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) 22:33, 27 February 2016 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC), {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, my main reason for spamming the 5000000th article spot was this - I tried to hit the goal with an article that was improvable to FA standard to show folks that new articles could still be buffed to this level...to show just how much there was still to write. So here we are. This is sort of a co-nom as a bunch of folks have helped along the way - Chevvin, Checkingfax, Koavf, Northamerica1000, Sandstein, ‎Mike Peel, Sasata and many others who chipped in a few edits here and there. Anyone who feels they did a good bit of grunt-work and wanna be co-nom are welcome to put their name to this nom. This was one of the most collaborative articles I've worked on. So have at it folks....I'm here to buff it to the goodest I can....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator As an aside, I would be honored to be co-nominated and I will happily improve the article however reviewers see necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator – Yee haw! Count me in. Why is this nom in an archive? Ping me back, Casliber. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Checkingfax: they are just listed as archives from the get-go... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would indeed be honored to be the first to give my comments on the 5,000,000th article. I think some improvement and copyediting is needed here, though the article is fine overall. Here we go!

• ...it was described as a species by Lawrie Johnson and Peter Weston in 1991 please add "his colleague" before "Peter Weston"
  • Done.
• You can link Australia, described
  • Done.
    • We generally don't link continents - there are enough bluelinks with states and localities.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that can vary with articles. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we seriously need a link for leaf?
  • • Similar to australia - linking too-general terms generally unnecessary so removed.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ... with subspecies terminalis ... Better write P. t. terminalis, it is the way in many other articles I have seen.
  • Done after first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Directly naming a subspecies (in the sentence in the previous comment) before identifying both by their name in a separate sentence may confuse readers.
  • Have listed the two by name at first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...with narrow short leaves to 1 centimetre (0.4 in) in length Should the "to" be removed or is a measurement missing?
  • Changed to → up to.

• Persoonia terminalis was first treated by Lawrie Johnson of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney in the 1981 edition of Flora of New South Wales as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans, a broadly defined species that included many forms later classified as separate species. I think we need a rearrangement in this long sentence to make it more readable and easily comprehensible. It could be broken into two sentences. Also, is the description of P. nutans really needed? It is adding to the length of the sentence.
  • I agree the sentence is long and needs rejigging. How it goes is this - P. nutans was a bit of a dumping ground for a bunch of similar-looking plants in Eastern Australia - so folks made some preliminary splits as undescribed subspecies. P. oxycoccoides gets split from nutans and then terminalis gets split from that. So I do think the explanation of P. nutans is important context...will work on this today. I have split the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sainsf - I did split it....I do think we need the context of nutans. Are you thinking we should somehow rejig the start of it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it just now - it looks excellent! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed it as a subspecies... Replace "it" by P. terminalis so as to avoid confusion with P. nutans.
  • Done.
• ... though considered it more likely to be a species in its own right I think "they" is missing.
  • added - I often drop pronouns like this and other folks pick me up on it. It sounds natural to my ears to drop them but happy to concede I am a tad too parsimonious with words at times..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish writing was as simple as hearing! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon re-examining these species, Johnson and colleague Peter Weston concluded that there were several distinct species and Persoonia terminalis was described as such in 1991. What are "these species"? Does it also include P. nutans and P. oxycoccoides? I feel the beginning of this sentence needs to be clearer about this.
  • yes/tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Who is Peter Richards?
  • He's an ecologist - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you are not concerned with the genus here, it has its own page. I guess you meant generic name? Then you should write something like the generic name Persoonia derives from the name of South African botanist Christiaan Hendrik Persoon.
  • agreed - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• About Christiaan Hendrik Persoon. Is it relevant to the article to mention how long he lived or what his author abbreviation is?
  • yeah ...a bit circumstantial - trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• It has been given the common name of Torrington geebung Seems to invite vagueness.
  • I made it more concrete - is that what you mean? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. But I deleted the "common name" link - too common to be linked! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• P. terminalis has been reported to interbreed with P. cornifolia and P. sericea. If you are citing this as an example of interbreeding in Lanceolata group, you should mention in the sentence that these two species belong to this group.
  • added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Two subspecies are recognised ... a maximum of 1 centimetre (0.4 in) long You should use any one format of mentioning subspecies throughout the article. This format differs from that in the Lead. I have suggested one common format under Lead.
• Link or locate Torrington.
  • linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a question-I changed the abbreviations to the full words to try to make the taxonomy look more specific, but should I revert it? 96.237.18.103 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It has smooth bark "a" missing?
  • ? - no, bark is a word like 'skin' so needs no article in front of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My folly.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The leaf link once again!
  • delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...that is both leaf surfaces... comma missing
  • added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The leaves are rougher than other persoonias Needs a reword like The leaves of this persoonia are rougher than those of others.
  • changed thusly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...although occasional flowers have been seen to July. Why is "to" here? I guess you should be more careful, I have been pointing out several such errors throughout this article.
  • changed to "as late as July" as the usual flowering period is December-Jan but there can be flowers later until July Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...arising at the ends of branchlets When you were explaining the name 'terminalis under Taxonomy, you said these flowers occur toward the end of branches. Now what are branchlets?
  • changed first to "branchlets". Branchlets are merely little branches. As this is a shrub and not a big tree, branchlet is a more apt name than branch... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...each stalk bears an individual flower that is subtended by a scale leaf at its junction with the stem Not sure what scale leaf means.
  • It's a small rudimentary leaf. I have redlinked it for the moment as we have no article nor article section, and mentioned this as the plants wikiproject. If no-one makes a page in 24 hours I will try to make one. I thought some of the more knowledgeable botanists might have a better idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is Wikitionary-linked now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A proportion of flowers have a true leaf instead, and are described as auxotelic (inflorescences or axes) I think the meaning of the term can be explained in a better way in the brackets.
  • I just took the bracketed bit out as I don't think it added any meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Link style
  • link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link outcrop
  • linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Warialda is a duplicate link
  • delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ...could be expected to be found there as there is suitable habitat I am not being overcritical, but I think due to the availability of suitable habitat sounds better.
  • ok..I have some misgivings though the second emphasises the reasoning so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Both subspecies are found in the Arakoola Nature Reserve... It is weird that though you mention in Taxonomy near which reserve or area the subspecies are found, you do not mention the actual place where they indeed are found there. But you do mention it here. I think the mention of the occurrence of these subspecies should be removed altogether from Taxonomy to avoid repetition or other similar issues.
  • have integrated material now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Link bushfire, pollinate, subtropical
  • linked x 3 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Temperate is a duplicate link
  • delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Colletid bees of the genus Leioproctus subgenus Cladocerapis Would look better if you separated genus and subgenus by "and".
  • hmm "and" would make it scan in a manner I have not seen or used, I went with this instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been proposed that ... Vague?
  • It was plantsmen and scientists Rodger Elliot and David L Jones who have widely written on Australian plants and published a mammoth encyclopedia on them. So I credited them with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending my comments in batches. It is really a trouble with conominators flooding in and causing edit conflicts and data loss! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can pick up where we are quite readily from the page history, so not insurmountable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that's the lot. A lot of minor errors seem to have been neglected before the nomination. But let us sort them out together. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: and @Checkingfax: Working with you has been so splendid! So, after finishing a most precise copyediting and thorough reading, I hardly think there is any other flaw in the article. That, of course, barring image review and source review, at which I am not that good.

