Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 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) 13:39, 31 January 2017 [1].

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Siberian accentor is a drab little bird from the Russian Arctic, and this article is short by necessity because it's so little researched. The unprecedented westward irruption of October 2016 was the catalyst to write this page, especially after I'd joined its admirers in Yorkshire. Thanks to Nikkimaria for advising on the licensing of the NOAA map and vetting the associated reference

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well prepared and I can find very little to quibble with. Please check that you are happy with the small edits that I've made to the article.

Taxonomy

• "is most closely related to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." I think it would be safer to write: "is most similar in appearance to ..."

• I think you should mention the phylogenetic study by Drovetski et al published in 2013. It is an open access article. Very surprisingly (to me) they find that the Siberian accentor is sister to the Japanese accentor (Prunella rubida). This species looks very different as it lacks the pale supercilium, dark crown and eye patch - (click on "Go to the plate of this family" here). The authors state that this relationship is strongly supported by their data (p. 1523) and that these two species are among the four that can be found in lowlands. The full reference is:

Drovetski, SV; Semenov, G; Drovetskaya, SS; Fadeev, IV; Red'kin, YA; Voelker, G (2013). "Geographic mode of speciation in a mountain specialist avian family endemic to the Palearctic". Ecology and Evolution. 3 (6): 1518–1528. doi:10.1002/ece3.539.

• I can't find any modern study that looks at the relationship of Prunellidae to other passerine families.

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz thanks for the review and copy edit, it's astonishing what you miss through over-familiarity with the text! I've removed second part of the comment about relationships with other families and added your reference, which, as you say, has quite unexpected conclusions. I've not mentioned the lowland bit, since it's not a relationship indicator, and is open to interpretation. Only the Dunnock is truly a lowland species. Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good so far! I have a few nitpicks:

• I think that it would be better to change the "4–6" to "four to six" in "The nest is an open cup in dense shrub or a tree into which the female lays 4–6 glossy deep blue-green eggs that hatch in about ten days."

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In "It is therefore evaluated as a species of least concern by the IUCN," IUCN needs to be put in its unabbreviated form, with IUCN in parentheses.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In "The autumn of 2016 saw an unprecedented influx of this species into western Europe, reaching as far as the United Kingdom," the "autumn of the 2016" needs to be changed to something that doesn't include the season, per MOS:SEASON.

• Good catch, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably unlink accentor in the lead, but keep it linked in the taxonomy section.

• Yes, that first link is poor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Supercilium is overlinked.

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am pretty sure that you have some inconsistencies in your usage of oxford commas.

• Fixed a couple, feel free to fix any I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the behaviour section, it might be better to either put the second paragraph in the status section or make a predators and parasites section.

• Yes, i was uncertain what do do with this, since not really enough for a separate section, moved to status for now

This is just a quick review, I will probably do a more through one soon. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz Many thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments:

• You missed a period in the taxonomy section, specifically in the description of the nominate subspecies.

• Spaces have a place in headings. Particularly the subheading in the movements section.

• You should probably changed "2–6" in the sentence "The breeding season of the Siberian accentor is from June to August. Little is known about territorial or breeding behaviour, but birds of the nominate subspecies tend to occur in small groups of 2–6 closely spaced nests," to "two to six".

• For consistency, you should probably change "10" in the sentence "The clutch of four to six eggs is incubated by the female for about 10 days to hatching and the downy brown-black chicks are then fed by both parents. They are able to breed in the following year," to "ten". This comment and the previous one are both about the breeding section, just so you can easily find them.

• Second paragraph of status, probably need to change "7·4" to "7.4".

• Jumping back to the taxonomy section, you need to change the weird apostrophe in "but within that genus the Siberian accentor is most similar in appearance to the black-throated, brown, Kozlov's, Radde’s and Arabian accentors." (in Radde’s specifically).

I also fixed 2 oxford comma mistakes, so check those to make sure they are correct. That is the thorough review, it looks pretty good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz, all done. Well spotted with the apostrophe, I don't know how it's possible to do it like that. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through it a third time, I forgot to catch one thing, which I am unsure of. The usage of "winter" in the sentence "It is rare in winter in Japan," is dubious. Perhaps "It is rarely seen to winter in Japan," instead? Other wise, I am ready to support. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RileyBugz, I'm not sure I get this. Although you were right to comment on seasons earlier, there is nothing wrong with using seasonal terms if attached to a place, eg "winter in Japan" can't possibly be read as referring to the southern hemisphere winter, and your suggestion just moves the seasonal aspect to a verb instead. Changed to "It is only rarely recorded in Japan in winter" (adding "local" or "northern hemisphere") seems redundant). Apologies if I've completely missed the point of your comment. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about that! You didn't miss the point, anyways. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Looks good, all of my nitpicks were addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Just a few things:

• "In winter, some seeds may be consumed and the accentors may then sometimes feed near human habitation." the word "then" leads to some ambiguity. I might say "In winter, the accentors may also consume seeds or feed near human habitation."

• Done as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You refer to the incursion being in October and November in the lede, but only October in the body.

• Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "sometimes cold environment" "sometimes cold seems kind for Siberia.

• yes, but they aren't there in the winter, so that's probably appropriate for May when they return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Seeds are be consumed in winter," some slight problem here

• Ugh, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Estimates for the small European part of the range vary from 100–500 breeding pairs, with up to 10,000 breeding pairs in Russia" This is confusing. Is European Russia meant? Or the whole of Russia?

• The source isn't totally unambiguous, but I think it means the whole of Russia. In practice, these figures are very approximate anyway, so it doesn't make much odds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I might move the tick image down to the final section, were there is room for it and where you talk about it.

• The text started higher on the page, forgot to move image when I moved text, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it usual in these articles to mention lifespan or the amount of time it takes for the young to reach maturity?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Songbirds are invariably mature after the first year, so it's easy to omit to actually say that, done. Average lifespan, like so much regarding this species, appears to be unknown. Scientists appear strangely reluctant to investigate species breeding in the mosquito- and horse-fly-infested forests of Siberia :( Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A breeding range of 2.2 million square km and a breeding density of 5pairs per square KM would imply a population in the region of 10 million pairs rather than 10,000. Since the bird is of least concern I would be surprised if there were as few as 10,000 pairs. ϢereSpielChequers 06:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ϣere, good point. Looking again, the IUCN's ref for this was a table in the back of Mark Brazil's Birds of East Asia (see my reflist), but that only gives a rough estimate for the part of eastern Russia covered by that book. Brazil says his table is based on "published sources" but gives no further info. Population estimates for these Siberian species are always going to be a bit "think of a number, any number" but IUCN have misused Brazil's data, which is in itself dubious. I've removed the estimate, other than the not-unreasonable figure for the small European range. "Large" seems adequate for the total Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. No other questions. Prose is fine. ϢereSpielChequers 22:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The licensing and sources of the images look good. But I see the Gould art is in very low res, while it can be found in high res here:[2] Seems you dramatically shrunk it when you cropped it? You could also give its date in the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for review. Not sure how I did that, but large version uploaded now, date added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

, amen

Have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Earwig's copyvio tool clear Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref formatting consistent. author names, dates, titles in sentence case etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• FN 15,16,17,18 and 19 all used once - material faithful to source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• FN 14 used once - my take on the source is that the Canadian occurrences are also in September (so autumn) as much as winter...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, thanks for review. I've added autumn (and removed an extraneous full stop from the ref) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

cool. all good then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, I don't think there are any outstanding issues at present, image and source reviews have been done, but if there is something I've missed please note that I'm going away for three days and I'll address any further points when I return. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take plenty of bird photos :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim, yeah we probably could've promoted before now but I prefer to leave noms open a few weeks -- I expect I or one of the other coords will close on our next walk through the list unless someone jumps in with concerns... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 29 January 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) 13:39, 31 January 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) 13:25, 31 January 2017 [3].

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another war memorial. Curiously, this one is not for a big city or a county or a rich company, but a relatively obscure town in Lincolnshire. It's interesting for several reasons, not least the personal tragedy suffered by an aristocratic family that led to its creation. Also curious is that little was written about it from its unveiling until relatively recently. Nevertheless, the article has passed an A-class review within the military history project and I think it's of featured quality. Of course, I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 18 December 2016 (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) 23:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Close to a Support:

• A nice article. Some thoughts below:
• "The memorial as-built consists of a brick pavilion" - in the context of the lead, I wasn't sure what the "as-built" was contrasting with (e.g. the first design, later modifications?)
  • I've done away with the "as-built" in the lead.
• "The memorial as-built consists of a brick pavilion at the south end of the garden and a Stone of Remembrance (designed by Lutyens for the Imperial War Graves Commission, for which he was one of the principal architects), both at the head of a long reflecting pool, which incorporates the remains of an 18th-century canal." - I'd advise losing the bit in brackets - I don't think it is helping the flow of the sentence, and doesn't appear vital for the lead.
  • Agreed.
• "In the aftermath of the First World War, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain. Amongst the most prominent designers of memorials was architect Sir Edwin Lutyens..." We're picking up the story at an odd moment here. The lead has told us that the plan originated in January 1918, when the war was still ongoing - this is roughly where the next paragraph picks up. So at this point in the main story, there haven't been many war memorials built in England and Lutyens isn't a famous designer of them. The background is therefore giving us the aftermath of the work at Spalding, not really the pre-story. Would this work better if the article described the situation regarding memorials as of early 1918, and pushed this bit down in to the final part of the history section?
• "Lutyens designed the headstone for McLaren's grave in Busbridge in Surrey, where he was also responsible for the village's war memorial,[3] and had previously designed the McLarens' London house on Cowley Street in Westminster." - the sequencing here is a little out I think. Isn't the village war memorial post-war (1922?); this gives the impression that that Lutyens has already produced it in 1918.
• "McLaren had hoped to include space for the families of those commemorated to add their own epitaphs—though she insisted that her husband not receive any special commemoration beyond that afforded to the other casualties—but this proved impractical due to the amount of space that would have been required" - is "though" right here? It implies a contrast with the first clause, but the content shows that it is supporting it (i.e. she had insisted her husband not receive any special treatment and had hoped to included space for the other families; this proved impractical however"?)
  • I've reworded this; see what you think.
• "functional schemes like the conversion of Ayscoughfee Hall into a youth centre" - really, really nit-picky... I think you mean "such as", not "like". ;)
  • If you insist!
• "The youth centre and Lutyens' proposal emerged as the leading proposals " - "leading options"? (would reduce the repetition)
  • Done.
• "Henry McLaren (Francis McLaren's brother, Barbara's brother-in-law)" - do you need "Francis McLaren's brother" here? I don't think that she could have had a brother-in-law named McLaren who wasn't Francis's brother, could she?
  • Done.
• "The stone is a monolith (carved from a single piece of rock)," - I was wondering if this could just say "The stone is carved from a single piece of rock,", which would remove the need to explain what a monolith is.
  • If it really bothers you it can go; I just like the word "monolith".
• "with a contemporary Peace Garden located to the east" - contemporary to the 1920s, or contemporary to now?
  • Clarified (hopefully).
• "The unveiling took place at a ceremony on 9 June 1922..." - it felt odd jumping back to 1922 after the architectural description of the gardens in 2016. Personally, I'd have gone for doing the history, then giving a modern description of the architecture etc.
• "until Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War (first published 2008)" - the brackets felt odd here. "until the publication of Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War in 2008"?
  • Done.
• Are there any details from local newspapers etc. about the adding of the additional names in 2015? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's this, but it doesn't contain much useful detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments; I'll come back for the remaining points later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version. As usual, I've intentionally not looked at anyone else's comments or the talkpage so there may be some duplication.

• Just a suggestion, but you may want to include the pronunciation of "Ayscoughfee" either in parentheses, a footnote, or as one of those fancy-pants embedded sound links. I've lived in England for over 20 years, and I have no idea whether this is pronounced "ice-coffee", "aye-skog-fee", "ess-koff" or something else, so people in other countries will certainly struggle;
  • I've borrowed the pronunciation form the article about the hall, but I have no idea if that's how it's pronounced locally.
• The town's Member of Parliament Francis McLaren, was killed in the war is true, but to me seems a little misleading as it implies he died in combat; looking at the Francis McLaren article, he actually died in a plane crash in Scotland;
  • Fixed.
• I'm no fan of using the "inflation" template for capital expenditure—because it's based on CPI it's misleading for anything other than household staples—but you should probably include something to give the idea of what £3,500 was worth then, as otherwise it may as well be a random number. ("The average labourer's wage at the time was around £200 a year", "a typical house in the area cost £400", etc.);
  • I have absolutely no idea what a labourer's wage was or what a hose in Spalding cost in the 1920s I'm afraid; at least the inflation template would give a rough idea, if only I could get it to stop spitting out nonsense, but as you say even that's not much use.
• "Painted stone flags" should probably change to "stones painted with the Union Flag and White Ensign", since the common usage of flag stone means something entirely different.
  • But a "stone flag" is not a flagstone and I don't think there's any risk of confusing them. "Stones painted with" sounds like lumps of rock with patterns painted onto them rather than intricate sculptures.

