Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured portals Featured topics Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox Disambig links Edit count External links Alt text 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. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (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

Kragujevac massacre

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) and 23 editor.

This article is about a massacre of nearly 2,800 men and boys carried out by the German Army in the occupied territory of Serbia during WWII. It was carried out in reprisal for the killing of 10 German soldiers and the wounding of 26 others in accordance with a set ratio of 100 hostages to be executed for each dead German soldier and 50 hostages for every wounded German soldier. Several of the generals responsible for ordering the massacre were tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Mahavira

Nominator(s): -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism, who is of great importance in Indian history. It must be featured because he is leader of one of the primary religious movements in Ancient India. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

St Vincent-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

These three British battleships were ordered at a time when the government in power was interested in cutting expeditures on the Royal Navy and showed only minor improvements over their predecessors. They spent their entire careers based in home waters and did not have eventful careers during World War I, only seeing combat during the Battle of Jutland. One of them was destroyed by magazine explosions while at anchor in 1917 and the two remaining ships were effectively obsolete by the end of the war and were sold for scrap in the early 1920s. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few days ago, although I've tweaked it bit since then and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

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

• Compare: "Although Vanguard's wreck in Scapa Flow is a war grave, it was extensively salvaged afterwards." with: "Much of Vanguard's wreck was salvaged before it was declared a war grave in 1984." If it was declared a war grave only in 1984, then readers might take the "afterwards" in the first sentence to mean after 1984.
  • Good catch; see how it reads now. And thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher

Nominator(s): --Nevé–selbert 16:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the death of the most controversial and consequential public figure in recent British history. I would like to think that the article's quality has improved in recent months, reference formatting is first-rate and the thumbnails neatly fit in with much of the text. The article contains a fair amount of both praise and criticism of its subject, thus comfortably conforming to WP:NPOV standards. Currently WP:CCLASS, it has indeed undergone various c/e improvements since that assessment. --Nevé–selbert 16:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Naruto

Nominator(s): 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Japanese manga series that focus on Naruto Uzumaki, a character who wishes for acknowledgement from the people in his hometown and to become their new leader. 1989 12:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"The series is based on a one-shot manga by Kishimoto published in the August 1997 issue of Akamaru Jump." Wasn't it actually based on two one-shots? One simply named Naruto and the other that has Sasuke-look alike who even performs the Chidori (I think Karakuri was the name) Avoid as many references as possible in the lead per guidelines I would suggest mentioning at least in one sentence Boruto's series in the lead. Remember to archive citations like citation 11. For the first sentence of Conclusion, the year 2006 might fit there. Before starting the plot section, I would suggest adding an intro like "the manga is divided in two 'parts'" so that newcomers understand it Reference Masashi Kishimoto in reference 181 as well as other similar citations. @Tintor2: Done -- 1989 16:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Good work. Now other things: The Last: Naruto the Movie information lacks a reference unless the Boruto link already has it. " ninth and the tenth Naruto films, as well as the original novel which was adapted into the eighth Naruto film" I'm a little lost since some films use the Shippuden subtitle whereas others like Blood Prison remove it. I suggest simply using the subtitle of the movie so that the reader will understand it. Just wondering, but wasn't Neji Hyuga's cursed seal edited in the Western version of the series due its similarities with the Nazis? It could be used in the article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Added. The 8th, 9th, and 10th films don't have the Shippuden part in the titles, and whether or not it was part of Shippuden production, it's redundant. Do you have a reference for that? Nope. Just wondering. @Tintor2: -- 1989 17:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• You have my support.Tintor2 (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Gen. Quon

I'll try to do a bit more to look this over later, but right now, I see two (minor) things:

• I believe that per MOS:DOUBLE, titles of citations that are in double-quote marks should have titles or quotes within them encapsulated with single-quote marks. For instance, in reference 18, Boruto should be in single-quotes since the title itself is encapsulated by double-quote marks. You might check other refs for this.
• Just a minor point here. The Amazon links direct a reader to the Japanese version of the web store, ending with ".co.jp". It seems odd that the publisher is then identified as "Amazon.com", given that that's a 'different' url (I know that it's the same company, but it does remain that they are two separate marketplaces serving two different parts of the world). Perhaps in this case it would bee best to refer to the publisher as either just "Amazon", "Amazon.co.jp" (with a piped linked back to the Amazon.com Wiki article), or maybe "Amazon.com, Inc." to illustrate that the publisher is the parent company and not the US-based storefront. Against, this is just a suggestion more so than a thing that needs fixing.

Like I said, I'll try to look at this again.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I fixed it.
• I see where you're getting at, but all of the suggestions (except for Amazon since it's a disambiguation page) you had all redirect to Amazon.com, so IMO it would be a waste of time to do that. Fixed.

@Gen. Quon: -- 1989 19:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Image review - the article contains a single fair use image in sufficiently low resolution, which has an appropriate fair use rationale. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Louis Leblanc

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Previously nominated, and closed after two months due to last-minute commentary. I've now addressed that, and everything from the previous nomination. I also have contacted the users who left comments last time to ensure they see that the changes were made. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo case

Nominator(s): Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the right-to-die legal case centering around Terri Schiavo that took place in the United States from 1990-2005. This was a major legal and political conflict. The article has been nominated several times before, but was rejected due to controversial nature of subject. Article has been listed as a good article for almost 5 years now, without and major revisions or edit wars. Time to reconsider. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Ace, welcome back to Wikipedia, and welcome to FAC. I'll hold my fire for the moment, but any time there's been a previous FAC, it's important to see what the problems were in that FAC and address them, rather than forcing reviewers to do the same work all over again. I looked quickly at Ealdgyth's comments, and I see that http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html, http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf, http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf, and probably others from her review still show up in the references. Were her questions ever answered? What makes those reliable sources, and do those sites have permission to host any copyrighted materials they're hosting? Also, note that the bar is higher at FAC than elsewhere ... we have a high quality sources clause. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I can answer one question right off the bat. The reports of the gardian ad litem are matters of public record and anybody can post a copy. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919

• Will try to read through for a full review, but I have some initial comments from a quick scan: There is a "citation needed" tag in the lead that dates back to September. Also, the references have some inconsistent date formats, and a number of references have "CS1" errors for external links in places they aren't expected or multiple authors listed in one 'author' field. --RL0919 (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Anythingyouwant

• I got less than ten words into this article before running into problems. Here's how it currently starts: "The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case....." This is a very problematic way to start the article. ‪According to Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health Care, p. 150,‬ by Banaszak-Holl et al. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), "Whereas Cruzan was framed as a right to die case, Schiavo was framed as a right to life case, or a contest between the right to live and the right to die...." What entitles us to re-frame it? Perhaps the most accurate way to look at the Schiavo case is as a case about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, and in favor of a spouse versus parents. Just starting out by labeling it as a "right to die" case implies from the outset that it was about whether Schiavo should be able to exercise her right to die, which is, uh, not quite neutral IMHO, and an oversimplification also.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Banded stilt

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a cool Australian bird that's had some really interesting new knowledge about it become known in the past few years. I've scoured material and reckon its pretty complete. It got a grilling at GAN by Funkmonk. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Riley

As always some quick comments (Note: If I stop reviewing at any time and if all of my comments were addressed or commented on, please disregard this or regard this as a weak support).

• Maybe add a picture or two to the behaviour section? If you can't find any showing the banded stilt relevant to the section, then maybe include a picture of its prey or something like that.

got a pic of a brine shrimp from the Coorong that it eats Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Be consistent about putting the scientific name in parentheses after the common name. For example, you didn't do it in the lead.

Ah, see I did have them but FunkMonk thought they were better left out of lead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, makes sense. Anyways, error code. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The intro is just a summary, so doesn't need all the detail of the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "As well as banded stilt, the species has also been called locally Rottnest snipe, or bishop snipe," is confusing. Specifically, the ordering of the names is confusing. Say the it is called the "Rottnest snipe, or bishop snipe" kind of feels like you are saying that Rottnest is synonymous with bishop. Also, there should be a definite article before "banded stilt" and likely "bishop snipe" if you change the wording.

I have rejigged that whole bit actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Link "scrape" in sentence three of the second lead paragraph.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "French ornithologist Louis Jean Pierre Vieillot described the banded stilt in 1816, classifying it in the avocet genus Recurvirostra and giving it the name Recurvirostra leucocephala, "L'avocette a tete blanche" ("white-headed avocet"), though the type locality has been listed as either Victoria or Rottnest Island in Western Australia," I don't exactly see the connection between "though the type locality has been listed as either Victoria or Rottnest Island in Western Australia". Also, if you meant that he listed the type locality, then you should additionally convert present tense verbs (like "has") to their past tense versions.

I expanded - a location should accompany a species description, however Viellot did not give enough detail as to where it might be Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good now. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Will (hopefully) do more soon. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Soon to be long, daunting list that has nitpicks that, together, will take hours to complete:

• Maybe reword "Other common names include Rottnest snipe, and bishop snipe," to "Other common names include the bishop snipe and Rottnest snipe." This is because 1) The comma in the original sentence is unneeded. 2) Having "the" before bishop snipe sounds better. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

See this sounds really peculiar to me - I'd never put a "the" here. "The" is not part of the name and we're using the name as word-as-word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Huh. Well then why don't you reverse the order, remove the "the" I suggested, and then put the two names in quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Possibly add a comma before "but" in the sentence "In flight, the wings are mostly black when seen from above but have a white trailing edge from the tips of the inner primaries." Might be ok though, your call really. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely add a comma before "but" in this sentence: "Non-breeding plumage is similar but the chest band is less distinct and often diluted to an ashy brown or mottled with white." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Adults in breeding plumage are predominantly white with black wings and a broad well-demarcated u-shaped chestnut band across the breast," the phrase "well-demarcated" is a little over the top. Maybe use a more "common" word? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

that's the problem...I can't think of one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe say something like "a broad, defined u-shaped..."? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

See to me, "defined" used in that way is more obscure than "well-demarcated".....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. In that case, it would probably be best to make an interwiki link to wiktionary here. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know what you were doing here: "The slender bill is black,[21], relatively straight,[22] and twice as long as the head." (I left the commas in) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ensuring the pertinent references come after commas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

No, right after ref 21... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

aaaah I see now. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the sentence "Juvenile birds resemble adults but lack the breast band and have greyish lores and forehead," is grammatically correct, but it may be better to reword the last part, as it sounds odd nonetheless. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Two choppy sentences next to eachother: "The black on their wings is often duller. Adult plumage is attained in the second year." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

rejigged (see above) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Probably link "saltworks" in the sentence " In Western Australia, it is found predominantly in the southwestern corner, though can be as far north as the saltworks in Port Hedland." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "Breeding took place at Lake Ballard in the Goldfields-Esperance after heavy rainfall from Cyclone Bobby in 1995, and flooding in 2014," reads a bit oddly, suggests that that was the only place where breeding took place during those years, and suggests two Cyclone Bobby's. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I tried this, does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Definitely better. It may be better to rejig it so you can say something like "Breeding also...", just to make it clear that breeding didn't take place only there during those years. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

But that's the thing - as far as we know they only bred there twice in 20 years...and went elsewhere at other times Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty weird. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Link first occurrence of "breeding plumage" and "non-breeding plumage". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I can only link to plumage as there are no destinations for the other terms Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Correct instances where a lower numbered references occurs directly after a higher numbered references. E.g., fix "...[5][2]" to "...[2][5]". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "The Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray region in South Australia knew it as nilkani," link "Lower Murray". RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Instead of saying "upper tail" in the sentence "The central part of the upper tail is tinted a pale grey-brown," maybe say "base of the upper tail"? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Probably remove the hyphen in the sentence "The legs are a paler or orange-pink," to make it clear that the "paler" and the "orange" are referring to the pink. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

added hyphen to paler Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• In the sentence "Juvenile birds resemble adults but have greyish lores and forehead, duller black wings, and lack the characteristic breast band," the first part sounds a bit odd, maybe try and reword it? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

like that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please specific where on the nest in the sentence "Birds also chatter softly and tunefully while on the nest." Like is it on top, perching, etc. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

changed to "while nesting" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment by JennyOz

• Cool bird, as you say. The 'tracking devices to 21 birds' bit is repeated. JennyOz (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

wow, not sure how that happened...or that I missed it ("a bit like "Paris in the the spring"...). fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

Another one I've seen! The usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• tiny shrimp—just checking that this is correct in OzE. It's certainly OK in AE, but BE would have "shrimps"

really?? ...whoa that sounds so weird Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• His countryman Georges Cuvier—last person mentioned was Amateur ornithologist Gregory Mathews. Although you don't mention his nationality the the text, he definitely wasn't Cuvier's compatriot…

oh arse...I changed the order and stuffed my neat descriptor...fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• John Gould had described it as—subject of "it" is a bit remote

depronouned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• The banded stilt forages… The bulk of their—number disagreement

singularised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• is listed as Vulnerable under the South Australian—make it clear it's LC in the other relevant states if that is indeed the case

this is tricky, as I think LC is just not listed as anything in other states Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the British Rock band The Rolling Stones. It was previously nominated back in 2006 for featured article status (by another user here), however, it was declined. I am renominating it as the article has substantially improved in the 10-11 years since 2006 and might potentially be of the right calibre. Notability is certainly not an issue with this article. TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) *Support as nominator. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: TheSandDoctor, you have no edits to this article. Please see the instructions at the top of the FAC page ... have you talked with anyone who's worked on the article to see if they're ready to respond to questions at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: I have made contributions to Rolling Stones related articles/pages, but not the main one apparently (I honestly thought I had for some reason...). Did not see the bit regarding talking to any regular editors of Rolling Stones however did make a post on its talk page regarding this. My apologies --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: I figured out why I thought I had edited Rolling Stones from, I updated the Rolling Stones template to reflect their most recent concert film (which was not on it). I plan to create the page for the concert film shortly (just won't have the time today most likely) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless we see, fairly quickly, that the main editors of this article are a) happy that this article has been nominated, and b) believe it meets the FA criteria and are able to assist in making sure of this, then this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: Roger, I have tagged some frequent editors of the page in the post and amended my post on the talk page Talk:The_Rolling_Stones. My apologies for accidentally missing some of the steps. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No harm done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, note that it's not normal practice here to support your own nomination, and it's pointless since the coordinators will disregard it, I'd strike it if I were you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: How do I do that? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, put <s> before the text and </s> after Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Struck my supporting comment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Macedonia, home of Alexander the Great, deserves an article worthy of His Majesty's name! It is the will of the gods and the birthright of the Macedonians to both conquer and rule this little section of Wikipedia. Like the glorious Philippeion of Olympia, Greece erected by Alexander's one-eyed father Philip II, this article has been constructed for the glory of Macedonia (no, not that Macedonia you pleb). Although it has attained the rank of Good Article status, anything less than Featured Article status would be a shameful insult and blight on the cherished name and memory of the Argead dynasty.

Other editors and I have worked hard to bring to you the present incarnation of this article, which is well-sourced, well-illustrated (with all the appropriate copyright tags/licensing), meticulously proportioned and balanced, and linked to appropriate sub articles via Wikipedia:Summary style (e.g., History, Government, Rise of Macedon, Ancient Macedonians, Ancient Macedonian language, Ancient Macedonian army, etc.). In regards to the strictures of Wikipedia:Article size and the current size of this article, please view our community discussion and consensus (external link). I consider that talk page discussion as necessary reading before any of you raise any sort of objection about the article's size, which has been drastically reduced even since the successful GA nomination, thanks to the creation of new sub-articles (authored by yours truly and currently GA candidates if anyone's interested in reviewing them as well). I look forward to the nomination process and I hope that we can have a thought-provoking, civil discussion on how to improve the article if necessary. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "Philip II": Inconsistency. It would probably be best to use "Philip II" at first occurrence in each paragraph and "Philip" after that, unless there's another Philip involved.
• "utilized": overutilized. Substitute "used" for some of these.
• "allegedly sent two-hundred ships": alleged by whom? If you're pretty sure he didn't do this, delete this phrase, and if you're pretty sure he did it, based on the sources, drop "allegedly".
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Another monumental achievement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: hello! Thanks for reviewing the article. As you've suggested, I got rid of the word "allegedly" in the sentence about Philip V's navy. However, I can find only two instances in the entire article where the word "utilized" has been employed. Are you sure that this represents an overuse of that term? Also, "Philip II" is numbered precisely because in that sub-section and in the next we refer to his son and one of his successors, Philip III of Macedon (or Philip III Arrhidaeus). In the following sub-sections we also discuss the reigns of Philip IV of Macedon and Philip V of Macedon. More than that, there's only one monarch in this entire article who has skirted the rule of repeatedly having a Latin numeral placed after his name (minus those monarchs who had unique names that weren't repeated), and that's Alexander the Great. He is mentioned once in the article as Alexander III of Macedon, yet we shorten this to Alexander or just Alexander the Great because that is how the general public knows him. This follows the rule of Wikipedia:Common names where, for instance, we refer to the politician Bill Clinton as such, not by his full name William Jefferson Clinton. Likewise, we do not use the full names or even the surnames of well known performance artists Bono (Paul Hewson) or Lady Gaga (Stefani Germanotta). I actually attempted to have Alexander the Great mentioned as "Alexander III" in every instance, but these Latin numerals were removed by another editor. I did not want to engage in an edit war and I recognized the Wiki guideline about the use of common names, so that's why the article looks the way it does now. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to take the second paragraph of the lead, for instance: it's Philip II, then Philip, then Philip II again, and no other Philip has been mentioned. I think your basic approach is sound ... you want to keep reminding people you're talking about Philip II, but that gets tiresome so you mix in Philip. I just think that it's somewhat conventional to give the full name once in a paragraph and the short name thereafter, unless, in that paragraph, there are other Philips to consider. Again, great work on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: thank you VERY much for pointing these out, as I was unaware of them. Another editor made some copyedits to the first few sub-sections recently and I hadn't noticed these specific changes in removing the Latin numerals after Philip's name in some places. I have edited the article to make it clear once again exactly which Philip of Macedon we are discussing in each and every instance. Once again, the only monarch who is allowed to shirk this rule is Alexander the Great, who is also named as Alexander III of Macedon in a couple places just to avoid any and all ambiguity. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To be clearer, I meant "Philip II" at first occurrence in a paragraph and "Philip" thereafter, where it's unambiguous. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I should have added: use your discretion on what "unambiguous" means. In the second paragraph of the lead, no one else named Philip has been mentioned. Later on, you could argue that if another Philip has been mentioned a few paragraphs earlier, then "Philip" might be ambiguous. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 00:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Eh...it's fine the way it is now, I think. Thanks once again for your review! Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads, and I'm happy to see Tony working on that below. Two suggestions:
• Is it possible to slide "Ancient: [ma͜akedoní.a͜a]" over to the right, into a third line in the infobox, or to put it in a footnote?
• "during most of its existence initially" is a little off; compare with "the whole time at first". One option is to start with "initially" and then put "during most of its existence" before the other two dynasties, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: hello again! I have shifted that pronunciation of "Makedonia" into a footnote as you've suggested. I've also reworded that sentence about the royal dynasties of Makedonia, although I did not use your suggested fix. The new sentence reads as thus: "The kingdom was founded and at first ruled by the royal Argead dynasty, followed by the Antipatrid and Antigonid dynasties." I think it sounds crisper this way. Sometimes simpler is better. --Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps
• Coins are considered 3D works and so should not generally use the PD-Art tag. Sculptural works definitely should not use this tag
• File:Coin_of_Amyntas_III-161113.jpg needs a licensing tag for the photo
• File:Pella_House_atrium.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
• File:Aristoteles_Louvre.jpg needs a copyright tag for the original work. Same with File:20100913_Ancient_Theater_Marwneia_Rhodope_Greece_panoramic_3.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: hello! Thanks for taking a look at these. The source info for Pella House Atrium is now fixed. However, I have a couple questions. Should the coins still contain PD tags, just not PD-Art ones? Since they are ancient art? What should I do for sculptural works? I am confused, since you say the sculpture of Aristotle and Theatre of Rhodope need copyright tags for the original work. Please be specific as to which precise tags are needed for each of these items, and I will gladly fix them. Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

PD-US and PD-70 would apply to most of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: hi again. I have done as you've requested and fixed the license tags for each image of a sculpted work of art or coin. Please let me know if there are any pictures that I might have missed or that need further editing. I have also enlarged each and every map image in the article as you've suggested (minus the map in the infobox of the lead section). I hope all of these latest edits suffice! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Looks well-written. I read the lead carefully:
  • "For a brief period, his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world, the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Could that be: "For a brief period his Macedonian empire was the most powerful in the world – the definitive Hellenistic state, inaugurating the transition to this new period of Ancient Greek civilization." Placement of the dash (or pair of dashes) affects the meaning; currently, with just commas it's ambiguous.
  • "advances in philosophy, engineering, and science were spread throughout the ancient world"—Is "throughout" an overstatement?
  • "and even possessed democratic municipal governments"—does one "possess" a government?
  • "New cities were also founded"—is "also" needed? Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: hi Tony! Long time no see; I remember you reviewing more than one of my featured articles in the past. It's good to see that you're still around! Thanks for taking the time to review the lead section. I have decided to amend that section according to your suggestions. I did change "possessed democratic municipal governments" to "had democratic municipal governments," although I'm not quite sure if this change was necessary. The subject of this statement is "local governments", which I believe can possess things. Right? There are multiple definitions for the word "possess," one of them being "have as an ability, quality, or characteristic," as opposed to the more common definition: "have as belonging to one; to own," or "have possession of as distinct from ownership." I believe that my original intent in writing that sentence followed the first definition here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Perecles, you're welcome. "while a few local governments within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had/possessed democratic municipal governments with popular assemblies" – I think simpler is better. But either way, it brings up something I didn't quite notice before: governments have governments? Perhaps it could be "a few local areas ... and even had governments with popular assemblies"? Tony (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Tony1: ha! How did I not notice this before? I have reworded the sentence as follows: "The authority of Macedonian kings was theoretically limited by the institution of the army, while a few municipalities within the Macedonian commonwealth enjoyed a high degree of autonomy and even had democratic governments with popular assemblies." That's the most optimal solution, I think. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout 2048

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I got stalled on my previous nomination I have nominated this article in the mean time since I took steps to ensure it was FA-ready, or I hope so anyway! I believe that this article meets the well-written, well-researched and comprehensiveness aspects of the FA criteria. I think I overdone the reception section slightly but it has since been condensed and restructured to read as cohesive prose. I also think its reception is important because this game was a PlayStation Vita launch title and "tested the waters" of the console so to speak. Another fun fact is that the game acted as a testbed for the console and had an influence in its design. Sources on development weren't plentiful, but I'm confident I squeezed enough out of the reliable sources.

I'd like to make the Wipeout series a Featured Topic. All of the instalments are currently GAs, but if all goes well this should be the first of five—can't promise anything! JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments on images:

• File:Wipeout 2048 Boxart.jpg: The non-free use rationale is fairly basic; I think some more stuff can be added. And the rationale for the other page the file isn't used on removed.

• Oops, I completely blanked that. I've added the proper video game rationale JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• File:Wipeout 2048 gameplay.jpg: This file is being used to illustrate the gameplay not the game which is different. The current rationale would be appropriate if the file was used in the infobox header.

• I've rephrased the rationale somewhat to make it clear that the image illustrates the gameplay of the game itself JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• File:PlayStation-Vita-1101-FL.jpg: Not seeing any issues, other than having difficulty of verifying the caption from the adjacent section.

• Verifying the fact that the game influenced the design of the console itself can be found in this source. Or did you mean verifying that the console pictured is the first model?

Good alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I think I should have cleared everything up, although I'm not that good with images. I wasn't too sure about the image of the PlayStation Vita—did you mean verifying the game's influence over the console or the fact that it was the first model in the picture? JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Please see the FAC instructions about when a nomination is archived. "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." My inclination is to remove this, but I don't recall you doing this before so would be prepared to grant an exemption this once. However, as this is the second time this has happened in a few days, I'm also inclined to be less willing to bend the rules in future. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I'm so sorry, I was aware of this rule but for some reason I always thought it only applied to nominating the same article in the space of two weeks, not a different article. I always had that in my mind ever since my FAC failed back in 2012. I would be fine if you decide to remove this, but it won't happen again. JAGUAR  17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tintor2

• Why aren't the other games from the franchise linked in the lead?

• The only other game I'm seeing in the lead is Wipeout HD, which is already linked? Unless I'm missing something. JAGUAR  22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about starting the article with futuristic considering it's not a genre and instead something like "racing game set in the future"

• Removed "futuristic" and made it more specific that the game is set in the year 2048. JAGUAR  22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• The reception section seems quite long. How about trimming or make a smaller section for one aspect of critcism like Final Fantasy XIII#Linearity?
• Is there information about the sales?
• There are some references needing archives like reference 20 "Hindman, Heath (14 February 2012). "WipEout 2048 review". Game Revolution. AtomicOnline. Retrieved 3 January 2017." It is needed for the source review.
• Chris Roberts or other staff members could be in the infobox as director, designer, etc.

Roosevelt dime

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a small, commonplace coin (in the US anyway) that has been struck for seventy years with little drama or variation. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A good mix of history and numismatics. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Much obliged, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Nothing catches my eye on the first read through.

Source review

• Only quibble would be to expand state abbreviations for non-American readers, but that's not a requirement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Support from Jim

Just two points you may want to consider

• End of para 1 "death in 1945" seems more natural to me than "1945 death".
• You don't translate "E PLURIBUS UNUM", but many of your readers will neither be American nor able to read Latin

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Fightstar

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a British punk/alternative rock/metal band which is fronted by the Busted singer Charlie Simpson. I developed an addiction to this band over the summer and fall, and shaped up all the already decent information into a readable, reliable article. Never before had I made such expansion to an article; I took it from about 30k to now approximately 55k. It has already been copyedited for the convenience of the reviewers here. While I will be largely busy on weekdays due to tough school classes, I know I will have time to work on this on weekends because it usually takes a while to get the coordinators to close FACs. This is my first FAC, though I have had one FLC pass (Evanescence discography). I look forward to feedback! dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Bronze Age stone circle in southern England. It will likely intrigue editors interested in archaeology, religion, and folklore. The article is fairly short and is already GA-rated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Bruce1ee

An interesting read – just a few comments:

Infobox

• Not sure if I like the map caption ("Shown within Dorset"); how about "Location within Dorset"?

• I like your proposed change but I don't know if I am actually able to change it. It appears that "Shown with Dorset" is generated automatically when I include the map of Dorset. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Location

• "Enclosed within iron railings ...": no mention is made of when these railings were erected; is this information available?

• Unfortunately I do not believe that it is. That would indeed be information worth putting it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Bibliography

• Some of the author's names can be linked to articles. I take it the links were omitted here because they were linked in the body of the article. I would link them here also, but that's my personal opinion.

• I have added the links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

General

• There is an inconsistency with units of measure in the article: sometimes the primary unit is metric with imperial conversion; other times it's imperial with metric conversion; in some instances there is no conversion. WP:MEASUREMENT says "In non-scientific articles relating to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric ..." Distance, it seems may be miles, but, as I see it, everything else should be metric with imperial conversions. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

• Very good point. I've made sure that metric measurements are always listed before imperial ones. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in the use of the thousands separator in years, eg. 3,300 and 3000. One or the other should be used.

• I have changed "3000" to "3,000". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

—Bruce1ee^talk 17:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Bruce1ee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Support the prose. Thanks for your responses and edits – I'm happy with them. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

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

• "located" (lots of these), "over a period", "A number of": Some reviewers object to these phrases in some contexts; I have no comment.
• "silent and empty monuments": quote marks, but I can't tell from the text who said it.

• I have added that this quote comes from Ronald Hutton to the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The area of modern Dorset": Does this mean "modern Dorset"?

• I used "modern Dorset" here so that readers would not presume that "Dorset" as a distinct demarcated region existed in the Neolithic/Bronze Age. I have nevertheless trimmed this down to "Modern Dorset". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "thin scatter": If it was an actual thin scatter, remove the quotes. If you don't like the term, use a different term. If you're quoting someone, say who, but this isn't something I would quote.

• I've added that the quote comes from Burl. I appreciate the concern here but I think that it would be difficult to paraphrase the term "thin scatter" with alternate wording and the term is perhaps a little poetic to be used without quotation marks. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The Nine Stones circle has been described": WP:INTEXT violation. INTEXT has been disputed a bit, but I think we can live with it. If it isn't important who said something, then the exact wording probably isn't all that important, either.

