Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

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

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

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Máscara Dorada[edit]

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestler who has worked all over the world and is currently for the biggest wrestling company in the world. The article has been a Good Article for a while and I have been keeping up with improvements etc. over the years and I believe it is of Feature Article quality. I look forward to everyone's feedback and address any concerns that may be raised.` MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

National Front (UK)[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the foremost fascist parties in British history, one which was at its heyday in the 1970s. Given the current far-right resurgence across many Western countries, this article is particularly topical. It became a GA in June 2018 and then went through an unsuccessful FAC that ended in October. The main concern of reviewers at that time was the length. Since then, I have worked to make substantial cut-backs to the prose to get the overall length down, and I now hope that it might have greater luck in becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Waterloo Bay massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community. I hope I have done it justice. The article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2017, and has been updated since then with various news reports regarding the memorialisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • "The Waterloo Bay massacre or Elliston massacre refers to a fatal clash between settlers and Aboriginal Australians in late May 1849 on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia which led to the deaths of a number of Aboriginal people, and forms part of the Australian frontier wars". This is quite a long sentence to have with little punctuation. I would recommend carving it up somehow, and perhaps take out "fatal" as you already refer to the deaths straight after. I'd also specify that the "settlers" were "European" or "British". Something like "The Waterloo Bay massacre, also known as the Elliston massacre, was a clash between European settlers and Aboriginal Australians that took place on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia in late May 1849. Part of the Australian frontier wars, it led to the deaths of several Aboriginal people." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in the lede really covers two distinct topics: the disputed number of those killed, and the ways in which the massacre has been memorialised. I would suggest dividing that paragraph in two because of this. "An attempt in the 1970s to build a..." could easily start a third paragraph in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it make sense to move the sentence stating "Aboriginal people from the west coast of South Australia have oral history traditions that a large-scale massacre occurred." to before "In the 1920s and 1930s, several historians examined the archival record"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some very thick paragraphs in this article. I would recommend dividing a few of them up; I think that would make it more 'reader-friendly' and enhance the likelihood that they would actually read through the whole thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd also recommend a more thorough use of sourcing. In "Background" for example, the first paragraph has four sentences at its end, all referring to slightly different things, before a citation appears. Even if it entails some duplication of referencing, I'd ensure that every separate statement has a citation after it. Otherwise it can look a little like certain parts are simply unreferenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have done a bit of this, but in some cases the page ranges aren't wide, so I'd just be repeating the same citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Recorded Events" section also could really be improved with some additional citations as there are ten sentences there before the first citation appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good use of images. Any chance that we could find another one for the "Later accounts of a massacre" section? Or a textbox of some kind? It's not essential, but I think it would improve the overall aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "by Aboriginal people of the Nauo, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples." - "people... peoples". Bit repetitive. I'd change "Aboriginal people" to "Aboriginals", perhaps?
  • "was speared and clubbed to death by Aboriginal people". Some folk tend to favour active voice, and although I'm not necessarily one of them, active voice might be better in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "was unharmed and was found" - "was... was". Again, might be a way to avoid repetitious wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

All addressed so far, Midnightblueowl. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Factotem[edit]

A missing page number and a case of inconsistent information for one of the books listed in the bibliography that need to be addressed. Other than those, just a few take-it-or-leave-it quibbles that you can take or leave as you see fit.

  • General
  • Ref #4 (Foster & Nettleback 2012) missing page number;
  • Ref #28 (Thompson 1969) missing page number. This appears to be supporting the statement that Thompson published a book, which might not require a page number in itself, but the statement also goes into some specific details ("...which included the camp oven story and said that Geharty (spelled Gehirty in the book) was involved in rounding up Aboriginal people and driving them over the cliffs south of Elliston, resulting in 20 deaths") which does need page numbers if they are sourced to this book (it's not clear because another source is also cited for that statement);
  • You cite Parish to support the statement that he wrote The Real West Coast: A Picture of a Rumour-Damaged Country, but cite some details of what Parish wrote to Foster, Hosking and Nettleback. Could the latter not be sourced to support the former? This jumped out at me because you're citing a book but don't provide a page number. Not an issue, just curious.
  • No, the citation is there to verify that Parish wrote the book, the rest is what F, H & N say about its contents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Technical checks
  • Petty pet peeve moment: I'm nowhere more OCD than when England is confused for the United Kingdom, as it is in the publisher location for Thompson's The Elliston Incident. Make of that what you will;
  • Details for Foster & Nettleback's Out of the Silence: The History and Memory of South Australia's Frontier Wars in the biblography are from two different editions of the book. The GBook link previews the 256(?)-page paperback edition with ISBN 978-1-74305-039-2, but the ISBN you provide appears to relate to the 401-page e-book edition.
  • Reliability and Quality
  • Found nothing to suggest any issues.
  • Comprehensiveness
  • A Gbooks and JSTOR search for waterloo bay massacre did not reveal anything to suggest that relevant sources have been missed.

That's all. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your source review, Factotem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


  • There's a bit at the end about "one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims" that Foster et al attribute to someone named Pat Sumerling on pg. 71. Especially since this is presented as a direct quote, poor Pat will be unhappy that he/she (gender neutral name!) has not been given any credit on the huge forum of Wikipedia. Full attribution required.
  • Healy said the bit about "narrative battlegrounds", not Foster et al. The latter cite the former. But it seems there's a Chris Healy and a JJ Healy... mmm... another book cites it to jj ... seems to be on page xv of {{cite book|last=Healy|first=John Joseph|title=Literature And Aborigine in Australia|url=|year=1989|publisher=University of Queensland Press|isbn=978-0-7022-2150-7|ref=harv}}, if "Movement and Belonging: Lines, Places, and Spaces of Travel" has it right, and I assume it does...
  • I am beginning to wonder about close paraphrase. For example, Wikipedia has:

Foster et al. also interviewed Aboriginal people from the west coast on several occasions about the incident, with broad agreement in several aspects; the location near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs, and additionally, that not all of the people died, but the majority hid at the base of the cliff until the settlers left.

.. while Foster et all p. 71 has:

On several occasions the authors of this book have discussed memories of the Ellison incident with Indigenous people... the broad particulars coincide: the site near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs. We have heard one further detail: that not all of the people died, the majority hiding at the base of the cliff until the vigilantes left.

  • Close paraphrasing addressed. Very sloppy on my part. Concerned if you've identified any other examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I just started looking and I am finding matters that concern me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

SMS Lothringen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships - I wrote the article originally in 2010 and then rewrote it with new sources last year, after which it passed a MILHIST A-class review (here). The ship had a relatively uneventful career, missing the Battle of Jutland owing to a badly-needed overhaul. Lothringen was briefly kept by the postwar Reichsmarine and converted into a parent ship for minesweepers. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, perhaps mention that Lothringen is Alsace-Lorraine, which will be more familiar to most readers
    • Good idea
  • link knots in the lead
    • Done
  • I continue to find the mention of HMS Dreadnought out of chronological order to be rather odd. My view is it should be inserted at the chronologically relevant point, rather than in the design section where it presages future events
    • For me, it makes more sense to include it where the article discusses the ship's design, since it has more relevance there, in my opinion, than it does to the ship's activity. I read it as kind of jarring to be talking about the training activities in December 1906, then talk about Dreadnought rendering ships like Lothringen obsolescent, and then go back to training activities.
  • were the 17 cm guns in casemates, have gunshields or were they in open mounts? I assume the 8.8 cm guns were in open mounts?
    • Clarified
  • in the body, keel laying, ship launching and ship commissioning aren't linked
    • Fixed
  • link IX Corps (German Empire)
    • Done
  • "to the North Sea, and continued to the Atlantic" does this mean through the Channel or north of the UK?
    • The former - clarified
  • suggest "By achieving a rough equality of forces, it was hoped that the German Navy"
    • Good point
  • suggest "to retain eight pre-dreadnought battleships for coastal defense under Article 181, two of which would be in reserve."
    • Yeah, that sounds better

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Western Area Command (RAAF)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Following on from Eastern Area Command and North-Eastern Area Command, I present the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. Western Area's post-war period also closed with a bang of sorts, as the British atomic test at Montebello took place within its boundaries. I've copyedited and added some info since the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few years ago, so have at it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Source review by Factotem[edit]

Incoming Factotem (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • General
  • William Hely appears in the infobox as commander, but this is not supported by anything in the main body of the article.
  • Second last para of post-war section...?
Caught out by a sneaky name change from William to Bill. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Technical checks
  • ISBN formats are inconsistent; mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13;
  • I'm a bit dubious about converting 10-digit ISBNs just because we can. I always try to use the exact ISBN from the edition I've referenced, so if it has both 10- and 13-digit I use the latter but if it only has 10 then I don't convert. Of course I'm happy to check that I've always used 13-digit if available.
  • Series/volume information is provided as part of the title for publications by Gillison, Odgers and the RAAF Historical section, but the cite book template has parameters that allow these to be presented separately. The sources can still be identified without any problem, which is what's really important, so this is somewhat picky, but I don't think it's any less picky than consistently formatted ISBNs, which FAC seems to insist on;
  • Well, per above, I don't know about FAC insisting on consistent ISBNs if only 10-digit ones are used in the relevant edition. As far as series v. title goes, I don't feel that strongly about it either way, it's just that the format here is consistent with most other RAAF units articles I've brought to FAC.
  • I wonder if the Pathfinder bulletin could be listed as a magazine in the bibliography (after all, you list a PhD thesis there)?
  • There is method in my madness here in that Pathfinder, though organised like a magazine or bulletin, is AFAIK only available online and has no page numbers and so doesn't really benefit (IMO) from a short cite to something in the References section (unlike the thesis, which employs page numbers and may have different page ranges cited for different parts of the article).
  • External link checks
  • Ext link checker tool doesn't throw up any problems
  • Reliability and quality of sources
  • Because it is a primary source, I spent some time checking the first seven (out of a total of 13) uses of the Western Area Headquarters source. Did not see anything to suggest problems with WP:PRIMARY, except you seem to have excluded the four WAAF officers from the total number of officers stated at the end of the 5th para in the World War II section (ref #28 in the version that I reviewed). As a sidenote, I would also point out that you're mixing numbers here (247 staff, but seventy-two officers) and elsewhere in the article (I believe MOS likes us to enumerate numbers above ten and not to mix enumerated and spelled-out numbers in the same sentence);
  • I have to admit I like to only use figures for numbers above 100 because there are so many digits in military articles with their numbered units and so on. That said, I think MOS does like the same style for all numbers in same sentence so "247 staff including 72 officers" is probably called for in any case. Tks also for finding that error re. the Waafs, will fix.
My mistake. I thought all numbers above 10 had to use figures, but on reading MOS:NUMERAL I see it's not that simple. Just need to be sure that styles aren't mixed in the same sentence. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I checked through the website and newspaper sources and found nothing to concern me.
  • Survey of sources for comprehensiveness
  • I completed an albeit cursory search of Gbooks and JSTOR for western area command raaf and found nothing to suggest the article isn't a comprehensive survey of relevant sources.

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tks very much Factotem, always appreciate your thorough reviews -- embedded responses above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome. I've queried the ISBN format consistency thing on the TP; it's something I picked up from reading other reviews rather than something I personally care deeply about. See no reason not to Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it for Milhist ACR back in July 2016, and have looked at the changes since then, and read through it again just now. The only issue unresolved from the ACR was the addition of some info about what aircraft each squadron was operating, and I note that has now been provided. I have a few pretty minor comments:

  • covering New South Wales and Queensland; at the same time, Central Area" seems to beg a full stop and new sentence rather than a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • "following the outbreak of the Pacific War,." has an unneeded comma
    • Done (well caught).
  • suggest moving the RAAF area commands map down two paras, closer to November 1942 in the narrative
    • On my 1366x768 screen, two paras down would sandwich the image of Brownell and co, so compromised on one para down.
  • is there an ORBAT available for the post-November 1942 expansion of the command?
    • Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.
      • Is that supposed to be 1943? It says 1942. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay I've confused you (or perhaps you've confused me, we'll know when you reply!)... I assumed you were talking about the beginning of the second-last para of the WWII section, the first time we mention combat strength after Nov 1942. What I meant was that I don't have an official OOB for then so I just mentioned in the text the combat squadrons as Odgers gives them at that time. The only OOB as such that I'm aware of is the one as at Apr 1942 that I list at the end of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins (astronaut)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) and Kees08 (Talk) 19:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Michael Collins, the third man on the crew of the Apollo 11 mission. He orbited the moon in his spacecraft, Columbia. As he passed around the far side of the Moon, he became the loneliest man alive, with the nearest two people thousands of miles away, and out of radio contact with both them and mission control back on Earth. Later he built the National Air and Space Museum, one of the world's great museums. The article has passed an A-Class review, which included source and image reviews. A previous FAC review was archived; it received only one review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem[edit]

  • Chidhood and education
  • " Virginia (Stewart)..." Presumably her maiden name, but without the nee (or whatever) it popped out at me as a rather masculine original first name that was subsequently changed;
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "...but since World War II started soon after he was unable." I think there needs to be a comma after "after";
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "...which his father had graduated from in 1907 and his older brother in 1939." Reads a bit awkwardly to me. Consider "...from which his father and older brother had graduated in 1907 and 1939 respectively."?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "He graduated on June 3, 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree, finishing 185th of 527 cadets in the class of 1952, the same class as future fellow astronaut Ed White." No need to repeat 1952. Maybe, "He graduated on June 3, 1952, with a Bachelor of Science degree, finishing 185th in a class of 527 cadets which included the future fellow astronaut Ed White."?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "...due to the large number of young but senior officers..." Senior officers on its own is absolutely no problem, but "young and senior" was just jarring to me. Maybe "high-ranking officers"?
    No, we are talking about field officers, majors and colonels. Deleted "but senior". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Military service
  • "After entering the Air Force, Collins commenced basic flight training..." Not sure you need that introductory clause;
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Collins met Patricia Mary Finnegan from Boston, Massachusetts, his future wife, in an officers' mess." Consider, "Collins met his future wife, Patricia Mary Finnegan from Boston, Massachusetts, in an officers' mess." so that there can be no stumbling over the concept that Boston, Masachusetts was his first wife?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "After Collins was reassigned to the United States..." Do service personnel get reassigned to a country? I thought they get reassigned to a unit, but return to a country.
    Changed as suggested. I have a feeling that I was avoiding saying that too many times. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Test pilot
  • "...which included future astronauts Frank Borman..." False title, first of a few examples;
    False titles are common in AmEng. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Really? I was quite sure that false titles were frowned upon at FAC. If no-one else picks up on it, then fair enough. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I cou;dn't find it in the MOS. Maybe someone else will know. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was accepted into the third class, which was selected on October 22, 1962."
    Hmmm. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Gemini 10
  • " calibrate photos taken in space with calibrated equipment in a lab." Is "calibrated" necessary? Would "test equipment" or something similar eliminate the repetition of calibrate?
  • Apollo 11
  • "Collins compiled a book of 18 different rendezvous schemes for different scenarios including where the LM did not land, or launched too early or too late." Had to re-read this a few times to understand it. The repetition of different is not so elegant; does it need to be stated twice? The main thing I stumbled on, though, is the list of scenarios; I read "where" to refer to a location, which confused me. Might this be better written as "Collins compiled a book of 18 different rendezvous schemes for various scenarios, including situations in which the LM did not land, or launched too early or too late.";
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "...where they spent the first part of Earth-based portion of 21 days of quarantine before moving on to Houston." Earth-based portion? Can't it just be written as "...where they began 21 days of quarantine that ended after their arrival in Houston."?
    No. This was prompted by another editor's review. The days they spent in space on the way back also counted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough, but I think the sentence needs attention. There appears to be a "the" or "their" missing before "Earth-based" and there are three cases of "of" in quick succession; there must be a more elegant way of writing it. Also, it may be just me, but it really reads as if Houston is somehow not considered Earth-based. Maybe you could be more explicit about the quarantine period beginning on their return journey from the moon. Factotem (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs
  • "...but this was tiny compared with the 6,000 public affairs staff at the United States Department of Defense." That seems rather a random comparison. Why is it relevant?
    I think it is a good comparison, and it puts things in perspective. Note that Lee also thought it was a relevant comparison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Director of the National Air and Space Museum
  • "Visitors saw Columbia in the main hall, Milestones of Flight, along with the Wright Flyer, the Spirit of St. Louis and Glamorous Glennis." Confused me because I initially read Milestones of Flight as another exhibit in the main hall, rather than the name of the main hall, which rendered the sentence non-sensical. Does Milestones of Flight need to be italicised, and would it be better reworded as "Visitors saw Columbia in the Milestones of Flight main hall...", as it (sort of) is in the image caption?
    Yes, the name of the hall was the Milestones of Flight Hall (today it is the Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall); but I didn't want to give the impression that it was out the back. Rather, the "Gee Whiz" stuff is the first thing you saw. Originally it was displayed like in the top photograph, which was taken in 2010. Subsequently it was changed to that in the lower photograph, taken in 2016, which means that you can't see inside it any more. De-italicised, and changed the wording slightly. Relying on the images to create the correct impression. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Primary sources: There is a lot of reliance on Collins's book Carrying the Fire, particularly in the earlier stages of the article – around half of the first 90 references are cited to this source. Relatively little use is made of other biographical material; perhaps little is available. Is there no other substantial work that could be called on? I note a biography is listed under Further reading, but that is apparently a children's book.
    After replacing a couple, I suppose the answer is maybe? The other sources do not go into the same detail he did. There are also some where he is giving his opinion, like that Dave Scott was his first choice, that are best suited as-is. I can see a couple more that I might be able to replace, do you think it is necessary? Kees08 (Talk) 03:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality and reliability: Apart from the slight concern about the extensive use of the Collins book, the sources appear to be of an appropriate standard of quality and reliability.
  • Verification: I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. In general these checked out satisfactorily. I have reservations about one, below:
  • Ref 10: "After the United States entered World War II, the family moved to Washington, D.C., where Collins attended St. Albans School and graduated in 1948". Source only notes that Collins was a St. Albans alumnus.
    • First Man page 345 has the rest of the information. The citation location is halfway through the next sentence. Kees08 (Talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
      Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • External links
  • All links to sources are working according to the external list checker tool
  • Formatting
  • Ref 55 appears to be in non-standard format, with link on page range
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 100 lacks retrieval date
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 101, 102 and 103 ditto
    Ditto Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 126: For consistency, "retrieved" rather than "accessed". I'm not sure of the value of this link
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 136 lacks retrieval date
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 145 ditto
    Ditto Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple of books in the list of references are out of alphabetic sequence: Carmichael and Shayler
    Re-sorted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The latest in my series of articles attempting to improve coverage of the Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital, Poitiers. After a recent A class review I am hopeful that it approaches FA standard, but no doubt it contains flaws and lacunae and all suggestions for improvement are welcome. Pinging the contributors to the ACR, who may be interested in re-commenting for FAC @Buidhe, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, AustralianRupert, and P. S. Burton: So lay on, and be damned he who first cries "Hold, enough". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Lacey: Robert Lacey wrote a series of books under the umbrella title of Great Tales from English History. You need to specify which particular volume this source refers to, and also to provide an ISBN.
  • In general, the sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. There are no formatting issues.

Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton, thank you for looking at the sources. Lacey: he did indeed. However, the 2008 the Folio Society edition consists of a selection from the three previous volumes, and so is not part of the series. It has no fuller nor more complete title, nor volume number. Nor does it have an ISBN; strange, but true. In support I offer the WorldCat entry with the note at the bottom "Selections from the work of the same title originally published in three volumes: London: Little, Brown, 2003-2006", and offering an OCLC, but no ISBN. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by PM[edit]

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, and I consider it meets all the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Adding as I go... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

  • both weak and disorganised.— Do you need "both"?
IMO yes. It adds a little emphasis to just how weak and disorganised the defences were, while deleting "both" makes it seem that one of the words is redundant. I will remove it if you prefer.
As long as you've thought about it, I'm fine with whatever you decide Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 160 miles (260 kilometres)... Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres (110,000,000 US quarts) So much wrong here. The first conversion is Imperial to metric, second is metric to US. Also, I'd query why US quart is more relevant to this article than the English quart? Also, what's wrong with using "millions" in your conversions instead of strings of zeroes?. Finally, unless the US spelling is different, it should be "cargoes". Incidentally, Battle of Bergerac has the same problems in an identical sentence.
As do three other FAs. I think that this sentence has been picked up in every ACR and FAC, or maybe it just feels like it. I have tended to go with the latest suggestion each time, and there is a TPW who keeps them consistent and/or how they prefer them.
  • I'd suggest for the volume {{convert|100|l|impgal|abbr=off|order=flip|disp=preunit|million }}, which gives 22 million imperial gallons (100 million litres) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I am honestly not that bothered. I do wish that the various reviewers were consistent, but I realise that this is Wikipedia. I count my blessings that I only get one opinion per review. I have a preference for all the zeros, as a way of preventing, possibly, a reader from glossing over how humongous a figure this was for the time. I think that I started with gallons, or maybe pints, converted to litres. What would you think of a three way conversion? (PS Three of my five paper dictionaries accept "cargos" as a British English plaural; I can't find an on line one that doesn't. That said, I am happy to go with 'cargoes' and will amend the other FAs accordingly.)
If you prefer the zeroes, that's fine with me, it's just a personal style preference, not a "must do". For the wine, the key thing is that the order must be imperial->metric, to be consistent with the other conversions. I suppose you could have a three-way conversion, although I wouldn't bother, myself. Chambers has "cargoes", but if you can justify the alternative spelling, obviously you can use it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the Bergerac article, since that's through FAC. If you prefer the strings of zeroes in that article, you can just remove the last two parameters Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It had sailed but never landed, after the fleet was scattered in a storm.— perhaps better as The fleet had sailed, but was scattered in a storm and never reached its destination
Hmm. Yes, It doesn't work how it is. How about "It embarked on the English fleet, but the ships were scattered in a storm." (The never landed, never arrived bits are probably redundant.)
Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimfbleak, thanks for looking at this. Resonses to your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't really see any issues in the rest of the text, so I'll change to support above, on the assumption that the conversion order will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Constantine 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most (and virtually the last) capable Abbasid caliphs, and definitely an interesting figure: passionate about "women and buildings", known for his cruel and ingenious punishments and fiscal stringency, and the greatest Abbasid warrior-caliph. During his decade-long rule, by virtue of constant campaigning and adroit diplomacy he managed to stabilize the state and restore many lost territories. His reign also saw the culmination of the dominance of the Turkish military, but strangely also the start of the emergence to power of the secretarial bureaucracy. During his reign (and that of al-Muktafi, which was essentially a coda to al-Mu'tadid's) the Abbasids were truly for the last time an imperial power to be reckoned with. I've worked on this article on and off since 2013, gathering material from many sources. It passed the MILHIST ACR back in 2016, and has seen various mostly minor additions and copyedits (lately a GOCE copyedit by User:Gog the Mild) since. I am confident that the article is fairly comprehensive, but any suggestions for further improvement are, of course, welcome. Constantine 18:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest bumping up all maps to at least 1.3
  • File:Iraq_Ninth_Century.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Quality and reliability
  • The sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Verification
  • A sample of spotchecks reveals no evident problems of verification or close paraphrasing
  • Formatting
  • Is there a reason for the capitalization of Brill in the list of sources (Kennedy 2003, Sobernheim and Zetterstéen)? Otherwise the formatting is uniform and consistent.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Brill, IIRC, I had found this capitalized when I first started using these sources, and copied it over to the various articles after. Changed now. Constantine 10:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • One of the maps lacks alt text.
  • External links and the other standard FAC checks are fine.
  • There are no duplicate links.
  • I copy edited this for GoCE, which needed very little doing.
  • While copy editing I brought up several non-copy edit issues on the talk page, all of which have been satisfactorily addressed.

