Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2017

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 [1].

---

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 16th century fatwa during the period of persecution on Muslims in Castile (now Spain), relaxing the requirements of Muslim religious practice there given the climate of persecution. It passed GA, and I've put it up for Peer Review, which suggested me to directly nominate for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Sistinehall.jpg needs information on the original work pictured, as Italy does not have freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria:. Thanks. That concept is new to me, I read up a little bit, and it looks like being a building from 1588, the Sistine Hall should be OK to photograph. I updated the file's description on Commons, please take a look and I hope my understanding is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, we just need a copyright tag for the artwork as well, indicating why it is in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done

Comments from Midnightblueowl I passed this as a GA so it's great to see it at FAC. Just a few points:

• There is probably no need for citations in the lede given that it simply duplicates prose in the main part of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it ok to err on the side of adding citation? It will help readers locating the source of those materials HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a big fan of citations in the lede; I find them a little messy, but it's not a big deal and they are certainly not a barrier to FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd really recommend that you add the locations of the publishers of the different sources that have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is citation 24 alone in being formatted differently to the others? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done HaEr48 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good work, HaEr48. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• At first glance, some of the header titles seem too generic/vague. "Significance" or some such would say much more about the relevant section than "Analysis". "Context" also seems inferior to for example "Background".
  • Did a series of changes reorganizing the header and renaming the title. Is this better now? More suggestions welcome. HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You could give the year in the caption of te first painting.
  • Added (it was from 1873) HaEr48 (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Any pictures of a copy? Would be PD, since it is 2D.
  • I agree it would be awesome, but unfortunately I haven't seen any picture of the actual copy in my sources. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Previous opinions" Could be renamed "Previous Islamic opinions" for clarity.
  • Done HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "As the Christian conquest of Iberia " Why not Christian reconquest?
  • I use the term "reconquista", but it appears that the idea of it as a "reconquest" is somewhat problematic (see Reconquista#Concept_and_duration for example). I tried to stay away from that by just using "conquest". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps state when the reconquest began?
  • There doesn't seem to be any clear-cut date where Reconquista is supposed to start (for example, the lead of Wikipedia's article on Reconquista mention 711, 718, and 722, all without any citation). But what matters for the population trajectory is that it seemed to accelerate beginning from the 12th century, reworded the paragraph to highlight that. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Morisco, fatwa, and other terms that are only explained in the intro should also be explained at first mention in the article body.
  • Explained Morisco in body. Re "fatwa", it's hard to find where to insert that explanation in the body. First few mentions are in form of "Oran fatwa" or "the fatwa", which became awkward to insert. If you have a good idea feel free to add it or point it out to me. Otherwise, hopefully the description as "Islamic legal opinion" in lead suffices? HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I see citations in the intro were already discussed, but at least make sure no citations are only found there.

• Done. HaEr48 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Thus, the author is often referred to as "the Mufti of Oran" and the document to be called "the Oran fatwa"" Something seems odd here.
  • replaced "to be" with "is". HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "and instructed them make up" A "to" missing?
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk)
• " to replace the ritual ablution" You give the Arabic word in parenthesis for other terms, why not here (wudu)?
  • Done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "as long as the Muslims did not intend to make use of them" What is meant bu this? What other use do these things have than to be consumed?
  • The wording "make use of" is from Harvey p.61, but I checked Rosa-Rodríguez uses "take advantage" which sounds better, so replaced it. Does it make sense now? HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "The other three were translations in Spanish" To Spanish?
  • Ok. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Any relation to taqiya? Seems very similar, if so, could be stated.
  • It does sound similar to me, but the sources I read it don't link them together, so I worry mentioning it here may be WP:OR. I found this [2] which mentioned Taqiyya, but it is in Spanish (which I don't read) and the Spanish abstract says that the term taqiyya "is not found in the writings of the Morisco", so probably that's another dead end? I guess taqiyya is more of an important concept for Shias, but the Spanish Muslims were Sunni, so.. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ulama and nisbat could be explained. Perhaps even sharia; many have heard the word, but may not know its meaning. Same with hadith.

• Added explanation of Ulama, nisba, sharia and hadith at first mention of each. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like an omission that no modern analyses (or any, for that matter) by Muslim writers are mentioned, I'm sure Harvey and Stewart can't be the only scholars who have discussed the issue? I think it would be needed for comprehensiveness.
  • There are many other scholars who discussed the issue (I added some content citing Rosa-Rodriguez and Garcia-Arenal) but all of the references I found in English are from scholars of Spanish Muslim history, not from Islamic religious scholars. Possible explanation: (1) it was such a long time ago so it's mostly interesting as part of history (hence mostly historians discuss it, not modern religious scholars) (2) Muslim religious scholars might write in Arabic or other languages, which I don't read (3) the fatwa contradicts the predominant opinion (discussed in "Previous Islamic legal opinions" section), so maybe while it was popular among the crypto-Muslims in spain, it was not so popular among the religious authorities elsewhere. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "such as worshipping as Catholics" This is the only time Catholics are mentioned. Elsewhere you just say Christians.
  • Good catch, done. HaEr48 (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "The fatwa has been described as the "key theological document" to understand the practice of Spanish Muslims " Only mentioned in the intro, which should have no unique info. It should be stated in the article body as well, with in-text attribution, since it is a direct quote.

• Added explanation of the "key theological document" quote in the "Scholarly analysis" section, quoting some scholars who stressed its importance. HaEr48 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FunkMonk for your thoughtful feedback. Give me some more time to address your other points. HaEr48 (talk)

@FunkMonk: addressed all your points. Let me know if I miss anything. HaEr48 (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good to me now. If any later Islamic opinion can be found, it would of course be nice to add. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good, thank you. A few points:

• It might be good to pick up the point explicitly that Harvey makes on p. 64 that the fatwa had no discernible extra-Iberian impact. The article implies that it didn't, but the evidence seems strong enough to say so expressly.
  • Added a paragraph to that effect in the "Impact in Spain" section. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "After the forced conversion was extended to the Crown of Aragon in the 1520s, the fatwa circulated there, too." - Harvey is less certain about this than you are, using the qualifier "reasonable to assume".
  • Good catch, I overlooked that qualifier by Harvey. Added a "likely" qualifier, would that do? "reasonable to assume" sounds like an author stating his view (vs an encyclopedia article) so I feel I should avoid that phrase. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Footnotes 95 to 97 of Stewart's article look like they could be interesting and potentially relevant texts, comparing the Oran fatwa with the prevailing Maliki view. Might it be worth mentioning that there is scholarly debate about the extent to which the Oran fatwa is a direct and personal rebuttal of al-Wansharisi? Stewart's fairly balanced view (pp. 299-300) seems to be that it probably was, and that moreover a rebuttal of such a senior cleric was a very bold thing to do, which all appears interesting and relevant.
  • Expanded one of the paragraph to note Wansharisi's seniority and Stewart's view that the fatwa was a rebuke against him. The texts in those footnotes are in Spanish (which I don't read), and Stewart's descriptions of them are too short for me to understand the debate properly, so I'm not sure if I can go there. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We get given Harvey's full name and link right at the end of the article but on two or three earlier occasions he is just "Harvey".

Syek88 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • We get "L. P. Harvey" with wikilink at the authorship section, which is the first mention of his name. Also, should I expand to "Leonard Patrick Harvey" (his full name)? In his works he just use the "L. P. Harvey" initial, I assume this is the more natural name to use in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well-thought review, Syek88. Hope my updates addressed your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - they most certainly do. Thank you again for this article. This is one of those rare pages that exemplifies Wikipedia's greatest strength: nowhere else could an amateur researcher find, in one place, the information you've been able put together. Syek88 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What engvar are we using? I see "emphasised" and "materialize"; perhaps other discrepancies.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's use UK English? My brain is dominated by neither UK or US spellings, so sometimes I mix them up without realizing. I spot checked (with the help of browser's Ctrl+F) and updated some, please point out or update if you find more discrepancies. HaEr48 (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Midnightblueowl, I notice you commented on citations, did you perform (or are you comfortable performing) a full source review for reliability as well as formatting?
• HaEr48, as this is your first FAC (correct me if I'm wrong) I'd also like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all newbies to jump through. Like the source review mentioned above, this could be performed by someone who has already commented on the article here, or else you can make a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Rose (talk • contribs)

On the second point, I read the Stewart and Harvey sources carefully. They are the principal sources used. I can vouch that they are accurately represented (subject to my actioned comments above) and that there is no close paraphrasing. Syek88 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Does Syek88's comment (Thanks, Syek!) above suffice, or do I still need to make a request at WT:FAC? HaEr48 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that will do, tks. Cheers, 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: (Recused as co-ordinator) I just read through this with a view to promoting, but noticed it needed a source review. However, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and am more than happy to support, particularly as this period of history is always one I've found interesting. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: All sources look reliable and correctly formatted. I would suggest, for consistency, either linking all the publishing locations or none; we currently have a mixture. Otherwise sources OK. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The mixture is because some locations are mentioned multiple times (e.g. Chicago, Leiden). Modified now to make them consistetnly shown at the locations' first occurence. HaEr48 (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HaEr48, I'm going to promote this but pls note you have some duplinks that should be reviewed to see if they're really necessary, given the article isn't particularly long. You can use this script to highlight the duplicates. Cheers, 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 [3].

---

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's a charm? I really hope so.

After contributing just 35 edits since May (including an incredibly embarrassing single edit in all of November) due to a variety of off-wiki issues, which happened to be the primary reason why this failed the last FAC, I'm trying to get back into editing, and I figured that the best way to start out is to finally finish dealing with this article. I've recently gone back and fixed all of the outstanding concerns from last time, and although I've been wrong with this kind of a statement in the past, I think that this miniscule nine paragraph article is now free of all of my various flaws.

And just to give a very brief description: Ben Crosby was a late-19th century football player and coach, who basically accomplished nothing with his life before dying at 22 from Typhoid. He spent one year as a head coach of an important team and gained notability in his playing career for being worse than someone younger than him. I hope you like the article!

Thanks to everyone who reviews this. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 05:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I only had one issue last time, and I see you've edited to remove some of the repetition, but I think if you made it "Crosby died on December 29, 1892 at the age of 24" it would be clear that he died from typhoid. As it stands, since "succumbs" usually means "died", I think it's still repetitious. Alternatively you could edit the first mention of typhoid to remove the word "succumbs" and just say that it he contracted typhoid; I'm guessing you phrase it as you do because the source doesn't make it clear whether he contracted typhoid at that point, or the "severe cold" was typhoid all along. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I understand what you mean now, and I've changed the paragraph accordingly. Thanks for coming back and reviewing again, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The above was the only remaining issue from my previous review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Mike. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As before, quotes should only be used minimally and only really for something memorable. Both of the following should be eminently fixable

"'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something, "fell very ill with a cold/URTI"

his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)

Otherwise looking on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about taking so long to give you a response; I'll try to address your concerns later today. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that took longer than it should have. Sorry about that. I made a change based on your first point. On the second, I'd prefer to keep it how it is. Mike Christie noted it somewhat above; the sources are relatively ambiguous in their description of events, and I'm also not sure how medically accurate their wordings are. I think in this case using the quote is justified as it's the best way of expressing the information presented, without the possibility of misconstruing its meaning. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow, you corrected everything I saw on the BC#2 FAC, and did it in a very clear and concise manner. No other objections. I'm happy to support this. — Maile (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up and for the support. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – All of the references appear reliable and the links are working fine. The only issue I see with the formatting is that there is a mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBN numbers; I believe the MoS favors the 13-digit ones. This is easy to fix; go here and type the 10-digit number in (click a button to hyphenate them), and it spits out the 13-digit number. Other than that admittedly minor concern, everything looks good in the sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected this. Also, I went through and added OCLCs for all remaining sources that could have had them before. Thanks reviewing again, Giants2008. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 12:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I supported this article at the previous FAC and it looks to have improved since then, with the other commentary it's received. Having re-read it, I found no new issues to report. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good short article: its brevity should not be confused for a lack of comprehensiveness. The following issues are all very much minor. I have little doubt that they can be addressed quickly and easily.

• "which he was then commended for following the upset victory". This would read better with the preposition earlier and removal of the unnecessary "then": "for which he was commended following the upset victory". But perhaps the bigger issue with this sentence is this: he was commended for the win, not for the extra practices he scheduled. The sentence is ambiguous about this, and suggests that Crosby was specifically commended for his hard-ass coaching.

• I've tried to reword this entire part of the lead. I think I clarified the issue, but it feels like I made the whole thing read a bit worse.

• The article's lead section mentions a "cold", but the later and more detailed discussion of the circumstances of his death refers only to a "serious illness". The result is an internal inconsistency. I wonder if the reference to a cold is strictly accurate given the vagueness of such a diagnosis, especially in that era. It might be better to stick to the terminology of "illness".

• Changed to "illness".

• "As a child, Crosby attended Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven, Connecticut, the second person in his family to do so." The phrasing of this sentence immediately made be wonder who the other person in his family to attend the school was.

• I've clarified this

• "Crosby was very popular while at Yale". The word "very" looks to be vague and unnecessary inflation.

• You're right. I've removed it.

• "The team eventually finished the season with a perfect record and would be retroactively named national champions." Why was it retroactive? If nothing out-of-the-ordinary happened, weren't they just "named national champions".

• At this point in college football, there was no system of awarding a program with a national championship. The idea didn't originate until the 1920s. All awards given to the team were awarded by organizations during the 20th century, and so they were awarded retroactively.

• "Despite losing his spot, Crosby remained popular through his senior year at the university" I would not expect the loss of one's football team spot to result automatically in a decline in one's popularity. Accordingly, is "despite losing his spot" appropriate?

• "Despite losing his spot" has been removed.

• "first that had been independent of the program." - "who" would be better than "that".

• Changed.

• "Crosby also caught the attention of the press with his scheduling of constant practices leading up to the game". The word "constant" literally means 24 hours a day. Perhaps "more frequent" or something similar would be better.

• Changed to your suggestion.

