Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2017

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2017 [1].

---

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, this article is about a crucial battle in the Seven Years' War. About 1000 infantry and the Prussian cavalry of Frederick the Great's army routed the combined French and Reichsarmee forces during a 90 minute battle. It was critical in forcing France out of its support of Austria's strategic goals. As always, I appreciate your ideas and suggestions. As usual, I've used what Ealdgyth considers a funky annotation system. It's what I know and have used since 2009. auntieruth (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(on general intelligibility to a lay reader}

Terrain and maneuver

• What is the relevance of the plateau elevation? Is this the elevation above the general altitude of the lower lying areas, which would have obvious military relevance, or above sea level, which would not? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• general relevance to the type of terrain -- a rolling plateau--. It measures above sea level, of course, but within that there was very little elevation change. This influenced how the battle was fought, obviously. No hill was higher than 120 meters (390 ft), which influenced how and where troops could move, and how visible they were from the highest observation points (usually the church towers, sometimes well-placed manor houses). auntieruth (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the elevation of the low-lying areas known? the relative elevation would be far more relevant to tactics. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I read through again, and now understand that the battle was fought on the plateau, which had an altitude ranging from 120 to 244m, so the variation of altitude on the battlefield was not more than 124m and may have been less? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ok, thanksw for re reading....is the article clearer now? auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be better to explicitly state whether the battle was on the plateau. The map does not clearly show steep sides to the valley, but suggests fairly steep hillsides, which is not supported by the text or photos. I am not getting a clear impression of the terrain where the actual fighting took place. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've stated in the text, there were no steep hill sides. The entire region is rolling hills--none of them higher than 120 feet above the general altitude of the region. It's all relatively flat. I've tried adjusting the text, and moved the images of the terrain into that section. auntieruth (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to nitpick like this. The section now reads more clearly, but I remain uncertain whether the elevation of the plateau is between 120 and 244m, or lower than this with peaks up to 120 to 244m above the base altitude of the plateau. (which is more than 120 feet as stated above) If I understand correctly, the 120 feet is a typo, and the altitude of the plateau including its rolling hills is between 120 and 244m. I made and reverted an edit which would clarify this point if I got it right. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The elevation of Rossbach is 104 meters (341 ft). Braunsbedra and Reichertswerben are the two closest villages and they are, respectively, altitudes above sea level of: 120 meters (394 ft) and 131 meters (430 ft). The site of the battle field is rolling hills and plains between 120–244, mostly between Braunsbedra, Rossbach and Reichertswerben. But the entire topography outside the villages, where the battle took place, has changed since the mid-20th century (and earlier) because of lignite mining. The steepest hillsides are in Merseburg at the river crossings, and then only in a few places where the river cut through sandstone. If you look at Mapcarta here you can see that the location of the Janus has been completely excavated. There is really no way of telling exactly how high or how steep it was in 1750s. Carlisle, who was there, says the hills were slight. Frederick and Gaudi, who were there and observing from the manor rooftop, could see most of the French troop movements--this means that the hills were not high enough to obstruct the view. The vintage maps do not indicate steep hills, simply "hills" or elevation changes. Better? auntieruth (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mapcarta gives Rossbach elevation as 124m, your sources may differ, otherwise good. I see what you mean about the topography having changed. The explanatory note does help. Thank you for your patience. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pbsouthwood: Oh, the whole area looks different than it did 200 years ago. But that's what happens over time. Will you support now? auntieruth (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Within the scope of my review, in that it makes sense to a non-expert, and is well written and interesting, yes, and good luck with the rest of the review. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the maps
• File:The_Imperial_German_Army_1890_-_1913_HU68455.jpg: if the author was a German court photographer, why a UK tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• From what it looks like in the documentation on the photo, the German court photographer took the picture. The German king gave wrote on it and gave it to Hugh Lowther, 5th Earl of Lonsdale, apparently, because that's the collection it came from.

• Okay - unless there was a transfer of copyright involved (?), this wouldn't be a UKGov work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's in the UK Imperial War Museum. The template doesn't accommodate the specifics of this particular instance. Something created by German court photographer, given by Kaiser to someone; from that person's collection it apparently went to the UK Imperial War Museum, which provided it. So I don't know what to do about it, and if you don't know what to do about it, I suggest we leave it as is, because it was uploaded under auspices of the UK museum, and it had been given by the Kaiser. Perhaps we should accept that the transfer of the photograph as a gift is sufficient? The museum provided the provenance. auntieruth (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Er... the museum provided the provenance and their own IWM licensing; I don't see that they provided anything to support the tags used. Given available information I would think a German/EU tag would be more appropriate. Open to other opinions though if any other reviewers want to weigh in. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problems with a change. What do others think? auntieruth (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nikkimaria: I've changed the tag to GermanGov . Is this the correct one? auntieruth (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems reasonable given the provenance. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• maps are scaled, although I don't know how to do that for the ones in the gallery. auntieruth (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "moved up the Rossbach itself": What's "the Rossbach"? I'm aware "Bach" is "brook" in German, but I'm not aware that you've mentioned that, unless it's "a small stream [that] ran between Rossbach and Merseburg". okay, fixed.
• "The fighting soon dissolved into man-on-man combat": Not wrong, but I might say "the columns dissolved", or "the fighting devolved". fixed.
• "muskets shouldered": Did you mean to repeat that? I only see it once.
  • Sorry, the other occurrence is: " Frederick ... boasted that the victory had come while most of his infantry had its weapons shouldered." - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Really good writing. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another impressive article. I find this set of three fascinating even though they are far afield from anything I write about. I have a few suggestions and questions, as follows.

General

• Lead image needs alt text. yes, it was there.  :)

Yes and no. When I rolled over the image with my mouse, the alt text showed as identical to the image file name. The fix was to look at what you'd done with the Battle of Leuthen and to imitate. I believe the problem is fixed, but please doublecheck. Finetooth (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difference between Battle of Leuthen alt text and this one.  ??? auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The gallery images need alt text. WP:PIC in the Galleries subsection shows a way to add alt text using table syntax. I think I did this right
• I think you can scale the gallery maps if you use the table format that you'll find in the same section of WP:PIC. I think I did this right

The toolbox (dispenser.homenet.org) has been down for a week or more, but you can still check the alt text by mousing over the image and looking at the popup. The table method described at WP:PIC looks like a workable option, but I've never used it. Some experimenting might be in order, or perhaps User:Nikkimaria or another image reviewer knows the preferred solution. Finetooth (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could also use {{multiple image}} Nikkimaria (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added alt text and upright= to all the images. Does this work now?

I see that you have added the parameters. However, if you mouse over the images, you'll see that the alt text does not appear. (You have to have navigation popups turned on in your Preferences/Gadgets user menu to be able to see the popups.) That suggests to me that the template is not configured to recognize the alt-text parameter. I'd like to fiddle around in a sandbox with the {{multiple image}} template that Nikkimaria suggested. I have rarely added galleries to anything, hence my lack of immediate insights. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I use galleries a lot, so when you fiddle, please send me a link, so I can see what you've done....:) auntieruth (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The layout of the gallery at the bottom of the article looks odd to me because of the 3-4-1 arrangement. Suggestion: use one panorama rather than two. That would give you a more balanced 3-4-0 arrangement, which would look better if you centered the line of 4 images. They will center properly once you remove the bottom line of 1. Alternatively, a table might give you more options than the existing two separate galleries at the bottom. I took out one
• To avoid bumping against second-level subheads or from displacing the Battlefield today head, I would suggest moving all of the maps to the right. ?

Seven Years' War

• ¶1 "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war with Austria." – Maybe it would be more clear to say "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war between Prussia and its allies with Austria and its allies." tweaked some, see if this is better

Hmmm. "The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; in parts of the globe, it had no impact, and its influence among the European powers it was, however, no better than a truce." – This revision doesn't make sense to me. Maybe leave out "in parts of the globe, it had no impact" since the conflict wasn't global, and maybe adjust the last clause (which has a grammar problem) to say "among the European powers it was no better than a truce."?

• The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle concluded the earlier war in which Prussia and Austria were a part; its influence among the European powers was, however, little better than a truce. Frederick II of Prussia, known as Frederick the Great, acquired the prosperous province of Silesia, but had wanted much of the Saxon territories as well. Empress Maria Theresa of Austria had signed the treaty to gain time to rebuild her military forces and forge new alliances; she was intent upon regaining ascendancy in the Holy Roman Empire. Better? auntieruth (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That looks good. Finetooth (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrain and maneuver

• ¶1 "The story of the battle of Rossbach is as much the story of the five days of maneuver leading to the battle as it is those famous 90 minutes of battle, and the maneuvers were shaped by the terrain." – Since the "famous 90 minutes of battle" has not been mentioned in the main text before this mention, perhaps modify to say: "Five days of maneuvers, shaped by the terrain, preceded the battle of Rossbach." Or something like that. It was in the caption under the lead photo, and I've added it to the lead
• ¶1 "at the confluence of the middle Saale from the Buntsandstein" – Some confusion here. Confluence refers to the meeting of two streams, but the Saale doesn't seem to meet another stream at Weissenfels. A map embedded in the Thuringian Basin article shows Weissenfels lying just outside of the basin, so perhaps the intended meaning here is "near the emergence of the middle Saale from..." Another possibility is that the confluence referred to here is the meeting of the Unstrut with the Saale upstream of Weissenfels near Naumburg.
• ¶1 "in the so-called Weißenfels-Jenaer Saale valley..." – Delete "so-called"? sorry, that's a Germanism....
• ¶1 "this influenced the troop movements leading up to the battle..." – Delete "up"? done
• ¶6 "Until that point, Soubise had done nothing." – I had to go back to an earlier part (Situation in 1757) of the article to see who Soubise was. ok. did some tweaking there.

Initial battlefield positions

• ¶1 "The French general, the prince of Soubise," – He's referred to simply as Soubise in the last sentence of the preceding section. Maybe "the French general, the Prince of Soubise" could replace "Soubise" in that earlier sentence, and you could use plain "Soubise" here. fix parallel construction
• ¶2 "under the command of Charles, Prince of Soubise and Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen" – Here they are identified again in a slightly different way. Integrate them somehow? Maybe add "Charles" to the first mention of him in the Situation in 1757 section and just go with ""under the command of Soubise and Saxe-Hildburghausen" here. Not quite sure. fixed, I think

I'm still a bit confused. Are Prince Joseph of Saxe-Hildburghausen and the Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen two different people, or is this the same guy? Yes. Eventually he was "Prince" but at the time, he was "Duke" I've taken out his titles and just referred to him and Soubise by their family names.

I changed one additional "Duke" to "Saxe-Hildburghausen" in this same section. Looks good. Finetooth (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trap

• ¶5 "When the Allied cavalry came striking distance..." – Missing word, "within"?
• ¶5 "still in echelon" – Link to Echelon formation?
• ¶7 "Seydlitz led his cavalry in their third assault." – A minor question. I'm not sure how these things are formally counted. I would have said "second assault". I suppose this is the third if the 20-squadron charge counts as one and the 18-squadron charge counts as the second. I assume the combined squadrons take part in the third assault. Maybe a bit of clarification here? tweaked some for clarity

Aftermath

• ¶1 "Impressively, the Prussians took..." – Not sure you need "impressively". don't
• ¶4 "While he did owe his position to his good relationship..." – Maybe "rank" rather than "position" since at first glance that might be interpreted to mean his battlefield position. Absurd interpretation on second glance, but still... "

Battlefield today

• long quote: "set up his field bed in alcove" – Word missing? Maybe "an alcove"? got it.
• long quote: "Hauptmann [Franz Leopold] von Funcke" – Missing comma after Funcke? fixed
• "(Kreis roadway)" – I'm assuming that this means something like a side road or crossroad or secondary highway. Maybe a brief explanation or a link since it probably has clear formal meaning to Germans? Ah, yes, county highway.

• That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Finetooth: I think I got them all.....auntieruth (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finetooth: I think I've got them.  :) auntieruth (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to support on prose, as noted above, regardless of how the alt text questions play out. Nice job. Finetooth (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for comments, contributions and support. Re alt text, it's weird, sometimes the proper box shows up with alt text and the whole stuff on the image, and sometimes it doesnt. auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it anywhere, I think we still need a source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• no you haven't missed it. Review is requested. auntieruth (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that in terms of reliability and authority, the sources are impeccable, but I found the arrangement of the section very muddled and confusing, with several inconsistencies:

• What is the purpose of repeating detailed information in the citations that is given in the sources? Why not be consistent in the use of short citations? some people only go as far as the citation. It's listed in full in the first instance and in short form afterward.

• It seems like a waste of time and space, but I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sources you prioritise surnames, in the citations you prioritise first names, which makes cross-checking difficult. I understand this. Bibliographies should be organized by surnames. Footnotes start with first names. This is standard Chicago Style.
• The section headed "Alphabetical listing of sources cited" contains uncited sources: Jeremy Black; Robert M Citino I took Citino out. Jeremy Black is in fn 2.
• Several other sources are not cited in the texts but are mentioned in the "Notes" in the "See..." format. These should be properly formulated as citations. (Karlheinz Fischer; Kapp & Bancroft; Hellmund Meinholf; Mitteldeutsche Zeitung; Poten & Mayer) They are cited in the note. I don't see the point in adding them to citations as well. If I were writing a print article, this is how I would do it.

• I think you are not understanding my comment. The "See..." format is an informal method of citation, with the same purpose as regular citations, i.e. to indicate the source that supports the text. These "See..." citations should be converted to regular form. Thus, for example, "See (in German) Bodart, p. 220" should be converted to <ref>Boden, p. 20</ref> What you might do with a print article is not relevant - this is Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I guess I understand. Notes are converted to citations. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Spencer Tucker and Frederick King of Prussia appear in the citations but are not listed as sources. Frederick was there, spencer Tucker is added.
• Ref 32 is not properly formatted. What is the nature of this source, and in what way does it support the text? These are standard links to the German webpage.