Therefore this article has my Support on prose. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thankyou for being thorough and patient. Sometimes this happens when I've read an article a few times - it is fascinating what the eye misses after a few reads. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

• "with one a component of granite outcrops" It wasn't immediately clear to me what this meant
  • tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "an area of under 100 kilometres (62 mi)" Do you mean square kilometres?
  • Koavf got that one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any chance you could cite Flora of South-eastern Queensland itself? It strikes me as a little odd that you mention a not-ancient work by name but don't cite it.
  • found and added....also has the fruit measurements Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "recurved" jargon?
  • reworded to plainer English Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Initially slightly hairy (or hairless) and becoming hairless with age" This strikes me as an odd way to say this. How about something like "New leaves can be hairless or slightly hairy; if the latter, it becomes hairless with age. They are..."
  • tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• How big are the drupes? Are we talking rosehips, figs, peaches?
  • they are currant-sized...will look for some numbers... annoyingly not one of the sources mentions a size for them. adddd now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Does "Torrington-Binghi area" mean "around the settlements of Torrington and Binghi"? If so, presumably we'd need a wikilink to an article on Binghi somewhere? The first page of Google is suggesting that this is a slang word for an aborigine- am I misunderstanding something here?
  • A look on google shows that it is a name that applies to the area (see here), but exactly howto define it - not sure as yet. I've heard the word occasionally over the past 30 years but will try get a correct definition...redlink time methinks.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "The '2' indicates it has a range of under 100 km" Again- km don't measure area, they measure distance (also, what does the "R" mean? And is it worth using the convert template?)
  • R stands for 'restricted' and convert template used Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "It is rated as 3R[c] on ROTAP,[14]" Punctuation
  • tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a big deal, but maybe you could colour-code the distribution map based on subspecies?
  • (groan) will be tricky. Will take a look to see if feasible tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, not at all a big deal- if it's not doable, it's not doable. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• To me, with the currawong picture, I think the article looks a bit cluttered at most text sizes.
  • Removed that...I hadn't realised it was there... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a gender-neutral alternative to "Plantsmen"?
  • Horticulturists - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• ""Holotype of Persoonia terminalis L.A.S.Johnson & P.H.Weston [family PROTEACEAE]". Global Plants; JSTOR 225972." What am I looking at here? Is your JSTOR link correct?
  • The number is not the jstor number as such. Entered the url instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, great- I wasn't familiar with the Global Plants project. Would an access date be needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added one in case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm assuming that some of your Hunter sources are self-published, so there's no more information to be given in the cites?
  • The only other thing is "A Report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service" - not sure how to shoehorn that in to both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have {{cite report}}- you could do something like this: "Hunter, John T. (2000). "Flora Survey of Kings Plains National Park" (report). New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1740.2724." This certainly isn't a dealbreaker- I defer to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have used them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see this article at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. Not as long as some others, but I think that reflects the limited literature. I wonder if the current image placement makes the article look a little crowded. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The 5000000th article was always goingto be a bit of a pot shot. There is significantly less info on this species on some others, but more than on Persoonia laxa, which was my next entry and is known from two specimens only. I plan on expanding some of the others (such as Persoonia microphylla, Persoonia recedens, Persoonia acuminata and Persoonia brevifolia - all of which I created in the same minute) to see how lucky/unlucky I was to land with terminalis. thx for support BTW Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed P. terminalis as part of Persoonia oxycoccoides" If they referred to it as a subspecies, shouldn't it be referred to in an other way here? Perhaps say "as P. o. terminalis" in parenthesis after Persoonia oxycoccoides? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • they didn't formally describe it at al, so can't call it anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "He viewed it as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans" Likewise, (as P. n. terminalis)?
  • It was called Persoonia nutans subsp. D and is mentioned in the footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems remarkable it was named so late, any word on why it was overlooked? Confused for already described species?
  • This happens - Persoonia nutans was a bit of a wastebasket taxon. Also where it grows is quite remote... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "though persoonias as a genus" Is it common practice to refer to genus names like this?
  • It is more common in plants than other critters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - not much more else to add, so will contribute with an image review as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Image review - all images CC licensed, either photos from Flickr or selfmade maps, all with appropriate sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks x 2! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for promotion? No one has commented here for over a week and it seems like all objections have been met. Is there anything else that should be done for this article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Justin, someone (uninvolved) has to do a source check. There are a few more older than us at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests so might take a little time.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are fine, and since images have been done for a while, I'd recommend tagging. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 96.237.18.103 has expanded the abbreviations under Taxonomy. Though a good faith edit, I guess it has to be reverted as it does not suit the style here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • what he's done is expanded those binomials where it is the first mention of a species. I could see a case for keeping these expanded, just as I could abbreviating them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me on prose, with light c/es made. Accessible and understandable to the fabled reader that we pitch for; ie an intelligent lay teenager, while not compromising the interest of the specialist audience that will be the majority reading this page. A difficult balance with botany; well done here, again, by Cas Liber. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked inlines 3, 17 & 19. No issues. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2016 (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) 22:33, 27 February 2016 (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) 22:30, 27 February 2016 [2].