The final paragraph is very good. Syek88 (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I think I've finally gotten around to trying to deal with all of your concerns. Thanks for the review, and sorry about taking so long. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 23:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Don't apologise at all. The changes look good to me, as does the explanation about the retroactively awarded championship. Syek88 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed an image review anywhere? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ok, 2 of 3 are definitely in Public Domain due to age and publishing date. The third File:Ben Crosby 1891.png is clearly of an age to be public domain except that its publishing history is unclear. Worst-case scenario is a Fair Use rationale, which is valid, as there are no other photos of the person. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• i.e. I think we're in business...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A further note: While we are waiting for Syek88 to finish their review, a few things jump out from the article in terms of prose. For instance, we are using "Crosby" rather a lot, and some rewording to avoid this would be good. Also, in the lead, we have "A member of both Delta Kappa Epsilon and Skull and Bones, Crosby was a two-year starter on the football team and a backup on the crew team", which I'm afraid makes little sense to me and I suspect to a lot of readers. Before we promote this, I'd like one or two more eyes on the prose. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Everything has gone a little quiet, but can I just check if Syek88 plans to revisit? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had been waiting for the article's author to respond to my (fairly minor) points. Even if there is no response, I am not opposing, if that assists. Syek88 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Texas Historian: If nothing happens soon, and the nominator is not responding, we might be forced to archive this I'm afraid. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've just been getting distracted. I've already dealt with most of Syek's points and I'll try to address the remaining ones soon. - A Texas Historian (Questions?) 16:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Texas Historian: This has been open a long time now. If nothing has happened by the end of this week (4 March), I think this will need to be archived. Reviewers are stretched thin and it is not really fair to keep them hanging like this. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1, not sure if you noticed, but in fact the nominator has dealt with the remaining points a paragraph above, and the last reviewer has supported. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that. Ignore my last comment! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've recused as coordinator to copy-edit this a little. I've removed quite a bit of jargon and tried to make it more accessible for the general reader. Anything I have messed up can be reverted. I'm not supporting, as I think it may still be a little jargony, but have absolutely no objection to this being promoted now and may return to support in a day or two if this is still here. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read through this last week and made a list of fairly minor comments but got sidetracked and didn't post them. Coming back to it today, I find almost all of the comments are resolved. I've tried a slight bit of prose tightening in a few areas, and have changed a few numbers so that per MOS:NUM it's consistent. It might need another look through for that. Otherwise, this is looking much improved. Don't hesitate to revert copyedits if the meaning has been changed. Nice article. Victoriaearle (tk) 23:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Henry Conwell, the second Catholic bishop of Philadelphia. He began his episcopate at an advanced age and spent much of his tenure fighting with lay trustees of one of his parishes. He was recalled to Rome, stripped of most of his powers, and lived out his days as bishop in name only. I hope his story proves an interesting read. Coemgenus (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support just a few things

• You might want to make it clear he was born in Ulster and thus not in present-day Ireland (Irish Free State)
• "He was appointed parish priest of Dungannon in 1792 or 1793 and Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Armagh in 1794.[1][5] After the death of Archbishop Richard O'Reilly in 1818, Conwell served as acting Archbishop". Hm. Long time, no see? (no action required)
• I'd make clearer how few Catholics there were in the US at the time, especially outside Maryland.
• "Hogan quickly ingratiated himself with the board of trustees, siding with them in their dispute with the other clergy" Was the board made up of clergy? Some clarification so we know the situation we're dealing with.
• "that neither Conwell nor anyone had the right to dictate the location of his residence." maybe "that neither Conwell nor anyone else had the right to say where he should live."
• "In the meantime, Conwell recalled a Dominican friar, William Vincent Harold, whom his predecessor had dismissed." I'd make it clearer this was as interim priest at St. Mary's, or whatever the proper term is.

Very interesting and well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I've clarified these where I could. There is very little information on his early life, so not much I can add there. I can't find anything that says exactly what Harold did when he returned except assist Conwell. I'll look some more to see where he said mass, if anywhere, but Hogan was still at St. Mary's at this point, despite his excommunication, so it almost certainly wasn't there. There were three more downtown churches, so it could have been any of them. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Dank, for the edits and for the support. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "his divide with Conwell deepened": I think I know what's intended, but there's been no mention of a divide specifically between Hogan and Conwell up to this point, so I think this should be rephrased, particularly as this is followed by "When Conwell arrived", implying that the previous sentence describes events preceding Conwell's arrival.
  • Yes, I got the tenses screwed up in editing. Should be fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Meanwhile, the schism continued": suggest dropping "meanwhile"; we just had "In the meantime" and I don't think the sense would be harmed.
  • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "The trustees soon renounced the agreement, and when word reached the Holy See": word of the agreement or of the announcement by the trustees that they had renounced it? The wording makes it seem to be the latter, but the rest of the sentence seems to point to the former.
  • It's the latter, they didn't approve of the agreement even before they knew the trustees were going to break it. Should be better worded now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Can the external link in note b be converted to a citation? And I think note c should have a citation too.
  • Done and done. Thanks very much for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support; the fixes all look good. A well-crafted short article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we get ISBNs for the two 1976 books?
  • They're two chapters in the same book, which seems not to have an ISBN. [5]
• The Catholic Encyclopedia citation gives a date of 1908 in the recommended citation form at the bottom of the linked page; you have 1909.
  • Fixed.
• You have "Kendrick" in the source listing for Nolan, but "Kenrick" in the article.
  • Fixed. (I must have been thinking of another Kendrick). --Coemgenus (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those fixes look good to me. Odd that there's no ISBN, but there were other small publishers well into the 1970s that omitted ISBNs; I guess the archdiocese was a little behind the times. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 [6].

---

Nominator(s): RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is another one about a swallow from the Tachycineta genus. It is found in central South America. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph of the intro is book-ended by references to the supraloral stripe - why not combine the two sentences? The stripe is a weird way to start the paragraph and you could say It has a white supraloral streak above its eye, which can be used to differentiate it from the similar Chilean swallow.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the species have a lower altitudinal limit? If not, perhaps mention it ranges from sea-level to 1000 m.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nest prospecting is a behaviour recorded in both breeding and non-breeding individuals. Does this mean that birds prospect for nests while actually nesting? If so it could be made a touch clearer.

I added a sentence after the one mentioned to clarify. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• transition from pinkish-white to pure white. Does this mean they vary in colour or they change colour after laying?

Clarified, they change color after laying. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've made few edits for language and will have another look soon. Looks good overall. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: FYI, I'm done. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the HBW the species was sometimes placed in the genus Iridoprocne, worth mentioning?

I added a mention of that. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think, raving read the article, that the section on nest-prospecting isn't quite right. I'll try and re-jig it later.

Ok! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this close... Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabine's Sunbird: Is everything good with the article now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. I've been struggling with the nest- searching behaviour paragraph. I'm not convinced that the article conveys accurately the journal article's conclusions, but the journal article itself is a little unsure (in my opinion) about what it is trying to say. Its saturday here so I'll have another go at reading the journal article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sabine's Sunbird: Do you think that it is good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This swallow was first formally described" You should give the full name of the subject at the first mention in the article body. Preferably also in the start of every new section.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The species name is derived from Ancient Greek. Tachycineta is from takhukinetos, "moving quickly", and the specific leucorrhoa" You translate both the genus and species name, so the first part should be changed.

Changed to "binomial name." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "a subspecies of the Chilean swallow" Link everything again first time it is mentioned outside the intro.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It has since been moved to the genus Tachycineta." By who?

Cannot find, may need more experienced editor to do so. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When did it split? Any cladogram?

I don't really know, a more experienced editor is needed here. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) I will not include a cladogram, see Jimfbleak's comments. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen a cladogram create problems myself (unless there is serious disagreement in the literature), shouldn't hurt, but yeah, it isn't necessarily required. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This swallow is monotypic." I'd say species instead of swallow, otherwise it's too vague. Maybe even specify that it does not have subspecies, most readers probably don't know what monotypic means.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The culture sections seems fairly pointless, I'd cut it.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You could invert the alignment of the images under breeding and diet; depicted subjects should face the text, and then you won't get the subject header clutter you now have with the lowest image.

Good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article seems fairly short, is there no more info to squeeze out of the sources, and have you checked Google Scholar?

Not too much more, I only found one more source. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "These flocks frequently consist of both the white-rumped swallow and other species of swallows." Like which?

Not specified RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "supraloral", " lores", "ear-coverts" Could be explained and linked.

Linked all three, explained lores and supraloral. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "These features fade with age." Which features? Both the black and white?

Not specified, but it seems to refer to the tips. I also made it more accurate, "fade" to "erode." RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and was once considered a subspecies of it" Already mentioned in a more appropriate section than description.

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No predators are mentioned in the "Predators and parasites" section.

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Status" is too vague, could be renamed Conservation status.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is quite a bit of info in the intro that is not mentioned in the article body, which it all should be. There are also statements that are phrased very differently form how they are phrased in the body. Please double check all statements and make the article body consistent.

Done RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There is not a word about its behaviour in the intro, which is supposed to summarise the entire article.

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "extra-pair young" Which means what?

Added RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "About 58 percent of the broods hatched" Why past tense suddenly?

Fixed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• to FunkMonk's point about the culture section, I agree it could and probably should be removed. If it is kept it needs to be moderately expanded, just to elaborate about how it wan't just a throwaway reference but the central plot diver of the episode. That said, I'd still lean towards taking it out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The changes look good. Will you ask someone for help about the taxonomy issues? FunkMonk (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Yeah, I asked Jimfbleak. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - everything addressed, looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genus was created by Jean Cabanis ref is Cabanis 1850 Museum Heineanum 1 p.48 (in German) link which also fixes the date. personally I wouldn't give a cladogram, it's not required and usually attracts criticism. More comments to follow as and when Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• or a streak above its lores— I'm not convinced by the indefinite article

Removed RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Its underparts, underwing-coverts, and rump are white, as the name suggests— lose the last bit. Although I see what you mean, the name doesn't suggest that the underparts and underwing-coverts are white

Better? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• starts in October and ends in December in Brazil and February in neighboring Argentina—Does that mean that the breeding season is two months longer in Argentina, or is the start later than October there?

Specified RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. As written, "features" applies either to the wings or the named feather tracts, neither of which is what you probably mean

It wasn't exactly specified, so I think it should be left like it is. Do you object? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The song this swallow uses... alarm note it uses— repeat of "uses", seems a strange word choice anyway

Removed on instance RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is known to inhabit… It is also known to occur… It is additionally known—three uses of a word that isn't necessary anyway. "known to inhabit"="inhabits". I see that there are other pointless "knowns" further on too

Removed some instances RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• First two paras of "Breeding" seem to have more repetition of terms than is strictly necessary

Removed a few instances of repeat terms. Good now? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with most of the responses, but surely in the sentence It has black wings, with white tips on its inner secondaries, tertials, and greater wing-coverts. These features erode with age. it can only be the white tips that erode, not entire feathers? If that's so, it should be made clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: I will fix it then. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Unless I've missed it, I think this just needs a source review now. Once can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• References formatted consistently - just need to align page ranges. I use final two digits myself (like FN 6 & 7), but FN 8,11 and 12 have full page ranges. Either is ok, just choose one to follow. Also, ref 4 has publisher location, others don't. Just choose to have or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used full page ranges, removed publisher location. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 3, used once. material faithful to source.
• FN 12, used once. material faithful to source.
• FN 8, used nine times. material faithful to source, though the source does not explain why it is also called the white-browed swallow (however as it is very obvious happy not to worry about this). I also tweaked the wording to distance from the source (this can be tricky I know).

Ok all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think this is ready for promotion. One point I noticed, though: Why is "The white-rumped swallow, on average, lives for 2.12 years. The male lives slightly longer than the female." in the "Parasites" section? I think that might need a better home. I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at this after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 [7].

---

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is has seen a couple of editors improve it. I feel it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always, some quick ones to start with:

• In the first sentence, perhaps add a comma after "...in the honeyeater family" to make it more clear that Meliphagidae is the only honeyeater family.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Range map? Perhaps ask for one on the birds talk page.

I need to get to the library tomorrow to get the best map for this got map now just need not to be tired and added... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps link all of socially monogamous in one link?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing and weeds," the apostrophe needs to be straight.

I don't follow.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "’", it needs to be "'", per MOS:STRAIGHT. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, something new I am still learning...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:ACRO, IUCN in the lead should be expanded, with the acronym in parenthesis after so you can use just the acronym in the body.

unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps move the sentence "The specific name chrysops is from the Greek words meaning "gold" and "face" in reference to the stripe of yellow feathers," in the taxonomy section to the end of the paragraph, and rephrase it a bit so it flows better.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Add to the sentence "It was classified in the genus Lichenostomus for many years until 2011," what genus it was moved to.

I moved the sentence further on so it can run into the discussion of what happened next Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sentence "Three subspecies have been described (Matthews, 1912) but are not universally recognised," a comma is needed after the parenthesis.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the third paragraph of the taxonomy section, you need to put spaces between the genus and species abbreviated name.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably specify what you are talking about in the sentence "Surgeon-General to the First Fleet John White caught one in May 1788, calling it a yellow-faced flycatcher in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790." This is because you talked about the subspecies in the previous paragraph, so that might cause some confusion.

called it "the species" as calling it the "yellow-faced honeyeater" might sound repetitive given the next clause. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ear coverts should be without a hyphen and linked (I recently created a redirect to ear coverts for my article).

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for today, more will come soon. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments now, hopefully I can get this done with the next review:

• Silvereye is overlinked.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Link and/or explain counter-singing.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Spotted Gum should be capitalized, you also need to be consistent in putting the binomial after the common name.

my personal feelings aside, the standard is to use lower case. binomial now placed after Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sentence "It usually avoids woodland, unless it is near forest or has an understory of sclerophyll plants," I am not sure about the woodland thing, possibly say "It usually avoids low-density forests, unless it is near a higher density forest or the forest has an understory of sclerophyll plants." If you don't want to do that, then at least I'm pretty sure you would add the indefinite article "a" before "forest."

I don't follow on the "a" being necessary as am talking about a habitat type rather than a particular forest as such. I realise our woodland article doesn't have Australian definitions in it, which might help (i.e. woodland is not considered forest). Added definition at here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm pretty sure that the second comma in the sentence "The yellow-faced honeyeater ranges across a broad arc from near Cooktown in Far North Queensland, south west between a line from Charters Towers to Albury and the coast, and then west to the Fleurieu Peninsula and Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia," is an Oxford comma and thus should be removed for consistency.

I thought I had a few Oxford commas in this already so would rather go all in than all out.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why don't you add an Oxford comma in the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing and weeds," (MOS:STRAIGHT error still needs fixing)? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that you would switch back to present tense (for the verb "to increase") in the sentence "During the winter months of June and July, numbers are generally decreased in Victoria and increased in Queensland, following northward migration."