• They are links to the German webpages, but where do they reference the inscription that you have cited in the text? The inscription in given in English – is this the language on the stone? And in any event these links need to be properly formatted as references, with publisher information etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Ref 33 is properly formatted, either.
• In your "Notes" section, Note 1 is unsourced. In Note 3 the sources are not included in your sources list and lack basic information such as publisher, access date and so on. this is fixed.

• Note 1 is 'not fixed; you have added two external links, but these need to be properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There are also a few minor formatting errors. Those that I see:

• Ref 2 needs full stop after pp done
• Ref 7 needs space after p. done
• Ref 18: page range inconsistent done
• Ref 20: missing pp. done

The section is in need of considerable attention. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brianboulton: Thank you Brian, I've responded above. I realize that this can be a nuisance, but I don't see another way around it. I find the short notation style very difficult to follow when I read because I have to refer down to the bib to see the whole thing (publisher, etc). I've at least started to use the shortened references, a, b, c , d etc. which I find confusing in text, but am amenable to making life easier for editors. auntieruth (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what it is that you "don't see another way round". If it's just the question of your use of short citations, well OK, I'll go along with your preference. But I've raised other sources questions, most notably the need to regularise the formatting of citations. These need attention.Brianboulton (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brianboulton:, they are all consistent now. First mention is author/title/publication/page number. Subsequent citations are short, or shorter (a,b,c,d,etc, using the ref/ref template). Thank you. auntieruth (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• and I've converted the notes to citations, so the formatting remains consistent. auntieruth (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've basically used this as my bible for footnoting since 2009 and 2011, when I was convinced to start adding the refname= tag. auntieruth (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator query: Brian, how is this looking from a sourcing viewpoint now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit of a mess, I'm afraid. The nominator has misunderstood some of my comments, and her efforts to comply have made things worse rather than better. She seems to be relying on fixed views and practices which are outside the FAC requirements for the organisation of sources. Someone needs to give a helping hand – it's basically to do with proper and consistent formatting, not the reliability of the sources themselves. I don't think my further participation will be helpful, as I seem not to be getting through, but my original and follow-up comments should clarify the problem. For example, I was not saying that all footnotes should be converted to citations, merely that footnotes needed to cited in the same style as the text, not via an informal "See..." formulation. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brianboulton: I've reverted all the notes back to notes and changed the citing style to be exactly the same as the citations. I'm going to ask one of the MH coordinators to also have a look. I don't know what else I can do to make it consistent! auntieruth (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Ruth, I had a quick look at this on the w/e and have a couple of initial thoughts, just give me a day or so to come back to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G'day, Ruth, I have made a suggestion with this edit: [2]. I have self reverted, but if you feel it helpful, I'd suggest implementing across all of your notes. Brian, would that type of change help address some of your concerns? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking a look at this, Rupert, I'm willing to do it for the notes (not the citations), but I'm not sure how that will help, other than to separate the note itself from its citation (if I've read it right--I could only see the intext change, not how it looked :( ). auntieruth (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• G'day, Ruth, you can see how it would display/look here: [3] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Rupert. well, I'm not sure how that help by separating the note from the citation. butI can do it if that's what Brian wants.....? @AustralianRupert: @Brianboulton:

auntieruth (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Auntieruth55:, @AustralianRupert:, @Ian Rose:.

• I like what Rupert has done with Note 1; can the same be done with 2, 3 and 4? And you should lose the POV chit-chat in 3: "who usually got these kinds of details right".
• There's an outstanding problem with ref 38. I ask again: How does this source verify the English translation of the inscription on the stone? Brianboulton (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh I didn't realize you were questioning the translation. I translated it. auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My questioning was of the source to which your translation was apparently cited, not the translation itself. According to WP:TRANSCRIPTION: "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research", so you're OK on that point. But I'm still puzzled by Ref 33: what exactly is this source verifying? How does the link page [4] help the reader? Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Under SchlossBergwerben: In Burgwerben zog das Grenadier-Bataillon Fink ein und der König selbst bezog im Schloß Quartier. Weil alle Zimmer des Herrenhauses mit gefangenen, verwundeten französischen Offizieren belegt waren, begnügte sich der König mit einem Dienstzimmer, das noch heute im historischen Zustande erhalten ist. auntieruth (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Brianboulton: @AustralianRupert: Notes and their citations now separated using Rupert's fancy tags. Chatty bit of note removed. auntieruth (talk)

• Thank you. That resolves most of my issues with the organisation of sources. On ref 38, which I've mentioned previously, this provides a list of links. Can you please say which of these links leads to the source information? This guidance should then be included in the citation. Finally, its not a good idea to have "Resources" and "Further reading" under the same level-2 heading, as further reading does not form part of the article's sourcing. Suggest two separate level-2 headings. Brianboulton (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: ok, fixed level 2 headers. Added Schloss Burgwerben to the citation and Resource entry. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sources issues now resolved to my satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As always with Auntieruth55's writing, I think this is an excellent article about a complex battle - a very fine piece of work. I am very close to support with this article, but have a few minor comments for discussion below before giving the thumbs up. Best--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Russians were not yet able to take Königsberg" - this sounds like they took it soon afterwards (as they did in 1758), but this isn't explained elsewhere in the article. I suggest "the Russians were unable to take Königsberg" since it is accurate as far as that specific campaign is concerned and as a little clearer to an unfamiliar reader. fixed
• "Although previous experiences in wars with the Ottoman Empire had exposed these problems, the Russians had not solved the challenge of supplying the army at a distance from Moscow" reads a little awkwardly. Perhaps "Although experiences in wars with the Ottoman Empire had previously exposed these problems, the Russians had not solved the challenge of supplying the army at a distance from Moscow"? fixed
• "His army covered 274 km (170 mi) in only 13 days" from where to where? it was in the paragraph, but I've reworked it.
• "they were still eager to face the Allied forces." - this feels like opinion? Can you source it? cannot find it in the article! but if iit's there, it's source.

• Its in the third paragraph of "Terrain and maneuver". Bodart is the nearest source, but its not on that particular sentence. Is this Bodart's opinion?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Frederick's tactics at Rossbach became a landmark in the history of military art" - what is meant here by "military art"? This feels like paintings. Do you mean "the military art"? yes, linked
• " Both men possessed the much coveted coup d'œil militaire, the ability to see at a glance what must be done to tactical advantage" - This is definitely an opinion. Who said this? Was it Frederick? Can you clarify? I see from the quote that it was, but I would clarify it at the start. sourced to their biographers
• "flooding the old lignite mine with water" - this is out of sequence. I suggest incorporating the footnote into the main text so its clearer where this lignite mine came from. fixed

• @Jackyd101: Thanks for comments! auntieruth (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! See reply above and take a look. Once that is done I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jackyd101: fixed! auntieruth (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, another triumph!--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2017 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australia's finest songbird - pretty haunting and weird calls it makes. I have scoured sources and it reads well so have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images appropriate and all appear to be correctly licensed. Mostly without alt text. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add comments as I read the article.
Lead

• link mantle

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• neck is white - it doesn't appear to be.

its the nape that is black forming the hood and there is a white neck collar below that. Better seen in the gould painting in article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

• link type specimen

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gould described Cracticus picatus in 1848..." I found this slightly difficult to follow and initially wondered why you were taking about another species - perhaps need some sort of intro on subspecies/regional variants

I did this but are you worried it is too repetitive? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• link Gregory Mathews

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• link nominate subspecies

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• link subspecies

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (3.7 cm wide) {{cvt|3.7|cm}}

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• perhaps link mitochondrial

even better, linked to mitochondrial DNA instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• "with short wings" followed by "The wings are fairly long"

removed Amadon's comment on wings Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The neck collar in the female is slightly narrower at around 25 cm (10 in)" 2.5 cm?

oops...fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat

• link Illawarra

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

• Who builds the nest? HBW alive has "Nest built by female". (I can send you the HBW text - but I personally prefer HANZAB (Higgins) (I don't own a copy), as it includes cites to the primary literature)

HANZAB does not explicitly specify but talks about the pair building a nest at one point. Will try to see if anything further online Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where HBWQ got their info as no peer-reviewed literature seems to be out there supporting or refuting this. Same with incubation (though I do think that is more likely to be true.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing looks very likely in the HBW article Bibliography. I've come across similar cases before - the HBW author probably thought that he had read it somewhere but with 10,000 articles it perhaps isn't surprising. When the sexes are similar I assume a study using coloured bands is required. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Who incubates the eggs? HBW alive has "incubation by female alone"

HANZAB does not explicitly specify except to say "one adult", but one source said two adults out of four attending the nest incubated. Difficult when plumage is so similar. I will chase that source soon added that source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• use cvt for egg dimensions (bizarrely we usually include inches)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For how long are the young fed after leaving the nest. HBW alive has "at least a month"

HANZAB has anywhere from 25 to 33 days Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• mention brood parasitism (it will please Jim): HBW alive has "Records of brood parasitism by Pallid Cuckoo (Cuculus pallidus) and Channel-billed Cuckoo (Scythrops novaehollandiae)."

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

• 43 Taylor, Hollis (26 July 2017) - why not provide a link (as using cite web)? http://theconversation.com/birdsong-has-inspired-humans-for-centuries-is-it-music-79000

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy

• "and combined them into a Cracticini clade,[13] which became the family Artamidae in 1994.[14]" I don't like the precise date without specifying who - Christidis and Boles may have made the change in 1994 but other authorities didn't. Taxonomy is always messy. Vol 14 of HBW published in 2009 followed Peters and placed butcherbirds in their own family Cracticidae and Clements still does (in their 2017 list). HBW changed the family to Artamidae in their Illustrated Checklist published in 2016 and didn't make the change online until this year. HBW online have a subfamily Cracticinae containing the genera Strepera, Melloria, Gymnorhina and Cracticus.

Sigh...this opens up a can of worms really as detailed discussion is best left on higher taxon pages. Let me think about it. Open to suggestions... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• " weight of 120 g (4 oz)." -> weight of about 120 g (4 oz). (HBW has weight varying from 105 to 159g)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the responses and have supported above. Well done - excellent work. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support this now, since I'm going on holiday soon, just a few minor issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• captions and maps should not include the subject of the article

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• its smaller size than the nominate subspecies, and subspecies mellori from Victoria and South Australia on the basis of its larger size than the nominate subspecies.— I'm sure this can be rephrased less clunkily and repetitively

reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Both are regarded—missing "now"?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• baby grey teal.—"duckling" is better

reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll review this soon. At first glance, maybe the image selection could be improved? The article has no good photos of the bird in profile, but here are some:[6][7][8] There is also one of a juvenile[9], but perhaps the one you have of an immature is better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the two flickr ones by Graham Winterflood are both subsp. picatus, so a good find. One has been added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gould described Cracticus picatus in 1848 from northern Australia, describing it as" Perhaps say "named" the first time for variation?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "This was reclassified as a subspecies of C. nigrogularis" When and by who?

not sure yet...it happened pretty early on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The latter subspecies has a broader (3.7 cm (1.5 in) wide) white collar and a more whitish rump, with specimens becoming smaller in the more northern parts of the range." Usually it seems physical description between subspecies are mention in the description section?

in two minds. Putting it where it is helps explain what is different about the subspecies (and hence makes it valid) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• When and why was it moved to Cracticus?

It happened quickly as by 1848 Gould had put them in the current genus, but I can't find discussion of where, when or why. Vanga was clearly an initial placement that was wrong but early on genera could be really broad.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Darwin woollybutt" That's a funny name...

yes, it is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and billabongs" Could be linked or explained, I don't think this term is well-known outside Australia.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "call of an Australian pied butcherbird" Why stress it was Australian if this is an Australian endemic?

agree - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On this note, I'm not sure why a section about bird-song has to do with depictions? Cultural significance maybe?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "defend their territory from intruders and mobbing and chasing raptors and other birds" Seems there is a grammar problem here maybe? "And mob and chase raptors and other birds"?

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you only give scientific names for plants in parenthesis, and not animals (apart form nest-parasites)? Would probably look better if it was consistent throughout.

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "picatus" mean?

It's not in my Classical Latin dictionary at home - it means "daubed with pitch", hence "black patches" (in Late Latin I think). The two sources to support it are an 1844 book or a website from (notable) dictionaries....@FunkMonk: which source would you prefer I use...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd prefer a book, but the website is more accessible... So I think either would work. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added book ref now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and were sharing incubating duties." Double "ing" may seem a bit repetitive, how about "sharing incubation duties"? Or "shared incubating duties"?

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "form a black saddle." Only described as a "saddle" in the intro, struck me as odd...

removed as doesn't really add anything Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The colour of juvenile and immature birds, which are accompanied by their parents, is predominantly brown and white." Not sure what the insert sentence means? Is this mixing behaviour with description? Kind of unclear.

removed - relic of old edit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - that's all I had, so looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In general, sources are fine – of appropriate quality and consistently formatted. Despite my best endeavours I could find little to grumble at, apart from a couple of very minor niggles: ref 30, since it links to an online copy of the article, should have a retrieval date. And ref 45 should also have a retrieval date, since the source is a website. Nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

added (dammit I hate when I miss these on the watchlist! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that the images currently have no alt text. While alt text is not an explicit requirement at FA, I always feel that we should demonstrate best practice. But it isn't worth holding up promotion over. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 [10].

