Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2015

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton  | ^Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Despite not being as long as my last several nominations, this article may be one of my best. I personally find the storm fascinating, so I've spent an inordinate amount of time polishing the article over the past year, and the result is something I'm quite proud of. – Juliancolton  | ^Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support. I reviewed it for GA status, so I think it's appropriate that I also review it for FAC, especially in light of the changes you've made.

• "Despite being plagued by strong disruptive wind shear" - seems a bit excessive. If you cut out "strong", the meaning still applies, and the sentence reads better.
• Great prose in the MH. It makes sense to me, but it should get a read through by a layman to make sure it's understandable.
• Your call, but when you mention Fabian in 03, it might help to say that the storm passed nearby or something. The implication in the first half of the article is that Fay was the strongest storm to affect Bermuda since Emily, but you are only focusing on the landfall. I'm not sure how you want to deal with that though.
• "Indeed, in a report to the World Meteorological Organization, the Bermuda Weather Service speculated that all insurance claims totaled "tens of millions of dollars"" - this is from Fay alone, right? Was there a combined damage total?
• I also did an image review. The storm images are NASA, they're good. The track map generator is PD, as always for every TC article, so that's good. And the yacht damage is creative commons, also correctly done and noted.

All in all a great read! I'm happy to support it now, as my comments are very minor, and the images are good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks a lot for the review and kind words! I made several changes that should have taken care of the things you mentioned, plus a few other minor issues I came across. – Juliancolton  | ^Talk 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support – A well-written, and in-depth article on a damaging storm that was quickly overshadowed by its "big brother". No complaints on my end so I'm happy to support. As with any nomination, I'd suggest adding alt text to the images. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Many thanks for the review. I've made my feeble attempt at adding alt text... you might like to check and see that it's satisfactory. – Juliancolton  | ^Talk 20:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. All tropical storms articles are somewhat technical; I thought this one struck a nice balance. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Source review - goddamn...I have to resist the temptation to change all the names....but good news is they're all consistent. Some ref titles are in sentence case and some in title case...choose one and forever hold yer peace....otherwise all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Spot check pending....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

earwig's good

using this version for reference for ref numbers etc:

FN 1 used 4 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.

FN 13 used 2 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.

FN 12 used 5 times - I don't see in the source where the time of the watch was given. Otherwise all other items in source and faithful to source without copyvio.

Oops, just saw this now, sorry about that! Hylian Auree was kind enough to help identify and fix a bunch of source formatting issues earlier this week, so I think this should all be taken care of now. Thanks for taking a look Casliber. (And yeah, the names are a bad habit... I can easily switch 'em over if needed.) – Juliancolton  | ^Talk 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ultimately as long as they are internally consistent it's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support. As the person who got this article to GA, I like that changes that have been made since then and agree that this should be a Featured Article--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2015 [2].

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Stephan Lochner (c. 1410 – 1451) was one of the most significant German old master painters before Albrecht Dürer. Few records survive, but art and social historians estimate that he was was highly successful during his lifetime, but over extended his borrowings and property debts in his 30s, and died of plague in his early 40s. He disappears from record at the end of 1451, during a winter and spread of illness that killed 40% of those living around him, including both his parents, in a period when graveyard space was at a premium. Lochner left behind a series of sophisticated multi-panel oil paintings and polyptychs widely copied and much imitated, and was involved in the production or design of at least three exant illuminated manuscripts.

A rewarding peer review is here, and as usual Victoria has been very helpful in guidance, copyediting and suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Comments from JM

Looks like a really interesting subject. Happy to have a look through, but (beyond a smattering of reading around the philosophy of art, which is unlikely to help...) I've no real knowledge of the fine art, so please be ready to take my comments with a pinch of salt.

• Concerning the lead, "virtuoso surface textures", and possibly "realism" and "iconography", are terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers.

• Those phrases are now linked. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "(c. 1410 – 1451)" versus "He was probably born around 1400 in Meersburg"- is 1410 "around" 1400? It jars with me slightly.

• Linked. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "in today's Holland" I don't mean to patronise, but you do mean Holland, and not the Netherlands, do you?

• Linked to Early Netherlandish Painting. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "over extended" Does this need a dash? I'm not sure.

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "His influence of successive generations on northern artists" Are your "of" and "on" the wrong way around?

• Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Firstly, in" Why not "first"?

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Unfortunately Dürer" A little non-neutral?

• It was most unfortunate, but point taken and reworded. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "enthusiastic – at length – [10] emphasising" Surely the foonote should be within the dashes, in the same way it would be within brackets? Also, are you sure that's the correct spacing for your dashes? See WP:DASH. In the same sentence, check for MOS:LQ compliance, and are you committed to the tense shift? It's a little jarring.

• Fixed all this by trimming out the dashes. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Who is Michael Wolfson? Something "the art historian" (or, if we have an article, a wikilink)

Oh, please don't start that. Those bothered will find "Wolfson, Michael. "Hat Dürer das 'Dombild' gesehen?". Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, Volume 49, 1986" in thwe references. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The author wouldn't be starting anything- Wolfson is the exception in this article as the person who is not introduced beyond his name. It's not clear to readers whether he's an artist, a historian, a critic... Josh Milburn (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

In articles about 500 year-old painters people can assume experts mentioned are art historians & only those who are not need a descriptive tag. We have been though this before at FA. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Also, Ceoil, do you definitely mean 1996? Your only reference to Wolfson is a decade earlier, though I concede that this is not what you are citing for this claim. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• You're a bit back-and-forth about how certain we are of the year of his death; the lead switches from "1451" to "plague hit around 1451, [and we] assume", then there's a "year of his death" in the attribution section. In the discussion of his political career, you have "but died in office".

• He died in the winter of 1450-51, prob jan of 51. I think this is clearer now? Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "its artists concentrated on more personal, intimate and homely forms" I'm not sure I know what this means. Paintings of mothers reading to children in front of roaring fires?

• Haha, droll. Rephrased now. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "still under the influence of the International courtly style" Is International a proper noun? If so, I'm not sure I know what it means

Not here, but International Gothic is a proper noun. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Lochner's first appearance in extant records in 1442; nine years before he died." Grammar

• Rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "the local painters guild" Do you need an apostrophe here?

• You do, and added. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• The first couple of lines of the second paragraph of "style" are difficult for a Philistine like me. Some wikilinks might help.

• Linked art material and terms. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• What does "especially in his tooling of gold grounds" mean?

• This was rephrased. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• The "soft style" thing mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead is neither explained nor mentioned in the "style" section- is this an oversight?

• Mentioned below now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Lochner's major works include three large polyptychs, the broken apart Last Judgement and Altarpiece of the City Patron Saints, Nuremberg's Crucifixion and the Martyrdom of the Apostles." I'm struggling with this. Are you listing the polyptychs, here? Which of those named are the three? Are both LJ and AotCPS broken up?
• "There are two surviving wings from an altarpiece with images of saints in the London's National Gallery and the Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne." Reference?

  Cited now to the NG. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "1450s "Prayer book of Stephan Lochner" now" Shouldn't that be italicised? Same with Anholt.

  Um, not sure, I've gone with "non italics", as these are collections rather than individual images, or something. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Manuscripts are objects, not works, and have names not titles, and are not italicised. See WP:VAMOS. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• There's an inconsistency between "c 1500" and "c. 1500". I don't know which is right, but consistency would be good.

• made consistent - "c." and no spaces between the years. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I've tweaked the last sentence of the first paragraph of "influences", but I still think it could do with a little smoothing

• Rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "He seems to have borrowed a number of motifs and compositional elements; most especially the Ursula and the central Dombild panels quote passages from van Eyck's "Soldiers of Christ"." You lose me after the semi-colon

• Text after the semi-colon has been cut. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (Does "quote" mean something in the history of art beyond its usual meaning?)

• Rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I know the "rule" against starting sentences with prepositions isn't as clear as some claim, but is starting a paragraph (in "Influences") with "yet" ideal?

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Albrecht Dürer knew of him before his stay in Cologne. van der Weyden saw his paintings during his travel to Italy" Is the capitalisation correct here?

• Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "physiognomy" is not a term familiar to most.

• Linked. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I'm struggling with your "New Findings Concerning ... in Cologne Cathedral" source. What is that? A pamphlet?

• Clarified the description now. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Many of your journal sources lack page numbers. I'm not familiar with your citation style, so I don't know if they should be included, but at least one has them.

• These are given page nrs in the specific inlines. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Perhaps consider spelling out the particular chapter in the Wellesz/Rothenstein edited collection? Again, I don't know your citation style, but citing the particular chapter in an edited collection is standard in all the citation styles I've come across before.

(Consider, also, that you refer in your footnotes to "Wellesz", while the bibliography entry would normally be "Wellesz and Rothenstein".) On a similar note, could you perhaps include the editor and publishing location (and, for consistency's sake, ISBN) for the Faries source?

• I clarified this - book is entirely written by Wellesz; Rothenstein is the series editor. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Perhaps shift the Commons link to the external links section.

• Ok, done. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Category:15th-century deaths from plague (disease)?

• Added this. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Really interesting article. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I was checking you edits as you went. These points are all salient and highly informed. Thanks so much! Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Update:All addresses, except am digging re Wellesz/Rothenstein, and I think soft style, ie int gothic was covered, though if you didnt follow then I'm not being clear. Re journals, the specific inlines have the pg nrs. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Cautious support (cautious because I'm not as confident with the subject matter as I could be). I made some more edits (please double-check), and as a last few comments:

• "As secular works grew in demand and religious works became unfashionable in later centuries, 15th-century polyptychs were often broken up and sold as individual works, especially if a panel or section contained an image that could pass as a secular portrait." Reference?
• "The Crucifixion is also an early work and reminiscent of late medieval painting. It has a heavily ornamented gilded background and the smooth flowing quality of the 'soft' Gothic style." Reference?
• "acanthus scrolls" Is a term that is surely too unfamiliar to go unlinked/unexplained.
• You twice mention Chapius in the text, but never introduce him

A really enjoyable read. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. The final points now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Image review

• PD-Art defaults to a life+70 tag - use life+100 instead
• File:Rogier_van_der_Weyden_-_The_Altar_of_St._John.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• File:Stefan_Lochner_Triptych_with_the_Virgin_in_the_Garden_of_Paradise,_c._1445_–_1450.jpg needs a US D tag

I went through the Stefan Lochner cat on commons and added the US and +100 tags. Have Dropped Altar_of_St._John, wasn't really necessary to include. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Comments from Johnbod

• "... was a German painter working in the late "soft style" (schöne stil) of the International Gothic..." Note that (from International Gothic) "the style is sometimes known in German as the "Schöne Stil" or "Weicher Stil" ("Beautiful style" or "Soft style").[10]". "schöne" = beautiful, not soft.

• Ok, removed the German. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "which often feature fanciful and black winged angels." - aren't their wings actually dark blue?

• Yes, mentioned now. Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Should a plague in 1450 be linked to the Black Death of a century earlier? The Second plague pandemic is more appropriate.

• Done Ceoil (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "...echoes of his panels can be seen in works by Rogier van der Weyden." Is this referenced? one might have thought any influence would have been the other way, as indeed is said and referenced later on.

• The sources seem contradictory. I would think Rogier influenced Lochner, but digging. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I've tried to explain better about the Dombild/Altarpiece of the City's Patron Saints, which was not well done. More might be needed, and you might explain somewhere that "Dombild" = "Cathedral picture". - well, I've stuck that in, unreferenced, as it is basic German. The work is then called by various names in the rest of the article. It might also be said that the main subject is the Adoration of the Magi, and I think it is sometimes referred to by this.

• Sure. I switched the article to using Dombild as title, which is less confusing for a casual reader of a bio, espically given the notname. The title Adoration of the Magi is mentioned in the lead caption cited to Weiss. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "a name inscribed on the sheath of a figure on the right" - Huh, "sheath"? Means Scabbard?
• "Later, Johann Dominicus Fiorillo discovered a 15th-century record that read "in 1380 there was an excellent painter in Cologne called Wilhelm, who had no equal in his art and who depicted human beings as if they were alive".^[1] " How does this fit in? Red herring?

Comments from Cassianto

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2015 [3].

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is another fungal collaboration. Sources have been scoured. Only material not used was highly esoteric and likely of no interest to layperson. Got a thorough GA review. Please read and suggest improvements. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

NB: This is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators (i.e. me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) (削除ここまで)

(削除) (削除ここまで)

ahaaa, nice find! Linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) (削除ここまで)

(削除) (削除ここまで)

good point - Briticised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Nice picture in the infobox, BTW

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)`[reply ]

Spot checks on refs 1 and 19; nothing untoward. Prose are crisp, economical and clear. Support. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

thankin' ye kindly.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "that medieval knights—who revered Tricholoma equestre—knights considered this mushroom fit only for cattle-drovers as it was not highly valued." One "knights" too many? FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

whoops! fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "circumscribed" could perhaps be explained.

• I'm happy with just the link, but I suppose we could just replace with the more layreader-friendly "described" or "created". Cas? Sasata (talk)

I think it's good to keep it specific, layreaders will learn new things, if it can't be explained briefly in parenthesis or some such, I'd say leave it as is. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "It is common in Lithuania.[23]" Seems like a very arbitrary statement, unless it is uncommon elsewhere in its range...

• I appended ", where it associates with Pinus sylvestris, the only naturally occurring pine in that country." to that sentence, to hopefully make it less arbitrary (i.e., it illustrates a common ecological association). Sasata (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Likewise with the following: "In China, it has been recorded from provinces Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Hunan, Jiangxi, and Zhejiang." Why mention only Chinese regions at length? Or is it not found elsewhere in Asia?

• I had the information at hand, so I put it in, but would be ok with trimming this. Will look for other Asian locales and get back to you on this. Sasata (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Ok, also added a source for its presence in Taiwan. This new source suggests that its Asian distribution includes only China, Japan, and Taiwan. Thinking about it some more, I would like to keep the provincial Chinese distribution info, because China is a big place, and it isn't really any more detailed than what is already included about its US and Australian range. Sasata (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Fine with me after the other countries were mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

My take on it was (is) that China is a big country, so locales within are good to have to narrow down occurrence to readers... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Fieldwork conducted in Sweden pine forests" Swedish?

whoops! fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "A common fungus native to Europe, it has been introduced to North America and Australia" Why no mention of Asia in the intro?

unconscious systemic bias - now fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support - All issues addressed, looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Common names include Jersey cow mushroom, bovine bolete, and euro cow bolete. One proposed origin for the name is that medieval knights..." -- The origin of which name? We speak of three names in the previous sentence; I think you mean the origin for the Suillus bovinus name, right?

yep. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• " A 2001 study found it was not closely related to other European species, but added that all populations tested were more closer to each other than any other and hence it was a cohesive species." -- "but added" adds nothing here and could quite easily be omitted in place of "and".

yep. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "In Asia, it has been recorded from Taiwan..." -- recorded in? Maybe even "discovered"?

tweaked..."discovered" does strike me as a tad dramatic though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support -- Three comments offered which in no way effect my support if you choose not to adopt. This is a good little article; precise, well researched and nicely written. Cassianto ^Talk 08:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Quick comment: I note that there's no information in the ecology section about insects, despite the fact that maggots are mentioned in the edibility section; is there a mention in the literature? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I added this–not exhaustive, but representative. Sasata (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support. I had my say at GAC. Note to delegates: I was the GA reviewer and have worked with both Sasata and Cas many times. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 [4].

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

"From The Doctor to my son Thomas" is a heartwarming video sent from actor Peter Capaldi in-character in his role as the Doctor on Doctor Who , to console an autistic young boy over grief from the death of his grandmother.

Demiurge1000 and Sasata pitched in with some useful copy-edits. Miyagawa reviewed the article and it was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality. The article was helpfully looked over at WP:DYK by Curly Turkey, G S Palmer, Cwmhiraeth, and Panyd. I'm grateful to all for the assistance helping further along the Quality improvement process.