---

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping Flash! is a 1995 platform video game that has the distinction of being one of the most overlooked games of all time as well as the first platform game in "true 3D". It was originally hoped by Sony that this game would give them the opportunity to create themselves a "platform star" like Sonic and Mario, but that never materialised. This game was nothing more than a technology demonstration for the then-new PlayStation console and was very quickly overshadowed by games like Super Mario 64. Despite all that, many critics recognise this game's legacy and importance associated with early 3D gaming.

I've been re-working this article for a while now and I believe this meets the FA criteria. I know that after I've exhausted every possible source, and with the help of some others, I've gained some more that I didn't think were possible, so a big thanks goes out to everyone who has helped over the months. FYI, the reason why it failed last time was due to some misinterpretations with some sources, but after an extensive peer review and a copyedit, I believe they have all been addressed. JAGUAR  16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give this a read and let you know what I think! I haven't reviewed an article for some time, but this just happened to catch my eye.--SexyKick 21:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SexyKick, just wondering if you would still like to leave some input? No rush of course, but I'd hate to see this get closed due to inactivity. JAGUAR  10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I was reading through, I remarked to myself that sentences / paragraphs in the Plot section didn't seem to end with citations. I checked two references in the Reception and Legacy and both held up. But I don't know when I'm going to have time between real life rock, and real life hard place.--SexyKick 16:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Don't worry about this too much, I'm not that anxious just yet. Plot sections don't need to be sourced, although most of the basic plot is covered in the game's manual itself. JAGUAR  16:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Participation Guide
Support
Rhain1999, Z105space, Famous Hobo, Dank, FrB.TG, Masem
Comments/No vote yet
Techtri, David Fuchs
Oppose
None

It's certainly in better shape than last time it came up for FAC, but I've still got some concerns. On a quick read through I noticed the following.

Lead:

• "Jumping Flash! has been described as synonymous with Sony's debut gaming hardware" - By who? There's no reference here, and this doesn't get mentioned again later in the article as far as I can tell.

• Rephrased to "Jumping Flash! has been described as an ancestor as well as an early showcase for 3D graphics in console gaming", as it's mentioned in the article as well as in numerous sources.[3][4] JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Development and release:

• I think I'm right in saying "PreScreen - Jumping Flash! (April 1995)". Edge (Future plc) (19): 41. April 1995.", "Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." and ""Staff. PreScreen - Jumping Flash!". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." reference different pages of the same article, so why do they use different titles? Also the date appears twice in the first one for some reason.

• Fixed both JAGUAR  14:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I took the liberty of combining the two refs that pointed to the same page of the same article [5]. Techtri (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology, vastly differing from other contemporaneous platform games such as Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island." - Sourced to Edge's July 1995 review, but I can't see any comparison in the source between JF! and either of the games mentioned?

• I've removed the comparisons as it wasn't mentioned in the sources given. However, there are a couple of comparisons with Super Mario 64, but I chose not to mention it here as it doesn't seem relevant. JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand what is meant by 3D technology in the sentence "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology.".

• 3D technology sounds a bit vague, but I think 3D computer graphics would sound more accurate. I've changed it to that JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Geograph Seal image caption states that JF! "features identical gameplay from Geograph Seal". The IGN source states they shared "virtually identical gameplay", which I'd say was a important distinction.