• I have added that this quote comes from Gale. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "In 1965 a woman from the Isle of Portland stated that her own father had always raised his cap when passing the circle.": I don't know why this is significant, or how it's related to the rest of the paragraph. Also, see the next bullet point.

• It's a piece of recorded folklore associated with the site and has been mentioned by two separate books on Dorset folklore. Granted it may seem a little random but if the reliable sources mention it then so should we. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of Folklore, and all of Recent developments: I have concerns about FAC's "high quality" requirements ... is the say-so of a random person what we're looking for at FAC? But this is above my pay grade.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Thoroughly charming. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Okay, sorry, I thought I was done, but there's something of a consensus now to look at tightening leads. I did some editing, and there's one more thing:
• "The Nine Stones, also known as the Devil's Nine Stones, the Nine Ladies, or Lady Williams and her Dog": I didn't know until I looked it up tonight that our policy page WP:TITLE says that this is too many aliases for the lead sentence. They can be mentioned below the lead, or in the lead infobox, or in a note. No more than one alias in the first sentence would be ideal, if one is more common than the others. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Technically, this nomination is out of process as the nominator had an article archived within two weeks. However, as that article had little review, and as this already has a support, I'm happy to let this one go rather than stop it on a technicality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies Sarastro1 - it seems that I got a little confused with regard to this rule. I always used to think that there was a two-week embargo period that had to be observed following the end of any FAC nomination, till your comment to me here in February. I mis-remembered your comment and somehow thought that there was no two-week period at all following the termination of an FAC. It won't happen again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sabine's Sunbird

This is great. Some minor quibbles.

• Location launches straight into a grid location. That's probably less useful or interesting than more descriptive information like Dorset or Southern England. I know you mention Dorset in the lead, but the lead should cover material found in the main body of the article.

• I've added mention of Dorset into this section too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• The area of modern Dorset has only is slightly odd, maybe just Dorset?

• I adopted this prose because I wanted to avoid the impression that a region known as "Dorset" existed in the Neolithic or Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology, being of comparatively small size, with none exceeding 28 metres (92 feet) in diameter. This confuses me slightly. Are they simplistic because they are small? Also, what are they small compared to? Other stone circles? Other stone circles in Britain?

• I have amended the prose here to the following: "The Dorset circles have a simplistic typology and are of a comparatively small size in comparison to other British stone circles,". Hopefully this explains things in an appropriate manner? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why only metric in the lead, but then leading with imperial in the description?

• Good point. I have added imperial measurements. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• The site is in the care of English Heritage, when did they aquire it?

• Unfortunately I have no idea, and cannot find any information about this in the sources. It would certainly make a good addition though, so hopefully future sources may mention it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Will be happy to support when my points have been addressed or explained. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Sabine's Sunbird. I'm glad that you were happy with the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I note you still go metric imperial in the lead and imperial metric in the article. I'd probably go metric then imperial, as Britain is mostly metric these days, unless they are drinking or driving (but hopefully not both). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now... support. nothing to complain about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

Another interesting article.

• Would it be worth including the [citation sheet from English Heritage of its scheduling as an ancient monument?
  • Are you referring to the fact that the website states that the site was scheduled in August 1916? The article already mentions the scheduling of the site, although refers to the year 1888, which is what a number of printed sources describe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I had not spotted the discrepancy in dates (which may be differences reflected in our two unclear and possibly contradictory articles Ancient monument and Scheduled monument, but as Historic England is the government body responsible for the recording of these sites, its record of the site, which is a copy of that signed by the Secretary of State, should be included (at least as a reference or footnote).— Rod ^talk 21:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
      • A good idea. I have added he additional information. Thanks, Rod. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• It could also be added to the Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Dorset.
  • Added! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Sarsen is wikilinked in both "Context" and "Description and design" sections. Cornwall is wikilinked twice in the "Folklore" section (minor quibbles)
  • Well spotted! Removing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• In "Antiquarian and archaeological research" it says "As of 2003, the site had not been excavated." can this be updated? to the best of my knowledge there has been no excavation in the last 13/14 years.
  • This is true, but the source in question is dated only to 2003. Stating "As of 2016" would therefore be stating something which is not in the source material provided. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if there is nothing more recent which can be cited, then this seems reasonable to me.— Rod ^talk 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Isle of Portland could be wikilinked for those not aware of local geography
  • An excellent idea. Added link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Could "Dolmen Grove Druids" be explained?
  • I've amended the prose slightly to "a modern Druidic group called the Dolmen Grove Druids." Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Apart from these minor issues I think the article does a good job in describing the context, history and structure of the site.— Rod ^talk 19:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I can now support this article as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed one, and once Rodw's comments are addressed, we need a source review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adventure Time

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Adventure Time, an American animated television series created by Pendleton Ward that follows the adventures of Finn (a human boy) and Jake (a magical, shape-shifting dog and Finn's adoptive brother) in a post-apocalyptic world of Ooo. The show has been quite the pop culture phenomenon these last few years, and has won numerous awards, including a Peabody and several Emmys. When I first started working on the article in 2012, it looked like this. Since then, I have greatly expanded it, both in terms of size as well as coverage. I have used the highest-quality sources (all of which are archived, if applicable), and I have had it copy-edited a handful of times, both by myself as well as others. The content is solid, the prose reads well, and it is accurate. While it is currently a good article, I believe it is ready for the next step. Also, if anyone wishes to do source spot-checks, I have access to many of the books, and I'd be willing to send out scans to expedite the process.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989
Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. MCMLXXXIX 19:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC) @1989: Good catch. I have added alt text to all the images.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! -- MCMLXXXIX 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Replace the (rare) curly quotes with straight quotes.

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A joy to read ... now I want to watch the show. - Dank (push to talk) 00:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Dank: Thanks for the copy-edit. I have changed all the curly quotes to straight quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I am not certain about the last one-sentence paragraph of the lead. Would it be possible to integrate that information into the above paragraphs instead? It could fit in the second paragraph. Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I am not certain about the value of the ukulele image as it does not add that much to the reader's understanding of the material. It seems to be there more for padding/break up a large amount of text. I'll go ahead and remove it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) I really like the content of the "Critical reviews" section, but I would suggest trying to make this more accessible to an unfamiliar reader. I would suggest revising this section around topic as this can come across as a list of reviewer's thoughts. I would recommend looking at the following resource for help on this matter: here Are there any negative reviews of the series? This is more of a clarification question. Just want to make sure to make this as comprehensive as possible. I'm sure there are, but honestly, I can't really find any from major sources; most places like the show a lot. The one negative thing I did come across was from Perlmutter. I bet there is some controversy about the show's content (e.g. cartoon violence, mild language, fart jokes, etc.) so I'll look into that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC) That makes sense. I just want to make sure that the section satisfies the "comprehensive" aspect of the FA criteria. If you cannot find anything from a reliable source, then it is fine. I just wanted to check and clarify about this in particular. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) @Gen. Quon: Everything looks good. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC) I'll try to work on the rest tomorrow. If I forget, feel free to ping me, but I'll try not to!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC) No worries. Take as much time as you need. You have done a lot of wonderful work with this article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: How does this change look?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support: the changes look great and the article is very strong. If possible, could you also help me with my FAC as well? Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VII

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Participation Guide
Support
1989, Dank
Comments/No vote
1989 (later support)
Oppose

This article is about Final Fantasy VII. The seventh overall entry in the Final Fantasy series and the first entry for the PlayStation, it is generally hailed as one of the most important and best-remembered video games in the history of the medium. This article was delisted as a Featured Article in 2008 due to quality concerns, and has since been lingering at GA level since then. With the arrival of Final Fantasy VII Remake and the 20th anniversary of Final Fantasy VII, it was suggested and decided to make a push towards bringing this article back to its former place as an FA. Along with myself, this project has been a collaborative effort with @TarkusAB, GamerPro64, Masem, Tintor2, Jaguar, Sergecross73, Deckiller, and Brayden96: our work has included grammar work, reference maintenance, and the expansion/trimming/tidying of multiple sections. I hope they will also help bring this article through the final stages to FA status. ProtoDrake (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

Could you add alt text to the images that are being used in the article? Click here for more information. -- MCMLXXXIX 19:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I've added alts to all images. They can be improved if needed. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Support That's all I needed to say. Good luck! By the way, if you don't add a signature, pinging won't work. -- MCMLXXXIX 20:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "A high-definition remake is in development for the PlayStation 4.": Potentially an ASOF issue here, but I don't take a position on those.
• "casting magical abilities": Doesn't sound right ... how can you cast an ability?
• "planet's lifeforce": linked to Gaia hypothesis, but it's nothing like that hyphothesis. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• "Avalanche": For this word and maybe others, sometimes you capitalize and sometimes not. I don't have a strong feeling about this if there's a clean break from one style to the other, but some reviewers will see it as a mistake, so you probably want to fix it.
• "storyboards": A good habit to get into is to ask yourself every time you see quote marks: why the quotes? I don't know why these quote marks are here ... were they not storyboards? Were they sort of storyboards? Unless I'm missing something, the readers won't know what you mean either.
• "While sprites proved more popular": With the staff? What about them was more popular?
• In Reception, there's a {{vague}} tag.
• In Reception, the logical quotation (WP:LQ) suddenly goes all to hell. Only put a comma or period inside the quote marks if it's there in the original, and if the quote is substantial; a good rule-of-thumb is that a clause (with a verb) is substantial.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I learned a lot of video game history here, and it wasn't hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: I've done my best with your comments, and done some further work of my own. Many thanks.

Looks good, though I haven't checked the LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

X-10 Graphite Reactor

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The X-10 Project was the Manhattan Project effort to breed plutonium for atomic bombs using nuclear reactors. As part of this, an experimental reactor was built at the Clinton Engineer Works known as the X-10 Graphite Reactor. It operated for many years, and is now a tourist attraction. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "but had sufficient confidence in his calculations that the water-cooled reactor would.": Would what?

  Well spotted., Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Your writing gets better all the time. It's really hard to make a subject like this concrete, the way you do it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment: The article might have been nominated earlier, but the US National Parks Service website suddenly went down in January. It's back now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• What was the appeal of Oak Ridge? Cheap TVA power?

  Several things. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• He reasoned that it would primarily be a research and educational facility, and that expertise was to be found at the Metallurgical Laboratory. Compton was shocked.[22] The Metallurgical Laboratory was part of the University of Chicago, so the university would be operating an industrial facility 500 miles (800 km) from its main campus. Can you fold the bit about Compton being shocked into one of the other sentences?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I see Arthur, that while I was gone Is there a missing comma after "see"?

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Cast uranium billets came from Metal Hydrides, Mallinckrodt and other suppliers. These were extruded into cylindrical slugs, and canned by Alcoa, which started production on June 14, 1943.[37] The fuel slugs were canned primarily to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, but also to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. The cladding had to transmit heat but not absorb too many neutrons. Aluminum was chosen. reword this

  What's the problem? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The order of these sentences isn't logical and reads awkwardly. Tell the reader much earlier that aluminum was chosen because of X & Y and then get into who and when. Except in dialog, three-word sentences are best avoided as they can usually be integrated into the sentences around them where things will flow better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    Okay. The text now reads The fuel slugs were canned to protect the uranium metal from corrosion that would occur if it came into contact with water, and to prevent the venting of gaseous radioactive fission products that might be formed when they were irradiated. Aluminum was chosen as it transmitted heat but did not absorb too many neutrons. Alcoa started canning on June 14, 1943. General Electric and the Metallurgical Laboratory developed a new welding technique to seal the cans airtight, and the equipment for this was installed in the production line at Alcoa in October 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, operations did not detect the effect of the neutron poison Operations?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• During 2015 tours were part of a general three-hour tour of the Clinton Engineer Works facilities, and were conducted on Mondays through Fridays at noon, from June 4 to September 30, except on July 4 and 5. Not really relevant. Best if handled in an external link to the Museum.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Several overlinks.

  Rempved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Financed through the Belgian uranium export tax with the help of British experts Financed or built with the help of British experts?

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• No DABs, external links OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Evita (1996 film)

Nominator(s): FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about...the 1996 film depicting the life of Eva Perón, from her beginnings, rise to power and death at the age of 33. FrankRizzo (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "June 21, 1978": See WP:MOS. Here (and elsewhere), a comma is needed afterwards if there's no other punctuation there.
• "they are upset": About?
• "Lader taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, allowing her to project her voice in a much more cohesive manner.": I'm dubious that this was the first time she heard about singing from the diaphragm, and I think readers will need clarification even if it's true.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments I think even though the film received according to review aggregation websites an average of mixed reviews, the protagonism of Madonna has had attracted an universal acclaim. There is some yesterday and today sources like this: 1 and 2. So, one of the most important things in an article is to be neutral, and there is not something to treat it lightly, specially when some source claims that Madonna "popularised" Argentinian politics. So, my request is to mention in the lead and critical response section, this specification about her acting (as they do in other articles, like Suicide Squad with "Robbie and Leto's performances"). Thanks Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 05:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support After the changes, everything looks good. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 11:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's an image review:

• File:Evita poster.jpg has an appropriate FUR
• While File:Evita color.jpg is uploaded as free work due to an expired copyright, it would help to know who the original author is/was
• File:Oliver Stone 01.jpg is claimed as own work, and I will assume good faith with the claim, though let's trim its caption to something like "Oliver Stone was hired to write and direct the film in 1987, and remained involved with the project until 1994."
• For File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg, I'm not sure if email is considered a valid file source. Can something more accessible be found?
• File:Madonna Rebel Heart Tour 2015 - Stockholm (23051472299) (cropped).jpg is perfectly fine to use
• File:2011.10.17.091510 Casa Rosada Buenos Aires.jpg seems to have OK licensing, though I'm not sure its inclusion is particularly beneficial (at least compared to the other ones used)

There thankfully are no glaring concerns that I can find. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that the Stone caption has thankfully been trimmed. Let me know when the other concerns are addressed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Some updates: I replaced File:Evita color.jpg since I could not find any details regarding the original author. I could remove the image File:Alan Parker (Director), London, 2012.jpg if the file source is a concern. FrankRizzo (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Eva Perón Retrato Oficial.jpg definitely was a good substitute to include as all publication details are known. As for the Alan Parker image, it would probably be best to remove if no other file source can be found. Feel free to also replace it with another image of him with a more accessible file source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Hills, Bogotá

Nominator(s): Tisquesusa (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Eastern Hills of the Colombian capital Bogotá.

1. - article is imho complete covering all areas and linking to specific main articles for further reading
2. - list of sources is extensive and reliable
3. - images are there to show the location and different characteristics
4. - infobox, tables and other features are complete
5. - other, supporting articles (geological formations, rivers, earthquakes) are in preparation or have been newly created already

In general, I think the article meets the standards for FA. Please review and I am open to comments about the contents of the article Tisquesusa (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose (for now at least). There are an excessive number of images (and too many galleries), many of which are forced into sections which creates large area of white space. There are a lot of out-sized images and too much sandwiched text between two images.

In terms of the sources, there is no need to have so much capitalisation in the names or titles, and you need to ensure the formatting of the references is consistent (There are examples of p.1 and p. 1 and some page ranges that are p, not pp. - The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Just popping back to see progress on this. Although there have been great strides in sorting out some of the images, I see that there are still too many of them, and a number of those that remain have the sizes forced to 350px, which is against the MoS guidelines. Pushing the guidelines isn't a problem in itself, but it's forcing large areas of white space into the article and dominating the page, even on a wide monitor. I strongly suggest you read through MOS:IMGSIZE and act accordingly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The images are there to inform and highlight the text. The quality of a Featured Article depends on the information, the amount of sources and the informational level of the article. Where do you see "white spaces"? I have deliberately scaled everything to the text. "there are too many images" is a personal flavour, not an in-depth review of an article where clearly a lot of work is put in. I follow the guidelines and additional to that have an own style, something that is perfectly accepted in Wikipedia as many articles have slightly different styles and wordings, use of lay-out, images, tables, etc. Personal flavours not directed towards the content of an article are not relevant remarks. If you don't like images, you can avoid looking at them. But there are many people around who do like images and are much more visually than textually focused. Those people profit from the images and would be denied service by forcifully removing them to accommodate a "desire" by people who don't have any interest in them anyway. The image sizes are important too; the majority of images in my opinion are too small, certainly for readers with less eye-sight (not me, I write for others). They are served with larger images, showing more clearly what is the illustration of the text. Those people again would be denied service if images are scaled down. If you have an in-depth review of the article, I am all ears. But if an article of this size, quality, completeness and full referencing using many online accessible sources would "FAIL" a FA review, then so be it. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tisquesusa, Please don't think I'm attacking you or the article, but these are valid concerns. Point 3 of the FA criteria is that "Images follow the image use policy", of which sizing is one element. That's not "personal flavour", or even just a guideline: it's policy. It's fine for you to say that you "have deliberately scaled everything to the text", but that scaling goes entirely out of the window when the page is viewed on a browser of a different size, and there are very large areas of white space when I view the article. If you choose to ignore the policy and not to address the size problem, that is up to you, but my oppose will stand because if it. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

This is a fascinating article marred by significant layout flaws. I find the prose to be generally professional, and that makes me want to encourage you. After spending quite a bit of time reading and taking notes line by line, I've decided to stop about midway through the History section to see how you respond to what The Bounder said and what I have said below.

Layout

• I agree with The Bounder's comments above about the excessive number of images. There are way too many. I suggest that you choose only the ones that are necessary to illustrate a point or points in the text and to place them, generally at default size, entirely within the section they refer to. All the rest of the images will still be accessible via the Commons. (As an aside here, I would note that each image that you decide to keep will need alt text, and the thought of creating alt text for all of these images might by itself induce you to avoid illustrations that are purely decorative.)
• The collapsible lists create a similar layout problem. In addition, according to MOS:COLLAPSE, they will likely create accessibility difficulties. I suggest rendering the essence of these lists as straight prose and deleting the "show–hide" lists.

I have trimmed down on the images, the ones remaining indicate the important features. Not all readers are equally visually focused. The lists have been uncollapsed and the flora and fauna made into a separate list linked in the article.

Thanks. It looks better than before but still has large white spaces and an overabundance of visuals, including the two collapsing templates. It would be relatively easy to eliminate images such as the white-tailed deer from Kansas that seem only tangentially related to the Eastern Hills of Colombia, and it would not be difficult to turn the hydrology table into a paragraph or two of straight prose. These are just examples, not a complete list of possible improvements. Rather than poring over the Manual of Style for an answer to every question that pops into my head, I have often looked at WP:FA to see what others have done to meet the criteria. For example, you might find Mendip Hills worth looking at. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The white-tailed deer is really key to most of the history of the Eastern Hills. It was the most abundant species and the main ingredient of the food of the Muisca. I've linked sources on that here, others are at Aguazuque and related preceramic sites. Same for the spectacled bear. It may be today it's a very restricted species, but just last week one of those was killed in Fómeque, just to the east of the Eastern Hills. It's important to point those species out, so having them in an image. Pity we don't have a white-tailed deer from Colombia and the nice picture is from Kansas, but that doesn't make it an "irrelevant" picture, it's just a nice example (honouring the photographer/uploader of that one to Commons). Ideally all photos are from the Eastern Hills themselves, which works for other images, but for the white-tailed deer that would be impossible; the urbanisation of the area doesn't allow for sightings of those deer in the Eastern Hills. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to keep the white-tailed deer if you think it is important. I meant only to use it as an example of something that could possibly be removed in order to resolve the layout problems. Unless you can find a way to eliminate the big white spaces, for example, the article will not likely meet the FA criteria. I realize that the images are important to you and that it might be painful to remove many more of them or to reduce their sizes, but when you nominate for FA, you are asking everyone who takes part in the process to agree that the article is as good as possible. That necessarily means conforming to the encyclopedia's layout guidelines as well as a large number of other guidelines to be found in the Manual of Style. I hope this explanation helps. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• "The NNW-SSE trending mountain chain..." – Compass directions in Wikipedia are generally spelled out unless part of a street address. Maybe "the mountain chain, which trends north-northwest to south-southeast" would better conform to the Manual of Style. Ditto for other similar instances in the article.

Solved

Hydrology

• Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills, with as most important rivers from south to north..." – Word or words missing?

The ":" refers to the table directly below, now expanded to be easier to read.

Ah, I see. I missed the importance of the colon on my first pass-through, and I find the sentence structure confusing. Instead of "Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills, with as most important rivers from south to north:" might I suggest this for clarity: "Various rivers and creeks flowing into the Bogotá savanna are sourced from the Eastern Hills. The most important rivers from south to north are:"?

Flora

• "A study of the vegetational cover has revealed the presence of 29 types of vegetation covering 63.16% of the total area. The remaining 36.84% is used by urban settlement, agricultural lands and quarries." – Better if rounded to nearest whole numbers; i.e, "about 63 percent" and "the remaining 37 percent"?

Solved

• " In the Eastern Hills a total of 443 species of flora have been identified, of which 156 species in 111 genera and 64 families of vascular plants." – Word or words missing?

The 156 species refer to the families of vascular plants.

I'm still confused by this. Does this mean that 156 of the 443 identified species belong to 111 genera in 64 families? What about the other 287 species? Finetooth (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've reworded it. And I am adding the geological formations to solve those red links. Tisquesusa (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• For the sake of readability, I'd suggest reducing the long list of species, most of which are redlinked, to a small sampling.

Made into a separate list; there many red links are present but I've added the photos available at Commons to invite writers to create those new articles. Imho a plant that has an image on Commons should have an article too.

Adding red links to the separate list seems entirely appropriate to me. Finetooth (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

History

• " at the summer solstice of June 21, the Sun rises exactly from Lake Iguaque..." – I think you need to say explicitly where the observer is standing to see this effect; i.e., "as seen from El Infiernito, the Sun rises...".

True, I have added the location; the solar observatory itself.

• "A similar site in the Muisca astronomy was the location where the Spanish conquistadors built the precursor to the under the early Colombian government..." – Word or words missing?

That's right, added "church".

The sentence still does not make sense to me. It reads, "A similar site in the Muisca astronomy was the location where the Spanish conquistadors built the precursor church to the under the early Colombian government constructed Catedral Basílica Metropolitana de la Inmaculada Concepción." – Perhaps "The Spanish conquistadors built a church, a precursor of the Catedral Basilica Metropolitana de la Inmaculad Concepción, at a similar site in the Eastern Hills"? Or have I misunderstood something? Finetooth (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Spanish built their churches at sites where the indigenous Muisca celebrated their religious festivities. It was a way to replace the original Muisca religion and to submit the "primitive" indigenous peoples to the new rule. I think I've reworded it, but if it's still unclear I can rewrite. Tisquesusa (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making another small edit here. Please revert or alter if you think of a better way to put it. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• "...after the deadliest of the conquest expeditions of advanced pre-Columbian civilisations. More than 80% of his soldiers did not survive..." – Deadliest for whom? If we consider the deaths of the conquered, was this expedition the deadliest?

It was explained in the next sentence but added the Spanish for clarification.

Thanks. I re-arranged the prose a bit for clarity. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Muisca Confederation

• I notice that some of the links around words like "agriculture" and "salt" are what's known as Easter-egg links that take readers to an unexpected place. The MOS guidelines suggest avoiding links like this. Finetooth (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The link to Nemocón was to indicate the important salt mining town, now replaced with a link to the mining of the Muisca. In some future a separate article about the salt extraction of the Muisca should be made, as it was their important characteristic.

I've also removed quite some links to minor topics that should have articles (are notable), but not the main ones. The main articles, of which the geological formations are in preparation, still have red links. Added another that I am preparing too. Thank you for the comments, compliments and thorough review! Have a great day, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I made quite a few minor copyediting changes today. Feel free to revert any that you think are mistakes. I will probably have more, but I'm getting too cross-eyed to continue just now. Finetooth (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• I made a few more minor edits today, and I will now wait to see what other editors have to say and what you decide to do about layout and alt text for readers who cannot see the images. I don't know what to suggest about the collapsing templates. In my own writing for Wikipedia, I've relied on using existing templates that look good to me rather than creating my own. Template:History of Egypt looks good to me, for example, and this form could be used across a related series of articles related to the Muisca. WP:Template namespace has ideas, guidelines. What you have done already is well-researched and very interesting. Finetooth (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Finetooth, I have expanded the Climate section to solve the ugly white space that was there, adding a reference too. I've removed the large Muisca history template that is less relevant for the Hills and too extensive to show up in the mobile version. The timeline of inhabitation is important and more concised so I think that one showing up expanded (I've raised that issue in another discussion) on the mobile version shouldn't be a big problem. The only images that are now spanning the page are the forest fires, but they are important to highlight the constant (yearly) threat to the hills, the people living on the slopes of them and the way they are treated (thanks for the Bamby Bucket link!). I've added all the rivers that were red links and all the geologic formations in equally extensively referenced articles (I don't do stubs). The remaining red links of the Reservoirs, Earthquakes, Bogotá Fault and Suba Hills are in preparation. I've selected other images of the flora and fauna (the white-tailed deer was a subspecies from the US) and expanded on the captions to highlight the importance and in my view captions should be interesting to read too, not just "this is X", that is obvious from the image itself. What do you think of the article as it stands now? Cheers and thanks, Tisquesusa (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'll wait to see what other editors have to say lest I get too involved in pushing you one way or another. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Older nominations

Capella

Nominator(s): Lithopsian (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth brightest star in the sky. It's been a collaborative effort with a few folks involved, Spacepotato brought it to GA-hood and I have tried to buff it with Lithopsian. We think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

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

looks fine so far Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "observers north of 44°N. its name meaning": ?

whoops/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "it and Capella were situated rather close to each other": How many light-years apart? Or were they only close as viewed from Earth?

the latter. Does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It helps. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Capella was seen as a portent of rain in classical times.": In what way?

source doesn't clarify. presumably though the star appeared just before a regular rainy season and ancient observers (falsely) suspected causation... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Are readers likely to infer that meaning, or any particular meaning, from your text? I leave the question with you. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "apparently detected and confirmed an X-ray source": Why apparently?

good point/removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• 723": Typo? Just checking.

Not a typo. 723 arc-seconds. Does it need clarifying? Linking? This unit occurs quite a few times and units tend to be abbreviated except possibly for the first occurrence. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I was just checking if it was a typo. You don't usually see 723 arcseconds, for the same reason that you generally don't see a time interval measured as "723 seconds". - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• "A 2016 measurement gives the magnitude different between the two stars at 700nm as 0.00 ± 0.1.": I don't follow. "magnitude difference", maybe?

Yes, a typo. Corrected. Lithopsian (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett

• References 10, 27 and 59 are showing stray square brackets and should be fixed.

all tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 84 has missing }

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 86 has no English translation of title.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 84 & 86 use different way to indicate language to other entries.

both tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Line-of-sight links via optical double, but does not go to a useful point in the article.

that article is a mess. Need to rejig target article before finding somewhere to link to. frustrating... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've snuck "line-of-sight" into the lead of double star which seems like a quick way to satisfy readers that they've reached the right place. Lithopsian (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is a teaser about differences in isotope abundances, but there is no detail. This would be a missing knowledge in the article.

added a footnote but need to sleep as should get another sentence to explain Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The footnote covers what I was referring to. The differences indicate the more advanced evolution of the primary. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also there is nothing about elemental composition and how it compares to the sun etc. Are there any molecules in the spectrum?

not seen any molecules mentioned. Metallicity similar to our Sun. Will write after sleeping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about heavy element abundances. There isn't anything striking about them, other than the already-mentioned differences between the two giants. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Haedi is not a useful link, dropping you in at the top of the constellation.

Now linked to Auriga (constellation)#Eclipsing_binary_stars Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Orbital parallax redirects to a section in cosmic distance ladder that does not mention this term . Is it actually different to Hiparcos measurements?

linked to dynamical parallax Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• chandra Links to the Wrong subject.

linked to Chandra X-ray Observatory now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Speckle imaging could do with a link.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• In "In traditional Chinese astronomy" the name is given in four forms, traditional, simplified, pinyin and English translation. This ia a bit undue. We can do without the simplified characters, as they are an anachronism. People that can actually read Chinese can go to the Cinese language article if they cannot cope with traditional characters. After all the native scripts for Macedonian or Indian laguages are not included.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I can still see "五车" in there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That one removed also. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Boorong people at least deserves a link, it is mentioned quite a few times on Wikipedia with no separate article yet. The redirect is slightly useful for the section Wergaia#Mythological and empirical thinking

I've used that destination. There seems to be little on the Boorong, even to make a stub. 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• ancient Balts deserve a link to make it clear who/where they were.

linked to Balts as (a) there is no subarticle and (b) it isn't clear from the original article about the age Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 62 and 63 are dupicates.

unified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Reference 82 is a translation, so it should probably say so in the template J F is the translator. Reference 83 is the same work untranslated, but author name is different to 82, and the language, Latin, is not indicated.

added all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Inconsistent space between initials in references, eg 26 vs 28. I believe the MOS says to put a space.