• I'd suggest including photographs either of Lutyens or of one or both McLarens here ({{multipleimage}} is your friend). This section is currently unillustrated so another image won't cause sandwiching, and it would solve the problem of the article being illustrated by four very similar photos.
  • There are no free photos of Lutyens (the only one of him used on his own article is fair use); the only free photo of Barbara is from when she was a girl; there is a free photo of Francis, but the connection might be a bit tenuous.

• The chronology here is somewhat garbled, as the Background section immediately preceding begins with "In the aftermath of the First World War", the Cenotaph (1920) and an exhibition in 1919, but all of a sudden we're now back in 1918 with the War very much still ongoing (and the winner by no means certain). As I read this, McLaren approached Lutyens before any of his other memorials had been built. This probably needs tidying up to give the actual dates, as if I'm reading that right then it might account for why this design is so different to his other memorials.
  • Working on this.

• If you can find one, this really needs a photo of the internal design. It's not reasonable to expect the reader to visualise what "two painted stone flags, three panels and a central panel, and a stone of remembrance" actually looks like in practice—while there are lots of photos in the article, they're all distance-shots;
  • Those are the only free photos available; I scoured Commons, Geograph, Flickr, and Google Images when I was writing this; I see Carcharoth suggests linking to some non-free photos below.
• Regarding A central panel bearing further names was added in 2015, do we have any idea why the authorities suddenly decided to alter the memorial after 95 years, and who took that decision?
  • All I can find is a brief report in the local rag (linked above); i'll add it in, but it's not much.
• Presumably when it was erected, the Stone of Remembrance didn't include the dates of the Second World War. When was that added, and was the memorial itself also altered at the time to include a list of WWII casualties or does it still only list those killed in WWI?
  • It only lists WWI casualties; it was fairly common for the dates of WWII to be added to a town's WWI memorial later on, but if this was reported on at the time, I can't find anything.
• The pavilion and the pool are surrounded by yew hedges—were these there already, or did Lutyens install them as part of the design?
  • Not in the sources, I'm afraid. It seems there were already yew hedges in the gardens, but whether these ones were added by Lutyens or just remodelled like the canal isn't specified.
• By a modern peace garden located to the east, do you mean Lutyens designed it in a modernist style, or that it wasn't in the initial plans and was installed at a more modern date?
  • I've found the date (1994) and added that.
• Was not featured in any publication about Lutyens' works until the publication of Tim Skelton's Lutyens and the Great War in 2008 is sourced to Skelton himself, who has an obvious motivation to boast about how comprehensive he is—do we have a better source for that?
  • It's difficult to prove a negative; I'll see if Historic England have anything to say, but I have several books about Lutyens sitting on my bookshelf for this project and none of them mention Spalding (in fact they largely overlook his war memorials altogether, which is possibly why they're only now being written about).
• The sources may not exist for this, but does anything exist on its reception? If it was widely condemned when it was unveiled, that might account for why Lutyens didn't re-use the design in his later memorials, and why it slipped into obscurity—at the moment "an exceptional departure" from the usual style of Lutyens' war memorials is just kind of floating there without any explanation.
  • Unfortunately we're dealing with a relatively obscure memorial in a small town in Lincolnshire, not a major monument on Whitehall; whereas everybody who was anybody had something to say about the Cenotaph, this one seems to have gone largely unnoticed. The only thing I can offer, which is a combination of OR, SYNTH, and speculation, is that most of his war memorial commissions for major towns and cities resulted from the Cenotaph and many of his later memorials were based on it; Spalding being somewhat off the beaten track, it never really registered.

All fairly minor quibbles, and I assume unless anything problematic comes to light this will be a support. ‑ Iridescent 13:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm still working on a few things, so I'll have more replies later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A few further thoughts on re-reading;

• Does it really need the coordinates both in the corner and in the infobox?
• I've taken the liberty of adding a photo of the clock and carillon in their current location. As I understand it, the clock is just as much "Spalding War Memorial" as Lutyens's structure; plus, this is quite a striking image and including it at this point breaks up an unavoidable flow of rather similar images. Ideally IMO it would be paired with a photo of the clock in situ on the Corn Exchange; since the Corn Exchange has been demolished for 50 years, you could probably get away with slipping a fair-use image of it (this one might be good, and is blurry enough to be of minimal commercial value but clear enough to show the clock clearly) past Nikkimaria's watchful eyes…
• …and searching for 1922-published (and thus out-of-copyright) photos of the clock leads me here, which might be worth stripping of anything you can pass off as fair use. (I assume they won't raise any objections, since a Wikipedia TFA will generate public interest in their collection.)
• Is "The solid rear wall bears two painted stone flags" correct? Looking at this photo, it looks to me like the stone flags are on metal poles embedded in concrete blocks on the floor, although admittedly it's not entirely clear whether they also attach to the wall.
• On the subject of Flickr photos, if you can persuade this guy to change the licencing for this photo, you really should, as despite having read the article top-to-bottom quite a few times it's only on seeing his photo that it's really made sense to me what's being described and how the parts relate to each other. Since his interest are listed as "trains, churches, canals and weather" if he's not already on Wikipedia he certainly should be, and Flickr users tend to lose their scruples about protecting their rights when you point out that as part of a FA their photo will literally be seen by a thousand times as many people as will see it languishing in a Flickr album.
• How do we get from she insisted that her husband not receive any special commemoration beyond that afforded to the other casualties to A separate stone is dedicated to Francis McLaren in the space of a couple of paragraphs?

These are all quibbles rather than serious issues, and I'm happy to support. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (picking up on a couple of points raised above):

• The death of Francis McLaren in Scotland was a flying accident while a trainee pilot in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. This was a relatively common occurrence at the time. Not a combat death, but a bit more precise than either 'killed in the war' or 'died in a plane crash'.
• I haven't been able to find a freely licensed photo of the interior. The painted flags and Stone of Remembrance are visible in one of the images used: this one. Better detail is needed. There are some images out there that could be linked in the external links if all else fails. One is here (Flickr photo). There is also a collection of images at the War Memorials Online page, mostly showing the poor condition at the time of photographing, plus one of the memorial garden. That should be an external link at the very least. There is also a hint there that some restoration work should be happening (or has happened) but I can't find any record at the War Memorials Trust website.
• The IWM War Memorial Register page here is used in the references. Given that the IWM register is (or aims to be) a standard reference for war memorials in the UK, might it not be worth giving that link in the infobox or external links? ('IWM memorial ID' is a property on Wikidata for what that is worth).
• It is definitely worth having more on the later history of the memorial, such as the recent commemoration events and the addition of names. An important point: the central panel and its inscription was not added in 2015. The inscription was present from the start. It was only additional names that were added in 2015. The phrasing used in the article gets this wrong at present. The Flickr picture I linked to above was taken in 2014, before the additional names were added. I haven't found any pictures yet from after the additions were made.
• About the Lutyens design elements and influence on his later memorials (this is mentioned in the article, but does need more explaining or putting in context). The stone flag element of the design (which Lutyens had wanted on the Whitehall Cenotaph but that didn't happen) are seen at Etaples and also on the Rochdale Cenotaph. From the Historic England listing the 'Tuscan pavilion is a precursor to the shelter buildings built in the cemeteries of the Western Front'. Pictures of those exist and could be put in the article. Identifying such architectural features with a reliable source can be a bit of a pain though.
• Bit of a stretch, but does a photo exist of the 'earlier castellated tower' that this memorial replaced? Or even of the general area before the memorial was built?

Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Few additional comments on looking at it again this morning:

• Northampton War Memorial (a featured article nominated by the nominator of this article) mentions the 'stone flags' design element and goes into some detail about how they are a common element in several memorials by Lutyens. It seems odd that this level of detail is missing from this article. Is this just not mentioned in the sources for this one, or was this level of detail left out for some other reason?
  • I can include it if you want. It just didn't seem relevant here. It is a common design element but its use here doesn't seem to have had much impact or been commented on anywhere (unlike Northampton, which was one of the last to actually be erected, albeit a relatively early design).
• The wider history of Ayscoughfee Hall is already covered in the article. There should be more on the tower that preceded the memorial and the plans for the 'Victory Clock and Carillon'. Some sources that mention this are here (the 'Owl Tower') and here ("This memorial project was originally meant to occupy the site of the present memorial at Ayscoughfee Hall. On this site was a folly - a 50 foot high Owl tower. However despite protests the Owl Tower was demolished by Spalding Urban District Council and the present Cloister style memorial designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens was constructed on the site."). Pictures of the Owl Tower are here and here. This is mentioned in books as well, such as here. At the very least, the name 'Owl Tower' (built in 1848 and variously described as a 50-foot-high Victorian Gothic folly) should be included in the article.
  • I've added some minimal detail about it but I'm reluctant to add more without better sources. Neither Skelton nor HE go into any detail about it (the listing description for the garden doesn't even mention it), Pevsner gives it the briefest of mentions, and those sources look like local history enthusiasts rather than reliable secondary sources.
• There seems to be some confusion as to whether the clock and carillon plan was originally for the Owl Tower and later changed to the corn exchange. It seems the bells were funded and purchased, and a tower and memorial arch erected at some point. See the IWM Memorials Register record. Not sure how much of this is worth mentioning. (The bells and clock are still there today, see picture here).
• You mention Spalding Urban District Council. It would be worth mentioning that changes in local government (in the 1970s) means that the current custodians of the memorial are South Holland District Council.
• "the connection with Barbara McLaren may have led to his commission for the Royal Naval Division Memorial in London after she married a prominent officer in that unit" - this feels too speculative and too much detail to warrant being in the lead section of the article.
• The lead says "in conjunction with a clock on the town's corn exchange building." This contradicts the body of the article which says "with a carillon on the corn exchange building". Is it possible to go back to your sources and be clearer on what actually happened here? (Possibly it was both, possibly plans changed again after the vote).
• "curved so slightly as to barely be visible to the naked eye" - maybe make clearer that you mean the curvature (entasis) is barely visible to the naked eye, not the Stone itself. Entasis would be more useful to link than monolith.
• "modern peace garden" - see here. If you are going to mention this, it might be worth expanding on the context of what Spalding did to commemorate the Second World War and why there are proposals to add WW2 names to this memorial. (FWIW, the WW2 names appear to be in the local churches). EDIT: I did find this for what it is worth. (added 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)).
• "McLaren and her son" - she had two sons at this time (Martin McLaren and Guy Lewis Ian McLaren). Both would have been under 10. Was it just one of them with her, and do we know which one? I suppose it is unlikely the source will give that level of detail. This detail probably came originally from a report in a newspaper like The Times or a local newspaper. Similar reports will cover any re-dedication of the Stone of Remembrance for the dead of WW2, which will answer one of the outstanding questions above. (EDIT: Having scoured various news archives, I think only local papers will have details on this. 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Carcharoth (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• About Skelton and Gliddon's claim that this memorial hasn't featured in previous publications about Lutyens and his works, this memorial was listed here (what looks like a 1981 gallery exhibition publication), but seems to have only been listed and not more than that, so maybe the two co-authors (Gliddon should be mentioned together with Skelton) are indeed the first to actually write about the memorial in any proper sense.
• It may be useful to try and get hold of a copy of The Builder, Volume 122 (1922) as there is a feature on this memorial on page 906 with illustrations (this is at the time of the unveiling). It is available from the links here, but not outside the USA unfortunately. I did find some pictures in another contemporary architectural journal (Building News and Engineering Journal, volume 118, 1920) of the plans, though from before the actual construction took place (so the details differ). See here and here. The associated text is here. Also here (illustration on the right) and the associated text here. Those illustrations (and the designs they show) should be public domain. I may try and upload them at some point soon to Commons. If used, the image captions would need to make clear they were only showing proposed plans, not the actual plans eventually used. The other architectural journals don't seem to be available online for that period. (For more on how such journals are an important part of the historical record for architecture in their periods, see here).
  • I did manage to get access to volume 122 (a good friend lent me access to VPN) but was disappointed: the feature on page 906 is a full-page photo of the banqueting hall of Cardiff Castle; Spalding gets a short paragraph of prose on page 904.

Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I've now uploaded the images and put them in a gallery on the article talk page for consideration: Talk:Spalding War Memorial#Gallery of memorial plans. That makes clearer what the original plans were by Lutyens, and how much the plans were modified by. Whether or not this was the 'unmodified plan' that was part of the vote, I don't know, but these images do show the War Stone at a different orientation, the presence of a Lutyens cross, the u-shaped cloister garth, and the lily pond. The final form of the memorial has the stone facing the canal and just a shelter, rather than a full-blown u-shaped cloister garth.
• Looking at those 1920 plans again, I am not sure that the following bits from the article are correct: "a plan for a grand memorial cloister sited in the middle of a circular pond" (lead section) and "Lutyens proposed a U-shaped cloister around a Stone of Remembrance with a cross, all mounted at the centre of a circular lily pool". At least in the 1920 proposals, the lily pond is a separate feature. Was there ever really a proposal to surround the entire memorial complex with a lily pond? That sounds... ambitious (but would be typical for Lutyens).
• The 1919 exhibition catalogue for the Royal Academy War Memorials Exhibition of 1919 is online here. I think the Spalding War Memorial plans are there... Actually, the numbers refer to the exhibition numbers. The catalogue is complete, but just a listing.

Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: To save space, I won't reply inline to each bullet point. I think I've actioned almost all of your suggestions, or I've replied inline with an explanation. I believe all that's left is to add a little more background about the state of war memorials in 1918, and to tidy up what's now the "impact" section and add some detail about the shelters in the CWGC cemeteries (sources permitting). I'd welcome your thoughts and those of Iridescent and Hchc2009 on the progress so far. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the changes. Some additional comments/responses:

• The clock part of the proposal was also a carillon, and is described as a 'chiming clock'. The extensive account given on pages 48 to 57 of Lutyens and The Great War makes it very clear (it is identified as a carillon on page 54 in the account of Dr Farrow's address to the public meeting). The reason I am pressing on this point is that the article says that the option that won the public vote included the clock. This is why I feel something needs to be said about this, even if only in the form of a footnote or an external link to further reading. The clock and carillon clearly exist today. Just falling silent and saying nothing more about the further history here feels wrong.

• Fair enough, I've added a paragraph about it now.

• Personally, I'd include (as external links if necessary) the War Memorials Online page, the online copy of the Royal Academy exhibition catalogue (maybe better used as a primary source to accompany the secondary source), a link to a close-up photo of the memorial panels and stone flags, and a link to a photo of the Owl Tower. They would all be of interest to a reader of this article, and would therefore be suitable as external links, IMO.
• Do you intend to use the images I put on the article talk page? They would need an image review.

• I've now included three of them; thank you very much for those!

• Is it worth including the connections with Francis McLaren's childhood home of Bodnant Garden? The flowers laid by Barbara McLaren and her sons were from Bodnant Garden, and Skelton says on page 56 of Lutyens and The Great War that the setting is "very reminiscent of the well known view of Pin Mill" (see picture here).

• Yes, it's worth a brief mention.

• Should there not be a link somewhere to a list of the names of those on the memorial? There are several possibilities: 1, 2, 3. The first one is nice, the second one is full of details, the third one from the IWM should be authoritative, but in my experience they get spellings and names wrong far too often. They also miss out Francis McLaren (I checked, he is not on the IWM list for this memorial). I also have a horrible feeling that the figure of 224 currently given in the article for the number of names is not right. If you count the visible names, there are 250 (including McLaren but not including the names added in 2014). Where did you get the figure of 224 from? Most sources use that, so if it is wrong there is a bit of a problem. This source (the second one listed above) quotes from a 1923 account in Ayscoughfee and its History, stating that there are 250 names (but actually gives 252, the extra two names are Henry Beecham and Fred Freeman). I have no idea where the number of 224 came from and how it got established in the sources out there, but it is clearly wrong. I suspect the IWM register got the number wrong and everyone else has been following that ever since. If anyone wants to double-check, they can use this photo and this photo and compare with the list here. Further update: There are 26 names on the memorial that are not on the IWM list of 224 names: Francis McLaren and the 25 names at the end of the memorial list, from VINE, R. to YORKE, ALBERT P.

• I've included the South Holland Life page as an external link. It's a shame the IWM's records are so poor but that's probably due to bad OCR given the sheer number of names they endeavour to list. I got 224 from Historic England (who list the IWM among their sources), but given that now two sources seem to agree on the exact number I've removed it altogether and gone with "over 200".

• There are two additional inscriptions that are not mentioned yet in the article: (1) the stone mentioning Francis McLaren (visible at lower right here and at the bottom of this page) with the inscription "This stone commemorates Francis Walter Stafford McLaren Member of Parliament for the Spalding Division 1910-1917 when he fell in the service of his country at the age of 31." (this is difficult to source, Google it and only two websites have this); and (2) the inscription above the names: "Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let light perpetual shine upon them." This can be sourced from several of the references you are already using. Whether you want to say where that comes from I don't know, but it should be included.

• And I've added these now as well.

Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB: this gives a total of around 270 names (which I think is after the modern additions). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth, Hchc2009, and Iridescent: Many apologies for the delay; I've been hard pressed for more than small snippets of time lately and didn't have as much time over Christmas as I expected. I believe I've addressed everything outstanding (with a lot of help from Carcharoth on the impact section) but it's possible I've missed something. If you could take a look to see if you have any more concerns, I'd be very much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. You will need another image review, and someone needs to review what I added, but I don't have any more concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry, there was one thing I forgot to mention: the lead section doesn't say who the memorial was raised for - the infobox says it, but the lead section should say this as well. War memorials cover a wide range, so even though this is an example of the most common kind (the local village/town/parish memorials), it still needs to be explicitly stated. Carcharoth (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at this tomorrow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this, was the additional review of the new images ever done? As I said, all looks good to me. I don't have any concerns, but am not sure if I should be explicitly supporting unless what I added has been reviewed. The edits I have made are here. The substantial edits are: [4], [5], [6], [7]. I don't think that disqualifies me from supporting, but am not sure. Carcharoth (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the response here to my query above, and with the caveat about the image review stated above. Carcharoth (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's changed a bit since I last read it through properly; will try to do a second run through this evening, HJ. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Th substance is mostly the same but some things have moved around or been expanded slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Carcharoth, what you added does not disqualify you from supporting. Also, Hchc2009 do you have anything further to add? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nikki, would you be able to check images added since your initial review? Also a source reivew would be great if you have time... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have read through again, some thoughts on the current text:

• "The memorial was designed by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens in a departure from the usual style of Lutyens' war memorials." Could we go for a pronoun for the second use of this name? I'm also not sure that "departure" in this context is right; when he designed it in 1917, he hadn't built the majority of his war memorials yet, so he couldn't really depart from anything. The cited source is written in the present tense, not the past, btw, and is about the memorial,not the act of designing, which I think is why it works in that context.
  • I've removed this; its significance among Lutyens' works is explained later in the lead.
• "After a public meeting in August 1919, followed three weeks later by a vote, a reduced-scale version of McLaren's proposal emerged as the preferred option, in conjunction with a clock on the town's corn exchange building." - in the lead, could we simplify this slightly? I was thinking "After a public meeting and a vote in 1919, a reduced-scale version of McLaren's proposal emerged as the preferred option, in conjunction with the construction of a clock on the town's corn exchange building." - I don't think the month or the time between that and the vote is critical, and it would make it easier for the reader.
  • Done.
• "Spalding War Memorial is today a grade I listed building, having been upgraded when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." - I wasn't sure you needed the "having been upgraded..." half of the sentence in the lead; it draws the reader away from this article, and you've already given the key fact in the first half of the sentence.
  • I think this is important; the memorial, like the article, is part of a series. Its significance is as part of Lutyens' work. There wouldn't be 2,000 works to write about a random war memorial in a Lincolnshire town.
• "Spalding was one of his first private war memorial commissions." - in 1917, how many public war memorial commissions had he actually had? It makes it sounds as though he had done many public war memorials by then, which surely isn't correct. (Could we just say "Spalding was one of his first war memorial commissions."?)
  • Done.
• "with the clock and carillon housed in a brick tower on the roof" - "rehoused" might sound more natural here
  • Done.
• "which on the east side are broken at regular intervals by iron gates which lead to a peace garden (added in 1994)" - the brackets here felt awkward - would a comma work just as well?
  • I can live with either, so done.
• There's a bit of duplication in "History and Design". In para one, we say "Further names were added in 2014." Para 3 then starts off, "The names of an additional 24 casualties from the First World War were added to the central panel of the memorial prior to Remembrance Sunday 2014." I think the problem remains here that you cut away from the historical sequence at the end of the "Commissioning" section to the modern day at the start of "History and Design", and then go back to 1922 for the second half of the section. If you, for example, took out the two design paragraphs and made that its own section at the end, you'd have the ability to tell the entire historical story from commissioning, opening and then impact, without repeating the information in a single section. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split out the design into its own section, which leaves the chronology mostly uninterrupted except for the trip to the Corn Exchange. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Looks great - Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Crop_to_show_entrance_at_Anneux_British_Cemetery,_Cambrai,_France.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a tag for the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: thanks for the extra image review. The architect (Lutyens) died on 1 January 1944, so as far as I am aware, all his works and the copyright to those works became part of the public domain on 1 January 2015. Does that over-ride the freedom of panorama considerations? Commons:Freedom of panorama states: "old buildings and statues where the architect or artist died more than a certain number of years ago (depending on the country), are in the public domain". So I am thinking that the image needs a public domain tag to clarify the copyright status of the work shown in the image. I have used Template:PD-old-auto and a suitable US PD tag (see here). Are you happy with that? Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Technically, even UK pics showing a potentially copyrighted work need a freedom of panorama tag: see Template:FoP-UK. Carcharoth (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the URAA tag requires that the work be out of copyright in its source country by 1996, but your explanation would have it out of copyright only in 2015 - that suggests that URAA is not the correct tag. Is there another that would apply? Does "1920s" mean pre-1923? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. You are right. The PD-US tags confuse me. Some of them have the wording 'published in the United States' so I never know whether they apply to works published outside the United States or not (clearly a building erected outside the USA has not been 'published' there). If there is some equivalent, I am not sure what it should be. The first CWGC cemeteries for WWI were constructed in 1920 and the majority of construction had been completed by 1927. Finding the exact dates for each cemetery can be difficult (the closest you might get could be when the cemetery registers were published - in this case the cemetery register was published in 1926). It would be nice to know the exact date of construction, but I am not optimistic. Do you get the (sinking) feeling that though it shouldn't really matter, it will? The image can clearly be used under a fair use rationale, but this sort of thing is why I hate the way the complexity of copyright laws ties people in knots (and it is a real motivation killer as well). I think these works are unpublished in the USA, so maybe Template:PD-US-unpublished applies? I suppose it depends on whether it was published in France or not. In some places on Commons, it says that "the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication", while in other places, it is clearly implied that the date of construction is the date of publication. I wish Commons would be clearer on how architectural copyright works. Carcharoth (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Found what I had been looking for. Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says this: "Works not copyrightable in the United States are not affected by URAA restoration. For example, architectural works (i.e. buildings) constructed before December 1, 1990, are not copyrightable in the US.". I think this applies here. I will double-check this, as it is not 100% clear. Carcharoth (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Turned out to be simple after all: [8], just using the tag Template:PD-US-architecture. For future reference, this was clarified here. @Nikkimaria: is that all OK now? Carcharoth (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • • Interesting, hadn't seen that tag before. But yes, that looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why include a publisher for one newspaper but not the other?
  • The Spalding and South Holland Voice is an independent publication so there is no publisher.
• Fn12: date shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed not; thanks Nikki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:04, 30 January 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) 13:25, 31 January 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) 12:41, 31 January 2017 [9].

Nominator(s): DVdm (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Richard Feynman, a Nobel-Prize-winning physicist. But it's more than that; in terms of page views, he ranks above all other winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics except Albert Einstein and Marie Curie! He also ranks ahead of all the Manhattan Project people except Robert Oppenheimer. The article averages over 3,000 page views per diem, which works out to over one million per annum. It is a Level 4 Vital Article. Why? God knows.

This article has a chequered history. It was created by Larry Sanger back in September 2001, so it is also one of Wikipedia's oldest articles. It became a featured article in August 2004 and was featured on the front page in December 2004. But it was demoted in May 2006. In June 2006 it became a Good Article but was delisted in October 2008. I restored the article as part of my effort to improve the Manhattan Project People in August 2016. Now DVdm and I are co-nominating it for restoration of its long-lost feature status. The article has 697 watchers, so I'm hoping that maybe two or three of them will step up and review the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Some readers will inevitably have problems understanding the physics, but the links will help. I enjoyed reading the article immensely and found no contradictions with what I already knew about Feynman from my reading of Gleick (although this was some years ago). I have not fully checked the images - the Lead one might present a problem. My thanks to the nominators and all the other editors who have contributed to this. Graham Beards (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your review Graham. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my concern was addressed. The article appears to satisfy the FA criteria. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: overall it looks good. The section I have some concerns about is "What Science is". Are the explanations under each of the bullets meant to be quotes from his address? I understand the intent, but believe the statements need to be placed in context. Praemonitus (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the points are not from his lecture. I am concerned about it too - enough to remove the section it and replace it with an external link to the actual text of the lecture. The section doesn't reflect what I recall from the lecture, which you can read here Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. After my removal of the TEDxCALTECH section, I thought about removing this section too, but I decided to stay silent and see what happened. This happened just now. Fully agree. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Feynman_EP_Annihilation.svg: suggest adding a data source

  Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:FeynmanAMNH.jpg. If we consider this to be a 2D work, the uploader holds no copyright; if we consider this to be a 3D work, we should include a licensing tag for the original monument

  I thought it fell below the threshold of originality - removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics.jpg: what is the licensing of the original work?