• Good catch, upon this reflection I've rephrased it to "similar gameplay traits", as the lead also mentions "Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal". JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Reception and Legacy:

• "...in 2000 they ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time." - two references here, both with concerns. "Famitsu Top 120 PlayStation games". Culdcept Central. OmiyaSoft. 27 July 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - is this a reliable source? and "Famitsu Weekly PlayStation Top 100". IGN. 21 November 2000. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - I can't see any mention of Jumping Flash in this source?

• This always bothered me. I asked somebody if Culdcept Central was a reliable source, and he wasn't too keen on it. I was going to bring this up at WP:VG/RS but unfortunately I didn't have time to do it prior to this FAC. Even though it's the only source I can find that mentions a legitimate Famitsu Top 120 list, I myself don't think it's reliable and I can't find any such list anywhere else, so I've had no choice but to remove the entire sentence. Unless somebody has the original Famitsu issue and could translate into English, I'm left with no other choice than to leave as "Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review". If you want, I could remove that sentence entirely and leave it as a score in the infobox? JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You just have to know which issue of Famitsu those excerpts are from. Reference the magazine itself. ... cite news |title= |journal= |publisher= |date= |language= |author=Famitsu staff}}</ref>--SexyKick 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find the definite issue or when it was published. Culdcept Central mentions that the list was published "recently" as of 2009, whereas I've searched for "120 PlayStation games of all time" and sometimes it comes back as being a November 2000 issue. I don't think is worth it, so I'm open to removing it entirely or should I leave this be? JAGUAR  19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Yoon's Engadget review is a contemporary one right? If so, personally I would move it to after the 2007 IGN review along with the rest of the retrospective reviews, or at the very least mention it was a 2007 review so it doesn't appear to be a review from the time calling it antiquated.

• Moved this to the end of the paragraph JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Much clearer now. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "1UP cited its first-person platforming as a precursor to Mirror's Edge, despite suggesting that the jumping has remained "woefully out of place"." - Is the source referring to jumping being "woefully out of place" in JF! or in the genre as a whole?

• In the genre as a whole, as the article is focused on the history of the jump. Reworded to reflect this JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case, it it relevant to include it in this article? Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that it's relevant because it's a retrospective on Jumping Flash's legacy participation on the evolution of the jump. It also criticises the game's jumps, which in part is both relevant with reception and legacy. I wouldn't mind removing it from the section but I'd hate to lose out on a good source. JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Speaking in 2007, Fahey asserted that Jumping Flash! would always have a "slice" in videogaming history" - This is a very clunky sentence and needs rewriting.

• I agree. I've merged this with the previous sentence to smooth it out a little JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still finding a "slice" in videogaming history. awkward to read. A "slice in" something just doesn't sound right to me. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, I find "slice" a bit awkward. Reworded to "a part in videogaming history" JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find time to give it a more thorough look over later. Techtri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Techtri: ping, sorry to bother. Just anxious about FAC inactivity. JAGUAR  19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if any of my concerns have been discussed in a previous discussion, but I noticed a few things:

Lead

• In the lead, shouldn't 'Robbit' be in double quotation marks ("), rather than single (')? I'm not entirely sure.

• Changed to double for consistency. I find it hard to remember using American quotation marks on Wikipedia JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In my experience, I've regularly seen references placed after direct quotes (see the second paragraph of Fez), so it should be considered for the third paragraph of the lead here, with the term "ancestor".

• Agreed, I've added a citation after "ancestor"

• Jumping Flash! spawned two sequels; Jumping Flash! 2.... I'd replace the semicolon with a colon.

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Link IGN.

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Body

• Link Egypt in "Gameplay".

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a lot of quotes in "Reception and legacy". I don't quite think it's pushing the limit, so it should be okay, but that second paragraph stands out a bit.

• I've done some minor copyediting and have tried to cut the quotes a bit. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Greg Miller (Internet celebrity).

• Linked JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it's necessary to have two paragraphs in "Sequels".

• Yeah, the first paragraph seems rather short. I've merged the two together JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a number of issues with the references, but it was difficult for me to explain them all, so I went through and made some changes myself. Please feel free to adjust my changes where you feel necessary.

• Thank you for the changes! JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There might be more, but I'll let other editors point those out; I couldn't find anything else. This is a really well-written article, and I'll be happy to support the FAC when these issues are addressed. Good luck! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Rhain! I've addressed all of your concerns. I hope I didn't miss anything. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything so quickly! The only thing that really bothers me now is the length of the third "Gameplay" paragraph and second "Plot" paragraph, but these are minor personal nitpicks, and should only be changed if you see an appropriate way to do so. Since that's minor, I'm very happy to Support this FAC. Well done on all your hard work; good luck with the rest of the candidacy! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! Much appreciated. I'll see what I can do about the two shorter paragraphs, but I can't think of any more to put in from the top of my head. JAGUAR  22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• The game follows a robotic rabbit named "Robbit" as he searches for missing Jet Pods that have been scattered by the game's astrophysicist antagonist character Baron Aloha. Why are Jet Pods capitalized? I don't believe they're proper nouns.

• True, I thought they were referring to a specific item but I checked the manual and it seems they're not capitalised in there, so fixed JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal, an earlier game by Exact for the Sharp X68000 home computer. Change uses to utilizes.

• Done JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumping Flash! has been described as an "ancestor"[1]... Why include the ref when it's already referenced in the legacy section?