They are present tense as they are passive verbs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The usage of seasons with months after them seems fine, but it would be great if a more experienced editor could check this out (maybe we should have an RfC or something so this isn't a problem in future reviews and such).

ok, will see what others say Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly reword the last part of the sentence "Experiments where the vertical component of the magnetic field was reversed indicate that the magnetic compass of the yellow-faced honeyeater is based on the inclination of the field lines and not on polarity, distinguishing between the direction of the equator and the poles, rather than north and south," to "meaning they distinguish between the direction of the equator and poles, rather than north and south," just to clear up any confusion.

done this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! These articles are being cranked out really quickly! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

several honeyeater articles were buffed to GA status by an editor now retired for some years. I figured it was worth updating/reviewing them and pushing a few of them over the FA-line.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

• Make it more clear what "when not migrating" applies to in the sentence "The yellow-faced honeyeater is usually seen singly, in pairs, or in small family groups, when not migrating." If it applies to everything, then remove the comma after "groups."

It does apply to all so done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oxford comma needed in some sentences in the feeding section.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as above in breeding.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Poerhaps merge the sentences "The yellow-faced honeyeater breeds in monogamous pairs in a breeding season that extends from July to March. Migrating birds begin nesting later than sedentary birds," so it flows better.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More Oxford commas are needed.

got some more ...bloody hell there are a few... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all, good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd reading:

• In the sentence "Honeyeaters’ preferred woodland habitat is vulnerable to the effects of land clearing, grazing, and weeds," the curly apostrophe needs to be a straight apostrophe per MOS:STRAIGHT.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Eh, I'll just do it myself (or you can copy and paste: '). RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sentence " A 2017 genetic study using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA found the ancestor of the yellow-faced honeyeater diverged from the common ancestor of the other two Caligavis species around 7 million years ago," I'm pretty sure you would say "seven" instead of "7."

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be all. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nice job on the article! All of my nitpicks were addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In distribution we have The yellow-faced honeyeater is widespread across eastern and south eastern Australia, in open sclerophyll forests from coastal dunes to high-altitude subalpine areas, and often in riparian woodlands. and then It occurs in high-altitude, tall, open forests of alpine ash and woodlands dominated by snow gum and then at the end is It usually avoids woodland, .

the key word there is "unless" after the comma after woodland... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So in each situation where it's mentioned occuring in different kinds of forest, it's always qualified by that statement? It may be worth moving to the front then, perhaps, or perhaps Where it is found in woodland, it is usually woodland near forest or with an understory of sclerophyll plants. Not sure, it just comes over a little odd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sounds better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the last sentence of migration may read better as However, the yellow-faced honeyeater has been found to have a broad range of characteristics; an annual cycle of migratory restlessness; seasonally appropriate orientation based on magnetic, solar and polarised light cues; and a migration program based on the magnetic inclination compass, which are consistent with the adaptations of Northern Hemisphere migrants.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it some more tomorrow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was classified in the genus Lichenostomus for many years until 2011.[5]" This is a bit misleading and is not supported by the source. The use of Lichenostomus was a short lived fashion. Gould (1848) and Mathews (1911/1912) use Ptilotis. Peters 1967 uses Meliphaga. More recent usage is conveniently recorded by Avibase. Clements 3rd (1981) has Meliphaga, Clements 4th (1991) has Lichenostomus, Clements (2015) has Caligavis. Howard and Moore 2nd (1991) has Meliphaga, H&M 3rd (2003) has Lichenostomus, H&M 4th (2014) has Caligavis. (a new edition, a new genus). - Aa77zz (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aah recentism, I forget this. Anyway, changed it a bit to reflect literature/source(s) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More

• Taxbox: Synonyms are when the specific epithet differs - thus Sylvia chrysops and Lichenostomus chrysops are not considered as synonyms.

Wow. wasn't aware of that. I suspect the example in the first para or the lead of Synonym (taxonomy) needs removing then... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh - that makes me have serious doubts! In our article on author citations there is an example using Anser albifrons (Scopoli, 1769) that states "the two different genus-species combinations are not regarded as synonyms." I'll try to find a RS. -Aa77zz (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ICZN glossary has: "synonym, n. Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." which probably means I'm wrong. struck. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long discussion on this subject on the Synonym (taxonomy) talk page here. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

• "studies using the mitochondrial ND2 and nuclear β-fibrinogen-7 genes identified " Perhaps not necessary to specify the actual markers used in the study. (Very few of the readers will know or care what the ND2 gene is.)

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "were sufficiently different to be a separate genus as Bolemoreus." -> were sufficiently different to be placed in a separate genus Bolemoreus.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " but are not universally recognised." Not recognised by whom? IOC7.1, Clements-2016, H&M4 and HBWonline all list 3 ssp.

Higgins is dubious but that is spelt out further on, so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Latham called it the black-cheeked honeyeater." but his Supplementum Indicis... cited above has "Black-cheeked Warbler" - see here.

corrected Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• What colour are the breast and belly?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What colour are the legs?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

• "The nest is a fragile, transparent structure, cup-shaped," To me the word "transparent" suggests a material that one see through. One would not describe a chicken wire fence as transparent even though one can see through the holes.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "(Among the species that parasitize the nests..." why is this sentence in brackets?

no idea/before my time. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Ref 24 Munro 1999 - broken link. I can't find a replacement.

Weird...it's working for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - I meant Ref 26 "Munro, Ursula (1999). "Adaptations to..." -Aa77zz (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...can't find an alt link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Supported above. -Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Afterthought: the short paragraph at the beginning of the Behaviour section should end with a cite. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to it. See below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off, a quick note that Cas and I are both Wikicup participants: I do not believe this will affect my review, but if somebody does, they should say so. Second, this is probably a silly question, but I feel compelled to ask it: there's something on the FAC page about one nomination at a time: but I see Corvus (constellation) listed there as well...

Well, I saw that too. The rule states "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them." This exception does not seem to apply in this instance as both nominations are sole nominations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question. I asked at User_talk:Sarastro1#Bird_production_line... as Corvus has been waiting for a source review (which can take some time) but otherwise looks near promotion. Editors here have done this from time to time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see you obtained permission to have two nominations open at once. From the point of view of the WikiCup, perhaps you could refrain from doing so in the future, if you intend to submit the articles for WikiCup points, so as not to disadvantage other competitors. (I speak as someone who has been frustrated by this rule in previous WikiCups) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, you'll note that almost all the article improvement took place last year. Hence the Corvus article is ineligible for this years' wikicup anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

• "yellow-faced honeyeater as closely related" perhaps clearer as "most closely related..." as I'm guessing the study used all known species of honeyeater?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Surgeon-General to the First Fleet John White caught one in May 1788" I'd suggest linking or explaining "first fleet", and also substituting "a specimen" for "one"

done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering if it would be useful to provide a phylogeny here, with a footnote saying that this was based on such and such a study.

I've mentioned the useful stuff in the text, so I think would be a bit redundant, and the article has quite a few image boxes as is anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay.

• Is the statement "not universally recognised" covered by the source at the end of the paragraph?

removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• "Juveniles are very similar to the adult" would flow better as both singular or plural.

aligned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you break up the sentence about comparisons? The three semi-colons make it unwieldy.

You mean this? Agree and done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since the article mentions a sexual dimorphism w.r.t. size, might it be useful to mention numbers for that?

the difference is very small, like 0.8 g in weight....actually I could add that I guess. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this is just my inner pedant, but I find the phrase "One of the first birds heard in the morning," to be rather colloquial: I'm also wondering if there's a little more detail available here.

missed that one. ok changed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "counter singing" should be linked or explained.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

• As with folks above, I would find a range map quite helpful. This is especially true because the prose description of the range is tricky to understand even for somebody who has visited Australia.

yeah..ok. Need to get the best one. Might take a day or two added now.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm finding the habitat section a little difficult to follow at the moment, because it reads more like a list of vegetation in which the bird is found than anything else. I am wondering if it can be structured differently, sort of a more explicit "habitat - sub-types of habitat - most common vegetation type - other types". Does that make any sense?

yes - the idea is that the specific habitats are listed commonness to rareness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Near Hastings Point in New South Wales over 100,000 passed through in a single day." I'd suggest phrasing this as "Over 100,000 birds were recorded passing Hastings point in NSW over the course of a day in MM YYYY".

good idea/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering if an image of Earth's magnetic field lines can be found for the migration section: the fact of migrating along field lines is a fascinating one, but most folks don't know the first thing about magnetism.

did you have a particular picture in mind as I am not sure which would be helpful... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, I looked through the images, couldn't find one that would be worth adding...so never mind.

• I am very confused by the last sentence of the section. How is it a rebuttal to the previous sentence? Would it not be more logical to collect the information about orientation based on solar light and polarization with the information about magnetic field lines further up?

many Australian species are nomadic, following food and water rather than any set migration as such (unlike many northern hemisphere species). However this one has some migratory characteristics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I see; that's interesting! In that case, might I suggest rephrasing the following "consistent with the adaptations of Northern Hemisphere migrants" to "more often associated with Northern Hemisphere migrants." This avoids the (slight) implication that those characteristics are evolutionary adaptations to the northern hemisphere, which this bird shares (which I do not think you are trying to say?) Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good/changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior

• "While it is generally active, in the early morning" This phrase is a little confusing: I'd suggest starting "While it is generally active throughout the day, in the early morning ..." Although I'm not sure whether this is what is meant here. Also, the sentence has no reference.

changed to "an active bird" - will chase a ref. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it not be more accurate to say "adapted to a mixed diet"? Adaptation is to current circumstances, not future possibilities.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence of 545 observations needs more context, I think. Of how many individuals? In what habitat? Also grammar seems uncertain, but we can fix that after.

read material and made more general Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The main paragraph about food habits is a little messily structured. I would suggest starting with all the information about broad food categories, and then moving to specific types of insects and nectar.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the information about mixed flocks is perhaps more logically placed with the information about the bird being seen in pairs/small groups in the previous sub-section.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "gleaning" should be linked or explained.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "good fat reserves." perhaps "healthy fat reserves" or even just "fat reserves"?

went with "healthy" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, this was quickly attacked by reviewers, so here's an image review. All files are properly licensed and sourced, but I'm wondering if a range map could be added? Also, the link to Commons seems to be a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, you must be reeling from all the comments above. I've actually seen this species, so I'll be gentle with you. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

meh, that'll teach me to fix up an old GA and buff for FAC...I thought I'd fixed everything... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• hundreds of thousands of them migrate— don't need "of them"

trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• are generally decreased in Victoria — "lower" rather than decreased?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Banded birds —is banded OK for OZ, sounds US to me?

HANZAB uses "banding". - Aa77zz (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of those places were Australia and NZ follow the US and not UK. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strewth, yes! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can sort of see why you spell out international units at first occurrence, not sure why they are not abbreviated thereafter

neither can I. changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No further questions, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the commons link at the bottom goes to a redirect that is one of the old genus names for this species. It should go directly to the current name, not a redirect.

moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• is there a reason FN 6 is in the middle of a sentence, not immediately after a punctuation mark, instead of at the end like the other FNs?

no. moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• writing is superb and already been addressed by several other reviewers

thx ++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyvio check Earwig's tool shows no issues; most sources are offline or require some sort of access
• Source check Sources are of highest quality and have consistent formatting. I did notice all but one book is in sfn and that one is in cite web but probably because it is in ebook form, which is fine.

HalfGig talk 11:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent article. HalfGig talk 14:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: There is a clear consensus for promotion here, but it is worth checking consistency of pagination: sometimes we are using "133–37" and other times "233–244". But that isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2017 [8].

---

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Book was a semi-professional science fiction magazine that appeared at the end of the 1940s, published by William Crawford, a fan who went into publishing but never had much money to invest in the business. He occasionally managed to print some surprisingly good material, though. There aren't many sources, but I've included what I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, it's short, but the sources are what they are. Interesting if only for Cordwainer Smith, though I really prefer Norstrilia. Only comments:

• Is there anything on how the subscriptions worked, given the irregular publication schedule?

  Nothing I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link Dianetics, scientology.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small, but (almost) perfectly formed. A couple of nitpicks you may want to address

The figure "8" in the first line should be spelt out as "eight" per mos for numbers less than 10

You repeatedly use "sf" but it's never linked or glossed, eg "science fiction (sf)" on first occurrence.

Seems slightly odd to link Cordwainer Smith as a redirect from his birth name rather than directly from his pen name

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a gloss of "sf" in the first sentence of the body; did you miss that? Should I put it somewhere else? I fixed the other two points. Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

image review

• Who is Milo? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Its cover, by 'Milo', illustrates..." which tells me that the credit in the magazine is just "Milo" and no more information is available. Per the ISFDB there are no other covers attributed to Milo. If I had to guess I'd say it was a friend of Crawford's who wasn't a professional artist. I could make the caption "...by 'Milo', about whom no more information is given", if that's more helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest "Milo" (with the quotes) for the caption and further explanation on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review, you altruist you. When are you going to get yourself another gold star? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review this fully soon. First thought, could we have dates in the image captions? FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it is stated in the table, but could a date be added to "By the time the first issue was printed"? You also give a date for the last issue in-text.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What is meant by "semi-professional? The linked article does not really explain it, and that article itself has a link that only goes to an article about editing in general...

  I added a note which I hope covers this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice, seems the article about the prize could use the note too, seems to be an FA after all... --FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to me now, short article, little to nitpick. --FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing from coord duties, copyedited a bit as usual but little to complain about prose-wise; these are nitpicks:

• "his budget limited the quality of the paper he could afford and the artwork he was able to buy"... I was originally going to query whether we couldn't trim this to "his budget limited the quality of the paper and the artwork he was able to buy" or some such, but I'm also wondering if it's a bit too self-evident a statement anyway... Budgets always limit what you can afford/buy but that doesn't always mean you can only buy substandard stuff. I assume in this case we do mean the quality of the paper was generally inferior and the quality or amount (or both) of artwork was poor -- can/should we be a bit more explicit?

  Ashley implies that it was the budget, but his point is really that Crawford used whatever paper he could find, which was often poor quality, so I think it's better to cut the reference to cost -- as you say, it's kind of obvious anyway. The important point is that he didn't have easy access to good paper. I think it's a bit clearer now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "news-stand" -- is the hyphen an Americanism? I'd have expected "newsstand".