So, for me, the article is one alt text away from a support.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, rather embarrassing, that. Fixed. Constantine 10:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have done similar. And that was all I could find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Kim Clijsters[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Kim Clijsters, the first Belgian tennis player to hold the world No. 1 ranking. Active from 1997–2012, Clijsters has been ranked as the 14th greatest women's tennis player in the Open Era. She is perhaps most famous for retiring at the age of 23, only to come back and become one of the few players to win a Grand Slam singles title as a mother.

I have re-written the entire article over the past six months, and it has passed its GA review. I have written eight other GAs for the Tennis WikiProject, but this is the one I have spent the most time on. There are two other tennis FAs (Milos Raonic and the 1877 Wimbledon Championship). If promoted, the article would be just the eighth Women's sport biography FA, the first since 2014, and by far the most notable of the group. I am hoping to have this article ready to be a TFA by June 8th, and I recognize the window for that opportunity is closing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Comments from Hmlarson

  • This is a very good article. It is really well-written and sourced. Nice work! Here are a few initial comments. I'll add some more as I go along.
  • "Clijsters is a former world No. 1 in both singles and doubles..." Consider changing to something like: Clijsters ranked No.1 in the world in singles from ____ to ____ and doubles from _____ to _____, if possible.
    • This won't work because she had four brief separate reigns at No. 1 across three non-consecutive years. Nonetheless, I added in the next paragraph that she first became No. 1 in 2003, and the third paragraph already mentions she becomes No. 1 again in 2011.
  • "Clijsters played in an era where her primary rivals..." Consider changing to something like: Clisjsters competed professionally from ____ to ___ in an era where her primary rivals...
    • I added the years.
  • "Born to athletic parents with backgrounds in professional football and gymnastics, Clijsters was renowned for her own athleticism." Consider removing the first part of the sentence before the comma in the lead and "her own". It detracts from her accomplishments + is really more supporting info (not primary).
    • I agree. I split this sentence into two to separate each point, and removed "own".
Other work
Coaching + Broadcasting career
  • Her coaching and broadcasting careers seems worthy of inclusion for future expansion: ref 1 ref 2 ref 3 ref 4
    • I added both of these into her "Personal life" section.
Nonprofit Ten4Kim
  • Consider for inclusion.

ref 1 ref 2

  • I added this as well as SOS into her "Personal life" section.
  • Her website says she is an entrepreneur. Is that related to her tennis school in Belgium? ref 1
    • I think so, I can't think of anything else.
  • Consider bolding the subheaders.
    • Good idea. Done.
  • Link 2010 US Open in this section and image captions
  • Link 2002 US Open in this section
  • Link 2005 US Open in this section and image caption
    • Done.
Personal life
  • Link 2011 Australian Open
    • Done.

Hmlarson (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Figureskatingfan


Very well-done and thorough article about an important figure in women's tennis. I'm not at all familiar with tennis, so I'm sure I'm missing some of the nuances, but I was able to come up with a few picky points.

  • Clijsters had a historic season in 2003. The word "historic" feels pidgeony to me. I suggest that you find a source that expresses the same or a similar sentiment, and if not, that you remove it.
    • I changed it to "annus mirabilis", the term used in the book.
Hopman Cup
  • Is it necessary to explain how this tournament is run? You don't make similar explanations for other tournaments like Wimbledon. If we can click on the link to find that information about Wimbledon, we can do the same for the Hopman Cup, right?
    • I wanted to explain the format because as a team competition, it's relatively complicated compared to the individual tournaments. I wouldn't expect even a regular tennis fan to be familiar with it, and I feel like you need to understand the format for the next paragraph to make any sense. I don't explain individual tournaments because aside they all have the same standard bracket format, which is also much simpler.
Clijsters vs. Henin
  • Clijsters's biggest rival was Justine Henin, who grew up in the French-speaking part of Belgium. They have been regarded as having little in common except their nationality and their relationship has varied over time. I don't see either statement directly supported by ref 172. Of course, they can be inferred by the SMH article, but I'm not sure that's enough for a FA. I suggest changing the wording to better reflect the SMH source, or any other that discusses the rivalry.
    • I'm taking the first part of the second sentence from "despite the fact the Belgians are indivisible in the public estimation in their homeland, sometimes it seems that all they have in common is their nationality." Was that what you were concerned about?

Nice job! I'm ready to support when the above points are addressed, or when you explain why they shouldn't change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Quality and reliability: The article is amply referenced, using a mixture of local and national news reports, on and offline magazine articles, some dedicated tennis websites, and major broadcasters such as BBC and CNN. Overall the mix is much what I would expect to find in a major tennis article, and in my view meets the required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Verification: Spotchecks – I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification and close paraphrasing. Mostly these checked out, but a few raise minor issues:
  • Ref 15 - ARTICLE: "She won two junior Grand Slam doubles titles, the French Open with Jelena Dokic and the US Open with Eva Dyrberg". SOURCE: The US Open victory with Dyrberg is not mentioned in the source
  • I added the source from the next sentence to this one as well.
  • Ref 102 - ARTICLE: "Clijsters entered 2007 intending to retire at the end of the season, but only played in five tournaments due to injuries." SOURCE: No mention of restricting her appearances to five, or of other factors that limited her appearances, e.g. marriage.
  • I moved the source to clarify it is just for the first part of the sentence, added the book source to the end of the sentence, and re-worded the second part to clarify that she only ended up playing five tournaments (which wasn't her plan).
  • Ref 142 - ARTICLE: "She needed to retire from a fourth round match at the Indian Wells Open due to a shoulder injury. Then, as a result of a right ankle injury suffered while dancing at a wedding in April, the French Open was the only clay court event she entered. At the second Grand Slam tournament of the year, she was upset in the second round by No. 114 Arantxa Rus after failing to convert two match points in the second set." SOURCE: The information relating to Indian Wells is not covered in the source.
  • Added the book as a source.
  • External links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool.
  • Formatting: A few issues:
  • There is a general issue around italicisation of organisations such as ESPN, CNN, CBC, ABC, Reuters and BBC (there may be others). You have used the parameter "website=" in the template, but these organisations are not websites, they are the publishers of the website and should not be in italics. In such cases use the parameter "publisher=", which will automatically de-italicise.
  • Fixed these instances, as well as others (ITF Tennis, WTA Tennis, Australian Open, US Open, International Tennis Hall of Fame, etc.). I believe I understand the difference now.
  • Some of the New York Times articles are only available on subscription. You need to check these and where appropriate add the (subscription required) template.
  • I didn't need a subscription to access any of them (since they give you 5 free articles per month). Should I tag all of them anyway?
  • Ref 10: state tha the source language is French
  • Added.
  • Ref 81: you should clarify that the publication is the New York Sun, not to be confused with the British tabloid.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 214 Bodo 2010 lacks page reference. What is the significance of the added date?
  • The chapters in the book are each denoted with a different date. Nonetheless, I replaced the date with the number of the chapter.
  • Ref 246: source article title missing
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 249: What does "bekroningen" signify?
  • It means "awards", and it's a list of awards in the appendix. I replaced it with "appendix" instead.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

1257 Samalas eruption[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a large, recently discovered volcanic eruption in Indonesia that took place in 1257. Actually, the existence of this eruption was known since the 1980s-1990s when traces of a large volcanic event - one of the largest in the last 10,000 years - were discovered in ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica but only in 2013 did a group of researchers specifically link it to the Rinjani volcano, thanks to historical records which also give the name Samalas. This eruption is considered to be responsible both for short term climate change and also potentially for the onset of the Little Ice Age - the latter point especially has gained it a lot of attention in the research community and the popular press. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Two postscripts:
  • While not part of the FAC proper, there is an extensive discussion on the talk page about sources and content that reviewers might be interested in.
  • I realize that we don't like weasel words, but there ain't a clear cut scientific consensus that 1257 Samalas eruption caused the Little Ice Age. Yes, the idea has strong support in the sources I've seen but it's not (yet) as widely agreed upon as, say, "present-day global warming is man-made". Hence why I formulated it as a "it is possible" statement.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I’m not keen on red links in the lead. Not a big deal, but perhaps a one-sentence stub for these implicitly notable topics would be worthwhile?
Maybe, but I am not too keen of microstubs especially since it's not technically a FAC requirement as far as I know. Anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t think we link countries now, especially as you haven’t been consistent on this; looks a bit Eurocentric as it is.
Took out the links except for the Indonesia link as the volcano is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ''occurred at Mount Samalas thanks to historical records — comma after Samalas
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • before 12,000 BP.— “earlier than “ might be better to avoid the implicit repay of “before”
I dunno, "earlier than" sounds a little odd in this context. As if it emphasized the "earlier" aspect too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The eruption column reached a height of 39–40 kilometres (24–25 mi) during the first stage (P1),[27] and of 43–38 kilometres (27–24 mi)— I assume there’s a reason why you have reversed the normal order in the second part, but if so it’s not clear to this reader
Nah, that was unneeded. Ordered again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Franck Lavigne— who he? Nationality and profession would help since there’s no article linked
Can't find an explanation on a brief search; I'll see later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Samalas and climate—I'd try to avoid having part of the article title in the heading
Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • chlorine monoxide and bromine monoxide.— Your source doesn’t mention the oxides, which I would have thought to have only a transient presence anyway
It does mention them in the form of their formulas - ClO and BrO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You are right, but those aren't the formulas of the monoxides which are Cl2O and Br2O, what the source has is unstable free radicals ClO and BrO, so you should use those instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
My bad, you are correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "violets" should surely link to Viola (plant)? The others don't make sense
Maybe, but the source does not specify. You sure it can be only this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's actually most likely to be Viola arvensis, so the genus is actually playing safe to my mind. In my nature reserve and bird articles I'm often faced with a similar situation, but there is usually an obvious species or genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • atlantic meridional overturning circulation—cap Atlantic
Capped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mirror of the East—perhaps give Japanese name too?
Removed the English one as it doesn't seem to be that important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Addressed the other two pending problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking again, the chlorine query was my misreading, and I think the Lavigne/Viola queries I can leave with you, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Stevey7788[edit]

  • "CLIMATIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTION OF 1258" is in all caps. Change to lowercase and capitalize only as needed.
  • "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died. — Javanese text, [64]" Which Javanese text? Please be more specific.
  • A bit too many red links. Consider fixing those, although I am aware that Wikipedia has a notable dearth of content on Indonesian manuscripts and historical kingdoms.
  • Overall, impressive and well cited. Good article but not quite yet a featured article yet due to various little things here and there. Some more tweaking and you might have a featured article.

Stevey7788 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stevey7788:Thanks for the comments. I did fix the caps issue and also the "Javanese text" bit. I cannot really fix many of the redlinks mostly owing to lack of information; sources on some of these topics are often sparse and/or in Bahasa Indonesia. I take that even so there are more things to tweak? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you read Bahasa Indonesia? I can help out if you need any assistance. Also, try digging up some old resources from collections in Leiden and Canberra if you can. Jakarta does have some things, but unfortunately most of the good Indonesian stuff is actually abroad. I've gone book hunting in Indonesia before, which is really frustrating because it's just not a very bibliophilic society. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stevey7788: Unfortunately, no. I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia and are nowhere close to Canberra or Leiden for my free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources working satisfactorily
  • A few minor presentational points:
  • Ref 64: pp range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Retrieval dates should be formatted consistently – compare refs 2 and 63 with others
  • Alloway et al is listed out of alphabetical sequence.

The sources appear to be of the appropriate high standards of quality and reliability, and except for the minor issues noted above are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Seems like I got all these done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support per my extensive peer review comments. ceranthor 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Norfolk, Virginia, Bicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that had to be authorized twice, due to some misunderstandings in Congress. Passed through influence, twice, and an impressively cluttered design.Wehwalt (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Support. I longed to find something to object to, chiefly from umbrage at the American appropriation of the name of Norfolk, but all I can conscientiously quibble about is the big mass of info box and quote box one on top of the other. If a less costive layout can be found it will make the page look more appealing. And I'd link "dogwood", which may be a common term in the US but is not known in these parts. But as to the content, it is a good read (a nice chuckle at the administrative cock-up, elegantly outlined), well and widely sourced, suitably illustrated and, as far as this layman can tell, comprehensive. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 18:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I"ve linked as requested and moved the quote box down. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, just a couple of quibbles you could address Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The bill was reported back to the Senate by Alva Adams of Colorado on June 20, with a report. — second report seems redundant and repetitive
  • It was initially hoped that the initial billinitially... initial is clunky
  • two spouses— unless they were Mormons, "two" seems redundant
Changed to a married couple. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks done
  • Refs 7, 8 and 16 all link to a login page, so a subscription template or similar is required (as given in ref 6)
  • Page range formats should be consistent - compare 23, 24 & 26 with 30. I believe that the ref 30 format now carries MoS approval
Changed to match ref 30.

Subject to these minor issues, sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability, and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged for the review, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


Support by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • The only nit that I can find is in this sentence: In 1736, Norfolk was granted a charter as a royal borough by George II, and in 1753 the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie presented Norfolk with a ceremonial mace, making Norfolk the only American city to have a mace from colonial times. The "in 1753" should be set off by commas at the very least although I think that it would be better placed after "mace".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I've moved it as suggested, eliminating the need for more commas. Thank you for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Irakli Tsereteli[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Irakli Tsereteli was a Georgian politician active in revolutionary Russia, and arguably the most important figure in the Petrograd Soviet until the Bolsheviks took over. Now largely forgotten, he played a major role in leading the Soviet and giving it power within the Russian government. The article was nominated once before several months ago, but failed due to lack of reviews. I'm hoping this time we can resolve that. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks, he returned to Georgia. Tsereteli worked as a diplomat at the Paris Peace Conference, where he lobbied for international recognition and assistance for the newly independent Democratic Republic of Georgia, which largely failed to materialize before the Red Army invaded in 1921. - could you split that, or reword it somehow? It's a lot for once sentence.
Used a semi-colon, is that enough you think?
  • In 1915, during his Siberian exile, he formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism, and developed "Revolutionary Defensism", the concept of a defensive war, which Tsereteli argued was not being conducted at the time. - these are two different thoughts. You should split them into two. For the first, I suggest starting with, "During his 1915 Siberian exile, Tsereteli formed what became known as Siberian Zimmerwaldism". Here, I would explain what this term is to benefit the reader. For the second half, the "was not being conducted at the time" is a bit confusing. Could you try rewording that a bit?
Tried to re-word this, but I'm a little uncertain and feel it can be made better. Let me know what you think.
Much better! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "at his family's estate in Gorisa;[3] From a young age" - not to be pedantic (but that's what FAC is for), but if you're using a semicolon, then "from" shouldn't be capitalized.
Thanks. Pedantry is definitely welcome and encouraged.
Much appreciated lol ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "he was one of two students given a sentence of five years' exile in Siberia, the longest sentence given." - I'm confused by "longest sentence given." Longest among two people? Among students in general? Longest possible sentence?
  • and considering "its acceptance as being in conflict with [his] views" - was this quote by Tsereteli? Or his biographer?
Clarified Tsereteli himself wrote it. It's unclear who he wrote it too, otherwise I'd add that.
  • "After declining the offer to return to Georgia, Tsereteli was sent to the village of Tulun, roughly 400 kilometres from Irkutsk, arriving in early 1902." - make sure you have imperial units for American folks. The sentence could be stronger, something like - "Tsereteli arrived in the village of Tulun in early 1902, located about 400 kilometres (250 miles) from Irkutsk, Siberia's administrative center."
  • "On his release from prison Tsereteli returned to Georgia" - so the Siberian bit, he was in jail? I was confused because he was permitted to move to Irkutsk, and prisoners don't usually have a say.
Exile in Tsarist Russia was a little unusual like that: prisoners in Siberia were not jailed per se, and as a result escapes were quite common (Stalin, for example, was exiled and escaped multiple times in his younger years). I've changed the word "jail" to "exile" so hopefully it makes it slightly clearer.
Thanks, I had a feeling that was the case. It's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Suffering from a form of haemophilia, Tsereteli became seriously ill in the autumn of 1905, but was unable to quickly return home as the 1905 Revolution broke out in the Russian Empire.[20] It was only in May 1906 that he returned to Georgia." - so did he not go home because of his illness or because of the revolution? Given the next paragraph, I'm guessing the illness?
Tried to clarify that: he was supposed to go home for rest, but the revolution got in the way.
  • After you quote the first speech, you should end it with a period and continue. Also, the "or indeed anything" felt a bit unencyclopediac.
That is a mistake on the article, which I've fixed. Thanks for noticing that.
  • "Stolypin grew increasingly tired of the opposition from the Social Democrats, and feared that his reforms would not be passed" - I had to read this a few times before I realized you weren't talking about the subject of this article. Perhaps put this in the previous section? It feels out of place almost.
Moved this sentence and the next one to the previous section, as they kind of flow well together.
  • "A conspiracy was created implicating the Social Democrats with trying to overthrow the government" - given that there is a link to the coup, could you maybe reword this to be more specific? Such as, "In June 1907..." I don't know what happened after because I'm only reading the article for the first time, and I was confused by the wording. Be more specific with what happened.
This I will have to get back on. I can't recall the specifics of it, and will have to read up on it to best summarize it for here. Give me a couple days to do so.
Thanks, that's the only part that's still giving me a bit of trouble. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I tried to re-word it, but as the alleged conspiracy was less important than the actual arrest, I don't want to place too much emphasis on it here. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Duma was dissolved on 2 June 1907 and shortly after midnight on 3 June several of the Social Democrats were arrested, including Tsereteli." - using active voice instead of passive voice would make this whole section clearer.
I think I fixed this, but I'm not sure.
  • "Tsereteli also engaged in discussion with other Social Democrats in the Irkutsk region on his views towards the war, and like them would have them published in a journal – Siberian Journal (Сибирский Журнал, in Russian), later replaced by the Siberian Review (Сибирское Обозрение) – that he edited" - the "like them" part threw me, as well as "that he edited", thrown at the very end. Could you try rewording it?
Re-worded, hope that makes it clearer.
It's better. I think it could still be split up more into separate sentences, but I'm not gonna harp on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Through his editorship of the journals, Tsereteli both became a mentor to other Siberian Zimmerwaldists and influenced the group's stance on the war, even though he only wrote three articles over the course of the war, making it difficult to fully determine his position." - the ending kinda threw me off. Is there any way you could word it to be a bit more definitive?
Re-wrote, any better?
Much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • " Tsereteli was appointed to the Soviet on 21 in an advisory role" - when?
Sorry, seem to be missing a "March" there. Fixed.
I miss words or do double words all the time, no worries :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Anything about Tsereteli's time as a lawyer?
Unfortunately not. The main source of his life is sub-titled "A Political Biography," and really holds up to that, and no one else really wrote about him.
Limitations of the time, completely understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There's not much from 1932 to 1948. What did he do then?
As noted, there isn't anything out there I'm aware of on this era in his life. Even his own memoirs focus on 1917, which is a shame.