  Copyright © 1963, 2006, 2013 by the California Institute of Technology. I'd add a template:Non-free use rationale book cover template, but it's on Commons, so I can't. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Feymanlibrary.JPG: not sure we can ignore the cover copyrights here...Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a composite work, so the photographer has copyright of the image, but not of the book covers. Again, it's on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this as a DYK in August when it was a double hook with Matthew Sands. Feynmann has always been an interesting character to me. I can see there has been some fine tuning since August in the way of format, prose, citations. But it remains pretty much the article I reviewed in August. Nothing to quibble about. I'm glad to see this at FAC, and am happy to give my support. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead image (File:Richard Feynman Nobel.jpg) has tags that indicate that the file is PD in Sweden but may be copyrighted in the United States. What time it was PD? Is it appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken in 1965. It was first published in Sweden that year. Copyright there was 25 years at the time, so it expired in 1990 and the image entered the public domain in Sweden. It was in the public domain there in 1996, and it is therefore appropriate to use {{PD-URAA}}, which I have added. The image should not be copied to Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sweden PD tag says "If the media is in the public domain in both Sweden and the United States, it may be transferred to the Wikimedia Commons." So it can be transferred to Commons, since it's PD in the source country (Sweden) and the United States. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why General Relativity is capitalized? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an artifact. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Most refs have a date format January 1, 2017, but 104 and 179 do not, they have 1 January 2017. They should be consistent. HalfGig talk 02:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected, along with three other instances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not want to mention this in 'popular legacy', just a suggestion, but character Sheldon Cooper in The Big Bang Theory is a huge Feynmann fan. This link here isn't the greatest source, but it'll give you an idea of Cooper's fandom: [10] HalfGig talk 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be an acceptable source for Cooper, if you care to include it. HalfGig talk 12:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Wil Wheaton? Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sheldon Cooper is played by Jim Parsons. Will Wheaton has a recurring minor role on the show though. HalfGig talk 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. Sheldon is the one on the right in the green tee shirt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Will Wheaton is on the left with the United Federation of Planets flag and Sheldon is on the right in the green tee shirt. HalfGig talk 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source Check - By this I mean I'm looking at quality of the reference sources. Most are impeccable: universities and academic journals. Some concerns:

• 1) is find a grave acceptable for wiki/FAs? I simply don't know

  It is acceptable as a WP:RS only for photographic evidence. But that's not the case here. Substituted a newspaper article for the source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 2) what about ref 170? website i09. I am not sure about this one. Open to input on this

What about this one? HalfGig talk 12:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a professionally produced website with its own Wikipedia article, but there is no mention of it on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Substituted an article from The Hollywood Reporter Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 3) Ref 176 needs a source, the Bill Gates one

  Added the publisher. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 4) Ref 167 is clearly unacceptable, this goes to a site in Chinese that looks like an ad for hand lotions or something. rtopera prob lapsed control of the site and some Chinese company hijacked it. UPDATE: compare http://www.realtimeopera.org/ to http://www.rtopera.org

  It's a common form of cyber-squatting. A firm pays for the provider's 404 rights. Unfortunately, it fools our external link checker and the archive bot. Well spotted btw. Corrected the address. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HalfGig talk 03:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Check Earwig's tool turns up one "possible violation". I'll look at it later. Others feel free to look too. HalfGig talk 21:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's picked up a quotation from James Gleick, which is attributed to him in the article. Nothing to worry about. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, the Caltech match is the block quote about science textbooks, and the nuclear secrecy is the one from the FBI report. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. No issues here. HalfGig talk 23:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per all my above comments. Kudos to those editors who worked so much to get this article to this point. I really enjoyed reading and reviewing the article. HalfGig talk 23:06, 30 January 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) 12:41, 31 January 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) 12:23, 31 January 2017 [11].

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's not to like about this article? It is brilliantly written, beautifully illustrated and lavishly referenced. There is drama and controversy, triumph and heartbreak. Admittedly, no Paralympic article has even been promoted to Featured, but none had made it to A class before this one either. It has had two previous reviews, but no problems with the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about basketball, so at least I have no preconceptions. Looks pretty good to me, but a few comments below, most of which you can ignore if you disagree

• from whom much was hoped—perhaps "expected" for last word?

  No, it was hope, not expectation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure there is some logic to the 5-2-5 image layout, but there's nothing to say what it is. Also, can the images be centred? May not be feasible, so not a big deal

  All part of the magic of template:gallery. Fiddled with this, and I have fixed the problem. The layout adjusts to your screen width, so you should now see 5-5-2, but if you can get it a bit wider it will be 6-6. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Canada had beaten them… the Netherlands had also beaten them… Canada would be hard to beat.—a bit repetitive?

  Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• watching video tapes.—Literally? By 2012 you'd expect DVD or internet downloads

  Yeah, literally. They were on VHS. Quality was crap too. I would add this, but I can't find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merritt, in her British accent—to me, sounds as if she is making a choice, perhaps who had a British accent

  Done. Amber's British accent became more pronounced during the London games. Since then it has greatly softened. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Netherlands based on defeating them—perhaps add in their head-to-head

  Done. The ramifications of that were considerable; the Netherlands had to face Germany, while the Gliders went up against the USA. The Netherlands' loss cost them a shot at gold; but they credit the Gliders' win with giving them the bronze medal, as the USA were morally crushed by their loss. And they had not forgotten this in Rio; this figured in their preparation for back-to-back bronze medals. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• their shooting was worse than their rivals—possessive rivals' I think

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All my issues have been addressed, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Stewart took the tap, and lost": What did they lose?

  Possession. Re-worded. Wikipedia uses "tip" instead of "tap"; changed the article to conform. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "runaway break": I'm not familiar with the term.

  Occasionally our Australian basketball jargon is polluted with terms from football. Changed to "fast break", which is the term used on Wikipedia

• "The Gliders played Germany like they had played against and defeated the United States": nonparallel; "played" can take "against" or not, but not both in the same sentence.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Syek88. I was attracted to this article among those in the list of Featured Article candidates only because of the extreme length of the title. I confess no knowledge of the subject. Nevertheless, it seems to be a comprehensive article that cannot have been easy to write. I have made a string of copy-editing changes, simply because doing so was easier than listing them here. Please undo any of them with which you disagree. Some other things:

• The treatment of numbers seems inconsistent. Sometimes single-digit numbers are expressed in numeric form (8 points) while double-digit numbers are spelt out (twelve team members). It becomes noticeable to the reader because the article uses so many numbers.

  I've changed the words in the Background section to numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What has Ms Merritt's British accent got to do with her comments about the Canada match?

  The irony of talking about "the Australian way" in a British accent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The opening paragraph about the semifinal seems to descend into unnecessary play-by-play detail that the remainder of the article avoids.

  Trimmed the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The final sentence about the semifinal says that the Gliders' win was controversial. The preceding sentences establish drama, but not controversy. For example, the article says nothing about dirty play (I understand deliberate fouling is common in basketball) or refereeing errors. Why was the win controversial?

  The article says: Spectators saw Hollermann's shot from the paint hit the ring with a second to go, but the shot clock was not reset. Team USA's Alana Nichols rebounded, and put the ball in the bucket, but not before time ran out and a shot clock violation was called. The spectators included myself. A Youtube video can be viewed in the external links (forward to 1:40 to view the incident), but at the time Olympic/Paralympic basketball had no provision for video review. This was changed for the 2016 Rio Olympics/Paralympics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand how the ranking system worked between Australia, Canada and the Netherlands. Australia seems to have finished ahead of the Netherlands because of their head-to-head result, but wouldn't this mean Canada finished ahead of Australia? What has Canada's result against Great Britain got to do with it? The table in the article talks about "Tiebreaker 1" and "Tiebreaker 2", which again I don't understand. And Wheelchair basketball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Women tells me nothing either.

  Turning to the IWBF rules (pp. 73-77), we find that the first tiebreaker is on the basis of points differential in the games between them. The three games were CAN 59 –70 NED, AUS 50 – 57 CAN, and NED 49 – 58 AUS. So the point differentials were: CAN: -11 + 7 = -4; NED: 11 - 9 = +2; AUS: -7 + 9 = +2. Australia and the Netherlands were still tied, but Australia beat the Netherlands, and so claimed first place in the second tiebreaker. Should this be added to the article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Added it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The summary of each match says "Referees:" but in each case there is only one referee.

  Yes. It's a feature of the template {{Basketballbox}}. At the Olympics there is one "referee" and two "umpires". The template is used by thousands of articles, so it would be tricky to change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regards Syek88 (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! The article was very difficult to write, and no Paralympic article has ever become featured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of the tiebreakers is difficult! My only remaining comment about that part is that "head-to-head match" is tautologous. And my apologies for missing the British accent joke! Syek88 (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains several of these. My favourite is "Gauci, a two-point player, took a three-pointer" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider linking Brazil, Great Britain, Canada, Netherlands to their respective teams.

  I hadn't done so because the pages did not exist; but someone has since created one for Canada. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the last two of which had recently beaten them." - During the previous tournament?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Prior to 2012 ..." - This should be linked to the Paralympics article

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article. Given, the article is about the team's display at a particular tournament it could be a little more detailed. Viz., Squads, dates, prize money, et al.,

  Prize money? Oh no, there was no prize money. Had the Americans won a medal they would have received US$3,000 each, but the Gliders didn't get a brass razoo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, my bad. Got it! —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Paralympic Games' -> Paralympic games

  No, Paralympic Games is capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The last sentence of the first para (Background) is a bit too short.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Given its length, wouldn't it be better to note it earlier when we introduced her? —Vensatry _(talk) 12:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The second para seems fine, but it could do a bit more with information about the changes in the squad (if any) and the tournament.

  But I already said that there three new players. Melanie Domaschenz, Melanie Hall and Kathleen O'Kelly-Kennedy were not selected, and Liesl Tesch had retired since 2008. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The quote should either be placed inside the quote box or at least quotes.

  Per MOS:QUOTE: Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "12 included 9 veterans" - twelve included nine veterans per WP:MOSNUM

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Will review the rest later. —Vensatry _(talk) 13:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit

• Talking about the opening para of the 'Group stage', is there a special reason to highlight their encounter against Canada, while leaving out the rest of the teams?

  Expanded the quote to encompass the Netherlands. Despite this, the group was still better than Group B, where they would have been up against Germany and the USA. The quote contains an irony; despite what he says, the Gliders' shooting percentage did not improve. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " ... at the Basketball Arena in Olympic Park in Stratford, London,[10] also known as "the Marshmallow"." - This gives an impression that the city of London is referred by the name. Also why include the inside quotes?

  Changed to 'a venue also known as "The Marshmallow"'. The "the" is in quotes because it was always referred to that way. Several of the venues were referred to by other than their official names. In the case of the Basketball Arena, that name could easily be confused with the North Greenwich Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've made a minor change. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  But we cannot talk about the Marshmallow in the present tense. It was demolished in 2013. There was some talk in 2012 about it being used again in Rio, but the Rio basketball was held at the Carioca Arena 1 and the nearby Rio Olympic Arena. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon my ignorance, is 'affair' encyclopedic (when used in the context of the game)?

  Well it's a common sports idiom. [12] It's used here to try and avoid too much repetition of "match" and "game". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Who was the Great Britain coach?

  Gary Peel. He was sacked after London. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 9 - 7 = +2, 11 - 9 = +2, 7 - 11 = -4 - Should the arithmetic bits go inside a bracket?

  I don't know if that would be practical. The idea was to allow the reader to follow the arithmetic. The head of the IWBF, Maureen Orchid,m explained it to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "He warned the media" - Really?

  Changed to "cautioned". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Merritt, who had a British accent" - Is it necessary?

  Per the above, it is another ironic reference. Another reviewer asked me to add it. Do you think it should be remove. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The statement reads more like a press release. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ""They will come back!" Triscari warned his players. "We've got to stop them!"[47]" The second quote is unattributed.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This one is a personal preference: The statements issued by the coaches border WP:QUOTEFARM. You could try not to overuse them by trimming down a bit.

  Removed one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "In Australia, Basketball Australia CEO ..." - This could simply do without "In Australia".

