Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2019

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) 31 March 2019 [1].

---

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

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

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

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

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

• The bill was reported back to the Senate by Alva Adams of Colorado on June 20, with a report. — second report seems redundant and repetitive

Adjusted.

• It was initially hoped that the initial bill —initially... initial is clunky

Done.

• two spouses— unless they were Mormons, "two" seems redundant

Changed to a married couple. Thank you for the review and support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No spotchecks done
• Refs 7, 8 and 16 all link to a login page, so a subscription template or similar is required (as given in ref 6)

Done.

• Page range formats should be consistent - compare 23, 24 & 26 with 30. I believe that the ref 30 format now carries MoS approval

Changed to match ref 30.

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

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

• All images appropriately licensed--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've moved it as suggested, eliminating the need for more commas. Thank you for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The bill was considered by the House of Representatives later the same day. Absalom W. Robertson of Virginia moved that the House pass it, stating that the bill authorized medals, but when questioned by Robert F. Rich of Pennsylvania, stated that the bill was for "silver coins"." Any information why he changed his story? Possibly a slip of the tongue, or a deliberate attempt to mislead? Moisejp (talk) 02:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I see a little further down talk of a push by some parties to get a coin instead of a medal, but it's not clear to me if or how Absalom's change of story was a deliberate part of this push. Moisejp (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that it was anything but an honest mistake made in the rush to get out of town. Thanks for the the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I'll have another look at the above on my second read-through. Still working on my first read-through. Another comment: "There was some controversy over the half dollar bearing as part of the mace the British Crown". Should this be "the half dollar bearing part of the mace of the British Crown" or maybe even "the half dollar bearing the mace of the British Crown" (it looks like the full mace)? I'm having trouble parsing "as part of the mace the British Crown". Moisejp (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified that ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I understand now. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning second read-through:

• Lead: "The legislation required that all coins be dated 1936; thus, there are five dates on the half dollar, none of which are the date of coining, 1937." / Main text: "There are five dates on the coin, none of which is the year of minting, 1937." Sorry if I may be dense, but what are the five dates? I see 1936, 1636, and I think I see 1736. Are two of these years repeated somewhere else, and those are the five? I think it would be good if the specific five dates could be made clearer (again, apologies if it is clearly stated but I just missed it). Moisejp (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three in the intermediate ring on the obverse, one on the outer ring at the bottom, and one on the reverse to either side of the mace.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh yes, I see now. Well, those are all my comments and I'm happy to support. The article is very interesting. Note to coordinators: I also did several small copy edits as part of my review. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Much obliged, thank you for the review and comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2019 (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) 31 March 2019 [2].

---

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

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

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

Just a few items:

• " The pleasure steamer Marchioness sank after being hit twice by the dredger Bowbelle, at about 1:46 am, between Cannon Street railway bridge and Southwark Bridge." I would consider cutting one or both commas.
• " It took thirty seconds for Marchioness to sink; 24 bodies were later found within the ship when it was raised." I might cut "later". I think people understand that however long it took to raise, it was long enough for people to drown.
• "some were former student friends" This reads a bit oddly. Were they no longer friends?
• "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that several of the hands had been removed from several of the bodies.[102]" I would cut the first instance of "several of" leaving "the hands ..." etc. I must admit it occurred to me to wonder how many hands the dead had to begin with, if several were removed.
• "if he refused to hold the inquests, and he subsequently announced that they would go ahead.[105]

The resumed inquest " inquest or inquests?

• "they stated that the agency "accepted that events which occurred in 1986 have no practical relevance on his current fitness".[123] The MCA also picked up on something that had been raised during the Clarke inquiry: that Henderson had forged certificates and testimonials of his service from 1985–1986. The MCA stated that they "deplored" the forgeries, which Henderson had used to gain his Master's Licence.[123]" These sentences seem to be in an odd order. I would expect, for example, the initial quote to come last.

Quite interesting. I hadn't known about this.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Wehwalt. Your points all covered - hopefully suitably! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Now added - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria - I'm much obliged to you, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "four of whom were crew or bar staff" - not sure about the "or" here as it suggests that the people sailing the ship were also running the bar, when the article later states that she had a crew of two and was also carrying two bar staff.

• Done. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the "Marchioness" section go further into the ship's safety features, or the lack thereof? From my vague recollections of the training course, part of the problem was that she was not easy for passengers to exit and/or didn't carry enough life jackets.

• Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also suggest scaling up the map

• Done. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "His senior in the department" - it seems better to use their title (perhaps after these words)

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As the "Inquests and inquiries" section covers several investigations which took place over a lengthy period, I'd suggest splitting it into sub-sections. I'd suggest a sub-section for the flawed investigations in the 1980s and 1990s and one for the 1999-2000 inquiry which tried to set the record right. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Now done - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nick. A couple I need to look some things up (and look closely at where to make the splits). Thanks very much for your other comments here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Nick. I've addressed your comments - hopefully satisfactorily. Please let me know if there is anything you'd like worked on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• She spent most of her life on the Thames etc —Doesn’t bother me, but I thought that we were supposed to refer to boats as “it” these days?

• I thought so too, but I was pointed to WP:SHIPPRONOUNS, which says we’re ok as long as the use is consistent- SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• reconditioned to form an upper and lower saloon — sounds more like a rebuild than recondition

• Now reworked (slightly delayed!) - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, was 31; he undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978 —odd stress to my ears, perhaps The ship's captain, Douglas Henderson, aged 31, undertook a Deep Sea apprenticeship until 1978?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Second Mate" is capped, but not "captain" or "master"?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• trimmed down —perhaps a gloss or link for we landlubbers?

• Added a footnote, me hearty. - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• six imperial pints —as in "I went down the rub-a-dub and necked six imperial pints"?. I’d prefer “six pints”, with a link to imperial pint

• Done. (A problem with using the "convert" template, but I've bypassed that now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merchant Shipping Act 1988—missing a preceding "the"?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• English law provides no compensation for fatal accidents, other than for funeral expenses— Is it worth mentioning the Fatal Accidents Act 1976?

• Yes. I'll be back with the sources tomorrow and I'll have a dig around for some info to add. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Jim, I'm much obliged. I've done the straightforward stuff, and I'll be back with the sources tomorrow, when I'll work on the remaining three points. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the recondition bit as your call, otherwise no concerns so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jim. I've tweaked the 'recondition' part to say the upper works were rebuilt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Lead: You should say who the "South Coast Shipping company" were. Also, the word "company" should be capitalised as part of the firm's title.

• Reworked - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead final sentence: as written it appears that the increase in safety measures followed the 2000 report but I suspect there were more immediate measures taken in the aftermath of the disaster. Can you clarify?

• re-worked slightly - SchroCat (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Background – Marchioness: "run-up" requires a hyphen (per O D of E)

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Background – Bowbelle: Para 3 begins: "At the time of the collision..." – clarify that this is referring to the Marchioness disaster rather than to the collision referred to in the previous paragraph

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Collision section – 0.00am to 07.00 am: "at 1:49 am they reported to TNS that:..." I would replace "they" with Bowbelle, and delete "that", as what follows is a verbatim quotation, not a summary or paraphrase. Do we not know who on Bowbelle radioed this message? It sounds as though it was the captain

• Reworked to show it was the captain, and deleted "that". - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Inquests and inquiries - 1989 to 1997: It may be more accurate to say that the £6 million compensation was paid to the victims' families rather than to the victims. In the same section:

• "liability to the crash" should be "liability for the crash" (although the words "for the crash" are largely redundant)
• I would delete "by counsel for the organisation" as unnecessary detail and potentially confusing
• "which meant that a full inquest would not take place in case it prejudiced any future trial". Suggest "could" rather than "would"
• "four owners of Bowbelle": according to previous information Bowbelle was owned by East Coast Aggregates Limited, part of the larger RMC Group – I can't identify four owners

• All the above in this section done - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1992 the families of the victims became aware that the hands had been removed from several of the bodies" - 25 is a lot more than several. And was it really three years before the families discovered this gruesome detail?

• Yes. The families were not told at the time, and it only came out later. - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Compensation: I may be missing a point somewhere, but if the companies behind Bowbelle and Marchioness agreed to pay up to £6 million in compensation, why was action in the civil courts necessary to obtain compensation? Also, the statement "In most cases, the families of the Marchioness victims received little more than the cost of the funeral" implies that a lot less than £6 million was paid out.

• Info about the "without prejudice" nature of the offers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Many thanks Brian: I'm much obliged for your thoughts and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you want to add anything, Brian? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry, forgot to add my Support. Brianboulton (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks, Brian. I'm much obliged, as always, to your comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

General

• External links check: Obituary Eileen Dallaglio, Founder Marchioness Action Group (end of External links section), page not found

• Deleted - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Last sentence in the Compensation section is unsourced.