The article is in pretty good shape. I'm sorry the article failed before due to lack of comments. I hope you don't find my comments too burdensome. I happened upon this FAC while I was working on an FAC of my own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for looking over it in such detail, definitely not budensome. Glad to have someone not familiar with the topic look it over, always helps to clarify things I would take for granted. And certainly will take a look at your FAC when I have some time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
As someone who writes about historical, often forgotten subjects, I'm glad to be detailed in my review. I thank you for your quick replies. I'll support when you clear up the bit about the coup, as it's a well-written article, and I learned a lot about the Russian Revolution through this one figure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your hard work on the article. Supporting now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks not carried out (I have no access to these sources)
  • The article appears to be widely researched, and the sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability
  • A couple of minor presentational points:
  • Ref 110: page range format is not consisitent
  • In the bibliography, Trotsky is out of alphabetical sequence

Otherwise, sourcing information is impeccably presented. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over. I do believer most of the sources here are (or were at one point) available through Google Books, though I also kept to largely prominent scholars (most of them have their own articles here, for what it's worth). Kaiser matias (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

It is not clear whether the article is meant to be in BrEng or AmerEng. At present we have the English spellings centre, defence, favourable, haemophilia, kilometres, organisations, publicised and travelled and the American center, criticized, defense, and (weirdly) maneuvered. We also have disinterest, which doesn't mean what I think you think it means, and attitute, which doesn't mean anything. I hope to look in again with more substantive comments shortly, but I hope these few orthographical points are of some use. Tim riley talk 00:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You're seeing the result of a Canadian trying to use British variations, and apparently not doing so good. I will admit I don't quite get what you mean in referring to "maneuvered" (is there a British version of it I'm unaware of), or your reference to "disinterest" (a lack of involvement, which fits with Tsereteli's reaction to religion). If there's any other egregious issues please let me know, and I'll certainly give it another pass myself. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
BrE users follow the French spelling "manoeuvre" (though rarely using that strange French diphthong, as in "manœuvre"). The OED confirms that "maneuver" is "North American", so if that's your preferred form of spelling for the whole article, that's fine, but you'll want to be consistent throughout. "Disinterested" doesn't mean "not involved with" but means being impartial. One wants one's efforts to be judged by disinterested judges but not by uninterested ones. Tim riley talk 18:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanations, I was unaware of those and am glad for the advice. I've changed the wording in both cases to avoid any issues. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Irakly_Tsereteli.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:TsetereliFotografíasCárcelDeMetejiTiflis1904_(retouched).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Without looking further yet, I believe they may have first came out in his memoirs, which was published in 1963 in France. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
If that was the first publication, that will present a problem with regards to the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. I'll take a look at the book and see what can be done. As they are both nominally government-produced, I should be able to find earlier publication dates for them. Just need a couple days to get to the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:: I was incorrect, and both are from the Roobol book. They are cited within as published in 1917 (lead) and 1904 (mugshot). Thoughts on how to proceed? Kaiser matias (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
What specifically is said about their provenance in that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The first one says: "Tsereteli as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. From a picture photograph." The next: "Tsereteli in the Metekhi prison in Tiflis in 1904." Kaiser matias (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay, that doesn't mean they were published on those dates though. Is the Roobol book the earliest publication we can find for both? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
(outdent) At the moment, yes. The originals would be at the Hoover Institution archives at Stanford University; however that is currently closed to access for at least another year. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately without more information we'd have to assume these are still under copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. I'll remove them for now, and keep working on confirming their status. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Midnightblueowl[edit]

  • This sentence is currently in the lede paragraph: "He was born and brought up in Georgia when it was part of the Russian Empire,". At the very least it needs to have the comma changed to a full stop, but I would recommend moving this to the start of the second paragraph anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "leading position with the Petrograd Soviet" - perhaps "leading position in the Petrograd Soviet"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "After the October Revolution and rise of the Bolsheviks," - I think that this wording maybe relies on a little too much prior knowledge on behalf of the reader. Perhaps something more explicit, along the lines of "After the Bolsheviks seized power of the Russian government during the October Revolution"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "before the Red Army invaded in 1921." Maybe "before the Russian Red Army invaded in 1921."? Just so the reader is aware who the Red Army were. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I added the qualifier "Bolshvevik-led" in front, just because it wasn't really exclusively the "Russian" Red Army. Hope that works.
  • I would recommend pursuing a more integrated chronological approach in the lead. We mention his death at the end of the second paragraph and then start talking about further thing which he did during his life in the third. That feels a little confused, to me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Reorganised it to be more chronological, hopefully it makes more sense now.
  • "a leading Social-Democratic spokesman". I think the leader could be clearer about his specific party membership and ideological bent here, particularly as "Social-Democratic" can have various different meanings. I would recommend something like "Ideologically a socialist, he was a leading spokesman for the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party during the era of the Russian Revolutions." That would be much clearer and less ambiguous for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Added the link to the parties, including the Georgian one, as he was quite prominent there, too.
Thanks for going over it, if there's anything else please let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

All Money Is Legal[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above article is about American rapper Amil's debut studio album. For those unfamiliar with Amil, she rose to prominence in 1999 and 2000 as a protégé of Jay-Z and the "First Lady" of his record label Roc-A-Fella. A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal includes songs about wealth and Amil's personal life. The singles – "I Got That" with vocals from Beyoncé and "4 da Fam" with verses from Jay-Z, Memphis Bleek, and Beanie Sigel – were released in 2000 to promote the album. All Money Is Legal peaked at number 45 on the US Billboard 200 chart, and received a mixed response from critics. Following the album's release, Amil took a hiatus from music and was subsequently removed from Roc-A-Fella.

I believe that the article fulfills the criteria for a featured article, but I would be more than happy to receive suggestions/recommendations for further improvement. This article and FAC is part of my work on more obscure subject matters, and I hope that it inspires others to look into more obscure articles. In the beginning of last year, I received very helpful suggestions during its first FAC. I am pinging the reviewers from the first FAC (@Nikkimaria:, @Yashthepunisher:, @Numerounovedant:, @Ssven2:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Ceranthor:, @J Milburn:), but please do not feel obligated to respond. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

There are some new files compared to my last review:

  • Amil's singing voice was commented on by critics (who are both cited in the sample's caption) so I believe that justifies the audio sample's inclusion. However, if you believe it is not necessary, then I will remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Beyonce.jpg: Use seems OK, lack of EXIF data is a little worrisome but it was kept on Commons, so.

OK-ish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have commented on the use of the audio sample and the Beyoncé image. I would greatly appreciate any input, particularly on the audio caption part, as I greatly appreciate your recommendations. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments/support from Ceranthor[edit]

Will post any suggestions by tomorrow. ceranthor 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal focuses on wealth and Amil's personal life. Some commentators wrote that she adopts a gold digger persona for the music." - The second sentence seems out of place in the transition to the third sentence
  • Moved the sentence down. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for all of the album's tracks." - What does "developed" mean here? Seems a bit different from writing
  • I used "developed" to avoid repeating writing in the same sentence, but I agree that it is far too ambiguous in this context. I have just revised it to "wrote". Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Roc-A-Fella dropped Amil when she took a musical hiatus following the album's release." - nitpick, but I'd add the year to give a sense of how fast it was
  • Good point. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ",[4] and received the nicknames, the Diana Ross and the First Lady of Roc-A-Fella.[5]" - don't need the comma before [4] and I think it's actually a bit disruptive to the flow of the sentence as is
  • Agreed. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, he stopped after the two women frequently fought on tour.[8]" - stopped what? unclear
  • "Prior to the release of debut album," - missing "her"?
  • "The second song "I Got That" features Beyoncé as part of its chorus, and encourages women to become more independent.[21] ' - I'd take out the comma before "and encourages"
  • "and raps about the shame of shame for going "from Gucci sandals back to no-name brands" on "Anyday".[22]" - extra words here?
  • Revised. Apologies for that silly mistake >< Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella following the album's release.[4] " - Again an explicit year would be nice

Nice work here. ceranthor 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Sometimes I go a little too comma crazy lol. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I either missed anything or you notice something new that needs to be addressed. Have a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt responses. Everything looks good; the restructured lead looks especially great. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments/support from CluelessEditoroverhere[edit]

Taking a look. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I made some edits, I also recommend omitting commercially in that last para, but I know someone recommended it in the GA review that I looked at. Whatever's consensus. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and the edits. I agree that "commercially" is unnecessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't exactly what the italicized part of this sentence means. "...Amil began performing in New York City talent shows and rap over hip hop music by groups..." Need clarification. Thank you, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @CluelessEditoroverhere: Here is the full sentence from the source (Her earliest influences were classic rap groups, such as Run-D.M.C., who she would mimic and practice rapping over when she was young.). It means that Amil practiced rapping over/while listening to rap music. It is similar to how singers practice singing by listening to music by other artists and singing over it. Let me know if that clears that up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Oh. I think "rapping over music by rap groups" is more appropriate. Change made. Thanks, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support for 1a, 2a, and 2b. The article looks good. Nice work! CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you! And that looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I might do a source review. Just letting you know. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Feel free to look at the source review from the previous FAC, although new sources have been added to the article since that FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Damian Vo[edit]

  • Support — All good for me. Great job! Damian Vo (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Damian Vo: Just wanted to clarify that this is a support? Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry my bad :x Damian Vo (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It is all good. Sorry for the double message ><. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Figureskatingfan[edit]

  • Support — Although I know next to nothing about rap and absolutely nothing about Amil, this is a support, since the prose reads well and it looks like it checks off all the FA requirements. Keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Early life of Cleopatra[edit]

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the early life of the pharaoh Cleopatra. This is her story from her birth until she assumed power upon her father's death. Little is known about her early life compared to her reign, and in general little is known about the Ptolemaic rulers. Her mother's name is uncertain and it is thought that she accompanied her father into his exile, but this is also uncertain. With that said, this article tries to cover her early life. Векочел (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Have you consulted with User:PericlesofAthens before making this nomination? He did write 97% of this article. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I have not. I'll ask him if this can be nominated. Векочел (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Pericles says it's OK to continue with the nomination. Векочел (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Векочел: I just want to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that you need to ask for anyone's permission to start a nomination. My question had more to do with at least consult with Pericles if the article is ready for the process or even if it is suited for it. Some in-depth questions by reviewers can prove to be tricky to someone who does not know the article well. Like FunkMonk's meta question of why does this article even exist. Or more challenging questions about coverage and availability of sources. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why this needs to be a separate article to begin with? Much of the text seems to be identical to that in the Cleopatra article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @FunkMonk: this sub-article might superficially appear that way because it was a split article from the main Cleopatra one, the latter needing to be smaller for its own FA nomination (which was successful). However, Early life of Cleopatra contains a significant amount of detail not seen in the biography section of the main article (such as her father's political dealings with Rome), and follows a convention found in other articles at Wikipedia, such as Early life of Augustus. Whether or not you think this article is FA material, it earned and deserved its current GA status, as I put a lot of hard work into this and the other sub-articles about Cleopatra (including Death of Cleopatra, which is also now an FA article). Pericles of AthensTalk 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The nomination is perhaps a bit hasty; personally, I would have nominated my other GA article Reign of Cleopatra instead. However, I think this article's content is certainly FA material and I'm almost certain it thoroughly covers the topic of her rearing and childhood given how much more we know about her later life and career as queen of Ptolemaic Egypt. I'll leave that assessment up to you guys, but the one thing that would obviously hinder this article's nomination is its small size. Some might interpret that as an indication that it is incomplete or fails to show the entire picture, but really it's just a reflection of scholarly sources and the limitations of our knowledge about her due to ancient primary sources. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hey Pericles. I dont think the size matter. Its a comprehensive article and since I also have an interest in Hellenistic kings, I understand that sometimes we dont have much info about them. However, Im more concerned with the nominator's knowledge regarding the topic. If you would take the nomination, Im sure the reviews will be more meaningful since you are familiar with the historigraphy and the sources. I think the article wont have troubles passing if its writer is the nominator.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Attar-Aram syria, I have some knowledge on Cleopatra, and I have a few books about the queen to help me. Векочел (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello again, Attar-Aram syria! I'm pretty much retired from Wikipedia aside from doing small edits in the background. I actually had no plans on nominating any more articles for FA status. If others wish to do that, then that's fine, but only if they are fully prepared for this. Векочел, could you offer us a list of the sources you have available? Do you have any of the sources already cited in the article? It seems that someone made edits to the lead section at some point in time and introduced serious errors that I have just now fixed. There's no evidence Ptolemy XII Auletes traveled to Rome in exile with his entire family minus Berenice IV and Cleopatra V Tryphaena. The sources only say he did so with a daughter, and it's safe to say this was Cleopatra VII Philopator, not Arsinoe IV, the latter who doesn't seem to have had a close relationship with him. From what I've read, there's no evidence suggesting that her brothers Ptolemy XIII or Ptolemy XIV joined them either. For that, please see Joann Fletcher (2008: pp. 76–77, 80, 84–85) and also Duane W. Roller (2010: p. 22). Pericles of AthensTalk 15:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Pericles and Attar-Aram syria, I have Roller's Cleopatra, Fletcher's Cleopatra the Great, and Burstein's The Reign of Cleopatra. Векочел (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, cool! Those are incredibly important, critical I would say for continuing this FA candidacy, since they make up a majority of citations. If you have those, then I think you'll be more than able to handle this nomination. That said, I would suggest trying to get a hold of Günther Hölbl's A History of the Ptolemaic Empire (2001) and Michael Grant's Cleopatra (1972). Best of luck, Векочел! If you need any help with any problems that may arise here, just leave a message on my talk page. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I cant help but doubting that Векочел read those sources. Pericles, can you take a look at this, so you can know why I think that Векочел is nominating this article for reasons not related to improving the content of Wiki.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Attar-Aram syria: thanks for sharing. In that instance, yes, it does not look like he consulted any sources, and this was just several days ago. I can't read anyone's mind through my computer, so I can't say for certain that Векочел has or has not consulted any of the academic works mentioned above. Векочел, would you mind offering an explanation about this and how you plan on conducting this FA nomination by addressing all of these concerns? Also, could you provide us with some excerpts of the sources you've listed? I think that would put reviewers at ease and would also demonstrate that you are ready to tackle this subject. Pericles of AthensTalk 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I will give you excerpts from the sources.
  • "Octavian used his divine connections to become 'divi filius', 'the son of a god', albeit by adoption" Fletcher, p. 222
  • "This autograph of Cleopatra VII certainly is one of the more exciting discoveries of recent years" Roller, p. 134
  • "Cleopatra won Antony's recognition of Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene as his children" Burstein, p. 24

I would also appreciate your help, Pericles. You were, of course, the main contributor to this article. Векочел (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Векочел: Very good. Thanks for providing those excerpts. You can count on my assistance with the FA nomination should you need it. Just leave a message on my talk page if and when that need arises! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Marchioness disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

For those who remember it, the Marchioness disaster was a shocking occurrence. 51 people died after a large dredger ran over a night-time pleasure boat hosting a birthday party. After such a loss, the victims' families were treated shoddily by a stony-hearted bureaucracy: requests for an inquiry were denied; the hands were needlessly removed from the bodies; families were denied access to the remains; compensation was derisory. It took eleven years for decency to prevail in the form of an in-depth inquiry with far-reaching recommendations. It's the thirtieth anniversary of the tragedy this August, and time we ensured the article is the best it can be. – SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I do indeed remember it, with a shudder, and did not at all enjoy peer reviewing the article, but my few comments at the PR were duly dealt with, and I support the promotion of the article: it seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well and widely sourced, and meeting the FA criteria in every respect. Thank you, SchroCat, for bringing the article up to this level. Tim riley talk 17:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few items:

  • " The pleasure steamer Marchioness sank after being hit twice by the dredger Bowbelle, at about 1:46 am, between Cannon Street railway bridge and Southwark Bridge." I would consider cutting one or both commas.
  • " It took thirty seconds for Marchioness to sink; 24 bodies were later found within the ship when it was raised." I might cut "later". I think people understand that however long it took to raise, it was long enough for people to drown.
  • "some were former student friends" This reads a bit oddly. Were they no longer friends?
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that several of the hands had been removed from several of the bodies.[102]" I would cut the first instance of "several of" leaving "the hands ..." etc. I must admit it occurred to me to wonder how many hands the dead had to begin with, if several were removed.
  • "if he refused to hold the inquests, and he subsequently announced that they would go ahead.[105]
The resumed inquest " inquest or inquests?
  • "they stated that the agency "accepted that events which occurred in 1986 have no practical relevance on his current fitness".[123] The MCA also picked up on something that had been raised during the Clarke inquiry: that Henderson had forged certificates and testimonials of his service from 1985–1986. The MCA stated that they "deplored" the forgeries, which Henderson had used to gain his Master's Licence.[123]" These sentences seem to be in an odd order. I would expect, for example, the initial quote to come last.
Quite interesting. I hadn't known about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. Your points all covered - hopefully suitably! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Marchioness,_damaged_and_beached.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the subject, is historically significant - eg Tank Man. Also, possible to find a more reputable source confirming what this image depicts? That applies also to File:Damage_to_the_pleasure_cruiser_Marchioness.jpg
  • Tags now changed - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Marchioness_overview.png: image description should include sourcing for your additions. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Nikkimaria - I'm much obliged to you, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Supportfrom Nick-D[edit]

I remember this disaster being used as a key case study in an OH&S course I did (in Australia) about a decade ago, so it's an important topic to bring to FAC. I have the following comments:

  • "four of whom were crew or bar staff" - not sure about the "or" here as it suggests that the people sailing the ship were also running the bar, when the article later states that she had a crew of two and was also carrying two bar staff.
  • Can the "Marchioness" section go further into the ship's safety features, or the lack thereof? From my vague recollections of the training course, part of the problem was that she was not easy for passengers to exit and/or didn't carry enough life jackets.
  • I'd also suggest scaling up the map
  • "His senior in the department" - it seems better to use their title (perhaps after these words)
  • As the "Inquests and inquiries" section covers several investigations which took place over a lengthy period, I'd suggest splitting it into sub-sections. I'd suggest a sub-section for the flawed investigations in the 1980s and 1990s and one for the 1999-2000 inquiry which tried to set the record right. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nick. A couple I need to look some things up (and look closely at where to make the splits). Thanks very much for your other comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Nick. I've addressed your comments - hopefully satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I remember this too, and your article evokes it well. Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • She spent most of her life on the Thames etc —Doesn’t bother me, but I thought that we were supposed to refer to boats as “it” these days?
  • I thought so too, but I was pointed to WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, which says we’re ok as long as the use is consistent- SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • reconditioned to form an upper and lower saloon — sounds more like a rebuild than recondition
  • Now reworked (slightly delayed!) - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, was 31; he undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978 —odd stress to my ears, perhaps The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, aged 31, undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978?
  • "Second Mate" is capped, but not "captain" or "master"?
  • trimmed down —perhaps a gloss or link for we landlubbers?
  • Added a footnote, me hearty. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • six imperial pints —as in "I went down the rub-a-dub and necked six imperial pints"?. I’d prefer “six pints”, with a link to imperial pint
  • Done. (A problem with using the "convert" template, but I've bypassed that now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Merchant Shipping Act 1988—missing a preceding "the"?
  • English law provides no compensation for fatal accidents, other than for funeral expenses— Is it worth mentioning the Fatal Accidents Act 1976?
  • Yes. I'll be back with the sources tomorrow and I'll have a dig around for some info to add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Jim, I'm much obliged. I've done the straightforward stuff, and I'll be back with the sources tomorrow, when I'll work on the remaining three points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll leave the recondition bit as your call, otherwise no concerns so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Jim. I've tweaked the 'recondition' part to say the upper works were rebuilt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I participated in the peer review and made a few points there. I have since re-read the article and have a few more drafting points to suggest:

  • Lead: You should say who the "South Coast Shipping company" were. Also, the word "company" should be capitalised as part of the firm's title.
  • Lead final sentence: as written it appears that the increase in safety measures followed the 2000 report but I suspect there were more immediate measures taken in the aftermath of the disaster. Can you clarify?
  • re-worked slightly - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Background – Marchioness: "run-up" requires a hyphen (per O D of E)
  • Background – Bowbelle: Para 3 begins: "At the time of the collision..." – clarify that this is referring to the Marchioness disaster rather than to the collision referred to in the previous paragraph
  • Collision section – 0.00am to 07.00 am: "at 1:49 am they reported to TNS that:..." I would replace "they" with Bowbelle, and delete "that", as what follows is a verbatim quotation, not a summary or paraphrase. Do we not know who on Bowbelle radioed this message? It sounds as though it was the captain
  • Reworked to show it was the captain, and deleted "that". - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Inquests and inquiries - 1989 to 1997: It may be more accurate to say that the £6 million compensation was paid to the victims' families rather than to the victims. In the same section:
  • "liability to the crash" should be "liability for the crash" (although the words "for the crash" are largely redundant)
  • I would delete "by counsel for the organisation" as unnecessary detail and potentially confusing
  • "which meant that a full inquest would not take place in case it prejudiced any future trial". Suggest "could" rather than "would"
  • "four owners of Bowbelle": according to previous information Bowbelle was owned by East Coast Aggregates Limited, part of the larger RMC Group – I can't identify four owners
  • All the above in this section done - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that the hands had been removed from several of the bodies" - 25 is a lot more than several. And was it really three years before the families discovered this gruesome detail?
  • Yes. The families were not told at the time, and it only came out later. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Compensation: I may be missing a point somewhere, but if the companies behind Bowbelle and Marchioness agreed to pay up to £6 million in compensation, why was action in the civil courts necessary to obtain compensation? Also, the statement "In most cases, the families of the Marchioness victims received little more than the cost of the funeral" implies that a lot less than £6 million was paid out.
  • Info about the "without prejudice" nature of the offers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally this is a coherent account of a distressing event, and I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Brian: I'm much obliged for your thoughts and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Factotem[edit]

Some comments below with a few minor quibbles/observations, but I found nothing significant other than an unsourced sentence and an entry in the bibliography that need attention. The sources look to be of the necessary quality and reliability, and I saw nothing in a GBooks search to suggest that the article is not a comprehensive survey of available sources.