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was not to be." This sentence seems incomplete

  It's fine. It's a common idiom. 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  I see that. But this seems like a disconnect from the previous para. Also, the second quote (of the previous para is unattributed). —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought it segued nicely. Kean says: "the plan is, next four years, Rio we go one more." And then we say: "It was no to be." This avoids a single sentence final paragraph, (and provides yet another irony). Unavoidably, the article ends on a jarring note. (Interestingly, everybody in London was talking about Rio, but no one is Rio was talking about Tokyo except the Japanese.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source reviews? Cheers, 11:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• The book(let?) in FN3 does not include location, but the unnumbered one at the end of the section does - should be consistent
• FNs 21–23 look similar to me, but the titles vary in terms of content and format - is there a reason for that?
• FN58 doesn't match the formatting of the other refs
• Fn59 should use |publisher= rather than |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes, the Media Guide was an A5 booklet. Designed to be easy to carry and lays flat when opened. Add the publication location. It was the last printed media guide; they are online now. So is London; linked.
2. There was some inconsistency - the pages did not have title cards in the HTML. I have corrected tjhis so all the pages have consistent names. For each one there was a main page, a statistics page, and a play by play page. Unfortunately, archive.org did not correctly archive all the pages. Checked them all, and used archive.is to replace the three faulty ones.
3. FN 58 had a typo - fixed
4. FRN 59 - fixed.

Thanks for your review! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Vensatry do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refrain from supporting the candidate as my knowledge about the topic is rather limited. But then, I feel the quotes could be trimmed down a bit. Nevertheless, I'd be happy to see a consensus for promotion. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed back one more quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 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) 12:23, 31 January 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) 22:15, 28 January 2017 [13].

Nominator(s): Aa77zz (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a critter I commonly find in my garden. Aa77zz and I have buffed it quite a bit and it got a good going-over at GAN so I reckon it is at or nearly at FA standard. I promise to address issues promptly. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, just a couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• sedentary (present year-round) — I don't like the parenthesis, perhaps year-round resident or permanent resident?
• A mainly sedentary resident — sedentary seems superfluous
• up to 1900 m above sea level —imperial conversion
• Your conversions to inches are inconsistent, some with fractions, others, such as the eggs, with decimals
• often parasitized —make clear or link to brood parasite

all done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Is the "bright yellow patch towards the tail" on the dorsal or ventral side? It's not clear from the sentence.

Ventral - fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground. This reads a bit awkwardly. Do you mean that it spends most of the time in trees, but forages on the ground? Because that's how it reads.

Aah, I tried to rectify like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*No information on breeding or status and threats in the lead? I'd expect to see at least a few sentences about each!

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more coming soon!

ummm, @MeegsC:...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry - I'm in Guyana at the moment, with only intermittent veeeeeeeery sloooooooooow connectivity. Will check ASAP. MeegsC (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi MeegsC, my feeling is that this has probably had sufficient commentary now but if you think you can return to it I could leave it open another day or two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is looking good; I'm happy to support it. MeegsC (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't remember which script throws these out, and I am not certain how to fix this particular error, but I see four of these: "CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list" in your refs.

Not sure what the problem is here - but I've switch all author= to last=, first=. Does this fix it? Aa77zz (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All except for the one I just fixed. Tks.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the logic behind placing Jobling, James A. (2010) and Beruldsen, Gordon (2003) in the References section, but all other books in the Cited texts section?

Good point, I'm looking into this. Aa77zz (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the three books into Sources. I'm in two minds about this. For books which are only cited once there are advantages in keeping the full reference in the text. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you get a copy edit? This sentence is a bit clumsy; moreover, it seems to forget the frequency of Hawking (birds): "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See above, I changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, in the lead, "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" reads a bit odd. Second (I know I'm just adding on to the dogpiling on at this point), the sentence, "A loud and conspicuous bird, the red wattlebird is generally found in trees, though, at times, forages on the ground." reads weirdly. Also, before that, why did you link to just Western Australia and not all the other places? In the taxonomy section, why did you say, "The red wattlebird was first described as the wattled bee-eater by the Irish surgeon and naturalist John White in his Journal of a Voyage to New South Wales, which was published in 1790."? The original common name is in italics, which doesn't make much sense to me. For the description section and on, you seem to have inconsistency in the usage of to and the em dash and whether to use fractions or decimals. The final nitpick I have is the fact that you should probably make parasites a separate section, "Predators and Parasites". It may not be long enough to make into a separate section though, it would be great if somebody else could give their take on that. Good luck! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Other Australian states now linked. Aa77zz (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "distinctive pinkish-red wattles either side of the neck" seems fine to me. Cas - are you happy with this? Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine grammatically but readers may find it odd. It could just be changed to "distinctive pinkish-red wattles on either side of the neck". It reads a lot better for me at least... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized I was scanning it and putting the 'on' in it mentally when it wasn't there. Added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• wattled bee-eater - italics removed but see MOS:ITAL "Words as words". Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for linking me to that, I will read it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is tricky as italics delineate the scientific names from common names, yet if we use words-as-words then we italicize the common names when they are set out as such. There's no real right answer on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding parasites, I am in two minds as we have some brood parasites mentioned in the breeding section, but it strikes me as a bit odd to group cuckoos with birdlice and protozoa. But you're the second person to raise it so will do in a sec done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all imperial units are in fractions and decimal units in decimals Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized something else—oxford commas are inconsistent. Otherwise, it looks good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just adding now I think I got 'em all...(I should say I don't really like Oxford commas but they are very useful if one needs to add a ref after one..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good. My nitpicks were all addressed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikki. Aa77zz (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review sources are appropriate and consistently formatted. I checked refs 12, 19, 31 and 56, and subscription ref 23. Content is supported by sources, no close paraphrasing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Jim Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Did two of the reviews stall? I'll start a review later today, if they don't continue. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The taxonomic descriptions in White's book are believed to have been written by the English naturalist George Shaw." Which I guess is the reason why this article credits Shaw, but I see the IUCN has White as the author. So seems there is some disagreement on how to handle this? What do most sources do? Also, why isn't Latham credited with the name if he coined it? FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responsible for this section:

• Salomonsen 1967 (ie Peters) has (White 1790) see here at the bottom of page
• HBW alive has (Shaw 1790) see here
• IOC has (Shaw 1790) see here
• Zoonomen has (Shaw 1790) here with the note "Usually attributed to White, but see Nelson EC. 1998. Archives of Nat. Hist. 25(2): 149-211. making the case that White is not the author of any of the taxa in this work." I've cited Nelson but (this is embarrassing) I cannot access the actual article to confirm the comment on the Zoonomen website (Zoonomen is by Alan P. Peterson).
• My understanding was that for an author to be credited with describing a species he/she has to provide a description and a binomial name but for the red wattlebird this doesn't appear to be the case. (This is perhaps OR on my part) Unlike other birds in White's book, a specific name is not provided for the red wattlebird only "Wattled Bee-eater or Merops, Female" . See page 240 in White.
• Latham certainly used the binomial name Merops carunculatus - see here at top of page and doesn't credit White.
• Salomonsen 1967 claims the White's book was published "before August" and Latham's (December). see here and the next page

How should I handle this? - Aa77zz (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More

I find it very surprising that White/Shaw are listed as the authority but the specific epithet is due to Latham. I've searched White's book but cannot find the specific name. Our article on John Latham explains that Latham wasn't given credit for the birds he described in his A General Synopsis of Birds as he didn't provide binomial names. In Latham's description of the red wattlebird in his Index ornithologicus he cites "Phill Bot Bay t. p. 164" which is The voyage of Governor Phillip to Botany Bay published in 1789 - see Phillip's description and picture of the Wattled Bee-Eater here. Phillip doesn't provide a binomial name. Aa77zz (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, seems there are some secondary sources that discuss the issue? So at least the situation could be explained? I think some readers would be puzzled when they read the seemingly contradictory sequence of taxonomic events. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus among published sources is that the author is Shaw - Australian government and IOC (above) are two most important authorities in this I think. I am placing a line in the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't access the Nelson article that explains this. Will see if I can get via interlibrary loan or something. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try the resource request page?[14] I think it would be good with some explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looked in the Nelson material today - it mentions that Shaw wrote all the descriptions for White. Also, Salamonsen points out that White/Shaw was published before Latham, in which case whoever published first gets the Authority, even if they used the name that the other person coined. This is why Salamonsen highlights the months published. As far as authorship (White vs Shaw), we mention that Shaw did the writing and is credited with the Authority, so is anything more needed?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: A famous case is Richard Anthony Salisbury and Robert Brown in 1809... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Onomatopoeic could be explained.

I added "(sounding like the calls they make)" - strikes me as a tad wordy but is more accessible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No cladogram? Any suggestion for when the species split?

A large molecular phylogenetic study has just been published - see Marki et al 2017. For the wattlebirds (Anthochaera) the relationships are well resolved and agree with earlier publications. I've drawn a cladogram that I've inserted into the wattlebird article, I can add it here. The spiny-cheeked honeyeater (Acanthagenys rufogularis) in its own genus is a sister group to the wattlebirds but beyond that the relationships are murky. Marki et al. wrote: "We recovered a number of strongly supported clades within the Meliphagidae, however their interrelationships remain largely unsolved." Looking at the scale at the bottom of Fig 4, it appears that there was a sudden radiation about 10 million years ago. - Aa77zz (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think just saying "coverts" is too jargony, saying covert feathers the first time at least would be better.

I unabbreviated two of three Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Like you explain nape, lores could be explained too.

Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The wattle is kind of hard to see on the photos used, compared to say, this one[15]. Maybe there is a photo somewhere that could be added where this namesake feature is more visible?

Agree on the wattles...but the bird is in a funny posture in the picture. Will try and digest all the photos and come up with something have added the image. There are others but they have more obvious focus or exposure issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is even the weird pose itself that makes the wattles so clear? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sclerophyll forest and dieback could be linked, I at least had to click to know what it was.

sclerophyll is really hard to explain succinctly - "sorta but not aways dry-adapted forest that is periodically burnt by bushfires" and dieback is commonly used in discussions in Australia. But I un-easter egged the link anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "height of 5.9 ± 5.8 m" Conversion?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The tongue is described in detail, but what colour is it?

no source I have details a colour,sadly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also failed to find a suitable source (the tongue is yellow - see here and here) Aa77zz (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro says "At around 35 cm (14 in) in length". Why not give the 33-37 range in the article body?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "it is one of the largest species of honeyeater" Only stated in intro.

tweaked and added to body now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "cup-shaped nest" Article body says "bowl".

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the article looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review and your support. -Aa77zz (talk) 15:38, 25 January 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) 22:15, 28 January 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) 22:12, 28 January 2017 [16].

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small constellation. A few of us have been working on getting all constellation articles improved over the years. This is a small one and easy to digest. Will address issues pronto so have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could write these in your sleep by now, so no real problems, just a couple of niggles to show I've actually read it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure if you can avoid repeating "feet" in para 1, but you should be able to avoid repeating "brightest star" in para 2

yep. first I can't see how but second now rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The separate components can be resolved with binoculars, a telescope, or the naked eye.— if resolvable with the naked eye, aren't the optical instruments redundant here?

good point - rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• approximately 2059— in what sense is a 4-sig fig number approximate?

the source has that number. All of these are estimates for very distant objects...which gives me an idea.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Overall it looks good, and appears to satisfy the FA criteria. However, it looks like the statement about the younger age of IC 4499 has been shown to be incorrect. Walker et al (2011) give an age of 12±1 Gyr.[17] Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

aha interesting. debate to that level of detail probably not notable enough for the parent article so removed the young age statement. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Recusing as coordinator for this one. Up to the usual standard, and just a few nit-picks from me, none of which affect my support at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bayer called it Apis Indica while Johannes Kepler and his son-in-law Jacob Baertsch called it Apus or Avis Indica.": This is the only time we mention Kepler; famous as he is, I think we need a word to say why he matters here. Also, there is no context for where they called it this. Bayer did so in an Atlas, so I assume Kepler and Baertsch didn't only do so over the dinner table! I also wonder if "while " is the best word here as it could imply at the same time in this context.

tricky - they were all notable German astronomers - so I added "fellow astronomers" to emphasise this was part of their business (mapping and naming the sky) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Apus later lost some of its tail when Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille used those stars to establish Octans in the 1750s": Coming straight after the section on the Bird of Paradise having its feet taken off, this is a little distracting, and I had to re-read to realise we had returned to the constellation.

Aaww, I thought it was quite cute. Anyway, does this help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "visible to observers south of 7°N": Which would be where?

Brilliant! been here over ten years and never twigged we had these - so fixed like this, as source doesn't say what places these parallels these align with and wouldn't want to do OR.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we link or explain "main sequence"?