• This was added yesterday and I forgot to add the ref when I did it (big slap on the wrist!) Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New book added to the bibliography checks out fine. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (Books)

• The details provided for The Maritime Engineering Reference Book: A Guide to Ship Design, Construction and Operation are from two different editions that have different paginations (bolding indicates information provided in the bibliography):

1. 902-page edition published in 2008 by Elsevier with ISBN 978-0-7506-8987-8 (the Gbook link is to this edition);

2. 920-page e-book edition published in 2011 by Butterworth-Heinemann with ISBN 978-0-08-056009-0 Worldcat listing;

The difference in pagination might affect the page numbers in the refs, so I think this needs to be addressed;

• How odd: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Less odd, now I look closer: the pre-tweaked version used the citation provided by http://reftag.appspot.com/ when the Google book link was added, so the masterfile used by the reftag contains slightly duff info (only slightly duff as Butterworth-Heinemann is an imprint of Elsevier, which explains part of the confusion. - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not familiar with that tool, but just about every source review I've done has these kind of inconsistencies when both GBook link and ISBN numbers are provided. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Patrick Stephens, publisher of The Ships That Saved an Army: A Comprehensive Record of the 1,300 'Little Ships' of Dunkirk, appears to be located in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, according to Worldcat, not Sparkford, Somerset, as stated in the bibliography.

• Ditto - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (Journals)

• doi link for Gibson's Toward an Intermediate Position on Corporate Moral Personhood is dead;

• That works for me - can you try again? - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously just a glitch. Fine now. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI: There's an OCLC number (537997776) available for Ships Monthly according to Worldcat, though I don't believe it's a deal breaker if it's not specified in the bibliography;
• FYI: Also an OCLC number (71257254) and an ISSN number (2329-3179) available for Shipping and Trade Law according to Worldcat, though again, not a major issue.

• Both these now added - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography (News articles)

• Cooper's Pleasure boat disaster on River Thames was a birthday voyage from celebration to tragedy is missing the publisher (Independent?);

• Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Report calls for Thames Lookouts by the Guardian have no author info, or has that been mistakenly missed from the bibliography?

• No by-line on the article. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious. Some news items have links but no page numbers (e.g. Ecott in the Guardian), most have page numbers but no links (e.g.Dyer in the Guardian). Any reason?

• It depends on where they were found. Some of the articles pre-date the internet, so they are paper versions; some online articles don't make the newspaper. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thought as much. Thanks. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Welcome. All good now. Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Factotem, that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2019 (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) 31 March 2019 [3].

---

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

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

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Salih_ibn_Mirdas_gold_dinar_1028.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaia (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nikkimaria, not sure what you mean. Any idea how or what kind of tag I need for this? —Al Ameer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pictured object will be in the public domain due to its age - you just need to add one of the PD templates based on copyright expiration to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I’ve added the PD-100 years template for the original work. Let me know if this satisfies the requirement. —Al Ameer (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks Tim riley. Looking forward to your thoughts/suggestions. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have only two small points on the prose:

• "Newfound" – the article is in AmE, and perhaps "newfound" is OK therein, but it looks very odd to an English eye.
• "executed and confiscated the estates of numerous..." – for clarity I'd make this "executed, and confiscated the estates of, numerous..."

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

@Tim riley: Thanks for the glowing remarks and your support for this nomination. I made the change suggested by your second point on the prose. As for the first, I like "newfound", but if you have a word that makes better sense, I'll take your suggestion. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"newfound" is for all I know OK in American dictionaries, but it looks odd to a non-American. The Oxford English Dictionary hyphenates the word: "new-found" Tim riley talk 23:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks interesting, will have a look soon. At first glance, I wonder why one of the photo captions doesn't state the date of the photography, when all the others do? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you’re gonna take a look at this, considering your experience in the topic area. I’ve made the captions consistent as far image dates are concerned. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Aleppo in infobox capion?

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation for footnote 2?

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nothing else is known about Mirdas" I assume this refers to Salih ibn Mirdas's father, but readers might think it refers to Salih ibn Mirdas' own early life or something (if they interpret Mirdas as a "last name in this sentence).

Should it be “him”, “his father”, “Salih’s father” or “Mirdas ibn Idris”?

I would just spell out the name. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The latter was strategically" Why not just "the town"? "The latter" implies you could mistake the man for a place.

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "along with local toughs" Thugs?

Yes. I think “toughs” is more neutral than “thugs”, but if you don’t see a problem with the latter, I’ll use “thugs” instead. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware "toughs" was a word, what does the source say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toughs is a word, but Bianquis uses “roughs”. Should I just change it to “ruffians”? —Al Ameer (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ruffians is probably closer to the source. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why spell out Aziz al-Dawla at every mention? Should only be necessary the first time (as you do with other names)?

Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Aziz al-Dawla was assassinated" By who?

Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Zakkar views Salih's destruction of Aleppo's walls as a tactic" Earlier you just say the towers of the walls?

Clarified. —Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "who played a secondary role to an amīr" Maybe amir should be explained too (or spelled "emir"), as emirate is spelled with an e here (readers might not make the connection), and you also mention "Banu 'Amir".

Done. Just changed it to “emir” throughout. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further down you also say "and several emirs from other clans", so might be best to just say emir throughout.

See above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hassan ibn Mufarrij is spelled out twice in succession.

Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Homs is a much more common spelling than Hims, should it be used?

Done, did the same for Ba’albak/Baalbek. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "which continued, with occasional interruption, until 1080" Who took over then?

This is a very interesting point I had considered adding then didn’t out of concern for focus/concision. The fact that you’ve raised it makes me believe my original consideration was correct. After the Mirdasids, another Arab emir, the Uqaylid Muslim ibn Quraysh took over for a year and then was rid of by a Turkic ruler. The reasons it’s interesting is because, as Zakkar and Bianquis note, the end of the Mirdasids signaled the end of Arab rule in Syria. From that point until World War I 800 years later, a series of Kurdish, Turkic or otherwise non-Arab dynasties/states would control this region. I will find a concise way to mention this in the article about the founder of the Mirdasid dynasty. Al Ameer (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be very nice for historical context, I'll support once it is added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Done. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - the map and extra context does it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and helping improve the article FunkMonk. —Al Ameer (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources appear to be of the appropriate scholarly standards of quality and reliability. About two-thirds of all references are to a single source

• Yes, Zakkar’s highly comprehensive work on the Aleppo Emirate is apparently the ultimate secondary source for Salih’s biography and actually appears to be a major source used by Bianquis, Lev and Amabe as well. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A few minor presentational points:

• Bianquis and Crawford both require subscription for access. The (subscription required) template should be added

• @Brianboulton: Just added them. Let me know if I placed them correctly. It feels off. —Al Ameer (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You're spot-on. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• De Slane is out of alphabetical sequence in the bibliography

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lev publisher location is missing

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise for Sobernheim

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Although google links are included for a number of the source books, they do not usually include the reference pages in their previews and are therefore somewhat worthless. Spotchecking was thus extremely limited. I did, however, see the sentence: "The fall of Sidon, in particular, alarmed the Fatimids, who had largely prioritized control of Syria's port cities over the inland towns and feared that other ports would subsequently recognize Bedouin rule" cited to Lev, p. 51. I was unable to see where this statement is supported by the source.

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

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

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

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

• I've gone through the article and made a few minor copyedits, feel free to revert.
• The EI2 article on al-Maʾarrī was not written by Gibb, but by P. Smoor

• Thanks for catching that. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• IIRC, the Citadel of Aleppo as it stands today (or rather, stood until recently) is mostly an Ayyubid-era structure. This should be noted in the picture, otherwise one might assume that it looked like this during Salih's lifetime.

• @Cplakidas: Good point which I hadn’t considered. The same goes for the Rahba fortress image, which was also an entirely new Ayyubid construction. I’m trying to formulate a concise way to modify this, could you suggest a rephrasing of the caption? Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Al Ameer son: Something like "The present structure/The structure as depicted in the photograph dates from the XX century" should suffice. Constantine ✍ 12:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• there is the occasional inconsistency of terminology between English and Arabic, e.g. wazir vs vizier, or amir vs emir. I would suggest standardizing it, and, at least for the terms that are relatively well known in English (emir and vizier), to use the English forms throughout, with the Arabic term in parentheses at the first occurrence.

• Done. I’ll just omit the Arabic entirely for those terms. Let me know if there are others that would fit this category. Al Ameer (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Yes a map is sorely needed. I have a request pending from Ro4444, but I’m not sure if that will happen or not. I lack the skills unfortunately. I’ll try the way you mentioned for the Fatimid invasion article. —Al Ameer (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: I've added a map like the one you mentioned in lieu of a more detailed map that better depicts the contemporary political scene, which I hope to add in the near future. What's really needed is a detailed and accurate map of the 11th-century Mashriq showing the Byzantine, Fatimid and Abbasid states and the constellation of Arab emirates and tribes (Mirdasids, Uqaylids, Numayrids, Mazyadids and others) that controlled the region in the decades prior to the ascent of the Turkic powers and Crusaders. Such a map could be applied to numerous relevant articles. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Yes, such a map would be valuable, I may start one when I have a bit more time on my hands. I've also had another look, and cannot find anything really missing. One final thing, you have Sayf al-Dawla in the "see also" section, and though I can guess why, for the average reader that might not be clear; perhaps add a brief description, "Sayf al-Dawla, founder of the Hamdanid emirate of Aleppo" or something like that? I am nevertheless switching to support as this is not a critical issue. Well done, once again. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support ;) I added the description. Al Ameer (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2019 (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) 30 March 2019 [4].

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In exchange for a 60 percent subsidy of her building costs by the Navy Ministry "American percent"
  • Not sure what you mean here. Is "per cent" a Britishism?

• Yes "per cent" is used in British Oxford English [5]and some Australians uses it too.

• sets with a total of 56,250 shaft horsepower (41,950 kW) No metric horsepower?
  • Most times, my sources never use PS because it's so close of Imperial horsepower.