  • External links check: Obituary Eileen Dallaglio, Founder Marchioness Action Group (end of External links section), page not found
  • Last sentence in the Compensation section is unsourced.
  • This was added yesterday and I forgot to add the ref when I did it (big slap on the wrist!) Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
New book added to the bibliography checks out fine. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography (Books)

  • The details provided for The Maritime Engineering Reference Book: A Guide to Ship Design, Construction and Operation are from two different editions that have different paginations (bolding indicates information provided in the bibliography):
1. 902-page edition published in 2008 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8 (the Gbook link is to this edition);
2. 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0 Worldcat listing;
The difference in pagination might affect the page numbers in the refs, so I think this needs to be addressed;
  • How odd: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Less odd, now I look closer: the pre-tweaked version used the citation provided by when the Google book link was added, so the masterfile used by the reftag contains slightly duff info (only slightly duff as Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier, which explains part of the confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Not familiar with that tool, but just about every source review I've done has these kind of inconsistencies when both GBook link and ISBN numbers are provided. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Patrick Stephens, publisher of The Ships That Saved an Army: A Comprehensive Record of the 1,300 'Little Ships' of Dunkirk, appears to be located in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, according to Worldcat, not Sparkford, Somerset, as stated in the bibliography.

Bibliography (Journals)

  • doi link for Gibson's Toward an Intermediate Position on Corporate Moral Personhood is dead;
  • That works for me - can you try again? - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Obviously just a glitch. Fine now. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • FYI: There's an OCLC number (537997776) available for Ships Monthly according to Worldcat, though I don't believe it's a deal breaker if it's not specified in the bibliography;
  • FYI: Also an OCLC number (71257254) and an ISSN number (2329-3179) available for Shipping and Trade Law according to Worldcat, though again, not a major issue.
  • Both these now added - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography (News articles)

  • Cooper's Pleasure boat disaster on River Thames was a birthday voyage from celebration to tragedy is missing the publisher (Independent?);
  • Does Report calls for Thames Lookouts by the Guardian have no author info, or has that been mistakenly missed from the bibliography?
  • No by-line on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Just curious. Some news items have links but no page numbers (e.g. Ecott in the Guardian), most have page numbers but no links (e.g.Dyer in the Guardian). Any reason?
  • It depends on where they were found. Some of the articles pre-date the internet, so they are paper versions; some online articles don't make the newspaper. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Thought as much. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Factotem, I'm much obliged to you. I think I have covered all the necessary in this series of edits, but please let me know if I've missed any, or something else comes to mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome. All good now. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC), Oof-off (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Tropical Depression Nineteen-E, a tropical cyclone that caused significant flooding and several deaths throughout northwestern Mexico and several states in the Southern United States. I believe this article should be featured as it has complete coverage of the subject and is of a high enough quality. NoahTalk 03:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:19E 2018-09-19 1830Z.jpg - can we link to the source any better than a link to the homepage? A description of how to find it, if a direct link is not possible?
    Source added NoahTalk 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Nineteen-E 2018 track.png - I don't believe this can be dual-licensed like it is, since PD would always override CC 4.0 SA. You may want to get a second opinion, but if that is the case, you probably want to notify the uploader and have them select the appropriate license.
    Has been fixed. NoahTalk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:19E 2018-09-21 1950Z.jpg - same comment as first
    Added here as well NoahTalk 02:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ping me when the above is addressed thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 08:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Alright... I will address these on Saturday. NoahTalk 11:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: All images should be correct. NoahTalk 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Suppose this is for my own edification, but which satellites does the data come from, and are they all PD? My assumption is that it is PD. Kees08 (Talk) 03:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: The satellite for each image is shown on the base layer on the sidebar. Terra, Aqua, and Suomi NPP. The highest base layer active is the satellite data visible for said image. Also, the satellites are owned by NASA, so their data is PD. NoahTalk 03:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, should be all good to go on this then. Kees08 (Talk) 01:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Review by Hurricanehink[edit]

Support - great work on the article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • In the US section, it seems like you're trying to pad the prose a bit. It's just a bit on the superfluous side.
  • Tropical Depression Nineteen-E's remnant moisture also caused flooding in the U.S. states of Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas after picking up moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. - don't say "moisture" twice. People don't like that word.
    changed the second mention to something else. NoahTalk 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Where's New Mexico impact? If it affected Arizona and Texas, surely it also affected NM.
  • "To the north" - is this north of Thatcher, or of Arizona?
  • "A person who was walking near the Pantano Wash had to be rescued after being overcome by rising waters." - this could be tighter
  • "Near Silverbell, it was reported that 3 feet (0.91 m) of water was running over the intersection of two roads." - why do you have to mention that it was reported? Why not just say that two roads were flooded?
  • "Approximately 2 to 3 in (50.8 to 76.2 mm) of rain fell along Sahuarita Road" - this appears to be the highest rainfall in Arizona that you mentioned, so this should probably be mentioned sooner. Could you give a location other than some random road?
  • "It was also reported that 1.56 in (39.6 mm) of rain fell in Tucson." - how come you mention this specific rainfall total?
  • "saw rainfall totals of up to 18 in (457 mm)." - the "up to" is what I'm not a fan of. You mention in the infobox the specific highest rainfall total in Oklahoma, which is more useful to the reader than "up to 18 in", which is a fuzzy number that isn't real.
    Fixed most of the mistakes you pointed out, the New Mexico impact I will try to work on ASAP. Oof-off (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
    were just under 16 in (406 mm). - I'm still not a fan of this. Could you just state what the highest rainfall total in Oklahoma was? Then I'll be glad to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Hurricanehink: Fixed. NoahTalk 22:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the article at FAC, and I think it could pass without too much effort. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Hurricanehink: I added what little I could find for New Mexico. The only thing NWS has for damages is a fallen tree. Minimal rainfall also occurred. NoahTalk 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 10: should give language (Spanish)
  • Ref 11: the title is given in English translation rather than the Spanish original. Any reason?
  • Ref 26: should give language (Spanish)
  • Ref 45: returns "site not available" message
  • Ref 47: ditto
  • Ref 48: returns "access denied" message

Otherwise, sources appear to be of the appropriate quality and reliability and are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Ref 10 Changed to an entirely different format NoahTalk 03:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 has been fixed
  • Ref 26 already had the language marked
  • Refs 45, 47-48 I don't know why you are unable to access the websites. I was able to access all three websites. I did not have to pay for any of them. Is anyone else having the same problem? NoahTalk 17:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Refs 45, 47, and 48 work fine for me. Kees08 (Talk) 00:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks like my lack of access was a local problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: All of these refs should be correct now.NoahTalk 23:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources look fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Yellow Evan[edit]

  • "Tropical Depression Nineteen-E was a weak tropical cyclone that caused flooding throughout Northwestern Mexico and several U.S. states, and is the first known tropical cyclone to have formed over the Gulf of California." pick one or the other to use as an opener. Also why is US not spelled out? seems kinda strange? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Removed the part about it being the first TC over the Gulf of California since the impact is more important. United States is spelled out as well. NoahTalk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ". It then meandered to the southwest of Mexico for the next several days as it interacted with a trough, forming an area of disturbed weather formed on September 14." "forming" and "formed" is redundant but tbh "area of disturbed weather" AFAIK is just an informal terms I'd just axe that last bit altogether. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Removed. NoahTalk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "A surface trough developed over the Baja California peninsula on September 18." given how you invoke the term trough above, calling a surface LPA a "surface trough" is a bit unorthodox, even if extremely correct. I'd leave it as is but add clarification that the above trough was mid to upper level. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. NoahTalk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you need to mention 2018 USD at all given the title and the recency of the event? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Year has been removed from all mentions of money throughout the article. NoahTalk 15:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Tropical Depression Nineteen-E formed as the result of an area of low pressure interacting with a tropical wave. Its origins can be traced back to a tropical wave that departed from the west coast of Africa in between August 29 and 30." in what chronological relevance does the first sentence have with the second? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Worth noting how unexpected 17E's formation was in the MH? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Torrential rainfall affected the Baja California peninsula for a few days before genesis occurred on September 19 through the system's dissipation.[11] The National Meteorological Service of Mexico reported that Baja California Sur received heavy rainfall. The southern portion of the state received approximately 2.56 to 3.94 in (70 to 100 mm) of rain, with an isolated value of up to 4.88 in (124 mm) being reported.[9]" you can probably combine the first two sentences with the third or form its own sentence. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "more than 300 tons of mud, stones, and garbage were removed from roads in order to make them passable for vehicles.[14]" what kind of tons? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "14,000 hectares (34,595 acres) " why are units spelled out? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Abbreviated hectares and acres. NoahTalk 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "causing washes of up to 2 feet (0.61 m) that left several individuals stranded in their vehicles.[29]" what's with the inconsistent spelling out of units? you abbreviate inches but not feet or hectares? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. NoahTalk 16:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

All in all, great job. Just a few minor mistakes here and there. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Cyclonebiskit[edit]

  • United States aftermath neededDisaster declarations in Texas means there should be federal recovery efforts in the state. Please look through local emergency management offices for additional details. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army[edit]

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:

The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

@WP:FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by PM[edit]

I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest |upright=1 for all portraits
  • File:Baron_Steuben_by_Peale,_1780.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Randolph_B._Marcy_-_Brady-Handy.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria: both changes done. tks! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Shall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

British National (Overseas)[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about British National (Overseas) status, a nationality that was only obtainable by British subjects in the former colony of Hong Kong before its return to China in 1997. It's a rather peculiar status that doesn't actually give its holders a legal right to live in the UK. I've recently put in a good amount of work into the entire article and was able to get it past its GA review, and I believe it's up to par with the FA criteria as well. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Not seeing a strong rationale for including the non-free image - other images such as the BN(O) passport could illustrate the concept. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I just omitted the image. Since there's another article specifically about the BN(O) passport, figured it'd be fine. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Also wanted to add that the only distinguishing feature between a British citizen passport vs a BN(O) passport is the heading that "European Union", which is definitely going to be problematic in about two weeks. I could use the inside page of a BN(O) passport, but I believe any (not sure?) passport image falls under Crown copyright and would thus be non-free. Horserice (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

  • The note about when BN(O) was created it kind of hidden (I didn't notice it mentioned until a second read over). I'd argue that it should be made more prominent, and also seems like something to add to the lead; for the latter, perhaps start the second paragraph like: "This nationality was created in 1985(?) to allow Hong Kong residents..."
  • Sure, I added the year in the lead.
  • In the Background section, is there anything that can be added relating to the earlier class of citizenship (if any) that residents of Hong Kong had?
  • Moved up that part from the Controversy section.
  • "While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status,[10] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible." Is there any way to expand on why so many were ineligible? I would assume it has to do with Chinese nationality law, but that isn't clear.
  • The only requirement was actually just being a BDTC. Not sure how else to elaborate on that?
  • "Hong Kong residents and legislators, with some supporters in Parliament, believed that granting full British citizenship would have been more appropriate for instilling confidence in Hong Kong's post-handover future and that residents should be offered a choice to continue living under British rule." From the context of the sentence, shouldn't the bolded be "should have been," as it talks about a past event?
  • Made that change.

A real neat article, and covers an interesting topic. I'll look it over once more, but I think that may be all I can see right now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through it, made some changes. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Addressed what I saw with it, feel it does the job. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): GamerPro64 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Deactivators, a game that was once opined by a reviewer as being destined to be a cult classic. A short but simple article by its own right, the game itself has the player control bomb disposal robots to remove bombs from scientific research complexes before they explode. While receiving positive reviews at the time, it was not commercially successful and its developer closed shortly after. And with that I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article. GamerPro64 19:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Both FURs should be expanded, and the second is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I expanded both image FURs and completed the second ones. GamerPro64 00:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment For the sake of comprehensive coverage, what do you think about including more background on the context in which the game was created? Some questions I'm left with after reading the article:
    • Was this the first/only game developed by Tigress Marketing? If not, what sorts of games had they previously made? What level of success did they achieve?
      • No they made other games like They Stole a Million, which might have been released later. Also read they made a game based on A View to Kill. Its hard to calculate the success they had but the company did close after the release of this game. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Was this the first game developed by Bishop/Palmer?
    • What was the climate around gaming on the platforms for which this game was released (the Armstrad CPC 464, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum). Did these systems already have large game catalogues? Was interest in PC gaming on the rise at the time of the development of Deactivators? On the decline?
      • This was during 80s British gaming and the NES was a month old when it came to Europe. I would say the climate was fine at this time, don't think it was affected by the video game crash of 83. Not seeing how this would add to the article. GamerPro64 18:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Were puzzle games a popular genre in PC gaming at the time? Are there any examples of very popular PC puzzle games that preceded Deactivators?
    • Is this game notable for any features of gameplay or design that were unusual at the time? I'm interested in the note in the "Reception" section about the game's monochromatic appearance. Maybe that could be touched on earlier in the article?
      • I think the comment of the monochromatic appearance might be in reference to the Commodore 64 version. GamerPro64 21:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I realize some of these could be verging on WP:OFFTOPIC, but just wanted to put a few ideas out there. Colin M (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Connie[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Connie, which was part of the busy 1955 Atlantic hurricane season (already a good topic). Connie caused flooding in the United States that was exasperated by Hurricane Diane (a featured article) just four days later. Connie was a fairly routine landfalling hurricane, although it caused a notable shipwreck, and its impacts extended into Michigan and Ontario, unusual for a storm hitting North Carolina. I first got the article to GA status in 2013. I've been working on it over the past few days, and I'm proud of the work in the article. I believe it is the most comprehensive source of information for Connie available anywhere, and I believe the prose and variety of sources warrants its consideration for becoming a featured article.

BTW, hopefully another user will get another hurricane from this season featured, so we'll be one article away from a featured topic. Also, this is a WikiCup nomination. Happy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Retrieval dates need to be in consistent format
  • Ref 3: The name of the paper is "Free Lance-Star" not "Free-Lance Star"
  • Ref 4: Check name of newspaper, which appears to be different from that given
  • Ref 4 isn't to a newspaper, it's to a United States Weather Service report. That's why I use Cite book. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 7: The source is given as a newspaper, The Robesonian, but the actual source is a website, "". Compare with Ref 9.
  • You're right it's a website. I would argue "" should be in the at= value of the reference. The site is merely reporting the contents of a news article by The Robesonian.
  • Ref 12: link goes to a different article, entitled "Evacuees from Hurricane Connie Spilled Into Sea"
  • Ref 13: I can't locate the stated source article in the newspaper link
  • Ref 14: The New York Times needs italicisation. You should also add a subscription template
  • Ref 15: Where do the publisher and date details come from? They are not evident from the source.
  • The home page for ref 15 is the Weather Prediction Center. Here is the main page for the Tropical cyclone rainfall page. You can see David Roth's name on there. If you go to the file name, you can find the creation date for the image. It was updated from when I originally wrote the article, so I updated the date of when the page was made last updated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 18: Does not link to the stated source article. It links to the same article as ref 12 - see above
  • The beginning of ref 18 has the title and everything, but the information that is in the article is where the newspaper is linked to for ref 18. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 21: The headline of the source article is given incorrectly
  • Ref 23: Returns "website unavailable" - presumably this is due to some regional factor
  • I'm not sure. It works fine for me, but it does have a popup suggesting that I support journalism. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise the sources appear to be in good order and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review User:Brianboulton. Please let me know if I have sufficiently addressed your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
All concerns addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Connie1955HATradar.png: source link is dead
  • For the US rainfall map, suggest specifying in the caption northeast US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I changed the image caption as suggested, and I updated the link to the image in the infobox. Thanks for reviewing User:Nikkimaria! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Review from Hurricane Noah[edit]

I will be doing this review in chunks as I will not have enough time to do it all now. NoahTalk 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I now support Hurricane Connie becoming a FA. NoahTalk 23:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


  • There is a page for the Eastern United States. Probably should just link to it.
  • What is a well-developed hurricane? There is no context for this.
  • Simplified wording and removed "well-developed". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Connie first posed a threat to the Lesser Antilles, and the storm ultimately passed about 105 mi (165 km) north of the Lesser Antilles." I would avoid mentioning Lesser Antilles twice in the same sentence. Also, you could change ",and the storm ultimately passed" to 'ultimately passing'
  • Removed duplicate wording and changed as suggested. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the United States Virgin Islands, three people died due to the hurricane, and a few homes were destroyed." Is there a specific cause for these deaths? Winds, flooding, rip currents, etc?
  • It's listed in the impact section. I didn't think it was worth mentioning in the lede. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh Okay... NoahTalk 23:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Puerto Rico
  • "After affecting Puerto Rico, Connie turned to the northwest, reaching peak winds of 140 mph (220 km/h)." Probably should mention the pressure here as well. It wouldn't hurt to link maximum sustained winds.
  • Yes... much NoahTalk 23:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "striking North Carolina on August 12 as Category 2 on the Saffir-Simpson scale." add an 'a' before Category
  • Link tropical cyclone
  • "The storm moved through the Chesapeake Bay region and progressed inland, dissipating on August 15 over Lake Huron when it was absorbed by a cold front." Could be reworded to "The storm progressed inland after moving through the Chesapeake Bay region, and was later absorbed by a cold front over Lake Huron on August 15".
  • Link Washington, D.C.
  • De-link the second mention of Chesapeake Bay
  • Link Pennsylvania and New Jersey
  • Link New York
  • "The rains from Connie contributed to flooding from Hurricane Diane that caused $700 million in damage" Change to ', which'
  • I don't think that's correct. You would use "which" if there was comma, but there isn't one here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Ontario

Meteorological history

  • "The depression moved quickly west-northwestward and quickly intensified into Tropical Storm Connie." I don't like seeing quickly twice in the same sentence. I would recommend using a synonym for one.
  • "Observations from the flight, as well as nearby ship report, suggested that Connie attained hurricane status on August 4." Would recommend changing the first bolded part to 'a report from a nearby ship'. Probably should be 'suggest'.
  • Removed "report" and made it "a nearby ship" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "The hurricane continued to intensify as it approached the northern Lesser Antilles. On August 6, Connie passed about 105 mi (165 km) north of the Lesser Antilles." combine these.
  • "(944 mbar (27.9 inHg) is there a reason for rounding here?
  • I used the converting template. I wrote it out manually so it would be the same as the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You mention Saffir-Simpson scale too many times. You only need to state the scale once and simply refer to the system as Cat X afterwards
  • "southeast United States coast" I would change this to "southeastern coast of the United States"
  • That's two extra words. Do I need to change it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I guess it's fine. NoahTalk 23:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Virginia
  • "steered by strengthening upper-level trough and low" Add an 'a'
  • Comma after Pennsylvania

Comments Support by Kaiser matias[edit]

I'm totally unfamiliar with anything hurricane-related, but I'll give it a look over:

  • "...striking North Carolina on August 12 as Category 2 on the Saffir-Simpson scale." Should that be "a Category 2," with a definite article? I see it used later in the article, so want to know what is the proper way to go, definite article or not.
  • Thanks, someone above mentioned the same thing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering there is a list of fatalities per region, would it make sense to include a total in the lead somewhere?
  • As a result of its impacts, including a death toll of 74, the name Connie was retired from the Atlantic hurricane naming list. - I added this to the lede. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "About 14,000 people evacuated in southeastern North Carolina." Was this the only evacuations? If not, I'd add just a brief blurb about others: "About 14,000 people evacuated in southeastern North Carolina, while smaller numbers left..."
  • Probably not, and truth be told, that number was just from one newspaper, and we don't always know how many people leave, go visit relatives, whatnot. Therefore, I changed the 2nd lede paragraph's opening sentence to this: Ahead of the storm, the United States Weather Bureau issued widespread hurricane warnings, spurring evacuations, flight cancelations, and beach closures.Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "A tropical wave developed into a tropical depression to the west of the Cape Verde islands on August 3..." I feel that the year should be added here, as its the first mention of a date in the body of the article.
  • "Observations from the flight, as well as nearby ship report..." Should be "ship reports"?
  • I changed this to "a nearby ship." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "...making Connie a Category 4 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale." As the scale was named in the preceding paragraph, I don't think it needs to be said again here.
  • "While Connie was meandering in the western Atlantic Ocean, its potential track posed problems for forecasters." Is there any particular reason it posed a problem? It sounds like they didn't know where it would go, but is there any reason why they couldn't make a guess?
  • That's partly true. The difficulty was in the slow movement right near the coast. Forecasts have advanced incredibly since 1955, but at the time, there were no supercomputers to tell the public where the storm would go.
  • Baltimore Sun should be in italics.
  • "Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired, and will never again be used for an Atlantic hurricane." This is repetitive wording, and can be simplified: "Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired as a name for Atlantic hurricanes."
  • I wanted to emphasize what it meant to be retired, which is why it was wordy. I changed it to: Due to its destructive impacts, the name Connie was retired from the Atlantic hurricane naming list. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Not a lot that I see to clean up, and I generally understood it, which is a good sign. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing User:Kaiser matias! I hope I addressed your concerns. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyō[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hiyo's first airstrike was a failure and her second and last was a disaster. The ship had a peculiar history as she rarely conducted operations with her aircraft aboard as the IJN adopted a policy of flying carrier air groups from land-bases to minimize the risk to its carriers in 1943–44. She missed the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands because of an generator fire and survived one torpedo attack before being sunk by another during the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a year ago and I've just updated it a bit to satisfy the FA criteria. As usual, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unlinked or unexplained jargon and look forward to working with reviewers to fix any issues identified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

I reviewed this at ACR a year ago. It was a fine article then and it seems only to have got better. A handful of picky points, but a support anyway; well up to standard.