---

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the famous "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" campaign of 1840. The election may be quite old, but there are lessons in it that apply to today's politics. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the 10 images and 2 sound clips, and they are all properly licensed. Tonight or soon I'll check the captions and templates. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now checked all the captions and alt text, and everything is in order. Image review passes. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Harrison and Tippecanoe:

• by 1840 the structure had vanished into the mansion that stood on the property - How so?
• Even so, his military record was quickly controversial, and it remained so in 1840. - clarify "quickly controversial".

Candidate in 1836:

• ...ran regional candidates for president who would boost turnout, increasing Whig chances further down the ticket - Strange turn of phrase. I do not know what it is supposed to mean. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I've addressed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

• These sentences are a little awkward: "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won the presidential election, but he died after a month in office. His running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term, quickly breaking with the Whigs." I'd do something more like "Among other firsts, Harrison's victory was the first time the Whig Party won a presidential election. A month after taking office, Harrison died and his running mate John Tyler served the remainder of his term. Tyler quickly broke with the Whigs, causing conflict with former allies in Congress."

Background

• "he bought a large tract of land from his father-in-law" could use a link to John Cleves Symmes.
• "Hsinh a presidential candidate who was popular locally..." some kind of typo here.

Nominating convention

• "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder, and provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority." I'd break this up into two sentences, maybe "That state's delegation was run by its Whig boss, Thurlow Weed, who deemed Clay unelectable as a slaveholder. new York provided much of Scott's vote through the first four ballots, which were deadlocked, with Clay ahead but not close to a majority."

Aftermath

• "He left town, never to see the President again." I think the "he" here is Clay, but it would be best to change it to avoid ambiguity.

Much obliged for the review, those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great, happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a lengthy say in the peer review, and have nothing more to add. The article appears to meet all the required criteria, and for politics buffs it's an absorbing read, too. A sources review will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are high quality and reliable. I have just one small query related to formatting: the bibliography shows the Kindle editions of both the Collins and the Shafer books. For the Shafer book you show standard page references, but I'm not sure what the Collins numbers indicate. If they are page numbers they need pp.; if something else, a brief explanation would be helpful, e.g. "loc." Brianboulton (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, not all Kindle books have page numbers. I've added a note. Thank you for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting read, remarkably current. Some comments so far:

• former allies in Congress -> link Congress?

Rewritten.

• using his father's connections -> a bit of info of his dad would be good, at the very least enough to spell out his name and make that the link rather than the unspecific "his father"

My objection here is that I really don't want to say "Benjamin Harrison" right here as it is also the name of a later American president and I feel it is distracting to the reader. And WHH's dad is described almost first thing in the body of the ar

Ok, I understand.

• until he won the office four years later. -> it's getting ahead of itself here, with the next paragraph having to back up to the campaign, so the question is: is there another way to say he never really stopped campaigning?

I had it as "never stopped campaigning after that", but Brianboulton objected to it at the peer review. I think the end of the paragraph provides the opportunity to back up a bit. After all, it's no secret Harrison won the election, we've just told the reader it and it's mentioned in the infobox. Open to suggestions.

I see things are a bit more complicated. I didn't know.

I hope I didn't come across the wrong way there. I was just trying to explain.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• no part in the selection of Tyler -> perhaps better: no part in the selection of Tyler as running mate?

Done.

• March 1841; his death -> why no full stop?

Because that leaves the sentence about the inauguration too short, and in the case of Harrison the inauguration and the death are close in time and it makes sense to include it in the same sentence.

• perhaps it could be helpful to say the cause of death in the lead?

We don't mention it in the body, actually. For good reason, see here.

• at North Bend, on it was a log cabin; by 1840 -> not sure this is the best use of punctuation. I would start a new sentence with the log cabin

Split.

• Harrison attacked his foes, and in the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813 in present-day Ontario. -> i think a verb is missing

Restructured.

• remained controversial in 1840. -> I found that "in 1840" a bit odd. Until his death, maybe?

But this article is about the 1840 campaign. We already break chronology once to mention Harrison's death in a place where it was very relevant, the selection of Tyler. The cause here is too slight.

• defeated by the Harrison forces -> forces is perhaps an unfortunate word choice, as I guess no actual fighting took place.

I've changed this, but military language has to a certain extent been adopted in political campaigns.

Yes, but because this article also describes real military action I think it is better not to use military metaphores for non-military actions by the same person.

Alright, I can think of a couple of later points when I do, I'll massage those.

• Webster dropped out of the race in June 1839 -> maybe add, to be clear, something like "race, months before the convention, in"

The date of the convention ends the previous sentence. I think we're good here.

• abolitionists -> worthy of link

Done.

• Alexis de Tocqueville, -> some indication of why his words are worth listening to

Briefly recapped.

• a Whig army of possibly 5,000 speakers -> I don't think using military metaphors is helpful in an article that also describes real military action

I've changed this one. See my comment above above military language though.

• The future president spoke -> I assume this is Lincoln, but could refer to Harrison. Maybe better to rephrase.

I've done it, though I'm not certain there was ambiguity there.

• at 1,275,390 for Harrison to 1,128,854 to Van Buren -> I would make that last to a for

Fine.

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I've done that except as commented.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry, one more: disappointment of some, like Henry Clay -> what's the rule to use full name versus only last

Edwininlondon (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's a rule, but I tend to use first names more before a one-syllable name. Just "Clay" seems too abrupt somehow. I've been using Thaddeus Stevens' first name some because I'm hoping that people will remember who he is in an article which has a fair number of names.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok, makes sense.

• bibliography: New York referred to differently in line 1 and 2, 6

I'm afraid I don't have the sources to do a spot check. But I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and support. I've removed the state name from NY, NY for consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 [11].

---

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back at this after I had to withdraw the previous nomination a year ago. Hoping for more constructive criticism this time around. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at this a year ago, so I'm working from a diff since Sept 19. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award nominations and nominations for two British Academy Film Awards" was changed to: "Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations". First, that's wrong: change it to "two Academy Award nominations and two British Academy Film Award (BAFTA) nominations", and use BAFTA after that. Second, if you're talking about where you visited this summer, and you say "I went to London, then Bristol, then Manchester. I visited London twice and Paris twice.", then many listeners will think you visited London three times, because you're talking as if this is an ordered list of your destinations. After you make the change I just suggested, the lead will say: "Her performance as an aspiring socialite in The Help earned her an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty. Chastain made her Broadway debut in a revival of The Heiress in the same year. ... Chastain's accolades include two Academy Award and British Academy Film Award nominations." Most readers, especially if they're reading quickly, will interpret that last sentence as "two additional Academy Award nominations" (unspecified), because you appear to be presenting an ordered list of her accolades. Don't repeat awards in the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "She is known to prepare extensively for her roles": Some WPian copyeditors automatically change this to "She prepares extensively for her roles", but I think it's worth slowing down and trying to figure out what the source means. If they avoided saying that she actually does prepare extensively for her roles (rather than just being known for that) because they're hedging, then treat it as spurious information, and don't include it at all. If the source said "X said that she prepares extensively for her roles", and some WPian shortened that to "known for ...", then un-shorten that ... in WP articles, it's important who said what, unless you're writing some dusty history article and there really is a consensus of historians we can rely on. That's not going to be true for currently active actors. If the person (or persons) attributed by the source isn't (or aren't) worth attributing, for some reason, then again, that's your cue to leave it out entirely. Bottom line: when you see "known for" or the equivalent in any WP article, check what the source said. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "vocal about social issues such as gender and racial equality, and mental health": I don't know what this is trying to say ... is she vocal about social issues in general? Is she only vocal about social issues that are similar to gender equality and the other things? Which issues are like gender equality? Better would be: "vocal about mental health issues and gender and racial equality".
• "this aspect of her childhood": What is it that she doesn't talk about?
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dank. I've made changes to the lead per your suggestions. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Am I the only one to find it strange to have a photograph of Mrs. Chastain, where she looks off-page, in the infobox? I'd pick one where she looks to the left...

This is probably the highest quality picture of her on Commons, but having said that, I wouldn't mind a change if there's an equally good image of her facing left? Do you have any in mind? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "She played the eponymous protagonist in Miss Julie, a film adaptation of August Strindberg's 1888 play of the same name, from director Liv Ullmann." → by director/directed by

• I also find it a bit stultifying to only have a dismissive review from the tabloid Hollywood Reporter of that very fine picture. The movie was lauded in serious publications like Reverse Shot and Sight & Sound

I tried to reflect the mostly mixed response that the film received in general. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Mark Kermode of The Guardian" – rather misleading; Dr. Kermode isn't of The Guardian: he is the chief film critic on Kermode and Mayo's Film Review on BBC Radio 5 Live. I'd rewrite the sentence to something like "Mark Kermode, writing for The Guardian"

Changed that. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise support. Gertanis (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Gertanis. :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I wasn't clear on who she was from her name, but I do remember her character in Mama and have Crimson Peak on DVD (but haven't gotten to it yet)... Then there are several others I definitely intend to see at some point... Happy to take a look.

• "Chastain would regularly put up amateur shows with other children" Put up? I'd say put on. Is this a British-American thing?

Changed.

• Is "adult diploma" a common term?

Added a wiki link.

• What are "neurotic roles"?

Well, she was typecast in roles in "psychotic roles". Changed to "neurotic characters". Is that better?

• "which marked her final guest star role in television" Is that in the source?

Nope, removed.

• "Chastain received her first Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress," I assume you mean to say that this was her first Oscar nomination, and it was for Best Supporting Actress. This is not really what is claimed at the moment

Well, first Oscar nomination, and by virtue, first in the supporting category. Tweaked a bit.

• "documentary based on her play Salome" her play? What do mean by this?

Based on the production of Salome that she worked on in 2006, as mentioned in the previous section. Tweaked.

• "the film ranks as her highest-grossing release" Does the source say this?

Added another source.

• I wonder whether "enhanced interrogation" should appear in scarequotes?

Done.

• "Peter Travers of Rolling Stone reviewed, "Chastain is a marvel." Can you use reviewed like that?

The usage is quite common IMO.

• "production budget of $165 million, the high-profile production" Repetition

Tweaked.

• "She was cast as McConaughey's adult daughter, a role she shared with Mackenzie Foy and Ellen Burstyn; she was drawn to the project for the emotional heft she found in the father-daughter pair" This needs work: both shes are unclear; she didn't play McConaughey's daughter, but McConaughey's character's daughter; and I'm struggling to understand the way in which she shared the role.

Tweaked, and removed the extra info. Not really that important, I guess.

• "to become Chastain's highest-grossing live-action film" Is this in the source?

Added another source.

• "in which the city had the highest crime rate" More needed. Worldwide? In the US? In its own history?

In its own history. Added a wiki link to make it a bit clearer.

• "a small heating-oil company owner" Could small be dropped? It sounds like the owner is small, not the company...

Haha, yes, Removed.

• "the film became her second top-grossing film in two years" As above

Tweaked.

Down to the end of 2014–2015: Success in science fiction films, and I am stopping there for now. The article reads very well, and I look forward to coming back to it tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Josh Milburn. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, continuing:

• "whose abilities were on par with the male lead" That should be "with those of the male lead's character", but I appreciate that's a little wordy, so maybe you can come up with a better alternative

Tweaked to "lead male character".

• "George and Tammy,[125] will appear in Patrick Brice's comedy film Plus One, with Cecily Strong,[126] and will produce and star as the superhero Painkiller Jane in a film of the same name" You have three high-profile films without wikilinks, here; could you add them? Don't be scared of redlinks if the films are notable. (Also, she won't produce the superhero; she'll produce the film.)

Since these three films haven't begun filming yet (and hence don't have their own articles), I guess it'd be better to link them when filming begins.

• "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome their insecurities" Is "alternate" really the right word? "minority", perhaps? And I'd drop their. (I think that paragraph could do with a few more wikilinks, too!)

"Alternate" is the better word IMO. Provided wiki links for sexual and gender identities.

• "Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, InStyle magazine published in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, the magazine credited her for being the rare actress who is "all bout the craft".[43]" I think you need to check that footnote/reference; something's going very wrong. Also, I'm not really keen on the way you use published, and nor am I keen on the personification of the magazine like that.

Tweaked.

• "From 2012 to 2014 she was featured in AskMen's listing of the most desirable women,[150] and in 2015, Glamour magazine ranked her as one of the best-dressed women.[151]" Worldwide?

From the looks of it, they feature women working/living in the US or UK, but neither source states that explicitly.

A very well-put-together article. I'm very glad to have read it. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the kind words, J Milburn. Much appreciated. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; please ping me again in a week if I haven't gotten back to this. Things are pretty busy at the moment. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: as directed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies. Taking another look through:

• "an Academy Award nomination. In 2012, she won a Golden Globe Award and received a second Oscar nomination for playing a CIA agent in the thriller Zero Dark Thirty" I think the links here are a little deceptive. You say her "second" Oscar, but the word "Oscar" is yet to appear (not everyone knows that Oscar=Academy Award!), and the article linked to refers to an award for which she had not previously been nominated.
• "She first developed an interest in acting at the age of seven, after her grandmother took her to a production of Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.[3] Chastain would regularly put on amateur shows with other children, and considered herself to be their artistic director.[8]" A thought: Would this not fit better at the start of the paragraph, to keep chronology?
• "to become Chastain's most widely seen film to that point" Does your source say this?
• "alternate sexual and gender identities overcome insecurities" I note again that I don't really like alternate, but I'll leave that up to you.