• I see understandeble.

• Hiyō's flight deck was 210.3 metres (690 ft 0 in) The "in" isn't necessary.
• each approximately 153 metres (502 ft 0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
• The hangars were served by two aircraft elevators. I'm not sure but the Brits uses lift instead of elevator. So my question is. Is this really the official name of the lift? Because in the "Aircraft elevators" section of the elevator's article doesn't say it is the officially name. There is even no ref to support this claim.
• As a result of the lessons learned from the Battle of Midway Hmm "American learned".
  • Okay, this one truly surpasses my knowledge of BritEng, which is what I'm assuming you're referring to. Can you unpack this cryptic remark for me?

• Yes the Brits uses both but it is more commen to use learnt same with the British word dreamt and not dreamed or burnt and not burned. However by Oxford you only use the word "learned" as an adjective not as a verb which isn't the case - see link. [6]

• a dozen 12.7-centimetre (5.0 in) Again the "in" isn't necessary.
• This latter system was fitted on the port side of the hull, outboard of the rear elevator. The Brits uses lift instead of elevator.
• their launching point 180 miles (290 km) north of Lunga. shouldn't the metric unit be first? Or do you mean nautical miles? if not why isn't there nautical miles? If yes why are there not miles in it?
• At 05:15 each ship launched Hmm was this the local time or Japan's time?
• when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned Again "American learned plus Vice Admiral"
• the Japanese turned away to the northwest to regroup American northwest"
• Vice Admiral Marc Mitscher ordered Again "American Vice Admiral"
• 56,250 shp (41,950 kW) In the infobox no metric horsepower?
• 6 × twin 12.7 cm (5.0 in) dual-purpose guns In the infobox the oh isn't necessary.
• Belt: 50 mm (2.0 in) In the infox the oh after the two isn't necessary.
• The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. "American counterattack" - see link [7]

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

• • Thanks for catching all of these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sturmvogel 66: Here are my answers. Cheers and happy St. Patrick's Day. CPA-5 (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sturmvogel 66: Hey Sturm, you know you forgot two of my comments. The first one is in the when Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa learned. You forgot to change the American learned with learnt. Second is you forgot the The Americans recaptured Attu before the fleet could depart to counterattack. sentence where I mentioned to replace the American counterattack with the Britich one (counter-attack). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You are absolutely correct. Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sturmvogel 66: Great to hear, looks great nice job. Here is my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Japanese aircraft carrier Hiyo.jpg - I suppose the rationale is reasonable. It feels weird accepting an image from Geocities saying it was 'probably' taken by a Japanese citizen due to how close the photographer is to the vessel. Is there a definitive way to know it is Hiyo at least?
  • No, Hiyo and her sister was among the least-photographed Japanese carriers and there's very little photographic evidence of the minor differences that would allow a positive identification.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Jun'yoAftFlightDeck-SC 218542.jpg - license is fine
• File:Image-Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo 2 cropped.jpg - description lists the date as Fall 1945
  • I settled on "late: because we're not supposed to use seasons for dating purposes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for checking these out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, should be good on images. Kees08 (Talk) 00:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Not sure it makes sense to simply state "Aircraft carried: 53" given the variance
  • By their nature aircraft carrier capacities vary depending on the mix of aircraft aboard.

• Be consistent in use of & vs "and" in short cites
  • Hoist by my own petard!
• What makes combinedfleet a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's co-owned by a published expert on the topic and it cannot be edited by outsiders. Thanks for checking on these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "with the loss of 247 officers and ratings." I might add something like ", "about a fifth of her complement."
• I would add some sort of introductory phrasing, say, "After conversion from an ocean liner, ..." to the start of the second paragraph of Design and description.
• In "Construction and career", I might make it clearer that (as I surmise) she was never finished as an ocean liner, but was purchased and converted while still under construction. Also, can anything more be said about what she would have been as an ocean liner? Did it resemble some of the line's other ships?

• Don't have much info available, but I've added most of what I've got.

• "In the meantime, Captain Michio Sumikawa relieved Beppu on 30 November.[14][16]" I would cut the first three words.
• " as was Sakamaki and his staff" I would say "were" not "was"
• "The ship was under repair at Yokosuka until 15 September, which included the installation of additional 2.5 cm Type 96 AA guns," Technically, "which included" refers to nothing. Suggest changing "was under repair" to "underwent repairs"

• Reworked the whole sentence, see how it reads now.

• "The ship arrived there on 22 December and disembarked her aircraft before proceeding on to Saipan to deliver more aircraft.[14][20] " From Singapore to Truk, fine, but Saipan is not "on" given the direction, but involves something of a reversal of course.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not much, mostly nitpicks:

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2019 (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) 30 March 2019 [8].

---

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC) and De88[reply]

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

@Nikkimaria: Does the article still need revisions regarding its images? De88 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. I remember that Lorde was compared to Lana del Rey by music critics, and Lorde said something about Rey's music being "unhealthy". I am not sure if it is appropriate for this article though, but I wanted to raise it to your attention. Hope you have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that information is better suited for “Royals” since that song was a reaction to the hip hop-influenced artists she was listening to at the time (e.g. Kanye, Jay-Z, Lana, etc.) De88 (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That makes sense to me, thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "Bearing fascination with aristocracy in her stage name" - this is a bit clunky

• I have yet to find better wording... Would you mind suggesting an alteration? — HĐ (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Drive-by comment by KJP1. Agree it doesn't work at the moment - looking at the source, [104], I think it's saying something like, "Her stage name indicating her early fascination with royalty and aristocracy, she is known for..." It's still not great prose, but it is clearer as to meaning.) KJP1 (talk 09:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the comment! I have revised the sentence to make it clearer :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "She has sold over 5 million albums, as of June 2017, and 17 million songs, as of November 2014" - this seems very dated

• Removed songs sales in the lead — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It also appears towards the end of the article. It would be much better to update these figures. Nick-D (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Very hard to update figures when Billboard provides nothing and the only figures available happen to be in forums. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it hard to believe that there have not been publicly-available sales figures for a fairly major artist in over two years. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Trust me, I have looked to the ends of Google searching for any recent sales updates... nothing. I spent several months typing specific keywords to find sources to no avail. Anticipated a sales update for Pure Heroine fifth anniversary and nothing was updated, unfortunately. De88 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lorde is not very appealing to the mainstream like other big names i.e. Taylor or Gaga, so I don't think this is unusual. But the five million album sales as of June 2017 is fairly updated imo — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• June 2017 is the month her most recent album was released (on 16 June), so it doesn't seem very recent. The downloads figure is very outdated. Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As much as I understand your concern, and I myself want to include the most recent sales figures, I regret to say the current sources are the most recent and reliable ones. — HĐ (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "During this time, Maclachlan tried to put Lorde with a succession of songwriters" - also a bit clunky

• Removed "succession", replaced it with "different". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Put" is worse. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded, hoping that this time it conveys the idea better — HĐ (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid not: the current structure is both over-complex, and inaccurate (producers produce, not songwriters). I'd suggest something along the lines of "During this time, Maclachlan attempted to partner Lorde with several different producers and songwriters, but without success". Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "After being downloaded for free 60,000 times, the EP was commercially released by UMG in March 2013" - the relationship between the two things here is unclear: did the 60,000 downloads automatically trigger UMG to release the EP, or did they sign up to do so when the EP proved successful?

• I added bits of info, hope it helped — HĐ (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This issue hasn't been addressed. The current wording (with the very exact number) implies that this was automatic. "Maclachlan viewed the decision as sensible because it helped promote Lorde to a considerable number of audiences before establishing her name in the industry" is also wordy for what it does (and "a considerable number of audiences" seems a bit odd - a "range of audiences" seems better). Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I reconstructed the whole part — HĐ (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• " Amidst her solo activities, Lorde joined the surviving members of Nirvana to perform "All Apologies" during the band's induction ceremony at the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame in April 2014" - this seems a pretty major achievement (I imagine that virtually any musician born since the late 1970s would have wanted this gig). Why did the Nirvana artists select her?

• I added comments from two of the band's members; I also added bits of info on Pure Heroine's lyrics that led to plaudits from the media and the band — HĐ (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's great, but "which evoked stark contrast to mainstream radio" doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I reworded to "which contrasted with the mainstream music scene" — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "At the 2016 Brit Awards in February, Lorde joined the surviving members of David Bowie's final touring band in a performance of "Life on Mars" in tribute to the late English singer" - ditto

• Removed "in tribute to the late English singer" and added "tribute" before performance. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not addressed, and "Bowie's son Duncan Jones appreciated her performance as "beautiful"" doesn't read well. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean the reason why Lorde was selected? If so, I have added bits of info — HĐ (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Later that month, she co-wrote and provided uncredited background vocals" - the source doesn't say that her singing was uncredited.

• Although she is not credited on Gone Now, no source explicitly states "uncredited vocals". Removed this. De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The album produced two further singles" - not sure about this?

• Do you mean the wording? It's perfectly fine imo — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. The album didn't "produce" anything: it's an inanimate object. Lorde's label released two other singles from the album. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reworded — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The wording now implies that there were other singles. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What reason give Lorde give for cancelling her concert in Israel? As this led to some controversy, she presumably explained her rationale - or if she didn't this should also be noted.