  • "each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) long, 15 metres (49 ft 3 in) wide and 5 metres (16 ft 5 in) high" Can I suggest that given the "approximately" and the main measurements being to the nearest metre, the inches in the conversions are spurious accuracy?
  • "The remaining aircraft of her air group (16 Zeros and 17 D3As) were flown off for Rabaul, on the island of New Britain, on 23 October where the fighters escorted bombers attacking Guadalcanal the following day." Should that be ',from where ...'?
  • I think it worth a reminder of the date in the final paragraph. One has to read the paragraph two above in some detail to work it out.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

    • Really? It's in the first line of the first paragraph of the section. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • In exchange for a 60 percent subsidy of her building costs by the Navy Ministry "American percent"
    • Not sure what you mean here. Is "per cent" a Britishism?
  • Yes "per cent" is used in British Oxford English [1]and some Australians uses it too.
  • sets with a total of 56,250 shaft horsepower (41,950 kW) No metric horsepower?
    • Most times, my sources never use PS because it's so close of Imperial horsepower.
  • I see understandeble.
  • Hiyō's flight deck was 210.3 metres (690 ft 0 in) The "in" isn't necessary.
  • each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
  • The hangars were served by two aircraft elevators. I'm not sure but the Brits uses lift instead of elevator. So my question is. Is this really the official name of the lift? Because in the "Aircraft elevators" section of the elevator's article doesn't say it is the officially name. There is even no ref to support this claim.
  • As a result of the lessons learned from the Battle of Midway Hmm "American learned".
    • Okay, this one truly surpasses my knowledge of BritEng, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to. Can you unpack this cryptic remark for me?
  • Yes the Brits uses both but it is more commen to use learnt same with the British word dreamt and not dreamed or burnt and not burned. However by Oxford you only use the word "learned" as an adjective not as a verb which isn't the case - see link. [2]
  • a dozen 12.7-centimetre (5.0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
  • This latter system was fitted on the port side of the hull, outboard of the rear elevator. The Brits uses lift instead of elevator.
  • their launching point 180 miles (290 km) north of Lunga. shouldn't the metric unit be first? Or do you mean nautical miles? if not why isn't there nautical miles? If yes why are there not miles in it?
  • At 05:15 each ship launched Hmm was this the local time or Japan's time?
  • when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned Again "American learned plus Vice Admiral"
  • the Japanese turned away to the northwest to regroup American northwest"
  • Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher ordered Again "American Vice Admiral"
  • 56,250 shp (41,950 kW) In the infobox no metric horsepower?
  • 6 × twin 12.7 cm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns In the infobox the oh isn't necessary.
  • Belt: 50 mm (2.0 in) In the infox the oh after the two isn't necessary.
  • The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. "American counterattack" - see link [3]

That's me Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Sturmvogel 66: Here are my answers. Cheers and happy St. Patrick's Day. CPA-5 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Hey Sturm, you know you forgot two of my comments. The first one is in the when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned. You forgot to change the American learned with learnt. Second is you forgot the The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. sentence where I mentioned to replace the American counterattack with the Britich one (counter-attack). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: Great to hear, looks great nice job. Here is my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Captions are fine. Kees08 (Talk) 07:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking these out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, should be good on images. Kees08 (Talk) 00:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Not sure it makes sense to simply state "Aircraft carried: 53" given the variance
    • By their nature aircraft carrier capacities vary depending on the mix of aircraft aboard.
  • Be consistent in use of & vs "and" in short cites
    • Hoist by my own petard!
  • What makes combinedfleet a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It's co-owned by a published expert on the topic and it cannot be edited by outsiders. Thanks for checking on these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "with the loss of 247 officers and ratings." I might add something like ", "about a fifth of her complement."
  • I would add some sort of introductory phrasing, say, "After conversion from an ocean liner, ..." to the start of the second paragraph of Design and description.
  • In "Construction and career", I might make it clearer that (as I surmise) she was never finished as an ocean liner, but was purchased and converted while still under construction. Also, can anything more be said about what she would have been as an ocean liner? Did it resemble some of the line's other ships?
  • Don't have much info available, but I've added most of what I've got.
  • "In the meantime, Captain Michio Sumikawa relieved Beppu on 30 November.[14][16]" I would cut the first three words.
  • " as was Sakamaki and his staff" I would say "were" not "was"
  • "The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September, which included the installation of additional 2.5 cm Type 96 AA guns," Technically, "which included" refers to nothing. Suggest changing "was under repair" to "underwent repairs"
  • Reworked the whole sentence, see how it reads now.
  • "The ship arrived there on 22 December and disembarked her aircraft before proceeding on to Saipan to deliver more aircraft.[14][20] " From Singapore to Truk, fine, but Saipan is not "on" given the direction, but involves something of a reversal of course.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this so closely. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Parsecboy[edit]

Not much, mostly nitpicks:

  • I wonder if the launching field should be moved from the Izumo Maru portion of the box to the Hiyo portion
  • It seems somewhat disjointed to jump basically from "designed to be converted" to "After her conversion" - it would be worthwhile to explain a bit of what happened
    • What do you mean? Why the IJN purchased her when it did? No idea, none of my sources address that issue. They talk about the covert program for converting ocean liners to auxiliary carriers, but I'm saving the details on that for the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta's flagship" - as I recall, the MoS advises against three links next to each other, so you might refactor to "flagship of Rear Admiral Kakuji Kakuta"
  • "the New Zealand minesweeper Moa" - New Zealand doesn't seem right to me, but I can't think of what would be the correct demonym - "the Kiwi minesweeper Moa"? haha
  • Link submarine, torpedo, boiler room. Parsecboy (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, linked in the lede, OK.

All done except for one noted above. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Salih ibn Mirdas[edit]

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Salih ibn Mirdas, an ambitious and energetic emir from a powerful medieval nomadic Arab tribe in northern Syria who founded the Mirdasid emirate of Aleppo in the early 11th century. He ruled the city between 1025 until his death in battle against an equally ambitious Fatimid general. His sons and grandsons successively ruled Aleppo for another 50 years, with interruptions. Salih began his career seizing strategically-located fortresses in the Euphrates valley and confronting the Hamdanid holdovers who ruled Aleppo. He ultimately evicted the latter, but they were replaced by Fatimid governors. Later, when the disparate Arab tribes of Syria united for the first time in centuries, Salih used the momentum to attack the Fatimids throughout Syria and finally conquer Aleppo. He paid them nominal allegiance afterward. The historians of his time hold that Salih's emirate, held together by the strength and solidarity of his tribe, Shia Muslim in orientation and friendly to Christians, was well-oiled and just. I've been working on the article on/off since 2016 and it's currently a GA. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Salih_ibn_Mirdas_gold_dinar_1028.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaia (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Nikkimaria, not sure what you mean. Any idea how or what kind of tag I need for this? —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
The pictured object will be in the public domain due to its age - you just need to add one of the PD templates based on copyright expiration to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I’ve added the PD-100 years template for the original work. Let me know if this satisfies the requirement. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

Impressed at first read-through. Back in the next day or so after close perusal. Tim riley talk 19:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley. Looking forward to your thoughts/suggestions. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I have only two small points on the prose:
  • "Newfound" – the article is in AmE, and perhaps "newfound" is OK therein, but it looks very odd to an English eye.
  • "executed and confiscated the estates of numerous..." – for clarity I'd make this "executed, and confiscated the estates of, numerous..."

That's all from me. Happy to support. A most readable article; thoroughly and widely referenced; as well illustrated as I imagine is possible; balanced in content; seemingly comprehensive, to this layman's eye; meeting the FA criteria in my view. I enjoyed reading this excellent and instructive article, and I hope we can look forward to more FACs from the same editor. – Tim riley talk 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for the glowing remarks and your support for this nomination. I made the change suggested by your second point on the prose. As for the first, I like "newfound", but if you have a word that makes better sense, I'll take your suggestion. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
"newfound" is for all I know OK in American dictionaries, but it looks odd to a non-American. The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word: "new-found" Tim riley talk 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. At first glance, I wonder why one of the photo captions doesn't state the date of the photography, when all the others do? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Glad you’re gonna take a look at this, considering your experience in the topic area. I’ve made the captions consistent as far image dates are concerned. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Aleppo in infobox capion?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Citation for footnote 2?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nothing else is known about Mirdas" I assume this refers to Salih ibn Mirdas's father, but readers might think it refers to Salih ibn Mirdas' own early life or something (if they interpret Mirdas as a "last name in this sentence).
Should it be “him”, “his father”, “Salih’s father” or “Mirdas ibn Idris”?
I would just spell out the name. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "The latter was strategically" Why not just "the town"? "The latter" implies you could mistake the man for a place.
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "along with local toughs" Thugs?
Yes. I think “toughs” is more neutral than “thugs”, but if you don’t see a problem with the latter, I’ll use “thugs” instead. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't aware "toughs" was a word, what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Toughs is a word, but Bianquis uses “roughs”. Should I just change it to “ruffians”? —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, ruffians is probably closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why spell out Aziz al-Dawla at every mention? Should only be necessary the first time (as you do with other names)?
Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Aziz al-Dawla was assassinated" By who?
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Zakkar views Salih's destruction of Aleppo's walls as a tactic" Earlier you just say the towers of the walls?
Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "who played a secondary role to an amīr" Maybe amir should be explained too (or spelled "emir"), as emirate is spelled with an e here (readers might not make the connection), and you also mention "Banu 'Amir".
Done. Just changed it to “emir” throughout. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Further down you also say "and several emirs from other clans", so might be best to just say emir throughout.
See above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hassan ibn Mufarrij is spelled out twice in succession.
Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Homs is a much more common spelling than Hims, should it be used?
Done, did the same for Ba’albak/Baalbek. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "which continued, with occasional interruption, until 1080" Who took over then?
This is a very interesting point I had considered adding then didn’t out of concern for focus/concision. The fact that you’ve raised it makes me believe my original consideration was correct. After the Mirdasids, another Arab emir, the Uqaylid Muslim ibn Quraysh took over for a year and then was rid of by a Turkic ruler. The reasons it’s interesting is because, as Zakkar and Bianquis note, the end of the Mirdasids signaled the end of Arab rule in Syria. From that point until World War I 800 years later, a series of Kurdish, Turkic or otherwise non-Arab dynasties/states would control this region. I will find a concise way to mention this in the article about the founder of the Mirdasid dynasty. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be very nice for historical context, I'll support once it is added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the map and extra context does it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the support and helping improve the article FunkMonk. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • The sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability. About two-thirds of all references are to a single source
  • Yes, Zakkar’s highly comprehensive work on the Aleppo Emirate is apparently the ultimate secondary source for Salih’s biography and actually appears to be a major source used by Bianquis, Lev and Amabe as well. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A few minor presentational points:
  • Bianquis and Crawford both require subscription for access. The (subscription required) template should be added
  • @Brianboulton: Just added them. Let me know if I placed them correctly. It feels off. —Al Ameer (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • De Slane is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography
  • Lev publisher location is missing
  • Likewise for Sobernheim
  • Although google links are included for a number of the source books, they do not usually include the reference pages in their previews and are therefore somewhat worthless. Spotchecking was thus extremely limited. I did, however, see the sentence: "The fall of Sidon, in particular, alarmed the Fatimids, who had largely prioritized control of Syria's port cities over the inland towns and feared that other ports would subsequently recognize Bedouin rule" cited to Lev, p. 51. I was unable to see where this statement is supported by the source.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for spotting that. I was a page number off. It’s pages 52 and 53. Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

All sources issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Constantine[edit]

Glad to see this here, I will start reviewing it shortly. Constantine 08:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I've gone through the article and made a few minor copyedits, feel free to revert.
  • The EI2 article on al-Maʾarrī was not written by Gibb, but by P. Smoor
  • Thanks for catching that. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • IIRC, the Citadel of Aleppo as it stands today (or rather, stood until recently) is mostly an Ayyubid-era structure. This should be noted in the picture, otherwise one might assume that it looked like this during Salih's lifetime.
  • @Cplakidas: Good point which I hadn’t considered. The same goes for the Rahba fortress image, which was also an entirely new Ayyubid construction. I’m trying to formulate a concise way to modify this, could you suggest a rephrasing of the caption? Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Al Ameer son: Something like "The present structure/The structure as depicted in the photograph dates from the XX century" should suffice. Constantine 12:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • there is the occasional inconsistency of terminology between English and Arabic, e.g. wazir vs vizier, or amir vs emir. I would suggest standardizing it, and, at least for the terms that are relatively well known in English (emir and vizier), to use the English forms throughout, with the Arabic term in parentheses at the first occurrence.
  • Done. I’ll just omit the Arabic entirely for those terms. Let me know if there are others that would fit this category. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise it is a fine, very detailed, and well written article. I am familiar with the events mostly from a Byzantine/Fatimid perspective, but couldn't find anything missing, and I think it is easy to follow even for the lay reader. I'll have another look in a couple of days, and if my comments above are addressed, will be happy to support then. Constantine 12:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine, your input is always highly valued. —Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

On looking through the article again, I realized that it is missing a map. If you don't have the time/skills to make one, you can use the option of simply pinpointing the locations on a map of Syria (cf. what I did in Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)). Constantine 12:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes a map is sorely needed. I have a request pending from Ro4444, but I’m not sure if that will happen or not. I lack the skills unfortunately. I’ll try the way you mentioned for the Fatimid invasion article. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: I've added a map like the one you mentioned in lieu of a more detailed map that better depicts the contemporary political scene, which I hope to add in the near future. What's really needed is a detailed and accurate map of the 11th-century Mashriq showing the Byzantine, Fatimid and Abbasid states and the constellation of Arab emirates and tribes (Mirdasids, Uqaylids, Numayrids, Mazyadids and others) that controlled the region in the decades prior to the ascent of the Turkic powers and Crusaders. Such a map could be applied to numerous relevant articles. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. Yes, such a map would be valuable, I may start one when I have a bit more time on my hands. I've also had another look, and cannot find anything really missing. One final thing, you have Sayf al-Dawla in the "see also" section, and though I can guess why, for the average reader that might not be clear; perhaps add a brief description, "Sayf al-Dawla, founder of the Hamdanid emirate of Aleppo" or something like that? I am nevertheless switching to support as this is not a critical issue. Well done, once again. Constantine 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support ;) I added the description. Al Ameer (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Hermano Pule[edit]

Nominator(s): Jollibinay (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A Filipino religious leader in the 19th century who established a religious order as a protest against the racially discriminatory practices of the Catholic Church in the Spanish Philippines. Fearing an armed rebellion, the Spanish colonial government violently suppressed the order and had Hermano Pule executed.Jollibinay (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Very good, interesting article. Only two little quibbles:

  • The cofradía prohibited Spaniards and mestizos from joining without Pule's permission – This is the only hint given in the body of the article that Pule was the leading figure of the cofradía. That he was the leader is mentioned in the lead, but it should be specifically mentioned in the body as well. Was he already leader when it was founded? Which role did he play in founding the cofradia? All this does not become entirely clear.
  • Mount Banahaw, continued – not sure, but I would go without a comma here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jens Lallensack. Thanks for reviewing the article.
  • The cofradía prohibited Spaniards and mestizos from joining without Pule's permission – This is the only hint given in the body of the article that Pule was the leading figure of the cofradía. That he was the leader is mentioned in the lead, but it should be specifically mentioned in the body as well. Was he already leader when it was founded? Which role did he play in founding the cofradia? All this does not become entirely clear.
  • I can only write based on the sources that I've cited. However, please consider the following facts from the article: (1) Pule's letters were important to cofradía members that they had to be read aloud to the memebers. (2) He was the one who communicated with the Church and the State officials when he sought their recognition and authorization for the cofradía. (3) The cofradía had at least two large portraits of Pule stylized as a saint, which indicates that he was revered by them as a "saint". (4) The cofradía members wanted to crown him "King of the Tagalogs". The cofradía had other senior leaders, but it was he who they wanted to be king. (5) The Colonial Government offered amnesty to the members of the cofradía, with the exception of Hermano Pule and a few others. This suggests that the government knew he was a major figure in the movement. (6) The members of the revived cofradía claimed to have witnessed the alleged joint apparition of the Virgin of the Rosary, Hermano Pule, and Octavio Ygnacio "Purgatorio" de San Jorge. This signifies that Pule was an important figure in the cofradía; please also note that Octavio Ygnacio "Purgatorio" de San Jorge only led the cofradía when Pule was absent.
  • Mount Banahaw, continued – not sure, but I would go without a comma here.
  • Done.
--Jollibinay (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Ref 4: Publisher name should not be italicised
  • Ref 8: Returns "page not found"
  • Ref 16: Publisher information appears incomplete
  • Ref 38: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Ref 38: Harvard error - there is no "Palad 2005" in the biblography
  • Ref 40: Returns error message
  • Ref 44: Publisher information missing

Overall, the sources appear to be well chosen, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. A limited spotchecking exercise produced no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for reviewing the references of the article.
  • Ref 4: Publisher name should not be italicised
  • Done.
  • Ref 8: Returns "page not found"
  • Dead URL. Redirected it to its archive URL.
  • Ref 16: Publisher information appears incomplete
  • Tried to complete the publisher information, but can't find DOI.
  • Ref 38: p. range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Done.
  • Ref 38: Harvard error - there is no "Palad 2005" in the biblography
  • It was a typographical error. The correct is "Palad 2001a", which is found in the biblography.
  • Ref 40: Returns error message.
  • Dead URL. Redirected it to its archive URL.
  • Ref 44: Publisher information missing.
  • Added all the publisher information that I can find. The original URL is dead.
Jollibinay (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The greatest of the ancient sea scorpions, and among the most famous, Jaekelopterus was an active apex predator that measured a massive 2.6 meters in length. This is my first FA nomination, the article has been through a GA review, a peer review and has been copy edited. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review. This FAC nomination is pretty significant also in being the first of a sea sciorpion/eurypterid, a group which has otherwise been long neglected on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
One comment, though, it would be good to have a source for the size estimates used for the size comparison image in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Sourced the size estimates :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Jaekelopterus_pretelson.png needs a US PD tag and an author date of death
  • File:Eurypterus_cropped.png needs a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
All done; I changed Eurypterus_cropped.png to another image (that is sourced). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Seems to have quite a number of prose issues:

  • based on observed differences in the genital appendage. Though this feature has since proved to be a misidentification – first "differences" in plural, than "this feature" in singular, doesn't fit together.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If the ratio of body length to chelicera length match – matches
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • posteriormost – needs link, or simply replace with hindmost.
Chenged to hindmost. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This group of highly derived ("advanced") eurypterids differs from other groups by a number of features, especially in the chelicerae and the telson. – Which group, do you mean the genus Jackelopterus?
Specified so that it is clear that it is the Pterygotidae family that is being referred to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The chelicerae of the Pterygotidae are enlargened and robust, clearly adapted for active prey capture, with chelae (pincers) more similar to the claws – do you have four words here for the same thing (chelicerae, chelae, pincers, claws), or what is the difference?
"Chelicerae" are the entire limbs, "chelae" are the actual "claws" (but usually take the form of smaller "pincers") in other groups. Perhaps this could be said in a better way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • with well-developed teeth on the claws, than to the chelicerae of other eurypterid groups – I do not understand the use of the word "than"
Replaced "than" with "relative". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • clearly distinguish it – needs to be "-ishes"?
Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • lacks median distal indentation – too technical, maybe reword with "is not bifurcated at its end" or something more comprehensible?
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • centimeters, unmineralized – here you have American English, in other instances British English; this needs to be unified (based on the original state of the article)
I'm not a 100 % certain on the differences between American and British English. I've tried to go for British English now, there probably are things I've missed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • pretelson – can you link/explain?
Explained it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • pretelson to be very characteristic of Pterygotus – do we need the very?
Not really, removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • differing very little – again, what does a "very" add here?
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jaekelopteridae" – is it written in brackets in the sources? Such brackets have a specific meaning in taxonomy; if the name is simply out of use, it is not written in brackets.
It's not, removed the brackets. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • pterygotidae – should be in upper case
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • suggesting that members of the group were very lightweight in construction – this is still referring to arthropods?
Replaced "members of the group" with "pterygotids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • positive allometry – link/explain
Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • However, positive allometry has not been demonstrated in eurypterid chelicerae as a whole in any other eurypterid genus – does this mean that isometry has been demonstrated instead, or is it just absence of evidence?
Unsure, the source simply states that it has not been demonstrated. I would assume isometry would hold true for the rest in regards of the chelicerae but I don't have a source for that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thus, the size estimates around 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) remain the most accurate estimates on the maximum size of the species yet – From the many opinions on the matter, you decided that a specific one is fact. This is not a neutral point of view; all views should be presented without preference.
I'm not sure if two opinions qualify as many but 2.5 is repeated in other papers without much comment. I've changed it so that it is made clear that it being the most accurate estimate is also an opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • making it unknown if the eurypterids had developed true direct development. – this wording implies that direct development was not the original stage for eurypterids (that they just developed it; that it was not present in their ancestors). If this is not inteded, I would reformulate.
Reworded a bit, the intention was that it was unknown whether they were true direct developers (e.g. NO morphological changes post-hatching) or not (some smaller changes such as additional segments and such). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • denticles, out of which two were assumed to be juveniles – I would split the long convoluted sentence into two sentences, it would make it much easier to read.
Split it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The morphology of the chelicerae are – "chelicerae is"?
Oops, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • length–width ratios measured in juveniles and adults were not as extreme as assumed – don't understand this. Do you mean "not as disparate"?
Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • but the fossil deposits from which Jaekleopterus fossils have been discovered – I think you can get rid of one "fossil" here.
Got rid of the first one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • where J. howelli fossils has been discovered – "have" been discovered.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • had very high visual acuity – Do we really need the "very"? That would mean "exceptionally high", but how is this warranted?
Removed "very". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • including a large specimen with the right eye preserved from the uppermost Siegenian and a small and likely juvenile specimenfrom the uppermost Siegenian – you give a level of detail here that is not provided for other parts of the "palaeobiology". If these specimens are of special importance, I would state why. If not, consider removing it.
They are of special importance because of the detailed preservation of their eyes, could be removed if you think it's necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That's it for the prose review; if the comments above can be addressed, I think the prose is fine as far as I can see. If time allows I will provide the required source review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

  • Some paper titles are in title mode (capitalisation troughout), should be put in lower case. Also, species names need to be in italics. Example: "Hallipterus excelsior, a Stylonurid (Chelicerata: Eurypterida) from the Late Devonian Catskill Delta Complex, and Its Phylogenetic Position in the Hardieopteridae".
  • J. howelli is much smaller than J. rhenaniae, reaching 80 centimetres (2.6 ft) in length.[6] – In citation [6], the link to the supplementary informaiton is not working (I guess this is where to find the cited info?)
  • Even stergites and sternites (the plates that form the surfaces of the abdominal segments) are generally preserved as paper-thin compressions – I don't see where this is covered in reference [1].
  • making it unknown to which degree the eurypterids had developed true direct development – the source seems to suggest something different: that eurypterids may hatch with their full complement of opisthosomal segments and appendages, thus being true direct developers like arachnids, and not hemianamorphic direct developers as in xiphosurans (from the conclusions section).
  • likely preyed upon smaller arthropods (including their own kind) and early vertebrates – This, to me, looks like too close a paraphrasing of the source (original: "probably fed on early vertebrates and smaller arthropods, including their own kind"). Suggest to have the word "cannibal" instead of "their own kind".
  • All the rest seems totaly fine, all sources are of high quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

A few minor points on the prose:

  • The article seems to be in AmE, but we have "metres" and "centimetres" throughout, which, perhaps wrongly, I take to be BrE rather than AmE. Quite prepared to be corrected on this point.
  • "enlargened" doesn't seem to me to be AmE, BrE or AnyE.
  • "Størmer erected a new family" – unexpected and rather odd verb.
  • "moulting" – looks like BrE, but perhaps this is an aberrant AmE spelling – I just mention it to be on the safe side.
  • " fossilised" – ditto.
  • "menoeuvrability" – seems definitely dodgy in its spelling, me judice

That's my lot for now. Shall look in again. Tim riley talk 22:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed "manoeuvrability" and I replaced "erected" at both instances with "created" which should also be correct and less strange. As for the rest, I am unfamiliar with most of the differences between british and american english, it is supposed to be in BrE currently. It would probably be for the best if someone other than me went over it and checked for this seeing as I've tried and failed a few times now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll be happy to check the text as BrE, and will do so tomorrow and report back. Tim riley talk 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Very nice of you, many thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Done, but please check you're happy with my (few) changes. I hope to add a few general comments on the text soon. Tim riley talk 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Looks good! Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Echo parakeet[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about what was once considered "the world's rarest parrots", since saved from extinction. This is my first nomination of a living species, after years of only nominating extinct ones, but I had so many relevant sources about it lying around from writing about other Mascarene birds that are now extinct that I thought this would be a good place to start. The article also covers an extinct subspecies, after their two articles were merged following some recent studies that demonstrated their close relationship. We don't have many good photos of this species, but I think the other photos included here are relevant and good enough until we get replacements. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

This looks strangely familiar. My, what wonderful prose. ;-) Disclosure: I copy edited this article for GOCE.

