told to before, but not a big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The two most complete of these were collected in 1942, with the most complete later made—since it's in the lead, I'd try to avoid the repetition of "most complete"
Said "best preserved" the first time instead, better? FunkMonk ( talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • even thermoregulation as well—lose "as well"
Removed. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The high degree of pain it must have experienced in multiple locations for long durations—speculative to say the least. Many fractures and other injuries heal without long-term pain
Yeah, the source says this, though: "It is also a testament to the hardiness of an animal that doubtlessly experienced an agonizingly long duration (or durations) of high degrees of pain in multiple locations." I've changed "must" to "might" for now, or what do you think? FunkMonk ( talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The fact that the author is speculating, rather than you, doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion. Also "might" doesn't justify "shows". I'd be inclined to either lose the sentence altogether or make it clear that it's the authors' speculation rather than a hard fact. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Taphonomy—arguably the least inviting heading I've ever seen. Surely there must be something more intelligible?
Hmm, not sure what that would be, it is a very specific term that doesn't translate easily without using a whole sentence. I could also just remove the section header entirely? FunkMonk ( talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I commented on that here[2], maybe say "like what has been proposed/claimed for the Komodo dragon" or something? I've done that for now. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Given the dubious nature of that claim, I'm not sure that it's a good idea to even mention the lizard. I'll leave that to you.
I'm not convinced on either the pain or Komodo sentences, but I'll let you decide on those and support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give attribution for the pain sentence, and maybe wait it out on the Komodo dragon to see if it is brought up again... I would prefer if I could just mention the Gila monster instead, as Crichton actually does in the book, but that's of course not what the geologist does for some reason... FunkMonk ( talk) 10:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Point du Sable

Nominator(s): Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jean Baptiste Point du Sable, a trader living on the frontiers of empires in North America. He is regarded as the founder of Chicago. Although I have been involved in the article for years, now retired editor and former administrator JeremyA ( talk · contribs) did much admirable work to get the article to Good Article, and made the prior nomination, here. In North America, February is Black History Month, and in January, I thought it a good time to review this article, again. I looked at the last nomination and thought I might honor Jeremy's work by completing the FA he wanted for this article. Corinne ( talk · contribs) kindly responded to a request I made for review at the Guild of Copy Editors. Wehwalt ( talk · contribs) has generously provided some peer review. Thank you. - Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • As noted, I weighed in at the peer review. On re-reading a few more comments about what is an exellent article.
  • "In 1779 he was living on the site of present-day Michigan City, Indiana, when he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer during the American Revolutionary War. " I would move the name of the war to the start of the sentence to better separate the two "Americans".
  • "In what would become the city of Chicago, he established an extensive and prosperous trading settlement. " I would reverse the two clauses.
  • "though it is likely they were married earlier in the 1770s in the Native American tradition." I would move "in the 1770s" to the end of the sentence and delete "earlier"
  • " were seeking to assert control in the former southern dependencies of French Canada and the Illinois Country. [14]" I might toss an "in" before "the Illinois Country".
  • "In August 1779 Point du Sable was arrested as a suspected spy during the American Revolutionary War at Trail Creek by British troops and imprisoned briefly at Fort Michilimackinac." I might move "during the American Revolutionary War" to just after 1779, and enclose it with commas.
  • "Drawing of the home of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable in Chicago as it appeared in the early 1800s" I might say "former home" as he no longer owned it.
  • "public assistance" from the government or the parish?
Thanks for asking -- in trying to pin down his last very elderly years, we run again into the vagueness and opaqueness of the record (including in the source used, there) - at some point, it seems his family are no longer in the picture, and he may have sought assistance either due to poverty or the ravages old age - I have changed to 'may have sought public or charitable' to give it a wider latitude, which would also be a fair summary of the source used. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "fraudulent land claims" you use this phrase shortly before, so I might change to "such false claims" or similar.
  • "A plaque was erected by the city in 1913 at the corner of Kinzie and Pine Streets to commemorate the homestead.[67] " I assume you mean Kinzie but I'd clarify.
  • " Previously a small street named De Saible Street had been named after him.[44]" If it still is, I'd add a comma after "Previously".
That's it. A fine article on a neglected topic.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, I have incorporated all your, again very fine, suggestions in the article. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 4: I'm a little uneasy about this source. It states that the website is based on a self-published book. The essay that forms the basis of ref 4 is said to be "currently undergoing revision based on new information and documents found since 1999" which raises issues of its stability. There is no information on the author of the essay, named as "John F Swenson" – is he an expert? The source is also the basis of refs 50, 58 and 59. Can you give any further information that might establish its quality and reliability?
Thanks. Yes, I once talked to Jeremy, who used Swenson, and then I looked into him, myself, awhile ago. Swenson and his essay are cited on Du Sable in this University of Chicago history here. He is cited as an authority by the New York Times on Du Sable here. Swenson published in this scholarly journal on Chicago history here. The book that is the basis for the website is world cat held by several libraries, including university and scholarly instititions. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 01:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 15: Paywall, so you should add the (subscription required) template.
  • Ref 51: IBSN missing: it is 978-0-89792-140-4. For consistency, the existing 10-digit ISBNs can be converted to 13-digit form via [3]
  • Ref 60: "Liette" is mis-spelt
  • Ref 68: page ref missing
  • Ref 73: Typo "retrieved" → "Retrieved"
Oddly enough the template generates that and won't let me change it, or I just don't know how. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 76: Give the site publisher (Smithsonian National Postal Museum) rather than the web address. Also, keep to the established retrieval date format
  • Ref 77: Retrieval date format.