I appreciate your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet culture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Death, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism, User talk:Cirt, Talk:From The Doctor to my son Thomas. — Cirt (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment American English for Doctor Who ? Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Good point, Johnbod, could you help me copy-edit and make some tweaks? — Cirt (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Johnbod, I've gone through and copy-edited out to switch to British English as best I could, please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks again for picking up on that ! — Cirt (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. I'm quite grateful to Johnbod for the helpful copy-edits. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support Comments fixed. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comments surely the title of 42-second video should be in quotes, not italics? From MOS:ITAL, "Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, named exhibitions, computer and video games (but not other software), music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, research papers and other short works are not italicized; they are enclosed in double quotation marks".—indopug (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. Changed to quotes. Removed italics. Thank you, Indopug, that's a helpful suggestion. — Cirt (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I now Support. --John (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Thanks for the multiple passes of Copy Editing, and the Support -- much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

You're welcome. Support now. As a final observation after looking over the article again, perhaps the infobox picture caption could be a bit more specific, rather than just the actors name, but up to you. :) Freikorp (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Done. Added more specific caption to infobox. Thank you for your Support -- and your helpful suggestions. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert. I'm not very good with pop culture articles; I just dropped by to help with basic copyediting and offer a support on prose. I personally enjoyed the article. There's an argument that the article might take too long to say what it's trying to say, but that's not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 [5].

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is about... a medal that was authorized by Congress and sold to the public for the Norse-American centennial of 1925. Although it is not a coin, it was often collected as if it were one (less so today than in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was much broader interest in medals than there is now in the US. The brainchild of Congressman Ole Juulson Kvale, a Norse-American (surprise, surprise), the medal and the celebrations it was a part of accomplished the difficult task of showing both ethnic pride and assimilation. And, I must admit, as an experienced cruiser, when I read of the voyage of the Restauration (Restoration, not restaurant) all I could think was "party cruise"! Skal!Wehwalt (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for checking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This looks like the usual professional job, with an original slant. I've not had the opportunity to review it during preparation, and after a careful reading I have a few mostly minor quibbles:

• "Only 53 of the ones in gold were issued" → "Only 53 were issued in gold..."?
• "They are sometimes collected as part of the commemorative coin series": Does "they" refer to the whole series, or just to the silver and bronze?
• Ole Juulson Kvale: I thought we didn't give birth and death years for linked persons?
• The comma after "and in January 1925," seems like one too many
• I'm unsure about "accordingly" as a paragraph intro - in accordance with what? The sentence reads equally well without it.
• "Kvale noted..." etc – this seems more like a declaration that something which he "noted". "Evale declared..."?
• "but then on the 6th,..." Suggest delete "then" and comma after "6th"

I split the sentence instead.

• The statement in the second para of the Background section: "Commemorative coins for ethnic heritage groups were unlikely to pass Congress at that time due to..." etc does not seem to be borne out in the legistlative history. The bill seems to have gone through without a murmer.

But it wasn't a coin. It was a medal. Kvale toned it down, eliminated Treasury opposition, and apparently squared his colleagues.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• In what way was Borgium "busy on Stone Mountain"?

I've added a small bit but I don't want to get into that one! I think the links will do.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Design section: Primarily this deals with the medal design, but in the third paragraph we suddenly have "one of the stamps..." The issue of commemorative stamps is mentioned in the Background section, which is fair enough, but having the stamp images dominating this section is somewhat confusing. It's arguable whether we need these images; if we do, there should be at least a bit more information in the text and/or caption. For example, for the benefit of the nautically challenged, a caption should distinguish the Restauration from the Viking ship. You could also expand the text a little, to remind readers that a stamp issue was an extra factor in the commemoration.

We don't have a heck of a lot of images, so I included them. Fraser did do sketches, but they are not yet PD. I've played with the caption. Regrettably Shultz only goes so far in treating the medal separately.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "There was a sales limit of one per person," – doesn't that nullify the opinion expressed earlier, about wanting collectors to buy two medals?

That is a fair point, but not addressed by the sources. I'm not sure if they could repurchase. Sources are a bit thin here and I haven't been able to find any primary sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "A total of 47 gold pieces were..." It's was, unless you delete "A total of"

Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (aside) I wonder if Coolidge wore a Viking helmet at the celebration? He was known to do such things.

God only knows. I have Coolidge third or fourth on my list. There's one image on the Library of Congress website showing him going and one showing him returning. Regrettably they do not seem copyright-free but both show him bareheaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "publicity people" → "publicists"?

Doubtless they were but it's an acceptable phrase in AmEng and it conveys the proper tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Subject to the above, looks eminently supportable. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Many thanks for the review. I think I've caught everything. Sorry for the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support: Thanks for your responses. Ready to go I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Many thanks for the review and the support. Glad to know "ready to go"! Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "He concludes that Kvale would not have supported such a depiction, "he was interested in pure romanticization. he saw a Viking ship and his chieftain in full regalia"." The lower case "he" in the last sentence here should be addressed, but should it be capitalised or is the full stop not meant to one?
  • Inserting: I made an edit on this one before I saw this note. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Should be a comma. Dank's edit addresses it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• The {{CSS image crop }} template has a parameter for alt text, so this should ideally be used in the infobox images. Ditto for the multiple image template used for the stamps.
• One instance of the all caps depiction of the inscriptions ("authorized by...") encloses it in quotes, the other ("Opus Fraser") does not; is this intentional?

It wasn't. Thanks. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Overall this one seems pretty straightforward, another quality (exo)numismatic article that I'm leaning towards supporting. GRAPPLE ^X 10:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Grapple X Sorry to be so slow. I've done as you've asked. As you've looked at the images, are you in a position to do an image review?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I can certainly try. Though I will say I'm happy with the changes made based on the comments already. I'll get looking at the images now. GRAPPLE ^X 09:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

As there are only three, and all with the same OTRS license, it strikes me that it might be a good way to get started in doing image reviews, every FAC needs and everyone likes to see and is grateful for.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(edit conflict) I assume I understand the licensing on File:1925 Medal Norse Gold commemorative.jpg correctly (design: public domain, this particular image: released by Heritage Auctions and verified by an OTRS ticket), in which case its use is perfectly fine. Both File:Norse American Centennial Sloop 1925 Issue-2c.jpg and File:Norse American Centennial Viking 1925 Issue-5c.jpg appear to be completely fine, PD for both. GRAPPLE ^X 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• In light of the changes made earlier and what I hope suffices for an image review, I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE ^X 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm very grateful for the review and image review and am sorry for being so slow to get back to you. Things keep dropping off my watchlist. It's very strange.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Feel free to revert them, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support

• I think that Fraser interpreted "breastplate" a bit too literally in his design. Earlier commenters appear to have caught all of the various infelicties; I see no issues other than that of the design itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, not much I can do about that now :) ... many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Source review

• The one cite of Blegen that I could access was fine and AGF assumed for all the ones that I couldn't or weren't online.
• The biggest problem was that many sources were locked behind paywalls and need to be marked as such. Like all of the Congressional Record cites.
• Cite 19 resolved just fine, but cite 20 needed the session number.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I've put in which session number manually as that template doesn't seem to allow for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 [6].

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Smilodon is one of the best known prehistoric mammals, and the best known saber-toothed cat. It may also have been the largest cat that ever lived. We have synthesised most information about the genus and its three species, and explained various controversies. The article is a GA and has been copy edited. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Happy to support now. Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Taking a look now....

• (削除) Overall, Smilodon was more robustly built than any modern cat (削除ここまで)(削除) - I'd say "living cat" or "extant cat" (削除ここまで)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Probably want to link bush from the lead as it can mean different things to different people....(scrubland?) (削除ここまで)

Linked to shrubland, but perhaps LittleJerry has other ideas... FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Smilodon probably lived in a "closed" habitat (削除ここまで)(削除) - why the quote marks here? (削除ここまで)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, have read though and nothing else is jumping out as an obvious fix so I think we are over the line WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for support and CE! FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The citation formatting needs some work. The samples listed below are just from the first half of the first column of citations (i.e. examples only). Ping me when this work is done, and I'll undertake a full article review. Sasata (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• author formatting: "Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott" or "McHenry, C.R., Wroe S." (no spaces between initials; comma separator) or "Janczewski, D. N.; Yuhki, N." (spaces between initials; semicolon separator)?