  Oops; just a mistake. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Following on from my first point: "Crawford's budget limited the artwork he could acquire" -- is the source any clearer about whether the limitation was in quality, or quantity, or both?

  Ashley is definite that this was a cost issue, so I've clarified this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure and level of detail seem fine -- I wouldn't expect a lot on such a short-lived mag (neither of my main references, Holdstock and Aldiss, even mention it!). I'll take Nikki's image review as read -- source review to follow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a fairly obscure magazine. I think it would get mentioned even less than it does if it weren't for "Scanners Live in Vain". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• All book references and the online sf-encyclopedia.com are by major authors in the field; philsp.com looks more of an enthusiast's site (correct me if I'm wrong) but it appears to be used only for self-evident info re. covers and pricing so I don't think it's an issue in any case.

  It's run by this guy; he's certainly an enthusiast but he's also a respected bibliographer, so I think the site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Formatting generally looks good but you could standardise the date formatting in FNs 1 and 5.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both reviews, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō was an ocean liner that was converted into an aircraft carrier as part of a large program to surreptitiously reinforce their carrier fleet leading up to the Pacific War. Completed in 1942, she and her sister ship were thrust into major roles in the war after the Japanese lost four carriers at the Battle of Midway. Jun'yō thus had a very active war and her aircraft helped to sink the US carrier Hornet in late 1942. She survived being torpedoed twice by US submarines during the war, although Japanese shortages of steel and manpower caused her damage to remain unrepaired during the last year of the war. She survived the war, but was broken up a year later as she wasn't worth repairing to repatriate Japanese troops home. The article passed a Mil-Hist A-class review a year ago and I've tweaked it since to bring up to snuff. I'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained jargon terms as well as any unfelicitous prose that may be lingering.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Good to see you back at FAC. I've looked at the changes made since I did some copyediting for A-class, and I just now finished it up. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last year was kinda hectic, but I'm hoping that I can continue to participate at FAC again as much as I used to. Your edits look good; tightening up the text is almost always a good thing. Thanks for looking at this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support all looks good. Just a couple of nitpicks:

• "sponsons along the sides of the hull." you conclude consecutive sentences with this phrase. Can you vary it?

• Good idea.

• "which had been falsely reported by the Imperial Japanese Army as in their hands, " I might say "incorrectly" for "falsely" unless there was intent to deceive.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to say what the motive was, given the rivalry between the IJA and the IJN, but it's clear that the Army was nowhere near the airfield when they sent the message, and had to retract the message at 07:00 the next morning. Thanks for taking the time to review this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all good, would recommend adding "still" to "while under construction". -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we still need a source review, unless I've missed it. This can be requested at WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review: all sources are reliable, from reputable historans. Nothing problematic in Earwig's tool. Formatting of footnotes and full citations are consistent and complete. The only thing missing seems to be a link to Norman Polmar. Disclaimer: this is my first time doing one of these, so if there's something I missed, please let me know.Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, thanks for checking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- taking into account three reviews (different editors to the above) at MilHist ACR, I think this has had a thorough going-over, including that of a non-MilHister; Sturm, I'm going to promote but could you just check for me the low figure in the infobox for aircraft carried, because based on the info in Flight deck arrangements I made it out to be 42, not 48 (temporary blindness perhaps). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, it's in the first bit of the 2nd para in the flight deck arrangements. 12 fighters, plus 18 each dive and torpedo bombers. Reduced after Midway to the 42 that you saw.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the infobox says 48–53 aircraft, and the way I read it was that the plan was 12 A5Ms + 4 stored, 18 D3As + 2, and 18 B5Ns = 54. For commissioning in 1942 this became 12 A6Ms + 3, 18 D3As + 2, and 18 B5Ns = 53 (high figure in infobox). After Battle of Midway it was 21 Zeros, 12 D3As and 9 B5Ns = 42 (disagreeing with low figure in infobox). BTW if FACbot goes through before we resolve then let's continue on the article talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm not counting the spares, which were either triced up between the beams under the flight deck or boxed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough but then the range in the infobox would be 42–48, not 48–53, wouldn't it (based on the text)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2017 [10].

---

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first ever nomination of an article about an oviraptorid dinosaur, a bird-like group first thought to have been egg-thieves, but since redeemed as the parents of said eggs. This particular genus has fortunately had papers published in CC licensed journals, which means plenty of free images. All articles discussing this dinosaur have been summarised here, and for some circumstantial info I have also cited a blog-post interview with one of the scientists who described the nest. I thought it was ok to use, since the blog is owned by a published palaeontologist (Victoria M. Arbour), and it has uncontroversial info not found in any of the journal articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• comments I'll take a look: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link palate and cranial in the lead.

neural arches, cervical vertebrae - more links

Otherwise looks good - it is clearly comprehensive. The prose is good, though I am re-reading to see if there is any possibility of using less specialized and more plain words (but this is difficult) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hence tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, but does need some neophytes to read it for accessibility. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it always seems hard to attract reviews from "laymen"... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really well written article, just one comment I've noticed so far, but more to come later. IJReid ^discuss 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The sacrum consisted of eight vertebrae" This doesn't really provide any information that would be interesting to a layperson, it doesn't mention size of this, or implication of what more vertebrae means biologically.

Yeah, the only reason this is mentioned/important is because it is one of the features that diagnose it as an ingeniine oviraptorid... Number of sacral vertebrae are mentioned as a diagnostic feature under classification, but I can drop it if it's unnecessary even at that... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's important phylogenetically, its fine to mention that in the classification section, but probably cut it out of the description if it has no purpose there. IJReid ^discuss 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the description. There is a brief mention in classification already. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Compared to the rest of the body, the skull of Nemegtomaia was deep, narrow, and short and reached 179 mm (7 in) in length" I don't think this sentence makes sense. Maybe you meant "compared to related species" or something like that, but otherwise the size mention does not fit. IJReid ^discuss 15:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that was repositioned by the copyeditor, I changed it back to: "and short (compared to the rest of the body)". Better? Or maybe the part in parenthesis isn't needed? FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything else, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Fewer parenthesized terms would be better. When the terms are too complex for anyone but out knowledge to understand, use the simpler terms instead. IJReid ^discuss 01:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Always a bit hard to judge which, perhaps those Ashorocetus mentioned in the third bullet point of the GA review?[11] FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked some uncommon ones throughout the article, IJReid, but many of those in the description section are found in most dinosaur FACs, so keeping them would seem to have precedence. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing left, giving it a support. IJReid ^discuss 01:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Now it would be nice with some non-expert opinions as well, though the most important thing is of course that it doesn't get archived... Perhaps it's too technical to attract reviewers, not sure... FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to do a source review but perhaps I will do a non-expert review instead.

Thanks, much needed and appreciated! FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It had three fingers; the first was the largest, with a strong claw." - perhaps "It had three fingers, the first having a strong claw ans being the largest".

I was advised once, for whatever reason, to try not to use "ing" endings.... How about "the first was largest and had/bore a strong claw"? FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nemegtomaia is classified as a member of the oviraptorid subfamily Ingeniinae, and it is the only known member of this group with a cranial crest." - suggest removing the "it".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "non-avian dinosaurs." - "avian" needs disambiguating.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "... in a similar position as modern birds," - "similar to".

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the third finger was smallest" - was the smallest.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The front margin of the crest was nearly vertical, and formed almost 90 degrees with the upper margin of the skull."- Awkwardly expressed.

Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "a tooth-like projection that was directed downwards (a feature that has been called "pseudo-teeth")." - This starts in the singular and finishes in the plural.

Changed, better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the front part of the lower jaw" - this phrase occurs twice in adjoining sentences.

Removed one "part", better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • In general, I commend this "Description" section as being straightforward and well-written, with sensible glossings and measurements and without excessive jargon. Very good!

Yay! FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ingeniines are also distinguished by their smaller size ..." - this sentence uses "their" several times then stops using the personal pronoun.

Removed "their". FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "non-avian" - needs disambiguation.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "That the skeleton was directly positioned on the nest shows that it was not completely covered by sand." - This is a curious statement; I suppose you mean that the eggs were not buried in sand as are the eggs of a crocodile or turtle. (At first I thought the "it" was referring to the skeleton.)

Changed to: " That the skeleton was directly positioned on top of it shows that the nest was" Better? Tried to avoid saying nest twice. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oviraptorid eggs appear to have been 17 cm (6 in) on average" - Long?

Yep! Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This reproductive system would therefore be the ancestral condition for modern birds, with biparental care (where both parents participate) being a later development." - I am not sure of the logic of this statement, comparing Oviraptorids to modern birds such as ostriches and deducing that male parental care is the ancestral condition seems a non-sequiter.

It is because the system seems to pre-date the origin of modern birds, changed the text a bit, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph starting "Longrich et al. pointed out" uses they and them in various places, sometimes referring to the researchers and sometimes to the oviraptorids.

Changed the second time the writers are mentioned to "the researchers", so them and they only refers to the animals. Better? FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should now be addressed, Cwmhiraeth. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The points I raised have been dealt with, and I am now supporting this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. Can't find any problems or inconsistencies. The only question I have is about the blog, which I agree is OK for uncontroversial information. It's used in two places, and in both cases it shares a spot with another citation, so I can't be sure what it supports. Can you identify exactly what it's used for? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, first time is to support the full name "good mother of the Nemegt", as only the component words are translated in the scientific paper. Second time it is to explain the "difficult circumstances" during an excavation, and to state specifically that no trace of an egg or nest were found when the original specimen was collected. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I agree those are fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are just waiting for an image review now (unless I missed it). One can be requested, as usual, at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it has already been on the list for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

• Images are Creative Commons licensed (mostly PLOS or "own work") - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information, attribution of derivative works - OK.
• File:Autruche male.jpg - added archive to source page - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 [12].

---

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Nyuserre Ini, pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt during the 25th century BCE. The most prolific builder of his dynasty, with three new pyramids under his belt, he also completed a further three pyramids, built the largest sun temple of the Old Kingdom period and undertook restoration works in Giza and Elephantine. Starting his reign in difficult and still debated circumstances following the death of his brother and the ephemeral rule of an uncle, Nyuserre ruled over a prosperous Egypt for three decades. After his death, he became the object of a spontaneous popular cult, where he played the role of an intercessor between the believers and the gods. This article recently reached GA status following a review by Jaguar. It is part of a series of FA articles on the Fifth Dynasty (including Shepseskare, Menkauhor Kaiu, Djedkare Isesi, Unas and one GA Sahure), and represents 8 months of research and editing work, with more than 500 inline citations drawn from over 120 sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

Sorry I've been so slow in working on the review. I'll spot-check sources and make a few more copyedits in the next few days, but I thought I should submit these comments now.

• The article uses "Old Kingdom period" and its equivalents throughout. The normal usage is to simply say "Old Kingdom", "Middle Kingdom", and "New Kingdom", reserving the word "period" for all the other phases of ancient Egyptian history. I wouldn't object to using "period" once, to make it clear to readers unfamiliar with Egyptian history that "Old Kingdom" refers to a time period, but in the rest of the article it should be cut.

Fixed, I am removed the word period throughout except for the first instance of "Old Kingdom". Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article also uses the phrase "pharaoh Nyuserre" several times. Egyptological literature rarely uses "pharaoh" as a title appended to a name like this. Although I've used it in Wikipedia writing myself, I'm not entirely sure I should. Anyway, if it's going to be used that way, "Pharaoh" should be capitalized.

Fixed, I am removed all "pharaohs" appearing before the name of a king, I prefer to stick to the sources. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Directions (north, east, etc.) should be in lowercase, unless it's part of a proper name, as in "South Abusir". I've corrected the capitalized directions I've found, but I may have missed some.

Done, I have corrected a few ones and have been over all others to make sure there aren't any mistakes anymore. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Abusir south" sounds rather strange in English. "South Abusir" seems to be the usual term for the area in English; Lehner 2008 and Verner 1994, for example, both use it.

Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "He may have succeeded his brother directly, as indicated by much later historical sources, or as advocated by Miroslav Verner, Shepseskare reigned between the two, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most."

I have rewritten this sentence to clarify it. It is now split into two sentences. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I dislike having a "main article" link at the top of a section when the link is red, but I assume you'll be creating the Pyramid of Nyuserre Ini article soon.

I want to but I don't know when I will have the time to do so. Thus I am removed the link and will put it back once the article exists. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be useful to include Ludwig Borchardt's reconstruction of the sun temple: File:Temple-solaire-abousir.jpg. It's not outdated as far as I know (recent illustrations of the sun temple are virtually copies of it), and the temple is hard to picture without a reconstruction.

Yup, added! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the western end of the rectangular court was a giant obelisk symbolizing the resting place of Ra." I'm not sure what "resting place" is meant to mean here—maybe related to the interpretation of the temple as a funerary temple for Ra. In any case, this claim isn't supported by either of the references later in the paragraph. The usual interpretation of obelisks in general is as a symbol of a ray of light, though I don't know exactly how Egyptologists interpret the sun temple obelisk, which isn't exactly the classic obelisk shape.

I have removed "symbolizing the resting place of Ra", I think the sentence was here when I started editing and I kept it without questioning it. I will read some more on this, but for the moment it is clearly better to remove the assertion. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations are all in a single column right now, which stretches the article vertically. I assume you'll want to add columns to the reflist template; 20em and 30em are the values you use in your other articles on Fifth Dynasty kings.

Fixed, this had been changed by a bot for an unknown reason. Back to normal now. Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A._Parrot Thanks very much for your comments and time! Iry-Hor (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In writing about the sun temple, you might want to link obelisk and note that obelisks were symbols of the sun god.

Good point, done. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The article implies that Nyuserre's funerary cult was more durable than those of other kings of his era. Certainly, it spends more space on his funerary cult than the articles on other Fifth Dynasty kings do on theirs. Do any sources say outright that he was more popular than other king of his era? Do they say why?