Otherwise, the sources appear to be in good order and of the requisite quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I have now made your ref corrections or responded as noted above. Thank you. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

All images are used appropriately and are appropriately licensed.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I shall be supporting the promotion of this excellent article, but first a couple of quibbles about WP:OVERLINK: we have the Chicago River linked twice in the lead and Fort Michilimackina linked twice in the main text. Other than that, only two more comments. First, there is a statement in the lead that does not quite tally with the equivalent statement in the main text: "he was arrested by the British military on suspicion of being an American sympathizer" and "Point du Sable was arrested as a suspected spy": not quite the same thing. And secondly, in footnote 2 I am uneasy about "Quaif notes", the verb seeming to me to imply endorsement of his statement, whereas something like "comments" or "remarks" would be more neutral. If you disagree with me on the last point I shall not press the point. Tim riley talk 19:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, very helpful. I have made all the corrections/clarifications, you have requested. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Happy to Support the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by Coemgenus

There is little here to quibble about. This is a well-written article about an historical figure about whom little is known--a difficult task. I made some minor tweaks to hyphens and dashes, but otherwise this article looks to me to be qualified for the bronze star. Nice work. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 23:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that is best known, if not largely forgotten, for fighting in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over 1/3 of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender. The article has been given the once over by the Guild of Copyeditors, and has passed both its GA and A-Class reviews. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 22:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:18_inf_div_-vector.svg should include a date for the original design
    Was this in regards to the PD-UKGov tag that was in use? If so, I have updated in favor of PD-Shape. Other than that, I do not believe any work includes a date the design was actually conjured up. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG is missing info on first publication. Same with File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    In regards to these two, the AWM (link and link states the copyright has expired on both works. It does not, however, provide information regarding when it was first published. So, how do we proceed from here? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

A few minor points:

  • Ref 21: Pedantically, IWM is plural ("Museums" not "Museum"). Also you should use "publisher=" rather than "website=", which will de-italicise IWM
    Quite! Also, amended per your comment. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 48: The hyphen in the p. range needs to be a ndash
    Amended EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to differentiate in the short citations between the two "Playfair et al 2004" sources.
    Would a simple "a" and "b" tacked on the end of the year suffice? EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Otherwise, the sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Ditto. All citations & references formatted well.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5 Here am i again the page look good let see i have some comments.

  • See an American English organization or is it a name of an organisation and if it is a name of an organisation then please link it then.
    I rechecked the Gazette, and they use the "z". I have been unable to locate an article about this position, so have red-linked it per the above. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Link the units 135th Field Regiment, 287th Field Company and Japanese I/5th Battalion.
    British artillery and engineer units generally do not have articles, and in particular these two. Likewise, no article exists for the Japanese battalion. In all cases, however, the relevant parent organization is linked to soo after. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Switch this units.

Australian 22nd Brigade --> 22nd Australian Brigade

Japanese I/5th Battalion --> I/5th Japanese Battalion

Australian 2/29th Battalion --> 2/29th Australian Battalion

Japanese 5th Infantry Division --> 5th Japanese Infantry Division

Australian 2/30th Battalion --> 2/30th Australian Battalion

  • I would feel more comfortable if additional editors could chime in on this one. My personal preference, based I guess off a British POV, would to be use the style you have suggested. The current style is one that seems to more favored on the wiki, it would seem. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Link this please.

Middle East in this line "on 10 November destined for the Middle East"

  • I have added the link to the first mention, a few sentences before this point. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Nova Scotia in this line "continued to Nova Scotia"

Muar–Yong Peng road in this line "troops on the Muar–Yong Peng road back under the command of Westforce"

  • Linked to Muar, and added a link to Yong Peng at first mention. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Canada in this line. "American ships and left Canada bound"

United Kingdom in this line. "which led the United Kingdom to secure"

  • This has already been linked to, in the first line of the background section. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Please change this two.

south-west --> southwest

11 weeks at sea --> eleven weeks at sea

  • Per the WP:MOS, I feel like this should be left alone. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Who's Wavell? I mean i don't see his first name and rank or job.