Hope it's not too much of a conflict of interest, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is "Réunion parakeet" bolded (rather than red-linked) when the article is not about it? It is made clear that this is a different subspecies.
Because we generally cover bird subspecies in the species articles, and both are covered fully in this article (there is really not much if anything to say about the Réunion subspecies which isn't mentioned here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt text is needed for the images.
Will get to that... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Now added, can't say how good it is, though... FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

More to follow, although it looks pretty good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the military colours of a French cavalryman" will not mean a lot to most readers. How about 'is Latin for horse, and refers to the green uniforms of French cavalrymen'?
Equus means horse, eques is cavalrymen. In any case, I can only say what the source says, to avoid OR. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
If you wrote 'The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the French cavalryman' or similar it would be fine. My point is "The specific name eques is Latin" explains the "cavalryman" bit, but not "the military colours". Now I know, or can surmise, why the colour of the parakeet reminded French naturalists of a cavalryman, but I think that you need to either spell this out or remove it. As it stands, the senrtence begs a question.
The source only says "From Latin eques referring to the military colours of a French cavalryman." I agree it is very vague, but I'm not sure it's an improvement to remove the information (and it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion). FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. OK. Your call. Leave it as is.
  • "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard from a female landing in a tree." Does that mean that there has only been a single reported instance of either of these calls?
At the time of that publication, based on field notes, yes. So I'm not sure if I can reword it so it sounds like a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that a single occurrence of something merits mention. It would seem to be "going into unnecessary detail".
It is significant enough that later sources also report it (including the 2017 book: "On two occasions Jones heard a deep, quiet purring call from an adult female just after alighting in a tree"), so it would seem like an oversight to leave something out that several sources mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk Ah, if it has been heard twice by a single observer, I agree with you. Change the text to reflect that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Alright, added, but it is unclear from the source whether it was the same adult female that was heard, or two separate ones, so it is hard to not be vague... Now reads: "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard on two occasions from a female landing in a tree". FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
That reads ok to me. I can live with a low bar on notability, but a single occurrence seemed a bit much. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Could cites be put in number order, eg "Though now sedentary, the parakeet may have moved between areas seasonally in search for food; if cyclones had stripped trees of fruits, for example.[12][14][1][20][23]".
Heh, I usually don't do this as it doesn't seem to be specifically recommended anywhere, and I don't personally find it worth the time. I have no problem if others choose to change the order, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "with variation and intensity of the colours probably signifying fitness" Could "fitness" be linked to Fitness (biology).
Sure could, now is. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "being fed by a parent with intervals of up to 79 minute" -> 'minutes'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Psittacula parakeets employ mobbing behaviour by groups clustering together to noisily scold animals" "by" -> 'with'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Caption "Rose-ringed parakeet on Mauritius; this related species was introduced around 1886, and competes for nest-sites and probably some food." Colon, not semi-colon.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "it may have excluded the echo parakeet from expanding and adjusting its feeding ecology to the changing environment by entirely occupying this niche" You say "this niche", but I am unsure what niche you are referring to.
Added "this more generalised niche". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "as well as the invasive species brought with them" I think that a brief mention of the way(s) the invasive spices helped drive the various parakeets to extinction would be appropriate here.
It is outlined in detail under threats, but added "(through predation and competition)". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "The New Zealand conservationist Don Merton (who had faced similar problems with birds in his homeland) was invited" Was invited where, and/or to do what?
The source doesn't say where (though it would be Mauritius), but I added "to help". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "six previously unknown echo parakeet breeding groups were found in the Black River Gorges" Any idea of the sizes of these six groups? Or of the total number of birds in them?
The source doesn't say, unfortunately (I would love to have more information about this discovery, but the sources are pretty vague). FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
A shame.
  • Wondering why a copy edit had been reverted I discovered this from you. "I have one question, you changed a sentence to "It was discovered that from clutches of three or four eggs, only one or two chicks would fledge", when it said only one chick would fledge before, how come? The source says "The biologists found that though females typically laid three or four eggs, usually only one chick fledged."" Apologies for not replying, but you didn't ping, so I didn't realise it was there.
In answer, earlier the article states "Two of the young are normally raised." I do realise that raise is not the same as fledge, but their seemed to be a contradiction. Especially as it seems clear that more than one chick is left in each nest - the parents could more easily raise the brood they were left with - which seems pointless if only one "usually" fledges.
The problem is inconsistency in the sources. It would appear that the mortality changed between the time these sources were published/compiled (now that the population is more stable, more young are probably raised naturally than when the population was low and not assisted by humans), but that is just speculation on my part. As is, the sources just say different things, so we can't really "adjust" to what we think might be the correct number. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Apologies. I shouldn't have done that, I should have queried it on the talk page. I'm not too happy about the "inconsistency", but both need mentioning and, as you say, you can only go with the sources.
  • "Rats, African giant land-snails, and crab-eating macaques prey on parakeet nests" Would it be clearer to say 'prey on parakeet eggs and chicks'?
Yes, and this actually lead me to revise the sentence further, spinning off the following: "African giant land-snails (Achatina spp.) can suffocate chicks with their slime while entering nests in search of shelter or food." FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Two queries from me left above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

As someone who a couple of weeks ago would have struggled to tell a parakeet from parakinesis I have been educated by this well written, detailed, admirably illustrated article. To this layman's eye it seems to be well balanced, and the nominator has been scrupulous about not going beyond what the sources say. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Though this is probably not the best place to begin if you want to learn about parakeets in general, it does give a pretty good introduction to the conservation effort for endemic species on Mauritius. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
By the way, Gog the Mild, it just occurred to me it might be relevant to mention that this species lived alongside the dodo, which is itself an icon of extinction, and a symbol of conservation. So I wonder if you knew that when reading the article, and whether you think it is relevant to mention somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't. Absolutely yes, it should be mentioned. Maybe briefly under Decline - "Many other endemic species of Mauritius and the other Mascarene islands were lost after the arrival of man"? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, I'll add it then. I listed other extinct animals from the same islands in the articles I expanded about other extinct Mascarene species, but since this one still lives, I thought it would be too much. But the dodo is so famous and so tied to extinction that it warrants a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:View_of_the_Mauritius_roadstead_-_engraving.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Now fixed, Nikkimaria, didn't see this section for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: You requested an image review but looks like one is here? Might want to remove from Current Requests. Kees08 (Talk) 07:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, seems I forgot it because there are usually many more issues... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Or apparently I didn't even notice it... FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • The extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically considered to be either identical to the Mauritius population or a distinct species, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA… — a bit clunky with two many "species", perhaps something like ’The relationship to the extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA…
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • and the three are grouped among the subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet —I don’t understand. How can they be subspecies of a different species?
Yes, technically they should be subspecies then, but it seems they are not formally considered such, perhaps for practical reasons. It is also possible Psittacula krameri will turn out to be a species complex, but the sources don't specify either... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • red orange (x2) —I would have thought red-orange or reddish orange
Changed to red-orange, in line with the source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Like other Mauritian birds, the echo parakeet is tame, more so during winter when food is scarce; they become more wary during summer, when food is more readily available, and it becomes more difficult for humans to approach the birds. —switches from singular to plural mid-sentence
Changed all to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • therefore not due to for example inbreeding—"for example" between commas I think
Added comma. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • tropical nest flies—unclear what this redlink is for. Is it a species, a different taxon, or just a generic term?
It refers to a specific species of fly (Passeromyia heterochaeta) that we don't have an article for... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All points should now have answers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd prefer to have that in parenthesis, though, since few if any readers would know what the name refers to, so "tropical nest fly" has to be spelled out somewhere. But if I give both common and scientific names for the fly, it looks inconsistent with the other animal species names, which are mainly just common names. Should I give scientific names for all species mentioned in the article, perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
In my FAs I usually give common names only unless it's something like an obscure disease or insect which doesn't have one, when I give the binomial. I've never had problems at FAC doing that. In practice, if it's possible, I'll write a two-line stub to avoid a red-link, but that's not always feasible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, to avoid any confusion, I just added scientific names to everything (was already given for most of the parrots, so good for consistency). FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Ref 19: missing page reference
It is an ebook without page numbers, I was told here[4] that I only had to list the chapter or section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 20: requires pp. not p.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 30: missing page reference
As above, an ebook without page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, and with the exception of the minor issues raised above, are uniformly presented. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, as mentioned above, the pange ranges are missing because the sources are ebooks. I anticipated this might become a problem during source review, but was almost ridiculed when I brought it up at the FAC talk page.[5] FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's comments[edit]

This is excellent and I have very little to complain about. From a quick scan:

  • Moult is in ecology and behaviour and would more likely benefit from being in description, as it relates to anatomy/morphology not behaviour.
I'm a bit on the fence about this one; the source has info on moulting in its own separate section. Since the seasonal moulting in this species doens't change the plumage pattern, I'd argue it has more to do with physiology (which I'd put under behaviour) than physical appearance, and that the description section should be more about features that can be used to identify the bird. I'll try to see where other sources place such info. At least FAs like Black-necked grebe and Barn owl also cover moulting under behaviour (Atlantic puffin deals with it in both sections, because it becomes much different physically according to season). FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A bigger issue is the lead, which is very ropey at the start. It starts by presenting the name of a subspecies as name for the species and then describes its range in contemporary terms rather than holistically. It only later concludes that the Reunion subspecies is a subspecies. I am skeptical at best of introducing a species range at the start using the term endemic without making it explicit that that is a relic distribution. I would suggest something like:
  • The echo parakeet (Psittacula eques) is a species of parrot endemic to the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and formerly Réunion. It is the only extant native parrot of the Mascarene islands; all others have become extinct due to human activity. The species has two subspecies, nominate Réunion parakeet (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) and the Mauritius subspecies, sometimes known as the Mauritius parakeet. The relationship between the two subspecies was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA of echo parakeets with a single skin thought to be from a Réunion parakeet.
Good point, it's always difficult when the nominate subspecies is extinct (similar case in golden swallow). I took your wording, but excluded "nominate" since this is explained by the text below "As it was named first, the binomial name of the Réunion parakeet is used for the species". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll read the rest later today, and again this is great stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber's comments[edit]

Very little to complain about. I might use "living" rather than "extant" but not a deal-breaker. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Now changed throughout (three places). FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment on Sources[edit]

Feeling free to leave comments ;) It is difficult to verify claims from cited sources because:

  • Several paragraphs have number of citations at the end but none within, so it is unclear which statement is supported by which source. It can be that all sources that appear at the end of para support all claims within it, but that is not the case with at least first para of Taxanomy.
Often it is because several sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence, but I have spread some out where it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, Cheke, A. S. (1987) is a 84 page long chapter. It is cited twice. So it will be better to give specific page numbers. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Fair point, rechecking, it seems to be only dealt with on two pages, so restricted it quite a bit... FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

French battleship Bretagne[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Bretagne had a typical career for a French dreadnought of her generation. Her participation in World War I mostly consisted of swinging around a mooring buoy as she was tasked to prevent a breakout into the Mediterranean by the Austro-Hungarian fleet. Between the wars, she was extensively modernized and remained in 1st-line service. She was briefly deployed in search of German commerce raiders and blockade runners after the start of World War II. The ship blew up when Perfidious Albion attacked the French fleet in mid-1940 to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Germans. Parsecboy and I have extensively reworked the article recently and it passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this month. We believe that it meets the FA criteria though we'd like reviewers to look for any stray AmEng and unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images
    • Removed altogether as its unnecessary
  • File:French_battleship_Bretagne_NH_55630.tiff: given your response at ACR, would suggest using a different tag to represent the image's status, if no pre-1924 publication can be identified
    • Well, that's the issue - we only have the supposition that the photos are Neeser's work based on the context (i.e., the photos are in the US Navy's collection, they appear to be from the same set as those explicitly credited to Neeser, etc.), but they have not explicitly credited him - that's why I've left it at the generic {{PD-US}} template, since we can't for certain say it's Neeser's work. I suppose I can reach out to them and see if they can clarify, but I don't know what kind of response I'll get (or when). Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Bretagne_October_1916_Q58294.jpg: again, given response at ACR, this tagging would not appear to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll upload the higher-res version from the NHHC, but that'll have the same issue as above. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in fine shape. A few comments from me:

  • Is it necessary in an individual ship article to say that the ships of the class has different types of boilers? Surely with this one only her boilers matter?
  • "and became the flagship of"
  • when the first increase in elevation is mentioned, it isn't clear what range they had before the modifications.
    • Generally I reserve gun performance data for the class article. Is it better just to say that the increase in elevation increased the range, without providing specifics, or to add the original range for comparative purposes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • were each of the 75 mm AA guns replaced by four 75 mm AA guns, or were the two guns replaced by four AA guns in total?
  • what rank was Paul Teste at the time?

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • is 3rd Cruiser Division notable? Redlink?
  • Perhaps say who Darlan was when he is mentioned? Particularly as he became a noted collaborator?
  • when you say "outnumber", perhaps "overmatch" would be the best description?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking this over. See if my changes work for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the exact dates could be stated in the last two image captions, as you do in some of the other captions?
  • "of 28,000 metric horsepower" Horsepowers?
    • No, horsepower isn't pluralized
  • "were able to rescue all but three of her crew" How large was the crew?
    • I'll let Sturm handle this one - I don't have Jordan & Caresse in front of me at the moment.
Ok, I'll support after Sturmvogel 66 has responded to this (I realise the source might not specify). FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The source doesn't specify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "part of her forward hull armour was removed to make her less wet forward" What does wet mean here?
    • Reworded
  • "cover for the Otranto Barrage" Why only explicitly stated in the intro?
    • Mentioned in the body
  • "the British attacked the ships there" I think it might be important enough to note in the intro that the crew rejected surrender?
    • Good idea
  • "and broken up for scrap" Only stated in the intro.
    • Clarified. Thanks FunkMonk. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by L293D[edit]

  • The four forward 138 mm guns were removed, and their casemates plated over, because Bretagne was so wet forward that they could only be worked in good weather. - the term of a ship being 'wet' might not be known to the average reader.
    • I think that TheEd17 already fixed this for me; see if it suits. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review The sources are all very reliable and high-quality, as usual for Sturm-Parsec articles. L293D ( • ) 01:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from The ed17[edit]

  • Support overall, great work as always. The following are only minor points.
  • Not really thrilled by the semi-colon in the opening sentence... are the sister ships important enough to be named there?
  • What about the drydocks forced the turrets closer to the ends of the ships? (Was it a beam restriction? Length?)
    • It's complicated. To save time, the same hull form was repeated in the Bretagne's as in the Courbets, which was length-constrained and the need to put a main-gun turret on the centerline required more space along the centerline than the wing turrets used previously and forced the turrets closer to the ends. I want to save that explanation for the class article and don't want to get too down into the weeds here.
      • Gotcha, that makes sense. Might be worth a footnote with a link to the class article when that's done.
  • There's a bit of a gap between Bretagne's arrival in Mers-el-Kébir and its loss. Do we have no information on anything that happened during that time?
    • Swinging at her moorings, as far as I can tell.
  • The loss section could use a bit of context for the seemingly out of nowhere surrender of France. (I know, but I'm trying to put myself in the mind of someone unfamiliar with the history here.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Umm, the reader is already informed that France and Germany at war in September '39, what more can I add that's relevant to the ship itself? Working in the causes for the surrender itself isn't really appropriate, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm coming at this from a narrative concern, even if not directly of relevance to the ship—I'm hoping you can add a small bit of info about how quickly the French mainland's defense fell apart. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I added a bit to the lede to cover this. Not entirely happy with the wording; feel free to tweak as necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
          • And I added a line to the body to make it clearer there as well. Parsecboy (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Catalogue of Women[edit]

Nominator(s):  davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a fragmentary Greek epic poem that was politically and socially important during its time of circulation, and which had a lasting influence upon later Greek, Roman and Byzantine literature.  davidiad { t } 04:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment Only a passing one at the moment, though I'll look in more thoroughly shortly if I can. A swift skim through for spelling brings up a few queries:

  • "descendent/s" is used throughout where I would expect the noun "descendant/s".
  • "enamoured" (passim) looks like English spelling in an article that is otherwise in American spelling, but perhaps this is acceptable to Webster etc.
  • "catalogue" looks rather the same, but is perhaps optional in American spelling.
  • "centered around" Some reviewers (not including me) get very hot under the collar about this construction, insisting that things centre on rather than round. I just mention it, but ignore ad lib.
  • "impius" should surely be "impious"?

More later, I hope, time permitting. Tim riley talk 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

    • Thank you very much, Tim: descendants, enamoured and impius (thanks ImmortalWizard are corrected. Catalogue is less common in American English, but since Oxford scholars dominated scholarship on this work, I've kept their spelling for the title and for the word.  davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
"Catalogue" for the title is certainly correct. And using either "catalog" or catalogue" for the common noun would be ok I think. Paul August 13:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Now supporting. I suppose I should with duly straight face object to the WP:EDIT adverb in "Zeus unsurprisingly had first pick from the catalogue of women", but it's far too pleasing a sentence to be tampered with. The family tree is impressive; the prose is very readable; the content is clearly expounded without excessive detail; the article is thoroughly and widely referenced; there are judiciously chosen images throughout. I'm a hopelessly bad classicist, but the article, me judice, meets the FA criteria in all regards. – Tim riley talk 23:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. Hi Davidiad, there are 13 citation error messages in "Editions and translations", all "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation." I've noticed this before with {{Citation}}. If you read through the template documentation, there must be a way to fix it, or you could use {{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}}. There are seven error messages in the "References" section, and a lot in Bibliography. If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you SlimVirgin. I can correct the missing ref links from the references to the bibliography, but I'm not sure what to do about the "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" in Editions and translations and in the Bibliography. Should I have used a different template for these sections? Editions and translations is a reference section of major editions of the work, so there would only be a reference to a work if needed in the body. Bibliography is kind of the same: it's a bibliography, not a list of references. I'll research the different markups for these.  davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Davidiad, I've noticed this problem before with {{Citation}}; it acts as if one had entered ref=harv. The template documentation almost certainly explains how to fix it. Or you can use {{Cite book}} and {{Cite journal}}, which don't have that problem. SarahSV (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I made one edit to show you what I mean. Feel free to revert if it's not what you want. The citations are missing the publisher. I added one but you'll need to add the rest. SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • P.Oxy._XI_1359_fr._2.jpg: no need for the double tagging, the latter would suffice. Same with File:P.Lit.Lond._32.jpg, File:P.Oxy._XI_1358_fr._2.jpg, File:P.Berol._inv._9739_col._iv-v.jpg
  • File:Roubaix_Louis_Billotey.JPG: copyright tag is incorrect, reproduction of a 2D work garners no new copyright and copyright details for the original work are absent
  • File:Bauer_-_Erysichthon_Mnestra.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Seneca.JPG needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Daniel_Heinsius_-_Imagines_philologorum.jpg is tagged as lacking author information and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you, Nikkimaria, I'm a novice at image tagging. I'll research and address.  davidiad { t } 07:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet[edit]

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 1991 comic book crossover that served as the inspiration for last summer's Avengers: Infinity War film and (presumably) this summer's Avengers: Endgame film. I expanded the article about a year ago, and the first FAC attempt didn't garner enough attention. It was promoted to GA in October 2018 and has been mostly stable since then. I'm hoping this can get through the process in time to be on the main page for the release of the new Avengers movie on April 28. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from TheJoebro64[edit]

I supported at the last FAC, and my support still stands. This is a great and informative read and a model for how comic book articles should look. I'm beginning to not feel so good, though... JOEBRO64 16:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

Despite an early expression of support, not much has happened here in the last month. Unless there is some significant commentary in the next few days, the nomination will be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would add ALT text for the images in the body of the article.
    • I've added alt text for the Sleepwalker cover. I'm unsure about adding any to the two images of Thanos in the plot section. The purpose there is for readers to see the artistic differences for themselves.
  • I think this part (As the main piece of a crossover event, some plot elements) needs to be revised as it currently reads that the “some plot elements” are the “main piece of a crossover event”.
    • clarified
  • I have a question about this part (but she only speaks to him through her servants because he is not worthy of her attention). I am assuming that Mistress Death is viewing him as unworthy of her attention and that it is not just a fact? Would there be a way to clarify in the sentence that this is her thought/opinion? Let me know if that makes sense as I may be over-thinking it.
    • clarified
  • This is more of a clarification question for this part (When he is judged mentally unfit for power over the universe, he agrees to give five of the gems to individuals he determines to be best suited to protect them.). Do we know who these individuals are?
    • Yes, but only one of them gets mentioned in the plot summary. I've added a link to Infinity Watch, which is the name the team used. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The 2018 film Avengers: Infinity War drew inspiration from The Infinity Gauntlet and depicts Thanos collecting the Infinity Gems with the intent to kill half of the universe.), should it be clarified that he successfully gathers all of the gems and kills half of the universe?
    • clarified
  • Should the article mention Avengers: Endgame?
    • I haven't found anything specific to Endgame that's concrete enough to use. I'll update after the film's release if need be.