• I can't remember, but it was either in this FAC or the peer review where I got told that a citation was required after a direct quote in the lead. But it's not a big deal, and I prefer no citations in the lead anyway. Removed both the ref and quote. JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The game was generally well received by critics, who praised its graphics and its unique 3D platforming gameplay, but it was eventually overshadowed by later 3D platformers of the fifth console generation. The compound sentence here is a bit awkward, as the two independent clauses don't work well in relation to one another. I'd remove the but, and change it to a period, followed by a however,...

• Good catch, rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The game was described as the third-most underrated video game of all time by Matt Casamassina of IGN in 2007. Remove the Matt Casamassina link, as it just redirects to IGN, which is already linked two words later in the same sentence.

• I could've sworn he had his own article, but I've removed all links JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general note, five sentences in the lead begin with "the game". While this shouldn't be an issue, I feel a bit uneasy about the repetition. You may want to rephrase some of those sentences to alleviate the repetition.

• Removed some repetition. It does sound better this way JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

• Jumping chains can be performed using enemies and some projectiles. Elaborate on this a bit more, because while I'm assuming you mean jump on enemies head like in Super Mario Bros, but a casual reader may have no idea what that means.

• I've elaborated on this a bit more. Jumping chains are initiated by jumping on enemies or their projectiles in succession, just like in Super Mario platforms. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Power-ups scattered across each world are picture frames representing carrots to extend Robbit's health, extra lives, time-outs that stop the clock and freeze the level's dynamics for a few seconds, hourglasses that extend the player's time... Their should be mention of the time limit for each level before this sentence, as this was the first time I read about said timed levels.

• Not exactly a time limit, but every level is 10 minutes long and will end once that time runs out. But you're right, it's a worthy mention so I've included it. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Coins that are worth points can also be picked up by destroying enemies that are often anthropomorphic versions of creatures such as kiwis and penguins, but also include robots and plants. Link kiwis and penguins.

• Done. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• All good here, though I'm going to assume limbered is the British-English equivalent of legged. Either way, it works.

• Limbs refer to both arms and legs; I thought it would be more accurate to describe the creatures. I don't know if it's anything to do with English variants JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

• Sony's director of entertainment in Japan, Koji Tada, paired Exact with Ultra to develop a technology demonstration for the upcoming PlayStation console. The last part regarding the technology demonstration is unnecessary, is it was already stated in almost the exact same way it's mentioned in the second sentence.

• Good catch; removed. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultra designed the story, characters and 3D cutscenes, and was responsible for creating the mechanical rabbit protagonist, Robbit. Shouldn't Robbit be lumped in with characters? Ultra designed the characters.

• I think so. Rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The characters were designed by the Japanese studio Ultra who renamed themselves "Muu Muu" after the creatures in the game. You already stated that Ultra designed the characters. Plus, shouldn't the part about the MuuMuu's go in the legacy section, since the game had an impact on the outside world after it was released?

• Removed the repetition of character-creation and moved the company renaming to the Legacy section. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

• Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review at the time of release. Can you get any more in depth about the review? Also, Famitsu PS seems a little unnecessary, since it's not mentioned in the reception section, and is more or less an off shoot of Famitsu.

• Unfortunately I don't have access to the review as it's not online. I can't remember who added it. The only extracts I can find are from unreliable sites so I can't use them. Should I remove the review from the section? JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a scan. But I can't read Japanese! Anyway, since I can't elaborate the review, I've removed the prose. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2007, Matt Casamassina of IGN ranked Jumping Flash! as the third-most underrated video game of all time. I don't think it's important to link Matt Casamassina, as it just redirects to IGN, and doing a quick glance through IGN's article, Casamassina doesn't appear.

• Removed JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Robbit Mon Dieu was released exclusively in Japan for the PlayStation in 1999, and was the final instalment in the series. It was met with mixed reviews... You should mention how Jumping Flash 2 was received, to keep in line with the mention of Robbit Mon Dieu.

• I've added a little about its reception, but I chose not to dwell on about it because it would have seemed irrelevant to this article. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

• All mentions of 1UP.com have IGN linked as it's publisher. I don't really know the exact publisher, but according to WP:VG/S, the publisher is UGO Networks. Change it if you wish. Since most FA articles I've seen referencing 1UP always use IGN as the publisher, it's not that big of a deal.