I've always had no space - I can't se the bit where it says use a space. So have streamlined to unspaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

See MOS:INITIALS. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

sigh...ok then...will do....all done I think.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some more authors could have authorlinks, eg Patrick Moore, Ian Ridpath, and there probably many more in there.

added some Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• yet more: Dorrit Hoffleit, Noah Brosch, Wilhelm Gliese, Anthony Aveni, Edward William Lane

all linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

When I look at the diffs you have not been using the template parameters, it should be for example author-link1=Dorrit Hoffleit and author-link2 = Noah Brosch. etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Think I've got them all fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• All the images need to have alt= text added for those using text readers

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I have now checked all the wiki links. We should convert the see also section to a one or two sentences summarising the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

yes - that has been tricky given the obscure nature of most of the fictional material. Still, I found two that are discussed in secondary sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: My concerns listed below were addressed. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Good job! Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I took a quick pass through the text and found a few issues.

• There no discussion of the tidal evolution of this system, and no mention of the detached state of the orbit throughout their respective evolution. I.e. was there a Roche lobe overflow? No, according to Torres et al (2011).

added note - wasn't sure whether to move stuff up to that section about more massive star's maximum radius as a red giant, which is currently further down the page... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The Components section may be confusing since it is using the same notation for different units. At a minimum, I'd suggest using the HTML &prime; (′) and &Prime; (″) for the angular notation.

I spelled out feet and inches to avoid confusion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is some inconsistency about capitalizing 'Sun'.

capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The article should mention that the rotational velocities are projected, not the actual equatorial velocities. You can't directly compare them without know the respective inclinations of their polar axes.

I mentioned this where relevant. It is somewhat unimportant for this star given the known rotational periods. The inclinations and absolute rotational velocities are also known. Lithopsian (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• How were the rotational periods derived? I'm assuming from measuring periodic variability of their surface activity.

Directly measured in the same way as the orbital motions. Lithopsian (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• "700 nm": it should indicate this is a wavelength.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• The first use of 'metallicity' in the article body should be linked.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll have another look later for more. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok @Praemonitus:, ready for more comments... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Right then, just a few more remarks:

• Bailer-Jones (2015) computed the mean perihelion distance as 28.86 ly (8.849 pc), which occurred around 237,000 years ago. Would this be worth including in the Distance section? See also Capella's entry on the Historical brightest stars listing.

I forgot about that and like this sorta stuff....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• "late F or early G": the reader may be unfamiliar with the use of early or late as astronomical conventions. Perhaps "late (cooler) F or early (warmer) G"?

good point/added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• The citations for the four IAU bulletins (12-15) can be filled out a little more.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Otherwise it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• perhaps pipe star system as system to avoid close repeat of "star"

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• and cooled and swollen away from the main sequence — I don't like the conflation of a physical move with a classification move

how about "off"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I re-worded again, in a way that I think avoids any implication of physical motion. Lithopsian (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• 25-inch telescope — conversion?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I put this in a {{convert}} template, which gives quite a different cm value. Lithopsian (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• United Kingdom and Scandinavia, most of France, Canada and the northernmost United States— A bit selective to have only N America and western Europe. I would think that Finland, Germany, the Baltic states and Russia have at least as good a claim as France

Not sure how the non-anglophone countries got in there. Have just left the ones mentioned in the source. Folks can always click on the 44th Parallel too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

All looks OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Waiting (2015 film)

Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 release starring Kalki Koechlin and Naseeruddin Shah. The article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and a Peer Review and has been stable since. Looking forward to the comments. NumerounovedantTalk 19:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks a lot! All your edits are always appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• No audio files used, images only.
• Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
• The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
• Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for being the wonderful person that you are. XD NumerounovedantTalk 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the compliment :) Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Edwininlondon

I like the article. Short but sweet. I have a few comments:

• Kiwi singer-songwriter -> Seems a bit odd to use the nickname; I'd prefer New Zealander
• and she shares her disappointment with her friends and followers on social media for having abandoned her. -> not clear to me what abandoned refers to

its not the easiest thing to put in words, but in the scene she feels let down by the fact that despite of having such a huge of no "friends" on social media she is at a lonely stage.

• not sure if email is the preferred spelling of e-mail, but you should probably choose one
• In an interview with The Hindu, Koechlin revealed that before the actual shoot began -> would this sentence not fit better in the previous section?
• last paragraph of Filming and post-production is largely quotes. I don't think they all have to be quotes, could be rewritten
• This sentiment was echoed by a reviewer for Koimoi -> this makes it sound as if it's just a user review, not written by a staff member
• The Marketing and release section also relies too heavily on quotes methinks
• praised the cinematography -> that's 3 times praised in short succession, maybe rephrase?
• the script was "dignified [and] without any false notes", and the film "manages -> that's past tense and present tense in one

Spot check references

• ref #2 links to another page with no reference to Waiting
• ref # 6 does refer to James being an anesthesiologist, but doesn't confirm "fellow London Film School alumnus"

Edwininlondon (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

On it. NumerounovedantTalk 16:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Tweaked the prose, and hopefully fixed everything. Looking at the refs now.. NumerounovedantTalk 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: Done. NumerounovedantTalk 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

OK. Gets my Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Had my say at the PR. Looks worthy enough. But, i feel that the poster can have a source other than IMDB. Good luck! ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Pavan, I'll see what I can do about the poster. NumerounovedantTalk 20:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The phrase "got under way" in the lead sounds somewhat informal to me, and I believe that a stronger word choice would improve this.

• Replaced with "started" (although not sure if that's the best word either.)

• I think it is a better word choice for now; you can always come back to this in the future if you think of something better as I do not believe it is anything hindering this from being promoted to FA if this is successful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• In the lead, would it be helpful to include a brief part about what specific aspects of the film received praise from critics?

• Expanded.

• In the lead, you mention that the film received positive reviews upon its release in India. Do you think you should include information on its reception overseas, since you have a separate section for it in the body of the article?

• The article mentions the response from Dubai, which was the film's world premiere.

• Makes sense to me; I must have overlooked this by accident so thank you for clarifying this to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• The phrase "average grosser" sounds somewhat odd to me; I have never encountered it before, and I think a stronger word choice would benefit the article.

• Tweaked.

• Do you have any information regarding the film's budget? You say "a modest budget", but do you have anything more specific?

• No, unfortunately independent films do not attract any sort of media coverage here in India, and it's almost impossible to get the production details.

• That is what I thought from reading the article, but I just wanted to make sure. Thank you for clarifying this. It is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• This may sound childish, but the phrase "probed Menon" just sounds extremely dirty to me, and I would recommend a different phrasing for that part.

• Had a good 15-minute laugh right about here. Fixed.

• I had a laugh at that too lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think you could move the image from the "Marketing and release" subsection down into the "India" subsection to replace the current image there. The caption for the image in the "India" subsection references both actors so having an image of both actors there would be useful, and I am not certain about the value of having two images of Kalki Koechlin in the article.
• Should you link The Huffington Post India to the general Huffington Post page? (I am referencing the resources/sourcing)

• Removed.

• The word "Watch" should not be in caps in the reference titles.

• Fixed

Great job with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Fixed everything (hopefully). Thanks for taking out time for the review. NumerounovedantTalk 19:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks great; I can definitely support this. Good luck with getting this promoted, and I look forward to working with you more in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The feeling's mutual. Cheers. NumerounovedantTalk 20:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Development began in June 2014, --> The development of the film began in June 2014.

• Done

• Newspapers like TOI, The Hindu should be in italics and use 'work' or 'publisher' parameters instead of 'website', as its widely used.

• Done

• How 'Ishka films' a RS?

• It's the official page of the production house, should it qualify as a RS?

• I see reviews of prominent critics like Anupama Chopra and Rajeev Masand are not mentioned. Also, you should add 1-2 negative or mixed reviews for the sake of neutrality.

• Added Masand's mixed review, and expanded on Gupta's mixed review as well.

• Mention the writers name in the lead.

• It's already there.

• "In her review for Firstpost Anna Vetticad said that.." A comma is missing somewhere. Also, it should be 'wrote that' unless its a video review.

• Added

• I'm not sure a site like Koimoi can be used in a featured level article since many of its stuffs are WP:MIRROR.

• Removed the review from reception section, I don't think that the one line in the music section should cause any issues, but if you're still uncomfortable with the use of the site, I can remove the too.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for taking out time to review this, I greatly appreciate all your help Yash, you're a wonderful person. NumerounovedantTalk 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Homeworld

Nominator(s): PresN 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Claiming the title as the best strategy video game and best computer game of 1999, Homeworld is considered a classic of the genre for a single innovation: it was the first strategy game that was fully 3D, in the sense that units were not restricted to a plane like the ground, but could move anywhere within a sphere of space. Connecting the levels together so that the same plucky fighter ship from level 1 could end up leading a formation against a capital ship 6 levels later was the icing on the cake, and it's no surprise that when the rights came up for auction they were snapped up immediately. I rewrote this article from the ground up this past Fall, and it passed GA then; I've done some cleaning and archiving and polishing since, and I think it's ready to go for FA. Thank you all for reviewing, and I hope reading this makes someone hear "Adagio for Strings" in their heads once again. --PresN 15:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• So, I pulled up the Homeworld soundtrack on YouTube ... and found it in my Favorites folder ... I didn't recall that it was from Homeworld, I just remembered it as my favorite version of the piece.
• "was also highly reviewed": Roughly speaking, when doing prose reviews at FAC, I stay away from word usage problems, or at least the kind that people like to argue about. This is a close call; I haven't seen much support for "highly reviewed" in the sense of "highly rated", and it might even be a grammar problem rather than a usage problem. But if you think the usage is arguable, then I'll let other reviewers weigh in on that (or not). - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Did some research, and I think there's a problem of the appearance of suspect grammar. That outweighs usage questions, I think. I'll change it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, and please check my changes. These are my edits. I think the greater appeal of this game helps the article become more appealing as well, and the writing is (mostly) easy to follow, which isn't always easy to accomplish in VG articles. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. What's there is very good, but I think the article has to fail on comprehensiveness grounds due to the very small development section that really offers no insights into how the game was made. At the very least there must have been magazine articles at the time that offered previews with quotes from the development team. If you can prove me wrong, I will withdraw the objection, but I would still be hesitant to support, as I do feel a video game FA requires more in this area. Indrian (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Indrian: Tracked down some previews and added about 2.5 paragraphs to development; you're right, that was a pretty big miss- the ones that had the good previews with interview quotes were also the ones that don't have an extant web presence any more. I tend to forget about the magazines that didn't end up on the web, and it bit me here. --PresN 16:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PresN:That looks much better. Consider my objection withdrawn. I will conduct a more formal review in the near future. Indrian (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know if there's any new information in these, but I found a preview from PC Gamer US and one in this issue of Computer Gaming World. Hope these are useful! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• No, unfortunately- I'd already seen those, and the CGW one is just a description of gameplay (which isn't changed from the final version, so no good there), while the PCG one at least has quotes from Garden, except it's just gameplay descriptions again, not design choices/development information. They're what I usually expect from previews, in other words (actually a preview, not a development interview), which is partially why I didn't think to search really hard for them in the first place. Will need to do that if I ever try to take Dungeon Siege to FAC, it came out around the same year. Thanks for looking though! Glad to see you still poking around. --PresN 00:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• No problem—I just wish they'd been more help. And yeah, I still check Wikipedia every day, even if I rarely edit. Feel free to hit me up for scans any time you might need them! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "Gameplay, as in most real-time strategy titles, is focused on gathering resources, building a fleet, and using it to destroy enemy ships and accomplish an objective." - Since you're talking about the genre overall, I think it would be more accurate to say 'building an army' or 'building military forces' than "building a fleet" and similarly 'destroying enemy forces' as opposed to ships. Most RTS have armies, i'd day half at most have space ships.
• There's a noticeable absence of wikilinks in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of gameplay. I see wikilink opportunities at "ballistic guns, beam weapons, and missiles".
• "As a ship is damaged by weapons its health bar depletes, then visual effects such as fire and smoke are added, and it can eventually explode." What needs to happen for it to 'eventually' explode? Complete depletion of health bar or being on fire for a period? The wording doesn't make this clear to a non-gamer. How about something like, 'as the health bar depletes visual effect such as fire and smoke appear, and the ship will explode if the bar is depleted'?
• I assumed that video game plots required sources, but after looking through about a dozen current video game FAs only every second one appeared to have sources. Nevertheless, are you able to help readers by throwing a couple in there for key aspects?
• "Relic spent effort on making high-quality ship models" - spent effort seems a bit redundant here, I mean, everything requires effort. Are you trying to say something like they spend considerable effort?
• Not an FAC requirement, but an image from the remastered edition would be nice, assuming that on such small resolution image there would be a noticeable improvement in graphics quality. Even better would be a side by side comparison.

That's all I found. Well done on the article. Very impressive. Never actually played this one before. Think I might have to go download the remastered version off Steam now. :) Freikorp (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• support well-written, great coverage. all around great article. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Operation Grandslam

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Operation Grandslam, a UN peacekeeping operation undertaken in the Republic of the Congo (Léopoldville) (presently the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1962–1963 to suppress the secessionist State of Katanga. This little-discussed episode formed a part of the Congo Crisis, a tense moment in the Cold War. The operation is unusual in the sense that it, in spite of being a "peacekeeping" action, involved thousands of soldiers and included a UN air raid on a rebel air base. This article extends beyond the purely military aspects of the conflict and showcases an interesting moment in international and Congolese affairs as UN member states debated over what courses of action to take while the Congo struggled to rebuild. Though marking the end of a formal secession movement, insurgency continued to be a large problem in the region until October 2016. This article has passed both a GA review and a WikiProject Military history A-class review. I have extensively researched this topic and developed this article to a point where I believe it qualifies for FA status. At this point, the only improvements I can make are those suggested to me be others. Considering that I have already had such reviews conducted, there is no further step for me to make but to nominate this article for featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. In my view this is a clear pass. The article is well-written in that the prose is simple and never tries to do too much. The structure is logical. The sourcing is of a high standard; I did limited spot-checking of the early parts of the article. I made some minor wording changes myself, which I hope are correct. I then had the following two very minor points which I raise here only because I hesitated before dealing with them myself:

• "Shortly thereafter South Kasai and the State of Katanga declared independence from the central government."” – As far as I’m aware, one secedes from a country, not from a government.
• "Peacekeeping contingents from Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Ireland, Sweden, and Tunisia were officially earmarked to carry out Operation Grandslam." – earmarked by whom? (The passive voice here doesn’t work well on this occasion). Also, “officially” seems unnecessary, as does "publicly" in "publicly announced" later on in the article.

Those points are nowhere near consequential enough to delay me from marking my review as a support. Syek88 (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Response: - I think I've addressed these criticisms. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. As an aside, concerning this edit, I agree with Dank. The term "damages" does not have a generic meaning; it has only a specific meaning in a legal context, namely compensation payable for loss. I think "damage" is correct here. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: - Before any other reviewers proceed, I, the nominator and primary author, feel one point must be drawn to their attention. In the WikiProject Military history A-class review for this article (under my response to HJ Mitchell) the matter of two UN Security Council resolutions were brought up. In the end, I never really got a clear answer on whether to include information about the two resolutions in the article. These resolutions are what gave ONUC the ability to use force against Katanga. I've found no sources that make an explicit connection between these resolutions and Operation Grandslam. I have found a source that makes the connection between those resolutions and Operations Rumpunch, Morthor, and perhaps Unokat, as well as the suppression of the Stanleyville government. I have also found that Dorn and Kille (which, for the record, is a chapter written by Dorn) make implicit and vague references to the resolutions in the context of Grandslam. So, my question is, should I provide information on these two resolutions in the "Background" section of the article? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Some source that might help in drawing a link: pages 244 to 245 of this book, which says quite firmly that Operation Grandslam was the UN making "effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", having previously referred to the 24 November 1961 resolution as "more robust" and "much less ambiguous" than the earlier authorising resolution. That looks rather solid to me. There is also page 72 of this book and page 217 of this book, which aren't as strong. I would think that (a) if there are scholars who say the operation was authorised by UNSC resolutions, and there no significant contrary view, only silence, the article should present that view as fact, and (b) if there is genuine scholarly debate, the article should present that debate. Syek88 (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that, @Syek88:. I have added the info on the security council resolutions to the best of my ability. That's some good stuff you've found, but I'm afraid those sources are somewhat inaccurate. I've come across this issue before. In attempt to put everything into summary style, a number of authors have ended up combining the events of Operation Unokat and Operation Grandslam. This is apparent in Klose (first source you provided) because that sources says that a combined strike force of Swedish, Ethiopian, and Indian aircraft were fielded in Grandslam. We know from Dorn that this is not true, because India and Ethiopia had withdrawn their aircraft by November 1962. Only in Unokat were all three country's air forces operated simultaneously. So when the source says, "It would be another year before the UN made effective use of its new powers for forceful intervention", it's in effect whitewashing the whole occurrence of Unokat. I can try and make the connection between Unokat and the second resolution distinct (there are sources that support the relation), but I think in terms of Grandslam I've added all that I can accurately do so. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That sounds entirely prudent. The authors of the books to which I linked may well be generalist international relations or legal scholars who aren't sufficiently across the facts of the Congo operations. Syek88 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Irish_captives_in_Katanga_1961.PNG: when/where was this first published? Same with File:United_Nations_peacekeeping_air_forces_in_Congo_-_January_1963.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Response: The first file was uploaded by Katangais, a good fellow here on Wikipedia and on the Commons. However, it does seem they give little info on the source of the image. As such, I've removed it from this article. I've replaced it with a quotebox with a statement by Thant. The second file was a blatant copyright violation and has been removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Finetooth

Support on prose

This flows along nicely. I made 15 or so small changes to the prose or punctuation; please revert any that seem wrong. In addition, I have a few questions or suggestions.

Background

• "first Congolese prime minister" - Name and link him, Patrice Lumumba?
• "There, Bunch worked with local UN Mission Chief Robert Gardiner..." - Since Wikipedia has no article on Gardiner, perhaps identifying him as "Robert K. A. Gardiner (Ghana)" would help to distinguish him from the world's many other Robert Gardiners.

ONUC

• "ONUC forces in Katanga were under the command of General Prem Chand and his operational deputy, Brigadier Reginald Noronha, both professional and capable officers." – The phrase "both professional and capable officers" seems unnecessary and possibly patronizing, though that's not your intention.

First phase

• "...there may be some who would be inclined to refer a United Nations 'military victory.'" – Is the quote from U Thant missing a word? Should it say "be inclined to refer to"?

ONUC communications breakdown

• "I have found beyond doubt that it is our machinery, that is at fault,..." – Is the first odd comma here part of the original?

Fate of Katanga

• "A new constitutional commission was established, and in March 1964 it was recommended that the Congo switch from its parliamentary system to a presidential model of government." – If the commission did the recommending, flip to active voice by deleting "was" from "was recommended"? Finetooth (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Finetooth:

1. Done. I had originally avoided doing that because I thought it might distract from the focus of the article but it does seem fitting.
2. Done.
3. I've removed that information. "[P]rofessional and capable" is how Urquhart described both of them, and I think he meant that in a positive light. ONUC's previous Katanga commander, R. S. Raja, had been criticised as not fit for his post.
4. Fixed.
5. Fixed.
6. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Highly readable and informative. I've noted my support on prose above. Finetooth (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed one somewhere, I think this still needs a source review. Also, as I believe this would be the nominator's first FA, we also need a spot-check of sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead:

• "gendarmerie"—better not to force readers to click on the link; a lot of people won't know what it means, so "(police)"?
• Up to you: I'd write "Republic of the Congo" in central Africa. Same issue.
• Can't we have "UN" after the first use? Without "(UN)", too, since it's so well-known.
• "causing an incident among the United Nations leadership"—what, fisticuffs in the office?
• "sued for peace"—yes, elegant, but many readers won't know what "sued" means in this context.
• "Tshombe initially participated but feared his arrest and fled to Europe."—comma after "participated"?
• "Many Katangese gendarmes and their mercenary leaders, acting under orders from Tshombe, evacuated to Angola to reorganize."—consider "Many Katangese gendarmes and their mercenary leaders evacuated to Angola to reorganize, acting under orders from Tshombe."
• "upon" requires special justification. Why not "on"?
• "gendarmes"—why not "gerndarmerie" as above ... unless you want to imply individual police officers?
• "Insurgent activities aimed at Katangese secession continued until late 2016." the "at" slightly unclear. Would you consider: "Insurgent activities striving for Katangese secession continued until late 2016."

Tony (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Tony1:

1. "Gendarmerie" is what the Katangese force is called in nearly all sources on the topic, and in fact what they called themselves. If you read into the article, you'll find that I've elaborated that the Gendarmerie was, for all intents and purposes, a fully equipped army. Think of the Force Publique. To call them "police" is inappropriate, as the Katangese Police was an entirely separate entity. I'd say the only other option is to change it to "forces", but that would be redundant. Perhaps "military". I think it's best as is.

   I don't care what the English word is: just provide a translation smoothly in parenthese after first mention. "Military" sounds ok. Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Done.
3. Done.
4. Revised as "embarrassing United Nations leadership."

   Needs "the". Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

5. This phrase actually has a specific meaning and I don't see how I can modify it without going into unnecessary detail. I could say "petitioned" for peace, but I'm not sure that does it any good. I've wikilinked it for the moment.

   Petitioned/sued whom for peace? That's the core problem in either wording. Can't you say? Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

6. Done.
7. Done.
8. Done.
9. When I say "gendarmerie", I'm referring to the entire organization. When I say "gendarmes" I am indeed referring to a selection of members of that organization.

   But the back-reference is a bit hard for readers. Why not: "Relations between the new central government and the expatriate gendarmes soured"? Or "the gendarmes in Angola". Tony (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

10. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Response part 2 to @Tony1:
I've corrected everything else except for 9. I'm not sure how the "back-reference" is confusing. The gendarmes weren't expatriates at that time. They had returned to the Congo to suppress the revolts. Only after the mutiny did they go back to Angola. Does this need clarity? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Simone Russell

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this article is about a fictional character on the American soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV in 2007–08. While her early appearances center around her love triangle with Chad Harris-Crane and her sister Whitney, the character later receives more prominence on the show through her experience coming out as a lesbian to her family, and her relationship with Rae Thomas. The network defended the show's treatment of Simone's sexuality as a serious commentary on the topic. Created by the soap's founder and head writer James E. Reilly, the role was portrayed by three actresses over the course of the show: Lena Cardwell (July 5, 1999 to April 16, 2000), Chrystee Pharris (April 17, 2000 to April 22, 2006), and Cathy Jenéen Doe (July 23, 2004 – September 4, 2007). The character was created as a part of the show's effort to represent a full African-American family and full-realized African-American characters on television.

Her storyline made daytime television history by having the first instance in a soap opera of two women in bed making love. The character is also notable for being daytime TV's first African-American lesbian. At the 17th GLAAD Media Awards, the show won Outstanding Daily Drama for its portrayal of Simone's sexual orientation. The show's representation of LGBT topics, and Cathy Jenéen Doe's performance as Simone, received a mixed response from critics. This is my fourth nomination of a Passions-related article through the FAC process; the other three were Chad Harris-Crane, the Russell family (Passions), and Eve Russell. I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support I didn't notice anything major. Good work. MCMLXXXIX 22:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Tintor2

I almost support it but there is one thing that kinda bothers me

• The storyline section seems a bit in-universe (like "Born in 1983" seems trivial for the casual reader). Couldn't it start with something like "The character debuts in the season x, episode x"? Same with the other paragraphs.

Ping me when you are done, and I will support.Tintor2 (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for your comment. I completely understand what you mean by this as it is an odd introduction into the "Storylines" section. I have changed it to say that she first appeared in the series premiere. Since Passions is a soap opera, to does not have the season x, episode x format of other shows. The years in the rest of the section, such as "In the summer of 2005" correspond to the episode's air dates to provide a context for when this story arc takes place. I hope this clears things up and let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I see. So I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Syek88

I probably won't review this article, I'm sorry, but I did notice one thing - the article seems to be inconsistent (lead, infobox, body) about whether the Cardwell-Pharris casting change occurred in 2000 or 2001. Syek88 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comment. Another user had changed the years on the article a little bit ago, and I forgot to change everything back. I have fixed this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

• I'll be on and off today so I'll try to leave a few comments here and there throughout the next few days. In the references section, you should only provide links to different publications and website (like Soapcentral) on the first occasion.

• Thank you for helping with this article; I look forward to your further comments and take your time. There is absolutely no rush with this. I received a note from my previous FACs that the publications and websites actually should be linked for every single reference in the reference section (probably so if a reader is looking at any individual reference they can easily click the appropriate link to find out more about the publication and the work). I am not completely sure on the right way of doing it, but that is just a note that I have received in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• More to come, Carbrera (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

• @Carbrera: Just wondering if you had any further comments about this? Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't see anything wrong with the article at all. Great work! Support. Carbrera (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).

Support I've just finished reading through this article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. I did notice that ref 14 has a typo ("=Variety"), but other than that, I think this article meets the FA criteria. It is well written, comprehensive and engaging. Good work! JAGUAR  14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support. I have fixed the typo. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:CathyJenéenDoePinkTop.jpg: Non-free image, which seems like the correct license for such an image. Using it to show the article topic seems fine for me. The non-free rationale seems to address all aspects of NFCC.

ALT text is ungrammatical. Otherwise all seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I have fixed the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support — Well written, comprehensive and admirably no-nonsense. I wanted to comment on the faulty alt text but Jo-Jo Eumerus did it just now to my amusement. Great job! Pavanjandhyala 15:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

Everything is in good state with wikilinks and archives. I'll give it a pass.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gen. Quon

This looks pretty good. I just have a few points, and if they are resolved/explained, I'd be more than happy to give support for the prose.

• The opening sentence features the phrase " which aired on NBC from 1999 to 2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08." This isn't a major issue, but to me there seems something off about using the 'to' between "1999" and "2007" and then using an endash for the next years. I could be totally off here, but would "1999–2007 and on DirecTV from 2007–08" work?

• That makes sense to me. I agree that consistency is always the best way to go, and I have made the adjustments. I have been looking at this for so long that I have been overlooking that the entire time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if "LGBT" and "NBC" need to be spelled out the first time you mention them, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Abbreviations.

• Very good point. I have expanded these in the lead and the body of the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Do you need to add access dates to the URLs? I always do by force of habit, but I'm not sure if it's required.

• I do not need the access dates as everything is archived. I was told in a previous review that if something is archive, then the access date should be removed to avoid padding. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Just let me know.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 19:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Gen. Quon: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me now. I Support this nomination.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Just wondering if someone could check the status of my nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from PanagiotiZois

In the lead section shouldn't it say "fully-realized" instead of "full-realized"?

• Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "Casting and creation" section, seeing as you already mentione what NBC stands for in the lead section, I don't think it's necessary to do so again. Also wouldn't it be better to say "made [her] feel loved and appreciated"? Though if you feel it's better the way it is I have no problem.

• Fixed both points. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything seems fines with the "Storyline" section. One question though, it says that Simone's mother Eve panicked when she found out about her sexuality. Was she concerned for her safety or was it out of homophobia. Because later it's stated that Simone went to her for help with Rae. Was Eve by that point accepting?

• To the best of my understanding, Eve was primarily concerned about her daughter's safety and eventually became more understanding and considerate of her sexuality. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

In the "Reception" section I noticed this in the box: "stories of our lives, he says." Is he quoting someone on that?

• Oops, good catch. That was actually just a tag from the original article and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Other than those minor things, the article is amazing. Not really a surprise though, given that you wrote it. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for your kind words and your comments. I believe that I have addressed them all. I still have a lot to learn and improve on for this site, but I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Hm, do I support this article? "Lesbian request denied." XD Lol just kidding. I fully support this article and its promotion to featured article status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support! Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments Leaning Oppose from Vedant

Will put some soon. NumerounovedantTalk 17:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede

• You might want to consider re-arranging the second paragraph. It goes back and forth discussing the character and the actresses. Line 1 talks about the creation of character, followed by the line talking about the actresses. The next line goes back to the conception of the character, and the next talk about the actresses again. It just comes out as a little disconnected IMO.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Casting and creation

• Again, the last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't really belong there. The entire paragraph talks about the casting of racially diverse cast and the no. of actresses that played Simone doesn't really relate to any of it. You might want to start the next paragraph with "Over the course of the show, Simone was played by three actresses:...". And then continue with the details of actresses in their order.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Did Cardwell never say anything (other than the fan-mail bit) on her exit? The article isn't really giving the reader anything on her exit. (I am assuming there's to give in the first place?)