Done, but not really sure about the final comment. I am not fond of "minority", so "alternate"/"alternative" seem to be the best option as of now, unless someone can come up with a better word. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a really great article; one of the best BLPs of a "celebrity" that I've read on Wikipedia. So, with the caveat that I've not looked into sourcing/images and will be watching this review for anything I've missed, I'm happy to support the promotion of this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's such a lovely thing to hear, J Milburn. Thank you so much for such a positive review, and I hope this prompts you to check out more of Chastain's work, especially my favourites: The Debt, The Help, Zero Dark Thirty, The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby, Interstellar, and Miss Sloane. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking pretty good. I think there are still too many quotations in it (I make it 40 at present). Can some be summarised? --John (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I've paraphrased/trimmed some of the quotes. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: just a gentle reminder. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, and thank you for the edits. I would trim them a little further. I should have time to look properly again tomorrow. --John (talk) 20:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry this has taken a while. Right. Here's what we have now. I'll do it section by section.

Early life and background

• She considers her stepfather to be "one of the greatest people" she knows, and has said that he was the first person to make her feel secure. I suggest this could just read She has said her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure.
• She has said, "I used to cut school to read Shakespeare, not to make out in the park". She has described how she used to miss school to read Shakespeare.
• "artistic director" Just remove the quotes here I think.
• Speaking about her childhood, Chastain has said:
  I [grew up] with a single mother who worked very hard to put food on our table. We did not have money. There were many nights when we had to go to sleep without eating. It was a very difficult upbringing. Things weren’t easy for me growing up. Leave this one.
• In her first year at the school, Chastain described herself as "a wreck of anxiety"; she constantly worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies. In her first year at the school, Chastain was worried about being dropped from the program and spent most of her time reading and watching movies.

2004–2010: Early roles

• She initially found the process difficult, remarking that "being a redhead and not having very conventionally modern looks, it was confusing for people and they didn't know exactly where to put me". She initially found the process difficult, which she blamed on other people finding her difficult to categorise as a redhead with an unconventional look.
• She said, "I played a lot of girls who had something off. Maybe they'd been the victim of some horrible accident. Or they were crazy." She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.
• Her performance was not well received by the critic Ben Brantley of The New York Times, who thought that she "somehow seems to keep losing color as the evening progresses" Keep.
• Writing for Variety, the critic Steven Oxman criticized her portrayal in the play: "Chastain is so ill-at-ease with Salome, not quite certain whether she's a capable seductress or a whiny, wealthy brat; she doesn't flesh out either choice". Keep.
• Writing for The New Yorker, Hilton Als commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth in Desdemona". Hilton Als in The New Yorker commended Chastain for finding "a beautiful maternal depth" in the role.
• William Thomas of Empire termed the film a "smart, tense, well-acted thriller" and noted that Chastain "pulses with strength and vulnerability" in her part. Keep.

More to come. --John (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Done, except for that small quote mentioning Shakespeare, which I believe should stay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Thanks for that. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually come back to this one, I'm afraid. I don't think we can have the wikilink in the quote as we discussed, and I'm not sure how good a source Marie Claire is for such a quote. Could we reconsider summarising it? --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011: Breakthrough

• She considered her part to be "the embodiment of grace and the spirit world"; in preparation, she practiced meditation, studied paintings of the Madonna, and read poems by Thomas Aquinas. Keep, I suppose.
• Justin Chang of Variety termed the film a "hymn to the glory of creation, an exploratory, often mystifying [...] poem" and credited Chastain for playing her part with "heartrending vulnerability". Keep.
• Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her "zest and love for life"; ... Chastain was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand and connected with her energy and enthusiasm.

2012–2013: Rise to prominence

• The film received generally positive reviews from critics, with Richard Corliss finding Chastain to be filled with "poised, seductive gravity". Keep.
• Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, writing that "curiously for an expert film actress, she is guilty here of oversignaling the thoughts within. And her delivery of dialogue sometimes has a flatness that I associate with cold readings of scripts." Brantley was disappointed with Chastain's performance, saying that she was "oversignaling the thoughts within" and that her delivery was sometimes flat.
• The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film, and she later considered it as "the worst experience" of her life. The difficult subject matter made it unpleasant for Chastain to film.
• She suffered from depression while working and said, "[one day] I excused myself, walked off set and burst into tears". She suffered from depression while working and once walked off the set because she was unable to continue.
• Peter Travers of Rolling Stone thought that Chastain played Maya "like a gathering storm in an indelible, implosive performance that cuts so deep we can feel her nerve endings." Leave. The good quotes like this will stand out more when we trim and summarise the humdrum ones.

2014–2015: Success in science fiction films

• The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the production lacked relevance despite Chastain's "nuanced work". The Hollywood Reporter's David Rooney thought that the film lacked relevance despite the subtlety of Chastain's performance.
• Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix found the film to be "ambitious and amazing" and took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix praised the film and noted how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.
• ...and Mark Kermode, writing for The Guardian, found Chastain to be "terrific" in a part inspired by Lady Macbeth's character. Fine.
• Del Toro cast her in the film to lend accessibility to a part he considered "psychopathic", but critic Peter Debruge of Variety found her "alarmingly miscast" and criticised her for failing to effectively convey her character's insecurity and ruthlessness. Fine.

2016–present -

Personal life and off-screen work

• She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and describing her routine in 2011, she said, "I walk the dogs, I play the ukulele, I cook. I’m not a girl who goes to big parties". She considers herself to be a "shy" person, and said in 2011 that she enjoyed domestic routines like dog-walking and playing ukulele rather than partying.
• Among other issues, she is vocal in her support for equal pay in the workplace: "I think people know, if they’re going to hire me I’m not going to just be grateful. There have been situations where I have lost movies because I’ve said, this is not a fair deal, and I’ve walked away." She strongly supports equal pay in the workplace, and has rejected offers of work that she thought were unfair.
• Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression, saying, "If I can do anything to help someone move through any darkness that they’re in, I’m gonna do whatever I can to help" Having suffered through the suicide of her sister, Chastain aims to create awareness on depression and support sufferers.

Media image and acting style

• Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that "she’s an adult, which isn't always a given in Hollywood. Unconsciously candid with her answers, she retains a sense of perspective uncommon among her peers and has real opinions"; in addition, Porter credited her for being the rare actress who is "all about the craft". Describing Chastain's off-screen persona, Roy Porter of InStyle magazine wrote in 2015 that she was mature, candid, and had perspective and craft in her work.

I think this is a good quote. Paraphrasing makes us lose the essence of it. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Evgenia Peretz, an editor at Vanity Fair, considers Chastain to be "the most sensitive and empathetic actor" she has interviewed. Fine.
• She believes in extensive preparations for a role: "[I] fill myself up with as much history of the character as I can". She believes in extensive preparations for a role and studies the characters intensively. Is this even worth saying about a professional actor though?

I think she's talking about creating her own "history" for the character she plays, as opposed to simply "studying" the character intensively. This should stay IMO, unless there's a better way to paraphrase this. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Guillermo del Toro (who directed her in Crimson Peak) believes that she is "interested in being chameleonic" and that she brings authenticity even to bizarre situations. Fine.
• Sarah Karmali of Harper's Bazaar opines that "she goes for total immersion, sinking so deep into character that her face seems to change shape with each one".
• Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her craft to that of actresses Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett and believes that her "looks are always an afterthought". Lea Goldman of Marie Claire compares her to Meryl Streep and Cate Blanchett, and writes that she values her craft over her looks.
• Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". Keep.

Acting credits and awards -

It should go without saying that some of these summaries could potentially be further improved; think of them as a starting point. But we need to summarise rather than quote where we can. That way the article is more readable and encyclopedic and the quotes we do use stand out more. --John (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I've paraphrased the quotes per your suggestions, with some minor tweaks. Thank you for taking the time out to do this, John. Your suggestions have vastly improved the article. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• Her highest-grossing releases came with the science-fiction films Interstellar (2014) and The Martian (2015), as she continued to draw praise for her performances in the dramas The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (2013), A Most Violent Year (2014), and Miss Sloane (2016). The chronology makes this sentence confusing and arguably self-contradictory.

I don't think so. The "as she continued..." part makes it clear that both "events" took place simultaneously. I don't see why it's confusing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "as" that I struggle with. Could we replace it with "and" or even just a semi-colon? John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "and". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Her sister Juliet committed suicide in 2003 following years of drug abuse. "Committed suicide" sounds wrong here; was it a crime where she did it? "Killed herself" is better but maybe "took a fatal overdose" (if that was the MO, haven't checked)? "Following years of drug abuse" is a bit tabloidy too.

I can say died by suicide though, if that's acceptable. The details of the suicide aren't known, but the "years of drug abuse", while sounding tabloidy, is true, per the provided source and some other interviews that Chastain has given. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be much preferable, thank you. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• With too many absences during her senior year in school, Chastain did not qualify for graduation, but eventually obtained an adult diploma. What does "eventually" mean? A date would be better I think.

Exact year is not known, so we need to go with "later"/"eventually". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I might prefer "later" as being more NPOV; "eventually" sounds like a criticism. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Directed by P. J. Hogan, the pilot did not perform well and the series was never picked up for broadcast. Per User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment, we could credit our readers with intelligence and just say: The pilot was directed by P. J. Hogan, but the series was never picked up for broadcast.

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to more neurotic characters for her. She played unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill. Later that year, she appeared as a guest performer on the medical drama series ER, playing a woman she described as "psychotic", which led to her getting more unusual parts such as accident victims or the mentally ill.

Done.Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• After struggling for a breakthrough in film, Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them. Chastain had six releases in 2011, getting wide recognition for her roles in several of them.

Useful to note the "struggling for a breakthrough" bit, because she did struggle for a breakthrough since 2004. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems self-evident from reading the preceding part of the article and the section title. I'm not sure we need to state it. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better to IMO. Some might say why does the header say breakthrough when there is no mention of it in the text? I've heard such complaints in previous FACs. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Following several delays, the film premiered at the 2011 Cannes Film Festival to a polarized reception from the audience, although it was praised by critics and won the Palme d'Or. "A polarized reception from the audience" sounds euphemistic; if the source talks about cheering and booing, we should say so.

Not euphemistic at all. When a film receives good and bad reviews, we say it received "mixed" reviews; if an audience reacts with cheers and boos, then it represents a "polarised reception". Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. Let me think some more about this. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Chastain was cast as Maya, an emotionally hardened CIA intelligence analyst who helped capture bin Laden. Captured? I'm pretty sure he was killed and, though I haven't seen the film, I'm pretty sure he is killed in the film.

Captured and killed, yes, of course. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just killed, not captured. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero Dark Thirty received critical acclaim but was controversial for scenes of "enhanced interrogation" techniques that were shown providing useful intelligence in the search for bin Laden. I don't like the scare quotes. Our article enhanced interrogation techniques correctly says this was a euphemism for torture, and we should call it what it is. More importantly, the controversy (as I understand it) was that the film's implication that the torture yielded useful intelligence was counter-factual. We should spell this out, without entering WP:COATRACK territory.

The quotes were inserted due to a previous reviewer's comment. Since the article on torture is called "enhanced interrogation techniques" and not "torture techniques", I think we should go with that, even if it is a euphemism. (I remember this led to an edit war during the previous FAC; and this is the version that has remained stable since) Also, the fact that it may or may not have been counter-factual is up for debate; hence the controversy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's called that, but the fact that it's a euphemism is noted in the article and it might be better to use a more neutral term. We should definitely not mention the controversy without explaining why it was controversial; it should be easy to source. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "torture" for now. Let's see if other's agree on this. As for explaining the controversy, it's way too complicated to describe in an actor's biography. The explanation is better suited in the film's article, so I've provided a wiki link to it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still thinking about this. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The film received a limited theatrical release and was not widely seen. The film received a limited theatrical release.

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In a highly positive review, Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part. Drew McWeeny of the entertainment website HitFix took note of how much Chastain stood out in her supporting part.

Why should I remove the highly positive part, when it was indeed a highly positive review for a much-admired film? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng/Principle of Some Astonishment again. We're really saying the same thing twice here and there is no need. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• She collaborated with costume designer Kasia Walicka-Maimone to work on the character's wardrobe, and reached out to Armani for clothing of the period. ...and contacted Armani who provided her with clothing of the period.

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy, and in preparation read graveyard poetry and watched the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? Chastain prepared by reading graveyard poetry and watching the films Rebecca (1940) and What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

"Despite the character's misdeeds, Chastain approached the part with empathy" is important to note. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Are we implying that she previously only played morally upstanding roles? Is there a source for that? It sounds like editorialising to me. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was a clear-cut villainous part on paper (the Hollywood idea of a vixen, if you may), and instead of approaching it as many do such roles, it's important to note that she played the part with empathy. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source has: Though Lucille is ostensibly the film's villain, Chastain approached the character from a place of profound empathy, reading graveyard poetry and watching films like "Rebecca," "Misery" and "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?" to get in the proper mind-set. "I'd never played anyone who was so intensely lonely," she said. "I don't see Lucille as a monster. I have compassion for how she became what she is." I'd like to see a more encyclopedic summary of this before I could support. An encyclopedia summarises the best quality sources. I stand by my version as opposed to what we have. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: i've tweaked it; don't know what else to do. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ...headed by a team consisting exclusively of female executives. headed by a team of female executives.

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• She also researched on the world... She also researched the world...

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• She was a pescatarian for much of her life, but following health troubles she began practicing veganism. She was a pescatarian for much of her life; following health troubles she began practicing veganism. This is not a "but" situation.

Done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Vogue has described Chastain as being "excessively luscious [with] pale Botticelli features wrapped around a bone structure that has a touch of the masculine, right down to the cleft in her chin". We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation. We could summarise this one and leave the link.

"We aren't supposed to wikilink inside a quotation". Could you please provide a link for this guideline? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LINKSTYLE, fourth bullet point. And MoS compliance is a FA requirement.