Should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• page range formating: "176–216" or "319–40"?

Should be fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• journal article title: sentence case or title case?

Sentence. Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• ref #5 (Leidy): page #?

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• ref #6: please add author & date

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• ref #8: (Kurtén and Werdelin 1990) errors in spelling of authors

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• ref #10 (Churcher 1984): pages 57–59 appear to be a bibliography, which does not seem to support the article statement "S. gracilis has at times been considered part of genera such as Megantereon and Ischyrosmilus." unless I’m missing something...

Specified, it was bot generated. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• consider adding open access icons Open access icon to OA refs

Yeah, might do it once more pressing issues are dealt with (it is a bit time consuming, but not a requirement). FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• ref #15: (Ascanio Rincón 2006) what is the journal?

You mean the page numbers? Journal name was already there, but added pages. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Sasata: finished. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I've made some copyedits here, please check and revert if you don't like any.

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "intraspecific variation" is a bit jargony

Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• mya isn’t used and linked until near the end of article, although the opportunity exists earlier

Fixed, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• publisher for ref #59 Hearld, F.; Shaw, C. (1991)?

.Added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• ref#60 ("Dagger-like canines ...") needs an author or publisher (American Museum of Natural History?)

Seems to be ScienceDaily, which is already listed (no author). It is probably just based on an AMNH press release... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support on WIAFA criteria 1a (prose) and 2 (MOS adherence). Although not knowledgeable about the topic–so can't make an educated opinion about 1b (comprehensiveness) and 1c (well-researched)–but the article answered all the questions I had about the topic. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, will take a stab at these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I thought I would spot check your sources, but decided that you probably needed further general comments. So here is the only one I examined:

• Reference 3, Berta - Four uses borne out by source, fifth I could not find but I am sure it is present somewhere.

What is the missing statement? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

"considered an invalid nomen nudum ("naked name"), as it was not accompanied with a proper description and no type specimens were designated." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, that is on page 2, under "historical review". FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Further comments, the article reads well but there are a few minor points:

• "Cope found the canine to be distinct from that of the other Smilodon species due to its smaller size and more compressed base. Its specific name refers to its lighter build.! - What is "it" in the second sentence?

Specified. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "ecomorph" - Although linked, it would be helpful to explain this term.

This is a very complex concept that would be almost impossible to explain in a sentence... Not even our article does it justice. How much explanation? The most concise wording I can think of is "animals with independently evolved similar morphological features, as a result of similar ecologies". FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The sentence contains several uncommon words (jargon) making it difficult to understand without clicking through to the linked words. You could omit "an ecomorph consisting of" without losing much. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hmm, I don't think it's a good idea to remove information just because it may be hard to understand. People are here to learn new things, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't agree, but don't propose to make an issue out of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Having given the differentiating characteristic of Homotherini and Smilodontini, you leave out "Metailurini".

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikilink or explain - derived, extant,

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "successor of Megantereon in North America, from which it probably evolved." - The "in North America" could better come immediately after "successor".

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "forearms" - I would have thought forelimbs.

Maybe upper arm is meant, but I'll let LittleJerry look at this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes. That is likely the case. the extensor muscles are forearm muscles (between elbow and wrist). I linked forearm. LittleJerry (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• In several places, a pair of citations are not in numerical order, as [8][4].

Fixed that one, though I never heard that was a requirement before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I've seen it mentioned, and it looks more professional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Bony growths where the deltoid muscle inserted in the humerus is a common pathology in La Brea specimens, which was probably due to repeated strain when Smilodon attempted to pull down prey with its forelimbs." - This sentence is a bit muddled, moving from plural to singular and on in a strange way ...

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "with one skull showing an unhealed wound, which indicates the individual died as a result." - This seems rather an unproven assumption to me. It could have been injured, become less able to hunt and died of starvation for example.

But then there would be at least some evidence of bone healing. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

It could have simultaneously ruptured an artery. Having an unhealed skull fracture is not proof that that injury was the cause of death. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, it's what the source says, what would you suggest? I'd think "indicates" is rather cautious language? "Suggests"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Made it even more cautious (seemingly fatal), how does it looks? FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

That's fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "mammoth steppes in the north. North American Smilodon inhabited" - Its undesirable to finish a sentence with a word and then reuse it at the beginning of the next.

Moved. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Cwmhiraeth: any more? LittleJerry (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• The responses and changes made to the article satisfy me and I am now supporting the nomination on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Coming....

Using this version as a stable reference for footnote numbering...

• FN 60 is faithful to source.
• FN 45 is faithful to source.
• FN 35 (used twice) is faithful to source.

More later.

@Casliber: Anymore? LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• FN 44 (used twice) is faithful to source.
• FN 16 is faithful to source.
• earwig's has one false positive from a mirror site, otherwise fine.

Spot check - am happy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Image comment
  • Do we have additional information on the source of File:Smilodon-populator-pride.jpg? The upload history says Funk cut out the background for potential copyright vio, but there's no clear info on where the foreground came from and whether it's the author's work or not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The author is somewhat notable[8], he uses photomanipulation to create his images; the animals are changed so much as to be "original", but the backgrounds are sometimes iffy... FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. My only concern is that the source images used for the elephant, Smilodon might similarly be copyrighted, in which case this would be a derivative work I'm not sure he alone could freely release. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The photos have certainly been manipulated to a great extent. I made a question about a similar image some time ago: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/04#Photo_collages In the current case, the artist would have changed proportions and other features from the original photos... FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's better to be safe and remove the image. There are better reconstructions in the article, anyhow. Other than that, all the images are properly tagged and look good. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok. DR as well? The author can also be contacted. I have replaced the image with a photo of hunting lions. Lions are mentioned in the adjacent text as a possible analogy, and I think the photo looks interesting juxtaposed with the painting. But other ideas are welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

It'd be great to get that sorted out, yeah, that's just out of the purview of this FAC. The replacement image looks fine, and if that works with what you're going for that that's fine by me too :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 [9].

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This article details the history of York City Football Club, an association football club based in York, England, from 1908 to 1980. This nomination comes on the back of the successful FAC for Bootham Crescent, the club's ground, and as part of my drive to improve the York City F.C. featured topic. The article has held GA status since December 2007, and upon its recent expansion was copyedited by Baffle gab1978 of the WP:GOCE. Thanks in advance, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

A big part of my comments will focus on sentence construction, so I'll try to explain you case-by-case how I believe the text would read better. Sometimes, I may get bored and just copyedit the article, so I hope you can scrutinise my changes and revert them if you don't agree. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

General

• I think the article would become richer if the section titles had something more than just year periods. A piece of text that could either sum up the most important moments or highlight a particular but highly relevant event from the club's history during each period.
  • Added descriptive section headers. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• You often link football seasons to 19XX–9X in English football, which never show any details from the divisions in which YCFC played. In some cases (e.g. Northern Football League), there are season-specific articles that those links should point to. For other leagues (e.g. Yorkshire Combination, Midland League) without seasonal articles, I'd prefer if the links to 19XX–9X in English football were removed altogether than pointing to a page that has no related content. I'm fine with whatever you choose.
  • Wikilinked as suggested. I'll link to the club season articles as and when they're created. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• I notice you use the semicolon mark... a lot. In many instances, sentences are short enough to link the different clauses with a conjunction, and it often makes the read flow better.
  • This was largely the product of the independent coyedit. Reworded some sentences to reduce the number of semicolons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Avoid as best as possible to begin sentences with season year numbers. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Have reduced the number of sentences that begin with seasons. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Lead