This line is the first time i see the name in the page.

"On 20 January, Wavell visited Singapore to discuss the defence of the island"

And for the rest i don't see his first name and rank or job if it is there please tell me where and if he isn't linked then link him/she then.

  • Introduced in full, in the Transfer to Middle East section. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • who were the original uploaders of this two images? File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png
    User: Muffin Wizard uploaded the first, and I uploaded the latter. If you are referring to the "unknown" author, that is based off the information available at the Australian War Memorial. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Put please the category Military units and formations disestablished in 1942 in the page.
    Added EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Which government in this line?

"the British Government sought"

Which government the Chamberlain war ministry or the Churchill war ministry?

  • I, personally, do not feel that this needs to be clarified upon. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5 So i hope this will help you i did reviewed the A-class before and i hope this page will get a FA-class goodluck further on. CPA-5 ( talk) 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Once more, thank you for your time and review. I have attempted to address several of your comments, and have left comments of my own for a few others. EnigmaMcmxc ( talk) 23:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of George Washington

Nominator(s): Orser67, Drdpw & Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the presidency of George Washington. After going under a thorough Good Article Review by Display name 99, and a Peer Review by both Wehwalt and Ceranthor, I feel the article about the presidency that shaped America perhaps more than any other meets the Featured Article criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Coat_of_Arms_of_George_Washington.svg should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
  • File:Washington's_Inauguration.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:WhiskeyRebellion.jpg, File:Little_Turtle.jpg, File:Treaty_of_Greenville.jpg, File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg
  • File:Prise_de_la_Bastille.jpg needs a tag indicating why the original work is in the public domain
  • File:Pinckney's_Treaty_line_1795.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I'm inexperienced in image licensing, but I believe I have addressed most of your problems. How does one source the data in a map? Eddie891 Talk Work 21:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Basically, include on the image description page a source that verifies that it is accurate. When/where was File:Little_Turtle.jpg first published? Same with File:Washington's_Farewell_Address.jpg. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, think I've got it all. If I made a mistake, please forgive me. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, just want to clarify - are the dates on those two images when they were created, or when they were published? Where was first publication? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Little_turtle is from a lithograph held in the Smithsonian, It is thought to be based on a portrait by Gilbert Stuart in 1797 or 1798. Washington's Farewell Address is from a digitation by the Library of Congress. It does give a publication date, but it is almost illegible. I'll see if I can find a way to in the next week. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, up, listed date is date of publishing. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Nice article. Sorry I can't give a full review but perhaps you could add some information on Washington's Indian Policy besides the wars. Here's a source and i can provide more for you if you like. LittleJerry ( talk) 18:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

LittleJerry: I feel it's adequately covered in Presidency of George Washington#The Northwest Indian War. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
We probably could add something about Washington's attempts to co-exist with the Southwest Indians, including the Treaty of New York and the Treaty of Holston. Orser67 ( talk) 22:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Or this "civilizing" and assimilation missions. LittleJerry ( talk) 01:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Added. I think mention of the Treaty of New York and Holston should be added as well. Aside from that, I have no major objections. LittleJerry ( talk) 00:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

  • McDonald 1974 pp. 164-165 Hyphen in pg. range; McDonald 1974 pp.169-170 Hyphen in pg. range; Chernow 2010 pp.770-771 Hyphen in pg. range;
  • Inconsistent use of Location parameter (42 with; 17 without);
  • 15 files Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC.
  • Howarth 1999, pp. 49–50 Harv error: link to #CITEREFHowarth1999 doesn't point to any citation.
  • Bordewich 2016, pp. 108 P/PP error pp. 108; Morison 1965, pp. 325 ; Chernow 2004, pp. 341.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Lingzhi got them all. I added ISBN's to the books w/out identifiers, except *Kilpatrick, James J. (1961). The Constitution of the United States and Amendments Thereto. Richmond, Virginia: Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government." I couldn't get it. Let me know if I should add OCLC. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
If there's no ISBN, go with OCLC.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Read this reference carefully. Can you spot what's wrong with it? McDonald, Forrest (1974). The Presidency of George Washington. American Presidency. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kansas.
  • Page Smith (1962). Missing Pub. Location; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Is Ellis, Joseph J. (5 instances) the same person as Ellis Joseph (4 instances)?
    Yeah, fixed
  • Inconsistent format: Page Smith vs. Smith, Page... other similar errors?
    Took care of this one at least
  • Allen, Gardner Weld (1905). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Beer, Samuel H. (1987). "Chapter 6: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Boyd, Steven R. (1994). "Chapter 5: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Crew, Harvey W.; Webb, William Bensing; Wooldridge, John, eds. (1892). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
  • Ifft, Richard A. (1985). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Spaulding, Matthew (2001). "Chapter 2: ... Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Bassett, John Spencer (1906). Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Orser67: I'm having trouble with the chapter page #'s. Thoughts? Might Just remove them? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I got two of the three, but not Boyd. Maybe you could find another source for that one? I imagine Forrest McDonald's book probably mentions something along the lines of what is cited to Boyd. Orser67 ( talk) 01:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