Thanks for the link. Of course it is, I just wasn't aware of the wiki link in quotes rule. I'll keep it in mind now. :) Tweaked it according to the guideline. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012. That same year, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and was hired as the celebrity endorser for an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. In 2012, Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world, she was invited to join the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and she endorsed an Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto. --John (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too long. Tweaked a bit, though. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: thoughts? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted, Krimuk2.0. John (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the edits. Just a few more to go and we'll be there. --John (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

• What makes the New York Daily News gossip column a good source to use on this biography of a living person? --John (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: changed. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response. Does the Vogue source also support: "She has said that her stepfather was the first person to make her feel secure"? --John (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The NYDN took the quote from there. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The source doesn't seem to back up The play tells the tragic story of its titular character's sexual exploration. In the play, Salome is a 16-year-old, but Chastain, who was close to 30 then, was cast for the part. --John (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John: which part?; the source says: The original Salome was supposed to be about 16-years-old but Chastain, who was 32 at the time, does not think that her being twice Salome's age mattered in the casting. She said: "The play still shows the themes - it's a woman discovering her sexuality and trying to test its boundaries. It was a very dark, different play for Wilde to write compared to his other comedies." Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. I think "32" would be better than "close to 30" in this case. --John (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since she was born in 1977, she would have been 29 in 2006, and not 32 as the source states (which is weird, because they got her age at that time right; she was 37 in 2014). So I guess, close to 30 seems fair. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no decent source capable of doing the simple calculation correctly, I think it would be OK to do the maths ourselves and give her age correctly as 29. It doesn't say much for this source though that they are unable to get something as simple as this right. --John (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, that. It is the BBC though, and the article does have some very good material. Anyway, I've changed it to 29. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I've another nit to pick up above, though. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I took out a "would" and moved the discussion of her birthplace to the footnote. Hope that's ok. --John (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's perfect. Thanks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really did like the Shakespeare quote, but it's okay, I've taken it out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for all the work and your collegiate spirit of compromise. I still wish we could take a couple more quotes out, but I reckon it's easily at FA level at this point. I therefore support. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, John. This has been a lovely experience. I'm much obliged for your help and patience in shaping the article to be the best that it can be. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we are nearly there now. Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need an image review. Also, while John has looked at the reliability of sources, I think we still need a check of source formatting. These can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Requested. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

• File:Jessica Chastain at the Salome BFI London Premiere (cropped).jpg: Use and license seem fine for me, I'll overlook the lack of EXIF here.
• File:Juilliard School - Alice Tully Hall.jpg: ALT text is rather vague. Source and license seem fine.
• File:Jessica Chastain - MVff2010.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Jessica Chastain (Berlin Film Festival 2011).jpg: License and use seems fine for me.
• File:Jessica Chastain Cannes 2, 2012.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Martian PC 25 (20730860464).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Cannes 122 (28038348041).jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Cannes 2017 39.jpg: License and use seem fine for me.
• File:Jessica Chastain by Gage Skidmore.jpg: License and use seem fine.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've improved the alt text for the second image. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For formatting as requested

• Ref 4's publisher is linked to a television series.

Yep, Biography.com redirects to Biography, the tv series, which is its official website.

• It's IndieWire not Indiewire.
• Ref 15 - The NY Times needs to have a wiki-link.
• Normally I see the publisher for a Roger Ebert review linked to Chicago Sun-Times.
• .com is not part of Vulture's title.
• Slate needs to be wiki-linked.
• So does Screen Daily (FN 111).
• And also The Washington Post (114).
• Ref 119 and 153 - Reuters should be linked on first instance.
• Variety needs to be de-linked (127).
• Ref 130 ^^

Ah, so this one is The Daily Telegraph (Australia) as opposed to the The Daily Telegraph of the previous sources

• Ref 129 and 150 - I think you know what to do here.
• E! needs to be linked (134).
• Ref 153b - Zap2it is now called Screener [link]. Also remove |deadlink=no since the link is now dead.
• Ref 157 - link Women's Wear Daily. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for taking the time out to do this, FrB.TG. Really appreciate it. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref formatting now fine. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: source formatting and image reviews are now done. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I notice that there are quite a few duplinks in the article. Possibly, they are all justified, but it is worth someone checking after this has been promoted. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2017 [12].

---

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, another war memorial! This one's in Rochdale, a large town in the north west of England that most non-Brits have probably never heard of, but it has an impressive war memorial. The article has had an A-class review at MilHist and I've tinkered with it slightly since then so I believe it meets the criteria. Nonetheless, I'd be very grateful for any feedback. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review. All images appropriately licensed. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Source review and spot check. Information in the article appears to match that in publicly available sources. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Meets all the criteria. DrKay (talk) 12:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support (my review "disclaimer" here). A very interesting article. Two very minor comments from me, neither of which affect the support, but are worth considering:

Commissioning

• "Thiepval Memorial to the Missing (the largest British war memorial in the world..." Isn't Thiepval a Commonwealth memorial, rather than solely British?

• Yes, good point.

• The last two "Lutyens" in the section could be swapped for "He" and "him" respectively, if you wished.

• They could, but for flow and clarity I think it's better as it is.

Aside from these very minor bits, an excellent article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you liked it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support But a few comments to prove that I've read it.

• Public subscription raised £29,443 10s, covering the £12,611 cost of the memorial. Any idea what happened to the rest of the money?
  • My guess would be hospital beds or a war widows' fund but weirdly the sources don't say.
• many other memorials in Britain and the Commonwealth. Suggest linking to Commonwealth of Nations. (I always trip over that term, because in Australia we use "Commonwealth" to refer to the Federal government.
  • Done.
• The recumbent figure is described as a "soldier" in the lead, but a "human figure" in the article. Is he dressed in a uniform?
  • He's covered by a coat up to his neck, but he's definitely a soldier.
• Since we are noting Samuel I 25:16, I would point out Ecclesiastes 44:14: "Their bodies are buried in peace; but their name liveth for evermore."

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That second quotation is from Ecclesiasticus in the Apocrypha (e.g. KJV), not Ecclesiastes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.186 (talk • contribs)

It actually has a slightly more complicated provenance in this case. Rudyard Kipling recommended it to the IWGC and Lutyens adapted it for several of his British memorials and it became almost ubiquitous with war memorials (there's probably enough to support an article there; I might even write it one day if nobody beats me to it), but that's probably too much detail for this article. Whereas the other verse was chosen specifically for this memorial from suggestions by local people so it seems more worthwhile to include it. Thanks very much for the review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nothing significant I can see to fix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with minor comments:
• "Consensus was that the town..." - is there a word missing here? ("The consensus was..."?)
  • I don't think so, but perhaps I've got too used to the way the word is used internally on WP
• "He designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall..." - he hasn't done that yet in February 1919; "He would design..."?
  • Done (with "went on to" rather than would).
• "The plan was abandoned when Alderman William Cunliffe, a former mayor, bought the Manor House or the Orchard, a dilapidated 18th-century house and donated the site for the war memorial." - felt like it needed a comma after house, as the sentence becomes a bit hard to follow otherwise.
  • This has been bugging me for while, so I rewrote the sentence.
• "the building was used as a recruiting station during the war." - "had been"? (imperfect tense feels odd here)
  • I'm not so sure about this, but done.
• "light grey Cornish granite " - any chance of a link? (at least to granite)
  • We don't have an article on Cornish granite (I always link Portland stone, which Lutyens used a lot) but I can link granite.
• "another Lutyens design" - should that be "Lutyens'"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. We wouldn't need an apostrophe for "another Mitchell design", for example. Thanks very much for the support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

• 1. You've got: "He went on to design the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations and went on to design the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing on the Somme in France and many other memorials in Britain and the Commonwealth." Notice anything wrong?
  • That's me rewriting the first half of the sentence without paying enough attention to the first. Fixed.
• 2. You've got: "The flags flank a second, smaller tier with a semi-column at either end and culminates in a smaller plinth supporting a catafalque on which is a sculpture of a recumbent soldier draped with his coat" So, the flags .... culminates. Subject-verb agreement.
• 3. Do the flags really "culminate" in a smaller plinth (supporting a catafalque on which ...)? From the photo it looks as though the pylon "culminates" thus. The flags appear not to reach the same level as the catafalque. Surely this upper plinth is a design feature of the pylon rather than the flags.
• 4. RE: "on which is a sculpture of a recumbent soldier". Better might be: atop which, laid upon which, supporting a sculpture of, etc.
  • I've rewritten the entire sentence to fix all three of these (it's the tiers that culminate, not the flags).
• 5. RE: "Painted stone flags appear in several of Lutyens' designs. They were rejected for Whitehall's Cenotaph in favour of fabric flags, but appear on several other memorials". Notice anything?
  • And I've rewritten this as well. Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm not seeing any real issues here, and enjoyed reading. A few small comments

• Some of technicalities of listed buildings seems unnessesary, eg Grade II is applied to structures of "special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them", about 92 per cent of listed buildings.

• Actually, I included these as a result of suggestions in reviews for previous articles, and I think it's worth noting that grade I listed building status isn't trivial (of England's thousands of war memorials, only a couple of dozen have that status).

• Public subscription raised £29,443 10s will be incomprehensible to non-British Isles under 40s; link old money pounds and shillings signs

• Done.

• Can you check that Tomb effigy = recumbent effigy

• Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean but the sources all use "recumbent".

• Does the the leading English architect of his generation need to be quotes.

• I suppose the punctuation isn't absolutely essential, but that is a direct quote.

• Grand, but quotes should be avoided as much as possible; the claim is strong enough and could be couched as "widely regarded as", or something. Not something I'd loose sleep over however. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• country houses for wealthy patrons, as English country house is linked, is "wealthy patrons" necessary.

• I quite like it because it gives context but if you feel strongly it can go.

• Naa...your the boss for these preferences, and I did say these were minor quibbles only. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More please. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• One last thing: By raising the figure above the ground on the pylon, Lutyens gives him anonymity - how so? As worded, I would have thought the opposite. Above the ground rather than in the grave? Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry, I don't think this last point was acknowledged or actioned, but OTOH I don't think we need hold up promotion while you consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very nice article on one of the most impressive of the memorials. Just a few thoughts/comments:

• Listing date in Infobox - I've puzzled over this one before. Does one put in the date of first listing, as here, or the date when the listing was most recently modified, in this case to Grade I on 28 October 2015? I really don't know.

• I've always gone with the date of first listing. There's normally no reliable way to tell the date of the upgrading, only the date of the last (non-minor) amendment.

• "He designs the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London" - I know you've been round this, but the present tense reads oddly. "He later designed"? You could replace the second "later" in the sentence with "subsequently".

• If I have to rewrite that sentence one more time I might cry. I don't think the average reader would be as worried about it as we've been. Ceoil changed it from "went on to design" to "designs" and I've just changed it back (sorry Ceoil!). I'm generally wary of "subsequently" because it's widely misused, but this seems like a legitimate use for it.

• "the river flowed openly through the town centre but has since been culverted." - And subsequently unculverted [13]. Might be worth a brief mention? Although a little way from the war memorial, it has dramatically improved the town hall setting.

• I didn't know about that, but I only mentioned the culverting because Lutyens' first proposal was a bridge over the river.

• "The memorial was constructed by Hobson Limited of Nottingham" - a cite for Hobsons [14]?

• It's already cited, and mentioned in multiple sources already being used. Much as I love the IWM's project, their entries don't go into any detail that isn't included in the books or the NHLE entry.

• "The design for the column is based.." - I got a bit confused, thinking that the "column" was a separate feature. "The design for the pylon or cenotaph"? You use both earlier.

• Pylon works. Done.

• "allowing onlookers to impart their own emotions onto the memorial" - is this a direct quote from King? I think I know what's meant - the anonymity of the figure allows onlookers to see him as their father/brother etc. Could it be more clearly expressed?

• It's not a direct quote. What King is suggesting and what Lutyens was aiming for (which I couldn't source until I was looking for something else in King) is that the relative plainness of the memorial and the anonymity of the figure serve as a blank canvas, both for those who lost someone in the war and for everyone who wants to reflect on the war (100 years on, there aren't many people left who lost a close relative in the First World War). If you have a suggestion for improvement, I'm happy to look at it.

• "Derby was....." - Rather a lot of things; DG, SoS War and Ambassador. Do we need a cite or two for this? You could take them from Lord Derby: King of Lancashire, Randolph Churchill, Heinemann, 1959, oclc=477556332, [15], if you agree. Page 187 gives you DG; page 241 gives you SoS War and page 349 gives you the Paris Embassy.

• The details we need for this article are all in Skelton (and some of the other existing sources) so I don't think another one is really needed.

• "Boorman, Derek (1988)" - This Derek Boorman? Similarly, is it this Alan Borg? Less sure, here.

• Wrong Boorman but right Borg. Added.

• Cite 14 - shouldn't this be Hartwell, Hyde and Pevsner, rather than just Pevsner? And in my 2004 edition , page 56 forms part of the Introduction. The entry for the War Memorial is on page 597. Typo?

• It's only there to identify the relevant book in the bibliography, and for the one surname (Pevsner being the best known) is sufficient. Fixed the page number though.

• "The surrounding memorial gardens" - while we're on Pevsner, is it worth mentioning that the gardens, or part of them, form Rochdale's Second World War memorial? (Hartwell|Hyde|Pevsner|p=597)

• Done.

Hope these are helpful. Nothing to stand in the way of Support. KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you would say what you said re. the listing date. I've always gone for the first and the prospect of going and changing them was very unappealing! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2017 [16].