Antonio Morales, who wrote an article dedicated to the funerary cult of Nyuserre writes, as stated in the article, that only Nyuserre, Unas and Teti saw their official cult extend to the Middle Kingdom, while only for Nyuserre and Unas there are traces that this cult was uninterrupted during the First Intermediate Period. However, it seems that only for Nyuserre was there an additional, not state sponsored, popular cult reflecting Nyuserre's special standing. Quoting Morales: "In the case of Nyuserra there is strong evidence suggesting that during the First Intermediate Period and in the early Middle Kingdom the king enjoyed an outstanding position of respect at Abusir. This special status was strengthened by the popular manifestations of piety toward his deified figure that occurred in parallel to the official cult performed in his funerary establishment. Hence, it is considered here that there was a double testimony of the reverence to this king" and later on:Some references indicate that Nyuserra’s successors were aware of the importance of his role in the cemeteries of Abusir,[...] the official and popular practices of veneration show the emergence of a substantial phenomenon of devotion to [Nyuserre] as a royal ancestor and as a saint. This could be taken to mean that, according to modern Egyptology, Nyuserre was indeed more popular than other 5th Dynasty rulers in later times, at least until the New Kingdom, and that this might be because he played such an important role in Abusir: built 3 pyramids, completed 3 more. I don't state this directly in the article that he was more important, rather I simply give the evidences as the sources do (mostly Morales and Malek) so the reader can draw the same conclusion as them. The subject matter is complicated by the later appearance of cults only loosely based on OK kings: for exemple in the New Kingdom a new cult of Sekhmet appeared in Sahure's mortuary complex, although it seems this cult was more about the goddess than about the king (Borchardt posit that Sahure's temple many statues of Sekhmet prompted the cult). Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When mentioning the statues of Nyuserre in the cache in the Temple of Ptah, you may want to briefly explain what "cachette" means.

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

I've spot-checked the sources and only found a couple of irregularities:

• The page range for citation 98 should be extended to page 550.

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Express Tribune citation at the end of the "sons" section only supports the claim that Khentkawes III was Neferefre's wife. It doesn't support the claim that her son was probably Menkauhor. Maybe another source supports the latter claim, but if so, the citations need to be rearranged. If no sources support it, you may need to leave it out.

Done, there are several publications talking about Menkauhor's filiation, I took the one from the Czech institute of Egyptology, now included in the article, see here which states: If the queen was buried during the reign of King Niuserre, as is suggested, for example, by the find of mud seals, one can assume that she probably was the mother of King Menkauhor, the successor of Niuserre on the Egyptian throne. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A._Parrot Thanks again for your comments, especially regarding the importance of Nyuserre's cult, which I strive to describe as accurately as possible. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. – Masterfully written and fully referenced. My few concerns have already been highlighted by A. Parrot and resolved, namely the "period" thing and the redlinks. Khruner (talk) 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well written and well researched article. -- Udimu (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

• Images are Public Domain or Creative Commons with credible "own work" claim - OK.
• Sufficient source and author information - OK.
• File:Niuserre Iny Wadi Maghara.jpg - the original Flickr file is now hosted as "All rights reserved" on Flickr. Nevertheless the previous "Creative Commons" license for the initial upload (as verified by FlickreviewR bot) is still valid and irrevocable - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe Thanks for the image review! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What version of English are we supposed to be in here? At present we see examples of both. This is not a good sign in a FAC. --John (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This early version of the article contains American spellings. Shall we standardise on USEng as MOS:RETAIN suggests? --John (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John The early version you are referring to has little in common with the current one, and I would prefer to use British English. If you could point the places where American English appears I would be happy to put it in British English. In the mean time, I hope you will appreciate that while this may not be a good sign at FAC, other clues might give a more positive view of the article: number of references and sources, layout etc. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this. --John (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John I have hunted down and changed a number of "favor" to "favour" and "honor/ed" to "honour/ed" as well as many words in "ize" into "ise" e.g. "emphasize" to "emphasise" etc. At the moment I don't see any American spelling left, but if you spot anything I have forgotten, please let me know. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Could you post further comments if you have any or close your comments, either by opposing or supporting the article? Thank you! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two.

• "Nyuserre was also mentioned in the Aegyptiaca, a history of Egypt written in the 3rd century BC during the reign of Ptolemy II (fl. 283–246 BC) by the Egyptian priest Manetho." The article on Manetho indicates that it may have been written later; should this mention of it say "probably written" rather than "written"?

You are completely right, I have amended the article accordingly. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't follow the accession theories. In the first paragraph, about the theory that Nyuserre directly succeeded his father, it seems that Neferefre = Neferirkare Kakai, so the sequence is Shepseskare, then Neferefre/Neferirkare Kakai, then Nyuserre Ini. But the next paragraph starts by saying Shepseskare purportedly reigned between Neferefre and Nyuserre Ini. Then when you say "Verner observes that Neferefre and Nyuserre were brothers", is this uncontroversial? If so, how can anyone believe that Neferefre preceded his father in the succession? Or do you mean that Verner believes this, not that it's a straightforward observation?

I have clarified the two paragraphs pertaining to the accession theories. The "traditional" hypothesis is that the royal succession was Neferirkare -> Shepseskare -> Neferefre -> Nyuserre. There are many problems with this idea, notably because Verner as shown that Neferefre was Neferirkare's eldest son, in age to take the throne at the death of his fatehr, and thus very likely did so. Another problem is that the old hypothesis credits Shepseskare with 7 years of reign, when archaeological evidences have put everyone together since ~2000 that he reigned only a few months at the most. Verner's hypothesis that Neferefre and Nyuserre were full brother is well supported by evidences and it seems, has convinced Egyptologists since c. 2000ish (2001-2). Then Shepseskare must have been a short-lived interloper between Neferefre and Nyuserre, although there is still much debate about his relationship to the other pharaohs. I have decided to present the old hypothesis nonetheless because I am not sure the new one has reached universal consensus, and the old one is found all over the pre-2000ish literature. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have it straight now. I copyedited that paragraph; please check I didn't make any mistakes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a contradiction between "Nyuserre reigned for 44 years, a figure which is rejected by Egyptologists owing to the lack of archaeological evidence for such a long reign" and "The view that Nyuserre reigned in excess of twenty years is furthermore supported by archaeological evidence, which points to a fairly long reign for him". Or does the archaeological evidence place an upper limit on the duration of the reign? If so I think that should be said. I also see the comment in the Sed festival section about support for a long reign, so I think the argument against 44 years needs to be a bit more specific.

Very well spotted, actually the argument against 44 years is little more than the paucity of securely attested dates for his reign. Let me explain: during the Old Kingdom, Ancient Egyptians did not have a system of absolute dating as we do today, rather they counted years from the beginning of a king's reign and gave them names relating to important events that occured or would occured during this year. The most important such event was the cattle count, and many documents and inscriptions thus mentions the year of the Xth cattle count under king Y. In the case of Nyuserre, the latest such event attested in a document contemporaneous with his reign is the 8th cattle count, that is at most Nyuserre's 16th year on the throne. I have amended the text accordingly. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Representations of the festival were part of the typical decorations of temples associated to the king during the Old Kingdom." Suggest moving this before "Mere depictions", and joining the two sentences with "and".

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "In conjunction with the inflation of the bureaucracy was a slow weakening of the power of the king": suggest "The king's power slowly weakened as the bureaucracy expanded".

Done! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This situation went unchecked": do we need this sentence? It's a long article, and perhaps this belongs in a higher-level article such Fifth Dynasty of Egypt.

I have moved it to a footnote, don't hesitate to remove it completely if you find the article too long. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Yet, the earliest topographical lists of the nomes of Upper and Lower Egypt": why "yet"?

Well the Egyptians might have had such lists since long before Nyuserre given that nomes arch back to prehistory. This is a wild guess however so I have removed the "Yet". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "To the extreme south of Egypt": I'm not sure what this means. If it's within the borders of what was considered "Egypt" back then, I'd make it "In the extreme south of Egypt"; if it's south of the border, we just need "To the south".

Good point, I have removed the word "extreme". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The first paragraph of "Pyramid of Nyuserre" repeats information about the location from the paragraph just above; it would be better to refer to what's already been said.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You use "magazine" in what appears to be a technical sense that I'm not familiar with; can it be glossed inline, or linked?

Fixed: it means "storage room" here and I have changed the phrasing accordingly. Indeed, even though Egyptologists always use the word magazine, I think it is better to changed it to "storage room", for most readers would not be specialists. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I changed one more instance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nyuserre Ini expended much effort in the completion of the pyramid and mortuary temple of his mother Khentkaus II, restarting the building works on the then still uncased pyramid core after a 12 years-long interruption which had started on Neferirkare's tenth year, and thus realising the majority of the construction": I'm not clear what this is telling me. Can you rephrase? Or explain it here and I'll see if I can come up with different phrasing.

The core (i.e. bulk) of the pyramid was the first to be built and was, during the 5th dynasty, essentially made of rubbles (i.e. not as in the 4th dynasty pyramids). Once finished the core was supposed to be encased in nice-looking, well-cut, limestone slabs giving the pyramid its smooth clean appearance. The construction of Khenthkaus' pyramid was stopped after the core was finished but before it was encased. It was left like this for 12 years, until Nyuserre decided to finish the job: encase the pyramid, built the complex around it, etc. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How about this rephrase: "The pyramid and mortuary temple of Nyuserre's mother, Khentkaus II, had been begun by Neferirkare in the tenth year of his reign, but work had stopped with the pyramid core still uncased. After a delay of 12 years, Nyuserre Ini restarted the building work, and expended much effort in completing the majority of the construction."?

So I wrote something nearly identical with the exception that I noted that the work had stopped during Neferirkare's tenth year rather than started then: "The pyramid and mortuary temple of Nyuserre's mother, Khentkaus II, had begun during her husband's rule but was stopped in the tenth year of his reign,[45] at which point only the pyramid core was still uncased.[119] After a delay of 12 years,[120] Nyuserre Ini restarted the building work, and expended much effort[121] in completing the majority of the construction." Iry-Hor (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked this to "Work on the pyramid and...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A general note: on a couple of occasions you refer to Neferefre as Nyuserre's brother -- for example "At least one sibling of Nyuserre is known with certainty: Neferefre was Nyuserre's elder brother" -- but in the "Reign" section it sounds as though that is by no means universally accepted. Shouldn't there be some qualification given to those comments? Or has Verner's view come to predominate?

Verner's view is clearly dominant nowadays and is backed by strong archaeological evidence. I cannot be sure however of its exact standing with respect to all Egyptologists, i.e. is it universal? I am yet to find a recent work (ie. after ~2000) where this is not accepted, so I assumed consensus. The updated "Reign" section hopefully makes it clear now. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly clearer, but I think a little more is needed to let the reader know that Verner's position is the one accepted throughout the article. If you can justify it, I would add something to the Accession section that says something like "this view has been accepted in the literature since at least 2000". Failing that, you could hedge before every reference to the theory, by saying things like "Assuming Verner's theory of the succession is correct, ..." If you don't like either option I'll see if I can find other articles that have dealt with this and get more opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ChristieSo I introduced phrasings equivalent to the second option in the beginning of the "Main building activities" section as well as in the "Parennts and siblings" one. I do believe there is consensus on Nyuserre and Neferefre being brothers but I don't know how to prove such as thing. I can cite sources from various authors who follow this hypothesis, but how can we be sure of the universality of the consensus? In any case, in the article, the idea that Neferefre was Nyuserre's brother already has direct references from various Verner sources (of course), but also Baker, Dodson/Hilton and numerous indirect references in sources that de-facto agree with Verner's hypothesis (Barta / Krecji etc... lots to cite here). Iry-Hor (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's good enough. If you later come across something that could be used to cite general support for Verner's interpretation, you might want to come back here and add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Recent archaeological excavations": better to give a date, or range of dates.

Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This filiation is also indicated": "filiation" is quite an obscure word; how about "The relationship is also indicated", since the previous sentence makes it clear? And I see you use it a couple more times; it's not wrong, but it's certainly not going to be understood by non-specialist readers.

Fixed! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "under the impulse of prince Khaemweset": I think "impulse" is not quite the right word; perhaps "guidance"?

I put "direction". Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note 4 is repeated in the text, more or less verbatim, towards the end of the article; perhaps the note could be scrapped since the point is made in the main text?

Oh! You are right, I have removed the footnote. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the opposite of Verner,Lehner posits that the substructures might have been finished": "At the opposite of Verner" isn't a very natural phrase, and Verner hasn't been mentioned to have Lehner in opposition in any case. How about making the note text "This is Verner's view. Lehner suggests that the substructures may have been finished"? However, I'm not sure you need the note at all -- you have "possibly unfinished" in the text, and this note really adds nothing but the names of two experts who disagree on that point.

Yes I have removed the note, I think the shorter the clearer. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for a first pass. Please correct any mistakes I may have introduced in my copyedits. Overall this is in excellent shape, and is clearly a scholarly article, but there are occasional minor infelicities in the prose. I'll read through again once the points above are addressed and hope to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike ChristieThank you for your thorough review, I have updated the article accordingly and hope you will find the fixes have improved the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I think this almost ready now and we only need a review for source formatting and reliability, which (if I haven't missed it) can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Just two little points which I noticed: Could we date the various theories in "Accession to the throne"? And I wonder is the first paragraph of the lead a little impenetrable to the general reader; do we need to go into detail about the accession theories, or could we simplify that paragraph after "Alternatively, Shepseskare may have reigned between the two as advocated by Miroslav Verner, albeit only for a few weeks or months at the most"? Mike I don't know what you think about that part. In any case, that will not hold up promotion, and unless other issues arise in the meantime, we are just waiting for the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it might be good to simplify or cut that paragraph a little, but I'm OK with Iry-Hor's decision either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1: As a longtime editor on Egyptological subjects, I can say that most of these sources have impeccable credentials. The only ones you might question are old Egyptological sources, which are mostly cited for straightforward descriptions of artifacts and inscriptions, not for interpretations of the evidence; a recent news story that is based directly on what current Egyptologists say about a recent discovery; and a Britannica article that is used only to provide one of many possible date ranges for Nyuserre's reign. I'm not very good at spotting inconsistencies in reference formatting, but it seems consistent to me. A. Parrot (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1Mike Christie I have simplified the first paragraph of the lead, cutting the accession theories and leaving only the mention that Shepseskare's relation to Neferefre and Nyuserre remains highly uncertain. I have also dated Verner's challenge on the royal succession of the mid-Fifth Dynasty in the "Accession to the throne" paragraph in the main body of the article, indicating that the traditional theory is essentially pre-2000, while Verner's is post 2000. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sarastro1, I am currently participating in the wikicup and there is an intermission between the 1st and 2nd round until the 1st of March. If the article gets promoted during the intermission, I fear it wouldn't count in my tally, could you hold the promotion until the 1st of March so it gets counted? If you prefer not to, I understand. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I'm afraid Iry-Hor that we can't really hold up promotion for the wiki-cup. Even without the backlog, and long delays at FAC these days, I don't think that would be a good precedent to set. I'm sure there is a rule somewhere that makes it eligible. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2017 [13].