• This is all that I can find regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• "she shaped her performance through her friendship with Pharris; she explained that Pharris answered all of her questions about the character." - this is rather minor, but can you think of a suitable pronoun to replace the second occurrence of "Pharris"?

• No as a pronoun in that instance would result in a confusion on whether I am referencing Pharris or Doe. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Characterization

• Considering the contrasting reviews, can you think of a better conjunction than "and" to connect the second sentence.

• Revise. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I find it a little odd that the Doe's approach to the character is discussed in the Casting section, while Phariss' in the Characterization section. Also, Cardwell's approach (if available) is missing altogether.

• Doe's part was about best preparing for the show and the role, and she did not go into anything particular about the actual character other than that so it seems more appropriate for the "Casting and creation" section, while Pharris actually provides a deeper understanding of her approach to the actual character. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Is there nothing worthy of discussion about the character prior to bisexual storyline?

• No, she was a background character for a majority of the show, only acting as the third wheel in a love triangle. Her lesbian storyline was her primary storyline, and even then it was rather abruptly ended and brushed away to make room for more of the show's major players. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Storylines

• Not sure if I can be of much help here. I am completely unfamiliar with the series and characters and wouldn't want to mess with plot and storylines.

• Okay. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception

• I am not sure if the opening sentence is appropriately placed. I am sure its a big part of the character as such, but the general viewpoint towards the character needs to be mentioned first.

• Moved to the end of the second. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Things don't seem to get any better as we move ahead, these are completely disconnected and underwhelming claims and should be treated as separate entries (expanding them might be helpful).

• I have tried to restructure this section so let me know if this needs more improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• There are also some very basic errors here as well. Caps fix needed "the soap opera won", repetition of "Doe".

• Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think that the section should start with mentioning the awards; they should either go in the end together or be mentioned after a relevant fact.

• Moved to the end of the section. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Simone's storyline about coming out as a lesbian received mainly positive feedback" - what about before that, anything on her earlier reception?

• The character was a minor character and did not gather much in terms of critical reception until this particular storyline. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• "An article on Soaps.com noted that Simone would be remembered as "a character who broke down some barriers for the depiction of lesbians on daytime TV and earned the show awards and accolades from civil rights groups"." - This has already been said, adds nothing new here, however, I do believe that this belongs here and should be removed from the development section.

• This seems more appropriate for a "Reception" section as it was a reviewer's opinion of the character. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• emphasized "on"?

• I do not believe the "on" is necessary in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• With no time line the "right now" bit seems odd here : "Soapcentral's Brandi Pine found Simone's homosexuality to be "the most real and moving story on the show right now", and highlighted".

• Removed "right now". Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• I also think the sentence should be split into two.

• Done. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• The third paragraph has a lot of claims with missing in-line citations.

• That is not true as everything is cited. Every sentence does not need a citation if the same resource is being used multiple times. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Sarah Warn criticized Simone's relationship" - just "Warn" would suffice.

• Changed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• The Herndon L. Davis review has no base here, the intersex serial killer? Where did that come from? I am missing something?

• I have revised this. Davis is saying that Simone's storyline was overshadowed by the storyline involving Vincent Clarkson. I have revised this to better reflect it by simplifying the sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• The section is in a rather poor state, it both begins and ends abruptly. There is too much negative criticism and too little of the favorable reviews to balance out the "positive feedback" claim, some going back and forth, and some unsubstantiated claims (comparisons between Simone and other LGBT characters never finds a mention). You might need to put in some extra work here.

• Revised. this part. Not sure what you mean by it ending "abruptly" though.Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now, well structured and balanced. Thanks for the prompt replies, just the minor tweak. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I am concerned that there's not much on her earlier story (I am not sure if that was the case on the show) in the article and too much focus on her sexuality storyline, without the mention of any other aspects of her personality. Similarly, the development (especially the characterization) section too feels to be missing out on a lot of aspects. This remains to be a highly underwritten character (either in the article, or the show itself). I'll wait for a reply to have a better perspective on this, and although I see that a lot of work has been put into the article, it does look a little short of FA standards to me. NumerounovedantTalk 20:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: From my research, the character was a relatively minor character prior to the storyline focusing on her sexuality (which also turned out to be relatively minor in comparison to the grand scheme of the show). She was primarily a background character involved in a love triangle between two other characters or a side character for a majority of her time on the show. If that prevents the article from reaching FA standards, then there is nothing else that I can do as I highly doubt I can find further information on this character as I had to do a lot of digging just to get this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Since there seems to be no information available other than what's included, I don't see a reason on discussing the idea further. What you can do is mention at least once in the article (probably in the development section), that this was a minor character that gathered attention with the later developments in her storylines. Looks good to me at this point, will have a final say after proof reading. Great work Aoba47. NumerounovedantTalk 21:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Added. Thank you for taking the time to do a thorough review, and I apologize for my mistakes. This was one of the very first articles that I worked after joining Wikipedia so that probably explains the questionable prose in certain areas. Aoba47 (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me now, just the one thing. The soaps review is still being repeated, I believe you agree with me on the fact fact that it is better suited in the Reception section, and thus should be removed from the Development section. I can now Support (in good faith the last point will be addressed, which i am sure will be). Great work on the article. NumerounovedantTalk 07:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• Addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment by Ian

Recusing coord duties, I've done a quick copyedit; pls let me know if I've accidentally altered any meaning. Given the brevity of my review, I won't declare outright support, but nor do I have any particular objections from a prose perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Your copyedits have helped to improve the article a great deal; I greatly appreciate your feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I believe that this nomination has received enough commentary to be promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this is almost ready, but I noticed a few little issues in the prose. If someone could give it a last polish, I think we'd be there. For example: "she breaks with him" (idiomatic); the second paragraph of "Storylines" has a series of similar sentences which make for repetitive reading and could perhaps be varied a little; "Viewers saw the set-up for the ending of Simone's romance with Rae through the beginning of 2007" (Wordy, and a little unclear what this means); "She does not make a physical appearance during the show's run on DirecTV or in the series finale" (what other kind of appearance is there?); "Damon Romine, media entertainment director of GLAAD (2005-2009), emphasized the show's ability to normalize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics for a wider audience" (What was he talking about when he emphasised this? Or do we mean he "highlighted" or something similar?); "Passions also made history by becoming the first daytime television series to show two women in bed making love" (Redundancy: unless women had been shown "making love" somewhere else, we don't need the location. I'm not keen on "making love" in an encyclopaedic article either, but that's not a huge issue). There is nothing major, but there is enough to give me pause before promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: I believe that I have addressed all of your above comments. I am not sure how missed all of that. I just changed "making love" to "having sex" as some of the articles really emphasized that the show had scenes of the two characters having sex and it was a subject of criticism from viewers as well. Let me know if anything else should be changed and/or removed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Happy to take this -- the prose has changed a bit since my quick ce, so I was planning to give it another run-through anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: Just wondering if there are any updates for this? Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, sorry, been one of those weeks (actually been one of those weeks for the past month!) but I started checking yesterday and will aim to finish today. Cheers, 22:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you; hope the rest of your week goes well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okay, I think I'm done prose-wise. Just looking at sources, I couldn't seem to find SoapCentral's "about us" section -- what makes them authoritative, and can we confirm this is not a site that the public can edit? Also why is SoapCentral italicised in the references but Soaps.com is not -- I gather they're both websites as opposed to magazines, so I'd expect standard case for both. Cheers, 01:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Ian Rose: Thank you for your response. I italicized SoapCentral as it was done that way on the List of soap opera media outlets, but I agree with you and I have corrected this. Here is the "About" page for the website (1), which provides information on the website's owner/founder and the editors. It provides more information about the site that confirms it is not a website in which any user can make edits. I have also used this websites in my past FACs without any issue so I pretty sure that the website is credible in this context. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

William Pūnohu White

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a second go around as recommended by the closing admin of the last nomination after drumming up some interest. Thanks.

Text from my last nomination: "This article is about William Pūnohu White, one of the leading Native Hawaiian political leader during the time of the overthrow of Hawaii which has generally been written as a conflict between the queen and American businessmen, neglecting the contributions of Native Hawaiian leaders (other than the queen) in the struggle. His colorful and controversial life is a great illustration of the different forms of resistance during the period between 1893 and 1898 against American imperialism in Hawaii and also the negative repercussions of misaligning against the Euro-American power holders in the islands at the time. This article was written and sourced on the same level of standard as my previous FA nominations. At this point, this article contains all existing knowledge about this figure."KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• was carried out in the previous nomination.

Image review

• All images have appropriate licences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7

• I don't understand note 5. What organisation was founded?

• No libel case was found. I added "libel".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  I think you mean "found" instead of "founded" then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• In May 1893 he organized the native community of Lahaina in removing the pro-annexationist Reverend Adam Pali of Waineʻe Church, who was asked to vacate the pastor's residence owned by church by July 8 I take it you mean he organised the native community, and they petitioned the Church to remove him? What happened here?

• Clarified a little. Let me know if that is more clear. I am trying to keep the details of the summary short since it is a rather larger part of the article as is.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• supporters of Rev. Pali Delete "Rev."; same with "Judge": use the title only on the first use

• Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• written with the use English language sources I don't understand this at all.

• This refers to the conventional versions of Hawaiian history written with the use of English language sources. Added "of". I think that was the problem, correct?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. Insert "and" before "prompted"

• I don't think that addition make sense. Breaking down the sentence. - The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, [list of things, i. e. plural noun] prompted [verb] the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii, until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington. - Would it be better to break into two sentences: "The native resistance, the results of the Blount Report, and President Cleveland's refusal to annex the island stopped the annexationist scheme, prompted the Provisional Government to establish an oligarchical government, styling itself the Republic of Hawaii. This government would continue to rule until a more favorable political climate emerged in Washington."

• I see the issue. I removed the extra comma before "prompted".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• the morning of the 12th Reformat the date

• Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Reading now..

White inherited the oratory skills of his Hawaiian ancestor Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I - you've said in the para above he has oratory skills, so no need to mention them again here...and comes over as a bit effusive/puffy.

• How about: "Born in Lahaina, Maui, of mixed Native Hawaiian and English descent, White was descended from Kaiakea, a legendary orator for King Kamehameha I."? There is this important cultural concept call kuleana in Hawaii that attributes ancestral traits and duties to their descendants. Or maybe a synonym instead, maybe?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

he was an Englishman originally from Plymouth or Devon. - umm, Plymouth is in Devon, so needs to be reworded

Change to Plymouth, Devon. One obit said Plymouth and another said Devonshire so I was not sure and included each.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

In 1891 White changed party alliance and joined the National Liberal Party. - I don't know much about Hawaiian politics, but this sentence is just there without any immediate explanation.

How so? It is explained in the following sentences. He became a traveling stump orator/advocate for the new party and the paragraph also explained some key stances of the new party.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Presumably he became an advocate after he had switched - from reading it it doesn't give me an idea of why he switched. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Still a little confuse here. What do you want me to do here? The sources just indicates he switched political party during the months before this election; it does not state why but generally many of the Hawaiian politicians felt the National Reform Party was too conservative and not Hawaiian enough, so they broke off and form the Liberal Party. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

White reportedly said, "He had always abhorred the idea of a republic," during a meeting of Hui Kālaiʻāina, on December 4, 1892 - it would be quotes and "I had always abhorred.." or he said that he had aways abhorred (without quotes).

I'm quoting the newspaper here. Added that part in there. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd dequote and reword, as as it is written it makes no sense. All you need is a synonym for abhor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

IUser:Dank made an editor to it that I feel fixes the problem without changing any word.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the Hawaii Herald mentioned the same one as the predecessor to the Hawaii Tribune-Herald?

No it is not. His paper lasted only a few months. There is no connection.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

After the overthrow, this Hawaiian political group switched its political agenda toward opposing annexation to the United States and restoring Liliʻuokalani - I'd put a "from" x and "to" x WRT agenda

Can you explain this suggestion a bit more? The effort was a local initiative by the local Euro-American community to annex themselves to the US rather than the US being the more active party in which case it would be annexation (efforts) from the US.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

All you need to do is add a "from (old agenda)" after the "agenda" and before the "toward" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The ending is a nice flourish. Nothing else is jumping out at me at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• support if no-one else thinks the outstanding one is an issue I'll chalk it down to me being obtuse. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• In infobox, "The Honorable". Is this usual for Hawaii legislators? I know there is a consensus not to use the term (though it is proper) for US legislators, but Kingdom of Hawaii differs?

Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• My understanding of infobox practice is that the children should not be listed if they are not notable (and blue-linked) but the number of children should be listed instead. Also, you mention two here, but four are mentioned in the article.

Removed. No exact number are known. His obit listed two surviving children at the time of his death while census records indicate there were at least four..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The various occupations should not be capped except the first one. Sheriff? Really? Based on a 12-day term? Also, politician may be redundant with an officeholder ...

Changed. He was a sheriff during his early life as well before going into politics.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Throughout both legislatures" possibly "throughout the terms of both legislatures"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Serving as a legislator in the legislative assemblies" I might say "Representing Lahaina in the legislative assemblies" which better sets up the "Returning to Lahaina" later in the lede and avoids a near-repetition.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Alongside Joseph Nāwahī, he was a principal author of the proposed 1893 Constitution with Queen Liliʻuokalani. " I imagine both were co-authors with White, but that's not totally clear the way it's phrased.

Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "White's opponents tried to slander him in the English-language press and to diminish his support among Native Hawaiians by claiming he had tried to incite the people to storm the palace and harm the queen and her ministers." This seems a little long considering we are talking about a period of three days. Can't we just say "White's opponents falsely alleged he had tried to incite the people ..." I imagine the Iolani Palace is meant btw.

These three days are quite significant though. Shorten a bit and add link to Iolani Palace--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "on his home island of Maui" given that you've already said where Lahaina is, I might just say "on Maui"

Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• " for running out " slang or cricket?

Synonym for expel.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "his many attempts to win re-elections" should be re-election if, a return to office after an absence would count as such.

This is summarizing his string of electoral defeats between 1902 and 1914..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Some sort of link for the Hawaiian Territorial Legislature should be inserted.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "one of the oldest foreign residents in Hawaii" age or length of residence? And I might say foreign-born

Length of resident. Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Jr" missing a dot, to be consistent with "Sr."

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the third paragraph, you should re-establish that you're talking about the subject of the article.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Did William White have a mother? Is her family worthy of note? Can anything be said about White Jr.? The lack of detail on the parents seems a bit striking considering the depth of coverage of selected male ancestors.

Nothing is known about his mother and only the name of his father is mentioned. I couldn't find anything about either of them..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• The long account of the (male) ancestors seems, well, long. Can some of it be omitted? For example the final sentence of the paragraph on White Sr. seems to have no great relevance to Wm. White. except by establishing his paternal grandfather likely wasn't a big influence because he didn't live in the same place as his grandson ...

How? They both lived in Lahaina. And the genealogy is important in Hawaiian culture especially for the half-caste individuals in regards to their Hawaiian ancestors and the ancestors who settled in Hawaii from foreign lands. It also establish the basic information of his family background which is otherwise unknown. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Kaiakea" given his service under the king, it seems likely to me that he was Wm. White's great grandfather. Can this be stated?

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "the Anglican mission boarding institution ran by Archdeacon George Mason in Lahaina. " ran should be run.

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He was educated with" Since you've mentioned someone else since last mention, I would say "White was educated with"

Done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He initially worked in law enforcement on the island of Hawaii and later became a lawyer and skilled orator." As you later go into all of this, why is this sentence needed?

Removed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Deputy Sheriff Kāmauʻoha was removed from his position for malfeasance and White was appointed his successor as deputy sheriff of North Kohala." deputy sheriff ... deputy sheriff. One should go.

Changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "strict attention to his duties, as well as his thorough integrity". This needs a cite, as does every quotation. I wonder if you need all that in-lifetime puffery in this and the next quotation.

Changed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "It does not seem like he held this position for long because J. W. Moanauli was listed in 1886 in that post.[18] By 1885, he was living in Hilo where he had begun practicing law." The second sentence seems to obviate the need for the first.

Anyway to retain both? The first sentence explains the list of sheriffs changed to listing another individual in 1886 while he had moved elsewhere sometime before then in 1885. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "One of his other early official posts of note was as an agent to take acknowledgements to instruments on September 12, 1884.[21]" So he was basically a notary public. Is this greatly notable?

I mean one has to start somewhere and this come from his public service office card in the archives which only list this and the times he served as a legislator. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "He later became a member of the Hui Kālaiʻāina (Hawaiian Political Association), a Hawaiian political group founded in 1888 to oppose the Bayonet Constitution and promote Native Hawaiian leadership in the government." I would strike "Hawaiian" from the text as redundant, considering.

• I strike the second Hawaiian. The first is the accepted translated name while the third use is distinguishing indigenous from non-indigenous groups.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "King Kalākaua's coerced signing of the unpopular Bayonet Constitution of 1887." The year would probably be better off on first mention. Said constitution is referred to as "unpopular" four times. There seems to be a bit of POV.

I removed the extra ones from two of them but retained it for the intro and the paragraph following the "Legislature of 1892–93" section. It was not supported but many in the populace (because of restriction on suffrage) or the two monarchs (because it limited their powers) and the modern-day consensus in secondary sources is that it was an unpopular constitution. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Picking up:

• I believe the guideline that you don't list non-notable children in the infobox also applies to parents, so I would delete that.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "it failed to pass and was defeated by vote of 24 to 16." I would delete "failed to pass and". An "a" needed before "vote".

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• " to travel around the other islands and canvas for the new party" Shouldn't that be "canvass"?

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The Liberal Party advocated for a constitutional convention to draft a new constitution to replace the unpopular Bayonet Constitution and increased Native Hawaiian participation in the government. " to avoid the repetition, I might say "to draft a replacement for the unpopular Bayonet Constitution ..." I would add a "for" before "increased".

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "the party soon became was divided between radicals and more conciliatory groups. " some cleanup needed here.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "White and his wife march alongside other legislators and their spouses" marched.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "that was referred to a selected committee." likely the last two words should be select committee.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "economic depression on the islands' sugar industry" likely "in", not "on"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, restore voting rights to economically disenfranchised Native Hawaiians and Asians, and remove the property qualification for suffrage imposed by the Bayonet Constitution" because "economically disenfranchised" is a bit ambiguous, I might say "constitution would increase the power of the monarchy, and would remove the property requirement to vote imposed by the Bayonet Constitution, thus restoring voting rights to Native Hawaiians and Asians" or some such.

There was a racial clause to the suffrage in the 1887 constitution which outlawed Asians from the vote outright though, so it was not solely based on property qualification. The sentence is only serving to introduce certain aspects of the proposed constitution and not meant to be exhaustive. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Among the crowds were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina " they are not crowds individually, so I would say "Among them were White and members of Hui Kālaiʻāina "

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• "sympathetic to the Reformer," I'm not sure what the Reformer is.

The Reform Party.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "White remained a royalist and agent to the deposed monarch on Maui" I would add a "the" before "agent" and change "to" to "of"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "asked him to vacate residence owned by church" "the" before "residence" and also before "church", I think.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "who held control of church, " I might say "in physical control of the church"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "the president of the group" "its president" is likely ample.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "stopped the annexationist scheme prompted the Provisional Government" some issue here, I imagine.

Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "foreigners and natives alike in Maui (with the exception of Hana)" Hana is not a person. Possibly "residents of Hana" or some such.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• " although the genial 'Sam' could change the euphony by adding another terminal vowel to his name." Not sure what this means. If it's a pun on Pua's name, it may be lost on most.

I feel like it should stay.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "for unpaid printing cost of the short-lived paper. " cost should probably be plural

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "to paid" to pay

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "they sent a memorial requesting for the restoration of the monarchy" "for" should likely be deleted.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "established after the Hawaiian Organic Act," likely "under" rather than "after".

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• The references at the end of the first paragraph of 1901 legislature are out of order.

Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The legislative assembly was later mockingly dubbed the "Lady Dog Legislature" because of extensive legislative debate" I would cut "legislative" before "debate" as repetition and not really needed anyway.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• The length of the quote at the end of the section may be excessive, especially since it deals with the legislature as a whole, not specifically White.

I feel like it is quite important, though since it provides a modern evaluation about the legislature.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Despite expecting an easy victory, he was defeated by Republican candidate Charles H. Dickey. " I might cut "despite".

It sounds odd without "despite".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "saw significant loss in the polls" I would change to "lost" and add a comma.

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "However, it was soon placed on file by the Hawaii Supreme Court," I would change "file" to "hold"

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• "by an act of the following legislative session in 1905." acts are not passed by legislative sessions, but by legislatures.

Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a second look once this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Done. Thank you so much for the thorough review. Please let me know if there are any other concerns. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support' Well done. I would still mention that nothing is known of his mother and only a few details on father btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the thorough the review. Your help is greatly appreciated. As for the last concern, it just what is available in the published sources. I'm sure that that information may only be known in unpublished oral knowledge by his descendants in Hawaii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• I did some editing on this, but the going is rough, and I'm neither supporting nor opposing. I might or might not oppose future nominations, depending on how much work the prose needs on the day the article hits FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Call this an oppose for now on prose. That doesn't have to be permanent, but the article needs work to bring it up to 1a quality. The prose is very choppy and quite difficult to follow in places. You have a combination of run-on sentences with lots of subclauses and very short sentences, often several in a row presenting seemingly unrelated facts.

• Just the first sentence of "Early life and family", for example, reads White was born on August 6, 1851,[1][3][4] at Lahaina, on the island of Maui, to John White, Jr.,[5] the son of John White, Sr. and Keawe. You're trying to cram too much information into one sentence so you end up with three subclauses in very quick succession. You have exactly the same problem a few sentences later: During the French Revolutionary Wars, he served on the frigate HMS Amelia, which was part of the North Sea fleet under the command of British Vice Admiral Adam Duncan, 1st Viscount Duncan, during his engagement with the Dutch (by the way, that looks like way too much detail on grandad; I'd trim everything after "HMS Amelia" and kill two birds with one stone).
  • Trimmed down a bit.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• at the age of either eighty-four or ninety use numerals (MOS:NUMERAL), and you need to explain the discrepancy.
  • Removed for simplicity's sake. Why would I go into the trouble of explaining that? It is just a discrepancy in the two obituaries which is common in the 19th century. Seem out of place to mention in a note or a separate sentence.
• This school, which was founded by is redundant; "The school was founded by" would work, or better still "founded in 1863 by...."
  • Fixed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• White lived and worked as a police officer He lived as a police officer?
  • Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
• In April 1884, Kāmauʻoha was removed from starts a series of short sentences with little variety.
  • How? There are no repetition of sentences here. I would understand if it was somewhere where I go "He was" into infinity which I don't see here. Also I am trying to stick to an encyclopedic tone in general not writing a novel here. Can you find me an FA article on a similar subject in which the prose is to your standards? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

These are just a few examples picked out from skimming the first few sections. It needs going through with a fine comb to really make the prose engaging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a torpedo boat that was built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1913–1914, and served under their flag in WWI. She was transferred to the new Yugoslav state after the war, and saw service with them until Yugoslavia entered WWII, when she was captured by the Italians. She was later captured from them by the Germans and saw service with them or the puppet Croatian state until she was sunk in February 1945. This article has been significantly expanded in the last couple of months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support, with a prose suggestion:

"Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy in 1914" Perhaps "Originally built as 78 T, a 250t-class torpedo boat of the Austro-Hungarian navy, which was built in 1914." -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, with a slight modification. Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's Support

Support. Brief but no real issues, I'm impressed we know so much about something so obscure. A few questions/quibbles

• Isn't Croats better than Croatians? I understand Croatians is becoming accepted usage but Croat is better for the people (but not the language) - it is where our article is.

• It depends on the context I think. Where they were nationals of the Independent State of Croatia, Croatians is probably more appropriate. Croats is better in other situations. I have changed one where Croats is better.

• Why show weight in tons (convert tonnes) in background and tonnes (convert long tons) in Description and construction. Consistency would be good.

• An oversight. Fixed.

• Is the wreck divable? Is it a tourist dive? Is she a war grave? Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I can't find any reference to those things, I imagine she was raised and broken up if she was in the port area, to ensure she wasn't a danger to shipping. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Parsecboy

• There are a couple of dupe links. The second is from the German language template, which I think is redundant in that case, since we just said it was the German Navy.

• Fixed.

• One wonders why the article is under the Yugoslav name, but the majority of the article is about her service with the Austro-Hungarians. Granted, she carried the name T3 much longer than 78 T, but it seems like her service during WWI was more notable than during the interwar period and WWII.

• Maybe, but she spent the vast majority of her career as T3 in Yugoslav, Italian and German/Croatian hands and was sunk under that designation, so I think it is ok to leave her as is.

• Might want to make clear that Cattaro and Kotor are the same place.

• Done.

• Why are Novara and Saida described as different types of vessels? They were sister ships.

• Might have been a confusion from the sources, fixed.

• You might also give a bit of context for what the Austro-Hungarians were doing when Szent Istvan was sunk, similar to what you have in T1.

• Added.

• Why do some of the books include links to Google Books but others don't? Parsecboy (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Good question, a function of cutting and pasting references I think. There didn't seem to be any underlying reason, so I just removed them.

• Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• No DABs, external links OK
• T3 was captured Since you used the new name to close out the first para of the lede; start the second one with "The ship" to avoid close repetition

• Done.

• T3 was captured by the Italians during the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and, after her main armament was modernised, she served with the Royal Italian Navy under her Yugoslav designation, although she was only used for coastal and second-line tasks. Kind of a complicated sentence, perhaps splitting it might be in order?

• Split.

• and after being fitted with additional anti-aircraft guns she served commas after "and" and "guns" as it's a subordinate clause.

• Done.

• I'd be inclined to compress the whole Background section down to a sentence or two as that amount of detail is better off in the class article, IMO.

• Per T1, I'd prefer to keep it as is for context.

• While the 250t-class T-group boats barely exceeded the specifications laid down for a coastal torpedo boat, they were classified as capable of operating on the open sea. The 250t-class, T-group Find another version of the name for the second usage.

• Done.

• 23 August 1914.[2] In 1914, Perhaps "Later that year, an 8mm MG..."

• Done.

• Due to inadequate funding, 78 T and the rest of the 250t class were essentially coastal vessels, despite the original intention that they would be used for "high seas" operations. Wouldn't this be better off in the description para?

• Moved.

• harbour defence barrage Link or explain this.

• linked.

• Tell the reader that the ships specifically mentioned in the Szent Istvan para are battleships.

• Done.

• Link boiler room, Bay of Kotor--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Done, Bay of Kotor was already linked as Cattaro.

• True, but the Bay is its own article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've expanded the link to Bocche di Cattaro (which is what it was called at the time), with (Bay of Kotor) following. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Sturm. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The Fade Out

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the comic book series The Fade Out by Ed Brubaker and Sean Phillips. It was promoted to GA status in Sept 2013 and has been stable since then. I recently updated it to include information on the hardcover edition. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Cover_to_Fade_Out_1.jpg: FUR needs work - for example, "n.a" parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Per comment below, a second image has been added to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The FUR of the first will need updating to reflect that, and as with the first the second will need its "na" parameters filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I've read through a couple of times and made one minor tweak; can't find anything wrong with the prose. Short, concise, and clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Syek88

I think this is very well-written. Tight, focused, and easy to read.

My only comment is about comprehensiveness. I make the comment tentatively because I have never read a comic book in my life and don't want to barge in here and start tanking a candidacy with ill-informed criticisms.

After reading the article a few times I was left wondering "how was this series illustrated? What do the comics actually look like?" At the bottom of "Development" there is a sentence or two on digital illustration tools, and a couple of reviews talk about Phillips' illustrations. But what we don't have is a section of the article that puts these things into context. Nothing explains the style of illustration, which would extend from graphic portrayal of characters to font of texts. The Featured Article Harvey Kurtzman's Jungle Book has two paragraphs (under "Style and themes") dedicated to these questions.