• I don't know what is correct, but I'm going to trust WP:VG/S and go with UGO Networks. Fixed all JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done. With the exception of maybe one or two issues of explaining in more detail, most issues are just minor complaints that can easily be dealt with. Overall, very nice article on a very influential yet completely forgotten game. Fix the issues, and you've got yourself a support. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything. This is truly a forgotten game, you're right. It was one of the first PlayStation games developed (arguably the first, if you take into account that it was a technology demonstration). This is why the artwork has different dimensions, as apparently PlayStation cases were DVD-shaped in very early North American releases. Writing this article has been a rewarding and interesting experience. Anyway, it seems I owe you one for reviewing this! JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar:, it always amazes me how your able to find those magazine scans. I might have to ask you to find a specific magazine in the future. Anyway, I do feel it's somewhat necessary to include Japanese reviews for games first released in Japan, but as that almost impossible for anyone outside of Japan, I understand. Though I find it weird having just Famitsu listed twice, with different scores, because this will almost certainly confuse the reader. Also, I think I incorrectly phrased my earlier issue with Famitsu PS. What I meant to say was just remove it. It bears no real importance to the article, and it's just an offshoot of the much more distinguished Famitsu. Once that's cleared up, you have my Support. Really, I'm giving you a support right now though. Congrats! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've dealt with the Famitsu issues you mentioned. Although cited correctly, they shouldn't be in the article as I can't read Japanese for the review. Yeah, I'm not sure if some of the sites the scans are on are considered unreliable, but I'm used to all this digging as I only write retro games. I suppose I can return the favour by helping you searching for information at some point. Anyway, thanks for the support! JAGUAR  17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I officially Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had my say at Peer review where my comments with Referencing were dealt with. The article is in better shape than it was in its previous FAC. Z105space (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! JAGUAR  13:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, due to sourcing issues.
• Prose:
  • The user interface resembles the view through Robbit's eyes.—The lead is an introduction to the article but content should not be in the lead and not in the body. You need to explain who Robbit is here as well.
    • I've removed this sentence altogether, as evidently a view through "eyes" is what a first-person perspective game is. I've elaborated that players control Robbit. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Images:
  • There's no real strong justification to use File:Geograph Seal gameplay 001.gif in the article. It's not essential to understanding the game, it's about a different one entirely.
    • I thought that since both games share the same interface and engine, it would be relevant but I removed it anyway. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just in terms of better illustrating the article, it'd probably be best if there was a better-quality image for File:JumpingFlash003.jpg. It's been triply-compressed and is clearly from a lossy video source as opposed to a solid screencap. That's not a FA issue, but just an overall quality one.
    • Agreed. I'll upload a new one. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've uploaded a new image and updated the FAR. JAGUAR  16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• References:
  • I spotchecked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 20, and 25.
    • Robbit can jump up to three times—once off of a surface and twice in mid-air—the cited Joystiq source doesn't mention the surface and mid-air distinctions when discussing the double and triple jumps; while they can be inferred, especially the latter bit, from the text, I'd hew a bit closer to what they actually say.
      • The Joystiq source says "you can jump up to three times consecutively mid-air", so I've rephrased the prose to Robbit can jump up to three times in mid-air, which allows him to reach extreme heights, which sounds like it's following the source more accurately. JAGUAR  16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The game is composed of six worlds with three levels each, totalling 18 main levels[7][8] consisting of seven boss levels and six bonus stages.—There's no citation for the "seven boss levels and six bonus stages" bit, and the first part of the clause is misleadingly cited—there's only evidence for the 18 main levels, not the composition of worlds and levels, which need a source. Likewise uncited: Landing on the "EXIT Pad" completes the level. The third level in each world is a boss fight.
      • I've removed the "consisting of seven boss levels and six bonus stages" bit. Just as I was giving up hope, I found the GameRevolution source which says "The game consists of 5 worlds each with three levels one of which includes a final boss". In such, I went with the source and rephrased this to The game is composed of five worlds with three levels each. JAGUAR  16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Furthermore, I've sourced the "The third level in each world is a boss fight" with the GameRevolution source and removed "EXIT Pad" bit. "Exits" are used some sources, but they lack the description of "exit pads". JAGUAR  16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need to go through the gameplay section with a fine-tooth comb and make sure the sourcing here is clear and solid.
      • I've done some rephrasing and rearranging here and there in the gameplay section. JAGUAR  16:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GameInformer ref 26's archive appears to be broken for me: [6]
      • Strange, it was working a couple of weeks ago. Now fixed. You mean Eurogamer? There is no GameInformer ref in the article? JAGUAR  16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly recommend archiving every web source in this article (some are already); you can use archive.org (for those already existing) or webcitation.org (to make on-demand archives of pages that might not have been scraped.) Link rot sucks and I've had a lot of my early FAs get hit with it; it's nice to be proactive and make sure the references will stand up for any challenged bits later on.
    • Archived all of the web links, with the exception of 1UP, which can't be archived due to its robot.txt (that's what it says whenever I try to archive it). At any rate, they're all working and should be safe from linkrot. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I've addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the review! To summarise, I've rephrased parts of the gameplay section so it more accurately follows the sources, uploaded a new image, archived all web sources and rearranged some sources that caused confusion in the gameplay section. I hope that covers everything. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I've made some further alterations to the gameplay section. I took your advice and fine-combed it, so I removed and rephrased a couple of sentences. I also added some missing citations, so I hope it's clearer now. What do you think? JAGUAR  15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through it again this evening or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing another check I'm still seeing issues. Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles, and others will directly attack Robbit is sourced to [7][8]. The only bit from both I see as tangentially supporting the statement is While most enemies do not bother you (you can just jump or run on by 'em), others will stand in your way. You have rollercoaster-filled carnivals when the source doesn't mention rollercoasters. I can't check the original manual to see what lines up there but I'm concerned there might be similar elaboration in the prose that doesn't line up with what the source precisely says. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I got the physical manual. You can download a PDF file of it but to do that you have to join a member of a forum to access it. The manual is surprisingly comprehensive and is probably the best resource to use for gameplay, I would try to send you a link to line up the writing but I don't know if it will work. Does this work? JAGUAR  16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: addressed both those points. I removed the "Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles" sentence entirely because I can't make out how to rephrase that, as the online source is unclear. I've added a couple more points which I extracted from the manual, such as earning an extra life for every 1 million points and a continue option. I hope you can access that manual, because it's by the far the most useful source for gameplay. The scan is 95 megabytes, so I won't be able to put a link in the article (which I know should be fine). JAGUAR  16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could upload it to Replacement Docs (they only have the sequel there.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it (spent 40 minutes waiting) but I don't think it worked because the file exceeded the 65 megabyte limit. JAGUAR  20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the previous issues I don't really feel comfortable supporting on that issue, but as I have not found any new issues using sources I can access I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll see if I can upload the manual by cutting some pages. I can't promise anything because the only file I could get is unusually large at 95mb, but the download link is still there if all else fails. JAGUAR  21:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I hate to disappoint but I can't upload the manual, it's impossible to do so. The only thing I can think of is emailing it. JAGUAR  21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ident) I've looked through the manual citations and they really need to be made page specific—the manual cites pages 4, 5, and 17, when it's citing for other pages as well (the gameplay information on what's on the screen, for instance, is on page 7.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Voilà, just added harvrefs for the manual along with its individual page numbers. JAGUAR  16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Anything major outstanding? If not then I'd like to close this. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing outstanding at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Masem left some minor comments yesterday and I've took care of them, although he already left a support. I believe I have everything covered in this FAC. Just noticed that this is the oldest nomination, it doesn't feel that long! JAGUAR  22:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, with the caveat that so much is wrong with the prose in the second paragraph of the Reception and legacy section that I hardly know where to start. It might be best to rewrite that paragraph from scratch. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: thanks for the copyedits! I've done some copyediting to the second paragraph of the reception, and I've corrected some minor adjectives so that they are now based on their sources more accurately. Other than that, I couldn't find any misunderstandings with that paragraph. What sort of issues do you see with it? JAGUAR  18:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. That paragraph is better now. I guess I'll let my support stand, but only per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If there's anything else I can do, I'll be happy to get to it. JAGUAR  19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