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Davison was an interesting woman. Highly intelligent (Oxford educated in the time before women were awarded degrees), she joined the militant suffragette movement in 1906 and became one of the more active and high profile of its members. Always with an eye for high-profile activities to promote the cause, three of her arrests followed her hiding in Parliament over night.she is, of course, best known nowadays for her death following being struck by a horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Elizabeth Crawford, a historian who has written extensively on Davison, has been kind enough to read the article and to provide comments, directions and corrections where necessary; Dr June Purvis, another notable contributor to the literature about Davison, has also agred to read through the article, and I am awaiting any comments she comes up with. - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A quick update: June Purvis has got back to me with warm comments on the article. There is one addition to make regarding the suicide, which I will do shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add and fill infobox. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that would be advantageous. There is no requirement to have one, and this article has been without one for some time, without any loss of understanding of the subject. Are there any thoughts you have on the body of the article? Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the peer review --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts there; they were much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per my comments at the peer review, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your earlier assistance. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for taking on such an important topic.

• I find the ordering of the lead a bit odd; jumping from talking about her funeral to her early life is a bit odd. I understand your desire to have her death in the first paragraph; I think I'd be inclined to do it a little more like this, but it's up to you.
• Similar comment: I personally like infoboxes, but understand the concerns about them, and have no great objection to this article not including one.
• "Emily was the third child born to the couple; she had an elder brother, and a younger sister who died of diphtheria in 1880 at the age of six." An elder brother, a younger sister, and another elder sibling? Slightly confusing?
• "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced."" I can't help but feel that there are a couple of words missing, here. How about "After her release she wrote to the Votes for Women newspaper, saying that "Through my humble work in this noblest of all causes I have come into a fullness of job and an interest in living which I never before experienced.""
• "her suffragette colleague, Constance Lytton threw hers first," This doesn't read as well as it could. How about "a suffragette colleague—Constance Lytton—threw hers first,". Relatedly, it might be nice to note whether Lytton was jailed for her actions.
• Perhaps you could introduce Votes for Women as the WSPU's newspaper on its first mention?
• "for The Suffragette—the official newspaper of the WSPU—" So what was the relation between The Suffragette and Votes for Women?
• "35 miles (56 km) an hour" Would per hour not be more accurate?
• "as at 2017" of?
  • I think "as at" is the correct British version of the American "as of"; perhaps I could ask Tim riley to comment on this point to clarify? -SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the moment, yes, but the American usage will displace the English one before long, I fear (cf "on So-and-So Street" rapidly supplanting the long-established "in So-and-So Street"). Tim riley talk 21:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Collette also sees a more current trend in historians, "to accept what" Is that comma necessary?
• Could something about her Christianity be added to the lead? It was a surprise to see it first mentioned so far down the article. (Same for socialism, actually.)
• I wonder if it might be worth mentioning some key biographies/other texts foscussed on Davison in the legacy section? And who was the playwright for Emily?

• The playwright's name added; let me think on the first point. I've added it for some articles I've written, and not for others, and I'm always in two minds about them. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I quite understand the choice to place the paragraph on socialism in the "Legacy" section rather than the "Approach and analysis" section.

My first impression is that this is an excellent article, and one that will prove a highly valuable resource for readers. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Josh. Unless mentioned above, your comments have all been acted upon in these edits. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Highly commendable. I'm watching the page and may chip in with further thoughts, but I am happy to offer my support in the mean time. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Josh - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I often pass the house where she recovered from her hunger strikes. It feels wrong for me not to review this...

• I don't see a link to Women's suffrage in the United Kingdom. Would the link Women's suffrage in the first sentence be a good one to replace with the more specific UK article?
• After a church service in Bloomsbury, her coffin was taken by train to the family plot in Morpeth, Northumberland. -> I'm not convinced this is important enough to be included in the lead
• The lead doesn't say anything about her controversial position in the WSPU
• Maybe one to think about: add to the lead when the UK women were allowed to vote
  • Let me think about this one. The final decision to grant suffrage was less to do with ED and more to so with Emmeline Pankhurst's strategy during the war, and the war itself. SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• she went to a day school then -> I would add a comma: she went to a day school, then
• When she was 13 she attended Kensington High School and won a bursary -> was she 13 when she won a bursary?
• Activism: is there no source that says anything relevant in the lead up to joining the movement? Or why the WSPU and not the non-militant
  • No, there is no information on why she joined, or why she joined the WSPU, rather than the NUWSS. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Activism: Just one sentence on the start of the suffrage movement in the UK would be good for context. When did the NUWSS start?
  • I'm not sure we need to go back as far as that. We've got the start date of the WSPU, which is the key one, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• which prompted Sylvia Pankhurst -> bit of context here would be good, that she is a founding member of WSPU
  • She wasn't the founder - Emmeline was, but I've added some context for SP. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• publicising her message to the wider public -> is there anything on how that public responded to this?
  • Not to Davison. There is to themiltant campaign in general. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested -> was she part of the 300 women with the petition?
  • It appears not. - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Jones suffered a -> I wonder if it flows better if details of what happened to Emily come first. Move the bit about Jones to maybe after the queen's comment?
• the Derby or walking -> and instead of or?
• A flag was gathered ...measures 82 by 12 inches (210 x 30 cm) -> I don't think this is in the right spot. It breaks the flow of what happened. Not sure if it even warrants proper mention. Maybe better off as footnote?
  • With apologies for butting in on someone else's review, maybe the information about the flag could be moved to the legacy section? The fact that it hangs in the Houses of Parliament, whatever its provenance, is important. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries about butting in. Yes, I agree that is important. Not sure about all the auction stuff though.Edwininlondon (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's best left where it is. The 'flag on horse' theory is widely known, and we deal with it all in one paragraph here; ditto the choice of the king's horse, which we do in the next paragraph. - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great article. Interesting to read you have enlisted experts to help. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Edwininlondon. Unless I've commented otherwise, I've dealt with your points in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Edwininlondon. No rush, just making sure this didn't fall off your radar. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. It gives the reader a balanced, comprehensive study of the subject. The sourcing is impressive and the text is highly readable. I look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course. Tim riley talk 21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim - your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "studied at Royal Holloway College, London, St Hugh's College, Oxford, and the University of London": which college at the University of London? By the time she graduated, Royal Holloway would have become part of the university. Was it there?
  • Yes, it was. It is probably slightly misleading to have it and Holloway there, so I've removed it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "£20 in 1892 equates to approximately £1,961 in 2017 pounds": approximately, to four significant figures? I am always dubious that to the nearest pound inflation calculations are actually as meaningful as the level of precision implies at >100 year remove.
  • Agree - I've rounded it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Was there any particular reason that Davison was targetting Walter Runciman in 1909? It is striking that she tried to throw stones at him twice in two weeks...
  • Clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Davison spent a night in the Palace of Westminster in June 1911.[22]" it is not clear to me what the relevance of this footnote is...
  • Tweaked slightly. We make a big deal of the other two stays in Parliament, and state that she stayed there three times, so we have to refer to it, even though the sources don't really give many details. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently the article implies that the only difference in eligibility to vote after the Representation of the People Act (1918) was the age difference (21 for men vs. 30 for women). Might be worth making it clear that the property qualification for male voting was abolished in 1918.
  • Yep, added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all really nitpicky little details, though, and I'm happy to support promotion as the article is now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Caeciliusinhorto. Very useful comments, and I've acted on them all, hopefully to your satisfaction. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to this review close to a month later, I just wanted to explicitly note for the closing co-ord that I agree with SchroCat's decision not to change the lead as Vanamonde suggests. I don't find the way it is currently presented jarring at all, and not mentioning the manner of Davison's death in the first paragraph of the lead – the thing she is best known for today to the general public – would, in my opinion, be jarring and confusing to readers. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Recused as coordinator for this one (I was just looking through, and this caught my eye!). An excellent, comprehensive article which I think gives the context particularly well. Just a few very minor points which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Suicide attempt: We give her description of what happened, but this makes it a little vague. "as soon as I got out I climbed on to the railing and threw myself out to the wire-netting" does not make it clear where she was or what the wire netting was. I'm assuming inside the prison, but I think we can make it clearer as not everyone will know what a British prison would have looked like before WW1.
  • Yep, good point. I've added a short explanation before the quote, which should cover it. Let me know if you think it needs more. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Davison towards the end of her life, showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding": This is a caption for the photograph which says it shows her near the end of her life. But I think we need a source to give the interpretation that she is showing the effects of hunger strikes and force feeding.
  • Yep, added - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• We give an overview of modern opinion of her, mentioning the plaques, etc, but I wonder is there anything more to be said about how views of her have changed. Obviously, she was a pariah when she died for daring to interrupt a horse race but she is now officially "approved". How and when did this opinion of her change? And has anything been said recently about her place in the grand scheme of things? We talk about how the tide turned for the suffragettes but we avoid saying how much of how little Davison and her death played a part in this. (I know some of these are unanswerable and that the reply might simply be "no idea", but I just felt the questions should be asked!)
  • I'm afraid I'm going with the 'no idea' answer! It's not a point the modern sources pick up on: it's just taken that it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• In the Activism section, we have four consecutive paragraphs that begin with a date. Perhaps a little variety could be added here?
  • Done - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The images do not have alt text. I am aware it is not a requirement, but I always feel that FAs should demonstrate best practice.
  • Argh - my constant blind spot (no pun intended). I'll sort those now. -SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record, this is one of the first articles I've seen for a while where there are no duplinks! Which can only be a good thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Sarastro1 - you're thoughts are much appreciated. All done 9except fo thealt text, which I'll do now) - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: I checked to see what academic literature was available on Davison, just to see what was out there, only to discover that everything I found was in here already! All sources high quality, no question, so we are clear on 1b) and 1c). I have not performed any spot checks. Just two minor formatting points. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 19 (Pankhurst 2013, 6363) does not make it clear what the number refers to. Is it a page or a kindle location?
• In the source list, the Gullickson article does not give page numbers while all other journal articles do. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the SR too: both these now addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I very much welcome this article on a notable pioneer in the women's suffrage movement, and hope to see it as TFA on a suitable date. My concerns were raised and answered during the peer review, and the article has benefitted since then from other comments made in this review. So I have no hesitation in adding my support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Brian - I found your earlier comments extremly useful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive work here, just a few minor comments. Feel free to revert any tweaks I make. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the phrase "where she was more settled" a bit vague. If no detail is available, you might omit it altogether.
  • I think it's probably OK - she was more settled there than her previous place, which is fine. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• About the descriptor "militant", particularly in the first paragraph of "activism"; I agree that the word is necessary, but I'm not certain it needs to be used three times in the paragraph. It would also be helpful, given the current tendency to throw the term around, to explain in a sentence what actions made those women militant, rather than just saying that they were.
• Is obstruction, in the legal sense, something that could be linked?
  • Not really. The closest things we have is this (which is what obstructing a police officer directs to), which is utterly unhelpful and quite misleading. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "Actions of throwing stones": action?
• "before the police managed to stop her." unclear who the "her" is.
• "She used her court appearances" Again, "she" is ambiguous, as Lytton was the last one mentioned.
• "publicising her message to the wider public." Slightly redundant?
• I wonder if the sentence beginning "A question was asked" might flow better as "Davison's treatment prompted such and such to ask a question.."
• "have brought the vote to a million women" I think slightly more detail may be helpful here; as I read it I wonder "what about the other women?"
  • I think we would be in danger of swamping too much superfluous detail into what is supposed to be a biography of Davison: the link to the Conciliation Bill is there if people want to find out more. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the link it does not seem that way: all you need to say is "property owning women" or something like that.
    • OK, I've added, but it's slightly misleading in such a bald way, as there are other criteria involved too. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• "the WSPU put in a temporary truce on activity" better as "the WPSU temporary halted its activity"?
  • Let me mull on this one. "Truce" is what the WSPU called it, and what the reliable sources tend to call it too. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. It's a very odd phrase, but not, as far as I can tell, incorrect.
• "Davison was not one of the 122 people arrested, but was incensed by the treatment of the delegation and broke several windows in the Crown Office in parliament. She was arrested and sentenced to a month in prison..." So she was arrested: was it later? I'm guessing some chronological information is missing here.
• "12 in The Manchester Guardian between 1909 and 1911." But this is before the campaign you mention...
• "the home straight" could this be linked? Most readers are unlikely to be acquainted with horse racing.
• Collete needs to be named in full at the first usage.
  • We sort of do - it's in a footnote that would have been dropped down on from one of the earlier sections, but I've repeated the information in the main body. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no knowledge of the source material; does any of it discuss her impact on the movement as a whole, an aspect not really mentioned in the article?
  • Nothing prior to her death; after her death we get the 'suffragette martyr' angle (which we cover), but the First World War and WSPU truce bring an end to any longer impact she may have had. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I was under the (possibly uninformed) impression that her profile rose because of the manner of her death; is this true? Is it worth mentioning?
  • Profile with who? She was well-known within suffragette circles, and her profile rose hugely to the general public on the point of her death because the news of her death was in the worldwide press, but we sort of cover this anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I had some concerns about lack of coverage in some other places, but I see you have addressed those above.
• I'm a trifle dissatisfied with the lead. I think it ought to mention her writings, for one thing; for another, it seems to jump back and forth a bit. A format I've seen used with success elsewhere is to have a brief first paragraph merely to establish who the subject was and what their claim to notability is, followed by one or two paragraphs for biographical details, and a final paragraph for legacy/influence/assessment. Your final paragraph seems fine, but for the rest we're going "Intro-activism-early life-activism" which is a bit odd. Of course, this is all optional, as there aren't guidelines for the lead beyond the basics.
  • We go 1: details and notability; 2 & 3: reflecting the same run as the article - Biography, Approach and analysis and Legacy. It's a format I've used several times before with biographies, and the lead repeating the same order as the article seems a sensible one