• "... covers the period from the club's original foundation..."
  • Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Suggestion #1: "Originally founded in 1908, York City played several seasons..."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "... before the Football League stored its usual competitions in 1946–47." Stored? You mean restored?
  • Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Suggestion #2: "... because they finished the 1949–50 season at the bottom of the Third Division North."
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Suggestion #3: "York played in the Third Division North until 1958–59, when a league reorganisation placed them in the Fourth Division."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Suggestion #4: "The same season, they finished third and won their first-ever promotion, but were relegated after one season."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Goal average should read goal difference, as the link it points to.
  • The Football League used goal average until 1976, when it was replaced with goal difference (see this). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Suggestion #5: "They were promoted to the Second Division for the first and only time in 1973–74. By mid-October 1974, York achieved the fifth position—their highest league placing—before finishing the 1974–75 season in fifteenth place."
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Suggestion #6: "... and a twenty-second place finish in the 1977–78 Fourth Division forced the club to apply for re-election."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

1908–17

• Place a comma between "...in June 1912" and ref #5
  • Comma added. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

1922–39

• "... the decision was made to form the York City Association Football and Athletic Club Limited(削除) .[11] (削除ここまで), with W. H. Shaw (削除) was (削除ここまで) being elected as the club's first chairman.[11]"
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "The club's first season proved disappointing financially, with a loss of 718ドル reported(削除) .[16] (削除ここまで), and as a consequence Shaw relinquished the chairmanship to Arthur Brown.[16]"
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "This was York's last season in the Midland League(削除) ; (削除ここまで) as the club won election into the Football League on 3 June 1929..."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "York's first match in the Football League was played away to Wigan Borough on 31 August 1929(削除) ; it (削除ここまで) and finished with a 2–0 victory for (削除) York (削除ここまで) the visitors.[26]"
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "1929–30 brought two meetings with First Division club Newcastle United in the FA Cup third round, and (削除) York ranked in (削除ここまで) a sixth place in (削除) their first (削除ここまで) York's Football League debut season.[28]"
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Place a comma between "... in May 1933" and ref #37
  • Comma added. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "In (削除) Although the club finished (削除ここまで) 1934–35, the club finished in fifteenth place,[39] and saw Bootham Crescent stage its first match against First Division opposition when Derby County defeated York 1–0 in the FA Cup third round.[40]"
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Place a comma between "... with his brother" and ref #43
  • Comma added. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

1939–59

• Place a comma between "regional competitions" and ref #53. Check if other ref tags are not placed after punctuation marks and correct as per WP:REFPUNC.
  • I don't think the sentence would be improved with a comma there. Per the guideline you have cited, "The ref tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space". The reference doesn't necessarily have to follow punctuation. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Hmm, it does allow that interpretation, although it's more clear in WP:CITEFOOT. Still, it only says it's normal practice to place ref tags after punctuation marks, not a guideline. It's just I rarely see such tags being placed freely within text that I felt the need to point it out. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Notice also the punctuation mark changes in the following suggestion: "... on a wartime footing.^[54] York decided to carry on playing,^[55] (削除) York (削除ここまで) and were placed in the North East League, where they ranked (削除) ranking (削除ここまで) eighth in their section of eleven clubs.^[56] In the final weeks of 1939–40, York (削除) they (削除ここまで) competed in the Football League War Cup (削除) in the final weeks of 1939–40 (削除ここまで)."
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "The format was changed for 1941–42." Whose format? Is this really' necessary?
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Break up long sentence: "After completing eighteen fixtures in the Football League North, York competed in the league-organised qualifying stage of the War Cup, but were eliminated after ranking thirty-third of fifty-four clubs, failing to qualify for the knock-out stages by one place."
  • Broken into two sentences. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "Peacetime football resumed in 1946–47(削除) , and (削除ここまで) with the same fixture list as the abandoned 1939–40 season (削除) was used (削除ここまで)."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "1951–52 was York's best post-war season to date(削除) ; (削除ここまで) as they finished in tenth place and set a home record of sixteen wins, four draws and three defeats."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Typo: "... the team embarked on a ten-match uneaten sequence."
  • Fixed. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

1959–80

• "This application was successful, as the club polled the maximum forty-eight votes."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "The team reached the FA Cup third round, where they were beaten 2–0 at home by First Division Stoke City"
  • Not sure if "where" is the best word to use here, as we're not referring to a location. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
    • I tend to use "where" in the case of competition rounds/stages, but maybe I've been wrong. Hey, you're the native speaker... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "The team drew 1–1 at home with Aston Villa in their opening Second Division match on 17 August 1974, with Barry Lyons (削除) scored (削除ここまで) scoring for York."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• "York finished (削除) the season (削除ここまで) in fifteenth place,[149] (削除) and (削除ここまで) but the season's highlights included..."
  • I'm not sure about using "but" here; it implies the league finish was poor, when it's in fact the club's best-ever ranking... Mattythewhite (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Well, true but they were fifth at some point, so it must've felt a bit disappointing to end up ten ranks lower. But yes, in terms of final classification, you're right, so nevermind. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

— Parutakupiu (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support. Satisfied with the changes, so here's my approval. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Comments – I haven't reviewed the above comments in detail, so I'm sorry if anything is copied or mentioned up there.

• (削除) In the lead: "The club was reformed in 1922 and was elected to play...". Next sentence: "they were elected to play in the Football League for 1929–30, and were placed...". Is there any reason why the team is singular in the first sentence and plural in the second? (削除ここまで)
  • Association football articles generally use the rule of thumb: "club = singluar, team = plural", although the lines can become blurred. One example is History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959), which was recently promoted to FA status. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) 1908–17: You probably don't need a World War I link, since that is such a common item and doesn't provide much utility in a football/soccer article. (削除ここまで)
  • Removed the wikilinks to the world wars. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) 1922–39: "with Jock Collier taking over as player-manager." This is a noun plus ing type of sentence structure, which tends to be wordy and not the best prose possible. You could substitute "named" for "taking over" to fix this. (削除ここまで)
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) I see a couple of years starting sentences, which also isn't optimal. One possible fix is "The XXXX season" or similar. (削除ここまで)
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) There are more of these later in the article, so keep an eye out for them. (削除ここまで)
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) 1959–80: "and was replaced by Lockie. Lockie's...". Try not to repeat the name like this from the end of one sentence to the start of another. (削除ここまで)
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• (削除) Another noun plus -ing to fix here: "with Barry Lyons scoring for York." (削除ここまで) Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
    • Support – The extensive review from Parutakupiu above is what really got this article into good shape. I believe that it meets the standards, so I'll support it. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Taking a look now.....

• Ok, I can't see any prose-clangers outstanding and feel this article passes WRT prose and comprehensiveness. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Images all have appropriate licencing apart from File:Charlton20618news1.jpg. Surely this isn't "own work"..? And is not 75 years old, so maybe Fair Use template is needed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

• Replaced with a free image. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

NB: using this version to reference FN numbering, in case of further change.

• (削除) Regarding reference formatting, decide whether you're using sentence case or Title Case. Appears to be the latter, in which case there might be some (like FN 27 and 46) that need capitalising. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]
  • I've been loyal to the casing used by the sources, except when they use all caps. Should they all use the same case? If so, is there any preference? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
    • One option is all Title Case, other is Title Case for books titles and sentence case for journal articles. As long as the same type are consistent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
      • Adopted Title Case. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Compare FN 152 and 153 and how editor is formatted. Choose one for consistency. (削除ここまで)
  • Made consistent. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• FN 27 checks out - source material supports text.
• FN 2 and FN 3 check out - source material supports text.
• FN 35 checks out - source material supports text.
• FN 121 checks out - source material supports text.
• FN 134 checks out - source material supports text.
• FN 148 checks out - source material supports text.
• Earwig's tool negative.

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 [10].