Just a comment at this stage for the purpose of discussion. Syek88 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a good point. There won't be a large amount of citable information about Phillips' style in The Fade Out in part because it looks like every other comic he's drawn for the last decade, but I may be able to find more on the topic. Alternatively, would including a panel or two adequately address your concern? Using the bottom left panel from this image would show the artwork, lettering, and the colorist's effects. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideally we would have both image and text, the latter being Wikipedia's primary method of communication and the former being a helpful option. But I take your point about there not being much referenceable information, at least specific to this comic. Maybe it would be possible to shoehorn into the article something general about Phillips' style? But it would probably be better for me to leave this to your judgement and support however you choose to do it. The image you have suggested is certainly very good and we might not need much if any text to supplement it. Syek88 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I have added the image to the reception section to accompany the reviewer's comments on the artwork. I considered putting in Development near the part about how Phillips drew it, but I thought it might be too close to the infobox to look nice. I will look for citable discussions about his style, but it may take a few days. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I added a line discussing his use of spotted blacks and negative space. I'm still looking for a good reference for his line work. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Morihei Ueshiba

Nominator(s): Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the Japanese martial artist who founded the art of aikido. I've been working on it on-and-off for a couple of years now, and reckon that it's as good as I'm going to get it without outside input. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1921.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Morihei-ueshiba-c1918.jpg, File:Onisaburo_Deguchi_2.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_Ayabe_1922.jpg, File:Morihei_Ueshiba_1939.jpg, File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, File:Takeda_Sokaku.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Original publication dates for these images are basically impossible to come by - all have been reproduced in a wide range of sources over the years. The subject matter, however, clearly shows that they were originally taken prior to 1946 (thus meeting the requirements of Japan-PD), with the exception of File:Ueshiba-mochizuki_c1951.jpg, which (again, based on the subject matter) is also old enough to be PD in Japan - though in this case it's slightly less certain, and I'm happy to remove this image if it's a stumbling block. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The {{PD-1996}} tag requires that it was published before a certain date, as well as being PD in Japan before 1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I certainly can't be sure it was PD in Japan in 1996 (indeed, it very likely wasn't) so I've removed that image. Thanks for picking up on that. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Were the others published early enough to meet both requirements? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

All taken prior to 1946, thus PD in Japan in 1969 (prior to 1996) and thus PD in the US; so yes, the others should all meet both requirements. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify: they were all published (not just created) early enough? Can we add earlier publications to the image descriptions? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above, the actual publication dates are impossible to ascertain - these images have been so widely circulated that their origins are lost in the mists of time. However, {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}} requires that the image ... was published before December 31st 1956, or photographed before 1946. Since these pictures could not have been taken after 1946 (given that they show Ueshiba during the 1920s and 30s), they comply with the PD requirements. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In Japan. For US, {{PD-URAA}} requires it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice. If we can't demonstrate a pre-1978 publication, and we don't know the first publication, we can't meet that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My mistake; I was reading the PD-URAA as having or criteria rather than and. Well that's this FA fucked then. There's no way I can prove original publication date for these images, as I've said, and removing them instantly negates FA?#3. I guess you'd best mark this as a quick fail. All that work down the drain... Yunshui ^雲_水 08:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Can we show any publication before 1978, even if it wasn't the original? Failing that, could alternatives be found, or could one or more images have a fair-use claim? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to anything from Japane pre-1978 that contains these images (they largely existed in private collections), and there are no free alternatives that I can prove were published before this date. Fair use wouldn't apply, because free imagesdo exist, I just have no way of proving that they are free. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If we can't prove they're free, we assume they're non-free - and so fair use could potentially be applied, if we can't prove that any image is free. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's like picking a scab; despite dewatchlisting this page I still find myself checking in on it... I've uploaded a new portrait under FU guidelines, though I'm still not sure that FU applies. Anyway, it's in the article now, at least until the next review! Yunshui ^雲_水 09:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've also added a location map to highlight the various places he lived (should be no problems with that, since it uses the standard Japanese location map) and a photo of Ueshiba with some students which is correctly licenced via OTRS (I've also checked the OTRS ticket; it uses the standard text). One could make an argument that the presence of Ueshiba in this image (which is indisputably free) negates the FU rationale for the main image; my personal opinion is that the group image isn't of sufficient resolution to provide an accurate "visual identification of the person in question". I've scaled a cropped version up to infobox size off-wiki, and it's just a messy blur of pixels, totally unsuitable for the top of a biography. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Also added: File:Aiki Jinja.JPG (public domain image taken and released by uploader). @Nikkimaria:, would you mind offering your take on these images? Yunshui ^雲_水 10:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

All current images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting and comphrehensive article. I have done the biographical part of the article—which amounts to the bulk of it—and thought I should write down my comments now, before proceeding to the remainder. I made some minor edits myself. I hope they work.

You will see from these comments that I don't have much to say. Most are minor; perhaps the least so is my niggling concern about the academic credibility of the so-called "Aikido Journal", which is invoked as a reference on several occasions.

• It would be useful to have a brief, even half-sentence, explanation of the "Shrine Consolidation Policy". The name doesn’t tell us much, and if Ueshiba was involved in opposing it, an explanation is relevant to the article.

Good point - I've gone one better and created a stub article for the topic, which is now linked from this article.

• "Leaving most of his possessions to Sokaku..." – use “Takeda” for consistency given the previous paragraph mentions him frequently?

fixed

• The Aikido Journal is labelled a journal, but it is clearly not in the academic sense, and I'm not immediately convinced of its academic credibility for Featured Article purposes.

see below

• The Wikipedia article for Shūmei Ōkawa does not support the statement that he was a war criminal; the article says that his trial was aborted on the ground of mental illness.

removed

• "Ōmoto-kyō priests still oversee the Aiki-jinja Taisai ceremony..." This is the first mention of this ceremony, and goes over the head of the reader unfamiliar with the term "Aiki-jinja Taisai".

On reflection, that bit (which has never set well either there or in the Iwama section) is really rather trivial. I'm going to excise it altogether.

• Is there any reason for Ueshida’s permanent move to Tokyo in 1927? The article gives no explanation, which is peculiar given his reluctance to go there just months earlier and his desire to return to Akabe so quickly.

This I haven't fixed yet, but I'll get my books out later and try and expand on the reasons for the move.

• "In his later years, he was regarded as very kind and gentle as a rule, but there are also stories of terrifying scoldings delivered to his students." – This general statement of character does not seem to be attributed to a reference. The reference cited for the subsequent sentence supports only the individual example of one form of scolding (which does not seem particularly terrifying).

I'm taking this bit out as well; it was in the article long before I got my hands on it and has never to my knowledge been sourced.

• Many occasions of the word "however" are unnecessary, especially the two occasions in which it appears in consecutive sentences (grating on the reader).

I hadn't realised how much I overuse that word. I have now expunged about half of the instances of it's use in the article, however...

• "Takeda Sokaku" – the use of diacritics in his surname is inconsistent.

fixed

I also note some dispute at Talk:Morihei_Ueshiba#Kisshomaru_vs_Stevens about the use of John Stevens as a reference. Some comment on that would be appreciated. I did not have the impression that the reference was being used to support anything outlandish. It seems that the outlandish claims in the article have been deleted since 2014, but I would appreciate reassurance that Stevens is not so off-base that he should be ignored entirely. Syek88 (talk) 05:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this thorough review. I've addressed most of the points you've raised above (and will do some more work once I have some books to hand). With regards to the sources, Aikido Journal is, as you say, not an academic journal, despite the name. Originally Aiki News, it was a periodical and later website published by Stanley Pranin, who is widely regarded in aikido circles as the most prominent historian of the martial art. Most of his work is ostensibly self-published, it's true, but if you were to ask any aikidoka for the foremost source on aikido's history, Pranin would be the first name to spring to mind.

John Stevens is the most well-known translator of Ueshiba's work into English, and has been published by at least two mainstream publishing houses that I know of, so he is easier to pass off as a reliable source. His biographical work is generally no more more outlandish than Kisshomaru Ueshiba's (who also repeats the claims of bullet-dodging, accidental-person-carrying, tree-uprooting and so on). I've left these out since almost without exception they are reported in the sources as either hearsay or Ueshiba's own recollections (which, given how patently barking he was, may not have been entirely reliable). Yunshui ^雲_水 09:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these replies. The new article on Jinja seirei is a great idea (my only minor question now being whether "Shrine Consolidation Policy" is better as a common noun). I'm tending to think that the Aikido Journal and Stevens fall into similar categories: sources from within the world of Aikido. In an ideal world we would have two or three detailed biographies written about Ueshida by credible academics from outside the Aikido world. But we don't. The next best thing to do is to be as judicious as possible in the manner in which high-quality sources from within the Aikido world are used. I'm satisfied that has been done here. The best I can probably do, given that I have not been reviewing Featured Articles for long, is to flag the issue for whoever does the source review. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My second tranche of comments now. I don't think the "Development of aikido" section is quite up to the same (very high) standard as the biography. Looking at the history of the article I can perhaps see why: it has been there for a lot longer, and improvement efforts since 2014 have focused on the biography:

I had previously recommended not to expand this section overly since Aikido itself is a Featured Article and covers this.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I certainly concur with not expanding the section; I don't think expansion would be appropriate at all. If anything, I'd be open either to reducing its size or the more radical step of amalgamating the relevant parts of it with the biography. Syek88 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• "It is unusual among the martial arts for its heavy emphasis on protecting the opponent and on spiritual and social development." - I can't see the book referenced, but the suggestion that either of these characteristics is "unusual" appears quite stark, and the book referenced does seem to be an Aikido source. Unless the source were fully independent, it might be best to state the two characteristics without the comparison with other martial arts.
• The "spiritual awakening" language leaves me a little uneasy. This sentence in particular: "Ueshiba developed aikido after experiencing three instances of spiritual awakening." It might be better to say something like "Ueshida described three spiritual experiences that led him to develop aikido." In that way, the article avoids any implication that it is verifying that these experiences took place or that they amounted to "spiritual awakenings". I would say the same about the reference to "spiritual enlightenment" in the lead of the article.
• "The technical curriculum of aikido was undoubtedly most greatly influenced by the teachings of Takeda Sōkaku." - the passive voice plus double-adverb doesn't read very well.
• "The early form of training under Ueshiba was noticeably different from later forms of aikido..." - There are a number of aspects of this paragraph that I'm unable to trace to the Green & Svinth source cited. The paragraph has been in the article for a very long time. It started off uncited at all.
• "As Ueshiba grew older, more skilled, and more spiritual in his outlook, his art also changed and became softer and more circular." - what does "more circular" mean?

More circular means less direct - would the latter work.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It still sails over my head a bit... Syek88 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• To the lead - "It is now practiced in many countries around the world." - "in many countries" could be superfluous?

I think that's likely to be it from me. Thanks again. Syek88 (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The "Development of aikido" bit was, as you say, part of the article that I'd done very little with. I've now reordered it, changed some of the wording per your suggestions above, and added a few more sources. Thanks for giving me the impetus to sort it out a bit! Yunshui ^雲_水 10:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I've had another couple of read-throughs of that section and I'm now marking my review down as a support. I have one point for other reviewers and the FAC delegates: the point I raised above about the extent to which the article relies upon sources, such as Stevens and the Aikido Journal, which are written by Aikido followers (if that is the correct term). I didn't feel qualified to comment further upon this issue and its relevance to the Featured Article criteria in this case. Syek88 (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. Very readable. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

This is an unfamiliar topic for me, please excuse silly questions ;)

Infobox

• Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?
• "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

Lead

• Do I have to know what a dojo is?
• "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

Early

• "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.
• "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

Ayabe

• "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.
• "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?
• "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

Awama

• I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

Students

• I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

Interesting article, thank you! I only looked at the prose, simply trust that you used your many sources well. I'd like more images, but understand that in FAC time, every new image is a new problem ;) - If you also want to look at an unfamiliar topic: I have a FAC open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the kind words, Gerda, but as Nikkimaria has established above, there is literally no way for this topic to ever become a Featured article (it's impossible to include suitable images that comply with the PD requirements, and you can't have an FA without images). As such, I'm no longer trying to make FA improvements; in fact the whole process has left such a bitter taste in my mouth that frankly I think I'll just dewatchlist it and go do something else. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Pity - are the images really that much of a problem. I had thought they were acceptable but admit to being totally confused with the jargon.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That is saddening. I'll alert a commons admin, who solved my last image license problems, - often it's just a missing license. My expert for FAC image problems is RexxS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That would be great. Going through the FA process can be full of roadblocks which on the face of it are insurmountable. Help would be appreciated.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I'm back here, I figure I should address Gerda's points:

• Do I need to know at this point that two of his children died in infancy?

I think this is relevant; since his other children had some influence on history (Matsuo by marrying Nakakura (the one-time inheritor of Ueshiba's martial art) and Kisshomaru by being the actual inheritor) it seems reasonable to indicate why the other two did not.

• "see below" - never saw that, - how about three names which people might know, adding "among others" (or not adding, it doesn't have to be complete)

How big a can of worms would you like to open? The problem is, adding a selection of students in the infobox could easily seem to elevate them above the others mentioned in the article body - cue edit warring as readers try to make sure their teacher/lineage head gets included at the top of the page... Even if we restricted it only to students who developed their own schools of aikido, you'd still have ten or so names in the box. To my mind, a link to the table of notable students is still the best way to do this and still keep both a stable article and a reasonably-proportioned infobox.

• Do I have to know what a dojo is?

It would probably help, I've wikilinked the term.

• "Aikido, the martial art Ueshiba had created, continued to be promulgated by his students (many of whom became noted martial artists in their own right) after his death." - After the long bracket, "after his death" comes unconnected, - I guess it could be dropped altogether, and perhaps the brackets also?

That was rather clumsy wording, you're right; I've restructured the sentence to make it more readable.

• "but Ueshiba's father Yoroku vetoed the idea. He" - made me think "he" was the father.

Changed this to make the subject of each sentence clear.

• "he was also presented with a certificate of enlightenment (shingon inkyo) by Mitsujo Fujimoto of Jizu temple, who had been Ueshiba's childhood teacher." - first "he", then "Ueshiba's"?

More clumsiness on my part; rewritten for clarity.

• "His son Kisshomaru Ueshiba was born in the summer of 1921." - I'd pipe to just first name, as for the other children.

God idea, done.

• "regularly retreating by himself to the mountains", - what does "by himself" add?

Not a lot; it's now gone.

• "This move was a major event in aikido's development", - this is the first mentioning of aikido in the body, a bit surprising, without explanation of the name or other help.

The debate over whether he was teaching aikido at this point is a long one (I think the name would have been Ueshiba-ryu Aiki-jujutsu around that time), so I've removed the term (and improved the sentence structure as a result).

• I find it a bit surprising that the World War is mentioned almost in passing, and little about influence on our subject.

By all accounts it didn't actually have much influence on him - he was in a pretty remote, rural part of Japan and was largely self-sufficient. The only major effect of the war on him was the prohibition on martial arts by the occupying forces - which Ueshiba ignored anyway! I'll have a dig around to see if there's more to say on the subject (the Iwama section is quite short compared to the others and I'd like to flesh it out if I can), but most histories seem to agree that Ueshiba's day-to-day life wasn't particularly impacted by the war.

• I find the table a bit hard to read. How about having the top groups headers, and below a table, where each student has a line with name, life data, time studying, reference? - If you keep it as is, you might see that "from" and the year appear in one line.

I haven't made any change on this as yet; I'm going to have a think about what information needs to be in there and how best to organise it.
Many thanks Gerda for your suggestions (especially the bits that needed rewording; very much obliged for those!). Yunshui ^雲_水 11:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I like what you did, and am close to supporting. I was always told that a link from the infobox to below in the same article was a no-no, - how about a separate little article "List of students ..."? Which would also remove the appearance of the table from FA consideration. We made Franz Kafka works, when the list got too long ;) - The infobox could link to it, as Beethoven's to his list of works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Gerda, that's a bloody genius idea! I've always hated that table - changing that section into a paragraph or two on his relationships with his students and the international spread of aikido would be much better. I'm strapped for time right now, but I plan to do some more work on this tomorrow, so I'll implement this change then. Thank you so much for this solution! Yunshui ^雲_水 15:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

What I've actually ended up doing is modifying the existing article List of aikidoka to include this information (since almost every student was already listed there) and deleting the table. I'll have a rummage through my books and see if I can flesh that section out a bit. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And on further consideration: I've now incorporated the content of that section into "Development of aikido", since it seems more relevant there. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I like what you did! Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need a source review unless I've missed it somewhere. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. To whoever completes the source review, I should draw your attention to Syek88's point in their review above about sourcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Note Sources have now been reordered to match their order in the text, supplied with URLs, and reformatted to use the same citation formats, so hopefully that should make this review a bit easier for whoever picks it up. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

CMLL World Lightweight Championship

Nominator(s):  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship known under various names over the years.I brought this to GA level last year and put more work into it, making updates based on successful FA Nominations of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship, CMLL World Middleweight Championship and CMLL World Heavyweight Championship articles. This is also currently part of a Featured Topic candidate at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships/archive1. I hope you will find this a high quality article and know that I am always open to suggestions and modifications to make this an even better article. Thank you in advance for your participation.  MPJ-DK  00:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Oppose on prose

• MPJ-DK, I recommend finding a co-nominator. I'm glad you're bringing Lucha Libre articles to FAC, I'm glad you've had a lot of success with that, but there are too many big, obvious problems here. We don't want to burn out reviewers, forcing them to do work that you could have done and should have done before FAC. A few examples:
• "During Máscara Dorada reign with the title": In normal speech, informal writing, and formal writing, no one says "Dorada reign". (Everyone makes typos of course, but you have to check for typos before you nominate at FAC, it's not our job to fix those.)
• "the name was changed to be": No one says "the light was changed to be green" or "he changed the name of his hair style to be a mohawk".
• "native Japanese wrestlers On February 27, 1999, they held a one night tournament": ?
• "making the first time in the history of CMLL": Did you mean "making it the first time in the history of CMLL"?
• "Mexican Ricky Marvin ... exchanged the title": Leaving the "the" off is just wrong. After the "the" is added, then people can argue over the best ways to present nationalities.
• "Jr..": No..
• Like I say ... I'd like to see more of these articles. The first or second time someone comes to FAC, if they're having a hard time, I hold off on criticizing. You've been here often enough that I don't think I'm out of line asking you to either do the work yourself before FAC, or if you don't want to or are having problems, find a co-nominator who is interested in Lucha Libre and is willing to get these articles up to FAC standards before FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• @WP:FAC coordinators: If anyone thinks I'm being too hard-nosed here, I'm always open to input. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Dank from my perspective you are fine, pointing out legitimate issues and a firm, but not unfair kick in my complacency ;-) and looking at the article again I see it and the need to tighten up a few things in my approach to FA. I would like to put a couple of hours of work into this and tue ask for your honest opinion on where it is at Quality wise. So no worries about harshness, I did not in any way take offense to your comments. Side note, I also appreciate the input on burning out reviewers - I wonder if that is part of the reasons my FACs don't always attract reviewers? I do appreciate the honesty, otherwise I would not be pushed to improve, which is the whole reason for me doung the FAC thing.  MPJ-DK  18:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. The part I review at FAC is prose ... and not even the tough prose problems, I just handle the straightforward stuff. So I can't really tell you how close you are to the finish line. Several people have given you extensive reviews for past FACs. Ask them ... and if they don't see much work to do, then fine. If they do see work to do, ask them if they'd like to co-nominate Lucha Libre articles at FAC so they can get some recognition for all the time they're putting in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • So I have taken a much needed pass at the article again, there were several embarrassing issues in it that really should not have been present in a FAC. Dank I would like your honest opinion on the level now, not necessarily a detailed feedback more of your take on if it's even worth pursuing FAC for this article right now.  MPJ-DK  00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I finished this up, and I can support it on prose now. I might or might not oppose future articles, depending on how much work there is to do when they hit FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that Dank and thank you even more for your edits to the article - it has really helped bring up the quality of the writing. I've already decided that I need to either co-nominate or at least have a second/third set of eyes on the article prior to even nominating for FAC, I want to deliver a higher level of quality right off the bat and I have some work to do on my own.  MPJ-DK  02:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • One more thing ... a previous reviewer recommended mentioning and linking kayfabe. I agree in principle, although that article is a mess. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That article is such a fancrufty mess I almost hate sending any reader in that direction.  MPJ-DK  21:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Mary Kom (film)

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about an inspiring film based on the legendary eponymous boxer, who was largely unknown in her own country despite achieving plethora of accolades. Additionally, the film features a remarkable performance by Priyanka Chopra. I am looking forward to lots of constructive comments.Krish | Talk 06:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Reference 91 is dead and either needs to be replaced with a new source or recovered through a website archive. Same comment applies to reference 6.
• I would imagine that the ALT description for the image of the actual Mary Kom would need to be more descriptive than "Mary Kom". Please expand this. You are very good with the other ALT descriptions so just modify this one to match the quality of the others.
• I am not sure what you mean by the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph. What do you mean by "first appearance"? Could you please clarify what this sentence means?
• I would move the "despite her numerous achievements" to the end of the sentence to avoid awkwardly cutting that part of the sentence in two.
• The phrase "much before" in the lead is awkward and too informal. You can just use "before" or an exact time/time estimate if known.
• The use of the parenthesis in the last paragraph of the lead is a little awkward. The placement of (Chopra) directly before the word categories is a little odd and I would suggest revising this to avoid this.
• This is more of a clarification question, but do we know who is singing the Indian national anthem at the end of the movie and is it worth identifying?
• The phrase "woman-oriented biographical subject" sounds a little odd and ambiguous to me as it can read either as looking for a good female subject to make a movie out of and look for a good biographical subject that appeals to a female audience. This might just be me, but it just sounds a little strange to me and I would recommend revising it to make the meaning clearer.
• In the phrase "he felt disgusted", do you need to clarify that he felt disgusted at himself for not knowing about her? Who was he disgusted towards? Himself? The media for not bringing her more into attention?
• I would say "first choice" instead of "original choice" as the term "original choice" implies that it didn't work out and someone else had to play the character.
• I would revise the wording for "choice of actor" since it is so close to the quote "perfect choice" that it is a little bit too repetitive in such a close proximity.
• In the sentence about Danny Denzongpa, do you know who was doing the reports about him being a part of the film? If you specified who was doing the reporting, it would not only avoid the passive sentence construction from "It was reported", but also give a clearer idea to the reader on what is occurring.
• The last sentence in the "Pre-production" subsection needs a citation.
• Any information on the commercial performance of the soundtrack?
• Avoid SHOUTING in the reference titles (i.e. reference 98).

@Krish!: This is a very strong article. Great work with it. Once my comments are resolved, then I will support this nomination. I am not familiar with anything about this film or Indian films in general and I have never actually ever seen anything with Priyanka Chopra so I apologize if I miss anything. Good luck with this and hopefully, this review gets more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Thank you for your kind words and I have worked really hard on this. It was supposed to be my first solo FAC but I ended up nominating another one which was successful. I really liked this film and saw over 10 times in theatre alone particularly because of Chopra and the inspiring story. It might not be a great film, thanks to its weak and manipulative direction, but is certainly entertaining and inspiring thanks to Chopra's spectacular performance.Krish | Talk 13:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Krish!: Awesome! I am glad that you enjoyed it. An actor's performance can definitely elevate a film. I can definitely support this nomination and good luck with getting this passed. I was wondering if you could possibly provide some comments for my FAC as well? I understand that it is a busy time of the year so it is okay if you do not have the time or energy for this. Great with work with article and hopefully it will receive more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks and I will try to look at your nomination.Krish | Talk 15:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! I will have to check out this movie someday as you have piqued my interest about it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• You can watch Chopra's other films also. Checkout those which are listed in her article's lead.Krish | Talk 15:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• No audio files used, images only.
• Infobox image has completed Non-free media information and use rationale and is appropriately used in the article.
• The rest of the images were originally uploaded on Flickr and are properly licensed.
• Every image has an appropriate ALT description.

Everything looks good with the images. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Pavanjandhyala

• In a 2012 meeting with Sanjay Leela Bhansali, on being asked by Bhansali about his plans, Kumar told him about the film, explaining that this was not "his kind of cinema", given Bhansali's signature work. -- Bhansali repeats thrice in the sentence which needs to be rewritten for a simpler read. Also, why introduce the person again when the very first sentence does that job with a wikilink too?
• Priyanka Chopra was Omung Kumar's and Sanjay Leela Bhansali's first choice for the title role -- Again, why introduce the makers again?
• Later in that month, it was confirmed that she had been cast for the part. -- Who confirmed this? the makers or the actress' spokesperson? Please mention it.
• In an interview with Daily News and Analysis, Mary Kom said "I don't think anybody could have done it as well as Priyanka. She is the best actress to play me. Acting anybody can do, but boxing will be different as one needs a certain type of body structure. She suits that. Her body is very structured, like that of a boxer." -- Please paraphrase this quote. It is a WP:QUOTEFARM issue that needs to be addressed.

More later in the day. Pavanjandhyala 04:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Pavanjandhyala: Fixed all of it.Krish | Talk 11:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see any actual reason for existence of the infobox in the soundtrack section. Can't we mention the label and release date directly in the paragraphs with reliable sources?
• The film made profits of ₹50 million (US$740,000) before the release. -- No other figure in the entire paragraph was given a conversion. Why this?
• Subhash K. Jha's review is another issue of WP:QUOTEFARM. Please look into it.
• Ensure that every link here is white.

I don't have any other concerns beyond this. Let me know once you are done. Pavanjandhyala 13:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Fixed. And, I don't know about the infobox but most of the FAs happens to have this. Coming to your quotefarm complain, its the only two line quote in the whole article and nobody even said a word about it during the PR review. I think its fine considering its the only line in that review that gives a proper summary of what the reviewer wanted to say. And, yes, I would be archiving all the sources on Thursday as I have a test tomorrow.Krish | Talk 05:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. Let me know once the job is done. Pavanjandhyala 16:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Pavanjandhyala: What more do you want me to fix? I think I told you above that I have fixed everything and I cannot remove that quote.Krish | Talk 12:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support — My concerns are addressed and i have nothing further to say. Wish you good luck on this. Pavanjandhyala 12:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I had my say at its PR a while ago, and the article is still in good shape. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

I'll try and make prose improvements wherever possible. As for my comments, lets begin with the lede section...

• The film title in the intro section needs to be boldened and italicised.
• I don't think you have to say "biographical sports drama film". It will cause genre overload. Just the first two genres are enough.
• Try reducing usage of the word "film" as much as possible.
• This section complies with WP:LEADCITE, and that's not a concern.

Plot

• I say the actor names are best removed from this section if you want to keep them linked in "Production" to avoid violating WP:OVERLINK. Also, please try to stay in-universe as much as possible.

Cast

• Please see that it complies with WP:FILMCAST. All characters must be sourced. But if they are sourced elsewhere apart from this section, you don't have to add sources here.

Production

• Please see that unnecessary rumours are avoided to comply with WP:RUMOUR.
• However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. However, she was enthusiastic about the idea - "However" has come twice, and I'm not sure it satisfies WP:NPOV.

Final comments

• Life's too short for someone like me to go through each source to see that all content is written as per. I'm sure the admins will do a better job. You may want to combat link rotting (Archive.is is best advised for sites like The Times of India and CNN-News18, formerly CNN-IBN). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Kailash29792: Fixed everything. I can assure you that no rumours and made-up stories are the part of this article. And, I will be archiving the sources soon.Krish | Talk 16:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

While I'm fine with the prose, I see quite a few links have issues. Once they are fixed, this will have my support. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Kailash29792: Done. Archived each and every link used in the article.Krish | Talk 14:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Support: Good work Krish. Hope this passes FAC. --Kailash29792 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

Will put up comments after taking a good look at this, can be a couple of days. NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Early observations :

Lede

• "The film Priyanka Chopra in the lead role of the eponymous boxer, with Darshan Kumar and Sunil Thapa in supporting roles" - notice anything?
• I don't think that the last sentence of the first paragraph belongs there.
• "where only the boxing sequences were filmed continuously for twenty days" - reads awkwardly to me, how about : "where the boxing sequences were filmed in a single schedule."
• "distinct boxing styles" - style

• Are you serious? Kom has a distinct style of playing boxing (a lefty). So I think its necessary to say that.Krish | Talk 13:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why don't we take a step back and actually try and read what's written? I meant that you need to replace "styles" with "style". Rest assured, everyone here in pretty darn serious, so let's just drop the silly questions and make better use of our words. NumerounovedantTalk 17:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Done.Krish | Talk 04:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The film was released on 5 September 2014 to generally positive reviews" - "It" can be used to avoid repetition of the weird "film".