• Her reason was stated in the article: "...an online campaign by Palestinian solidarity activists supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not really - why did she make this decision? (e.g. what were her specific concerns?). Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added — HĐ (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's good, but "did not explicitly indicate her reasons for cancellation" isn't grammatically correct - "her reasons for cancelling" or similar would work better. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Contemporary critics perceived her music upon the release of Pure Heroine" - this is a bit over-complicated, and written in the passive voice

• I restructured this sentence a bit; I'm not sure if it's passive voice because the sentence is (to me) clearly in active voice — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Still awkwardly worded. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How so? I think the sentence sounds perfectly fine. That said, I want to have your suggestion — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Melodrama was a departure from the singer's signature minimalist style" - as it was her second album, it seems a bit of a stretch to say that it represented a break in a "signature" style, especially when the article previously notes that Lorde and various critics don't see her music as belonging to a specific genre.

• Reworded to simply "its predecessor" — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "detailing that it was" ... "Vice analysed that" ... "Lorde detailed that the foundation" ... "expressing that she should be" - also a bit clunky.

• Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Songwriting for "Tennis Court" is the exception; Lorde wrote the song's lyrics on an instant instrumental track" - this is unclear

• Changed "instant instrumental track" to "after its melody was produced". De88 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's less clear I'm afraid, especially given the specific meaning of "produced" in the music context. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to have your suggestion on alternate wordings Reworded — HĐ (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, the singer clarified herself" - when had she said anything which needed clarifying? She appeared to be explaining her approach.

• Reworded — HĐ (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Critical reception of Lorde is generally positive" - the para then only presents praise. What are the more critical viewpoints?

• "Critical reception" here refers to reception/analyses of credible critics, which is not necessarily negative/disapproving. — HĐ (talk) 02:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Generally" implies there's been unfavourable commentary, which I believe is the case. The article is pretty positive about this artist, when the article on Pure Heroine notes it received a few 3 star reviews. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pure Heroine was her debut, so a few critics were unsure if she could crack into stardom. I could not find any negative comments regarding Lorde's musical style or lyrics. While the artist has been the darling of music journalists, I opt for "generally positive" because I don't want to sound biased by phrasing it as "universally positive" or similar wordings — HĐ (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm afraid that I don't follow that logic. Her first album received some luke-warm reviews, and her second album some 4 star reviews, so there's obviously some commentary arguing she could have been doing things better. This should be discussed. If it was to be the case that all commentary has been favourable as you state, the article should also state this rather than present readers off with a misleading statement. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nick-D: Noted, and added a commentary from renowned critic Robert Christgau — HĐ (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "her signature unchoreographed dancing" - is it really "signature"?

• I will argue that this should stay in the article. A quick Google search brings up articles from Time, Billboard, The Huffington Post, stuff.co.nz and The New York Times that explicitly note her "signature dance moves". De88 (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• OK fair enough. The use of this in the NYT is particularly compelling. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "has attracted polarised reception from audiences" - bit wordy ("has polarised audiences" does the same thing)

• Fixed. De88 (talk) 06:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Lorde's musical style, why is anyone commenting on her on-stage dancing? She's not the type of musician who performs dance routines, and it seems surprising that anyone would expect this.

• You'd be surprised how many think pieces on her dancing exist out there. This was the source of controversy on her SNL performance of "Green Light".

• "NPR placed her at number 12 on their 2018 poll" - if it was a poll, wouldn't she have placed 12th due to public votes, rather than have been placed there by NPR? Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Added "readers" before poll. I think that fixes the issue regarding whether it was a poll voted by NPR's writers or readers. De88 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Afraid not. She placed in the NPR poll - unless they rigged it, NPR didn't place her anywhere. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Nick-D:, we believe we have addressed your concerns as above. Your comments are very much appreciated :) — HĐ (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As an extra comment, "The media has dubbed her the "voice of a generation"" isn't quite right - the actual line in the news story is "Lorde’s sharp narrative observations – on both the single, and her critically acclaimed follow-up album, Pure Heroine – have led to her being labelled the voice of her generation". The quote is a bit off, and the source doesn't attribute this to "the media", though it's probably not too long a bow to draw. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, thanks for further inputs. In the meantime, would you mind crossing out the addressed concerns or grouping them into a collapsed list? That would facilitate our works better :) — HĐ (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already identified the concerns I regarded as unaddressed above. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with HĐ. It becomes very difficult to determine which comments still need to be addressed and which need to be fixed with a laundry list of sub-comments. De88 (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not standard practice to strike or collapse FAC comments. The ones I've re-raised above are still "live". Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, we believe we have addressed all of your concerns, except for critics' description of Lorde's music upon the release of Pure Heroine. We would like to hear your suggestion of word choice — HĐ (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Those changes all look good. I'd like to see a source review before supporting though given that the two sources I looked at didn't fully support what was referenced to them. Sorry for the slow response - my Wikipedia time has been limited over the last few days. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Would you mind telling us which sources did not support what was referenced to them so we can improve them? De88 (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to the two issues above. Both are now resolved, but I think that a full source review is needed. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, given Brian's source review below, would you say that all your concerns have been addressed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes they have been. I'm pleased to support this nomination, and apologise to the nominators for not doing so earlier. Nice work with this article, and with responding to my comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's it from me. ArturSik (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Took care of each suggestion, except for replacing the image in the "2012–2015" section". I'll leave it up to HĐ to revert or change any of the edits I made using these comments. De88 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing all my comments. I support this for promotion. ArturSik (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Your comments are very much appreciated. Thanks so much for your input :) HĐ (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @De88: Thanks for the reply and for addressing the comments. I support this nomination. I was wondering if you could provide a quick review for my article at Hi-5 (Australian band)? It would be greatly appreciated, even if it is just a few comments. Regards. SatDis (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quality and reliability

• The sources are largely made up from newspaper and magazine articles (on and off-line), major broadcasters, and a few well-chosen websites. They appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

• Verifiability

• I carried out a sample of spotchecks for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Most checked out satisfactorily; a couple of minor issues:
• Ref 61: "Later that month, she co-wrote and provided background vocals for American indie pop band Bleachers's song "Don't Take the Money", taken from their album Gone Now". No mention of Gone Now in the source.
• Ref 89: "During the recording process, Lorde stated that Frank Ocean's 2016 album Blonde inspired her to experiment with using an "anti-chorus." No specific mention of experimenting with "anti-chorus" in source.

• External links

• All links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool

• Formatting

• There is inconsistency in the use of retrieval dates for archived links. In many such cases retrieval dates are omitted for such links but in others (refs 11, 16, 106, 109, 110, 111, 128) retrieval dates are included. I would prefer to see retrieval dates added in all such cases (there have been past discussions about this) but in any event it is necessary to be consistent.

• Regarding retrieval dates for archived links, we only add them for currently "live" links. For permanent dead links (or potentially so), we leave out retrieval dates. — HĐ (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion: I don't think it makes much sense to have a "bibliography" with a single entry in it. This source has two citations, both to the same page. It would be tidier if these refs were formatted along with the other footnotes.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Took care of your comments. Switched out sources to match descriptions of Don't Take the Money's inclusion on Gone Now and re-wrote sentence about "anti-chorus". I will leave the last two comments to @HĐ: De88 (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your concerns have been addressed by now. Thanks so much for the suggestions. — HĐ (talk) 10:00, 18 March 2019 (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) 04:46, 30 March 2019 (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) 30 March 2019 [9].

---

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

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

• Support - I had my say at the peer review. This FAC nomination is pretty significant also in being the first of a sea sciorpion/eurypterid, a group which has otherwise been long neglected on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One comment, though, it would be good to have a source for the size estimates used for the size comparison image in the Commons description. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced the size estimates :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• And another question I missed, who does the name "howelli" honour? FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That info is likely in the original paper (Kjellesvig-Waering & Størmer, 1952), which I have been unable to access thus far. It very probably honours invertebrate paleontologist Benjamin Howell (1891–1976)(1,2), I'll see if I can access the original paper somehow or find the etymological information elsewhere. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked for the paper at WP:RX? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know this existed, I've put up a request! Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's very effective, I've gotten some really obscure papers there, they even do scans of papers that are not online. Probably good to know the details of the original description in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hah yeah, that was pretty fast. I was right about Benjamin Howell and I've added it as well as added what exactly the original J. howelli remains contained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Jaekelopterus_pretelson.png needs a US PD tag and an author date of death
• File:Eurypterus_cropped.png needs a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done; I changed Eurypterus_cropped.png to another image (that is sourced). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have quite a number of prose issues:

• based on observed differences in the genital appendage. Though this feature has since proved to be a misidentification – first "differences" in plural, than "this feature" in singular, doesn't fit together.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the ratio of body length to chelicera length match – matches

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• posteriormost – needs link, or simply replace with hindmost.

Chenged to hindmost. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This group of highly derived ("advanced") eurypterids differs from other groups by a number of features, especially in the chelicerae and the telson. – Which group, do you mean the genus Jackelopterus?

Specified so that it is clear that it is the Pterygotidae family that is being referred to. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The chelicerae of the Pterygotidae are enlargened and robust, clearly adapted for active prey capture, with chelae (pincers) more similar to the claws – do you have four words here for the same thing (chelicerae, chelae, pincers, claws), or what is the difference?

"Chelicerae" are the entire limbs, "chelae" are the actual "claws" (but usually take the form of smaller "pincers") in other groups. Perhaps this could be said in a better way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• with well-developed teeth on the claws, than to the chelicerae of other eurypterid groups – I do not understand the use of the word "than"

Replaced "than" with "relative". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• clearly distinguish it – needs to be "-ishes"?

Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• lacks median distal indentation – too technical, maybe reword with "is not bifurcated at its end" or something more comprehensible?

Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• centimeters, unmineralized – here you have American English, in other instances British English; this needs to be unified (based on the original state of the article)

I'm not a 100 % certain on the differences between American and British English. I've tried to go for British English now, there probably are things I've missed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• pretelson – can you link/explain?

Explained it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• pretelson to be very characteristic of Pterygotus – do we need the very?

Not really, removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• differing very little – again, what does a "very" add here?

Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jaekelopteridae" – is it written in brackets in the sources? Such brackets have a specific meaning in taxonomy; if the name is simply out of use, it is not written in brackets.

It's not, removed the brackets. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• pterygotidae – should be in upper case

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• suggesting that members of the group were very lightweight in construction – this is still referring to arthropods?

Replaced "members of the group" with "pterygotids". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• positive allometry – link/explain

Linked and explained. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• However, positive allometry has not been demonstrated in eurypterid chelicerae as a whole in any other eurypterid genus – does this mean that isometry has been demonstrated instead, or is it just absence of evidence?

Unsure, the source simply states that it has not been demonstrated. I would assume isometry would hold true for the rest in regards of the chelicerae but I don't have a source for that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thus, the size estimates around 2.5 metres (8.2 ft) remain the most accurate estimates on the maximum size of the species yet – From the many opinions on the matter, you decided that a specific one is fact. This is not a neutral point of view; all views should be presented without preference.

I'm not sure if two opinions qualify as many but 2.5 is repeated in other papers without much comment. I've changed it so that it is made clear that it being the most accurate estimate is also an opinion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• making it unknown if the eurypterids had developed true direct development. – this wording implies that direct development was not the original stage for eurypterids (that they just developed it; that it was not present in their ancestors). If this is not inteded, I would reformulate.

Reworded a bit, the intention was that it was unknown whether they were true direct developers (e.g. NO morphological changes post-hatching) or not (some smaller changes such as additional segments and such). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• denticles, out of which two were assumed to be juveniles – I would split the long convoluted sentence into two sentences, it would make it much easier to read.

Split it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The morphology of the chelicerae are – "chelicerae is"?

Oops, yes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• length–width ratios measured in juveniles and adults were not as extreme as assumed – don't understand this. Do you mean "not as disparate"?

Yes, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• but the fossil deposits from which Jaekleopterus fossils have been discovered – I think you can get rid of one "fossil" here.

Got rid of the first one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• where J. howelli fossils has been discovered – "have" been discovered.

Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• had very high visual acuity – Do we really need the "very"? That would mean "exceptionally high", but how is this warranted?

Removed "very". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• including a large specimen with the right eye preserved from the uppermost Siegenian and a small and likely juvenile specimenfrom the uppermost Siegenian – you give a level of detail here that is not provided for other parts of the "palaeobiology". If these specimens are of special importance, I would state why. If not, consider removing it.

They are of special importance because of the detailed preservation of their eyes, could be removed if you think it's necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's it for the prose review; if the comments above can be addressed, I think the prose is fine as far as I can see. If time allows I will provide the required source review soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

• Some paper titles are in title mode (capitalisation troughout), should be put in lower case. Also, species names need to be in italics. Example: "Hallipterus excelsior, a Stylonurid (Chelicerata: Eurypterida) from the Late Devonian Catskill Delta Complex, and Its Phylogenetic Position in the Hardieopteridae".

Fixed. Words that should be capitalized (taxonomic names, place names etc.) were kept as capitalized. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• J. howelli is much smaller than J. rhenaniae, reaching 80 centimetres (2.6 ft) in length.[6] – In citation [6], the link to the supplementary informaiton is not working (I guess this is where to find the cited info?)

Yes, in this case the supplementary information was a comprehensive list of eurypterid size estimates. Link should be working now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Even stergites and sternites (the plates that form the surfaces of the abdominal segments) are generally preserved as paper-thin compressions – I don't see where this is covered in reference [1].

The second paragraph of the "discussion" section? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check if you misspelled "tergites"? This is why I didn't found it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks like I did. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• making it unknown to which degree the eurypterids had developed true direct development – the source seems to suggest something different: that eurypterids may hatch with their full complement of opisthosomal segments and appendages, thus being true direct developers like arachnids, and not hemianamorphic direct developers as in xiphosurans (from the conclusions section).

Wow, looks like I messed that one up. I've replaced the previous sentence here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• likely preyed upon smaller arthropods (including their own kind) and early vertebrates – This, to me, looks like too close a paraphrasing of the source (original: "probably fed on early vertebrates and smaller arthropods, including their own kind"). Suggest to have the word "cannibal" instead of "their own kind".

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All the rest seems totaly fine, all sources are of high quality. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points on the prose:

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

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

I've fixed "manoeuvrability" and I replaced "erected" at both instances with "created" which should also be correct and less strange. As for the rest, I am unfamiliar with most of the differences between british and american english, it is supposed to be in BrE currently. It would probably be for the best if someone other than me went over it and checked for this seeing as I've tried and failed a few times now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to check the text as BrE, and will do so tomorrow and report back. Tim riley talk 23:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice of you, many thanks! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but please check you're happy with my (few) changes. I hope to add a few general comments on the text soon. Tim riley talk 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I thought the article was going to be heavy going for a layman, but in fact it presents its large amount of technical information very readably. One is relieved to find that one will not bump into a Jaekelopterus rhenaniae on a dark night. My only quibble is that you explain what a metastoma is at the second, not the first, mention of the word (and you don't need two links to its article). With the usual caveat that I know nothing at all about the subject (you'd be astonished how often this is the case, or then again perhaps you wouldn't) I am happy to support the promotion of this article, which is a good read, widely and thoroughly referenced, well illustrated and apparently comprehensive. Tim riley talk 12:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've moved up the "metastoma" explanation and removed the second link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support - I have read a few of these eurypterid articles and they've been pretty good - I think a few would be in striking distance of FA-hood. This one is no different. Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The chelicerae and compound eyes of Jaekelopterus indicate it was an active, powerful predator with high visual acuity, and it likely represented an apex predator in the ecosystems of Early Devonian Euramerica. - my initial query was about "represented" and replacing it with "was", but then I thought it was repetitive, maybe "The chelicerae and compound eyes of Jaekelopterus indicate it was active and powerful with high visual acuity, most likely an apex predator in the ecosystems of Early Devonian Euramerica" or something...

Yeah, changed it to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• ....the strata in which Jaekelopterus fossils have been found suggest that it did not dwell in marine environments proper. - I think would flow better if mentioned where it did live rather than did not live.

It "not living in" marine environments was to contrast with it being called a "sea" scorpion, but I guess it living in fresh water would work just as well here. Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rest looks good WRT comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gather this would be Ichthyovenator's first FA if we're successful here -- if that's correct, a belated welcome to FAC from the coords! One of the hoops we ask newbies to jump through is a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, so unless I've missed something above, we'll need a reviewer to perform that before we look at promotion. A request can be added to the top of WT:FAC, or one of the reviewers above might like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for that in my source review above; I looked at a good portion of the sources used. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, tks Jens. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2019 (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) 00:01, 30 March 2019 (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) 29 March 2019 [10].

---

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about compulsory figures in figure skating, the now-defunct discipline from which the sport gets its name. I submitted it for FAC back in November 2018, but it stalled because it didn't get enough reviews. It was suggested that I wait until after the holidays to resubmit, which I've done, so it's my hope that It doesn't stall again. It has been through an image and source review. Thanks for any and all input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through this article, and I think it is of the required standard. I'm not sure why it failed to attract sufficient reviewers. My only problem with the article is the "Demise" section, lacks a bit of coherency. I needed to read Loosemore to understand it.

• I suggest moving the bit in the previous paragraph starting with "After 1968, figures began to be progressively devalued." into the "Demise" section as its first paragraph.

Done.

• The bit about "lack of public accountability" had me puzzled until I read Loosemore's article. All sports where the judging is subjective have problems with "dirty judging". (I presume figure skating has taken measures to mitigate this, like discarding the highest and lowest judges' scores.) The point is though that lack of public accountability stems from it not being televised, so the public could not judge. This should be added so the reader can follow the logic.

I believe that I've clarified the logic, as per your suggestion. Actually, figure skating attempted to do just as you state with the old 6.0 system, but it didn't work, as the judging scandal at the 2002 Olympics demonstrated. That's why they changed it to the new International Judging System, and there are still problems with bad judging.

There's an article on that. Who knew? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was a turning point in the sport. I'd like to someday tackle it, since it was so important historically. My overarching goal is to tackle 6.0 system and ISU Judging System before the 2022 Olympics, so that people have a reliable place to learn about it, since the new system is so complicated and potentially confusing. I have a slew of other articles to tackle first, mostly to better acquaint myself, like articles about the different elements and individual competitions and figure skaters. It depends, of course, on my life and my level of RL busyness, but I'me having fun in the meantime.