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the CampingWorld.com 500 for sponsorship reasons. This is my fourth attempt to promote this article to FA status, the last three failed mainly due to prose issues and a lack of response. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support - I maintain my previous stance on this article from the previous three nominations. The quality of the article is much improved since it was copy-edited by the GOCE. There is only two minor points I raise after going through the article:

• You should ideally add a plainlist template in the ratings section of the infobox per UBLIST.
• Furthermore, it would be a good idea to archive links to those that do not have it to prevent link rot (except for Racing-Reference which does not have links stored at the Internet Archive because of robots.txt) Z105space (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Z105space: Thanks! I used the template and have been archiving all the links used in the article as I've been going along. Once the links die, I'll replace the links. Thanks again, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Oppose (削除ここまで)–I'll take a deeper look into the article later but at a glance I noted a major 1b issue: How do we have an article about a race and not include the finishing times? Note: I realize NASCAR scoring is more complicated than just the finishing times, but I believe that is a basic detail that should be included. – Grondemar 00:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Grondemar: If you mean the margin of victory, there was none, since the race ended under caution (if you follow F1, this is the equivalent of the safety car). If you want the amount of time the race was completed in, I can look into that further and see if I can find a source, but again, NASCAR scoring, as you noted, is more complicated so I'm not sure I can do much with that. Still, thanks for the review! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Is it possible at least to include something in the text and table indicating that since the race finished under caution, no finish time nor margin of victory was recorded? I will try to perform a full review of the text this weekend. – Grondemar 03:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Probably, I'm busy at the moment as well. I'll see what I can do this weekend. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 10:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Grondemar: I tried adding something into the post-race section. Better? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, I've struck my oppose above. I still haven't had the chance to dig through the article but will try to do so this weekend. Sorry for the delay. – Grondemar 19:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). I see the article has had three (3) previous FAC nominations and it looks like the nominator has taken those to heart and improved upon the writing quality since then. Minor quibbles only here: I'd recommend trimming down the use of quotes but particularly in the sect Post-race comments which is over reliant upon them. Try paraphrasing instead, and/or trimming down total size of quotes used. Also, strongly recommend using archiveurl= and archivedate= fields in cites to archive hyperlinks to Internet Archive, to improve posterity of article in long term. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment – Will comment where I can. Digging through EBSCO I've found a few print sources that may provide some valuable pre- and post-race coverage:
  • Anderson, Lars (October 16, 2006). "Bump 'n' Done". Sports Illustrated . 105 (15). Time Inc.: 70.
  • Engle, Greg (October 16, 2006). "Talladega will be less of a grind on a new surface". Sporting News . 230 (41). Sporting News Media: 50.
  • Galier, Ray (October 9, 2006). "Vickers Causes a Stir on the Way to a Win". The New York Times . Vol. 156, no. 53727. The New York Times Company. p. D9.
  • Livingstone, Seth (October 10, 2006). "Hendrick keeps testy drivers focused on 'the big picture'". USA Today . Gannett Company. p. 7C.
  • Livingstone, Seth (October 9, 2006). "Vickers gets first win in fiery finish". USA Today. Gannett Company. p. 11C.
  • Long, Dustin (October 9, 2006). "Putting 'I' in team: Brian Vickers spins Jimmie Johnson and Dale Earnhardt Jr. to win his first Cup race". The Roanoke Times . McClatchy-Tribune Business News. p. 11C.

Haven't checked to see how much of this is repeat coverage, though I'm sure Engle 2006 might help to expand the background section. The Grey Lady is also a good source to have, in general. 23W 19:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support. I supported an earlier FAC but missed repeating that support last time round; sorry about that. I've done some more copyediting; please revert if I messed anything up. Still looks good enough for the bronze star to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Harrias and Grondemar: I hate to pester, but this is now the third-to-last article in the "Older nominations" section and I will NOT be very happy if I need to renominate this after a two-week waiting period for a fifth time. With that, I am asking that you both comment and support if you believe the article is in good enough shape. @Laser brain: It appears by his user page that Ian is not yet fully back, so I'm not asking for a full review, but please let me know if there are still any minor additional tasks I need to complete before promotion is considered. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support – images and sources remain sound, as in my previous review. The prose is slightly repetitive in places, but that's more due to the format of the race itself than the quality of the writing. Sorry it's taken me so long to put pen to paper; I have been looking over it. Harrias ^talk 06:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Laser brain: It has literally been a month since this was touched. Is my only choice now to repeat the process for a fifth time, or has this garnered enough support for promotion? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Just saw the wikibreak notice, so I'll ping @Graham Beards and Ian Rose: as well. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.Graham Beards (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 [11].

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This article got a detailed GA review. It's not very big so am confident I can deal with issues promptly. I scoured everything I could for info, so gaps reflect gaps in real knowledge....have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

NB: wikicup nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Comments from Relentlessly

With all this done, I'm happy to support. (I have a similar eagerness for ablative absolutes and have to proof-read everything I write to remove them. What Cicero did to me...) Relentlessly (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "This confusion in scientific literature with the closely related common toadfish" But the previous sentence does not mention such a confusion, only that the fish was recorded again by other writers? FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, I have rejigged thusly. is that clearer? The original info is on page 10 and 11 of this monograph Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "in the collection of Alexandre Brongniart" Present him?

descriptor added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "published the species as Aphanacanthe reticulatus... in the new genus Aphanacanthe" Seems a bit repetitive, perhaps it could be stated that the genus was new without naming it again?

Ok, I tried this, flow ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "and gave it the combination Spheroides glaber" perhaps link Combinatio nova?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "With a total length of anywhere from 3 to 16 cm" Are both adult sizes?

well...yeah, sort of. Fish gradually grow all their lives so fish that are to all intents and purposes mature and capable of breeding can be these sizes. Most I have seen are at the smaller end of this range... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Maybe add "total adult length"? FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "adnate" Explain.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "the reticulated pattern continues upper side (lateral) body of the fish" on the upper side of the body?

yes - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Smooth toadfish grow larger as they grow older" Seems like a given, but do you mean grow even after reaching adulthood/as long as they live?

yes - they grow steadily larger throughout their life. Shall I add "steadily"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, as long as it it clear that it is past adulthood. FunkMonk (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Since confusion with the common toadfish is emphasised, perhaps mention the differences between the two?

I did in the last line of the description section. have added a word to clarify they look similar. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• What are the spines for, when they are always within the skin?

for toadfish/pufferfish, spines are defensive. No idea why they have devolved in this species and seen nothing written on it. Given they are dangerously poisonous, probably unnecessary... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "However, its lack of spines makes it easier to handle" Easier than what?

than other toadfish - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support - that's all I had to say, nice article! FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support Cas Liber, I completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and I find that it most certainly meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, and neutral and stable; and I assess that its lede, structure, and citations all conform to Wikipedia's style guidelines. The media used in this article is properly licensed, and the standard captioning works well. While I'm a proponent of Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, this is only suggested and not a requirement at FAC. Also per WP:DUPLINK, Tasmania can be de-linked in the "Distribution and habitat" section, seagrass can be de-linked in the "Conservation" subsection, and gonads can be de-linked in the "Feeding" section. Otherwise, I concur with the comments and assessments of FunkMonk and Relentlessly above. I can find no other aspects of the article that would inhibit this article's progression to Featured Article status. I commend you on your hard work on this article, and congratulate you on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

suggested links delinked. thx for support... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Cas Liber, you are quite welcome, and once again, job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support – Certainly not very big but that is not a criterion for FA. I believe the article is pretty comprehensive and covers possibly everything that should be for an article to be an FA. It's an excellent article, satisfying other criteria. A trivial comment: I have seen most of the alt texts of images having full stops at the end. Also, the first letter starts with a uppercase one. However, that is not mandatory and I leave it on you whether to resolve or not. Otherwise, as I said above, it meets FA criteria. Great job! -- Frankie _talk 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I capped and full-stopped them as I turned the last two into sentences as well...first one was but I forgot. good catch. thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• You mention tetrodotoxin in the lead and once thereafter. Since this chemical is named for this family, and you specifically mention its effects on humans, I think it is worth mentioning both that this chemical is found in this family and that it is named for it.

found and added some general material. yikes, didn't see the naming bit... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I'm not a fan of "two small nipple-like structures." Stating it this way could refer to appearance or function, so you should change it to nipple-like in appearance or function or maybe find a better way of stating this.