Plot

• "After realising Narjit Singh (Sunil Thapa), coach of the gym, and of the Asian champion Dingko Singh, Kom tells him about her boxing aspirations." - what is this supposed to mean?
• "Due to Kom's dedication and stubbornness, Singh starts training her, suggesting she change her name to Mary Kom." - These should be two separate sentences.
• "state level championship" - hyphenate
• "After winning the state level championship, her father confronts her for keeping about her involvement in the sport from him." - you will need to rephrase here as well.
• "boxing:" - not sure if this should be a colon.
• "Kom has to fight a wrestler to arrange money to get her household cow back, which is where she meets the footballer Onler Kom." - Doesn't this happen way before the events mentioned prior to the same.
• "Onler encourages her to revive her boxing training." - revive?
• "She later writes an apology letter, and the official accepts it, not without insulting her." - you might want to rephrase using "though".
• "Kom then asks Coach Singh to train her" - Be sure that you are consistent in your manner of referring to the character, earlier the section refers to his as Singh.
• "gruelling activities" - vague and ambiguous, not the best choice of words.
• "On the podium while accepting the medal, she learns that her son's surgery was successful and she is given the nickname "Magnificent Mary"." - Again, separate sentences. Two distinct facts should always be two different sentences, to avoid making them sound related somehow.

More to follow. NumerounovedantTalk 10:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Fixed everything.Krish | Talk 13:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Production

• "Kumar went to Manipur to meet Kom and to seek her permission to make the film. However, Kom was surprised by the development as the sport, especially women's boxing, was not well known in India. Nevertheless, she was enthusiastic about the idea." - not sure if "However" and "Nevertheless" are the best choice of words here.
• "Research for the film was done through sources," - that is really vague, unless you mention what sources or substitute the comma.
• "In her interactions with Quadras and Kumar, Kom was honest and forthcoming" - this really isn't very encyclopedia-like phrasing, it sounds mostly approving of her, which is totally unnecessary.
• "However, Quadras's main challenge was to make the film authentic and cinematic," - I am not sure of what the statement means, even with the long lengthy explanation that follows. You'll have to rephrase and be more precise about he "challenges".
• The explanation too is colloquial in itself. Rephrase.
• "The fifth World Boxing Championship" - what about the 4th?

• Did you even read the article? Because Kom's fourth Championship was in 2008, which the article specifies several times.Krish | Talk 05:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no mention of her 2005 win in the article, at least up untill where I have read, which tends to lead the reader to believe in just three WC wins. Let me know if I am missing something here. NumerounovedantTalk 07:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• "of a contract that permitted to depict Kom's life up to 2008" - "a contract"? Were there more than one? If not rephrase using "the".
• "The contract for the film was signed at that time when Kom was not even qualified for the London Olympics." - was not even qualifies is wrong grammatically.
• "Still, he wanted to hear the story and was also enthusiastic towards the project." Replace he with Bhansali.
• "Her win also brought the recognition of her previous achievements." - "Her win also highlighted her previous achievements."
• Split the last sentence of the paragraph.
• "which the actress denied initially." - the actress sounds really informal and tabloid-like.
• "Samir Jaura, who previously trained Farhan Akhtar for Bhaag Milkha Bhaag was brought to train Chopra." - "brought in".
• "Chopra, at that time, was busy with her other works" - really weak wording.
• "She started training in April 2013 to develop body like a boxer." - "Chopra started training in April 2013 to develop body like a boxer." The last female reference is of Kom. Consequently the next "Chopra" becomes "She".
• "Chopra got a fifteen days break" - "fifteen day break".
• No need for "continuously" here.
• "She was particularly trained by Kom's" - particularly trained by? I am not sure of the phrasing.
• "channeled the grief.
• The paragraph overuses "Chopra" in parts.
• "Unlike Chopra, Kumar did not met Onler Kom before the film, working mainly from videos provided by Kom to the makers, and helping the actor to understand the nuances of his character." - Rephrase.

This is turning into a really taxing review. It was much harder than I though it would be, and honestly I am surprised to see the quick supports for it. Will go section-wise from here on. NumerounovedantTalk 20:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

However, on a closer look I am inclined to giving a Strong Opposeconsidering the number of errors I have found from just a single section. I went to read on and things are pretty much the same. I feel that thus discussion should be closed as the article needs a lot work. NumerounovedantTalk 20:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: You know what, I am not even surprised that you said this. FYI, the article was copy-edited by GOCE, went through a Peer review by some of the notable editors including Giansts2008. No one said a word but suddenly you came and challenged my article. You have always been critical to my work, finding flaws when there aren't. What you have listed above is your POV of how you want the sentences to be in the article. Still, I will try to resolve everything but I guess some people have this habit to be over-critical, which is a good thing. Nevermind, I also did the same when I was new here.Krish | Talk 04:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Fixed everything but I hope you are aware with Wikipedia:I just don't like it rule on wikipedia.Krish | Talk 05:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh well, in that case we should wait for an a third-person intervention which can decide if my concerns are legitimate or not. I am not going to proceed further (but will uphold my Oppose here, as i still find the prose to be really weak throughout the article), to avoid creating drama where there is none. I don't want rain for either of us. As far as the being critical of your work claim goes, I have done nothing to deserve that, I have offered source reviews, comments, and suggestions on your request every single time. I been nothing but nice to you, and haven't really been asking for the favour to be returned. That aside, you might want to look for a third party opinion on my comments here. I might review the Reception section in a short while, till then you may ask for another reviewer's opinion. NumerounovedantTalk 07:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I apologize for the intrusion, but I have to agree with Numerounovedant's comments as I find that are pointing out areas that require improvement. I would advise you to not take these comments personally, but view them as ways in which you can grow and improve on here. Numerounovedant took a lot of time and effort to put all of these comments up so I would imagine that they are just trying to help to make this article the best it could possibly be in order to reach the FAC standards. I know it can be hard to react to criticism (I also receive some very helpful criticism on my FAC that made me feel a little awkward as well), but it is important to learn to take it and grow from it rather than reacting negatively. That's just my two cents for this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Aoba47 for being the buffer here. So, I feel that I instead of offering comments on every single issue I would​ rather perform a minor copy-edit and we can proceed from there. Alright Krish? NumerounovedantTalk 11:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made some changes, feel free to work around them. I have not been through the Soundtrack and Reception sections, but most of my early concerns have been addressed. I believe it's nearing the FA standard, but still could use some copy-editing and proofreading. That's it for me. Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks @Numerounovedant: I really appreciate your help.Krish | Talk 04:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Krish!: I would really appreciate your comments on Waiting's FAC. NumerounovedantTalk 07:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support – As stated above, I left comments at the article's peer review. I finally had an opportunity to return to the article today and found some prose issues that I don't remember from the last time I looked at it. Perhaps subsequent edits added the glitches, or I could have missed a few things earlier. Either way, I made copy-edits where I deemed them necessary (please go ahead and change back any you don't like). The articles appears comprehensive for the subject matter, and I'm satisfied that it meets FA standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Phantasmagoria (video game)

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn, GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hunter Kahn did the vast majority of creating the article to the way it is now. I've asked him if I could nominate it on his behalf which he allowed. (conversations 1, 2). Made by one of the most important women video game designers Roberta Williams, this horror game was a far cry from the type of games Sierra On-Line made back in the day, such as Space Quest and Police Quest. Still the history behind the creation of this game, along with the controversy and banning from Australia once it was released, a fascinating look at gaming back in 1995. GamerPro64 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Indrian

A lot of good things happening in this article, but a few areas where I feel it can be tightened up a bit.

Plot

• "who had five wives who all died mysteriously" - We can come up with a better verb than "had."
  • Changed the part to "whose five wives all died mysteriously." Does that work better? GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Hoping to find an inspiration for her next novel, Adrienne begins having nightmares immediately upon moving into her new home" - As written, this sentence is describing how Adrienne deliberately induced nightmares to find inspiration for her next book.
  • Changed "begins" to "starts". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • The problem was that the introductory clause is linked to the action verb of the sentence, so it reads as "because she wanted inspiration for her novel, she decides to induce nightmares." I took the liberty of rewriting this myself to avoid this connection.
• "culminating in a controversial scene in which he rapes Adrienne" - I don't think culminating works here, as the culmination of his bad behavior is really when he starts killing everybody.
  • Changed "culminating" to "resulting". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Harriet, fearing for her safety, decides to leave with Cyrus as Don becomes more abusive and erratic" - Meanwhile is not the proper transition here, as it denotes something happening at the same time as the events of the previous paragraph when it is actually something that happens later.
  • Removed "Meanwhile". GamerPro64 20:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Writing

• "Williams had previously created suspenseful murder and crimes stories in her earlier mystery games, Mystery House and the Laura Bow series" - the use of "suspenseful" feels like unnecessary puffery to me.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• "She felt the horror genre had not yet been properly explored in computer games yet, and that most attempts were just "a lot of hack and slash (where) the whole point seems to be to kill everyone and blow them away" - This is the first instance of what will become a recurring theme in this review: this is Williams talking to a house organ specifically to promote her game. As such, this may merely be sales puffery. I would take it out.
  • Just take out the sentence or should I take out everything involving the house organ? GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64:I think it's okay to use InterAction for basic facts like plot points, gameplay features, development time, release dates, etc. Where I would be wary of using it is when it analyzes how Phantasmagoria compares to other games or proclaims how distinctive or wonderful any of its features are, as this material may take liberties since the primary purpose of the magazine is to entice people to buy the game. Indrian (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. Removed the sentence. GamerPro64 16:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Williams found it stressful working on two major games at once and said she had "some difficulty keeping both games in my head", but felt each received her undivided attention during the most crucial times in their respective developments." - Well she would feel that way, right? Is she going to say she neglected her games? This biased opinion does not really add any understanding to the creative process of the game.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• "She said having a female lead in Phantasmagoria was not a ploy to attract female gamers, but rather felt like the correct choice for the game." - If she just chose a female protagonist because she wanted a female protagonist then there is really nothing to see here. This sentence does not really add to the article.
  • You got a point. Removed. GamerPro64 23:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Casting

• "Morsell said appreciated that her character was intelligent and not a typical horror film heroine, saying: "She doesn't do incredibly stupid things. You don't see her screaming in her underwear. The character isn't about decoration. She's a very real person." - This is just an actor promoting a project. I would not consider that source a reliable read of her feelings on the project.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Homb compared acting in Phantasmagoria to working in an entirely new medium, and called it "one of the best experiences I've ever had in the entire entertainment business"." - Same as above but even moreso. Lots of actors talk about how great their experiences were when promoting a project, which was the entire point of the source in question.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Unlike Homb, Miano primarily played antagonists throughout his career; he estimated "90 percent of the time, I play the bad guy." - This quote does not really add to our understanding of the subject.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
• As a general note, I have examined several FA-quality film articles, and virtually none of them list extensive CVs for cast members. This info seems excessive here, especially for the actors that have their own articles on Wikipedia.
  • What does CV stand for? GamerPro64 23:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64:Sorry, CV is short for Curriculum Vitae, which is basically a fancy way of saying résumé. The article includes a lot of prior roles for each actor, and going into that kind of detail appears atypical for FA articles on similar topics like films. This is especially unnecessary for the actors that have their own Wikipedia articles. Indrian (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I get it now. I trimmed down the section a lot. How does it look now? GamerPro64 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
        • Looks pretty good at a quick glance. I forgot to respond to your question about the analyst quote below, which I have now done. Once that final thing is addressed, I will give the whole article another look. Indrian (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Filming

• "with the average scene taking about an hour to shoot, while others were significantly longer or shorter" and "The average filming day began at 6 a.m. with setting up the studio, with actors coming in at 7 a.m. or 7:30 a.m. for make-up calls. An hour-long pre-production meeting would detail what would be shot that day to ensure all necessary backgrounds and props were ready. Shooting would begin around 8 a.m. and conclude at 6 p.m. or 7 p.m." - So in other words, it followed a similar filming schedule to any other special-effects driven movie. This does not seem noteworthy and encompasses a level of minutiae not found in other FA-quality articles.
  • Removed those sentences. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Williams had no experience working with actors and feared it would be difficult due to "huge Hollywood egos", but she instead found the actors to be professional and hardworking" - Again, this may well be true, but it is drawn from a promotional book. These always go out of their way to emphasize camaraderie and harmony and are not really reliable for facts like these.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "They normally had two grips on set, but needed six for this scene, and Wolfe used friends who were visiting from out of town to help throw the props from ladders, boxes and scaffolding" - This feels like an unnecessary level of detail.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "At one point in the film, Carno lies in the hospital bed after having just survived a fire, his face wrapped in bandages with blood leaking through. During filming, Miano spontaneously sat up and started singing Al Jolson songs, making the crew laugh hysterically." - That's a cute story, but again seems out of step with maintaining a summary style.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "The Doberman Pinscher simply barked behind a fence during his scene, and was trained to bark on command using different hand signals. The scene with the rats simply involved them running along a wall in a basement, which they were trained with to do using food." - These are standard practices not unique to this game, so it again seems like an unnecessary detail.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 19:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Effects

• "He said the game reminded him of working on one of his earliest movies, the slasher film The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)." - Another extraneous detail taken from a promotional source.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Morsell had to have her face covered in plaster when the model of her head was created, and she experienced some anxieties during the process, saying it felt "like being buried alive".[87] Robert Miano had similar feelings of anxiety when a model of his body was created, which was used in the game for a scene when Carno is set on fire. Miano had to sit on a chair for hours as the crew put plaster all of his body and face, during which he had to breathe through straws in his nostrils." - More extraneous anecdotes of a common type for actors having plaster molds made of themselves.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 20:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Release

• "and one of the first horror games from any company written specifically for adults" - So says Sierra's house organ as it tries to promote the game. It is not a reliable source for this type of information.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Phantasmagoria was the first game to get an "M" rating for "mature" audiences" - No it wasn't. When Night Trap was released on the 32x in 1994 it boasted an M rating. Same with the DOS version of Mortal Kombat II in 1994. I think there were a few others as well. This is why house organs can be of limited utility as sources.
  • Removed. Really common knowledge for people who know about video game history. Also had to rework the part of the paragraph so let me know how it looks. GamerPro64 20:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Sales

• "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote: "Never before has a new product jumped to number one on the charts so quickly." - I highly doubt that, and I would certainly never trust a company organ to tell me the truth about that.
  • Actually found the issue online. Page 25. The quote isn't the same as what InterAction wrote, though. But would the InterAction work as a source here? GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64:It still feels a little promotional in nature, but I assume InterAction has a decent handle on how the game did relative to Sierra's own releases. I would be okay with the magazine being used as a source for the claim that Phantasmagoria jumped to number one faster than any other Sierra game, but clearly the bit about fastest in computer game history is marketing hype rather than fact. Indrian (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
      • @Indrian:I changed the sentence to "InterAction, a magazine published by Sierra On-Line, wrote that no other Sierra game topped game charts as quickly as Phantasmagoria did." Does that work? GamerPro64 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• "Despite coming out in August" - Games achieve most of their sales in the first couple of months after release, so there is nothing surprising about a game coming out in August selling better than a bunch of games that came out in January or some other earlier month.
  • Removed from sentence. GamerPro64 20:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Reviews

• "The violent content drew a great deal of attention, with Lee S. Isgur of Jefferies & Co., a global investment bank that followed the computer game industry, wrote, "It's probably one of the bloodiest games ever."" - This is a statement from an analyst and is not part of a critical review of the game. It may fit in the article somewhere, but it does not belong here.
  • I agree with you with it not being relevant in the "Reviews" section but I wouldn't know where else to put it. Would the "Release" or "Legacy" section work? GamerPro64 21:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64:Sorry I missed this one. Isgur is already mentioned in the controversy section, so that seems a natural place to work it in. Indrian (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Okay I moved it to that section and re-tooled it. GamerPro64 01:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

• "While happy with the game, she said she did not expect to make another horror game again, saying, "It's not really my area"." - Yeah and after finishing Time Zone in 1982 she said she would never make another adventure game again. This statement really has little probative value.
  • Removed. GamerPro64 18:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's it. I really do feel the article is mostly in fine shape; it just needs a little bit of trimming here and there to retain summary style and needs to take a little more care in the use of promotional sources. Indrian (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• @GamerPro64: It looks like all my concerns have been addressed. I have also made a few edits here and there to improve the flow of the article. There is just one more thing I would like to see before supporting: The book High Score by Rusel DeMaria and Johnny Wilson includes a little bit of info on the game and brings up two points that I believe are of interest for comprehensiveness. One is that the game originally contained nudity as well as violence and gore, but they decided to take it out. The other is that during post-production Roberta Williams became an absolute perfectionist and kept sending back footage that did not fully integrate the actors with the blue screen backgrounds so as to avoid a "halo effect" like that found in 7th Guest. If you do not have access to that source, I would be happy to add the info myself. Indrian (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have any real way to access the source unless I buy it. You can add the info if you want. GamerPro64 03:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and add it in the near future, but I see no reason to wait to offer my support. Indrian (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I've read this through a couple of times now and no prose clangers are jumping out at me...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• I would imagine that the image in the infobox would need an ALT description. Same goes for the images in the body of the article.
  • I don't think its a need. I think ALT text is optional. GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64: Is ALT text really optional? I thought it was strongly encouraged under Wikipedia:Alternative text for images? Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Did it. GamerPro64 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Should you use Adrienne’s full name in the first mention in the lead?
  • I guess not. Removed it. GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64: I was actually wondering if you should put the character's full name in the first mention in the lead. I think it is fine to put the actor there. I have adjusted this in the lead, but feel free to revert it if you prefer. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      • That makes more sense. GamerPro64 18:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Could you provide more of a context for the final sentence in the final paragraph of the “Gameplay” section? It reads like a reception of the game, but I am assuming that it is someone involved in the production (if not Williams herself) who said this.
  • Just a reminder that this is the last comment left unaddressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I was getting around to it. You don't have to rush me. I honestly don't know what to do with that sentence as Hunter Kahn wrote most of the information. GamerPro64 22:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I was just trying to help; no need to be rude about it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I looked into it and it was from a Computer Gaming World writer. GamerPro64 17:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• In the following sentence (Lee had mostly done theater work the in), eliminate “the”.
  • Done. GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
• I think twenty-five in “Twenty-five professional actors” should be written out as numerals according to the policy on numbering. You write out 12 as numerals in the following section.
  • Does that apply here since its the beginning of a sentence? GamerPro64 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @GamerPro64: You are correct. I apologize for overlooking this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• The “Media data and Non-free use rationale” summary needs to be completed for the screenshots.
  • Done. GamerPro64 18:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Hunter Kahn: @GamerPro64: Everything else looks great and I will support this when my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• The words "announce(d)" and "release(d)" are overused in the Release section.
  • Trimmed the usage of the words down in the section. GamerPro64 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need image and source reviews, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I already made the request. Been waiting four days. GamerPro64 22:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that, it's been a long week! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• No dead links or other problems of that sort.
• I assume the plot section is like that of movie articles and is meant to be uncited. the rest of the text is well-referenced.
• I changed a few dates to standardize them with the rest of your citations.
• Everything else looks good to go. Good luck with the rest of the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Chase (U.S. game show)

Nominator(s): Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the American version of The Chase, a primetime game show on Game Show Network (GSN) from 2013–15. The series is arguably one of GSN's most successful shows of all time and is an adaption of the popular British version of the show. I have tried to model this article after that of another GSN game show, The American Bible Challenge, which recently passed FAC itself. All feedback is welcome and appreciated. Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The official website link in the “External links” section is dead and needs to found through a website archive. Same goes for the link in the infobox.

• Done by another user.

• Makes sense, as it was probably added when the website was still active. This should be an easy fix as I would imagine you can find an archived url of this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• My mistake; I meant the fixing of the link was done by another user here. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• You use the transition: “For each question answered…” twice in close proximity and I would suggest changing one for variety.

• Done.

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The phrase “fell through” in the “Production” section is rather informal and I would recommend using a stronger word choice.

• Done.

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• The “Production” section seems rather short. Is there any more information about the production of this show? This may not be possible, but I just want to double-check.

• I will check again. Bible Challenge had an actual book published with behind-the-scenes information; The Chase did not, which is perhaps why there is not much info beyond renewal and premiere dates.

• That makes sense. If you cannot find any more information, then it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest revising the second paragraph of the “Production” section, as it seems to read rather like a list of dates rather than a cohesive narrative. I would work on presenting the information in a more engaging manner if possible.

• Done? Tried my best, let me know if you think it can be improved, or feel free to do it yourself. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would combine the two paragraphs of the “Critical reception” subsection as they are both rather short independently.

• Done

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Are there any more reviews of the show? I understand if it is not possible to get more information on this, but I just want to double-check.

• I was a bit surprised by this too...I'll give it one more look but I doubt there are any I haven't come across.

• That makes sense. If you cannot find any more information, then it is fine as it currently stands. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please links Game Show Network the first time that you use it in the body of the article. Also, spell out the network the first time you use it in the body of the article and put the acronym in parenthesis next to it so the future use of the acronym makes sense for the reader. Put the acronym in parenthesis in the lead too.

• Done.

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Do you really need a separate subsection for accolades as it is only one paragraph? I would combine this under the umbrella of the “Critical reception” subsection.

• Done.

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Labbett referred to as “the Beast”? The article does not provide a clear answer for this.

• Added explanation for the nickname the first time Labbett is mentioned in the article. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I have made some edits to the article here. Feel free to revert them if you do not agree.

• Looks good to me.

• Thank you. Just wanted to make sure with you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• You only reference the rotating panel from other versions of the game show in the lead, but not in the body of the article. Would it be beneficial to include this comparison in the body of the article as well, ideally with a source to prevent accusations of original research? I also approach leads as including only information covered in the body of the article so the omission of this bit of information in the body of the article seems odd to me.

Rewrote the lead and removed the OR; feel free to tweak my post-midnight writing if you so desire. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bcschneider53: Overall, great work with the article. Good luck with your work on game shows. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, could you possible look at my FAC too? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for picking this up after Bible Challenge. I'm very busy with schoolwork right now (I was actually working on a research paper for The Tempest when I saw this and have four papers due this week) so I may not be able to get to this immediately. No promises, but if I can find the time, I'll try to take a look at your FAC, or you can let me know if you would like any other help (perhaps a GAN or something?). Cheers, --Bcschneider53 (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your message and no worries. Good luck with all of your schoolwork (your research paper on The Tempest sounds interesting). And don't worry about it if you do not have the time. I enjoyed reading through your article and I hope that I could be some help. Cheers! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Took care of some of the simple fixes. Will look into the others later. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I think it may be done? I'm off to get some rest now as it's after midnight here on the eastern US coast. Also, I have an FLC and GAN right now that need attention (not to mention real life work) so I'm afraid I won't have time to review myself in the immediate future. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good for me; good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

• I think an explanation of what a "chase" is needs to be earlier. I didn't understand it until the third paragraph of the gameplay section, which is too late. I'd suggest an early explanatory sentences that says something like 'A key element of the show is a "chase", in which the chaser and the contestant each answer questions, with the contestant starting with a disadvantage, and the chaser attempting to catch up." This might need to be as early as the second or third sentence to explain the concept before the reader gets too confused.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can we get a fair use screenshot of the gameboard? That would help explain sentences like "For each question the contestant answers correctly, the prize money earned moves one step closer to the team bank".

• Added. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• How about a brief summary of the UK show -- date it began, popularity, any significant differences from the US show? I don't think you need more than a couple of sentences, but since it was based on the UK show I think a little more information is warranted.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• There appears to be a board game based on The Chase, but I'm not sure if it's based on the UK or US version. If it's the US version, I think you should mention it.

• Yes, the board game was for the UK version (I actually have a copy of it so I can confirm this is the case). --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Presumably the app doesn't really have Labbett answering questions; there's some sort of simulation going on, right? I'd suggest rephrasing to clarify that.

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. I think the prose needs a bit of work; I'll do a copyedit pass once the above points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)`

• Thank you Mike Christie. I'm about to step out for the evening. May be back later in the night and I'll take a look at it then. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Mike Christie: Done everything here. Thanks again! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Reading through the gameplay I'm not convinced I fully understand. Here's what I think it's saying -- tell me if I have this right.

• There are four players in a show -- three new contestants (i.e. they weren't on the previous week's show), and the chaser.

• Correct. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• The first round has each contestant answering as many questions as they can for one minute. The chaser also does this, so all four players have some amount of money in their bank at the end of the four one-minute rounds. There's no competition between the players to answer any of these questions; they're all solo.

  Only the contestant competes in the first round, and is awarded $5,000 for each correct answer in the minute time period. The chaser then gives his two offers, so no, he does not do this. Once the contestant has selected which amount to play for, the chase is played, and the process repeats for all three contestants. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  The article currently says the Cash Builder round adds money to the team's bank, but does the chaser only chase the amount that each contestant won? E.g. If I win $40K, and the chaser doesn't catch me, and you then win $50K in the Cash Builder round, and the chaser catches you, the team bank only loses the $50K you won, right? So it's not really in the team bank until the chase is over? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  If you win $40K in the Cash Builder, that money gets placed on the gameboard five spaces away from the bank. The chaser then makes a higher and lower offer, say $90K and $20K. The contestant chooses which amount to play for. If he contestant wins the chase, s/he adds that money to the team bank. So yes, in your hypothetical situation, you would move on to the Final Chase, while I would be eliminated. Our team would have $40K in the bank (which was not added to the bank until you won your chase) with our third teammate still left to play. Hope this helps! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Once this first round is over, each contestant participates in a chase. The contestant is given two offers: one to play for more money and start further from the bank; the other to play for less money and start closer to the bank. If they don't accept either offer they are five spaces away; the offers are for four spaces and less money or six spaces and more money, but the chaser may also choose to make a super offer of seven spaces and even more money. This choice is at the chaser's discretion; the other two choices are always offered.

• Correct. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• The chase then happens, with the displayed gameboard showing $90,000; after the chase starts presumably the other slots go blank. Is the red arrow the chaser? Does that move down as the chaser answers questions correctly?

• Correct, the chaser's position is indicated by the red arrow; I'll clarify this. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• The chaser doesn't have to overtake the contestant; they just need to get to the square the contestant is on, so the contestant presumably goes first. The default (five spaces) means that the chaser has to have three more right answers than the contestant before the contestant gets five right answers. The super offer would mean that the contestant has no room to manoeuvre -- if they make a single mistake the chaser can catch them. Is that right?

• Correct. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• At the end of the three chases, contestants who were not caught advance to the Final Chase; if all were caught, then the three contestants choose one of themselves to play.

• Correct. Incredibly rare (only happened in the cited episode), but yes, this is the case. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• No additional money is added during the Final Chase; the money at stake is the sum of the individual banks of the contestants who made it to the Final Chase. The contestants get a head start of one space per contestant who reached the final round; if none won their chases, do they still get a head start of one space?

• Correct. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• What's the choice between A and B? Do the teams know anything about each set of questions -- e.g. that the A questions are all about sports?

• It's a random set. Nothing is known about it. Neither the chaser nor the contestants know what questions are in each set. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• What does it mean to "pass a question"?

• To say "pass" instead of giving an answer. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• The teams move as far as they can, and then the chaser tries to catch them, except that an error by the chaser allows the team to try to answer that question and move further ahead (or push the chaser back a space).

• Correct, a correct answer pushes the chaser back, unless the chaser is at zero, in which case the teams total increases by one space. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• If the chaser catches them the team loses the money and the show is over.

• Correct. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Any mistakes? Can you fill in the answers to the questions? Once I understand it a bit better I'll give it a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I think I hit every question. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I added one more question above, but I think I know the answer so I've done a rewrite of the first part of the game play section on the article talk page, without putting in the sources. Can you take a look and see what you think? I did it because I found it hard to be sure I understood the gameplay correctly, and once I got the answers and had it clear in my head I thought it might be useful. I think it's easier sometimes for someone who is not familiar with the material to write an description, because they know what's not obvious. I'm not saying you have to use this version, of course, but to me it's clearer than what you have now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Heading out to dinner now. I'll take a look in a couple of hours. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• We're eighteen months past the last air date mentioned in the article -- did the fourth season finish yet? Is it currently airing?