Having fun is more important than anything else. From the statistics we've gathered on the Paralympic articles since 2012, it seems highly likely that 6.0 system and ISU Judging System will attract high numbers of page views - much higher than any athlete article - when Beijing rolls around. Partly because they will have an international readership, but mostly because people will turn to the Wikipedia when they don't understand what they're watching. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think three years is a good target. Also on my target is some athletes' bios, first Tara Lipinski and Johnny Weir, since their articles are pathetic and as commentators, they're the faces of the sport these days. And Alysa Liu, whose article I created at the request of her friend, a fellow skater and WP editor. This last Olympics in Peongchang was the first time I watched the Paralympics, due to an involuntary period of unemployment. I loved it, especially the gold medal sled hockey game. I'm not a hockey fan at all, but it was one of the most exciting competitions I've ever seen. I admire those athletes so much, and I admire you for the work you've done for the articles. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The specific examples that Loosemore gives would be well worth including.

I've struggled with this issue as I've worked on this article and other figure skating articles. Other writers cite other examples of the discrepancies between skaters doing well in the free skate and not well in figures and losing competitions due to the weight of figures in scores. I've found that the examples vary with the date of the articles written about them. For example, Loosemore and Kestnbaum cite Janet Lynn, but the L.A. Times article cites Debi Thomas. I'm sure older sources, which we don't have access to, cites other examples and other skaters. Remember, WP articles are a summary of the sources. For these reasons, I've hesitated using specific examples.

• "countries with an affluent middle class or government-supported training for athletes having more of a competitive advantage over less affluent and smaller countries with fewer ice rinks and resources". Well, yes, but...
  1. I'm willing to hazard a guess that the third world countries are not well-represented among the 31 voting NOCs.
  2. The implication is that the US dominated the sport, but I'm not seeing the evidence of that.
  3. The high (and rising) cost of training, equipment and competition is an endemic problem across many sports. I raised this issue with the IPC myself. (Part of the problem is that manufacturers of the equipment are frequently important sponsors.) All winter sports fall into the really expensive (and rarely played in most countries) category. But more importantly...
  4. I don't see how this helps. How do you practice figure skating without rinks?

     I'm not sure what you're asking from me, but I'll respond to your list items, anyway.

  5. Yes, third world countries aren't a strong voting block in the ISU, but it was the smaller countries that got figures removed. It took decades for them to band together and get the vote through.
  6. Loosemore states that North America dominated figure skating (the U.S. and Canada); Kestnbaum also includes Russia and Soviet-bloc countries. This article isn't about how individual skaters and countries did in compulsories; it's more of a general article about the topic.
  7. The IPC?

     Sorry, the International Paralympic Committee. The deployment of expensive equipment escalates the cost of competition, sometimes to the point of excluding poorer countries. It isn't the only obstacle though. Facilities like skating rinks, velodromes and swimming pools cost money to build and maintain. The Europeans like to peg qualification in sports to performance over a series of tournaments. Easy for them with so many countries nearby; prohibitively expensive for much of the rest of the world. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     True-dat. Some skaters' solution is to move to another country to train. For example, most of the top ice dancers now live and train in Toronto, as do the skaters that Brian Orser trains. Heck, Nathan Chen facetimes with his coach while studying at Yale. But even that's expensive. Scott Hamilton was so poor, he had to depend on the support of philanthropists to fund his career, and Rudy Galindo's family sacrificed being able to buy a house to fund his career.

  8. The answer is you can't. Smaller and poorer countries have fewer rinks, so there are fewer opportunities to practice skills that take longer to master. Again, I'm not sure what you're asking me to clarify.
• I would include her point that once figures were dropped from the Olympic program, rinks cut back on the time they allocated to them. Which in turn would have made them difficult for athletes to practice.

Yes, right. Added a line to clarify.

• And the irony that the US, which decided that figure were too boring to televise, voted to retain them. Do you know the reason for this?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kestnbaum quotes Scott Hamilton, who said that the demise of figures could "kill the sport" (p. 87) because of the economic ramifications for coaches and for rinks. I suppose I could include it, and I will if you tell me to do so. However, I didn't include it because no other source states it in that way. And Hamilton was wrong, of course. (Personally, I think that the modern emphasis on multi-rotational jumps have replaced figures in the economics of figure skating. Learning complex jumps requires both coaching and rink time, which puts poorer athletes and countries at a disadvantage. But that's just the opinion of one well-informed non-skating fan.)

Hawkeye, thanks for the review and let me know what else you'd like me to do/change. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am happy with these minor changes. I think this is great work. I note that source and image reviews were undertaken during the previous nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. Yes, the reviews were done before. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are appropriately licences and have suitable captions and alt-captions. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the source reviewer's comments from last time I see no problems. Little has changed since they gave a pass. In particular, I agree with them re providing the page numbers for books in-text and, emphatically, how multiple refs are ordered. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done as requested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through now, and will leave comments soon. --Laser brain (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• "The circle was the basis of all figures, and increased in difficulty." I didn't follow the meaning here. Did you mean something like, "The circle was the basis of all figures, which increased in difficulty."? I'm also struggling with the use of past tense here. Even though they aren't used in competition, they still exist as a discipline, correct? So, "The circle is"?

I've struggled, as a non-skater, with explaining, describing, and summarizing the sources and concepts about figure skating in general. I think what "increased in difficulty" means is that variations of the shape of the circle becomes progressively more difficult. The lead, up to now, was the only place in this article that described circles and other shapes in that way; instead, the first section describes the increase in difficulty. I think the easiest way to deal with that, in the lead, is to remove the phrase, which I've done. I also changed some of the tenses as per your suggestion.

• "Compulsory figures are also called 'patch', which refers a reference to the patch of ice allocated to each skater to practice figures."

Changed.

• "demonstrating their mastery of control, balance, flow, and edge" Are you confident that readers will understand jargon like "edge" without definition or link?

No, so it's a good idea to provide a link; done. ;) The other items in that list are self-explanatory, I think, but please point out any other jargon that I've missed.

• "Each figure consisted of two or three circles, all tangent other than a brief interruption due to the change of feet, in their continuous tracing." I had trouble parsing this sentence. I'm unclear about the meaning of "in their continuous tracing".

Again, more non-skater difficulty. I also think that the source itself is unclear. I think the solution is to remove everything after tangent, which meant that I had to change the wording to: ""Each figure consisted of two or three tangent circles", since I think that the other information is elsewhere in the article.

• "Turns needed to be skated with a single clean edge up to and after the turn, but with no double tracings, no skids or scrapes, or any illegal edge change either before, during, or after a turn." Needs revision for parallel structure

Done.

This is an excellent history and worthy of Featured status, pending a bit of polish and clarity for the uninitiated. I made a few minor edits while reading. I look forward to supporting soon. --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Laser brain:, for the review, comments, and ce. They were very helpful and much appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks great! --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the caption for the lead image require a period/full-stop since it is complete sentence/thought?

Fixed.

• For this sentence (were formerly a segment of the sport of figure skating, from which the sport derives its name), is the “of the sport” part necessary. I am just curious as I would imagine that most people know that figure skating is a sport and there is somewhat a repetition of “sport” in this part. Could it be cut down to just “were formerly a segment of figure skating,…)? Apologies in advance if this is obvious.

No, it's a valid point. There are actually people who doubt that figure skating is a sport, or at least the ice dance part. Those people are fools, for which I have two words to say in response: Nathan Chen! ;) I changed it as per your recommendation, except where it talks about figure skating as a sport, since like other sports, it can also be recreational.

• I have a rather nitpicky question about how numbers greater than ten are represented. Sometimes they are shown in numerals (i.e. for approximately the first fifty years of the existence of figure skating as a sport) while other cases use numbers instead (i.e. compulsory figures made up 60 percent of the total score at most competitions around the world). I have always been told in the past to keep this consistent with one particular pattern. I have noticed that the numbers are used primarily for percentages.

  The relevant guideline is MOS:NUMERAL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. I am already aware of the guideline. I posted the above comment as it was something that I had been told about in past GANs and FACs. I do not personally care either way, but I just wanted to leave a note about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed as per your recommendation. The only times it happened was when talking about the "first 50 years" of figure skating.

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Apologies for any silly questions or comments. I am extremely unfamiliar with figure skating, but living in Florida for a majority of life did not allow me to come in contact with it that often lol. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Ah, thanks, I appreciate it. I eagerly anticipate your support. No, Florida is definitely not a hub of figure skating in the U.S., although I'm certain there are indoor ice rinks there. Myself, I grew up in Calif., which surprisingly, is where many skaters train. I just grew up watching it on TV, especially during the Olympics. Now, I watch it throughout the season and have even attended three U.S. Nationals, all of which were life-changing, seminal experiences for me. The World Championships start this week; you should check it out, especially when the above Nathan Chen skates. I love figure skating and I'm lovin' writing about it on WP. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comments and clarification. I greatly enjoyed reading through the article. I should definitely look up some indoor ice rinks. I used to know a girl in high school that practiced pretty seriously in a rink about an hour or two from my hometown. Ice skating was always my favorite part of the Olympics tbh. Surya Bonaly and Michelle Kwan are some of my personal favorites; I will definitely check out Nathan Chen in the future. I support this for promotion. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Do not feel pressured though; I always feel like a jerk for asking lol. Either way, I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FAC coordinators: Is there anything that I'm missing, or something I need to do that I've missed? Getting worried that this article will fail again... Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's too much danger of that -- should be able to go through it this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, and for your service to WP and FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind -- we try! Look I think we're about there but perhaps we could paraphrase a couple of quotes, and attribute one or two inline:

• "that would prove fundamental to the development of school figures" -- could we paraphrase to that contributed to the evolution of school figures or some such?

Done.

• each of "progressively greater difficulty" -- perhaps each of increasing difficultly or something like that?