How 'bout "nipple-shaped"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, that works. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Sydney is mentioned a few times, so link to it once. Just in case there are people who don't know what you're referring to.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Smooth toadfish grow steadily larger as they grow older" - most fish have indeterminate growth which you should at least link to and maybe specifically state here.

Ahaaa, thanks for that...didn't recall the name. have made a link now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• The IUCN Red List includes changes in populations as a critical part of its assessment, so include that with "Its large range and abundance"

• By that you could simply say "stable population"

good point/added - I altered the emphasis of the next segment to make it less repetitive-sounding.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Link to "shellfish" and "lipid" the first time they are mentioned.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

In general, I agree with the above reviewers that this generally meets FA critera. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Will be back with more substantive comments later. Sasata (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• the reference formatting needs some work so that it is consistent. Examples only:

• authors: "Thieberger, Nick; McGregor, William" vs "Shao, K., Liu, M., Larson, H.,"

authors all separated by semicolons now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• page range format: 277–284 vs. 116–22

all page ranges 2 digits in this situation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• what type of citation is #18 (Melbourne's Wildlife)?

an unformatted book. now formatted with fuller info Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• title case or sentence case for journal articles?

all title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• capitalize first work of subtitle after colon (e.g. #19) or not (#22)?

capped - see preceding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• a literature search pulls up several sources that weren't used in the article. Have you checked these: PMID 26443385, PMID 17884259, doi:10.1016/S0272-7714(03)00073-8, doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2012年09月01日3, doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2014年09月01日1

all added now...nice finds Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Yoohoo, @Sasata:.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "The breeding habits of estuarine tetraodonidae" last two words are jargon (estuarine is linked in next section)

anglicised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• three uses of "corresponded/correspond" in two consecutive sentences, should mix it up

yeah, one down...bit hard that one... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• should "Accidental Death" be capitalized?

pondered that....'murder' and 'manslaughter' aren't..so I guess not (forgot I'd left them capped :P) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support. Aside from these minor details, the article reads well and I think it meets the featured article criteria. (I made some copyedits and added links here) Sasata (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

thx! NB: changes are fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• All images are CC or "PD-own work" with sufficient source and author information - OK.
• Map includes source information for data - OK.
• Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
• File:Tetractenos glaber.JPG - no EXIF-data, but uploaded by a longtime contributor with credible "own work" claim - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

One reservation I had about the article at GAC which I did not mention was the discussion of the historical poisoning cases. I think the stories are fascinating, and potentially the sort of thing which would be picked up in the literature (popular or scholarly) on the fish, but I wonder whether you have come across any more recent sources which mention these old events? That would put my mind at ease...

there were a couple that mentioned them in passing, which is how I went looking for them in the first place. Will re-check which... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

It'd be great if you could throw in those citations; you could introduce it with something like (off the top of my head, I'm sure you can make it more elegant) "Several cases of poisoning were recorded in the 19th century.[cites to recent peer reviewed literature]"- the current approach comes across as a tiny bit OR-y; it's borderline archival research. (Again, I'm bringing this up here rather than at GAC because I think it's only a very small issue.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Found it (again). It's on page 61 of this. The author is one of the main fish scientists too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Some more comments on that section:

• Is it worth breaking the Scott quote out into a blockquote? I think it would read better and help break up that long paragraph.

Yeah I think that reads better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• jury or Jury?

whoops! fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Why Accidental Death and not simply accidental death?

I was deliberating about whether capped or uncapped and could have sworn I'd uncapped them before...anyway..done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• When you say "Warnings about toadfish were subsequently issued", it makes it sound like this is related in some way to the previous event. Is this what you want to imply? The long gap between the sources suggests that there is unlikely to be a relationship.

Yes - warnings were issued after the hobart case, according to a latter source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry! The fact that this more recent (though still not hardly current!) source mentions the Hobart case limits my OR worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

A great article overall, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 [12].

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Baryonyx is a well-known dinosaur, and one of the best preserved animals of its kind from the UK. It is also the first dinosaur that showed direct evidence of having eaten fish, and its physical features were considered very unusual at the time it was discovered. I have summarised most of the scientific literature about the animal, and presented both sides of various controversies surrounding it. It is also the first dinosaur of its kind (spinosaurid) to have its article nominated for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose....as a wikiproject dinosaurs member though I haven't really edited this article. I reviewed this at GAN and tried to be as nitpicky as possible. I think we're there and if not it's pretty close. However my familiarity with the stuff might mean I miss accessibility issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Casliber that the quality of the article Is really excellent, but I have noticed a few things that could use correcting. IJReid ^discuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "It may also have been an active predator of larger prey and a scavenger, as it also contained bones of a juvenile Iguanodon" also is redundant.

Which one? Both, or the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

First. How about "It may have been an active predator as well, as ..." IJReid ^discuss 00:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Well, the reason for the first "also" is to underline that it did not only eat fish, but may also have actively hunted larger prey. Also because it is not sure whether the Iguanodon was hunted or scavenged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Yah I guess, leave it as is then. IJReid ^discuss 00:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps others will bring it up... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "A previous estimate was 10 m (32 ft)" seems a little short, any info on when? maybe merge with previous sentence?

Added year. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "...of the dentary of the mandible..." of the is redundant, maybe "...of the dentary bone, in the mandible..."

Replaced with "in". FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "The alveoli of the dentary..." should be "The alveoli of the remainder of the dentary..." as the rosette was part of the dentary.

Doesn't the rest of the sentence explain this: ", but the first four were larger than the rest" First four: those in the rosette.

I'd move this sentence above the detail on the rosette then, so it doesn't break up the flow. IJReid ^discuss 03:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I've rejigged the sentence, but it is placed where it is because the prior text is about alveolus size. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Link United Kingdom as first mention.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• I would change mentions of Britain to United Kingdom or vice versa to make it more standard.

UK. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Except for the mid neck vertebrae, all the skeletal elements of this specimen are also represented in holotype NHM R9951" the wording here makes it seem like the Iberian remains are more complete, with the holotype lacking mid-neck vertebrae. Is this correct?

Other way around, will try to reword... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Good. IJReid ^discuss 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• To be consistent, link authors full names at first mention (eg. Buffetaut)

He doesn't appear to have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

In that situation I would simply have the full name, but not a link. IJReid ^discuss 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, was there already. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

That is it. This is an excellent article and all my queries are very minor. IJReid  ^discuss 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• One more thing, who is this "Angela" mentioned in Paleobiology? IJReid ^discuss 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Heh, fixed! Angela is Milner, but it should say Charig... FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Good, Support from me now. IJReid ^discuss 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Using this version for numbering:

• (削除) Some author initials are spaced (FN 7 and others) and some are unspaced (FN 21) in the references - choose one and align them all (削除ここまで)

Found three without spaces, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) FN 1...abbreviation gone crazy? (削除ここまで)

Heh, was copied from another page, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• FN 22 - material faithful to source.

Crap, I forgot about this, anyway using this version for ref numbering....now where was I....

• FN 18 - material faithful to source. not paraphrased. ok.
• FN 24 - material faithful to source.
• FN 5 used 4 times - all material faithful to source

Okay spot check all looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

All OK(削除) , just 2 ignorant bonus questions (削除ここまで):

• File:Baryonyx BW.jpg - I read up a bit about the artist Nobu Tamura, but as a layman I am still not sure: is this an "artistic" or a "scientific" restoration - or something in-between? Maybe worth clarifying in the image caption.
• File:Baryonyx_by_durbed.jpg - same as above: art or science?
• All images are CC or PD and have sufficient source and author info - OK.
• Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for review. Both are anatomically correct, and art and science are not mutually exclusive, by the way... See paleoart. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support Prose is clear, seems complete and well organised. I haven't noticed any major problem, so I believe this article is FA worthy. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) I'm not particularly familiar with the relevant convention but are we okay to have "UK" abbreviated from the first mention? (削除ここまで)

Spelled out. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) There are a few duplicate links throughout; User:Ucucha/duplinks is a handy way of rooting these out but it can throw up false positives so be careful. (削除ここまで)

Removed a bunch, except for those in the cladogram. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) The image caption "Size of spinosaurids (Baryonyx in orange) compared to a human" identifies the image in terms of colour alone, which is best avoided. Perhaps "Size of spinosaurids (Baryonyx in orange, second from right) compared to a human" would work? (削除ここまで)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) "the mature animal may have been much larger (as attested by the size of the related Spinosaurus)" -> A quick size comparison may help here, clicking through it seems Spinosaurus reached 15m, perhaps note this within the brackets, after "Spinosaurus". (削除ここまで)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• There seems to be a bit of inconsistency with how proper anatomical terms are used—at times, you use the proper term then bracket a common name afterwards ("scapulae (shoulder blades)", "pleurocoels (hollow depressions)"), but it's also seen the other way around ("a large claw (ungual bone)", "reduced its weight (skeletal pneumaticity)"). I don't see this as a particularly troublesome point, however.