---

Nominator(s): Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Mozart's late piano concertos. It became a Good Article a while ago, thanks to a review conducted by Tim Riley. I encourage anyone who is not familiar with the work to listen to it while reading the article! Syek88 (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:August_Gerasch_Vor_dem_alten_Burgtheater.jpg needs a US PD tag

• This has been done, I believe. Syek88 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The tags and description on the excerpts should reflect the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have amended the licensing tags for the three score excerpts on Wikipedia Commons to reflect the copyright status of Mozart's original work (out-of-copyright, obviously). I hope this is what you meant.

This article is in very good shape, and I'm glad that I took your advice to listen to the music as I read it. I have only the follwing comments

• Not sure what the norms/guidelines are for FAs on classical music, but does "The concerto is divided into the following three movements..." need a reference?

• I am not sure that there are norms or guidelines. I have added a reference in any event.

• "there is a very simple four-measure bridge passage that Girdlestone calls to be ornamented by the soloist, arguing that "to play it as printed is to betray the memory of Mozart"" - why is not deviating from the score a betrayal? Is it due to an obvious flaw in the surviving original of the score, etc?

• I have expanded upon Girdlestone's quote: he says that the passage as written by Mozart is a "sketch". Girdlestone's talk about betraying the memory of Mozart is probably a reference to Mozart being known as a performer who improvised a lot - not to improvise his own compositions, especially when they are mere "sketches" - would thus betray his memory. But I'm reading into Girdlestone's mind there.

• I have to confess that I couldn't follow the technical language in the sections on the three movements, but the quotes from various musicians and experts helped to explain it. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I was mindful of trying to have enough technical language for those who could understand it, while also not making it impenetrable. I am most grateful for your comments, thank you. Syek88 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes address my comments, and I'm pleased to support this nomination: great work. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support (recusing as coordinator on this one): I've read this a couple of times now, and I can find little to grumble about. I can just about hang on to the musical sections and have a reasonable idea what is going on. There might be things in there I've missed, so I'd really like a musical specialist to have a look as well. With that qualification, it looks good to me from a prose point of view and seems very comprehensive. I think it does what a lot of work about Mozart doesn't do, which is to explain what made him different. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I am glad that is what you took from the article. I will mention at the Classical Music Wikiproject your request for a musical specialist. Tim Riley conducted the Good Article review but I understand that he is no longer on Wikipedia. Syek88 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now: shouldn't a discussion of significant discography be appropriate in this article? Discography is very important to how the work is viewed by the public (which thus puts it in the scope of an encyclopedia article) because it's often the only way that people can actually listen to it, and thus it is important to know which prominent artists have recorded it (and to know their respective styles as well).

I don't think so. The piece has been recorded probably around 200 times. There has been no study of those recordings as a whole. How do I pick which recordings to highlight? How do I decide who is a "prominent artist"? And how do I describe their "style". Everyone will have different opinions. Arguments will develop about which recordings to highlight. There is no objective overview of them all upon which we can rely to settle all of these questions. Moreover, any such overview would become quickly out of date.

If a piece has been recorded on only a handful of occasions, it is possible to mention them all in a short discography section. But for the more popular works, like this one, neither a full list nor a necessarily subjective selection is appropriate.

I should add that it appears from your contributions that you put all of four minutes of thought into this oppose vote. It is not clear whether you have read the article. You did not even sign your vote. Perhaps think more carefully about opposing things into which other editors have put massive amounts of effort, and about grounding an oppose not in an objective assessment of the article's merits but a personal view about what the article should do. Chances are that the editor who has put weeks of effort into the article has already thought in detail about the issue and has a compelling answer to your question. Syek88 (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syek88, before I address your concerns, I would like for you to assume good faith. Even if what you say is true (which I respectfully differ upon), that doesn't have any effect on whether my issues are actionable or not.

In regard to your responses: I found an example which I liked at Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)#Notable performances and recordings. I understand that that article is a C class article, but that doesn't mean the section isn't a good example of what I'm suggesting here. For examples in current featured articles, see Messiah (Handel)#Recordings, Lieutenant Kijé (Prokofiev)#Recordings, Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172#Selected recordings, or Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria#Recording history. In fact, I haven't yet found a classical music featured article that doesn't have a discography section (although I haven't checked every single one).

I think the gist of your answer was that we can't include a discography section because there hasn't been a high-level academic study on the piano concerto (that we can find, at least; one probably does exist hidden away in a library somewhere). Luckily, though, we aren't limited to DMA dissertations or the like, since we can objectively detail major recordings or recording projects as long as the source is reliable and independent. I'll concede the point on artist style; what I meant was that if a formal study existed (this is where a dissertation would come in handy) and it happened to detail that an artist played the concerto in a style such as period or modern, that would be included in a comprehensive overview that FA entails. I also agree that prominent artists are very subjective; obviously, we can't list every single recording, but we can choose recordings that have received significant coverage themselves from respected sources, like a music review or highlight on a music website. Here's an example from WQXR, one of the best-recognized classical radio stations. The example details a recording which contains the 24th that WQXR (an independent, reliable, and respected source) thinks is important. Another good example is [14].

I'm not sure I understand your response about how a handful should be covered but not a large amount—wouldn't a large amount demand more coverage (to be comprehensive) than a small amount? If the issue is that a comprehensive discussion of the discography would be too long, we could always do something like Beethoven Symphony No. 3 discography or Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria discography, but that would also mean having a section of reasonable length in this article.

If you want, I can help you write this section. I'm sorry that you found my oppose !vote to be agitating enough that you lashed out at me. Yes, it took me four minutes to decide upon and craft the oppose since lack of discography was a immediate oppose for me, but I would have spent four hours if I knew that I had to provide all this material up front. Let me know if you have any other concerns with my oppose !vote; I'll be happy to strike it and !vote support once the actionable issue is addressed. Icebob99 (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven's 9th is a terrible example. It illustrates precisely the points I made to you two days ago. Why are Bernstein and Solti highlighted but Karajan not? The answer is that someone on Wikipedia has decided that Bernstein and Solti are worth mentioning but that Karajan isn't. It's a bad decision brought about by the fact that the section of the article is not based on an independent review of recordings. Additionally, what does the fact that Bernstein and Solti recorded the symphony even tell us? The answer is "absolutely nothing". It is irrelevant to the symphony itself. Even so, what sets Beethoven's 9th and Handel's Messiah apart is their iconic status. The history of recordings of those works is well document. K. 491 isn't in that category. The phantom library paper you bizarrely mention does not exist. The WQXR "20 essential Mozart recordings" is singularly unhelpful: over my dead body will you have me include that as a reference in the article, and over my dead body will I accept the request to "help write" a discography section that has no place in the article. I'm sorry but at this point, continuing to reply to your oppose is starting to become bad for my blood pressure. I'm not going to lower the standard of a 100% academically sourced article with a meaningless and subjective discography. It won't happen and I can only hope that whoever decides upon the fate of the article recognises your oppose as the groundless four-minute job that it is. Syek88 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Syek88, please remain civil. We're trying to help improve this article so it can be a featured article, and we can only do that together when we maintain an attitude of respect and cooperation.

Regarding the Beethoven example: I chose that one because I liked how it laid out the format, not necessarily the content. If you think its content is lacking, find a source and add the info about Karajan. I disagree about how only articles about iconic works should have discography sections. Two other featured article examples I listed above were Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172#Selected recordings and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria#Recording history. Both are about as recognized (in my experience) as this piano concerto, and none of those are iconic in the way of Beethoven 9 or Messiah.

I think we can avoid the threat of a biased section by listing the relevant literature of reliable and independent sources. I listed a couple examples of those above. You don't have to use WQXR if you don't like it, I listed it because it's reliable and independent. We can also avoid the problem of editorial bias by simply listing every notable recording (which might deserve its own article at that point, see the Beethoven Symphony No. 3 example I gave above), but I think that would be an unnecessary amount of effort.

I hope you'll take the time to work with me on this. I think I've put forward a legitimate concern, and we would all benefit from responding civilly at the very least. I had to take a few deep breaths too, nothing wrong with doing so. Cheers, Icebob99 (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not doing it. No other reviewer has made this suggestion, and in that I include the highly experienced classical music specialist who conducted the Good Article review. I have explained why I don't think a discography section has any place in this article and have nothing further to add. Syek88 (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note: Having checked over several classical music FAs, it appears to me that discographies are not standard, although some articles certainly include them. Based on this I think it has to come down to the consensus of reviewers here as to whether this particular article should include one, and we don't appear to have such consensus. That said, I see no evidence of bad faith in this opposing commentary, and I strongly recommend to the nominator that they treat dissenting voices at article reviews more cordially, even if they disagree with them. Most nominators at FAC put many hours into their work, and still they will not consider everything, which is why we have reviewers. Mutual respect between the parties, each of whom is vital to the FAC process, shouldn't be that difficult. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a thoroughly researched and well written article. Should "due to Mozart notating" be "due to Mozart's notating"? I agree that input from another specialist would be useful; my knowledge is limited to relative majors and their minors. Graham Beards (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graham. I have changed the sentence in which those words appear, and they appear no longer. Syek88 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a great article! Only minor concerns:

Infobox

• How about W. A. Mozart, as a little tribute to his own writing of his name (Wolfgango Amadeo in Italy, Wolfgangus Amadeus in the C minor mass, and preferedly Wolfgang Amadé)?
• We are asked to keep them concise, - the genre is clear from the title, and IF mentioning Style, better Classical period, because many readers may understand Classical music.

• I have made both of these changes.

Lead

• There's a lot of information in the opening sentence, - can we get to Mozart sooner, and to the pianoforte later, perhaps in a second sentence?

• I have made this change.

• Mention that Mozart played and conducted himself, perhaps also mention him improvising?

• I am not convinced that this is a sufficiently significant detail for the opening paragraphs. It says more about Mozart and contemporary performance style than it does about K. 491: a good detail for the lengthy part of the article but perhaps not for the brief summary?

• Piano Concerto No. 23 (K. 488) in A major - that's again a lot. We have a link, - no surprise that #23 came before #24, the K# hardly relevant when we want to know about the C minor piece ;) - my suggestion: Piano Concerto in A major. Same for D minor, and other concertos mentioned later.

• I have removed the Köchel numbers in every case and the reference to "No. X" where chronological relationship to K. 491 is clear from the surrounding circumstances.

Background

• premiere of The Marriage of Figaro? No, Le nozze di figaro was premiered. That's an opera with dark sides: la contessa missing the love of her husband, Barbarina singing in F minor that she lost something (which may hae been more than a needle), figaro's jealousy, etc.

• On the first point, wikipedia's own article is Marriage of Figaro. As this is an English-language article and an English-language website, it seems sensible to use English but also to be internally consistent. On the second point, Figaro being a sunny major-key opera is straight from the academic source, so I am confident in repeating it. I also think it is correct: the one or two minor-key numbers do not fundamentally change the nature of the opera as comic, good-hearted, 95% major-key, and with a happy ending.

• While I find the complete listing of number, K# and key too much, "the No. 24" seems too short. How about the concerto in A major? I'd relate to a key = mood more than just a number.

• But "No. 24" is this concerto -- the C minor one. I'd usually use "K. 491" as a shorthand, but we can't do that. Calling it the "C minor concerto" would be too much as it's the very concerto in the title of the article, so the shorter the better.

Overview

• In Bach cantata articles, that section is called Structure and scoring, and comes with a table for the movements, - take a look at BWV 125.

• I think that works for a five or six-movement work, but not a three-movement work. A table for a three-movement work might be distracting and overkill for the limited amount of information it will contain.

• link 3/4 time?

• I've linked to Time signature#Most frequent time signatures

• "cut common time" was no familiar term to me, but the link helps.
• flute is a broad article on the family, perhaps Western concert flute would be better?

• I have done this.

• clarinets: perhaps worth finding out when Mozart (and others) began using clarinets at all which were regarded as folk music instruments before

• I think the answer is that it was just one of a great many instruments developed in the 18th century and, unlike most, it succeeded. Anyway, I have added this sentence: "The clarinet was not at the time a conventional orchestral instrument." The sentence is grounded in Clarinet#History. That should be sufficient to explain to the reader that it was the clarinet, not the flute, which Mozart was bringing into the orchestra in his late career.

• How about a few words about the sound of a fortepiano, for readers who are not familiar with the term? Yes, we have a link, but ... Music is sound, not only structure ;)

• I have done this.

Recapitulation, cadenza and coda

• Consider ending on "the final pianissimo chords". The following sentence adds nothing to this great ending ;)

• Yes, I like this change and have made it. Thank you.

I will look at the rest later, perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back:

Second movement

• In "This was not always the case: Mozart's first sketch of the movement was much more complex.", I'd be happier without "This was not always the case:".

• I have removed these words.

• Not sure I know what "bridge passage" means, probably "Überleitung" in German?

• I have changed to "bridge or transitional passage". The adjective transitional might be more descriptive.

• Can we avoid the repetition of A-flat major in two consecutive phrases? Link the new key? (and new keys later)?

• I have done this on both counts.

• "The use of a recurring principal theme ("A", in E-flat major) and two secondary sections ("B", in C minor, and "C", in A-flat major) makes the movement characterisable as being in rondo form.", - many words about ABACA being rondo form, - not sure it's needed at this point.

• I have shortened this considerably - I agree it was too wordy.

• "Brendel further argues that the time signature for the whole movement is a notational error", - how about "another notational error"? - That tempo reflection deserves a bit more explanation to be clear.

• I have done this on both counts, the second by referring to cut common time as requiring two beats per bar rather than four.

Third movement

• "C-minor theme"? "C minor-theme"? "C-minor-theme"? "theme in C minor"?
• I have changed it to: "The third movement features a theme in C minor followed by eight variations upon it."
• Are the Roman numerals for the variations from the score? Readers might be served better by normal numbers, but I understand at least the French use Roman numbers for movements.

• The roman numerals are the most common form of academic reference. I think it works here to distinguish variation numbers from movement and other numbers.

• "Variations II to VI are what Girdlestone and Hutchings separately describe as "double" variations." - How about "independently" instead of "separately"?

• I have made this change.

• The refs after that should be in ascending order.

• I have made this change.

• Aren't there musicologists who found better descriptions (for IV-I) than "cheerful", "graceful" and "the most moving"? All very general, not really worth quoting.