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "It spent much of its life as a blue-white (B-type) main sequence star before expanding, cooling and brightening as it used up its core hydrogen,[14] now having swollen to 48 times the Sun's diameter,[15] and shining with a luminosity approximately 928 times that of the Sun, with a surface temperature of 4312 K.": Could this sentence be broken up a bit? There's quite a lot going on.

split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nearby Zeta is Iota Apodis": Nearby confused me at first, as I thought "Nearby Zeta" was the subject of this sentence. Would "near" work, as I think that would avoid the problem.

duly tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I often wonder do non-science people realise what ± means? I'm not sure there is an easy way to explain it, unless there is a link. (And I'm not suggesting removing the symbol, just wondering aloud)

I used to say "around" but the margins of error make it more precise. I agree it is hard to link or explain. I tend to think it is common enough now for people to understand what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "has turned out to be a brown dwarf": Turned out is slightly unencyclopedic, especially in an article like this.

tweaked - trying to use plain english Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "a predicted mass": Can we expand this just a touch so that the lay reader doesn't think that this is just a wild guess.

changed to "calculated" - it's rather complex how this is done and might be a bit wordy for this article. Need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That works perfectly for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need to say when it became a "modern constellation"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that by reading the article it becomes clear that it was 1922/30 that the constellations were set in stone....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, missed that, sorry! Sarastro1 (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Apus IAU.svg: Free image on Commons used to illustrate the constellation, a good usage. License supported by source website.
• File:BayerUran1661apuschamtri.jpg: Free image on Commons, used to show the old portrayal of the constellation. Changed the license templates a little to use a broader and more precise one, but unquestionably PD for age.
• File:Constellation Apus.jpg: Free image on Commons. Used to show how the constellation appears in the sky. Source website appears to imply a noncommercial license, though - is a free license specified somewhere? It also says own work.

Till Credner added this one himself. I am not fussed either way and if in doubt (as now) I am happy to leave it out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Potw1431a.jpg: Free image on Commons, illustrating a stellar object discussed in the article. Seems like a legit free license as well.

Might want to use ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alt text added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just the regular source review needed now I think -- I know it's listed at WT:FAC, just for benefit of those stopping by here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: All sources of an appropriate quality. The only issue I notice is that we are not consistent with print sources: we give a publisher for some but not all (e.g. Houk and Cowley; although the publisher is pretty obvious, I think it should be there for consistency, unless I'm missing something) and a location for some but not all. Also, is there a reason why journals are cited without "p." or "pp.", but books include this? (I assume it's a template thing) Otherwise, sources are fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

locations added to book publishers now. journal page ranges don't add the p's for some reason Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, I removed a few duplinks and while doing so noticed that you use orange giant, which redirects to giant star, but also pipe orange giant (and yellow giant) to giant star -- perhaps should consistently go one way or t'other, will leave to you after I promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 January 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) 22:12, 28 January 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) 21:50, 28 January 2017 [18].

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I have tried to edit and model this off of God of War III, which is an FA, though of course there are differences. Albeit with the new God of War announced this past summer, this is the only article of a God of War video game that has not been promoted to FA. It has been over a year since I last nominated this article for FAC. I feel comfortable in nominating this article and feel that any issues that reviewers may bring up can be easily resolved. I am quick to respond and make corrections. Thanks for reviewing. JDC808 ♫ 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work in the article. However, there are some things that I'd like to point out.

The third paragraph from the lead is too detailed. How about:

"God of War: Ascension received generally favorable reception from critics, who praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series. Some reviewers said the story was not as compelling as previous installments. The game's multiplayer element received a mixed response. Although reviewers said the gameplay translated well into the multiplayer element, they criticized the balance and depth of combat.

The first sentence of plot "Gameplay begins with Kratos, who is imprisoned, chained, and tormented by the Furies for breaking his blood oath to Ares. Megaera" Explain who Magaera is. It could be easily written as The Fury Magaera.

In development whenever there is a quote reference it instantly.

Why is "Rise of the Warrior" in past tense? Did the novel completely disappear? Not even an archive could have it?

Other than that, the article is well-written and could easily become FA. Just do a "ping" like this @Tintor2: when you want talk to me. By the way, do you know how to do source reviews. I'd need that to my FAC. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tintor2:

• Shortened the third paragraph some, while retaining the last couple of sentences regarding its nominations.
• In response to the Plot issue, the "Character" section that precedes "Plot" says that Megarea is a Fury and explains the Furies. Did change it to "The Fury Megaera" etc.
• That "rule" is kind of annoying, especially if the seceding sentences/quotes all come from the same source. Nonetheless, done.
• Annoyingly, yes, it has disappeared from their website. I mistakenly did not archive them when I should have, or maybe I did try to archive them then, but because the website has an age verification, it screws with archiving. I don't remember exactly. I also did not expect them to completely remove it from their website, considering that was the only place to access it. I did find it elsewhere, and although those are the actual images of the graphic novel from Santa Monica's website back then, that is a fan wiki.
• Thanks for the comments, and if no one else gets on the source review for you, I'll do it tomorrow. --JDC808 ♫ 03:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'll give it a support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through the article, and I can't see anything that will stop me from giving this article a Support. Well done, JDC808. I hope it actually passes this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking through the sources most of them seem to be all right. The only source that is rather questionable is the PlayStation LifeStyle sources. There doesn't seem to be any real consensus of its reliability, indicated by the most recent discussion. GamerPro64 21:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @GamerPro64: I used those because the site was not marked as unreliable at the time of using the sources and there were not any previous discussions at the time. Basing it on that and having read over the sources, they seemed to check out okay when I used them for this article. It looks as if the only person who thinks that PlayStation LifeStyle is unreliable is czar in both discussions on the matter. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Allright. Personally I'm fine with the usage of PSLS. But I want to also mention citation 31, which is GameTrailers. Since the website is dead and got redirected to YouTube, I think there should be an attempt to find a working link to the video or replace the source. GamerPro64 23:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll see if I can find a replacement. --JDC808 ♫ 00:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @GamerPro64: I was able to just remove the GameTrailers source as other sources already there covered its info. --JDC808 ♫ 00:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished reading through the article and I couldn't find any issues to raise, so I'll be glad to lend my support here. One minor thing I want to mention is to be careful about personifying publications – in the reception section for example I'm seeing "Edge said the multiplayer element is an "evolutionary step"". But feel free to ignore that. This is a great article! JAGUAR  17:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thank you, and the reason for that is because no author's name was given for the Edge review, just "Edge Staff". I changed the wording slightly, with that particularly instance, for example, "The review from Edge magazine said..." --JDC808 ♫ 17:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that! The online version of Edge don't usually leave the authors' names, so as a rule of thumb I usually write "A reviewer from Edge" etc. JAGUAR  23:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is a little uneven in places. I'll note a few examples, along with a couple of other points I saw as I scanned the article. It's not all that far off FA quality, but I think a copyedit is needed.

• "the new World Weapons mechanic": I've no idea what "mechanic" means here; I assume it's a standard video game term. Can it be linked to something?
  • Linked. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "A graphic novel prequel to the single and multiplayer modes launched as Rise of the Warrior prior to the game's release": I don't know what "prequel to the single and multiplayer modes" means, and "launched as" is a bit jargony.
  • It means just as it says. Prequel means the events that are set before the current events. The single-player/multiplayer modes are the current events in terms of this game's narrative. I'm not sure what to replace "launched" with. I don't want to put "released" because the sentence ends with that. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sat on this overnight and reworded as seen here. --JDC808 ♫ 01:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That's clearer -- I hadn't realized till you rewrote that sentence that the graphic novel was only available online, and only temporarily. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "received generally favorable reception": you don't receive reception, you receive reviews or comments.
  • changed "reception" to "reviews". --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle, which they said were true to the series": wordy; just "praised its fundamental gameplay and spectacle as true to the series" would do.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "but accidentally facilitates his freedom": "facilitates" is too vague; can we either be more specific, or just say "accidentally lets him go"? Or "he escapes"?
  • It's not quite that simple. I was gonna try to explain it, but it would be easier for you to just see: event occurs from 6:00 to 7:00. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see what you mean. He catches her claw in the chain; tricking/forcing her into breaking that chain, and from then on it's a fight. "Facilitates his freedom" isn't wrong, but it's a little more polysyllabic than I think we need. How about "but he manages to break his chains"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded to "but he manages to break free". --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "in a preceding week": why "a week"? Is each turn a week?
  • As the "Setting" section outlines, the narrative takes place over a period of 4 weeks, and shifts between the present and the past. The game begins in the present, then shifts to the past (3 weeks before the present). Just to note, this isn't a "turn based" type of game. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought over this one today as well. Reworded as "which the Furies had confiscated from him when he was imprisoned". --JDC808 ♫ 02:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "The decision to add multiplayer came about from curiosity": I don't think this adds much to the quotes that follow; I'd cut this or the quotes, perhaps with a slight rephrase since "came about from curiosity" is a bit vague.
  • Made this change. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that's much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although the original idea for multiplayer was exclusively co-op, as development progressed, the team realized it was not what they wanted. Before the first press show, the team found the experience they wanted": repetitive.
  • I was stumped on this one. This whole paragraph was copy-edited by a GOCE copy-editor (the whole article has at least once), and I made little adjustments as it looked good and no one else saw any issues with it. I changed the second sentence to: "Before the first press show, the team found their ideal multiplayer experience". --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the source; it looks like "The Road to Multiplayer Was Longer than Expected" is the source for these sentences and the one or two above them. It's tough because the source is vague, but I would guess someone who's played the game would know exactly what is meant. For example, "the heart of what would become our final multiplayer game" means something to someone who's played multiplayer, but it doesn't mean much to me. I think what's bothering me now is mostly the repetition of "it was not what they wanted...the experience they wanted", plus the fact that I don't know what it means. I'll think some more about this and see if I can suggest a way to rewrite it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • • This got addressed in a rewrite later in the review. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Christopher Shy was the artist of the graphic novel" seems an odd way to say it. If he's considered the author, I'd start that paragraph with "Rise of the Warrior was a graphic novel by Christopher Shy"; if he simply produced the art for it then something like "with art by Christopher Shy" would work.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Because of their focus on preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, single-player received less attention. When single-player was reemphasized, its production was accelerated, resulting in less focus on multiplayer. Development focus shifted between single-player and multiplayer throughout its entire course": also repetitive.
  • Can you elaborate, because I am not sure how to address this without losing clarity in what's being described here. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I see it'll be hard. I'll try to come up with something. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • • This got addressed in a rewrite later in the review. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A separate point on that paragraph: I think it would make more sense to start by saying it's a graphic novel, and giving the information related to that, and then following up with the information on the social experience. Or was the novel not published till after the social experience was completed?
  • The 20 chapters were released from October 2012 to March 2013, and the social experience happened simultaneously. Made this change. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "The demo showcased that Kratos would": "showcase" as a verb is jargon; make it something like "An encounter [...] was included in the demo, but was cut from the final game".
  • Changed to "At E3 2012, a single-player demo was shown, featuring new gameplay mechanics and combat systems." Also added about the one part being cut. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I misread here. I didn't realize until just now that you had jumped backwards in the article to the Development section. I thought you were still in the Release section. Reworded this spot with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 02:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "who have each done voice work": should be "had each done".
  • Are you sure on that? --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think so. Past perfect tense is used when you're talking about an event that is in the past of another event being described in the simple past tense. Here we have (simplifying): "West, Barbeau, and Freeman, who have each worked on previous installments, voiced characters". If we were hiring them to work on the game right now, and were talking about their previous experience, we'd say "they have worked on previous installments", but since they voiced this game a few years ago, we'd say "had worked" when referring to the past of that time. I wouldn't oppose if you really want to keep it as is; I think it's wrong, but it's pretty minor. Perhaps you could get another opinion from another copyeditor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- I haven't read the whole article; these are just some examples. I'll revisit after a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Christie: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed and/or responded to all above points. --JDC808 ♫ 11:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above points are mostly dealt with; I'll do another pass and leave any additional notes below. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