  • First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
  • On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
  • Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck can be verbose. Reading the explanatory page will help. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link;. Archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review.

  • I used your tool. I think I got all of the ref issues except for missing archive links. Orser67 ( talk) 19:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
    Don't worry even for a moment about the archive links. I'm still trying to figure out what to do with those myself!  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ok cool, good to hear. Nice programming tool by the way, I hope to one day be able to program similar things myself (currently taking an intro to Javascript course). Orser67 ( talk) 14:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I Think the Further reading section should be farmed out in its entirety to Bibliography of George Washington. That's my two red cents. But other than that... All clear here, captain!  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I peer reviewed this article. I have the following additional comments. "made use of an opportunity provided by a chance encounter with Hamilton to an informal dinner meeting at which interested parties could discuss a "mutual accommodation." "encounter ... to" doesn't really work. It might be "encounter at", but if the dinner was to discuss a compromise, how did it come as a surprise?

  • rephrased. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "He also proposed redeeming the promissory notes issued by the Continental Congress during the American Revolution at full value." weren't these more land warrants than promissory notes?
  • My understanding of the matter is that they were often similar to IOUs, although serving as land grants occasionally. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Oliver Miller Homestead" Why the cap on Homestead? Similarly "This was the first Special Congressional investigation under the federal Constitution.[142" "Special" should probably be lower case.
  • changed. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "The embargo was later renewed for a second month, but then permitted to expire." I think you need a "was" before "permitted"
  • "and a repudiation of the 1778 treaty and military support with France" The "and military support" doesn't seem correct grammatically.
  • "might work in consort" should the last word be "concert"? If so with whom? Britain?
  • Changed it to concert; I can't imagine it was meant to be anything else. And yeah it's britain, so I added that to be clear Orser67 ( talk) 00:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Agricultural produce could now flow on flatboats down the Ohio River to the Mississippi and on to New Orleans and Europe." this sort of implies the flatboats went on to Europe which is likely not the case.
  • Some mention of Martha Washington in this article and what she was up to during her husband's presidency might be good. You refer to a "first family" Who else accompanied GW?
  • "which upon leaving he promptly arrived in Georgetown, South Carolina, " It might be worth mentioning that he took a ship, if he did.
  • He didn't. I'll look into making a map of his trips. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "After South Carolina, Washington arrived in Georgia, going to (among others) Augusta. In late May, Washington turned around, stopping at many Revolutionary War battle sites. On July 11, 1791, they arrived back at Mount Vernon.[236][237]" Who is they? You've just mostly mentioned Washington.
That's about it.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt: got most of them. I'll get back to you when I finish the others. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Support per my comments at the peer review. Engaging, well-written, and comprehensive article as far as my non-expert self can gather. ceran thor 03:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Jens Lallensack

First I must admit that I am not American and have quite a poor idea of this part of US history (which is part of the reason why I started reading in the first place). The article reads extremely well, and is fully comprehensible, so thumbs up on the prose! I had, however, the slight impression that it is not completely neutral. Parts of it read like a eulogy to George Washington. As I am not into the topic, I can only give some examples for this matter:

  • It is a bit weird to read about "Indians" fighting "Americans". The "Indians" should be named "Native Americans", consequently.
  • The paragraph detailing St. Clair's defeat, it is mentioned three separate times that the US force was "poor" ("poorly trained", "poor defenses", "poorly prepared"). This leaves the impression that some justification is attempted here. One "poorly" would be enough.
  • The only piece of criticism of Washington in the article was, as far as I remember, this bit in the Historical evaluation section: had often opposed the best measures of his subordinates, and had taken credit for his achievements that he had no share in bringing about. – I can't find any examples where he "opposed the best measures" in the article, and such information should not be left out.
  • Despite this more equivocal judgement of McDonald, the article closes with a prominently placed quote of Chernow, who finds Washington "simply breathtaking". This quote is essentially a song of praise, and as such does not say very much except for "Washington is great". I strongly suggest to replace or remove this quote.
  • It might be a good idea to also cite a non-American in the "Historical evaluation" section. Such historians perhaps tend to view the topic from a larger distance, and might help to generate a more differentiated view.