Wonderful work with the article! Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Aoba47:. Please let me know if I've clarified to your satisfaction. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Good luck with the nomination this time around. You have put a lot of great work into this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Solrad 1[edit]

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This article is about SOLRAD 1, the world's first surveillance satellite and the first satellite to make observations of the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light. I created the article, improved it to B class, then to G.A. Since then, I have further improved the article, exhausting all sources I could find. I thus humbly submit it for the F.A. review process. --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I will be helping Neopeius with this nomination and will start to address comments as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

No examination of prose, no survey for comprehensiveness of sourcing at this time.

There are a bundle of problems with source formatting, completeness of bibliographic information, and at least a few (rebuttable) RS concerns:

  • Date formats! I see MDY, DMY, and ISO.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Review and Redaction guide really needs more verbose bibliographic information. As it stands, this is basically just an external link. And I think you cite it differently, twice.
    Combined and done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I know Google Books says that Space Exploration and Humanityis authored by "America Astronautical Society". Google Books can be a trap. It's actually edited by Stephen B. Johnson. Individual topics (which should be cited with |chapter) have unique authorship. The "SolRad Program" section you are citing, for example, is by Matt Billie.
    That's particularly ironic since I'm on the American Astronautical Society's history committee and should probably email Matt about his article :) We had our semi-annual meeting last Friday. How is this citation?
    [1] --Neopeius (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I sense a colon missing in the title of Day, Logsdon, and Latell (1998).
    Interestingly, there is none on the cover or the frontispiece, but there is in the ISBN info. So... in goes the colon! --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Periodicals (such as Aviation Week and Space Technology) don't require publication locations or publishers barring exceptional circumstances (you don't need them here). On the other hand, page numbers... YMMV regarding the archive link. Technically, the web link is a convenience link, because the real source is print media. Some people like the double-archiving, some hate it. Regardless, that's not actionable.
    Then I shall note it but take no action! :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't fully cite "Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities". Which should probably be italicized, because it's essentially a book published online. Actually, I'd cite it as such. And it has a doi, for fun: 10.17226/11299
    How is this reference? [2] (the placement of the chapter field seems odd) --Neopeius (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ matt billie (August 23, 2010). "sun". In Stephen b. Johnson. Space Exploration and Humanity: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 300–303. ISBN 978-1-85109-519-3.
  2. ^ Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities, Naval Studies Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies (2005). "Chapter 8". Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. p. 157. doi:10.17226/11299. ISBN 978-0-309-18120-4. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 6, 2019.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Let me look at the "Poppy Satellite" source more thoroughly before I pass judgment on it.
    It's an NRO document. If we can't trust the government, who 'can' we trust? :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Vanguard 3" is incompletely referenced.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "SOLRAD 1" is incompletely referenced.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You appear to reference Significant Achievements twice.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I may need to be convinced that Mark Wade's website is a reliable source.
    That's fair. I'm finding him increasingly incorrect. Swapped him out for McDowell's launch log. --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Daily Tribune source is a broken link. It probably needs more bibliographic information, especially a page number.
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • Kahler and Kreplin 1991 has a problem WITH CAPS LOCK BEING LEFT ON.
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • I need to be convinced Andrew LePage's website is a reliable source.
    Drew is quite reliable, and he lists his sources. I could probably dig through and recreate his research, but I trust him. He's certainly as trustworthy as Matt Billie, for instance. --Neopeius (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Check author name format. Friedman doesn't match.
    'Dr.' Herbert Friedman? I'm not certain what you're referencing. --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The satellite tracking source is incompletely referenced. I'll need to dig a little to assure myself that's RS, but hardly my biggest concern at the moment.
    What other information would you like sourced? It's not an article but a tracker. Please let me know since I use this site for all of the satellites I write about, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of this is fairly easily correctable. So I'm just in "comment" territory at the moment, although I may revisit that if I get more time to dig deeper. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help! I hope we're zeroing in on completion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Osifrage: All corrections made. Ready and standing by for the next round! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: Neopeius whiffed a little on his ping, pinging so you see his comment. Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-D[edit]

In addition to the referencing issues noted by Squeamish Ossifrage above, I'd also note that the references for several of the online sources do not identify who published them, or the broader website/publication the page is part of. This can be quickly fixed though. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    Added alt text; let me know if you think it needs improving. Kees08 (Talk) 07:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: @Nikkimaria: Ready to resume when you are! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hey, just seeing if you have time to sign off on the image review. Let me know if you would like additional changes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Images should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes[edit]

This has been open a month and not attracted any support for promotion thus far. I've added it to the FAC Urgents list, but if we don't pick up some momentum within the next few days this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Argento Surfer[edit]

I made a few copyedits. Please review them for accuracy. Is there a reliable estimate on how long the satellite will remain in orbit? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! The first one I might quibble with since it makes it unclear what the NRL established itself as, only when it did so. The other two are fine. As for a reliable estimate, given its altitude, I'd guess 100-200 years, but that's just comparing it to Vanguard 1, whose perigee is a little higher. --Neopeius (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And you can't include OR of course. Any RSs suggesting the same? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I can support the prose. I have not reviewed the images or sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's wonderful, thank you! Sadly, SP100 is not available online for your perusal. --Neopeius (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "It shared satellite space with and provided cover for the first in the GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background) series, a secret electronic surveillance program." This is clumsy - I had to read it several times to understand it.
  • "Solrad/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit with Transit 2A via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". This is also unclearly worded. Do you need to mention the navigation system in the lead? I would say "Solrad and GRAB 1 were launched into orbit on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". (See also query below on whether there were one or two satellites.)
Yeah, this paragraph has evolved a lot largely because when I originally wrote it, I did so from the perspective of SOLRAD being the main satellite and GRAB being the parasite. It's an outdated way to think about it since the two packages co-flew, and the GRAB mission was the more important one, even if the SOLRAD mission returned some excellent data. I've fixed it, and if you like it, that'll be my model for the other satellites in the series.
  • "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit (along with Transit 2A) via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites (SOLRAD/GRAB 1 and Transit 2A) had been orbited at once." I think I understand now - Transit 2A was a separate project? Maybe "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit together with another satellite called Transit 2A on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites were launched on the same rocket." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Modified -- let me know if you like my solution. :)
  • The first paragraph of 'Background' is unreferenced.
Good catch. I'd only recently split those paragraphs.
  • It would be helpful to give the dates of Vanguard.
Done, with reference.
  • " which in turn, inhibits stellar astronomy" I do not think you need the comma.
but I *like*, my superfluous, commas! :)
  • "solar flares and other outbursts directly affected the Earth's thermosphere" What "other outbursts"? This is vague.
I guess solar flares is good enough for any irregular outburst.
  • "chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths does not make sense.
Thanks. Measurements replacing activities.
  • "was required to properly chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths still does not make sense. Presumably you mean correlating X-rays and ultraviolet with other wavelengths, but you need to say so.Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Fixed. Also, made consistent the capitalization of "sun"
  • "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite for the GRAB surveillance mission." This is unreferenced and I am not sure it makes sense. Do you mean that production of SOLRAD reduced costs for GRAB?
Fixed both issues.
  • "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550-3,900 MHz)." You imply here that GRAB equipment was on the SOLRAD satellite, but in the lead and below you refer to "two instrumented satellites". Then you say "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was the world's first operational surveillance satellite." You are inconsistent whether there were one or two satellites.
Fixed above.
  • " thus scanned the whole sky with no source in particular." Again clumsy. Maybe " thus scanned the whole sky without focussing on a particular source."
Thank you. Fixed.
  • "as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A" I am not clear what this means. The article on Transit 2A describes it as a navigation system, not a satellite. You imply that Transit 2A was the satellite which carried GRAB, but if so this should be made clear. Then you describe Transit 2A as the parent of SOLRAD 1 - "SOLRAD 1 separated automatically from its parent, Transit 2A". I am confused.
Removed parent issues.
  • "whip-style". This should be explained or linked.
  • "ionized thermospheric layes" layers?
  • "The SOLRAD/GRAB series flew four more times" Presumably the GRAB article is wrong to say that only two of its five satellites made it into orbit?
  • You say now that it flew twice more successfully, making three in total, but the GRAB article says two in total. Which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting article, but the text is often unclear and it is some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
All excellent suggestions. Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) @Dudley Miles:
A ping only works if you include the ping and your signature in the same edit. @Dudley Miles: Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Goodness, I'll never get this right. @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This process has actually had quintuple benefit since all the improvements end up on the others in the series. With luck, they can all be FAs! :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! Your comments were all spot on. I will carry your suggestions to future articles (and FA reviews I am involved with). --Neopeius (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

Copyedits were great, thank you!
  • the satellite was in many ways a direct successor to Project Vanguard: as far as I can tell from the body, it would be OK to shorten this to "the satellite was a successor to Project Vanguard"; the qualifications don't seem to add any information.
Well, here's the thing. Vanguard was a civilian program. SOLRAD was not. GRAB absolutely was not. So, though it used the same satellite bus and many of the same people were involved, it was not a direct successor. That said, I really wanted to draw that line for context.
Fair enough, but what you currently have doesn't say that -- and in any case the lead should be a summary of what's in the body, and this isn't mentioned in the body. Do you have any sources, perhaps that discuss the overall SOLRAD program rather than this specific satellite, that talk about the relationship between SOLRAD and Vanguard?
I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.
  • the GRAB ... package, whose mission was to...: this might be a British/American English difference, but I typically would only see "whose" for a person. Not a big deal if you're OK with it as it is, but how about "...package, which was intended to map..." or "designed to"?
I'm not quite sure I agree, but I've changed it anyway! :)
That link goes to VHF radars, whereas SOLRAD was looking in the S Band (between UHF and SHF).
OK. How about a redlink, then? Or Maury, do you know if there's a suitable target article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If it was working in the s-band, I suspect it was looking for the Fan Song, not the P-12. Most Soviet EW radars of that era were VHF, and I don't think the antennas on the sat would be big enough to get a good signal above UHF. I'll ask someone that knows though, but I wouldn't hold it up on this, I'll add it when I know for sure. HOWEVER, there's no description of how the sats recorded and or played back the signals, and I think that is pretty imporant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you recommend a source for that?
  • It was also desired that the intended targets of this electronic surveillance not know that they were being spied upon. Therefore, as American space launches were not classified until late 1961, a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space with GRAB was necessary to enable this concealment. The source doesn't really say it was necessary, it says it provided cover (and saved money), so I think this needs a tweak. How about: "American space launches were not classified until late 1961, so a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space would help conceal GRAB's electronic surveillance mission from its intended targets."
Done, thank you. :)
  • Is it possible to identify the features visible on the equator of the infobox picture and reference them in the text? E.g. if the small feature on the left is one of the photometers, say so when describing the instrumentation in the "Spacecraft" section. I see the page has an image identifying some of the details; is that image available for us to use?
Good idea. Uploaded to Wikicommons and included.
  • The page has quite a few details you don't mention. If you think it's a reliable source, I'd go ahead and add the extra details -- the mention of GREB, for example, the fact that GRAB was declassified in 1998, the fact that the lower orbit was intended to avoid the radiation problem, or the reason why the orbit varied from the plan (problems with the rocket's second stage).
  • You mention a deviation from the planned orbit, but as far as I can say you never say what the planned orbit was.
I've been loathe to open the can of worms which is the zillion ways the satellite has been referred to in the literature. Similarly, I haven't wanted to clutter the text with too much info. That said, you're probably right. I'd like to not bring up GREB/SR1/SOLRAD 1/Solrad 1/GRAB/Tattletale/Dyno if I don't have to, though. :) I'm also not going to mention the lower orbit because Explorer 7 HAD a lower orbit, and this didn't keep it from getting saturated. Drew's stuff is generally reliable, but I try to verify what I see there in more than one place.
  • The event was front page news, though as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A – the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster. The clipping accessible via the citation doesn't support this; is the clipping incomplete? I don't have "Publishers Extra" access to so I can't see the whole article. Assuming it does support this, I'd suggest rephrasing as "The event was front page news, though as much because the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster as for the individual satellites."
  • These thermospheric disturbances were not just caused by solar flares, but also by active solar prominence regions as well as bright surges and subflares at the edge (or limb) of the sun. Was this understood at the time? Or is this a modern assessment? It would have required correlation with ground-based observational data, and I don't know to what extent e.g. the prominences could be monitored from the ground in 1960. If it's not something that could have been deduced at the time I think we should add something like "It was later determined that".
SP100 came out in 1965. It was a contemporary assessment.
  • "Lyman Alpha" or "Lyman-alpha"? You have both.
With hyphen. :) Fixed.
  • I can't see the source to confirm that it supports this, but assuming it does, I'd suggest saying in the "Ultraviolet" section that the Lyman Alpha detectors were dropped because it had been determined that solar ultraviolet output was not linked to flares.
Wouldn't that be nice? I had this discussion with Kees. AvWeek says it was deleted from SOLRAD 3 because of the negative findings. BUT it was left on SOLRAD 2. Why? Well, I can guess -- probably because SOLRAD 2 had already been built (and maybe even launched) before the finding was made. The sentence was deliberately phrased that way to avoid people asking why it wasn't deleted from SOLRAD 2. I agree, it's not perfect.
I tweaked the wording slightly to make it flow a little better without actually asserting the connection; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's just fine, thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to detect Soviet above-ground atomic tests: I'm not sure what you mean by "assayed" here. Do you mean that the data was examined later, or that SOLRAD 1's ability to detect these tests was discussed during development?
The latter.
Then I'd suggest rewording to make that clearer. How about: "It had been hoped during design and development that SOLRAD would be able to identify above-ground atomic tests, which produced strong emissions of X-rays in the bands that SOLRAD could detect. If a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union were to go into effect, SOLRAD or its successors might then be able to detect unauthorized tests by the Soviets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Ooo! That's quite nice, thank you.
  • Nevertheless, even this first limited surveillance endeavor yielded valuable insight into the disposition of Soviet air defense radars; in fact, Soviet air defense activity was found to be more extensive than expected. If the only information gained was that it was "more extensive than expected" then it's a bit wordy and we could probably cut down most of the first half. If it found more than that, are any details available?
Nothing that would be meaningful to the lay reader, but you're right that it was too wordy. Fixed!
  • The "Status" section is too short; I'd combine it with "Legacy", either as "Status and legacy" or just "Status".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: --Neopeius (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(further changes answered --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC))

Crater (constellation)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article got a good going-over at GAN. There are 30 constellation articles that are Featured, hence provide a good template, and I think this is within striking distance of FA-hood, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


  • 4.1, 141 in the following doesn't look cool: "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun." Shouldn't this be "orange-hued star of magnitude 4.1, and is/some/ 141 ± 2 light-years from the Sun."?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • How do you get mag 4.1 for A Crt? AhmadLX (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
added the source that SIMBAD uses.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support on sources (verifiability). Checked all, except a few inaccessible books, and are okay.AhmadLX (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Not to contradict the above editor, but I have quite a few problems with references and reference formatting.

Dude my support is on verifiability, not on formatting. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Book-form sources need ISBNs when appropriate. Ideally, they should be presented as properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s. Many online ISBN converters will let you correct ISBN-10s or unhyphenated ISBN-13s.
isbns fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Publication locations for book-format sources are optional, but they are all or nothing. Many of yours have them, but not all.
locations added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Article titles may be either in sentence case or title case, but you need to choose one and be consistent.
lower cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The Chinese-language AEEA reference is pretty much just a raw external link. It is not formatted correctly and lacks, well, most essential bibliographic information.
extra info added and formatted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is Ridpath a reliable source?
This is science writer Ian Ridpath - he has written popular astronomy guides and won awards etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed on this one... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk)
  • Unlike books, periodicals generally don't require a publisher unless that information would serve to prevent confusion. For stuff like Sky & Telescope, its inclusion is actively discouraged.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You should be consistent about whether you shorten long lists of authors to et al. or list them in full.
all listed in full apart from GAIA one(s) as not sure about formatting Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For Kunitzsch and Smart 2006, it should be Sky Publishing, not Sky Pub.
unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Gaia Data Release 2" has two identical entries in the reference list.
Nope, I'm wrong. Three At least four! Okay, lots more than that. You need to use SOME method to condense these. I don't know if there are any other sources with this problem. It makes evaluating the reference section far more challenging than it should be.
I'm not sure the best way to have this - is the one reference with links to different data Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I like to think of myself as science-literate, but this gets pretty deep into the weeds of astronomy sourcing for me to be comfortable with making definitive statements. So please let me know if I'm understanding things correctly! The only difference between the various citations appears to be the VizieR link. This presents, to me, two possibilities. 1) Is the information being cited actually available (in the plain, anyway) in the base source—the Astronomy & Astrophysics publication? If so, then the VizieR links can perhaps be omitted to make the sourcing easier to manage (if they're very important, perhaps introduce why in footnote?). 2) If you're relying directly on the VizieR entries, then the citations should be restructured to indicate that's what you're citing. Or, perhaps, I've gotten the entire situation wrong? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The anser is "sort of". Many astronomy articles have results or data covering a large number of objects (sometimes in the thousands). The article listed here, will not contain a table listing all the results. What you have to do is find the page that lists the data and enter the identifier, which will give you this. The table that supplies this data is not viewable in the article itself, only the online search tool Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You sometimes give volume and issue for The Astronomical Journal, and sometimes only volume. Be consistent (and volume and issue is preferable).
issues added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Seligman is not properly formatted (URLs are not site names). Also, why is this a reliable source?
The profile suggests he knows what he's talking about :). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
...but not agreed on this one. Don't get me wrong, I'm certain that he does, in fact, know what he's talking about. But our self-published source use guideline requires the self-published author be "an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published". He holds a Master of Arts degree in astronomy and his career has principally consisted of teaching at a community college. Regardless of the merits of his web resource, I'm struggling to see how its use is compliant with WP:SPS. He is not an "established expert" in astronomy (or any narrower field thereof). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
This I can deal with - will do so tomorrow. Busy weekend and I need to sleep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, galaxies can be tricky to find info on. Had to remove some info. Ok over to you @Squeamish Ossifrage: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

At this time, this should not be considered an exhaustive analysis of the sources used or reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • ’’ 2nd-century ‘’ — Is this MoS? I’d write second-century
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ’’ John H. Rogers’’ —who he? Perhaps nationality and job so we know why he matters?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ’’ Alpha through Lambda’’ —Although capped in star names, should be lc here
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ’’ the white dwarf is unable to be seen’’ —’’cannot be seen’’ is tidier
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ’’ periodically ignites and erupts’’—perhaps clarify this isn’t combustion?
not sure how without going into a lot of extra detail... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't see a neat way of addressing the last point either. Most of Squeamish Ossifrage's comments seem to be in hand, so happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

First comments, did not read everything just yet:

  • He proposed that Corvus and Crater (along with the water snake Hydra) were death symbols – unclear to me: It was previously mentioned that they possibly were not separate constellations in Mesopotamia, combined into the Babylonian Raven? When was the constellation first seen as distinct?
Ok, it is discussed on pages 25 and 26 of this paper, with another mention on a table on page 19. I have tried to convey the source as accurately as possible without interpretation. It talks about the cup, raven and water snake being a "group" mostly but then isn't clear from the table whether the stars of Crater are just incorporated into the raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
According to our Babylonian star catalogues it is Sumerian not Akkadian...trying to clarify in the source if possible... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC) not explicitly mentioned in source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • These two constellations – "these two" means Crater and Corvus? But why not Hydra?
Oops, that was Corvus and Hydra only (I buffed Corvus before). Imported by mistake and now removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The three brightest stars—Delta, Alpha and Gamma Crateris—from a triangle – Is it supposed to be "form"? But I wonder if it makes sense to mention that three stars are forming a triangle: they always form one, except for when they are on a single line?
yes it should be "form" - yes true, three stars should always form a triangle. I guess it means they are distinctive three stars near Nu Hydrae. (i.e. not four or two or another number of stars, and the triangle is not flattened) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nut sure, but wouldn't it make sense to describe the shape of the constellation as well (the green lines seen in the infobox picture)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no source that says that, and the books often shy away from less distinctive shapes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • traditionally called Alkes "the cup" – what language is this, may be worth adding?
Arabic - added as footnote so as not to disrupt flow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • While reading through the list of stars I was repeatedly wondering where the discussed stars are located within the constellation (some stars have this info, others do not). Unfortunately the map does not show all of them.
Early in wikipedia, all the IAU maps were imported to use. They (and about 99% of maps) generally only incorporate the brighter stars. I am not sure why this is, It'd certainly make the map "busy". Maybe there is a belief that hardcore people really wanting to know where a star is will just use the coordinates....not sure. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise a very solid work, not much to criticise. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok @Jens Lallensack: do you have further queries? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Any reason why this book isn't used? It has much more detail on the mythology part. For example, it explains why the water snake would be an excuse (something that let me wonder while reading this article). Also, it states that after being casted on the sky, the crow is prohibited to drink from the cup; wouldn't this also be an important fact to add? The book even contains a brief description on the shape of the constellation (see comment above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I have never come across that book in google book searches! Yes it is very useful! Thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


Support It mostly looked good, although I had to edit in a couple of places. There's just one minor nit:

  • "The largest star in the constellation, Epsilon Crateris...": Perhaps the largest naked eye star in the constellation? Otherwise I don't know how this claim can ever hold up.
Good point - tweaked (am sure that is what the source implied anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Other than that, I support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Colin M[edit]

Mostly prose-related.