Done.

• "intimately familiar with how subtle shifts in the body's balance over the blade affected the tracings left on the ice" -- cited to Kestnbaum but is it her opinion or is she quoting someone else?

Yes, it seems to be her opinion, without reference to someone else.

Tks, I tweaked a bit further based on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob -- just FTR, as this brief discussion and my tweaks to the article seem to have proven quite uncontroversial I see no need to recuse from coord duties, so will be promoting shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2019 (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) 22:14, 29 March 2019 (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) 30 March 2019 [11].

---

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division that began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force during the April 1941 invasion of that country. Fifth column elements even took over a city before the division completely disintegrated in the face of an overwhelming German armoured assault. This article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2015–2016, and has been further improved thanks via the FAC of its higher formation, 4th Army. It forms part of a Good Topic on the 1st Army Group that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No alt text for the second map.

• Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No duplinks.
• No broken links.

• "was a very large and unwieldy formation" Optional: remove "very".

• Generally I agree with this, but it was large by a wide margin over its equivalent British formation, so I'm going to stick with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "and largely manned by Croat troops" "manned by" seems odd. 'made up of'?

• Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "the division also lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition" Could this be a separate sentence?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "a series of preliminary operations against the Yugoslav frontiers". Being picky, they weren't "against" the frontiers. 'along'?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "A planned counterattack delayed the Germans for a day" "A planned counterattack" implies that it never happened. If the Germans were delayed by it, then I assume it did. Suggest deleting "planned". Reading the rest of the article I see that the planned attack on the 7th never happened. That of the 8th seems to have lacked any actual attack. The German delay mentioned in the lead doesn't seem to crop up in the article.
• "the German panzers with overwhelming air support brushed aside" Should "with overwhelming air" be within commas?

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "(99 mi)". Optional: spurious accuracy. Suggest sigfig=1.

• Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "was largely in its mobilisation centres or moving to concentration areas" Optional: 'to its concentration areas'.
• "By the evening, German successes along the Hungarian border made it clear to the Germans that the Yugoslavs would not be resisting stubbornly at the frontier." This reads a little oddly after the previous sentence. Perhaps ' German successes eleswhere along the Hungarian border'?
• "to begin seizing bridges over the Drava right along the 4th Army front" I am honestly not sure what "right along" means in this context. Along the whole Army front?
• "who refused to resist the Germans which they considered their liberators" Either "which" -> 'who' or "Germans" -> 'German forces'.
• "The continuing mobilisation and concentration of the division and the whole of the 4th Army". Optional: 'and of the whole of the 4th Army'
• "attached to the 1st Army Group which had survived an early morning raid on their airfield the previous day," Comma after "Group".
• "the divisional cavalry battalion", "the divisional cavalry squadron". ?
• "The majority of the 81st Cavalry Regiment, which were army-level troops, was on the road from Zagreb to Koprivnica" This reads a little clunkily to me. Maybe "which were army-level troops" to 'which was an army-level formation'?
• "3.1 mi" Spurious accuracy?
• "Of the other units involved in the counterattack, most were only at 25 percent of their full strength due to Ustaše-influenced desertions sparked by the rebellion within the 40th ID. Two battalions of the 36th Infantry Regiment deserted during the day." "involved in the counterattack" - I am left confused as to whether these units actually attacked. Or even if they came into any contact with the Germans.
• "but was attacked by German tanks on the outskirts, captured and detained" Optional: "captured and detained" -> 'and captured'.
• "(99 miles)" 1. Spurious accuracy? 2. Inconsistency between "mi" and "miles".

An excellent piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Gog. You have picked up on quite a bit of unclear prose, greatly appreciated. The counterattack petered out, and was frankly pretty half-hearted except for the cavalry, so I've added that, and the fact that it held up the Germans just for the night of 8/9 April. I think I've got everything. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: A pleasure to contribute towards the article. One small niggle remaining:

"When the attack on the bridgehead at Zákány was eventually launched, by the time the attack petered out only the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and …" Maybe remove the leading "When", or insert something before "by"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, that was a bit clunky. Fixed, Gog. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look in this one this evening (CET). CPA-5 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No active year(s) in the infobox?
• The wartime organisation of the VKJ was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–37 shouldn't it be 1936–1937 instead of 1936–37?
• one of 100 mm (3.9 in) light howitzers, one of 65 mm (2.6 in) or 75 mm (3.0 in) mountain guns the "0" isn't necessary.
• and two of 75 mm (3.0 in) or 80 mm (3.1 in) field guns. the "0" isn't necessary.
• Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians not uses north-western or north western instead of "northwestern"?
• Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians uses percent or per cent? Because the article uses both per cents.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. I have addressed all your points. In response to your questions, I think usage varies in Australia, I'm sure the government style guide decrees one or the other, but as long as it is consistent in the article, I think it is ok. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peacemaker67: Hey PM, I couldn't find anything else so I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Always enjoy reading your articles, and this one is no exception.
• Though should note I'd move the link to U.S Army so it only links in "note a" and note "note d" and "note e." Kaiser matias (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed, thanks as always, Kaiser. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to seek a source review I think, if you haven't already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do this weekend. You can reciprocate at the Aldrin article if you like. Or don't, it is fine; it will not affect the speed or veracity of my review. Kees08 (Talk) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would, except I have no idea about astronauts and have avoided reviewing them as a result, and looking at it, I'm not sure about the use of Aldrin's memoirs in a FA. Happy to be convinced otherwise, of course. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; the source review ended up getting performed. The memoirs are a tricky bit, generally are acceptable in astronaut FACs for some reason (often are co-authored which helps probably). Anyways, to the review.

• Formatting
  • I poked around and can find no issues. I checked a couple of ISBNs to verify the accuracy of the citation parameters, and found no errors.
  • I suppose Geografski institut JNA (1952) could use a language parameter.
• Spotchecking
  • Did not find anything while checking worth noting

So should just be adding a language parameter then we should be good to go. Kees08 (Talk) 02:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks very much for this review, Kees08! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good to me. Kees08 (Talk) 17:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2019 (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) 00:01, 30 March 2019 (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) 29 March 2019 [12].

---

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

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

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

Hope it's not too much of a conflict of interest, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "Réunion parakeet" bolded (rather than red-linked) when the article is not about it? It is made clear that this is a different subspecies.

Because we generally cover bird subspecies in the species articles, and both are covered fully in this article (there is really not much if anything to say about the Réunion subspecies which isn't mentioned here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt text is needed for the images.

Will get to that... FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now added, can't say how good it is, though... FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the military colours of a French cavalryman" will not mean a lot to most readers. How about 'is Latin for horse, and refers to the green uniforms of French cavalrymen'?

Equus means horse, eques is cavalrymen. In any case, I can only say what the source says, to avoid OR. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote 'The specific name eques is Latin, and refers to the French cavalryman' or similar it would be fine. My point is "The specific name eques is Latin" explains the "cavalryman" bit, but not "the military colours". Now I know, or can surmise, why the colour of the parakeet reminded French naturalists of a cavalryman, but I think that you need to either spell this out or remove it. As it stands, the senrtence begs a question.

The source only says "From Latin eques referring to the military colours of a French cavalryman." I agree it is very vague, but I'm not sure it's an improvement to remove the information (and it would fail the comprehensiveness criterion). FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. OK. Your call. Leave it as is.

• "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard from a female landing in a tree." Does that mean that there has only been a single reported instance of either of these calls?

At the time of that publication, based on field notes, yes. So I'm not sure if I can reword it so it sounds like a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a single occurrence of something merits mention. It would seem to be "going into unnecessary detail".

It is significant enough that later sources also report it (including the 2017 book: "On two occasions Jones heard a deep, quiet purring call from an adult female just after alighting in a tree"), so it would seem like an oversight to leave something out that several sources mention. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Ah, if it has been heard twice by a single observer, I agree with you. Change the text to reflect that and I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, added, but it is unclear from the source whether it was the same adult female that was heard, or two separate ones, so it is hard to not be vague... Now reads: "A deep, quiet "werr-werr" and a "prr-rr-rr" purr has also been heard on two occasions from a female landing in a tree". FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reads ok to me. I can live with a low bar on notability, but a single occurrence seemed a bit much. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Could cites be put in number order, eg "Though now sedentary, the parakeet may have moved between areas seasonally in search for food; if cyclones had stripped trees of fruits, for example.[12][14][1][20][23]".

Heh, I usually don't do this as it doesn't seem to be specifically recommended anywhere, and I don't personally find it worth the time. I have no problem if others choose to change the order, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

• "with variation and intensity of the colours probably signifying fitness" Could "fitness" be linked to Fitness (biology).

Sure could, now is. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "being fed by a parent with intervals of up to 79 minute" -> 'minutes'.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "Psittacula parakeets employ mobbing behaviour by groups clustering together to noisily scold animals" "by" -> 'with'.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption "Rose-ringed parakeet on Mauritius; this related species was introduced around 1886, and competes for nest-sites and probably some food." Colon, not semi-colon.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "it may have excluded the echo parakeet from expanding and adjusting its feeding ecology to the changing environment by entirely occupying this niche" You say "this niche", but I am unsure what niche you are referring to.

Added "this more generalised niche". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "as well as the invasive species brought with them" I think that a brief mention of the way(s) the invasive spices helped drive the various parakeets to extinction would be appropriate here.