• I thought the quotes would help convey the effect Mozart created by throwing two major variations into the mix to surround a minor-key variation. To the non-musically literate, those quotes say more than the keys do. I appreciate that for the musically literate they are superfluous, but we have to strike a balance for both kinds of reader.

• "Variation VII is half the length of the preceding variations, as it omits the repeat of each eight-measure phrase." Is that a different meaning from "Variation VII is half the length of the preceding variations, as it omits the repeats."?

• I don't think we can do this because they are not "repeats" as such, with :||. Instead, the phrase is often written out a second time, with changes. So the phrase is "repeated" but there is no "repeat".

• "(which, in C minor, are composed of F, A-flat and D-flat)" holds up the flow, is boring for those who know, and difficult for those who don't. We have a link. I'd drop it.

• I have done this.

• "[w]e shall never be able to do anything like that." - can we have the German original also, at least in a footnote, as the source is offline? What does it mean that part of a word in the quote is in brackets?

• I am struggling to find the German original for this. The brackets are just a decapitalisation from "We" to "we".

• "encouraging Clara Schumann to play it and writing his own cadenza for the first movement." - how about "writing his own cadenza for the first movement and encouraging Clara Schumann to play it.", - to avoid interpreting that Clara wrote the cadenza.

• I have changed this sentence to clarify.

• Again, can we have the German original for "masterpiece of art and full of inspired ideas." I would not know how to say that in German.

• I have traced, found, and included the German original. The translation is Eric Wen's.

• "Musicologist Simon P. Keefe ... writes that the No. 24" - why an article for the number, but not "The musicologist"?

• I have made this change.

Great music, thank you again for covering it in depth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments. I hope I have either addressed all of them or explained why not. Perhaps the one thing I can't do satisfactorily is chase the German original for the Beethoven quote. I think that will take me some time and one or two library visits. I promise at least to make those library visits, but if is not essential for this article to be an FA, perhaps I can be cheeky and ask for a little time? Syek88 (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your changes, and for the detailed explanations. I think it's FA quality, with or without Beethoven, but hope of course that you will keep searching. I cheerfully support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again, and wonder if we might have a better lead image than the overly well known posthumous portrait of the composer, - something more specific to the piece, perhaps a period fortepiano? We don't have an image of Bach in the lead of his compositions, better something he wrote, compare Mass in B minor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about it. I'm certainly open to the idea of a fortepiano (despite my preference for modern instruments!), and I too don't think the Mozart image is ideal, although I have to be sure I get the right fortepiano lest the period instrument crowd get offended... Syek88 (talk) 19:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switched image for File:FortepianoJAStein.JPG. Closest to the period we have on Wikipedia. Feel free to change again — Iadmc♫^talk  20:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Next, we need a precise caption, and also an "alt", an alternate description to tell people who can't see the image what they would see, - for all images, please. For examples look at any established FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets all the Featured article criteria. Minor quibbles on style: "hitherto" is a little old fashioned these days, IMO; "This amounts to the largest orchestra for which Mozart composed any of his concertos" could be better written as "This is largest orchestra for which Mozart composed any of his concertos". Other than that, great article! Hope to see it on the front page very soon — Iadmc♫^talk  21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments and support. I have made both of those changes. Syek88 (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great. It should pass no problem — Iadmc♫^talk  19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I missed it above, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability.
• Also I gather this is the nominator's first FAC, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. Both checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ian. I have requested both checks. Syek88 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources fine for reliability and formatting.
• Ref 8 is currently dead.
• Spot checks of the available online references (3, 6, 7, 38) reveal no problems. I suppose we could look at some of the print sources (which I don't have access) but I don't think any further spot-checks are required based on what I found. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sarastro. I have substituted the dead link in Reference 8 for an archived link. Syek88 (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 [15].

---

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Æthelflæd, daughter of Alfred the Great, Lady of the Mercians and the foremost female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, close to a support. Some initial thoughts:

• "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule, East Anglia and Northumbria having been conquered and Mercia partitioned between the English and the Vikings, but in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington."- a long sentence; any way of breaking after "the English and the Vikings."?

• I think it could do with more detail to clarify. How about "By 878 most of England was under Danish Viking rule: East Anglia and Northumbria had been conquered, Mercia was partitioned between the English and the Vikings, and Wessex was on the verge of defeat. However, in that year Alfred won a crucial victory at the Battle of Edington, and Wessex was never seriously threatened thereafter." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Æthelred played a major role in fighting off renewed Viking attacks in the 890s, together with Alfred's son, the future King Edward the Elder. " - is Edward therefore her brother? If so, might be simpler to describe him that way.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "His health probably declined early in the next decade," - I found "his" a bit awkward here, as we'd had two men mentioned in quick succession before.

• Changed to "Æthelred's health". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " and the Mercian rulers were buried there." - which Mercian rulers? I may have missed something here.

• I was using a symonym for Æthelfæd and Æthelred, but it is a bit confusing as I mention Æthelred's death in the next sentence. Best delete? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd delete it - it's doesn't feel crucial here, and without a synonym it would feel a bit clunky. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shortly afterwards the York Vikings offered her their loyalty, " - would "Vikings in York" sound more natural? not sure...

• York Vikings is the usually term and sounds better to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Æthelflæd was succeeded by her daughter Ælfwynn but in December Edward took personal control of Mercia and carried Ælfwynn off to Wessex." - I'd have gone for a comma after AElfwynn

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "According to Pauline Stafford, "Like a latter-day Elizabeth I..." the MOS would permit the lower case "like" which would help the flow

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the cited works give location and publisher (e.g. London, UK: Cambridge University Press) others just publisher (e.g. Oxford University Press, Yale University Press.) - the style should be consistent

• Done. I could only find one location I missed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters needs the location as well (KCL : London, I'm presuming). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Miller, Sean (2004). "Edward [called Edward the Elder] (870s?–924), king of the Anglo-Saxons". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. reference is wrongly cited; the version linked to is the

online edition, September 2011. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed year to 2011. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the ODBN still need the Oxford location in the bibliography.

• I have never given locations for websites and they are not given for other FAs I have checked, such as William the Conqueror and Middle Ages. I doubt whether it is sensible to give a location as the server may not be located in Oxford. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The formatting of the referencing in footnote d) looks odd - it's a long in-line citation, as opposed to the short citations in the rest of the article.

• I am not sure how to deal with this as it is a poem in a book I have not checked myself, only a copy of the poem in a book I have checked. Nikki can I ask you to kindly advise yet again? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest two citations: Szarmach directly for the "freely" comment, and then an embedded cite for the poem itself. Within that ref you're going to have "{{cite book}} quoted in {{sfn}}", with the original source in the first template and Szarmach in the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nikki. I think I have tried this but I must be getting something wrong as it does not come out right. I have tried: "Henry of Huntingdon's poem was translated, "freely" according to Paul Szarmach^[1] who quotes it, by Thomas Forester in The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon.^[a]" It is very odd that ref 2 comes out below as "quoted in [blank]", but if I leave out {{reflist}} it comes out OK. That looks like a bug. There does not appear to be any provision in cite book to show a different publisher and location for a reprint. Can you advise further please Nikki? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, that's my mistake on the first one actually - try using {{harvnb}} instead of {{sfn}}, it should work better. On the second, the template documentation actually suggests shoving all those details into |orig-year=, which I think looks odd but is an option. Failing that, you could omit the location of the reprint and include the publisher as an edition statement, or simply hand-build rather than templating that first part of the cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again Nikki. I have put all the orig details in orig-year. Any further points Hchc2009? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just butted in with this edit, as e.g. "freely" was repeated and it looked as though formatting had gone awry somewhere. I hope it's an improvement, but revert by all means if I've got the wrong end of the stick. Nortonius (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nortonius for improvement. I have tweaked it and hope it looks OK now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree it's an improvement Dudley – I've just tinkered with the punctuation there, I hope that looks good to you too.[16] Nortonius (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from that, all looks good. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• Soon afterwards, Æthelred became the ruler of the English-controlled western half of Mercia as Lord of the Mercians and accepted Alfred's overlordship. I realise this needs to be brief, but I think Æthelred needs a slight introduction, e.g. by re-jigging the sentence as something like "Soon afterwards the English-controlled western half of Mercia came under the rule of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians, who accepted Alfred's overlordship."

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In 909 Edward sent a West Saxon and Mercian force to raid northern Danish territory ... I would clarify as "Edward, who by then had succeeded his father Alfred as king, ..." and "Danish-controlled territory to the north", the latter so the reader isn't tempted to think of a naval expedition to Denmark or beyond.
• ... and the Mercian rulers were buried there: per your suggestion I would delete.

• Changed to "Edward had succeeded as King of the Anglo-Saxons in 899, and in 909". Also "northern Danelaw", which means I can link for clarification. I have deleted "Mercian rulers were buried there". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the York Vikings: my own preference would be for "the Vikings of York", just so you know. "York Vikings" seems a bit journalistic to me.

• I have gone for "the Viking leaders of York". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more accurate. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• completed the re-conquest of Mercia: strictly, shouldn't this be "completed the conquest"? Or something like "completed the conquest of Danish-controlled Mercia." For example Pauline Stafford, in Unification and Conquest, p. 7, touches on "the conquest of Danish England by [the] children of Alfred", which is how I would see it. Sorry, I don't mean to take us off down a rabbit hole ... Anyway I see you have "reconquest" (no hyphen) in the next paragraph.

• Changed both to "conquest". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the dread of his enemies, a woman of enlarged soul: " ... [and] a woman of enlarged soul"?

• I do not think we need to insert a word in the quote. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought I do think it works as is, it's just that to me the sentence structure calls for an "and". But I'm happy to drop this. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Has Pauline Stafford really described Æthelflæd as "like a latter-day Elizabeth I"?! The quotation's repeated below, so I suppose she must have. But I thought Æthelflæd came first ... Is Stafford referring to some great resurgence of Æthelflæd's stock since the reign of Elizabeth I, perhaps? Otherwise surely it doesn't work.

• I assumed that Stafford meant in the Middle Ages, but I take your point that "latter-day" is misleading. Stafford can be a bit careless, but I think the quote is worth keeping unless others disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I think I was so staggered by "latter-day" that I missed the message in the rest of the quotation – I fully sympathise with the comparison as Æthelflæd clearly is a remarkable figure, but I really want to resist "latter-day". Stafford's sentiment could easily be paraphrased. But you're quite right to wait for other views, of course. Nortonius (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "like...Elizabeth I she became a wonder to later ages."?

Yes indeed. I'm surprised Stafford's use of "latter-day" wasn't picked up by peer review or at an editorial stage. Nortonius (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (I have stopped going to PR as it was producing minimal results, but I took the article through A-Class.) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a strong impression that even many academic books and journals are submitted to minimal editorial review these days, whether by peers or publishers. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've only looked at the lead so far, I'll try to look further when I can. Nortonius (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

• A link for Ceolwulf II of Mercia

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• His successor, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred, is first seen in 881 ...: the next sentence feels a little repetitive having read this information already, and to me a simple fix would be to delete "His successor" (and of course the comma after "husband Æthelred").

• I think this is needed. The lead says that Æthelred was Lord of the Mercians but it has not been stated that he was the successor to King Ceolwulf. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean by "needed", but perhaps it hinges on what we mean by "successor", i.e. Æthelred wasn't King of Mercia in succession to Ceolwulf; and in the third sentence in that paragraph he's described simply as "ruler". From a different perspective we might call Æthelred a warlord, and I don't think he's strictly a "successor". To me it seems fine simply to introduce Æthelred in the sentence under discussion, because its information suggests the emergence of an important figure in Mercia after 879, who, in the next (third) sentence, we are told became its ruler. I'd just like to avoid any sense of repetition. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing "His successor, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred," to "His successor as the ruler of the English western half of Mercia, Æthelflæd's husband Æthelred," and deleting "Around this time, Æthelred became the ruler of the English western half of Mercia."? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good idea. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the 890s, Æthelred and Alfred's son: this confused me for a moment! I would suggest switching information around, e.g. "Æthelred and [[Edward the Elder|Edward]], Alfred's son and future successor, ..."

• Done. ("future successor" sounds a bit odd to me, but I see it is widely used.) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the oddness too and I'm not stuck on "future", e.g. "eventual" might do – but I think the flow of the sentence is much better now. Nortonius (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "future". "eventual" implies a long time in the future. Dudley Miles (talk)

Fine by me. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• "a conspiracy of silence": I think there needs to be a citation at the end of the sentence, especially if this is a quotation. Otherwise lose the quotation marks, as it's perfectly good English.

• The first two sentences are about Wainwright's views with a cite at the end. I do not see the need to cite each sentence separately. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I'd agree, but I understand it to be a MOS requirement to have a citation at the end of a quotation, even when that quotation does not end a sentence – or so I was persuaded quite a long time ago. I don't remember exactly where or how that arose, but looking at WP:CITE the lead says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." You might want to seek an opinion from someone more familiar with the MOS than I am, and if it is a quotation. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a quotation. Nikki would you advise please. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard that argument, but while it certainly doesn't harm anything to have the citation, I'm not sure it is explicitly a MOS requirement that it be in that sentence and not the next - though see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Nikkimaria's comment, having read the page she linked to and in the interests of transparency, I would add that I've now found where this issue arose for me: it was at Talk:Reculver/GA1#Some comments about referencing. I'm not suggesting anyone should read that, but I have. With hindsight I think it gave me the wrong impression and I'm happy to drop this now, if everyone else is too. My own feeling is that, while I support the idea of a citation for every quotation, it can produce some very inelegant results. I recall that it pained me to write e.g. "In that year a "monumental showdown"[39] began", which I did in the wake of that GAN. Nortonius (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no MOS prohibition on putting the citation at the end of the next sentence I will keep it as it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, and I'm striking the similar comment below. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• elements were incorporated in: "incorporated into"?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Family

• A link for Gloucester

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelflæd and Æthelred

• A link for Winchester

• Done. (I have deleted this reference to Winchester as I have mislaid the source, but linked at first mention.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Worcester was able to preserve ...: I think either this needs to be "The church at Worcester ..." or the link for Worcester in the same paragraph needs to be moved here.