* You haven't used the initials for artificial intelligence anywhere so I suggest removing that from Gameplay section. Good catch, fixed JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "a new life will be granted once one" – I think it sounds much better in present perfect form. Changed to present tense JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "and will end once the time runs out" – present form, IMO. Agreed, changed JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] I can see six instances of "also". Not a problem but it could be removed in some places where it adds nothing new. I've removed two uses of "also" JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] A redirected link. Again, not a problem so it's up to you. I don't know why it says it redirects on the toolserver, but it works fine in the article. I'll leave it as it is, if that's OK. JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] "Criticise" used over four times in the second para of Reception and legacy. I removed two instances and replaced them with better synonyms JAGUAR  23:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ref 1 – "Corporate designations such as "Ltd", "Inc" or "GmbH" are not usually included. Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work." Based on this, I would suggest to remove Sony Computer Entertainment staff, ed. Done JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ref 5 – IGN does not need italics and needs to be wiki-linked. Make sure they are not italicized elsewhere too. Done, I never like italicising IGN. Bizarrely, the way to de-italicise names in the 'work=' field is to italicise them! JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Ref 35's publisher needs to be wiki-linked. Also, you need to add Ziff Davis's name. Done JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Link PlayStation in ref 38. Done, also de-italicised it. JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] Not my area of expertise so that's all I could spot. They shouldn't be hard to fix. Overall a good article. -- Frankie talk 19:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: thank you for the review! I should have everything addressed. Your comments were very helpful, I'm glad someone reminded me to un-italicise everything! JAGUAR  23:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for promotion. Hope you have your first FA with this. I hope I have mine too. -- Frankie _talk 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Frankie! I really hope so. This is got to be my most successful nomination yet. I'm confident you'll get yours. JAGUAR  16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. IMO it's close to promotion; the only thing needed is source review, which, I think, you should request here. Also, could you take a look at mine which is lacking participation? -- Frankie _talk 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Frankie! Which one did you want me to take a look at? Is it a featured list nomination? I'll be happy to leave comments. To be fair most of the comments above have been orientated around sources and spotchecking, but I see what you mean. It wouldn't hurt to have an official lookover just so I can get this FAC out of the way. I think every source has already been scrutinised (not sure on the manual, but it's linked in this FAC for anyone to download). I'll request one now. JAGUAR  20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[9] you had also left comments in its PR. :) -- Frankie _talk 20:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over it now....

• I made these changes to smoothe prose.
• You need to mention what Robbit is in sentence 2 of gameplay