I furthermore have two additional points on structure:

  • There seems to be no obvious reason for having the section "First presidential veto" without also describing his second veto.
  • The "domestic affairs" and "foreign affairs" sections treat the whole presidency from 1789 to 1797." So why is "Election of 1792" placed only at the end of the article, while the first election comes right at the front? Both elections might be better discussed together. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 21:26, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Design A-150 battleship

Nominator(s): Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] and Sturmvogel 66

Hey folks, this is a short but good one. The Design A-150s, known by some as the so-called "Super" Yamato class, were a planned class of Japanese battleships that were never built due to wartime pressures. For those interested in comparing between countries, they would have been the contemporaries to the US Montana class—but unlike the Montanas, much information about the A-150s has been lost, thanks to the deliberate destruction of documents towards the end of the war. The loss of these primary sources has severely limited what can be gleaned from reliable secondary sources about these ships. That said, we do know that the ships would have mounted 51 cm guns, a size that would have made them the largest naval gun ever deployed. On Wikipedia, this article dates back to my early days of writing articles, and has recently been spruced up by co-nominator Sturmvogel 66. I'm looking forward to your comments! Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 04:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

All sources well-formatted & reliable.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Iry-Hor

I have a question regarding the length of the article. I wonder if it might just be too short for FA, or is there no minimum length to reach FA ? The question is related to the wider the problem of whether or not there are topics which cannot possibly reach FA because too little can be said about them (typically, I have in mind obscure pharaohs). What is the consensus on length ? Are quality and completeness the only criteria when deciding FA ? Iry-Hor ( talk) 15:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

FA's need to be comprehensive, but that doesn't meant that they need to be long. Some topics are simply obscure (like this one) or simple. According to the (very dated) statistics at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, this would be one of the shortest FAs though. Nick-D ( talk) 11:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Parsecboy

  • The shortness of the article is a concern for me too. I'd like to see more context on the topic - for instance, some of the details on Japanese battleship design present in the Yamato-class article would be useful here (thinking specifically of the Japanese concept that since the USN would be able to outbuild them in terms of numbers, their ships should be qualitatively superior - their insistence on superior ships is touched on briefly in the article, but not explained). It would also be useful to get some of the strategic context present in the Yamato article - that Japan planned on conquering European and US colonies in the Pacific, and needed a powerful navy to accomplish that (and defend it).
  • " for most intents and purposes" - what are you getting at here? The plans were complete as far as we know from the records available? Or there was some minor work to be done?
    • G&D say "essentially complete," which I read as some minor work needing to be completed. Ed  [talk]  [majestic titan] 03:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "these were destroyed at the end of the war, along with most of the other documentation relating to the class." - this begs the question "why"? I know why, but the average reader won't.
  • "With war on the horizon in early 1941..." - this could use some context too - something along the lines of "as war with the United States became increasingly likely over the Second Sino-Japanese War, and particularly after the Japanese seizure of French Indochina..."

All for now. Parsecboy ( talk) 20:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's good to see a short article being nominated for FAC - a bit of a blast from the past! From having consulted various works on related topics over the years, there probably isn't a great deal which can be said about this design. The massive destruction of records by the Japanese military and government at the end of the war means that the historical literature on this kind of topic is limited. I have the following comments:

  • I agree with Parsecboy that material on the Japanese Navy's strategy and the principles which guided its warship construction could be noted
    • We figured that you guys would tell us if the background and context needed to be expanded and the vox populi have spoken! Working on it all.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Material on the flaws of this strategy (eg, the Yamato class battleships under-performing throughout the war, and being a waste of resources which could have been better used on carriers) could also be noted.
  • Can dates be provided for when the planning described in the 'Background and design' took place?
  • "two layers of armor plates would have been used, despite its decreased effectiveness as compared to a single plate of the same total width" - 'decreased' in this context is a bit confusing. 'Lessor', 'inferior' or similar might be clearer. Nick-D ( talk) 10:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Moisejp

Just working my way through the article, only one comment so far:

  • The article seems to be inconsistent about how lengths are written "48-centimeter (18.9 in) gun" vs. "51 cm gun". I changed one but then noticed there were others. I wasn't sure if there was logic there that I may have missed. Thanks, I will continue with my review very soon. Moisejp ( talk) 05:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Consistency reigns throughout.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Another instance: In the background and design section you have "90,000 long tons (91,000 t)" but in Armament you have "2,780 tonnes (2,740 long tons) and each gun would have massed 227 metric tons (223 long tons)". In the Specifications section there is "70,000 metric tons (69,000 long tons)". Those seem to be three different units of measure used as the "base" (first mentioned) unit (long tons, tonnes, and metric tons). Also the wiki-link for long tons is after 223, but probably it should be after 90,000 earlier in the article?
  • In the Specifications section there is "and the belt armor was probably going to be 46 cm thick" which does not seem consistent with the spelled out instances of "meters" throughout the Armament section. Moisejp ( talk) 04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "They fired 13-kilogram (29 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 1,030 m/s (3,400 ft/s), although the resulting wear of the barrels reduced their life to only about 350 rounds. They were able to fire 15–19 rounds per minute." I know very little about warships, but this means the guns were only good for 20 minutes of firing? How did warships survive with such limited firing power? Moisejp ( talk) 05:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Sometimes they didn't. Several British ships shot themselves dry of anti-aircraft ammunition during the evacuations of Greece and Crete in 1941 and were sunk. What this bit means is that accuracy is degraded after exceeding barrel life and that the barrels should be replaced.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Allied logistics in the Kokoda Track campaign

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We decided to split the logistics of the campaign off into its own article. I think the results justify the decision. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Lingzhi

  • P/PP error: Kelly 2003, pp. 354.
  • Allied Geographical Section (1943). . Missing OCLC or similar
  • [I've never noticed an LCCN before. are they a good substitute for ISBN or OCLC?]
  • Casey, Hugh J., ed. (1951). Volume VI, Missing OCLC;
  • Coates, John (1995). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Dod, Karl (1966). Missing OCLC
  • Horner, David (1995). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1978);
  • Horner, David (1978). Sort error, expected: Horner, David (1995);
  • Milner, Samuel (1957). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1947). Pub. too early for ISBN; perhaps needs |orig-date=; Missing OCLC;
  • Paull, Raymond (1958). Pub. too early for ISBN; Missing OCLC
  • Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944). Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1948).. is this the same person, or his son?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1948). "TSort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. (1950); Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
  • Watson, Richard L. (1950). "The Papuan Campaign". Sort error, expected: Watson, Richard L. Jr (1944); Inconsistent Location (41 with; 1 without)  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I think I have corrected all of these. There is no such parameter as |orig-date=; could you change your script to say |orig-year=? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha ha my face is red. :-) I'll look again at the article.  Lingzhi ♦  (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi-Level

Nominator(s): Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The Hi-Level is a bilevel intercity railcar which ran in the United States from 1954–2018. It entered service in 1954 with the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway's El Capitan. It was the first type of bilevel intercity railcar in the United States. The Hi-Levels remained in service with Amtrak, the national passenger rail operator in the United States, from 1971–2018, after the end of most private sector passenger service in the United States. Their design influenced the Superliner, which entered service in 1978 and remains the backbone of Amtrak's fleet west of the Mississippi River. The article was promoted to GA status in February 2016; I've just finished a major expansion. Mackensen (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Tintor2

Nice article. I don't know too much but there are somethings that might be worth checking:

  • Are the notes in the infobox necessary. Unless we are dealing with controversial information I would advise removing them.
  • The background section uses a single source. Is it possible to use another one? I know it's an introduction to another article though.
  • "Summary" sounds a bit redundant. Reference 13 and a possible other one could also serve as a source.
  • Archived the five online sources. FAs need them in case the url ever gets deleted.

That's all I have to say. Ping me or mention me when you think that you are finished. I'm not too used with these types of articles so some comments I made might be wrong. Also, a fellow user and me made this FAC and I would appreciate your feedback. Regards. Tintor2 ( talk) 20:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @ Tintor2: Thanks for your feedback. Notes in the infobox are common with rail transport articles because some information isn't in the main text, and unsourced information has a habit of creeping in. Background could easily be sourced from multiple places; Flick and Krogan simply told the whole story. I'll add some sources. The "Summary" section is modeled on Superliner (railcar)#Summary and I think a useful callout. The road numbers, in particular, aren't elsewhere in the main text but there are readers who will want them. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll support it then. Good luck with the article. Tintor2 ( talk) 23:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Tintor2: I've added some sources and expanded the background section a little. Mackensen (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nice work. Tintor2 ( talk) 01:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 9: The main link isn't going to the headlined page of the Chicago Tribune – how does one get there? Also I'm getting timeouts on the archive link.
  • Ref 13: A similiar problem: neither main nor archived links go to the headline page.
  • Format issues: please choose a single format for archive dates. Also as to when you add retrieval dates.
  • Ref 29: Why is this source reliable? There are no publisher details; the site contains the message: "Site not affiliated to Amtrak"
  • Ref 55: Harvard error ("Welch")