  • Is it appropriate to capitalize 'Southern Celestial Hemisphere'? It's not capitalized in that article.
  • There is no star brighter than third magnitude. This is a weird way to start a paragraph. Presumably you mean in the constellation? It kind of comes off as an absolute statement.
  • A few copy editing issues in Phylarchus paragraph...
    • Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater: the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. The colon kind of gives the impression that what follows (up to the end of the sentence) will be the origin. I would structure the paragraph more like Phylarchus wrote of a different origin for Crater. He told how the city of Eleusa near Troy was beset by plague. Its ruler, Demiphon...
    • 'its' not capitalized at start of sentence
    • Seems appropriate to wikilink at least 'Eleusa' or 'Troy' (and possibly character names if they're significant enough to have articles?)
    • its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year, which he subsequently determined by lottery. I find this wording just a little awkward. 'which' is clearly supposed to refer to 'the choice of maiden', but it doesn't quite follow grammatically. Maybe break up the sentence again? Its ruler Demiphon consulted an oracle who decreed that a maiden would be sacrificed each year. Demiphon declared that he would choose a maiden by lottery, but did not include his own daughter.
    • Later, Mastusius killed Demiphon's daughters... Paragraph previously referred to daughter singular.
  • What's a 'lunar mansion'? Can that be wikilinked? Or it might be simpler to trim that detail (it seems peripheral to the topic at hand - if the reader wants to learn more about the Vermillion Bird of the South, they can click that article link)
  • Again, 'Vermillion Bird of the South' isn't fully capitalized in the corresponding article. Are you sure it's appropriate to capitalize here?
  • If you're going to have this 'In other cultures' subsection, shouldn't the content about the Babylonian Raven also go there?
  • I think the 'Stars' and 'Deep-sky objects' sections could do a better job of providing context to the reader and following the spirit of summary style. The 'Stars' section starts by giving some good context about the first few stars mentioned and why they're noteworthy in the context of the constellation (e.g. they're especially bright, or they're positioned at some extremity). But starting around R Crateris, the text gets fully entrenched in the pattern of just listing stars (and their statitistics) one after the other without giving any obvious indication of why we should care. I would try to lead with that indication of noteworthiness. e.g. Seven star systems in Crater have been found to host planets, including BD−10 3166, WASP-34, and HD 96167 which each host planets with minimum mass approximately half of Jupiter's. In 2012, it was discovered that the sun-like planet HD 98649 has a long-period planet companion, at least.... I'm far from a subject-matter expert on this, but I feel like you could trim some of the specific statistics (unless they're important and contextualized in prose) from these sections. Readers can always look up stats at List of stars in Crater or at the corresponding article for the particular celestial object, right?
  • Have you thought about having a 'History' section? You mention in the intro that the constellation was listed by Ptolemy in the 2nd century BC. There are some more facts about the historical development of the constellation sprinkled in the article (e.g. that its official boundaries were set in 1930 by so-and-so, that Flamsteed at some point conceived of it as a combined constellation with Hydra, and gave them some designation). I wonder if there's more to be said about its status over time (and whether it would be worthwhile saying it in one centralized section). Just an idea.

-Colin M (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed one Featured Article review. I have been working on improvements over the past three years.

With the review, I am willing to put in any amount of work to make the promotion possible. I will answer any questions and am happy to make the adjustments that you see fit. I am looking for constructive criticism so that the article can improve. I have kick started the process by fixing all of the dead links on the page. Please alert me if any more links fail to work.

Thank you for taking the time to check out this review. SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In its prime, the group was one of the most popular musical acts in Australia, with several top 10 albums and a series of ARIA Awards. The group is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, and would be the perfect time to jump on board for this review. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Shaidar cuebiyar: I know you reviewed the page when it became a Good Article in 2016; if you are interested in helping out with the Feature Article review, it would be greatly appreciated! All good if not. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: @Dweller: Thank you both for looking at this article's previous Feature Article review in 2017; if there is any chance you'd like to take another look at the article now, I would be very thankful. No problems if you aren't interested. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Support from Aoba47
Resolved comments
  • I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, who are associated with the children's television series of the same name.) to (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998 in association with the children's television series of the same name.) because I think the current placement of the "who..." phrase is a little awkward.
  • I would revise this part (The group is aimed at preschoolers, composed of five performers who entertain), as it literally reads that "preschoolers" are the ones that are "composed of five performers who entertain".
  • I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 was created by Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans, initially a television series for the Nine Network, which premiered in 1999.) to avoid passive voice. Maybe something like (Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans created Hi-5 as a Nine Network television series, which premiered in 1999.).
  • I am not entirely sure what this sentence (The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children.) means. Could you explain it? It would seem rather obvious that any actors/performers on a children's show would be marketed toward children. Also, who is doing the recognizing here?
  • I would revise this part (following de Leon Jones, who left on maternity leave in 2006.) to (when de Leon Jones went on maternity leave in 2006) to make it a little more concise and to avoid the repetition of "left" and "leave".
  • For this part (The television series features puppet characters Chatterbox and Jup Jup, who are popular associates of the group and are included in the live stage shows), I am not sure if "are popular associates of the group and" is needed as it is already made clear in the beginning of the sentence that the puppets are associated with the group through the show. Maybe cut it down to "who are included in the group's live stage shows" instead.
  • For this sentence (The members of Hi-5 are employees of the brand and do not hold equity), would it be helpful to include a wikilink for "equity" to the equity (finance) article.
  • For this part (after the brand was sold by the Nine Network in 2012.), I would clarify who the brand was sold to if it is known.
  • I have three comments for this sentence (In 2002, it was revealed that Crawford and Foley were in a personal relationship.). I would clarify in the prose how this was "revealed". I would also avoid using the word "revealed" as I have been told that it is too editorial/sensational. You could simply say that they said they were in this. I would also change "personal relationship" to "romantic relationship" as the current wording seems a little vague.
  • Make sure to wikilink pop music on its first use in the article (i.e. , incorporating educational trends with a pop music appeal, using music and movement to capture the attention of children).
  • I would simplify this part (Group members expressed just how demanding their role in the group had been) to (Groups members said their work was demanding) or something similar.
  • For this part (In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay.), there should be a comma after "2015". I see a few instances of this in the article so I would advise you to check through everything. Here are some more examples. ("In July 2006 de Leon Jones stated that she was intent on returning to Hi-5," and " In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay").
  • This part (The pair departed in January 2013.) needs a citation.

Great work with the article. I have only provided comments for the beginning portions, and I will complete the review later in the week if that is okay. I just wanted to put these comments up as a start and a placeholder for my future review. Apologies for the large amount of comments. Do not be discouraged, as the article looks in really good shape from what I am reading so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi @Aoba47:, I'd like to thank you for taking on the review! Your feedback has been very helpful and I agree with all of the comments you've made. I'm not at all discouraged and looking forward to continuing the clean-up.
  • I have managed to address all of your concerns.
  • I am just looking for a citation for "The pair departed in January 2013" which there may not be any sources for. If there is no available source, I may just remove this line.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In response to "The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children", this was just a sentence to show that the group's popularity transcended the TV show. They were recognised by charting albums and awards, rather than it just being a standalone TV show. Is there a better way to phrase this?
  • I understand what you mean, but I did not get that from the current sentence. In the current sentence, I thought it mean that the cast was recognized as a musical group for children because of the show. I would try something like (The cast become popular for their work outside the show) or (The cast received recognition for their work outside the show). I also do not believe it is necessary to describe them as a musical group for children again, as I believe that point was already made clear in the previous parts of the lead. I could be wrong though so it is up to you. If you would like to keep the current wording, then we can see what other editors think. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will complete the review by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The original Hi-5 line-up were together for eight series of the TV show.), say “television show” rather than “TV show”. I would make sure this is done throughout the article.
  • For this part (In December's Confidential reporter), there should be a comma after “December”.
  • I would revise this sentence (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group, expressing she expected to only be a temporary replacement. ) to (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group since she had expected only to be a temporary replacement.). Something about “expressing” seems a little awkward to me.
  • I am confused by this part (and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans). Who is doing the recognizing here?
  • For this part (In June 2012 the Nine Network announced that), add a comma after “2012”.
  • For this part (primarily based on Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences.), “theory” does not need to be capitalized.
  • ARIA Albums Chart is linked twice in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For Reference 97, “special announcement” should not be in all caps.
  • For the Logie Awards table, I do not see why (Tied) is in italics. Also, do you think it would be appropriate to add a end-note/footnote on how Hi-5 tied with for this award? Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nicholson's image caption should not have a period as it is not a full sentence.
  • For this part (Hi-5 has a distinguishable pop music sound,), I do not believe "distinguishable" is necessary as it verges on some POV issues in my opinion.
  • For this part (however he said that the respective groups have different "styles of music".), there should be a comma after "however".
  • I believe it should be "Southeast Asia" rather than "South East Asia". I have never seen the "South" and "east" separated in this way before. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Once the above comments are addressed, I will support the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Aoba47: all of the comments have been addressed.
  • Have changed "and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans" to "and in 2011 reintroduced a number of their classic songs to a new generation of fans."
  • Thanks for bringing to light the correct phrasing of Southeast Asia - this hadn't been brought to my attention before. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for supporting the nomination. Are there any other suitable editors that you might be able to alert to the review? Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. You could try pinging the reviewers from the first FAC, but I am not sure. This FAC is still relatively new-ish, so hopefully, this will attract more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments Tentative support from Cas Liber
Resolved comments

Thanks for pinging. Will take a look soon (and jot queries below):

Overall looks better than previously, but is still sprinkled with some vague positive statements that hint of advertising. These need to be removed or rephrased. There are also alot of quotations that should be rewritten if possible.

  • The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show. - umm...means what?
  • Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised that children are the same around the world, and expected the show would appeal universally, with accessible themes such as family and animals - this is verbose and could be radically trimmed, to something like, "Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised she could develop a show with universal appeal, with accessible themes such as family and animals"
  • narrowing down "about 300" people to only five - just say "around 300" and remove the quotation marks.
  • Harris described the first time the group sang together as "goosebump stuff, even though they had never met". - err, which means what exactly?
  • Harris stated that the energy of the group was fast-paced, replicating the style of a music video, which children seem to enjoy - "energy" is a puffy word with little meaning, I'd remove it.
  • Greene stated "we’re really excited to be working with Nine to develop a reinvigorated Hi-5 show". - this sentence sounds puffy and adds nothing. I'd remove it.
  • In October 2015, Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay. - don't need quote marks here
  • One of the unique features of the group is that the members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them - the source does not described it as a "unique feature" (which it isn't anyway). I'd chop that and leave "The members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them"
  • The educational aspects of the group's content are disguised with music and entertainment, with the multiple layers of the show catering to a wide range of ages in the audience, while being primarily aimed at those aged 2–8 - they are not disguised..otherwsie kids wouldn't learn. I'd say "blended" or "incorporated"

I'll read more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking a look. I'm happy to remove/rephrase as much as needed.
  • For, The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show., I changed "work" to "music". Is there a better way for this sentence to show that their success transcended the TV show?
  • Have changed "energy" line to "Harris modelled the group on the fast-paced nature of contemporary music videos, which children seem to enjoy." - not sure if this is better.
  • Have removed "goose bump stuff" - language too casual.
  • All other concerns addressed. SatDis (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, nature is better than energy. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking for anything recent, this adds little but emphasises there are no actual members of the band right now, which I think needs to be mentioned in the lead.
* Yep, I have referenced this in the article. In the lead, I've got "the group currently employs a roster of temporary performers for touring purposes" - no permanent members at the moment but there are still occassional performances. SatDis (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Right, I feel better now with the prose, though I am worried that others might find enough examples to complain about. Consider this a cautious support pending consensus (I find my eyes miss issues after a few reads). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. If you do find anything else feel free to let me know. SatDis (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Dweller
Resolved comments
  • " The cast received recognition for their music outside of the show." what does that mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Have had a few comments about this one. It was meant to explain how their popularity and music transcended the TV show. But I have just removed the line to avoid confusion. SatDis (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Dweller: did you have any other comments? SatDis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

At this stage the review is only partial. I have not yet taken an overview of the quality and reliability of the sources, nor have I carried out any verification spotchecks. I need to scan the reflist further for possible formatting issues. Here are a few points that have come to my attention thus far:

  • The "Notes" are lacking any citations
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 2: You have wikilinked The Daily Telegraph to the London paper, whereas the source is the Sydney paper.
  • Fixed.
  • The publisher of the Telegraph, given as News Limited, is now known as News Corp Australia (wikilinked in ref 34). This affects a number of references. You have it right in ref 101.
  • Fixed.
  • There needs to be consistency in adding publisher to the Telegraph references. The detail is missing in refs 54, 59, 81, 88, 89, 91
  • Fixed.
  • Retrieval dates missing from refs 21, 22, 23
  • Fixed.
  • Ref. 113: What makes Nick Jr. Parents a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is mainly a blog style site used as the source of an interview. Those quotes can easily be removed if the site is not deemed appropriate.

I intend to complete the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your feedback, I have addressed the concerns above.SatDis (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


  • Verification: A sample of spotchecks for verification etc revealed one instance of close paraphrasing in Ref 32:
  • Article: "By the end of 2005, Hi-5 had performed to a total audience of over one and a half million people around the world".
  • Source: "By the end of the year, Hi- 5 will have performed to an audience of over one and a half million people around the world."
  • Fixed, paraphrased.
  • Quality and reliability: In general the sources seem to be at an appropriate level of quality and reliability. However, there are a few more sources that I'm not too sure about. Can you say how they qualify as high-quality reliable sources?
  • Refs 18, 26, 82, 151:
  • The website is a news site, as for ref 18, it's an important milestone in the group's history and the article reports it accurately, with no other sources available. The other refs are used for interview quotes, and to provide sources for important dates otherwise not available.
  • Ref 29:
  • Reliable TV news site - information in ref otherwise not available. The source references the Sydney Confidential newspaper.
  • Ref 76: Bugg Toys and Licensing.
  • No other source with the important dates or quotes. There are not many available references for this children's group so it's sometimes a case of using everything that can be found.
  • Ref 142:
  • This is an independent blog for the reception section - quotes from reviewers are needed for this section.
  • Other points
  • Ref 27 needs a page number as it is lacking a link
  • Unfortunately there is no page number available.
  • Ditto ref 108
  • There is a link for this source.
  • Ref 78: Link not working for me
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 83: Clarify that this is a press release
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 95: Missing publisher details
  • Fixed.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)


Hi, thanks for your input in Lorde FAC. I'd like to return the favor, and I'm really bad at giving reviews. Right now I have no major concern over the prose, but I need more time to read through the article several times, and may give my support then. Best of luck, (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all; it was challenging to find comments for the Lorde FAC as well. Thank you for visiting the page, any support at all is very much appreciated! SatDis (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) and De88

This article is about Kiwi sensation Lorde, who has released two studio albums and received widespread plaudits from critics and audiences alike. I and De88 have worked on the article since January based on previous PR inputs, and now believe the article is ready for the gold star. — (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Resolved concerns from Nikkimaria
  • suggest adding alt text
  • Added
  • File:Lorde_signature.png: signatures are typically eligible for copyright protection in common law countries like NZ
  • Removed after considering its role in the article
  • File:Royals_Lorde.ogg: FUR should be completed
  • Done
  • File:Lorde_wax_at_Madame_Tussauds_Hollywood.jpg is currently tagged for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed, awaiting further notifications from Commons — (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Does the article still need revisions regarding its images? De88 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved concerns from Aoba47
  • Something about the word “product” in this part (Universal Music commercially released the pair's first product,) sounds strange to me. I have never seen the word used to reference a music release (i.e. an extended play) before, but that could just be me. The same question applies to when you use “product” in the body of the article (i.e. a product of her and Little's collaboration).
  • Reworded to "collaborative effort". May still not be the best word choice, but I hope it conveys the idea better.
  • Thank you for the update. I think it works, but I will leave that up to the other editors as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would include the year that Feed was first published in the prose.
  • Added
  • I have a question about these two phrase “Year twelve” and “Year thirteen”. I am an American so I am completely unfamiliar with how the education system is structured in New Zealand, but in the articles linked with these phrases, the numbers are both spelled out in numerals. Does that make a difference?
  • I think not. They can either be numerals or spelled out in the words "twelve" and "thirteen".
  • That is what I thought, but I just wanted to make sure since I am unfamiliar with the system. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (During this time, she began writing songs), because the previous paragraph mentions how Lorde performed original music. Wouldn’t it make more sense to move that sentence (i.e.  She later performed her first original songs at the Victoria Theatre in November 2011.) to connect these two ideas together. I was initially confused when reading the first part, because I had thought that she had already written music and I had to double-check the dates.
  • Revised the flow
  • I would link “EP” on its first use in the lead and the body of the article.
  • Done
  • I would revise this part (After being freely downloaded 60,000 times,) to something like “After being downloaded for free 60,000 times” as the current wording sounds a little awkward to me. The current wording brought up a somewhat funny image for me of people being forced to download the EP, as opposed to when they could just “freely” do so on their own accord.
  • Agreed. Reworded — (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the paragraph on her performances in the “Public image” section. The topic sentence (i.e. Lorde's onstage persona, particularly her signature unchoreographed dancing, has attracted polarised reception from audiences.) is very good, and the two Fader sentences following it provide a very good understanding of the praise for her performances. However, I think you should add a bit about why people do not like her performance style. You mention in the topic sentence that it polarized audiences, but you go on to only mention a positive review. I would find a negative to balance it out.
  • Added bits of information
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you think you should include a small part about how Lorde responded to the South Park parodies? I am not sure if that is too off-topic, but I was just curious.
  • I even think the inclusion of South Park parodies is unnecessary. The episodes are indeed mentioned a lot, but the contents of the parodies focus on Lorde's looks i.e. she looks older than she's supposed to. I want to hear your opinion on this anw
  • I understand. That's why I was uncertain about adding the reception. I think the inclusion of the parodies is good as it currently stands, because it is brief, but I would guess that some people may only know Lorde or were at least introduced to her through the show so it would be helpful to keep it if that makes sense. I will also leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the article. Just make sure to keep updating it as I would believe her career will only continue from this point on. I have only focused on the prose, and I have not looked at anything related to the images or the sources themselves. I hope this helps at least a little. Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Your comments are very much appreciated :) I have addressed your concern as above. Please feel free to add more comments! — (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. I remember that Lorde was compared to Lana del Rey by music critics, and Lorde said something about Rey's music being "unhealthy". I am not sure if it is appropriate for this article though, but I wanted to raise it to your attention. Hope you have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that information is better suited for “Royals” since that song was a reaction to the hip hop-influenced artists she was listening to at the time (e.g. Kanye, Jay-Z, Lana, etc.) De88 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me, thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in pretty good shape, but at times the quality of the prose and depth of coverage fall short of FA standard. I have the following comments:

  • "Bearing fascination with aristocracy in her stage name" - this is a bit clunky
  • I have yet to find better wording... Would you mind suggesting an alteration? — (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
(Drive-by comment by KJP1. Agree it doesn't work at the moment - looking at the source, [104], I think it's saying something like, "Her stage name indicating her early fascination with royalty and aristocracy, she is known for..." It's still not great prose, but it is clearer as to meaning.) KJP1 (talk 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC))
Thanks for the comment! I have revised the sentence to make it clearer :) — (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "She has sold over 5 million albums, as of June 2017, and 17 million songs, as of November 2014" - this seems very dated
  • Removed songs sales in the lead — (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It also appears towards the end of the article. It would be much better to update these figures. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Very hard to update figures when Billboard provides nothing and the only figures available happen to be in forums. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to believe that there have not been publicly-available sales figures for a fairly major artist in over two years. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Trust me, I have looked to the ends of Google searching for any recent sales updates... nothing. I spent several months typing specific keywords to find sources to no avail. Anticipated a sales update for Pure Heroine fifth anniversary and nothing was updated, unfortunately. De88 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lorde is not very appealing to the mainstream like other big names i.e. Taylor or Gaga, so I don't think this is unusual. But the five million album sales as of June 2017 is fairly updated imo — (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • June 2017 is the month her most recent album was released (on 16 June), so it doesn't seem very recent. The downloads figure is very outdated.