• The fourth season finished as of December 2015, which is when the last new episode aired. GSN very rarely makes official cancelation announcements, but the series hasn't been seen in new episodes since that time. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• The "dick-related" line is worth a grin, but that's just the headline; are you sure we need to mention it? Teti's actual comments don't really call it out; the clip gives him an opportunity to crack wise but that's really it.

• Removed. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• How about trying to add an abbreviated definition of "chase" to the lead? It's a short lead, so it would have to be a very concise definition, but it might be worth trying as otherwise reading the lead really doesn't explain what's going on.

• Gave it my best shot. Feel free to tweak it as always. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's everything I can see on a second pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that covers the second pass. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. I tweaked the lead a little. Everything else has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support The article is well-written and appears to be comprehensive. I have made some minor prose adjustments but have not spot checked the sources. The only issue I can see is the sources need to be archived which I recommend to prevent link rot. MWright96 (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments: I read this with a view to promoting but ended up doing a little copy-editing, so I'll have to recuse from this. I think we're OK from a prose viewpoint and would have no objections to promotion, but two little points which I think need clearing up; I would probably support after this. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• In the Gameplay section, we have a few places where we are apparently unreferenced; I think that the information is probably covered by the next cite but it is good practice to always end a paragraph with a reference even if it is covered in the next paragraph.
• I see the point is covered above, but it is quite a big one; if the show is no longer broadcast, we really need something to say this as it is a gaping hole in an otherwise comprehensive article. I'm sure we can find something. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: Like I said, GSN rarely announces cancelation. The only evidence I can find is that their Facebook page for The Chase makes no mention of any new episodes after December 11, 2015 (and has been relatively dormant since then). I assume their Facebook page is not an acceptable source though. I'm thinking maybe I could say something along the lines of "The series has not aired a new episode since its season four finale, which aired on December 11, 2015" and then cite the applicable episode, but do you have any other suggestions? Another solution may be to note the series' absence from any recent press releases regarding series development, citing said press releases. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think simply stating that no new episodes have aired since... would work perfectly. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Done. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I made it "As of March 2017", since we want the article to stay accurate even if a subsequent series appears. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I personally have no problem with this, but... --Bcschneider53 (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yes, not sure why they reverted. I won't oppose over it, but if you agree it should be re-added please go ahead. We can discuss on the talk page if it's reverted again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Ehh, I'm indifferent. Don't worry, if the series ever does come back, you can be sure I'll make a note of it :) --Bcschneider53 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Support: Happy to support this now (obviously recused as coordinator and did a little copy-editing). Sarastro1 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review:

• File:The Chase (U.S. game show) logo.jpg: Non-free license seems correct to me, ditto for using the logo in the infobox to identify the work. Non-free use rationale seems sufficient.
• File:Chase gameboard.png: Not sure how a screenshot of a work provides "critical commentary". It also isn't a logo. So the non-free use rationale needs some improvement.
• File:Brooke Burns 2010.jpg: Free image from Flickr. Using it to show the presenter (?) seems OK to me. Not seeing any evidence of copyvio.

ALT text may benefit from a slight expansion in image #2. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you! I've tweaked the second image's rationale a bit as well as the ALT text. Is this better? --Bcschneider53 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Now it seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: To the coordinators: I will be leaving for a 10-day missions trip in Mexico a week from today, and it is unlikely I will be able (let alone wanting) to do any editing during that time. Based on my prior FAC experiences, I believe this is a source review away from promotion, but aside from that, is there anything I need to do to ensure this is closed and (hopefully!) promoted within a week's time? Many thanks again, Sarastro, for your main review a couple of weeks ago. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

INS Vikrant (R11)

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the first aircraft carrier of the Indian Navy. Built by the United Kingdom, the ship was commissioned in 1961, and served until 1997. She played a decisive role in India's naval victory over Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The article has already passed an A-class review from Military history project. For reference, you can view the review on the talk page. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Support I gave this article very close scrutiny during its recent Milhist A-Class review, which followed a GAN review by one of Milhist's naval specialists. I supported it at Milhist ACR after further improvements were made. I believe it now meets the FA criteria. It is great to see Indian naval subjects being given such attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments – really happy to see a warship like this brought to FAC. I've made several copyedits.

• In the lead, there's only one sentence on the ship's service in the Indian Navy. Can that be expanded? (I recognize that there's not a lot out there, but it comes across as a hole)
  • Same for the article. Were there no deployments between 1971 and 1997?
• Why was the ship decommissioned? I assume it was age-related, but were maintenance costs getting to high? Too much breaking down? Etc.
• "After the war, the carriers were sold to several Commonwealth nations." Do your sources have a reason why? I assume it was because Britain didn't need them and was in something of a financial crisis in the post-war period? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: Thanks for the edits and the review. I've added a sentence to the lead and I think nothing much can be added. Because it covers all the sections now. Between 1971 and 1997 the ship had seen only general service with no specific deployments. Regarding the 2nd and 3rd points, what you are correct, but we don't have any sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry to ping you out of the blue. Do you have any sources for the third point above? @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: what is "general service"? Can we pin that down? Were there any notable voyages? Did the ship ever sail with the later Viraat? Things like that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I've got two sources that deal with this briefly. The Brits were broke, as you surmised, and the Majestics were surplus to requirements as more, and larger carriers were on order. Hobbs, p. 199 He also mentions a serious fire aboard Vikrant in 1994 and that the ship's catapult was removed in 1987 as part of the refit. p. 203

Friedman says that the Majestics could not be modernized to meet the new 30,000-lb landing weight expected for the new and heavier jet aircraft and that the available hull space was insufficient for the desired 200,000 Imp gal of petrol and kerosene. Pages 232–33 in Friedman, Norman (1988). British Carrier Aviation: The Evolution of the Ships and Their Aircraft. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-054-8.  cheers Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and The ed17: Many thanks both you. Sturm, especially you for the input. I'll work on this ASAP. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@The ed17: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I've supported! Can't do much if the sources aren't out there, I empathize. Thank you for checking and adding what you could. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

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

• "(5–10 mi (8.0–16.1 km))": Avoid nested parentheses.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Thanks for edits. Fixed the parentheses. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we still need source and image reviews. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't have the time to do a full source review; perhaps I will in a few days. Off the top of my head, though, there are serious questions about the reliability of globalsecurity.org and of books on demand as a publisher. They do not seem to be used for absolutely critical information, so perhaps they can be replaced without too much trouble; or at the very least, investigated to establish their credibility for this information. Vanamonde (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for the review, replaced the sources. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• Most of the image sources/licences look alright (if all those photos were really created by the Indian navy), but there are some issues with other images. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• This one needs an OTRS permission:[1]
• The author info on this one seems dubious:[2] The Flickr user has uploaded several historical photos that he hardly took himself, including of WW2 Nazis:[3] Seems he may only have scanned these photos, and therefore does now own the rights.
• The last two images in the article should have their pixel size forcing removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thanks for the review. Fixed the issues. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, I tagged the one that needed confirmed permission, it may get deleted if no one obtains it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• I'm confused about the Hobbs 2012 source. I found this 2013 source called "British aircraft carriers : design, development and service histories" written by David Hobbs, but the ISBN doesn't match your source (nor does the year). On the other hand, the ISBN does match this 2010 book called "British aircraft carriers 1939-45" written by Angus Konstam and Tony Bryan. The Konstam/Bryan book is published by Osprey and the Hobbs book is published by Seaforth, neither of which match the publisher you list -- Bloomsbury.
  • Fixed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Is uboat.net a reliable source?
  • Yes, it is. It has been accepted as RS by the Military history project, and has been used in many featured articles and lists for example, List of destroyers of India. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
• Fn 49 times out when I try to access it -- could be just a temporary issue with the site. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coemgenus: Thanks for the review. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, that all looks to be in order now. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: As the source and image reviews are now complete, I ping the coordinator in this context. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Resident Evil 5

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the best selling video game in the Resident Evil series. Article is GA, has received a peer review and a copy-edit from the guild of copy-editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47 The first sentence in the lead's second paragraph is quite long and it may be beneficial to separate it into two parts. The first part could focus on the addition of co-operative gameplay and the second could focus on the departure from survival horror game mechanics in favor of those of an action game. Done. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC) You have a stray ending parenthesis in the second paragraph of the "Development" section that should be deleted. Removed. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Would it be beneficial to provide the name of the original theme song in the final paragraph of the same section? The source, unfortunately, doesn't mention the name of the song. No worries as this is not a major point of concern. This was more of a clarification question as it is not absolutely necessary for this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC) The first three paragraphs of the "Critical reception" subsection seems to lack focus and it would be beneficial to organize these paragraphs around shared ideas/concepts from each review. The third and fourth paragraph appear to be fine as they focus on negative reviews and the reception of the DLC (though the inclusion of the nomination as Best Action Game at the end of a paragraph primarily dealing with DLC seems a little odd and it may be better to relocate that to an earlier paragraph in the same subsection. I've reorganised it, take a look and let me know if it needs further work. Looks great. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @Freikorp: These are the only comments that I could find on my first read-through. Great work with the article. I will support this nomination once my comments have been addressed. Good luck with this and I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks for your comments; I've replied to all concerns. Let me know if you spot anything else or think anything needs more work. Freikorp (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Great job with this article. I support this nomination and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk)

Comments from Jaguar

Resolved comments from Jaguar

Definitely footnote the Japanese name per WP:JPN "The seventh major installment in the Resident Evil series, the game was announced in 2005, the same year its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released." - I think this sentence read a bit awkwardly. How about The game is the seventh major installment in the Resident Evil series, and was first announced in 2005—the same year its predecessor Resident Evil 4 was released. All three paragraphs of the lead start with "Resident Evil 5". I'd recommend mixing it up slightly "When the game was released the minigame multiplayer mode was offline only, but a release-day patch gave the game online multiplayer modes" - to me this sounds contradictory. When the game was released, minigames were offline only, but on the release day they were patched to give them online capability? Do you mean that the game's minigames are offline when the game isn't updated? Maybe reword it to something like that, if that's the case "Mercenaries unlocks when the game's story mode has been completed" - Mercenaries is unlocked when the game's story mode has been completed I couldn't spot any issues with the plot section—it seems to be an appropriate length too "Actors Reuben Langdon, Karen Dyer and Ken Lally portrayed Chris Redfield, Sheva Alomar and Albert Wesker" - needs a ", respectively." on the end. "Resident Evil 5 was introduced by Capcom on July 20, 2005" - announced? "on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store" - de-link PlayStation Store here as it's already linked "It was the fastest-selling game of the franchise in the United Kingdom, and the biggest Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 game release in the region" - the United Kingdom is a country and not a region. I think "region" means North America, Europe, PAL regions etc I think the third and fourth paragraphs of the critical response section could be paraphrased so it doesn't have to rely on quotes. This is an aspect reviewers will mostly nitpick to death in FACs That's all I could find during my initial read through, but other than that I thought this article was pretty solid, and all of the sources I've checked were verifiable and reliable. I'll come back to this once all of the above are clarified! JAGUAR  18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Hi Jaguar. Thanks for your comments. I've addressed everything, and have paraphrased three direct quotes in the 'Critical response' section. Let me know if you think I should paraphrase more, or if you find any other issues. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I'll take another look through the article now. Another thing I would recommend is reworking the reception section somewhat so that it avoids the "A said B" problem (User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections is an excellent essay which deals with this). To accomplish this, I would put a short summary sentence at the beginning of each paragraph in the reception section, for example the first paragraph could have something like Reviewers praised the game's visuals and level of content and the third paragraph could have The game's control scheme was viewed negatively by critics which a bunch of citations at the end of it. I notice that the paragraphs are organised by topic, so writing summary sentences shouldn't be a problem. JAGUAR  10:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks Jaguar. I've added summary sentences. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my points have been dealt with, so I'm glad to lend my support here. Well done! JAGUAR  13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Jaguar

As requested, I'll start doing my source review of the article now. I'll go through all of them and will highlight any issues if I see them: "Wounding an enemy with a firearm often causes them to stagger; if the player is in close range, an icon will appear with the option of a melee attack such as an uppercut or a somersault kick" - none of this is mentioned in the citation given. Could it be in another ref? Hmm I'm not sure if that was ever sourced. I've just removed it. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Many of the game's cutscenes and boss battles involve quick time events" - the IGN source does mention that boss battles involve quick time events, but not cutscenes Removed the words 'cutscenes and'. "Customised weapons" - not related to the source review, but is this article supposed to use American spelling throughout? Fixed. I've spotted a few sources from the development section which aren't archived. It's always best to archive them if possible Are you sure? I can't see any online sources that aren't archived. Ah, my fault! When I was accessing the links I deleted the archived url so that the pages would load faster for me. I forgot that I was looking at all the non-archived links the whole time. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "Takeuchi said that about three years of "actual development time" were spent on the game, after a year devoted to concept and planning. At its development peak, about 110 people worked on the project." - this needs a citation, as it's not mentioned in the Joystiq interview. I found "Takeuchi explained that next-gen projects easily spend three to five years in development" in the GameSpot source, but I can't find where it says almost 110 people worked on development anywhere else. I'll keep looking, but the first two sentences of the second paragraph in the development section will need citations Unfortunately I think that was originally backed up by a now dead 1UP.com source. Archive.is has backed up the first and last page of the interview ([4][5]) but thee three pages in the middle appear to be dead forever. I've removed the information as it is can no longer be verified, and have removed the mention in the lead about it as well. I've added some new, unrelated information to fill the space. I'm halfway through the development section at the moment. Will continue in a few hours! JAGUAR  14:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments Jaguar. I've attempted to address your concerns. Looking forward to the rest of the source review. Freikorp (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks, I'll continue with my source review now. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC) "The package included a Resident Evil Premium Theme for the Xbox 360 Dashboard" - minor, but the dashboard itself isn't mentioned in the source Found a new source to support it. :) "and was retired in 2012" - not mentioned that it was retired in 2012 in either of the two sources Removed. "Resident Evil 5 was re-released on Shield Android TV in May 2016" - missing italics Fixed. "with a physical disc copy following in the Americas on July 12, 2016" - the source only says that the physical copy was released in North America. I think "Americas" refers to both North and South America Fixed. Ref 43 misspells "channell" Fixed. "Versus became available for download in Europe and North America on April 7, 2009, on the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store" - might sound better as Versus became available for download in Europe and North America on April 7, 2009 through the Xbox Live Marketplace and the PlayStation Store (not related to the source review but I don't know why I didn't pick this up on my prose review) Changed.

My review is done. I've checked all of the refs, and those were all of the issues I could find, albeit minor ones. The sources in the reception section are flawless as they match the content perfectly, and I couldn't find any other issues anywhere. Overall this is a solid article and once all of those minor issues are addressed I'll be happy to support again on the sourcing. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

All issues replied to. :) Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I will support on the sourcing side of things. Everything checks out for me. JAGUAR  21:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from PanagiotisZois

Resolved comments from PanagiotisZois

In the lead section's first paragraph, should you include that Chris is also looking for his missing partner Jill Valentine? I've now mentioned Jill in the lead. In the second paragraph you could maybe include that it expands upon the gameplay of RE4, having even more melee moves. Did you notice that mentioned in any of the sources or do you just remember this from playing the game? Everything in this section needs to be sourced and I don't recall any of the sources mentioning that, but I'll have a more in depth look later. in "Gameplay" you have ) after the word space. Removed. Thanks for pointing that out. Add that on the first playthrough in single mode, players can only use Chris but once the game is completed the can choose Sheva instead. That is already mentioned in the fourth sentence in the third paragraph. :) Maybe add that the Mercenaries minigame, while originally from RE3 is based more on RE4 in regards to gameplay style. This is true, but I've looked through all the mercenaries sources and none of them compare this version to versions in previous RE games. Due to time constraints I've only looked at the lead and "Gameplay" sections. Will look into the rest as well. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments PanagiotisZois. I'm looking forward to the rest of your review. No rush though; whenever you're ready. :) Freikorp (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Made a few minor changes to the plot. Added that the name of the parasite is Las Plagas on their first mention, that the mind-controlled Jill is the hooded figure (in the hood XD) and a few minor G&S changes. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC) The references are all good except number 22 "The Making of Resident Evil 5" which has beed dead for a few days now. PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Haha what annoying timing. Anyway I've removed the now dead (and unfortunately unarchivable) source and replaced it with three new ones, one for each actor. Freikorp (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC) In the development section just say "who directed Onimusha and produced Lost Planet". By the way, the link to the first game doesn't specify which one he worked on. "from both RE4 AND the original RE". PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Well spotted. Both issues fixed. Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Reception section seems to be in order. Only one more section to go. PanagiotisZois (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Overall the "Additional content" section is good but, this might just me I may be having a temporary brain malfunction, the third paragraph is kind of confusing. So Alternative Edition was released only in Japan and its only additional content was LiN. Gold Edition which was released in NA and EU has LiN as well as DE and new outfits/Mercenaries content. But in the third paragraph you say that "In addition to Gold Edition both episodes and costume packs are available as DLC, with two of the eight new Mercenaries Reunion characters bundled with each downloadable item; after buying all five sets of DLC, players own all content on the disc. This only applies to the PlayStation 3 version; the Xbox 360 version has no DLC on the disc. The Xbox 360 version comes with a download token allowing free download of all DLC, and the PlayStation 3 version has all of the new content on disc." Do you mean that the GE additional content was eventually released as DLC for the base games for PS3? I think that specific paragraph needs to be slightly re-written to make it clearer. PanagiotisZois (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC) After reading through that again I found it confusing also. I ended up just trimming a couple sentences to fix the problem. Let me know if anything still seems out of place. Thanks again PanagiotisZois. Freikorp (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It definately makes more sense now. I have to say, great work on the article. It was one my first RE games so it's nice to see it in such a good condition. I definately support its promotion to FA-status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Coordinator

We have three supports here, but I'm not quite seeing the depth of review that we really need. PanagiotisZois looks to have given this a fairly good review on content and accuracy, we have a check of the sources from Jaguar, and general comments from the other reviewer. I don't think we have an in-depth prose review yet (and I might ask a few people myself if no-one comes forward) and I would like some assurance that we are fully representing the literature and the article is comprehensive (i.e. a little more on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c). Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sarastro1. Thanks for your comment. I've contacted a couple editors myself seeking the kind of review you are after but haven't had any luck as of yet. if you could ask someone for one I would appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Sarastro1. So we now have a support on prose, though no additional review on content. Where do we go from here? Will this FAC stay open until it gets another review, or are you satisfied it has enough support? I ask as if it needs a further reviewer I will embark on another attempt to find one, though I'm not confident it will have any more success than my last attempt. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This won't be archived any time soon, so you are quite safe taking your time. I think Dank has covered prose, but I still would like more commentary on 1b and 1c. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

PresN

Freikorp asked me to take a look at this for 1.b and 1.c concerns, since I have my own FAC up (Homeworld).

• Development sources you're not using may not have seen - [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] - these may not all have new information, but I suspect it's actually the opposite, given that the development section right now is primarily "who did what" and technical decisions, not artistic ones.

 Done: The first source there is already used in the article. I've added some new information from the other four you provided.

• Your reception table includes both Metacritic and Gamerankings; the template discourages using Gamerankings for modern games, as the scores are generally identical to Metacritic- and indeed, here it's just a few percentage points off.

 Done

• Similarly, it's recommended to only put 7-8 scores in the table, even if you use more in prose- you have 9, which is close enough, but I'd personally recommend cutting either Game Revolution, X-Play, or both.

Y Partly done: I've cut X-Play. Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why you suggested cutting these two in particular?

• I'm not personally a fan of the depth of the reception section- each paragraph is: Topic Sentence, 2-3 sentences from 3-4 reviews about that game aspect; Topic sentence, 2-3 sentence from 3-4 (generally different) reviews, done. Eurogamer and Game Informer are the only reviews to be used twice. I'd like to see the sources used for more than a single pull quote/paraphrase, even if they're in agreement with each other.

Y Partly done: That format was actually reccomended by another reviewer. I have, however, used another two reviews a second time now.

• Except, of course, for the thesis paragraph ("Although the game was praised..."), which I really don't like, cited or no- you basically have a mini-lead for the reception subsection, and then expand on that lead for the next 3 paragraphs. It's pretty clunky. Frankly, that whole paragraph should go, and the award sentence should be expanded.

 Done

• The awards should be expanded with: Award for Excellence at Japan Game Awards, AIAS and G.A.N.G. nominations. If you don't want to add those, the sentence should be combined with the Sales subsection

 Done: The awards paragraph grew big enough that I thought it warranted its own sub-section. Let me know if you don't think that was a good idea.

• The "Allegations of Racism" section is crossing the line into editorializing, in my opinion. Mainly because of the long "congenital retardation" quote- that frankly comes across as overly dismissive and rather childish. If you want a better counter piece, use this IGN pre-release one, where she talks about different cultural perceptions being the root of the controversy, saying that the objective scenes and actions aren't racist, and also wouldn't be perceived as such in cultures that don't have a historical sensitivity to images like them.

 Done: I've drastically shortened the editorialising and have expanded the coverage to include the new source you have provided.

No concerns in the unmentioned sections about source use or comprehensiveness. --PresN 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments PresN. I'll start working on these issues. Freikorp (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've attempted to address everything PresN. Take a look and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Support on 1.b and 1.c. --PresN 18:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Can we do something for the non-specialist here? For example, in the first paragraph of "Gameplay", I see "in addition to melee attack", "to evade enemies" (without specifying who these enemies are" and "boss battles". These need explaining, or linking at the very least. Also, is it standard practice to have "gameplay" before "plot"? Someone who has no idea what this is all about probably wants to know what the aim and plot of the game are before they discover how to play it. For me, reversing the order makes sense, unless there is any great need to do it this way, or if that is the standard format for games. Also, watch out for close repetition of words; I cleared up one, but there is also "Despite initial concern that a second player would dampen the game's tension and horror, it was later realized that a second player could increase tension in situations where one player had to be rescued." Sarastro1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay comes before plot in most cases, because gameplay is the core of what a game is. Unless the gameplay is more easily understood if the section order is reversed, it should come first.--IDV^talk 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I think the gameplay needs a bit of work to give it context, or we are told how to play the game before we know what the game is. For example, the gameplay section in the just-promoted Donkey Kong 64 explains the aim of the game too. Not to say that this should be copied, but I think we are assuming a level of knowledge in our reader that might not exist. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just reworded the sentence you pointed out Sarastro1. It was one of the few sentences that were added after the article was copyedited, in order to address other reviewer concerns. Copyediting has never been my strong suit.

I've wikilinked boss battles, and reworded it to introduce it better. I've also wikilniked 'melee'. I've added a sentence explaining what enemies are being fought. I've described the typical enemies as 'infected villagers'; this raises the question of what they are infected with, but that is covered later on. Let me know if you think I need to expand on this. Freikorp (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't Stop the Music (Rihanna song)

Nominator(s): — Tom^(T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about... a 2007 song recorded by Barbadian singer Rihanna, part of her third studio album, Good Girl Gone Bad. Being one of her signature songs, "Don't Stop the Music"'s article on Wikipedia (IMO) is well written, comprehensive (maximum of the available sources online are used) and tidied up. This is the article's 3rd FAC, the previous one was closed because of inactivity, so I hope this one will bring more attention to editors. Thanks :) — Tom^(T2ME) 10:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

• You could use "hlist" rather than "flat list" to condense down some of the infobox parameters
• The lead is often the hardest section of an article to write, so I have a few issues I feel need to be addressed:

• Just a suggestion – Add "Both" before "Rihanna and Jackson were sued by..."
• "The song was critically acclaimed" → This isn't very neutral
• "it sold more than 3.7 million copies..." → "it has sold more than 3.7 million copies..." (the song is still available for purchase; this period never ended)

• The first instance of "critics" could be linked to "Music journalism"
• "The song received generally positive reviews from music critics" → Same; I don't know how neutral this is
• The "Weekly charts" section for Rihanna's version should read "Chart (2007-2009) per the new WP:MoS for this specific template

This is what I noticed from a quick glance. I will try to go deeper in my next comments, but otherwise it looks great so far! Carbrera (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Carbrera. Appreciate them. I believe I have fixed all the upper presented issues. To make it more neutral, for the critical part of the song, I wrote Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. A similar sentence replaced the positive reviews part in the 'Critical reception' section. I hope it reads better and more neutral now. And I can't wait for your other comments ;) ! — Tom^(T2ME) 10:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Moisejp

• "Dibango's attorneys brought the case before a court in Paris, demanding €500,000 in damages and for Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music to be "barred from receiving 'mama-say mama-sa'-related income until the matter is resolved".[4]" Is there any information on how those legal proceedings ended up? Your source says "French judges will announce on 17 February [2009] whether they will hear the case." Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• This source in Radio France Internationale says that the judge on Feb. 17 ruled against Dibango but it sounds like the latter was expected to appeal the decision. [[11]] Here is another source in La Presse about the same ruling: [[12]] I did a quick Google search and couldn't find news about any later developments, but quit after 5 search pages—but if you want you could see what you could find. In any case, you should probably add mention of the judge's decision. If you happen to need help with the details in the French articles, just let me know. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hey Moisejp! Thanks for the comment. I remember when I was writing the article (3 or 4 yrs ago) I didn't have any luck finding sources about what happened after the lawsuit, same as now. I am really bad with French, so maybe if you have time you can translate what you found in this sources and add it to the article (if it's not too much trouble)? — Tom^(T2ME) 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll try to do so in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• I'm working on it now. By the way, it looks like you have at least two raw URL references that need fixing: #77 and #111. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Tomica, as you saw, I've added info about the February 17 court ruling. This is my best translation of the French sources, although I'm not a legal expert and can't guarantee there might not be more precise legal terms to use. One other side note, I would like to recommend that you archive all of your sources (as I did for the two I added). I'll admit that I only recently became converted to this practice, but I'm now a strong believer in its benefits. Of course it's up to you, but it's just generally a good idea. Good luck with the article, and take care. :-) Moisejp (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• Both of the subtitles from the first two images in the body of the article repeat the line about the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook. It seems a little unnecessarily repetitive to me, but this may just be a stylistic preference.
• I do not think you need to repeat the full title of the song ("Don't Stop the Music") in such close proximity in the first paragraph of the "Development and release" section. I think it would stronger to just say "It was recorded at..." instead.
• Do you have any information about the lyrical interpretation of the single? I was just wondering after comparing this article to "S&M" and I noticed the absence of that information in this article. The parts about the composition are very good though.

• @Tomica: Great job with the article. These are the only points that I have noticed. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

• Aoba47 Thank you for your comments Aoba. I think I resolved the first two issues :) Check to see if it's better now. While for the third one, "DSTM" was released in 2007 while "S&M" in 2011, so a lot of online sources are dead from back then and that's all that I found for the 'Composition' section. I know that it can be more complex, however, I think I used maximum of the available online sources. Again, thanks for the comments and praise! — Tom^(T2ME) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with the article! The response about the "Composition" section makes sense to me. Good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

"he allegedly approved the request without contacting Dibango beforehand"..... if possible, I would try to use something more definitive than "allegedly" Well, I opened the source and read the original publishing, it really says that. I don't have an idea, how would I re-write that. If you have something on your mind, feel free to share :) "compared 'Don't Stop the Music' to Rihanna's 2006 single, 'SOS'" could use some elaboration; go into how Slant felt they were similar He is not specific at all, just compares it to it :/ "After the release of Rihanna's single 'Only Girl (In the World)' in 2010, many critics compared its composition and structure to 'Don't Stop the Music'"..... same as before They really just elaborate more for "Only Girl" which is important for that article not really here, IMO EW's comment is the only one who could be featured here as well In that case, it would be better to only mention the EW review for this comparison Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Already menionted it :) While "Rihanna's 20 Biggest Billboard Hits" is really more about commercial performance, I would contain a quote along with its ranking Added quote "In 2008, the song was certified platinum by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" is outdated when it's gone 5x platinum in Australia Fixed it Just remember to update the ref as well! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Shoot, totally forgot that. Fixed now — Tom(T2ME) 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) So far looking pretty good. I'll go through this again later and perhaps conduct an image review. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it! :) — Tom(T2ME) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Looking through again..... The only glaring problem I find is how the About.com link used says nothing about this video; please replace the URL or remove that bit entirely Removed it :'( Now the section is even shorter than it was, About.com update the article on the same article and sadly I haven't had archived it For live performances, four digits are preferred for years per this discussion. Could you perhaps add commentary for her performances of this track, even if part of a tour review? In "Credits and personnel", psuedo-headings (using bold text and especially ";") are discouraged for accessibility concerns That should be it.Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC) SNUGGUMS I think I resolved the last issue. For the commentary, there is no significant mention of how she performed, or what she wore, it's just that she performed it along some other dance hits "Pon de Replay" and "SOS". — Tom(T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I now support this for FAC following its improvements. A job very well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Don't Stop the Music Single.PNG has an appropriate FUR
• File:Manu dibango1.jpg is claimed as own work. I will assume good faith that this is true.
• File:Rihanna - Don't Stop the Music.ogg complies with WP:SAMPLE
• File:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg is A-OK as the author says all of his uploads are free for public use
• File:Don't Stop the Music screenshot.png also has an appropriate FUR
• File:Rihanna Last Girl on Earth Tour Zurich.JPG is also claimed as own work. I can't find anything suggesting otherwise, and will assume good faith here as well.
• File:Dont Stop the Music Cullum version cover.png is another non-free image with an appropriate FUR

Image and sample review complete. I find nothing of concern. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you :) — Tom^(T2ME) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This has been open for quite a long time now (and listed at the FAC urgents page), and I think we are in danger of going stale with only one support in all this time. I'm afraid if nothing happens in the next few days, this will have to be archived. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we probably just need a source review, unless I missed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tomica: There are unanswered comments lingering below for more than a week—what is your status in addressing them? --Laser brain (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from Harry

Music is not my area of expertise but I quite like this song and seeing as the review seems to be struggling for input, I'll take a look. Obviously take my comments with an appropriate dose of salt.