Many thanks for your comments. If I have not commented on a specific point above it's because I have dealt with it in one of these edits. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck most of my comments. Let me think a little further on the lead: I still think stone-throwing coming before college and joining the WPSU is strange. There's a couple of other points. Vanamonde (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's to do with her notability. The first paragraph sums up everything someone who wants to learn about her in 30 seconds: her militant tactics are a key attribute to her notability; her attendance at university is not. As you say, there are no hard and fast rules on the the order of the lead, and the approach I've used is a recognised one. - SchroCat (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I have thought further about the lead, and I am still rather unhappy about it. I accept your point that the fact that Davison was a militant activist is important to her notability, and I am okay with the second sentence being given over to that. But, in that scheme of things I would strongly suggest crafting a new second sentence referring to her militant activism, and breaking the rest of the paragraph off to be inserted with her activities with the WPSU. I appreciate that you have somewhat more experience with FAs than I do, but even as somebody who has read a lot of political biography, I find the lead hard to follow. Not only is her activism broken up; information about her death is in three different places; information about her ideology is in two different places. This is roughly how I would organize it. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I will have a closer look later, but my first impression is deeply unfavourable. Davison is notable because of the manner of her death - something the sources all agree upon. If we remove that from the opening paragraph then we do the readers a great disservice. I find the opening parargraph of your auggested version rather anaemic in not actually telling us why she was important. I'll have a closer look at the remainder of the suggestion a bit later, but RL intervenes this afternoon. – SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Take your time. FWIW, I'm happy for you to mess with that second sentence: it's more the rest of the shuffling that I wanted. Additionally, I do think that if her death is what she is primarily known for, and that is why you feature it prominently in the lead, then you should say so; "she came to national attention for the manner of her death after stepping out in front..." or something to that effect. Vanamonde (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't say that because it's not true. She is notable to history because of the manner of her death. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Then say that. The typical "why are they notable" sentence is self-evident; this one is not. Vanamonde (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No. There is no need to spoon feed readers as if they are children. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not going to support this, because I am unhappy with the lead. It is scattered and incoherent; it's structure is such that details of Davison's militant activities come early in the lead to no purpose. Intentionally or otherwise, in my view this perpetuates a problem in coverage of civil rights movements; that of emphasizing a critique of method at the expense of purpose. I am not going to oppose this either, because most of my points have been addressed, and I'm not interested in haggling over details when the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback. The coordinators can make of my review what they will. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...the nominator has shown a marked disinclination toward taking serious feedback". I do not accept that at all. I have accepted the majority of points in your review, and disagree only over your personal view of the lead - something about which there are no hard and fast guidelines, making it your opinion against mine only. I have said I will look over the remainder of your suggestions to the lead, and I will do so later, but I will not treat our readers as half wits or children. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was grumpier than I needed to be, and I apologize: It's been a long day. Let me amend my statement, which I have stricken above. I feel that you have an all-or nothing approach to comments; if you agree, you implement it, if you disagree, you do not. I don't think you have shown a willingness to meet me halfway on the issues on which we disagree. The rest of my comment above still applies. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is an opinion I do not share, and which is not borne out by the number of your comments I have accepted, despite reservations. As it stands there are only two of your comments I have not followed through on, and I have given reasons. FAC nominators do not have to follow every suggestion if they think it does not improve the article.

Thank you for your review; it has been most useful, and I am sorry that a difference of opinion has led to the situation we find ourselves in. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I promised almost six months ago that I would never come near TFA/FAC again but feel sufficiently strongly about this FAC to make this one off exception. I have watched this interesting article develop from the early stages of the expansion, making some very minor edits before the peer review etc. The polishing and tweaking it's been given since then and during this FAC leave me in no doubt it meets the FA criteria. I disagree with Vanamonde's suggestion above concerning shuffling the lead around as I feel it presently conveys the essence and flavour of Davison, something that gets lost in the alternate wording. My only extremely minor quibble with the lead would be the second and third paragraphs both starting with the word 'Davison' but that is just one of my own pet peeves/foibles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC) I'll completely back away from TFA/FAC again now.[reply]

• Many thanks Sagaciousphil - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read this over the weekend, and found it to be a most enthralling article. I think there were one or two things I would have written differently, but I'm blowed if I can find them, so it's a support from me. I disagree with the comments about the lead, immediately after reading it I thought "this is an interesting and historical person; I want to read more" - exactly what a lead should do. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Ritchie333 - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, I'm currently reading this through for the second time. It's a great article and a very smooth read. Minor question: "attempted commit suicide". Is that quoted correctly, or is it missing a "to"? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. This is an excellent read: well structured and comprehensive. Thank you for the work you put into it. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Sarah. Mea culpa on the quote - the "to" has now been added. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2017 [17].

---

Nominator(s): —swpb^T 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FA nomination, and what I think is a rather interesting topic. The article has had a peer review by User:Dunkleosteus77 (here), and a thorough mentor review by User:Brianboulton (here). I will do my best to respond to review comments as quickly as possible. Thank you to all reviewers. —swpb^T 15:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor's comment: I was not involved in the general preparation of the article, which was already a GA when I offered to act. My role has been to help it bridge that important gap between GA and FA. The article is original and interesting, and I'm satisfied that it holds up well when tested against the FA criteria. I look forward to reading reviewers' comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Be consistent in whether you write "The University of Chicago Press" or "University of Chicago Press"
• Same goes for shortened page ranges (we have both '182–184' and '167–91')
• Ditto inclusion of publisher locations

That's the only inconsistencies I spotted. Well done! Gertanis (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've gotten those fixed up. Thanks! —swpb^T 20:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Wheeled_animal_-_East_Mexico_cultures_-_Ethnological_Museum,_Berlin_-_DSC00852.JPG: the description states that the artwork is PD because artist died over 70 years ago - to my knowledge Mexico has never used that rule. Should include an explicit tag.
• File:Fitness-landscape-cartoon.png: what is the source of the data used in this image?
• File:Buer.gif needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the tagging on the Mexican toy and Buer images. The fitness landscape image is notional – the curve is an arbitrary example with peaks and valleys to illustrate the concept of optimization via an evolutionary process; there is no data corresponding to the depicted function. —swpb^T 13:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is professionally written, clear, and very interesting. I'm what you might call a lay reader with no special knowledge of biology, thus I can't say much about the more technical aspects of the article. I have a very small number of suggestions.

Rolling

• ¶2 "Several species of elongate organisms will form their bodies into a loop in order to roll..." – Delete "will" since present tense works just fine here.

Changed as suggested. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ¶3 "Tumbleweeds are the above-ground portions of certain plants, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds." – Here I would move the modifying phrase to put it snug against the thing modified: "Tumbleweeds, which separate from their root structure and roll in the wind to distribute their seeds, are the above-ground portions of certain plants."

I've modified this sentence differently than suggested, because, WADR, I think the suggested change would be detrimental. The fact of rolling is the thrust of the sentence, and it carries the most impact at the end of the sentence. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like your modification. Finetooth (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling resistance

• I think the illustration of rolling resistance could be made more clear. In the absence of labels, I assume "W" is weight, and "r" is radius. "N" is the reaction force, but perhaps F should be named or explained. The hash marks indicate a counterclockwise rotation for the wheel; the F arrow points left, and the hash marks indicate resistance to movement to the left. Would it be helpful to make the abbreviations and direction of rotation and linear movement more explicit in the caption?

I've added explicit explanation of the symbols used to the caption. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obstacle navigation

• The MOS advises against repetition in the article heads and subheads. For that reason, I'd trim the subheads in this section to "Going around" and "Going over."

Changed as suggested. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend

• To avoid repetition, I'd tighten the head to "In fiction and legend" and let the subheads expand on the basic idea.

Changed as suggested. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

• Some of the ISBNs (citations 22, 37, 40, 45, 51, 53, and perhaps others) are missing their hyphens. A converter lives here.

I've been told that ISBN-13 is preferable in all cases to ISBN-10, and that converter appears to only produce ISBN-10s. Do you (or anyone reading this) know of a converter that produces 13s, or are hyphenated 10s preferable to (partially) un-hyphenated 13s? —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. A sly trick, not explained at the converter site, is to convert the unhyphenated 13 to a 10 and then plug the 10 in and convert it to a 13 with hyphens. Finetooth (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a sly trick! Done. —swpb^T 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This is exceedingly nitpicky, but in most cases you use sentence case for article and book titles, but in some cases you use title case. You can use either, but consistency is good.

Changed as suggested. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Finetooth: Thanks for your review! I apologize for the delay in my reply; hence the ping. I've responded to each point above. —swpb^T 13:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support on prose, as noted above. Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —swpb^T 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting choice of topic....comments to follow..

• I can't help feeling the Rolling section is on the brief side - and the isolated sentences make it choppy to read. If this section can be enlarged it'd be helpful. Particularly as it is highly pertinent to the subject matter.

• I generally find little value in See also sections - for the most part, items are important enough to be discussed in the article body or too tangential to warrant a mention.

More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Casliber: Thanks for your comments so far. In the Rolling section, I've expanded each of the short paragraphs. Re the "See also" section, are there particular entries you take issue with? I've added descriptions to clarify the relevance of entries, and I've tried to only include entries that fall into the sweet spot of being clearly related to the article topic, but not directly enough to be discussed in the body. There are two exceptions, Biologically inspired engineering and Terrestrial locomotion, that are linked in the body, but that I think are important enough to bear repeating at the end. I'm certainly open to revisiting any aspect of the section, particularly if there's concurrence from other reviewers. —swpb^T 15:22, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• More specifically - I'd add to Rolling section - are all rolling animals doing so for defence/escape? Either adding that or noting exceptions would be good.
• Adding some examples of species that make tumbleweeds

As noted in the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Layout#.22See_also.22_section - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." - i.e. it is sufficient if material is already covered in the article body, so Biologically inspired engineering and Terrestrial locomotion do not require links at the end

• I find the link between this and astrobiology to be too tenuous to warrant a link, espeicially as the latter topic is all hypothetical anyway (and hence maybe covered in the fiction stuff anyway)

Ok. I've added species examples to the tumbleweeds paragraph, and I've removed the "see also" entries you mentioned. As for why animals roll, I think it's generally assumed that defense/escape is the main reason, but I don't think the necessary studies exist to say definitively that this is always the reason, or to delineate cases that may be exceptions. I will see what I can find in RS's that speaks to this, but it might not be much.

Why I am pushing for embellishing on the section is the article has a lot of why but not as much what as I'd like for balance, if you know what I mean, and hence reads a little more like an essay. But overall the writing is fine and is otherwise comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the paragraph a bit to speak more to why animals roll themselves up, and in some cases away. —swpb^T 15:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do question your combining of rotifers and keratinocytes into a single paragraph, and moving them above tumbleweeds. These are two pretty distinct examples – one an organism that doesn't really roll, but appears to and has a name suggesting it does, and the other not an organism at all, but a cell type within a multicellular organism, that does roll. I would like to separate these again, and move them lower in the section, since, like dung beetles, they are not true examples of rolling organisms, but are related enough to bear mentioning. —swpb^T 13:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah happy for the revert on that, was just trying to make para less choppy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I think it is comprehensive and straddles the line between exactness of meaning and accessibility well. Nice read (and support). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —swpb^T 12:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems very readable, have only time for a short comment now, more to follow:

• "Other species adopt more spherical postures, primarily to protect their bodies from predators; this behavior has been seen in pangolins and wheel spiders (which have been observed to purposely roll away from predators),[5][7] as well as hedgehogs, armadillos, Armadillo girdled lizards, isopods, and fossilized trilobites." I'm not fully comfortable about the present tense describing the trilobites. I'm not sure their behavior has been seen by humans ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good insight. I've revised "behavior" to "posture", as that can be directly observed in fossils by humans. Looking forward to your next comments; thanks for taking the time to review. —swpb^T 13:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Estimates of the speed of rotation of the style in vivo vary significantly" the style?

"Style" is the technical name for this structure, from the same root as "stylus". —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution," Maybe development for evolution to avoid the repeat?

I've reworded the sentence a different way; "development" is used elsewhere in the article in the sense of embryological development, and I don't want to introduce confusion with that meaning. —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " (In species of the genus Vibrio, ..." I might delete the parentheses. Some minor modifications to text might be needed.

I don't know, I think the parentheses are a useful way of showing that this sentence only has tangential relevance – it expands on the content of the previous sentence in a way that may interest some readers, but is not integral to the main thrust of the paragraph. —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "wheels are not especially efficient on soft terrain such as soils," I might say soil, not soils.

Changed as suggested. —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• " The primary means of obstacle navigation are to go around obstacles and to go over them; each has its attendant challenges." While I don't think what you're saying here is particularly controversial, I would cite it.

I've cited the "each has its attendant challenges" bit with the major sources used further down in the section. The first part of the sentence I argue falls under WP:BLUE. —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Without articulation, this can be an impossible position from which to recover." ditto.