• I'd suggest cutting the parenthetical "elephantaur" since it's unlinked and it's not clear what it means. Perhaps move it to a footnote, where you could explain it?
  • Cut. It was just the name they had used when they showed the first demo, but changed in the final game. Not actually sure why they changed it as elephantaur makes more since because they are elephants that are like Minotaurs. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Many of the monsters also appear in the multiplayer": should this be "multiplayer mode", not just "multiplayer"?
  • Done. Was using shorthand there. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Another new addition": redundant; if it's an addition it's new. Perhaps "new feature", or "new mechanic", if I understand the usage of "mechanic"?
  • Changed to mechanic. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "When certain foes, such as a cyclops or a juggernaut, have been sufficiently weakened, the player may jump on its back and briefly force it to attack other foes": this starts with foes in the plural ("have been"), but then you have "its"; I think it could be recast to be singular or plural, but it's inconsistent as it stands.
  • Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "a first and only for the series": "first" is redundant with only. How about "God of War: Ascension is the only game in the series to offers an online multiplayer feature. Up to eight players can take part. The main objective..." I don't think you need "a small story element"; it's covered by the rest of the paragraph.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I copyedited that paragraph to get rid of an apparent inconsistency between singular "player" and plural "players"; please check I didn't screw up the intended meaning.
  • Looks good. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, which takes place before Chains of Olympus (2008) and ten years before the original God of War (2005)." I'm not clear what "which" refers to -- the game events, or Kratos killing his family? If the latter, are the game events before or after Chains of Olympus?
  • It's referring to both. The game's narrative begins 6 months after Kratos had killed his family. Timeline: Ares tricked Kratos into killing his family, then six months later, Ascension, then after that, Chains of Olympus; CoO takes place sometime in the 10-year gap between Ascension and the original God of War. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The way you explain it is clearer than in the article; the fact that CoO can't be given an exact time is what makes it hard. How about "Game events are set six months after Kratos killed his family, and ten years before the original God of War (2005); Chains of Olympus (2008) takes place before some time between Ascension and God of War."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yeah, that's the only thing annoying about CoO. All that we were told is that it takes place during Kratos' 10 years of service to the gods, which is that 10-year gap. Changed with your suggestion. --JDC808 ♫ 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The plot paragraph starting "A week later" seems to have inconsistent tenses; if it's "Kratos is ambushed", should it be "who confiscate" in the same sentence? And "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes" is a past tense between two sentences in present tense.
  • Fixed the first tense issue. The other one, "the Furies took the Oracle's eyes", is past tense because because it's not occurring in the present. At that part, Orkos is telling Kratos what happened to the Oracle, and revealing that the Eyes of Truth that he's seeking are actually the Oracle's eyes. --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors were either not interested, feeling that God of War was a single-player-only experience, or, in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during development": I copyedited this a little but I got stuck on something I don't have enough context to feel confident of rewriting accurately. You have "game directors were either...or...it was cut...". If you have "game directors were either A or B", both A and B have to fit after "game directors were", which is not the case here.
  • Reworded as "Multiplayer had been discussed for past games, but had never been implemented as previous game directors felt that God of War was a single-player-only experience; in Chains of Olympus's case, it was cut due to time constraints during its development." --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OK; I tweaked it to "during development" which feels more concise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'For Ascension, the development team decided to seriously consider multiplayer and questioned whether or not it could be done, and if it would be fun. Multiplayer was first tested using Kratos, and Lead Combat Designer Jason McDonald said the game testers had "a lot of fun". Seeing their reaction made the team feel that multiplayer was worth investing in.' I think this is a bit wordy. How about 'For Ascension, the development team made the decision to invest in multiplayer after a simple version, tested using two players, each with [or "each playing"?] Kratos, turned out to be "a lot of fun" for the game testers.'
  • Done, but trimmed down the middle part to just say "tested using two Kratoses". --JDC808 ♫ 02:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Christie: Recent points addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 02:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  All but one struck. Should be able to do more of the review this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

• I've been trying to copyedit the third development paragraph, but I'm stuck because when they say "they found their ideal multiplayer experience", and it's not co-op, I can't be sure what they mean. I assume they mean that they felt two players was not enough; the eight-person experience was better, in their eyes. The source isn't specific enough for me to be comfortable saying that, unless you have other sources that would support it. Assuming that's not the case, here's a suggested rewrite:

  The development team faced a number of challenges in adding multiplayer to an established single-player franchise. Other established franchises had been criticized for sub-par multiplayer implementations, so Santa Monica felt they had to prove to critics that their multiplayer mode would not be "tacked on". Since multiplayer was new to the team, new staff were hired who specialized in multiplayer engineering and design, but Santa Monica didn't realize the amount of work required for the experience they had envisioned. Development was delayed because multiplayer mode required several rewrites. The player navigation code had to be changed for online play, which was initially designed for co-op; the team eventually decided this was unsatisfactory, and the changed approach cost significant development time. Local co-op was also explored, but the team decided to keep multiplayer online-only. The team finally "found the heart of [the] final multiplayer game" shortly before the first press show. Development focus switched back and forth between single player and multiplayer; single-player received less attention while the team were preparing multiplayer for the first press announcement, but when single-player mode was reemphasized prior to its public debut at E3, multiplayer mode suffered.

This is more than just a trivial copyedit, so a couple of reasons might be in order:

• Since "the heart of ... final multiplayer game" isn't made explicit, I think it's best to quote it rather than rephrase.
• I cut "difficult task"; it's clearly implied by the rest of the paragraph.
• I connected the hiring to "didn't realize the work required"; I think it flows better, and I think the sources support it.
• I got rid of "what they wanted", which I think is just too vague; I know it's in the sources but it jars.
• I moved up the "local co-op" note to fit in with the other comments about how multiplayer mode would work.
• I added the mention of E3 to justify the reemphasis on single-player.
• I put the information about development switching back and forth into a single sentence to avoid it sounding repetitive.

If you don't like this version, that's fine, but I think it fixes some issues that would need to be fixed in some other way.

• • I implemented your rewrite. I agree that it flows better and it trims it down a little bit too. I don't remember any of the other sources getting anymore specific on "their ideal multiplayer experience." --JDC808 ♫ 02:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentence starting "He said a cooperative mode" places "would be cool" after another quote, but the source really has that refer to the cooperative mode itself. I'd make this "He liked the idea of a cooperative mode, and added "I'd love to see player one be Kratos...".
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd also give the date of the interview with Jaffe, to make it clear Jaffe's opinions were given prior to the single-player demo. Was it also prior to the multiplayer press show?
  • Changes. I wanted to say after, but had to go back and check. The first interview was before, the second was after. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More:

• "The testing allowed the developers to validate that their system would hold up to the criticism and abundance of players once the game launched": suggest "The beta allowed the developers to make sure that the game design would meet with the approval of existing fans of the series, and that the system could cope with high usage", or perhaps "cope with a high volume of players".
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Because multiplayer was new, the beta allowed the team to prepare for the final game." Suggest cutting this; it doesn't really add any information.
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we get a link for "PAL regions"?
  • Done. --JDC808 ♫ 02:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the first challenge, the teams competed to earn their army a week of exclusive, early access to the multiplayer beta test that began on December 12, and 30 days of PlayStation Plus, which was won by the Spartans; the Trojans received access on December 17": what does "and 30 days of PlayStation Plus" mean? From the sources I think this means that the winning team also gained access to the PlayStation Plus version earlier, but it's not clear.
  • Earlier in the article, there's a mention of "PlayStation Plus subscribers" with it linked. PlayStation Plus is a premium version of PlayStation's online gaming service. In the case here, it means they got a 30-day trial. Reworded slightly to say "one-month subscription to PlayStation Plus". --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest cutting "also referred to as the champion or the redeemed warrior" for concision; it doesn't seem to be referred to subsequently.
  • Cut. In the actual graphic novel, he was also referred to as those. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have expected the Rise of the Warrior story to be narrated in historic present, rather than past tense. Are you using past tense because it's in the past of the Ascension story? I'm not sure that's a good enough reason.
  • The reason for the past tense is because it's not available anymore (without going to a fan site anyways). It can be changed to present tense if the issue of its availability doesn't matter for what we're trying to present? --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say leave it; I've struck the point. That's an unusual situation. Do you think they'll ever make it available again? Seems odd to have material that people might pay for it and simply keep it locked away. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's a weird, and a bit annoying, situation. I'm not sure why they didn't keep it when they redesigned their website. I tried emailing a guy at Santa Monica (who had responded to a couple of my emails when this was releasing), but he never responded back. This was about a year ago, though it is possible that he left Santa Monica by that point. I actually just went to Santa Monica's main website and found their email, so I sent them an email to see if I can get some kind of answer in regards to this. They could easily add it back to their website or even just make it a free downloadable zipfile accessed from their website (it was free to view on their website to begin with). This is currently the only place to see it online (Gallery at bottom), but it's a fan wiki, and fan wikis are unreliable. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Other DLC, such as XP boosters, are available": surely "is available"; the relevant noun is "content", right?
  • You're right. I was looking at the plural "boosters" in that case. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rafe Pearlman and Ciscandra Nostalghia helped Bates and contributed their voices to the score; Pearlman provided thematic voices and Nostalghia created the voice of the Furies": a bit wordy. What are "thematic voices"? And what does "created" mean here? Sang? Or came up with the idea for the sound of?
  • They both sang and are credited as "Solo Male Voice" and "Solo Female Voice", respectively. For Rafe Pearlman, it just says that he provided thematic vocal work. It doesn't get anymore specific than that. In regards to Ciscandra Nostalghia, to quote the booklet exactly, it says she "unleashed the devil inside to create the creepy atmospheric sound of the Furies." --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is more than we need; I'd suggest cutting this to just say they were the two (or the two main) singers or voice artists. I also just noticed "top musicians and vocalists" which I think should go as it's sourced to the booklet, which isn't reliable for that sort of comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The webcitation for Emily McMillan's review doesn't seem to contain the text.
  • When you open it, is there a large black area below the picture? If so, you have to highlight that area to see the text (not sure why it's like that). --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'He praised the magic system, stating that since magic attacks are unlocked at a later time, "It's a positive step" because players cannot rely on them as much as they may have done in previous installments, and it encourages players "to think wisely about where to allocate experience points rather than being the ultimate badass from the outset".' Suggest rewording to 'Simmons felt the magic system was a "positive step", since magic attacks are unlocked at a later time and hence players cannot rely on them as much as they may have done in previous installments, which encourages players "to think wisely about where to allocate experience points rather than being the ultimate badass from the outset".'
  • With some slight adjustment, added your rewording. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not clear what the theme of each paragraph in the reception section is -- can you clarify how you've structured it? It looks like praise/gameplay/story/graphics/multiplayer; is that correct? I'll assume that's correct for copyediting and any remaining comments. Don't feel you have to adopt these rewrites or I'll oppose; if you don't like anything I've done let's discuss it. I haven't given the detailed reasons as I did above but can do so if necessary.
  • That is correct on its structuring. So far, I've liked the changes you've suggested. I may tweak them a little, but your changes flow well and makes it more concise while still understandable. Sometimes I have the issue of wanting to make something more concise, but I can't seem to find a way without losing clarity. Having someone completely unfamiliar with this helps. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggested rewrite of the gameplay paragraph: 'Combat and the new gameplay mechanics were well-received, with Dale North of Destructoid saying "God of War has never looked or played better than this", and Xav de Matos of Joystiq commenting that the combat is simpler than in God of War III, and rarely required much adjustment. Opinions on difficulty varied; Simmons felt that most of the gameplay was balanced, and that Ascension "is probably the easiest" in the series, but both Simmons and Hollander Cooper of GamesRadar commented that some sections were too difficult. Simmons felt that in some sections the large number of enemies made dying feel "cheap and frustrating", and in Cooper's opinion, at some points the game "[tests] your patience, rather than your skills—including one that's easily the most difficult section in any God of War game to date, for all the wrong reasons".'
  • Implemented with slight tweaks. Readded the Trials of Archimedes though because that was a common complaint, especially amongst fans. This section was also the reason for why the Trials is mentioned in the Plot section, otherwise, its mention there would be unnecessary. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Story para: 'Both Simmons and Matos criticized the story; Simmons felt that although the narrative is "meticulously delivered", it "felt a bit incidental"., and said that in comparison to Zeus and Ares, "the Furies don't quite cut it". Matos was critical of the plot framing and the narrative structure as "just too chaotic"; he argued that "the narrative fabric woven throughout the franchise has begun to split", and Ascension does little to enhance its characters "in any meaningful way". However, he did praise the game for providing the "distinct God of War flair".'
  • Added just a little to the ending from what was previously there. If that little bit feels unnecessary, let me know. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Graphics para: 'Cooper praised the enhanced graphics engine as "not only the best the franchise has seen, but some of the most impressive on the Playstation 3", and was impressed by Kratos's foes; North agreed, saying "there's a shine and polish that runs throughout the game that makes it a perfect send-off for the PS3. Edge magazine also positively reviewed the graphics, but had some frustrations with the visual approach, such as some camera angles.'
  • With slight adjustments, added. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiplayer para: 'Matos was broadly critical of the game's multiplayer mode, though he singled out some elements, such as the maps, as well-designed. He disliked the connection to single-player mode, and was concerned that although the gameplay translates well into the multiplayer element, "the entire experience may be too chaotic to enrapture a large audience...[multiplayer mode] doesn't feel deep enough to command much more than a furiously dedicated fan following". Simmons was more positive, saying that the multiplayer mode is "a genuinely fresh addition ... that successfully carries over many of the hallmarks of the much-loved single-player [game]". Simmons singled out Team Favor of the Gods as his favorite multiplayer mode, but did not feel that the combat offered enough depth to make multiplayer "a truly engaging experience", describing it instead as "a curiosity that provides a few hours of enjoyment rather than being an essential addition". The review from Edge magazine described multiplayer mode as "chaotic at first", with overwhelming options, but said that it becomes easier as players learn the levels. The Edge review identified the fixed camera system as an asset because "you can always see exactly what’s going on and fight your opponents instead of the viewpoint", and also praised the color-coding system, which "effectively lets you know when you have an opening and when to run".'

The multiplayer para drops a few things, mostly to trim, but I'll just mention "He also worried that balance may be an issue over time" which I dropped because I don't know what it means.

• Implemented. Readded Matos' quote, "a weird narrative tie-in", basically to give the why for why he disliked the connection. Also cut out a couple of instances of "multiplayer" for less repetition of it and since it's implied since the whole paragraph is about it.