• StarGate, with Michael Jackson receiving This isn't a great use of "with" in professional writing, especially not in the second sentence of the lead.

• Done/Adjusted it a little bit. Hopefully, reads better

• praised the sampling of the "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" hook Do you think it's necessary to repeat "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" here?

• I am afraid so. I know it's a long word, but at the same time I don't want the readers to be confused

• number one in more than 10 countries Is there a reason not to give the exact number? Also, switching between numerals and words is discouraged by MOS:NUMERAL.

• I did now, it was actually less than 10 if you see the table (great that you pointed). Also, I chose words for the numbers

• with additional songwriting by Tawanna Dabney and Michael Jackson.[a] It's surprising that you use the footnote to explain Jackson's relevance in the body, when you mention it in the prose in the second sentence of the lead. If it's important enough to be mentioned in the lead, I'd be inclined to put it in the prose in the body.

• I changed it and now it corresponds with the lead

• The song samples the line "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" from Jackson's 1983 Ah, perhaps this is the place to explain why Jackson gets credit? It wold also reduce repetition.

• I clarified it in the first paragraph and just removed this part in the latter section

• This was due to the fact is again not really professional-quality writing

• Removed the phrase.

• territories including Australia, Italy, New Zealand and Spain Just out of curiosity, why "territories" and not "countries"?

• Changed to countries

• four-minute, 27-second mixing words and numeral again

• Adjusted it!

Other than the above, the article seems very well put-together and, based on a quick look, comparable to other featured articles on individual songs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell Harry thanks you so much for the review you. Appreciate it! Hopefully my responds/edits worked for you :) Cheers! — Tom^(T2ME) 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. This is much, much better and easier to follow. Just FYI, you don't need to write out all the numbers; the MoS just doesn't like you mixing numerals and words in the same sentence. Regardless, I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Harry :) — Tom^(T2ME) 18:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• File:Don't Stop the Music screenshot.png this non-free image does not have an appropriate rationale (Purpose of use "To illustrate in the article"?) Per WP:NFCC#8—contextual significance—the music video would only need to be pictured if it contains a scene that could not be adequately described with sourced text alone. Since it's a simple image of her dancing in a club, it's completely understood without the need for an image.  czar 15:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• The change from "territories" to "countries" may be in error, as iTunes has stores for a few places (Hong Kong, Macau) which are not countries. Reference 9, next to it, also doesn't contain any information about the date of release (only the year) or the territories the EP was released in aside from Australia. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 03:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

More comments from Moisejp

Sorry these are late in the game, Tomica. I hope you can quickly address these within the time period of the FAC. These are all in the Composition and Release & reception sections:

• Neither the Fair Use Rationale of File:Rihanna - Don't Stop the Music.ogg nor its caption say specifically how this sound clip illustrates the song in a way that words alone could not. Whenever I do FURs and captions for sound clips, I try to include points directly mentioned in the article that the sound clip can be said to illustrate in a way that words alone could not. In your case, you could say (for example) that it contributes to the "pulsating musical structure" and that it adds to the effect of the song's powerful beat (a paraphrase of "blur[s] into the track's overpowering beat").

• Changed it! I hope it satisfies the criteria right now. :)

• The FUR notes that the sound clip is under 30 seconds, but what is more relevant is that it is under 10% of the song's length. Sound clips must be under 10% or under 30 seconds, whichever is less—so the 30 seconds is only relevant for songs 5 minutes or longer.

• I firmly believe it is under 10% of the full length of the song. It's 24 seconds long, while the full song is 4 minutes and 27 seconds long.

• Sorry that I wasn't clear for this point. I did not mean to imply that the sound clip was not under 10% of the song's length. What I meant was that the FUR should say "The sound clip is xx seconds long, which is under 10% of the song's length of 4 minutes 27 seconds" NOT "The sound clip is under 30 seconds." Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• "After the release of Rihanna's single "Only Girl (In the World)" in 2010, Brad Wete from Entertainment Weekly described "Only Girl" as a "stronger" and "sexier version" of "Don't Stop the Music"." This feels like weak filler content that does not add to the reader's understanding of the composition of "Don't Stop the Music". I would recommend removing it.

• Restored the original text. Well, tbh, when "Only Girl (In the World)" was released, the fuss about being similar to "DSTM" was huge! So I think it deserves a slight mention even in this article.

• Great, this restored version is a definite improvement. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• There are a lot of direct quotations in these two sections—I would argue there are more than is ideal. I know it's not always easy to paraphrase music quotes and get the exact nuance, but I urge you to try to paraphrase at least two or three of them. For example, "we defy you to get the hook from this pounding 2007 dancefloor favorite out of your mind" should be easy to paraphrase. Moisejp (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

  Just on that particular example, I disagree. Sure, you could paraphrase it as "felt it was a catchy tune" or something like that, but that's much less fun. Quotes aren't just devices for accurately conveying somebody's words, they add variety to the prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I very much agree that a given quotation can be "fun" and add variety to the prose. But my point was that, for me, the number of quotations here risks being a little bit too much. With the goal of reducing the number of quotations, the one I cited above seems it would be easy to paraphrase without losing any nuance of meaning (although it could lose some fun factor as you say). Tomica could paraphrase other quotations, but might have to work harder with some of them to not lose any nuance. That was just my impression from scanning the various quotations, but maybe Tomica has ideas for effectively paraphrasing some of the other ones, in which case it's all good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• I do take your point; we all know the challenges of writing featured articles and trying to balance all the competing demands. I'd just hate to see Tom go too far in the other direction and leave us with bland prose because he tried not to use too many quotes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• First of all, Moisejp thanks for the input, I really appreciate it. For the last "issue" of the direct quotes, I checked them and... in my opinion they are kind of specific in a manner of paraphrasing them. Also, I am gonna admit, I am kinda burnt these days and my paraphrase inspiration is null. On the other hand, they are pretty short, so I don't think it's a really big of an issue to stay like this. If you have time, and idea how some of them can be rephrased feel free to edit them :). — Tom^(T2ME) 21:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm making some tentative paraphrases. As I mentioned in my edit summary (and taking HJ Mitchell's comment to heart), I am not saying we necessarily need to keep all of these paraphrases. These are just some ideas, and maybe we can find some consensus on the best ones to keep. Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "Cullum's take on Rihanna's 'Don't Stop the Music' is best of all..." This seems to be in reference to something else mentioned in the source (previous to this quote), but without the context given, "best of all" is not really meaningful. I didn't read the source, but maybe it is saying it is the best track on Cullum's album; if so (or even if not), I recommend paraphrasing this first part of the quotation to clarify the meaning. Moisejp (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Moisejp Hey, thanks for all the c/e :) I think you really did a good job. I paraphrased that one, I hope it reads good. 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think this is getting close. I'm leaning towards supporting. I'd like to look at it one more time when my brain is fresh (hopefully tomorrow or soon), and likely make a couple more mini-c/e's if I spot anything else. Moisejp (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Support: I have done more copy-editing, and I now believe the article is well-written and satisfies the FA criteria. There are a couple of places where if it was me I might add less detail, but this is likely a matter of preference, and perhaps Rihanna fans appreciate the extra detail. Good work on the article! Moisejp (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Moisejp. I really appreciate the copy-edit and all of your input in the article. — Tom^(T2ME) 15:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Fn 95 is a dead link
• All of the other citations look appropriate for the information that they are citing.
• Everything that needs to be cited is cited. Other than the first point I raised above, this is good to go as far as sources are concerned. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Removed Fn 95 :). Thanks for the source review Coemgenus ! — Tom^(T2ME) 21:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony1

• "Don't Stop the Music" is a song ..." opens the article. Then the first para ends with ""Don't Stop the Music" is a dance song ...". Could the grammar be changed for one of those instances?

• In my opinion it should stay like that, because "Soul Makosa" is mentioned in the previous sentence, so if we change the last sentence it might confuse the readers.

• "Critically, many music journalists praised the sampling of"—is "Critically" ambiguous in this context? It appears again below.

• Removed it.

• "Certified four times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"—suggest "Certified platinum four times by ...".

• Hmmm not sure about this one, I think it should stay as it is, since that's how it's used in all the music/albums FAs.

• "In the video, Rihanna and her friends sneak into the back of a candy store which contains a secret club and she parties with club-goers."—Suggest "that" for "which", and a comma after "club".

• Done.

• ""Don't Stop the Music" is a four-minute, twenty-seven-second dance song."—since the fact it's a song is very very obvious by now, perhaps: ""Don't Stop the Music" is 4 minutes, 27 seconds long."?

• The emphasis here is also on the genre, so I think song as a word should stay.

• Why? Tony (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Because it would read like this "'Don't Stop the Music' is a four-minute, twenty-seven-second dance." If it reads like this I would think DSTM is a dance, not a song. — Tom^(T2ME) 09:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Seems far-fetched. At least use numerals, which is standard. Tony (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• "According to Sony/ATV Music Publishing's digital sheet music, it was written in the key of F♯ minor in common time, with a moderate tempo of 123 beats per minute.[14] Rihanna's voice ranges from F♯3 to A4.[14] The syncopated song samples a variety of layered rhythms,[3] with hip-hop rhythms and a heavy bass drumbeat predominating.[3] The sampled "Mama-say, mama-sa, ma-ma-ko-ssa" was added to the arrangement for a "pulsating musical structure".[3]" Surely the key and tempo (and the other obvious musical features) can be observed on the recording, and need no citation. Query, then, why you need to announce "According to" anything/anyone—sounds like you're questioning the veracity of the score. The citation is fine, but ... do we really need 14, 14, 3, 3, 3? Successive reftags of the same number can be irritating unless they verify really critical or controversial propositions. (Put at end, once? Reftags are retrospective in reach.)

• Fixed now.

• It's not fixed. Why do we need "According to ..."? If you listen to the source, it's easily recoverable. It's like saying that "According to the music score, Beethoven's Eroic Symphony is in E-flat major and compound time." And ... why do we need [14] and [14] a few centimetres from each other? Tony (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

• Wondering why you didn't use numerals for the two-digit numbers; wouldn't it be easier for readers? We have "13th", too.

• Restored them.

Doesn't smell, thus far, like a featured article. Tony (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Tony1 Thanks for the comments! Changed some stuff, commented for some other things :) — Tom^(T2ME) 20:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• " It was successful on the Swiss Singles Chart, peaking at number one for five weeks.[52] The song also reached number one in Austria,[53] Flanders and Wallonia in Belgium,[54][55] Hungary[56] and the Netherlands.[57]"—Do we need "also"?
• "fourteenth", but "13th". Tony (talk) 02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

Support on prose -- I have not reviewed the tables of data. There are a couple of minor points below, but I don't think they should hold up promotion. I've copyedited; please revert if necessary.

• Suggest adding the date of recording to the first paragraph of the body; it's in the infobox but not the body text.
• Why do we need the details of some of the chart performances spelled out in the "Commercial performance" section? The chart tables give much of the detail. I can understand calling out some of the higher-profile facts, such as the Billboard Hot 100 peak position, or coutnries where it reached number one, or the gold and platinum certifications, but why do we need to read here that "The single debuted at number 31 in New Zealand on October 12, 2007. After fluctuating for four weeks, it peaked at number three for a week and spent a total of 22 weeks on the chart."? You don't have "weeks on chart" or "debut position" in the table, but those are fairly minor facts unless they set a record in themselves. You could add them to the table if they're that important, or just let the reader can go to the source for those details.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Tomica, when I wrote above that "There are a couple of places where if it was me I might add less detail, but this is likely a matter of preference..." Mike's comments about the charts was actually one of them. I agree with him that it might be beneficial to take out some of the detail from this section, although it is a minor point. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured article reviews

Featured article review (FAR) This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Briarcliff Manor, New York

Notified: M

The main editor has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie.

Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. Ceoil (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not meet the requisite attempt to resolve this on the article talk page. Your first paragraph lacks clear wording and explanations and thus I can't decode it. As for sources, see the article talk. This discussion should happen there per WP:FAR, until disputes completely fail to be resolved. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave you two weeks in a charitable view (current FAC), two months in a less charitable view (last FAC), on a remarkably similar, Briarcliff related, topic. I have been stonewalled especially in the last two weeks, with an utter lack of concern for sources on your behalf, which you have defend via mis-characterisation and beligerance. That tells me three things:

• (1) You don't have a leg to stand here on substance
• (2) Your earlier nominations need further examination
• (3) Your attitude is not helpful to the FAC process Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I had a significant amount of patience for you as well, which eventually drained out. I feel like many of your recent complaints are griefing, and I don't understand how you think multiple reviewers supporting an FA could possibly warrant a significant look or overhaul. And your attitudes haven't been helpful to these processes either. Once you or others seriously present problems with my sources, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please answear the basic questions rather than deflect via personalised tangents. This is about criteria and standards. My specific issues are clear enough, in almost bullet format. Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll state again, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. As per your current FAC.

What makes these reliable sources

• Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee
• Village of Briarcliff Manor
• Caltone Color Graphics Inc
• Village of Briarcliff Manor
• Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch
• American FactFinder.

I hope this third time (on this page) is clear enough for your particular brain. Now please, address. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that you don't understand, or want to ignore even the basics of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also you are citing your own lack of diligence in the past[13][14] in an article that barely scraped through, as reason why we should all just forget Verification now. That's concentric; I don't believe for a second that you are not behind many of these sources. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

As an additional point; the Briarcliff articles are puffed up with triviality that no one but a local paper writer could give a damn about; opening times, parking rights, civil servant numbers on a Wednesday, anti-virus update schedules, etc...nonsense that has been fought tooth and nail over here. Many vastly better local history articles are out there; and typically the weakest editors always cry 'but that other rubbish page got through, so why cant I'. This is about both that "because", and because you cant go off and write factoids in a 12 page local rag and then use it for an FAC, all shucks. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring all of your baseless personal attacks that largely make no sense, you should know that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Within the context that I use any source, I find the sources to be appropriate. That is why, for a third time, DON'T just bullet which sources you aren't sure you can trust. You have to be smart about your issues with this. Read about the first basic things about FactFinder and you'd feel silly putting it up there. Read which sources I use to support which information and you'll better understand. Read the prior FACs, where people question some of those sources and I already gave them sufficient answers. I'm not wasting time doing all that explaining over again, especially if you don't give me serious questions about an individual source and why it should or shouldn't be used over another source in that particular context. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the onus is on you. But its out of our hands now. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed. If you have actual concerns to be serious with this FA Review, you'd pose specific relevant questions here. I'm under no obligation, and it would be far more difficult to generally answer when you could just give specific inquiries, if you have any. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is your citation [15]. Does that make sense? Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

• Delist. Nominator is also the undisclosed author of a significant number of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• There is a trainwreck of personal interactions gone wrong here that I do not understand, but I don't think there is any evidence at all that Ɱ wrote the cited sources. Ɱ has a passionate interest in local history, clearly, as most of us are passionate on something or other, and it's true passion sometimes misguides article writers, but it's also clear Ɱ's interest in these types of articles is genuine, not a COI. Maybe both parties should consider giving a break to the remarkably rapid-fire edits and replies of today, and give it some breathing space before returning to the topic.--Pharos (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Notified: Frank Zappa

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it subverts several points in the criteria for featured articles (and because an attempt to address these issues was swiftly reverted)

• Inappropriate structure Similar articles like Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson follow a logical structure which applies a division between "Biographical" and "Analytical" content. The bulk of the first sections ("Biographical") focuses on specific biographical detail, going from childhood to major career developments. The next sections ("Analytical") elaborate on the subject's personal beliefs, music style, legacy, etc. which are more general and apply to the subject's output, philosophy, and historical standing, not really the events of the subject's life.

Not only does Frank Zappa clutter these two aspects together in a very unfocused "oh by the way" fashion, it does so in spite of two already-existing "Personal views" and "Musical style" sections. Here are several excerpts that should be moved out to those sections:

• (Religious views)

  Zappa recalled his parents being "pretty religious" and trying to make him go to Catholic school despite his resentment. He felt disgust towards organized religion (Christianity in particular) because he believed that it promoted ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

• (Musical ethos)

  Zappa grew up influenced by avant-garde composers such as Varèse, Igor Stravinsky, and Anton Webern; 1950's blues artists Guitar Slim, Johnny Guitar Watson, and B.B. King;[22] R&B and doo-wop groups (particularly local pachuco groups); and modern jazz. His own heterogeneous ethnic background, and the diverse social and cultural mix in and around greater Los Angeles, were crucial in the formation of Zappa as a practitioner of underground music and of his later distrustful and openly critical attitude towards "mainstream" social, political and musical movements. He frequently lampooned musical fads like psychedelia, rock opera and disco. Television also exerted a strong influence, as demonstrated by quotations from show themes and advertising jingles found in his later works. ... Examples are "Plastic People" and "Brown Shoes Don't Make It", which contained lyrics critical of the hypocrisy and conformity of American society, but also of the counterculture of the 1960s. ... Nasal imagery and references appear in his music and lyrics, as well as in the collage album covers created by his long-time collaborator Cal Schenkel. ... [he] later acknowledged two of his music teachers on the sleeve of the 1966 album Freak Out! ...

Among reliable sources, there is so much detail regarding the themes, motifs, and idiosyncrasies of Zappa's work and philosophy that it would not be out of the question to have a separate article devoted to it, a la Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Although I'm not sure such action has to be taken, it should definitely be considered somewhere down the line.

• Inconsistent citations Article has a mixture of {{cite book}}, {{sfn}} and manual harv cites, which I believe should all be converted to {{sfn}}, per its superior functionality.
• Improperly placed non-free media Too many arbitrary sound clips with unclear significance.
• Length of section headers The way it assigns yearly periods within yearly periods is overkill. "1973–75: Top 10 album" should be simplified to "Top 10 album", or better yet, "Apostrophe (')", the name of that top 10 album.

Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@DVdm, Ilovetopaint, Herostratus, Mrmoustache14, Friginator, Doc2234, A13ean, BenStein69, Kingflurkel, and The Gnome: Pinging members of the WikiProject and active users of the article's talk page. The FAR coordinators would appreciate more opinions on whether the article meets the featured article criteria. It would be useful for users to either declare "Move to FARC" if the article does not meet the criteria in their opinion or "Close without FARC" if it does, with a brief comment explaining their declaration. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)

Notified: Ssven2

I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support -- I've been going though the sourcing since the last one hour. Given the film's period and availability, i find this article remarkable even now. Despite the removal of Dhananjayan's books, the article still is comprehensive and focused. I reiterate that my decision is purely unbiased and is to the best of my knowledge. I add that i don't have any issues with the nominators which could influence me to take this decision. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Western Front (World War I)

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired

WP:URFA nom

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I concur

• The Schlieffen Plan section is obsolete.
• The use of Mustard gas has it that it was fired in the first gas shells, rather than it was fired in gas shells for the first time on 10 July at Nieuport. Operation Strandfest Done
• Most of the battle sections are too big now that so many more have decent articles.
• The consequences section lacks nuance.
• The prose is too bitty in places with paragraphs of inconsistent length.
• Some of the pics, maps, etc could do with moving to avoid cluttering.

I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses. Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Done

I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delist. Thank you for the work done so far; still tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Suleiman the Magnificent

Notified: WikiProject Ottoman Empire, Muslim history task force, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Review section

Tagged for six months for lacking reliable references, failed verification, and unsourced statements. Original nominator has retired. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is going to require the attention of someone with considerable expertise in this area and access to appropriate references. Unless any such individual is forthcoming (which looks unlikely), I think that this is a case for FARC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Al Ameer son? Has edited a lot of articles about Ottoman-era subjects, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration @FunkMonk:, and excuse me for the very late response. I've gotten pretty busy w/ work the past couple weeks. Not sure if I'd be able to tackle this. It would need a pretty dedicated editor to sort things out if there are deep sourcing problems. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Main concerns are that two texts used to support multiple passages are outdated and were possibly unreliable in the first place, as well as material lacking citations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delist. Issues above are unresolved. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delist. A number of 'citation neededs' and several of the online sources are either dead links or not RSs. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delist for reasons given. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Keratoconus

Notified: User:BillC, WT:MED

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated with high quality sources since 2006 and thus many of the refs are old. Also a number of primary sources are used rather than high quality secondary sources. Also I just deleted a 1/3 of the article as it was little more than spam added by likely paid editors.[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• This needs to be delisted for the reasons stated. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Transcluded this FAR to the main FAR page, so more people can see this and hopefully will repair the article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: This has been open for more than a year. Wondering if we should delist it now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing and whether the article is representative of the current literature. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delist. A quick look shows a number of unreferenced comments still not fixed since the article was nominated for removal 18 months ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delist per the above. 18 months is plenty of time for a thorough review, I believe. If the concerns raised were quick fixes... well, if that were the case, someone would have done it already. As it stands, this sits closer to "Comprehensive rewrite to account for more current sourcing/literature" than quick fixes. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Covent Garden

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

Review section

This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page.  — Scott • talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott • talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
    • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Oops. Done.  — Scott • talk 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott • talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott • talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

• SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.

It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.

Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Scott, Dank, Crisco 1492, Laser brain, SilkTork, SlimVirgin, Andrew Davidson, Jimfbleak, and Casliber: I pinged everyone who contributed to this FAR, just wanted to ask, what are we doing with this articles TFA? It's still in it's review process. Are we putting the FAR on hold until after its TFA, or is it being switched? Not used to this whole process, so I wasn't sure who to talk to, or this has even been dealt with already. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)

• Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Casliber: Where do we stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to read this, the main outstanding concern appears to be @Andrew Davidson:'s issue around comprehensiveness. So the question is, what should be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Since you pinged, I'll answer. Despite the fiddling and diddling in evidence above your question, my concerns as originally stated remain almost entirely unresolved in this mess of an article.  — Scott • talk 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

O-kay, before we get stuck into copyediting too far, do you think there's anything actually missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually I do think the prose can be tightened. I'll take my coord hat off and keep trimming. Will solicit some independent and thorough eyes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

update - I've had one runthrough and I found some spots I had to massage. I tend to agree with Scott that some material is placed in odd spots, and there is some unnecessary repetition. I can't see any prose glitches now, but I generally find that if I found as many as I did, I suspect there are more that I will have missed. I need to sleep on this and have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments / Singora CasLiber has asked me to look at the prose. I'll do this over the coming week. Singora (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback / Singora

Scotts' comments can be summarized as:

• 1. The introduction is too long.
• 2. The history section is poor.
• 3. The geography and landmarks sections are tangled.
• 4. Much of the article is a "hodgepodge" of trivia and unnecessary detail.
• 5. The prose is weak.
• 6. Conclusion: this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting.

I agree with Scott. I'm surprised there's no section for footnotes (something needs to be done about the excessive trivia and unnecessary detail). IMO, the only interesting part of this article concerns Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, the "essential guide and accessory for any serious gentleman of pleasure". Singora (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think this needs to be moved to FARC as unresolved concerns are significant and I have been editing it so cannot wear coordinator hat...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the point of this process now. The page was featured on the main page and so that's a done deal. Further agonising about the content does not seem efficient – see diminishing returns. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• The point of the process is whether or not the article meets FA criteria. It has these two segments. From this point on folks can state delist or keep below and/or try and fix things. Whether or not an article has been on the main page is not relevant now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section include prose, coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. The opening comments have some merit, but it's all arguable. I see nothing definitively outside the criteria. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with DrKay here. There are arguably quite a few things that could be improved here, but I don't see any workable comments. This is meant to be a collaborative process, and I don't see how meaningful work could commence based on what's posted here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: I've been watching this for a while, and like DrKay and Laser, I agree that there are some valid points raised above. Unfortunately, there is nothing really actionable or concrete. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Singora: Can you summarize any unresolved concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm still not seeing the point of this process but, since you ask, I reckon that the article still has significant gaps and so is not complete. For example, today I was trying to park in the area and, while the article says something about the underground and buses, it has little to say about other ground transportation from carts and carriages to modern vehicles. The district is semi-pedestrianised now and the article doesn't seem to say much about this. Also the era of the fruit and vegetable market is not covered in enough detail – key aspects like the early morning nature of the market's timing; the surrounding warehouses which still have characteristic features; the porters with iconic towers of baskets on their heads; the flower girls; &c. Specific details can be nitpicked as the area is regularly changing; for example, its Apple store is no longer the largest in the world. And there's nothing about the Freemason's Hall; a massive building which seems comparable in importance to the Theatre Royal and which forms the centre of a cluster of related businesses. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria:} Singora is currently blocked so might not be in a position or mood to comment, but I don't think the article has changed much since his opinion above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, back in action. I need to clean up my recent TFA (which was horribly butchered), then I'll get on to this. Singora (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback / Singora

The consensus here seems to be to keep the article as is. I've no desire to rock the boat, but:

• 1. The intro contains this: "while the south contains the central square with its street performers and most of the elegant buildings". Surely "elegant" is POV / subjective.
• 2. Paras 2 and 3 of the intro are quite good.
• 3. Early History: "The route of the Strand on the southern boundary of what was to become Covent Garden was used during the Roman period as part of a route to Silchester, known as Iter VII on the Antonine Itinerary". Repetition re: "route".
• 4. Overall, this section is quite good.
• 5. Bedford Estate: "Apart from this, and allowing several poor-quality tenements to be erected, the Russells did little with the land until the 4th Earl of Bedford, Francis Russell". This sentence is a bit lame.
• 6. Bedford Estate. The second para is weak.
• 7. Modern changes. This seems okay.
• 8. Governance and Economy. Has anyone checked the sources?
• 9. Landmarks: Royal Opera House: The second para uses the word "extensive" twice.
• 10. Landmarks: Covent Garden Square: "Designed and laid out in 1630, with building work starting in 1631, it was the first modern square in London, and was originally a flat, open space or piazza with low railings". The second instance of "was" is redundant.
• 11. Landmarks: Covent Garden Square: "A casual market started on the south side, and by 1830 the present market hall was built". Present simple versus present perfect. The words "was built" should be "had been built". Alternatively, switch the "by" to "in".
• 12. Landmarks: Covent Garden Square: "acting as the prototype for the laying-out of new estates". Shouldn't this be "acting as a prototype for the design of new estates"?
• 13. Landmarks: Theatre Royal, Drury Lane: "The design is believed to have involved Christopher Wren, who may also have been involved in the similar Dorset Garden Theatre, though it is not certain Wren was involved in either building". Lame.
• 14. Landmarks: Theatre Royal, Drury Lane: "In 1791, under Sheridan's management, the building was demolished to make way for a larger theatre which opened in 1794; but that survived only 15 years, burning down in 1809". Punctuation.
• 15. Culture: "The Covent Garden area has long been associated with both entertainment and shopping". The "both" isn't needed.
• 16. Pubs and bars. I have a problem with this section: the detail seems a tad excessive and reads more like tourist blurb ("Welcome to London and its historic pubs!!!") than formal, encycledic content.

And that's all for now. I've not checked any sources. Singora (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

There is plenty in there that is specific and actionable...so will get onto it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Ok then keep - am happier with the article now. We could go on indefinitely but I feel we're in more unequivocal territory now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)