I've spent some time trying to find a way to reasonably source this, but I tend to think it also falls under WP:BLUE – this is just saying that there can be a vehicle which, when flipped over, can't right itself by just spinning its wheels, which describes almost all wheeled vehicles in existence. —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Very interesting and well written. It certainly is a novelty.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complements! I've replied point-by-point above; I'm happy to revisit any concern until you're satisfied. —swpb^T 13:06, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. I don't have any great concern over that material, it is simple stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. As this would be the nominator's first FA, we would require the usual spot-checks of sourcing for accurate use and close-paraphrasing; however, if Brian looked at this during the preparation, we would be OK on that count I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on sourcing are contained within the peer review, here. I didn't do any spot-checks. So a sources review with spot-checks is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: All sources high quality, reliable and appropriately formatted. Earwig looks fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check: As this would be the nominator's first FA, a spot-check is needed. No problems with copyvio or close paraphrasing. I chose five references and checked the text for which they were cited was supported by the reference. One issue, but the rest fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although stiff wheels are more energy efficient than other means of locomotion when traveling over hard, level terrain (such as paved roads), wheels are not especially efficient on soft terrain such as soil, because they are vulnerable to rolling resistance. In rolling resistance, a vehicle loses energy to the deformation of its wheels and the surface on which they are rolling. Smaller wheels are especially susceptible to the effect": Checks out OK.
• "Limbs used by animals for locomotion over terrain are frequently also used for other purposes, such as grasping, manipulating, climbing, branch-swinging, swimming, digging, jumping, throwing, kicking, and grooming. With a lack of articulation, wheels would not be as useful as limbs in these roles": Checks out OK.
• "Because of this limitation, wheels intended for rough terrain require a larger diameter": Checks out OK.
• "The processes of evolution, as they are presently understood, can help explain why wheeled locomotion has not evolved in multicellular organisms: simply put, a complex structure or system will not evolve if its incomplete form provides no benefit to the organism": Checks out OK.
• "The Dutch graphic artist M. C. Escher illustrated a rolling creature of his own invention in a 1951 lithograph”: Checks out ok. However, as a matter of interest, how was this list of artists chosen? Is it in a source, or was it just chosen?
• One problem: "In typical mechanical systems, some type of bearing and/or lubricant must be used to reduce friction at the interface between two components. Reducing friction is vital for minimizing wear on components and preventing overheating. As the relative speed of the components rises, and as the contact force between them increases, the importance of friction mitigation increases. In biological joints such as the human knee, friction is reduced by means of cartilage with a very low friction coefficient, as well as lubricating synovial fluid, which has very low viscosity." This isn't in the source cited (unless I've missed it) and I think it needs referencing. (The end of the paragraph, "Gerhard Scholtz of Humboldt University of Berlin asserts that a similar secreted lubricant or dead cellular material could allow a biological wheel to rotate freely", is in the given source.) Sarastro1 (talk) 09:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've revised and added three new citations to the paragraph on friction that should address the gaps there. As to the artists in the "fiction and legend" section, the list did not come from a particular source, but is essentially a complete list of the most notable occurrences of the trope. The main article Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend offers a few more examples that are a bit less noteworthy. —swpb^T 16:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, did a few more spot checks and everything looks good to me. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the article's mentor, my support might reasonably be assumed, but I have watched the article's progress carefully over the past few weeks, and am convinced that it it now satisfies the FA criteria fully. I hope this nominator will be emboldened by the experience to return to FAC with another article in the not too distant future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply appreciated. —swpb^T 15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 [18].

---

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) and Another Believer (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "Donald Trump", the third episode in the third season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. In it, John Oliver describes Donald Trump's business dealings and behavior, and then proceeds to criticize it. He even calls Trump "Drumpf", a term that went viral immediately after the segment aired. This episode was first released a year and a half ago. Although it didn't work like Oliver intended, since obviously Trump is the U.S. President, it's still the most popular episode that LWT has ever released. Also, it's been a Good Article since May of last year. So, as Oliver would say, please enjoy. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• The Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the infobox image is not completed, specifically the "Not replaceable with free media because" and the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parts.  Done
• The lead should include some information regarding the "Name change timing dispute" section, and I would imagine more parts from the "Reception and aftermath" section could be included as a well, specifically critics' response and Oliver's eventual decision to not use the joke anymore. I am suggesting this as the lead should be a comprehensive overview of the entire article.  Done
• I would imagine that the Frederick Trump image would need a more descriptive caption other than just the name and the link.  Done
• Is the Trump: The Kremlin Candidate? link appropriate for the "See also" section. Does it directly link to this segment or explicitly reference it?  Done, removed.

Overall, wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope you both have a wonderful rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Aoba47: Thank you for your comments. I have resolved all the issues you have brought up. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your prompt responses. I support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thank you for your support vote, I appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Frederick_Friedrich_Trump_2.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what was the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: As per the documentation, the image was taken before 1923, which exempts the image from the "author's death plus 70 years" rule per COM:PD. Frederick Trump died in 1918 and such a photo of him could not have been made posthumously, though I'll look for the original source. The original shows up in this ancestry.com search. epicgenius (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • COM:PD states that works are PD in the US if published before 1923, not simply created. Further, for an image to be hosted on Commons, it must also be PD in its country of origin, and depending what that was the life+70 rule may apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take a look at the publication date and location. epicgenius (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to Ancestry.com, it was originally published in 1918 in the US. The page is paywalled, though. epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nikkimaria: I've added 2 new images and removed the Frederick Trump image. Could you kindly review the article's images again? epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, all appear appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much. epicgenius (talk) 23:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Nikkimaria. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "also started a controversy on" How about started debates on? Controversy isn't the right word.  Done
• I would put square brackets around the ... part.  Done
• "traffics in the very xenophobia that is Trump's sick stock in trade" You're repeating yourself in the seventh paragraph.  Done

When my concerns are addressed, I'll check back. -- 1989 20:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: I've fixed all of the issues you've raised above. Thank you for your feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support @Epicgenius: When you get a chance, could you review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dragon Ball (manga)/archive1? -- 1989 18:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks for the support. epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- 1989 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: How do I request a source review? epicgenius (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place a request in the dedicated section at the top of WT:FAC, and someone should pick it up relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note from co-nominator: I will be on vacation until August 20, so I might take a while to reply to any comments made until then. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC) Actually, my vacation is now over and I will be able to resolve all issues. epicgenius (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Should I be concerned about this nomination? It's been inactive for a few weeks. epicgenius (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but OTOH it's only been open a little over a month and has attracted some commentary and support so I wouldn't panic -- Sarastro1 has put it in the "FAC urgents" list (top right of WT:FAC) so hopefully we'll get some more eyes soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to second that, there is no immediate danger and once we put it into the urgents, we usually leave it for at least a couple more weeks. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Thanks again. epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by SounderBruce

• Author names are not consistent. Seeing several instances of "Last, First" in addition to the "First Last" majority  Done (all changed to last, first.(
• Include OCLC numbers for all ISSN and ISBN citations.  Done
• Ref 37 needs to use "The Washington Post" to match other citations  Done
• Ref 39 needs a translated title  Done
• Ref 49 needs ISBN and OCLC  Done
• Some of the publishers don't need to be listed (e.g. Boston Globe Media LLC after Boston Globe)  Done
• Concerns on the "high quality" nature of some sources, especially smaller blog sites. Some are also problematic when it comes to their verifiability. Listing a few:
  • Ref 11: What makes Inquisitr reliable and high quality? Seems like a standard clickbait site.  Done
  • Ref 17: JD Supra seems like a run-of-the-mill blog startup.  Done
  • Ref 24: International Business Times, like Inquisitr, comes up often as clickbait. Do they have editorial oversight?  Done
    • Ref 40 also points to IBT and needs to be replaced.
  • Ref 27: Tech Times, again, seems like more clickbait.  Done
  • Ref 32: Bustle doesn't seem like a place with standout journalistic standards.
  • Ref 40: Snopes? Really?

**Ref 47 and 48: FamilySearch and About.com do not seem like reliable sources.

Article looks pretty solid on prose and grammar, otherwise. SounderBruce 02:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thank you for the source review. I'll look at these tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 03:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: I've fixed almost all of them. The only reason I cite Snopes, FamilySearch, and About.com is precisely because they are in disagreement with each other, and are thus probably not reliable. I use them solely for comparison purposes, and not as a definitive fact. I am confused about Snopes, so if you don't mind explaining why it is not reliable, I would appreciate it very much. epicgenius (talk) 04:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll retract my concerns about FamilySearch and About.com, given that they are being used for comparison and they seem to be sourced from reputable authorities. I would recommend changing the FamilySearch reference to cite the record itself (with a via field, linking to FamilySearch), which is readily available on the web page. As for Snopes, it is a self-published source and, while recognized by some media outlets, fails to meet the high-quality threshold based on their lack of recognized expert contributors.

Your new sources need to be harmonized (e.g. date formats and using the MIT name instead of the website URL in the work field). Just need to clean up the Bustle, Snopes, and IBT sources and I can call this good to go. SounderBruce 05:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Snopes, IBT, and Bustle; thank you for pointing these out. I don't know what you mean by changing the FamilySearch to cite the record itself. The record URL, (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NCR1-KF8), is already on the page. Additionally I can't add "via" to the {{cite web}} template there. epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all good now. I will support this nomination based on the source review above. The FamilySearch thing can be left alone, but citing the "Deutschland Geburten und Taufen" record directly would help make it clearer that it comes from a German state record and not FamilySearch themselves. SounderBruce 21:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Thank you very much for the source review; I appreciate it. FamilySearch is also  Done by the way. epicgenius (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC) epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SounderBruce. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it customary to record patent application documents in all caps? I pretty regularly deshout any title regardless. Maybe this is an exception.

• I removed caps and changed the dashes to endashes ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the footnote: originates with one Hanns Drumpf recorded in Kallstadt in 1608 it seems intuitively like there should either one or two commas here, either after "Drumpf" or both before and after the full name.  Done (One is correct, after the name.)
• I cropped up File:U.S. Immigration records mentioning Friedr Trumpf (cropped).jpg so that it's centered with less empty space in the margins. Personally, I would use it rather than the uncropped version. I also cobbled up File:U.S. Immigration records mentioning Friedr Trumpf - Friedr. Trumpf isolated.jpg if you would like to use it somehow. I cleaned up a lot, but unfortunately not all of the noise.  Done (And I like your version better.)
• WLs - xenophobic, Gwenda Blair (possible redlink?),  Done
• Un-WL - onomatopoeic ... Don't use WLs in direct quotes.  Done
• YouTube alone, making it Last Week Tonight's most popular segment posted to YouTube Maybe find some way to avoid restating "youtube"  Done (replaced second "YouTube" with "there")
• was delivered by John Oliver - Was it delivered? Do they tape the same day they air?
  • Yes, it is a live audience. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oliver created a hashtag - Do you create a hashtag or do you coin one? Honest question.  Done

Mostly minor stuff. But it looks good overall. TimothyJosephWood 17:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for the review. I've resolved almost all the issues you've brought up, except the one about the "delivery" because it is indeed a live taping. (Or at least it's in front of the audience and taped on the same day as it airs.) epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Timothyjosephwood, for the review, and Epicgenius, for addressing these concerns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Timothyjosephwood: Could you kindly make a note about whether you support, oppose, or have further feedback for this nomination? It would be appreciated since I don't know if you're still concerned about the "episode delivery" phrasing. epicgenius (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not. I looked it up and it seems they record the same day. I intended to look over it a second time, but I wouldn't want that to seem to the coordinators like I had particular misgivings, because I don't. Anyway, I'm a pretty active editor. If I have anything else or not I'll weigh in tomorrow. TimothyJosephWood 01:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional random things, mostly lead related:

• It aired on February 28, 2016 - Probably first aired or originally aired? Presumably it has or will air again.  Done (it continuously airs on YouTube, technically, but February 28, 2016 was the first airing)
• Upon the segment's initial release, it went - Seems simpler to just say "The segment went viral..."  Done
• Google Searches - I believe in this usage this is a common noun and should be lowercase.  Done
• The segment started a debate - I feel like this could be more specific. "Public debate" at the very least. The issue is not that it started a debate, but that it started a debate that was somehow important, and/or among somehow important people.  Done
• surpassed those for "Ted Cruz" and "Marco Rubio" - Maybe someone can correct me, but I'm not sure this needs scare quotes. It's not really talking about the terms as terms; it's talking about them as names identifying particular people who are relevant because of their candidacy.  Done (I just realized that neither Cruz nor Rubio were being searched as terms, unlike our nonexistent Oliver creation, Donald Drumpf. So thank you for that.)

TimothyJosephWood 16:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for the extra comments. I have resolved them all. epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't really see any other outstanding issues, at least with my limited experience at FAC. In fine to support. TimothyJosephWood 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Timothyjosephwood: Thank you for your support.Even though it is becoming trite right now, I will say that I really appreciate it. epicgenius (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bilorv

• @Bilorv: Thanks for your feedback and your edits. I'll get to all of them by tomorrow. epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bilorv: I've resolved all the concerns you listed above. epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your prompt response. Support for FA. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bilorv: Thank you for your support. epicgenius (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at this with a view to promotion, but ended up copy-editing a little more than I intended, so it is probably best that I recuse as coordinator. I've no objections on prose to this being promoted, but I wonder if we are a little too heavy on the quotes? I think a few of them could stand being paraphrased. I may have another look if this isn't promoted in the next day or two, and will possibly support this then. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. The article has been reviewed by quite a few editors, and has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. Thanks for your improvements, and do let us know if you have other specific concerns. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er... OK. I'm quite aware of the other reviews, and as I say, I have no objections to promotion here, this was more of a note for the other coordinator. My point about the heavy use of quotes stands; I think some of them could stand paraphrasing, but I'm not opposing on this. Nevertheless, I know of editors who have a problem with over-quotation. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: Thanks for the feedback and copyedits. I am going to paraphrase some of the non-important quotes from other commentators. However, I'll probably end up leaving most of Oliver's quotes since they are supported by the citations, and also for emphasis. epicgenius (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had another look, and now that the quotes have been trimmed, I'm happy to fully support now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, impressive work in making a great article out of a British man yelling at us on how the world is ending for half an hour. And seeing this having a shot at appearing in the main page before the article on Trump himself is a hilarious thought. igordebraga ≠ 02:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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