Otherwise sources are in good order and are of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 13:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your feedback, I've tried to address all your points:
    • Reference 9: It appears that the Chicago Tribune has moved to Newspapers.com for its archives. I've clipped the article and re-done the reference.
    • Reference 13: I made a deliberate choice to link to the metadata instead of the PDF, because it'll download directly from Amtrak's website without context. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.
    • Reference 29: The site isn't affiliated with Amtrak, but the diagrams almost certainly came from an Amtrak source at some point. You can see a refreshed version on an official site; it's the same style. I've replaced it.
    • Reference 55: gah, fixed.
    • Format: all dates are consistent now.
  • Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo

Nominator(s): Indy beetle ( talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This article is about probably the least well-known President of Burkina Faso, back when it was called the Republic of Upper Volta. He began his career as an army medic, and was elevated to the presidency of this small West African country on 9 November 1982 following a coup that toppled a military dictatorship. He was shortly thereafter given charge of the Ministry of National Defence and Veterans Affairs. The country remained unstable under Ouédraogo's reign, and the latter half of his tenure was overshadowed by the popularity of his prime minister, Thomas Sankara. Concerned with his socialist sympathies, Ouédraogo fired Sankara and arrested him. This resulted in a national political dispute that culminated in another coup on 4 August 1983, bringing Sankara to power (he would go on to become something of an African legend) and confining Ouédraogo to the brig for two years. Upon his release Ouédraogo mostly kept out of politics and devoted his time to establishing a medical practice. He only returned to the public sphere in the 2010s to mediate several national political disputes. This article has passed GA and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. There's not a lot of material about this guy, but a constructive FA review could make a dent in our systemic bias problem. And I do think that if this passed FA, it would be the first WikiProject Burkina Faso article to have ever done so. - Indy beetle ( talk) 16:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment - any possibility of an image to illustrate? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @ Nikkimaria: As I explained at the GA nomination, I have found no free use photos of the subject (and none of Zerbo, Sankara, and his colleagues either) and the fact that he is still alive means I'd be unable to fulfill the fair use criteria. - Indy beetle ( talk) 05:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • "He attended Mogho Naba Kougri's funeral in December and placed a wreath at the Mossi leader's coffin, apparently convinced that in order to achieve success he would have to respect the traditional power structures valued by the public.": I think reviewers might have problems with this sentence, possibly with its length, or possibly with the lack of attribution for the opinion word "apparently".
  • "He lives next to the clinic and serves between 400 and 500 patients a month.", "He is the president of the Fédération des Associations Professionnelles de la Santé Privée": WP:DATED is tricky. These two probably need a (single) "as of"; other kinds of present-tense statements might not need it.
  • Support on prose per my These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Changed the opinion to a direct quote from the book and moved it to a footnote.
    • Done.
    • Thanks for the review.

- Indy beetle ( talk) 04:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 31 is currently returning "unable to connect". Please test – the fault might be temporary.
    • Link repaired.
  • Refs 34 and 35: could you clarify publisher details? As far as I know, the Weblogy group is a web facilitator and designer rather than a news publisher.
    • It would appear that you are correct, but their own website describes them as "publishers" and they are shown as the copyright holders at the bottom of each news site. The former article is attributed to aOuaga.com (presumably a web staff writer) and the AFP is credited with writing the latter report (which I've added under the author= parameter). I cannot find any more details beyond that. - Indy beetle ( talk) 03:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Apart from these issues, the sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Vesna Vulović

Nominator(s): 23 editor ( talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Vesna Vulović was the sole survivor of a 1972 plane crash that killed almost 30 people. She is recognized by Guinness World Records for having survived the highest fall without a parachute. I look forward to any and all constructive criticism so that the article meets FA criteria. 23 editor ( talk) 16:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment What an extraordinary person. The article is in excellent shape, and my only comment is to ask whether we know why the crew of JAT Flight 367 might have been so fatalistic? Had there been other attacks on aircraft? Nick-D ( talk) 00:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there were quite a few aircraft hijackings/bombings in Europe and North America in the early 1970s (mostly by Middle Eastern or Latin American "freedom fighters"). Around the same time, a number of terrorist attacks were carried out in Yugoslavia and against Yugoslav targets abroad by exiled nationalists. This part of the article is more or less told from Vulović's perspective. I don't want to speculate as to why the crew acted as she described, but I feel this passage provides valuable insight into their activities/overall disposition the day leading up to the crash. Of course, I can trim this section if it's overly confusing. 23 editor ( talk) 04:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd suggest working that in (perhaps as a short para in the 'JAT Flight 367' section?), as the crash and terrorist attacks is also part of the story here - especially given that Vulović was perceived to be at risk while recovering and what seem like absurd claims were made about the incident late in her life. Nick-D ( talk) 05:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
To clarify, you want me to mention that there was an uptick in Croatian nationalist attacks before and after the bombing? 23 editor ( talk) 18:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Something like that: whatever's needed to provide context for the attack on the aircraft (if only Croatian nationalist terrorist attacks are relevant, then limit it to them). Nick-D ( talk) 23:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I've added some context . What do you think? 23 editor ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
That looks good, but starting the next sentence with 'the same day' is unclear, as it's not obvious which day is being referred to. Nick-D ( talk) 02:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Has this edit remedied the issue, Nick? 23 editor ( talk) 19:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D ( talk) 21:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment Support Very nicely written. I had to pause only twice reading it through:

  • "Nobody ever expected me to live this long," she recounted. - Begs for the year in which she recounted this to be added
  • It's stated that she disputed the assertion that she was discovered in the fuselage, then goes on to quote her as saying "...I was in the middle part of the plane...", which seems somewhat contradictory.

Factotem ( talk) 18:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Factotem. I've addressed the discrepancy you brought up (good catch!) and added that the quote is from 2008. 23 editor ( talk) 18:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Ref 10 lacks publisher information
  • Ref 20: Clarify which part of this source is supporting the article.

I'm not able to check the foreign language sources for reliability, but they don't appear to be problematic. Otherwise, all sources are in good order and of the appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton ( talk) 17:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Ref 10 is from the Czechoslovak Civil Aviation Authority. Ref 20 is from the official Discovery Channel episode guide. The results of the Mythbusters' experiment is mentioned by this website , whose reliability I'm unsure about. The fact that her case was tackled by the Mythbusters is also mentioned in this article by Serbia's state broadcaster. 23 editor ( talk) 20:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything in the Discovery Channel source that supports this statement: "In 2005, Vulović's fall was recreated by the American television program MythBusters, which concluded that surviving such a plunge was unlikely but plausible". This statement is supported by the alternative source you mention, but I would not classify this as reliable. Unless the Serbian source makes specific reference to the plausibility of survival, I would recommend that you drop the statement from your text. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I've trimmed this part to only mention her case was featured on the show without explicitly stating the team's findings. 23 editor ( talk) 19:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

  • I've been fascinated by this woman's life for years. I intend to post some comments when I get the chance. ceran thor 04:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "She went on to make an almost complete recovery" - Have never liked "went on to"; I think it's redundant. Better as "She made an almost complete recovery"
  • "The airline apparently felt that her presence on flights would attract too much publicity. " - why apparently?
  • "The final years of her life were spent in seclusion and she continued to struggle with survivor's guilt." - You haven't previously mentioned this survivor's guilt in the lead, so it's confusing to say that she continued to struggle with it
  • "Srbská Kamenice" - needs an WP:NBSP
  • "Vulović was fired from JAT in 1990 or 1991[e]" - for consistency's sake, when the marriage date was different among sources, you only listed one of the years. why do you list both here?

Otherwise, the prose is fantastic. Support on 1a. ceran thor 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

All addressed, Ceranthor, except for the NBSP. In which spot does it need to be added? 23 editor ( talk) 19:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Just fixed it. ceran thor 20:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jimfbleak! 23 editor ( talk) 19:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - convinced by the above arguments, article still might need one or two minor fix ups in some areas but overall seems fine for a potential FA. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:54, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi , Inter&anthro! What improvements did you have in mind? I'd be happy to address any concerns. 23 editor ( talk) 23:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi 23 editor, I think that the opening early life section, while adequate, could perhaps be expanded a bit more, and that further on in the article many of the sources are in the Serbian language. While there is nothing inherently wrong with either aspect (and neither should hold this article back from becoming a FA) it would be nice to see the early life section a bit more fleshed out and if possible some more English language citations. But that is just my opinion. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
As far as her early life is concerned, I couldn't find the names of her parents, despite my best efforts. In the Aviation Security interview, Vulovic mentions that she studied languages in university, hence her desire to travel to the UK to learn English, a language she was interested in due to contemporary pop culture. She stayed in an English town with a family friend before going to Sweden. Her parents forced her to return to Yugoslavia because they perceived Sweden to be too sexually liberated. I can add this info to the article if the Early life section as it appears now seems a bit thin.
As for the Serbian sources, most are news reports published following her death. These go into quite a bit more detail about reactions to her passing than their Western counterparts, which merely rehash old English-language articles that were written about her. 23 editor ( talk) 17:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Other Languages
беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎: Вікіпэдыя:Кандыдаты ў абраныя артыкулы
oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча: Vikipediya:Tanlangan maqola nomzodlari