Yeah, the order is a bit arbitrary, as I felt it would "flow" best... FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Overall I'm happy with the article, and can support it in its current state, as most of my critiques are minor. GRAPPLE ^X 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, will fix the issues now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 [13].

Nominator(s): Errant ^(chat!) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

So, after a bit of a hiatus, I'm back into the MILHIST articles... This is an A-Class article from a couple of years ago, that has only needed minor improvements since (It's complete & stable). It's one of my favourite WW2 deception stories, completely off the wall and probably had limited use - but it has the sort of drama and panache you expect of wartime secret ops! Errant ^(chat!) 15:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the tweak (good idea) & support :) --Errant ^(chat!) 07:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map size
• File:Clifton_James001.jpg: can you explain why we believe this is a UK government work, if the author is unknown? The source given doesn't suggest that
• File:Bernard_Law_Montgomery.jpg: source link is dead, file is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. I've scaled up the map & replaced the Montgomery image with a better one. Hunting for a better source for the other now. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

@Nikkimaria: sadly I can't source that image for now! I've replaced it with the map image, which is consistent with the other articles I've written in this series :) Thanks for the review! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support - Very well written. From the bibliography, refs 1 & 3 (National Archives & Howard) are not used - place in further reading. I'm not seeing much else to complain about from a single read through. Re comprehensiveness, the Polish article is FA and about the same size. Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Note, the article would benefit greatly if a licence was found for Clifton_James001.jpg Ceoil (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Very happy to say!! I've not be able to source that image (though I would be shocked if it wasn't Crown Copyright I simply can't find it at the National Archives) I HAVE managed to find another pic that is PD-UK :D Now added to article. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The resemblance is remarkable, and the addition bring the article further to life. Many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• (削除) Comment (削除ここまで) - taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) A second look-alike was found, but soon afterwards was injured in an accident. (削除ここまで)(削除) - gosh, leaves me curious...any further info? (削除ここまで)

(削除) Can we add who Joshua Levine was as a descriptor? Otherwise there is nothing to indicate why we should value his opinion.... (削除ここまで)

(削除) "high-pressure" - dunno that I like this adjective (a bit informal?)...sorta prefer "stressful" or "highly stressful" (削除ここまで)

Support (削除) Otherwise (削除ここまで), reads fine and looks on-target for comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

1. I wish! Very little else to add; I've clarified that it was a leg and a motorbike accident, but sources are coy on further information
2. Done
3. Reworked with stressful.

Thanks for the review! --Errant ^(chat!) 13:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Support. Interesting little article. Sorry, but I couldn't find anything to criticise. I tried! I added a link, and I could move some commas or dashes around, but there's nothing wrong with it as it is. It's engaging, it's objective, it's comprehensive (as far as I can tell—it doesn't leave me as a reader with unanswered questions)... My curiosity was peaked by the British government allowing the publication of the book, though. Do we know if it went to the censor and was approved or if it just slipped through? Ten years after the event is quite soon for the censor to be approving the publication of war secrets, but then there were a lot of books by ex-servicemen being published at around that time. If you had any details I'd be curious, but it's not necessary. Also, my preference would be to add in a citation for the two works in the "further reading " section and incorporate them into the bibliography, but that's just me; different editors like it different ways. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
  • Thanks Harry :D I've removed one of the further reading because, although Howard is an excellent book, it doesn't add much to make it worth citing. And it's not really specific enough to be further reading - I think it was a hangover from not using it in the article. As to the other link: I don't have a copy of the source any more so I am not really sure what to do about it. BUT it's the primary source for the operation so would be interesting to anyone who likes that sort of thing. Regarding to book; I'll dig around and see if I can pull anything else out. But it's mostly a footnote in the source material. No real commentary on its publication, I agree it is dangling something in front of the reader.. will dig around. Thanks for the review again! --Errant ^(chat!) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates }} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2015 [14].

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

This article is about the 1995 sci-fi action comedy film that polarises viewers. This is my second nomination of this article for FAC, having now addressed all the concerns brought up at the first one, including putting the article through a thorough copyedit courtesy of the guild of copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi Ian Rose. I have four supports now, and the images haven't been changed since the image review at the first FAC. Is there anything I need to do to have this promoted? I wouldn't ask except I've got something pretty huge going on in my personal life and there's a good chance i'll be taking an extended wikibreak from November 8, so I've got just over a week to address any concerns in order to have this promoted. Thanks in advance. Freikorp (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Make that five supports now. Just a reminder after posting this message I will be unavailable to edit wikipedia for an indefinite period of time, so unfortunately I will not be able to address any further concerns. If there are any minor issues i'd appreciate it if you could just tweak them yourself. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Support—supported at the last nomination and see no reason not to do so again. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment - I've read through this a couple of times...it comes across as comprehensive. The prose is okay and I did spot some things that could be improved when I read it on my smartphone.....and now I am having trouble finding them...hang on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) The Rippers, mysterious warriors, slaughter guards... (削除ここまで)(削除) - This flows oddly. I'd just say "The mysterious Rippers slaughter guards..." (削除ここまで)

(削除) bring the weapon's crates back (削除ここまで)(削除) - It'd be "weapons' crates" anyway but maybe just say "bring the weapon crates back"...? (削除ここまで)

(削除) whose wounds had been reconstructed (削除ここまで)(削除) - err, you'd either say " whose body had been reconstructed" or " whose wounds had been repaired/fixed/whatever" - reconstructing wounds is I suspect not what was meant... (削除ここまで)

(削除) I'd link "establishment", "introvert" (削除ここまで)

Nothing else prose-wise is jumping out at me, which is a good sign....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for the comments Casliber. I've addressed all your concerns. Let me know if you find anything else. Freikorp (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I think in that case it's a tentative support from me. There might be some other prose-smoothing but I can't see specific examples of same. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Comments from Bollyjeff - It is better than before, but I going to make a few suggestions first:

• Many of the references give an error message from the archive. Then when I click on the "archived from" link it works. How could everyone else not notice this? A) Make sure all archive links work or else remove them. B) If the original link is still alive, make it the default using the |deadurl=no option. BollyJeff | talk 12:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

I've made sure every reference has the deadurl parameter. I'm not getting an error message from any of the archived links however. Maybe try with a different browser? I've found Safari seems to have problems with the internet archive website sometimes. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. The archives are working now from home, maybe the problem is at work. Regardless, some archives do not match up with their originals. For instance, look at 47 and 48. Please check them all. BollyJeff | talk 02:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks like I mixed those two up as I was fixing them both at the same time. Checked all the rest and didn't make that mistake elsewhere. Freikorp (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

They have the titles swapped though. BollyJeff | talk 12:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Haha right, fixed :p Freikorp (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• Plot - "realise" -> "realize" - American English

• Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• "Tank Girl was released on 10 April 2001." - No source, and please say which media type and company, since you mention another company in the next paragraph.

• Done. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

• The article is mixing date formats, dmy and mdy. Since this is American English, probably mdy is preferred, but I don't care; just pick one and stick with it.

• Changed to mdy. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]
• Thanks for your comments Bollyjeff. I've attempted to address everything. Let me know if you find anything else. Freikorp (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]

Its looking pretty good now so...
Support — BollyJeff | talk 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [reply ]