Done, finally. I'll go back later and strike the points you've addressed; I have a couple of other FAC reviews I need to go look at now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Christie:, all above points have been addressed or responded to. --JDC808 ♫ 07:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Just the one point about the voice artists left now. Once that's addressed I'll read through again to see if there are any more nitpicks before supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mike Christie: Voice artists point addressed. Also a response about Rise of the Warrior. --JDC808 ♫ 13:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think the prose is now good enough for FA, and the article is comprehensive and thorough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much. Your comments and copy-editing have really helped improve this article. --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I see we have a source reliability review, but I don't see a source formatting review, which we still need. We also need an image review, unless I've missed it somewhere. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears internally consistent. One typo fixed, no more seen. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking and thanks for the fix. --JDC808 ♫ 04:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:God_of_War_Ascension.jpg - fair-use cover for identification. OK.
• File:GOWAscension_MP.jpg - fair-use illustration of multiplayer gameplay. OK (see note).

This image is OK as gameplay sceenshot (with a bit of leeway), but the fair-use rationale could be strengthened if it would illustrate improvements or features of the enhanced graphics engine. Any chance, this image could be linked to specific noteworthy graphical features?

• @GermanJoe: I'm a bit stumped on this one. Do you by chance have an example of what you're looking for here? --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit difficult to explain (don't have an example right now). The article includes a detailed paragraph about the game's enhanced graphics (in "Post-E3 2012"), as well as praise of the graphics engine (in "Reception"). Yet, none of the images points out any specifics of these improvements. My suggestion was to strengthen the generic "gameplay screenshot" rationale with some detail about graphical improvements. However, this was just an optional suggestion to improve the rationale a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:GoWAscension_Kratos_vs_Manticore_QTE_tethering.png - fair-use image of game mechanics. OK.
• File:GoWAscension_Kratos_vs_Charybdis.jpg - this one was the most difficult to assess. Not OK. "Fair-use" requires, that an image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic", and that this information can't be adequately conveyed by text. Currently both of these criteria are not met: The cut scene itself is only mentioned in passing in the article body, and it is easily described as text (the image caption does exactly that). Just to give you some theoretical examples of valid "fair-use" rationales for this image: it would be "fair-use" if the graphical style of this scene influenced other scenes in the actual game, or if the scene was a good example of the game's concept art in general, or if this specific concept art was in itself noteworthy for some artistic reason. Of course any of these theoretical connections would need coverage in the article and a source. Hope this thoughts are helpful ==> the image's rationale needs to be improved, or the image should be removed/replaced. GermanJoe (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed concept art image. --JDC808 ♫ 04:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you - it was a nice image, but without a clear rationale WP:NFCC is quite restrictive in such cases. I have updated the status above (the remaining point is only a suggestion) - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:03, 28 January 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) 21:50, 28 January 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) 21:35, 28 January 2017 [19].

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Behold, one of the least respected video games of the 1990s. What makes this article different—at least for me anyway—is the fact that it relies on mostly offline sources, which were all accessible! It was something of a minor miracle that I was able to squeeze as much information out of this incredibly rare product. I believe that this article meets both the 1b and 1c aspect of the FA criteria as it is comprehensive for the subject matter. A couple of scans have missing urls because they are only accessible through sites like Sega Retro and the like. If you want access to a particular source for spot-checking, just let me know. I learned from my past mistake on Nights into Dreams... that having at least one Japanese source for a Japanese game in necessity for FAC, so I've added some snippets from the Sega Saturn Magazine's review of this game. As if that wasn't enough, I have access to a couple more issues, but implementing Japanese sources is a slow process.

Burning Rangers was released at the very end of the Sega Saturn's life span (it was among the final five games released in America). But what makes it so sad is the fact that it demonstrated that the Saturn was a more powerful machine than its rival, the PlayStation. Still though, it faded into obscurity and thus I'm trying to promote this to FA status in hopes that some people would appreciate it. Despite the broadness of the article, I have never played this game. Please don't hold it against me as last time I checked it was something like £200 on eBay! JAGUAR  21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Support: Great work with the article, and good luck with getting it promoted! Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: There isn't a single issues I could find. I hope it's promoted. Also, I wonder if you have free time, could you review my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tidus/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tintor2! I'll be happy to review your FAC. JAGUAR  16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Hi, I realise this nomination seems a bit short (in comparison to most others, anyway), but I think I've addressed all comments reviews regarding prose, sources, and images. Odie's review consisted of both a source and image check, so I'd just like to make sure if there's anything else I need? JAGUAR  15:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to contributors that I did not do any fact-checking of the article. Someone should perhaps do so. And I have never done a source review before, so it might be worth having someone give it a once over. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I don't think this is ready to be considered for promotion yet, and will need additional review/feedback. --Laser brain (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the replies. I agree – just wanted to make sure that it wasn't over yet. I'll request for a source spotcheck. JAGUAR  22:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose
  • You don't seem to have visited WP:VG/RL and so your coverage may not be comprehensive. I have a 5 page Burning Rangers article/interview with Takao Miyoshi from GamesTM which is not referenced in the article.
    • If you have access to it please may I have it? I would like to expand expand this as much as possible. I'll skim through WP:VG/GL to see if there are any offline sources I have missed. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:VG/RL, not GL. In addition to the GamesTM feature, GameFan has a preview, Next Generation Magazine has a preview, and Edge has a review (rated it 8/10). There are WPVG users listed in the ref library as having copies of them, or you could ask on WPVG. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks! I can't find access to the Edge review (I did see the score though). The 'GL' was a typo. I've asked for Saturn scans before, so I'll see what people have in store. I'll start looking at the Next Generation preview now. JAGUAR  18:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Here's the Next Generation preview. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game's four stages take place in varying locations from factories, flats, underwater habitats, and space stations in zero gravity." - Do they take place in varying locations such as these, or these exact four locations?
    • Just the four specific locations. Rephrased to make it sound clearer. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "can be repeated at any time by pressing the "Z" button on the Saturn controller" - what about the jump button? The extinguisher button? Why is this relevant?
    • I see your point. Removed the "by pressing the "Z" button..." line. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the size of what Naka considered a regular project" - There's very little context to what a "regular project" means. Regular for Sonic Team, or Sega, or game development as a whole? Nowadays, teams regularly have 100s of people, so maybe you've included that phrase to give an indication of typical dev team sizes in the late 90s, if that is the case, make it explicit.
    • The source states "the Burning Rangers team is the size of a regular project-there are bigger teams within Sega", so I think he was alluding to Sega itself rather than Sonic Team. The interview was conducted in 1998, so I don't see any reason to compare it to development team sizes today. I've rephrased this to "regular project for Sega", if that's OK. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ohshima claimed that during development of Nights... ...all Sonic Team games" is fluff that can be cut.
    • Cut, and merged the remainder with the last paragraph. JAGUAR  18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release subsection is pointless, and the small paragraph should just be incorporated in the design subsection above.
    • Done. JAGUAR  17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamerankings adds no value. You already have more scores, and more diverse sources than Gamerankings.
    • I thought including review aggregators was a mandatory thing with VG articles? JAGUAR  17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he expressed concern with occasional clipping and glitching" and "criticised the occasional clipping" - clipping happens all the time so that areas not visible are not rendered. What you may mean is collision detection, which is sometimes used interchangeably with the term clipping in the VG space - Clipping_(computer_graphics)#Importance_of_clipping_in_video_games. You should make this clear.
    • Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. The reviewers explicitly say "clipping", but they more than likely mean poor collision detection, so I've replaced all instances of "clipping" with that. Hope I'm right in linking this to Collision_detection#Video_games. JAGUAR  18:08, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the split in the reception. You spend half of it talking about the graphics, a third on the sound, and the tiny remainder on the gameplay. This feels wrong. Surprised that none of the reviewers mentioned how short the game was.
    • I usually organise reception sections by principle (eg. critics enjoyed a game's visuals, critics were disappointed with sound) rather than by author, since see this form as easier to read. The third paragraph was initially about the control scheme, but I suppose it makes sense to expand it to cover the whole of the gameplay. JAGUAR  18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • hahnchen 23:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahnchen: thanks for the review, I really appreciate it. Do you have access to the GamesTM feature? I'd be eager to get hold of it as I would like to expand the article's coverage as much as possible. I'll also check through WP:VG/RL and will ask for access to any other scans I might have missed. Anyway, I should have everything addressed, except the inclusion of GameRankings. I thought it was a mandatory thing to mention the game's aggregate score, regardless of its content value. Thanks again! JAGUAR  18:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Email me for the article. - hahnchen 20:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the GamesTM article. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hahnchen: thanks, I've used the scan to expand and flesh out the development and gameplay sections. Is there anything else you think is incomplete? JAGUAR  17:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that I've addressed all of the concerns so far and have requested a scan of GameFan to implement in this article. JAGUAR  21:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead states that it was one of the last five Sega Saturn games to be released in North America, but the body states that it was one of the five final Sega Saturn games to be released in just America, and the source states that it was one of the five final such games to be released in America. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gamingforfun365: thanks. It was originally "North America" in both instances, but another editor changed it to simply "America" in the body. I suppose it's more accurate that way but I prefer using the former as it refers to the region, and not the more ambiguous "America". Anyway, fixed. Did you find anything else? I'll leave some comments on one of your peer reviews soon. JAGUAR  21:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I am not getting your pings. Anyway, "3125 different routes" would be better off being "3125 unique routes. I have just noticed that this article is written in British English (hence the dates), so I guess that I am going to have to scan the article for any Americanisms. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not think that the information on the release dates in the lead (other than in the infobox) is a little tedious for the average reader to read? I believe that it should just be "It was first released in Japan, in North America, and then in Europe in 1998.". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this source may prove to be useful for the last-given source in the Bibliography section. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And finally, I wonder whether the other non-URL-linked sources in the section can be linked to the corresponding magazine issues. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've changed it to "3125 unique routes", sounds better that way. I think that keeping the release dates in the lead gives the reader more information and also balances out the paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. If I condense the dates then I'll have trouble keeping the three paragraphs an equal length and would be forced to merge it into two paragraphs, which would interfere with organisation, if that makes sense. Thanks for the link to the manual, I've made use of it in the gameplay section. It seems that the North American manual is a little different, so I've adjusted the page numbers accordingly. Finally, sources with missing URLs in them are left that way because the only accessible links are copyvios. I'll link them here if you want to check them: Edge interview, GameFan 1 and GameFan 2. Thanks again! JAGUAR  11:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I trust these sources as truthful, although I would like it if someone were to check the quotes to see whether they are accurate. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the very last sentence in the Design section, which said that many Saturn magazines were discontinued and that the console lot third-party support, as it seemed irrelevant to the article's subject. Should it be put back up there? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! You're right about that. I saw it in the source and wanted to emphasise that all Saturn support had diminished by the time this game was released, but it doesn't seem too relevant, so it was best to remove it. JAGUAR  20:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: just making sure if there's anything else needed here? I got more input since the last time, and Gamingforfun365 done an additional source spotcheck. JAGUAR  23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I said about my supporting the FAC, but my complaint is that I had to use alternative text for the in-game screenshot to find out what on Sonic Earth is going on. I could not tell that the playable character was fighting a fire. Either the caption can tell us that the player-character is fighting a fire, or a less ambiguous screenshot can be used. Still in favor of support, though. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was very clear that the player-character was standing in front of a giant fireball in that screenshot. I've rephrased the caption slightly as I couldn't find another decent screenshot anywhere. JAGUAR  18:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: And finally, do note that I had extremely hardly done any fact-checking, so someone else may want to do it. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? That's what I asked you to do and you said you did it? JAGUAR  10:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; I'm sure the FAC coordinators will check the prior reviews and see if they've been thorough enough. I believe Odie and Tintor did source review spotchecks and would have said anything had something been amiss. It's just that I got confused because I asked you at WT:VG if you'd be willing to go through the sources and fact check this, in other words I said to you The last thing it needs is a fact checking checking review (going through all of the article's sources and making sure it accurately backs up what's mentioned in the article). It's just a bit confusing that I asked you to do that and now you say you "extremely hardly done any fact-checking". I'm just a bit confused. But really, don't worry about it. JAGUAR  11:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must have forgotten that I have also read that part and think that if I did not forget, I did not take it quite seriously. Apologies. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I made a couple of minor copy-edits. Aside from that, I see no issues that would keep this article from being promoted. If you have some time, I have God of War: Ascension up for FAC. --JDC808 ♫ 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Will do. JAGUAR  13:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a full prose review yet, but reading through the reception section I think it suffers from the "A said B" problem. You might find this essay useful (it's easier to link to that than repeat those suggestions here). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes as I go through the article; I'm copyediting as I go, so please revert anything I make a mess of.

• In the lead, how about making it "... is a 3D action video game developed ..." and then starting the second paragraph "Most of the tasks the players complete are centred around ..."?