It is outlined in detail under threats, but added "(through predation and competition)". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

• "The New Zealand conservationist Don Merton (who had faced similar problems with birds in his homeland) was invited" Was invited where, and/or to do what?

The source doesn't say where (though it would be Mauritius), but I added "to help". FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK

• "six previously unknown echo parakeet breeding groups were found in the Black River Gorges" Any idea of the sizes of these six groups? Or of the total number of birds in them?

The source doesn't say, unfortunately (I would love to have more information about this discovery, but the sources are pretty vague). FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A shame.

• Wondering why a copy edit had been reverted I discovered this from you. "I have one question, you changed a sentence to "It was discovered that from clutches of three or four eggs, only one or two chicks would fledge", when it said only one chick would fledge before, how come? The source says "The biologists found that though females typically laid three or four eggs, usually only one chick fledged." " Apologies for not replying, but you didn't ping, so I didn't realise it was there.

In answer, earlier the article states "Two of the young are normally raised." I do realise that raise is not the same as fledge, but their seemed to be a contradiction. Especially as it seems clear that more than one chick is left in each nest - the parents could more easily raise the brood they were left with - which seems pointless if only one "usually" fledges.

The problem is inconsistency in the sources. It would appear that the mortality changed between the time these sources were published/compiled (now that the population is more stable, more young are probably raised naturally than when the population was low and not assisted by humans), but that is just speculation on my part. As is, the sources just say different things, so we can't really "adjust" to what we think might be the correct number. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I shouldn't have done that, I should have queried it on the talk page. I'm not too happy about the "inconsistency", but both need mentioning and, as you say, you can only go with the sources.

• "Rats, African giant land-snails, and crab-eating macaques prey on parakeet nests" Would it be clearer to say 'prey on parakeet eggs and chicks'?

Yes, and this actually lead me to revise the sentence further, spinning off the following: "African giant land-snails (Achatina spp.) can suffocate chicks with their slime while entering nests in search of shelter or food." FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuck.

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

• All points should now be answered, Gog the Mild. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thanks! Though this is probably not the best place to begin if you want to learn about parakeets in general, it does give a pretty good introduction to the conservation effort for endemic species on Mauritius. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Gog the Mild, it just occurred to me it might be relevant to mention that this species lived alongside the dodo, which is itself an icon of extinction, and a symbol of conservation. So I wonder if you knew that when reading the article, and whether you think it is relevant to mention somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. Absolutely yes, it should be mentioned. Maybe briefly under Decline - "Many other endemic species of Mauritius and the other Mascarene islands were lost after the arrival of man"? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll add it then. I listed other extinct animals from the same islands in the articles I expanded about other extinct Mascarene species, but since this one still lives, I thought it would be too much. But the dodo is so famous and so tied to extinction that it warrants a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• File:View_of_the_Mauritius_roadstead_-_engraving.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now fixed, Nikkimaria, didn't see this section for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh yes, seems I forgot it because there are usually many more issues... FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or apparently I didn't even notice it... FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically considered to be either identical to the Mauritius population or a distinct species, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA… — a bit clunky with two many "species", perhaps something like ’The relationship to the extinct Réunion parakeet of nearby Réunion (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA…

Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• and the three are grouped among the subspecies of the rose-ringed parakeet —I don’t understand. How can they be subspecies of a different species?

Yes, technically they should be subspecies then, but it seems they are not formally considered such, perhaps for practical reasons. It is also possible Psittacula krameri will turn out to be a species complex, but the sources don't specify either... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• red orange (x2) —I would have thought red-orange or reddish orange

Changed to red-orange, in line with the source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Like other Mauritian birds, the echo parakeet is tame, more so during winter when food is scarce; they become more wary during summer, when food is more readily available, and it becomes more difficult for humans to approach the birds. —switches from singular to plural mid-sentence

Changed all to plural. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• therefore not due to for example inbreeding—"for example" between commas I think

Added comma. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• tropical nest flies—unclear what this redlink is for. Is it a species, a different taxon, or just a generic term?

It refers to a specific species of fly (Passeromyia heterochaeta) that we don't have an article for... FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• All points should now have answers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• FunkMonk, happy to support as is now, but I just wonder why you don't have Passeromyia heterochaeta as the red link... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd prefer to have that in parenthesis, though, since few if any readers would know what the name refers to, so "tropical nest fly" has to be spelled out somewhere. But if I give both common and scientific names for the fly, it looks inconsistent with the other animal species names, which are mainly just common names. Should I give scientific names for all species mentioned in the article, perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my FAs I usually give common names only unless it's something like an obscure disease or insect which doesn't have one, when I give the binomial. I've never had problems at FAC doing that. In practice, if it's possible, I'll write a two-line stub to avoid a red-link, but that's not always feasible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to avoid any confusion, I just added scientific names to everything (was already given for most of the parrots, so good for consistency). FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No spotchecks carried out
• Ref 19: missing page reference

It is an ebook without page numbers, I was told here[13] that I only had to list the chapter or section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 20: requires pp. not p.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 30: missing page reference

As above, an ebook without page numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks, as mentioned above, the pange ranges are missing because the sources are ebooks. I anticipated this might become a problem during source review, but was almost ridiculed when I brought it up at the FAC talk page.[14] FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Moult is in ecology and behaviour and would more likely benefit from being in description, as it relates to anatomy/morphology not behaviour.

I'm a bit on the fence about this one; the source has info on moulting in its own separate section. Since the seasonal moulting in this species doens't change the plumage pattern, I'd argue it has more to do with physiology (which I'd put under behaviour) than physical appearance, and that the description section should be more about features that can be used to identify the bird. I'll try to see where other sources place such info. At least FAs like Black-necked grebe and Barn owl also cover moulting under behaviour (Atlantic puffin deals with it in both sections, because it becomes much different physically according to season). FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• A bigger issue is the lead, which is very ropey at the start. It starts by presenting the name of a subspecies as name for the species and then describes its range in contemporary terms rather than holistically. It only later concludes that the Reunion subspecies is a subspecies. I am skeptical at best of introducing a species range at the start using the term endemic without making it explicit that that is a relic distribution. I would suggest something like:

• The echo parakeet (Psittacula eques) is a species of parrot endemic to the Mascarene Islands of Mauritius and formerly Réunion. It is the only extant native parrot of the Mascarene islands; all others have become extinct due to human activity. The species has two subspecies, nominate Réunion parakeet (for a long time known only from descriptions and illustrations) and the Mauritius subspecies, sometimes known as the Mauritius parakeet. The relationship between the two subspecies was historically unclear, but a 2015 DNA study determined them to be subspecies of the same species by comparing the DNA of echo parakeets with a single skin thought to be from a Réunion parakeet.

Good point, it's always difficult when the nominate subspecies is extinct (similar case in golden swallow). I took your wording, but excluded "nominate" since this is explained by the text below "As it was named first, the binomial name of the Réunion parakeet is used for the species". FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll read the rest later today, and again this is great stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Happy with the responses above. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

sorry, forgot about this. all good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Several paragraphs have number of citations at the end but none within, so it is unclear which statement is supported by which source. It can be that all sources that appear at the end of para support all claims within it, but that is not the case with at least first para of Taxanomy.

Often it is because several sources are used to support different parts of the same sentence, but I have spread some out where it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, Cheke, A. S. (1987) is a 84 page long chapter. It is cited twice. So it will be better to give specific page numbers. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, rechecking, it seems to be only dealt with on two pages, so restricted it quite a bit... FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll ping Sabine's Sunbird, Casliber, and AhmadLX, in case they have more to add. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no other comments. AhmadLX (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I forgot to ping Brianboulton about the ebook issue. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 25 March 2019 (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) 12:46, 29 March 2019 (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) 29 March 2019 [15].

---

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

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

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

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

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

• Is it necessary in an individual ship article to say that the ships of the class has different types of boilers? Surely with this one only her boilers matter?
• "and became the flagship of"
• when the first increase in elevation is mentioned, it isn't clear what range they had before the modifications.
  • Generally I reserve gun performance data for the class article. Is it better just to say that the increase in elevation increased the range, without providing specifics, or to add the original range for comparative purposes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, I would just say the increase in elevation increased the range, without going into specifics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• were each of the 75 mm AA guns replaced by four 75 mm AA guns, or were the two guns replaced by four AA guns in total?
• what rank was Paul Teste at the time?

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

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

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

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

• Yep, all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if the exact dates could be stated in the last two image captions, as you do in some of the other captions?
  • Yes on one, no on the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "of 28,000 metric horsepower" Horsepowers?
  • No, horsepower isn't pluralized
• "were able to rescue all but three of her crew" How large was the crew?
  • I'll let Sturm handle this one - I don't have Jordan & Caresse in front of me at the moment.

Ok, I'll support after Sturmvogel 66 has responded to this (I realise the source might not specify). FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't specify.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "part of her forward hull armour was removed to make her less wet forward" What does wet mean here?
  • Reworded
• "cover for the Otranto Barrage" Why only explicitly stated in the intro?
  • Mentioned in the body
• "the British attacked the ships there" I think it might be important enough to note in the intro that the crew rejected surrender?
  • Good idea
• "and broken up for scrap" Only stated in the intro.
  • Clarified. Thanks FunkMonk. Parsecboy (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I was at the A-class review and I think it meets the FA-class criteria. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just on source formatting, I think you need to spell out which state Mechanicsburg is in. Won't hold up promotion though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2019 (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) 14:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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