• Moved. Blair probably did mean the church of Worcester but he did not say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to that source (it's on Google Books but the relevant pages are omitted for me), and I don't mean to confuse things, but, given the title of the book, I think it would be fair to assume here that by "Worcester" he means "the church at Worcester" – i.e. I don't think you have to read it too literally. But then you evidently do have access to the source, so I leave it entirely to you. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This was the only occasion in Alfred's life when husband and wife are known to have acted jointly: "husband and wife" here reads like it could refer to anybody, I would change it to "they". Unless you mean "anybody", in which case maybe "when any husband and wife ..." And, might "Alfred's lifetime" be better?

• Done both. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They granted the church of Worcester a half share of the rights of lordship, covering land rents and the proceeds of justice: where? A half share presumably of "their lordship", but in Worcester, in English Mercia, or ...? The next sentence mentions the city of Worcester and seems to suggest the lordship was originally "proprietorial" to the church at Worcester, so within its jurisdiction, but I think it needs clarification.

• I do not like saying "their rights" as they were apparently granting the church half of its own property. How about changing "As the rights of lordship had previously belonged to the church" to "As the rights of lordship had previously fully belonged to the church"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"As the rights of lordship had previously belonged fully to the church" would avoid "previously fully", but that seems good. "Where" remains implied though, to my mind. Perhaps the preceding sentence might begin "They granted the church of Worcester a half share of the rights of lordship in the city, ..." if that's the case. It would fix it for me. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"rights of lordship over the city" sounds better to me.

Good. Nortonius (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A link for de facto? It's available and just a suggestion.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Vikings then joined with the Danes ...: I think this is a long sentence, especially given the absence of any punctuation. It could easily be split as "... Æthelflæd had fortified the town. She and her husband ..."

  I do not think this works. The sentence says that the attack failed because of x and y. Hiving off y into a separate sentence would be confusing. I have added some punctuation to make it easier to follow. What do you think? I could add a second "because" as "and because she and her husband persuaded" if this would make it clearer, although another editor might object to the repetition of "because". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new form is fine. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Æthelflæd re-founded Chester as a burh ...: move link for "burh" from the next paragraph to here.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• she is believed to have restored its Roman defences by running walls from the north-west and south-east corners of the fort to the River Dee: if this is what Hadley says then perhaps fair enough but the connection with the river seems a bit of a non sequitur to me, as the sentence stands. As far as I'm aware any walls running to the river would have been additions to Roman ones, and formed an enclosed extension to them.[17] I think saying Æthelflæd "restored and reinforced its Roman defences" would be better.

• You are right she does say that they were additions. How about "she is believed to have enhanced its Roman defences by running walls"

Excellent. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• northern Danish territory: fix as above in the lead, presumably?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the late ninth century Gloucester had become a burh (fortified settlement): "late-ninth"? And unlink Gloucester and Winchester, unless you want duplicate links here to help the reader, in which case move the link for Gloucester to the end of the preceding sentence. Also "burh" hasn't been qualified explicitly as a fortified settlement in previous appearances in this article, if you want the qualification I think it needs a first appearance in the lead and then above this in the body; but I would rather drop it entirely, especially the parentheses. Note also my earlier comment about moving the link for burh up from this sentence.

• I would say no to late-ninth. In my view there are far too many unnecessary hyphens in Wikipedia! I have unlinked Gloucester, but 'Highlight duplicate links' is not tagging Winchester. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise about hyphens. It can only be my mistake that I believed there was a duplicate link for Winchester. Looking through this again I realise that you deleted an earlier mention of Winchester – actually there have also been some odd edit conflicts here, they made no odds so I didn't mention them. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester: the sentence seems a bit bald, I would change to "also built".

• I do not see this. "also" to what? How about changing "The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester. The minster was small but embellished on a grand scale, with rich sculpture." to "The Mercian rulers built a new minster in Gloucester, and although the building was small, it was embellished on a grand scale, with rich sculpture."

I had in mind that here the focus is on Gloucester, so among other things they "also built a new minster" there – but I like your suggestion, with an extra comma in "and, although". Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the comma rather than adding one. Does it look OK to you? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, excellent – I'm annoyed with myself for not thinking of that. Nortonius (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• when Oswald's remains were brought to Gloucester in 909, Æthelflæd had them translated to the new minster: as I understand "translation", and as the word is used elsewhere in this article, this translation was from Bardney to the new minster in Gloucester, rather than from arrival in Gloucester to their deposition in the new minster. I would change to "deposited in" or similar.

• I intended translation from Bardney, but I obviously did not make it clear. I am reluctant to lose the meaning that they were formally translated, not just deposited. How about "Æthelflæd had them formally translated from Bardney to the new minster". I have linked translated in case anyone is confused. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is good, though I think "translated" presumes "formally" per the linked article, so I wouldn't worry about that word and would drop it. Nortonius (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the same sentence, "Priory" is anachronistic here I believe, beginning with Cluny, and could be fixed by a change to e.g. "which was re-dedicated to him" or "to Oswald" and by moving the link for St Oswald's Priory to the preceding sentence, piping it as a link behind "a new minster", as it appears in the lead. "Priory" also occurs in the next sentence.

• Yes you are right. I have gone through removing the word "priory" except where it refers to the later medieval building.

• raiding as far as the Bridgnorth: "the" is presumably a minor slip.

• Done Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the Danish midlands: "Midlands"?

• Done Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady of the Mercians

• Italics for Bremesburh, Scergeat and Weardbyrig I would expect? Someone somewhere (!) thinks Bremesburh is Bromsgrove (q.v.) – at times like this I wish I had access to the English Place-Name Society's generally marvellous volumes, although I've no idea if they would help here.

• I have seen that unknown place names are often italicised, but I have never known whether it is a rule that they should be. I take it you think they should be?

I do. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC may be most relevant here, since we are writing in modern English. Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Electronic Sawyer lists a source that identifies Weardbyrig as Gwespyr, or at least claims to.[18] Nortonius (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion does not appear to have been taken up by other historians, and a location so deep in Wales seems very unlikely. David Griffiths, writing in 2001, after the Gwespyr article was published, says (p. 168) that Warburton in Cheshire has been suggested, but that a location in the West Midlands is more likely. Costambeys in 2004 describes the location as unknown. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Tim Clarkson, who describes Æthelflæd as "renowned as a competent war-leader", regards ...: that MOS citation issue again. But see my revised comment above, prompted by Nikkimaria's comment. I'm on the verge of striking this, I'm just waiting for a response above that will push me into doing it.

• Norse (Norwegian): I think "Norwegian-Norse" or similar would be better, principally losing the parentheses. Looking again I see you have dealt with this differently above, e.g. by linking "Norse" to Norwegians. In light of that I would suggest just "Norse" here.

• Historians of Anglo-Saxon England use Norse Vikings to mean Norwegian ones, but Norse can mean Scandinavians generally as in Norsemen, so to avoid misunderstanding I think it is best to spell out with the parenthesis as well as the link how the term is being used here. I have moved the parenthesis to the first mention of Norse. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is an issue that I've noticed, e.g. here, where we both commented at different points. It's really the parentheses I'm stuck on – I was taught that, if I used them, I needed to re-write so that they became redundant. Anyway, perhaps because of that, I think they should be avoided in prose where possible. On the other hand I note that MOS:BRACKET isn't terribly bothered, except where it says "[i]t is often clearer to separate the thoughts into separate sentences or clauses". Nortonius (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think brackets are a useful tool if used sparingly, and the best solution here. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then carry on by all means. Nortonius (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ragnall" is presently linked to a page for a village, switch it to Ragnall ua Ímair, presumably. In the same sentence I would change "the army of Scots and Northumbrian English, which fought" to "the army of Scots and Northumbrian English that opposed": otherwise "the army" feels odd; I'm not sure why the comma is needed; and the army didn't fight only Ragnall.

• Corrected the careless Ragnall error. Sentence now reads "According to the Three Fragments, in 918 Æthelflæd led an army of Scots and Northumbrian English against forces led by the Norse Viking leader Ragnall at the Battle of Corbridge in Northumbria." Does that look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that looks good. Nortonius (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Three Fragments also stated: should that be "state", or maybe "states"?

• I am not sure about that. Any views Dan? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of the verb "state" here. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the tense that's bothering me, not the verb, although alternative verbs are available of course. Nortonius (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the Mercian abbot Ecgberht: strictly I think this ought to be "a Mercian abbot named Ecgberht", since there almost certainly were more than one during Mercia's existence. It seems that PASE doesn't replicate searches via a link very well, so to be clear I'm looking at their Ecgberhts 11, 20 and 22.

• Changed to "a Mercian abbot" without naming him. As he is unknown apart from this mention, I do not think his name is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "specie" an uncommon term? Might "coins" be adequate?

• I would rather keep "specie". I have already used "coin" or "coins" three times in a short paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you might guess I think "specie" is an uncommon term. I would suggest linking it – but I see that Specie is a disambiguation page where the relevant link offered is to Coin. I don't think I'd mind a bit if I saw the word "coins" again here, but "coinage" would be a sensible variation here, if that's what you want. "Specie" seems a bit, erm, elegant... Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see what is wrong with "specie", but how about linking it to "coin"? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about I just drop this and go with the idea that WP isn't a dictionary? I just think it's unnecessary to avoid using the word "coin" again, but if you want to say "specie" I won't stop you! Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death and aftermath

• 75 mi (121 km): I think "mi" looks odd here, I would change "|abbr=on" to "|abbr=out" in the template.

• Changed. I very rarely put in conversions at all, so it was almost certainly added by another editor, and I trust whoever it is does not mind the amendment. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately porticus redirects to "Portico", which article doesn't cover the meaning intended here. Nor indeed do any of the dictionaries that I just had a quick look at. Someone ought to at least create a stub for the meaning intended here and at e.g. St Mary's Church, Reculver, where I worked around this problem by briefly explaining the structure at the first occurrence. I just created a stub for "porticus".

• Many thanks. You will see that I made a copy edit to the Porticus article. BTW you have "kings of Kent", which looks wrong to me. I would prefer "Kings of Kent". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was create the stub, you must edit it as you see fit – although there I don't see "kings of Kent" as a formal title, for example the sentence could equally read "Anglo-Saxon kings, for example those of Kent, ..." and rulers like Æthelflæd and Æthelred of Mercia, according to Wm of Malmesbury. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• William of Malmesbury wrote that the burial places ...: "their burial places", so as not to include Oswald here?

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• some historians such as Ian Walker, think: in efn b is that comma redundant?

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• in early December Edward deposed her: I'd be grateful if you were to add the year here. While I think it would in any case be helpful to specify the year in which this happened, as a reader I would be disappointed not to see it.

• Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• the deposition of Ælfwyn: a typo

• What is the problem here? According to OED this is a correct use of "deposition". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer – the typo is in "Ælfwyn", vs Ælfwynn. Nortonius (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did not notice. Corrected now. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

• I think a direct citation of Forester's "translation" of "Heroic Elflede! ..." might be useful. If it helps the details are Forester, Thomas (trans. & ed.), The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon Comprising the History of England, from the Invasion of Julius Cæsar to the Accession of Henry II. Also, the Acts of Stephen, King of England and Duke of Normandy, London: Bohn, 1853, p. 168. Incidentally I notice Forester has "Heroic Elflede ! great ...", i.e. with a space before the exclamation mark – I would want to add that space, but you might not be the least bit interested! Which would be fine by me.

• I do not like using Forester's original translation as it is arguably OR. Szarmach's citation and comment that it is a free translation sets it in context. I am also dubious about adding the space - that sort of detail may well have been a typo. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to present primary material without synthesising it, as I've said before, per policy. It's only a suggestion so ignore it as you please; equally regarding the spaced exclamation mark, which looks to me like the sort of dramatic device that one sometimes sees in that sort of context in books like Forester's, of his period. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I could have picked this up earlier when we were discussing "latter-day", but I assumed what you wrote above would be adapted for article space: in like...Elizabeth I I believe the ellipsis needs a non-breaking space before and a normal space after, here and in the lead, per WP:ELLIPSIS.

• Sorry I forgot to follow this up earlier. I do not understand why a non-breaking space is needed before the three dots but I am happy to take your word for it and I have inserted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only because of what it says at WP:ELLIPSIS – I've just added spaces after the ellipses, simply to spare us discussing it further.[19][20] Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In this historian's view, ...: this may be fine but to my eyes it looks like the sort of form used when an author is expressing their own view, so it looks odd here. I don't think it would hurt to repeat "Wainwright" here, or change "this" to "that".

• Wainwright repeated. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I just changed "In this Wainwright's ..." to "In Wainwright's", again simply to finalise this.[21] Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the midlands and the north ...: per MOS:PMC I would capitalise "Midlands" and "North" in this quotation from Wainwright.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep adding comments above as or if I have any I've now finished looking through the article, and await responses from Dudley. I'm going to assume that Dudley's use of sources is up to his usual impeccable standard. I won't offer any comment on images, although again I'm quite sure Dudley knows what he's doing. Nortonius (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley I'm pretty sure we're done now, I only wonder if you noticed a comment I've added under "Italics for Bremesburh, Scergeat and Weardbyrig ..." above, where I merely mention something that might be of interest. That being the case I'm changing "Comments" above to "Support". Oh, I just noticed we're still hanging on "stated" vs "state" or "states", or for that matter whichever other verb you might want to use, given Dan's response to you above. But otherwise ... Very well done. Nortonius (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your very helpful and detailed review and for your support Nortonius. So far as I can see I have dealt with all the issues now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure Dudley – I'm sure my review has been imperfect, but you've certainly dealt with all the issues I raised. Another long and complex subject dealt with admirably, I believe! Nortonius (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One option is "In the Three Fragments, Æthelflæd also formed ...". - Dank (push to talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Thanks Dan. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Placeholder -- Recusing from coord duties, and with the caveat that I'm not an expert on this period in history, I reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist ACR, and the changes made since then look fine to me. I expect to support here but might wait until Hchc2009 completes his review in case there are further text changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of very minor edits from me -- article structure and level of detail look good, reads fine to someone with a fairly rudimentary knowledge of the period and personalities. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ian. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: support from my side. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Hchc2009. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Have I missed a source review for this? If not, one can be requested at the top of WT:FAC, or I'm sure one of the reviewers here could be pestered to do it quite effectively. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. I don't do many source reviews, so I spent quite a bit of effort trying to find at least one problem so I could prove I'd actually done something, but I came up empty-handed. The sources are all reliable and consistently formatted, the external links work, everything is cited, everything in the source list is used in a citation, and every citation in the notes is in the source list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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