• Thanks! Addressed. JAGUAR  14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Hey, were you going to leave any more comments? I think this is nearing completion. Although comments regarding the sources have been made above, I think a final check over would finally finish this FAC, which has been open since November. I could always leave some comments on one of your FACs in return? JAGUAR  19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• sorry, been busy. I was going to look at sources but saw the discussion with @David Fuchs: above and not sure if that was resolved. I would like to hear from David how he feels things are at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, no rush. I think all of the source issues have been more or less addressed in this FAC, however I wasn't able to upload the game's manual to a sharing site. I left the download link above, but it's a large 95 mb pdf file, which exceeds the limit for uploads (and it was the only one I could get hold of). If anything, I think that's the only thing left to check over. JAGUAR  21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to reduce the file size to under 4 MB, which can be downloaded here. – Rhain ☔ 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing that! I tried installing freeware to reduce the size or at least cut a few pages, but I never could get it to work. With that done, the manual can now be analysed, and I think that's the only source left to check. Naturally, I'll do a final double-check myself. JAGUAR  22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else that would need to be done here? I feel that the sources were all spotchecked above, and there are no other issues outstanding. This has been open for a while and I'm eager to do whatever else is needed. JAGUAR  17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a few awkward wording pieces that I fixed, and there was an issue with the harvard citation that I fixed too.
• Image check - Both images are non-free, but reasonable with rational for inclusion. I would suggest that on the cover image you link to where you got the cover art. On the screenshot, it is a bit larger ; can you reduce it to 300px wide (50% of the size) and still be okay? Also, a link to the original Engadget article would be good.
• Otherwise, given the time period of this game, I would not expect to see much more on its development or reception, and thus otherwise seems to cover the game in a coherent manner so outside of the small image issues, support this as FA. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the fixes! I've updated the cover art's rational, as it seemed outdated. I've reduced the screenshot's size to 425 x 300 pixels, and added the original Engadget article to its file. The reduced size of the screenshot looks fine. Yeah, finding any information on this article was a challenge, but it's received a small amount of publicity in retrospective reviews, as it can arguably be considered the first PlayStation game (though it depends on how you look at it). JAGUAR  20:42, 23 February 2016 (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) 22:30, 27 February 2016 (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) 22:46, 22 February 2016 [10].

---

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the calutron, a spiffy gizmo for magnetic isotope separation. The article has passed GA and A class reviews, which have included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm..." Snakelike sentence. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Ling, I broke it into three sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X

• Consider the use of alt text for any images used, so they can be interpreted by screenreaders.

  Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The costs table could be better formatted for the same reason; use !scope="col" and !scope="row" in to define where columns and rows begin. Here is a diff of an example of how to do so.

  Not sure what the benefit it is - it looks the same as before - but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The benefit is, again, for screenreaders, as the definitions allow them to read the table coherently. It means visually-impaired visitors can still benefit from the information in it. GRAPPLE ^X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a particular reason why we have inch-to-millimetre conversions? It just seems unusual to see thousands of millimetres given for measurements.

  For some reason, millimetres is the default conversion. It seemed appropriate where we were talking about fractions of an inch, so retained there. Switched to cm for the 184-inch (470 cm) cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall this is a very high-quality piece, would be happy to support given the above is addressed. GRAPPLE ^X 10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE ^X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful article, I have no major complaints, so I had to resort to lots of very minor prose nitpicks:

• Too many California's in this sentence: "Its name was derived from California University Cyclotron, in tribute to Lawrence's institution, the University of California in Berkeley, California, where it was invented." Couldn't the reader infer that the University of California in Berkeley is in fact in California?

  Removed. Just had to make sure there was one mention that it was in Berkeley before referring to it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Should this be in American English since it's mainly about California and Tennessee? "6 August 1945", "25 June 1942", etc. If not, should the measurements use metric first with inches or whatever in parentheses?

  Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles about the 20th century US military use this format. It happens to be thje one the Manhattan Project used consistently. Measurements are in United States customary units. Note however that the US customary unit for fissile materials is metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...the heavier isotopes are bent less by the magnetic field..." not the isotopes themselves, but their paths? Beams? Streams? Or not bent but deflected?

  Used "deflected", which is probably the term used in the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...he theorized that it was the uranium-235 isotope and not the more abundant uranium-238 that was primarily responsible for fission with thermal neutrons." Does 'primarily' mean that some 238 is also responsible? Or other isotopes too?

  Yes. Natural uranium is 99.275% uranium-238, 0.72% uranium-235 and 0.005% uranium-234. According to the Wikipedia, the thermal neutron cross section for fission of uranium-238 is around 0.00002 barns, while that of uranium-235 is 583 barns. So in layman's terms, you get some, but not a lot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "This made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated..." Why does it follow from the finding that U-235 is responsible that a chain reaction could happen? This seems stilted without more of an explanation. I understand not wanting to get into the nitty gritty so early, but is there a way this could flow better?

  Changed to: Leo Szilard and Walter Zinn soon confirmed that more than one neutron was released per fission, which made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Brilliant. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Uranium-235 makes up only about 0.72% of natural uranium,[14] so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 1250 to produce 90% uranium-235 from natural uranium." These numbers don't mean anything to a lay reader, do we need the specific numbers? The words 'separation factor' make sense in context, but I don't actually know what they mean. If it were like "Uranium-235 makes up only about 1% of natural uranium, and they need it to be 90%, so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 900", I could kind of see where the numbers are coming from and the specificity would make sense. But as is the math makes no sense so it's kind of distracting.

  Yes, but think of the kids who are trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. By giving exact dates and numbers, we give them plenty of room to maneuver. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "...which results in the beam scattering." I prefer the active voice to this noun + -ing construction: "which causes the beam to scatter." Same with "resulting in reasonably good beams being produced in September 1942."

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In December Lawrence received a $400,000 grant from the S-1 Uranium Committee." Is this a military or government committee? Might it help to give a link or a parenthetical about what this group is?

  There is a link to its article, up above when it first appeals. It was a committee of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace one instance of 'work' here to reduce repetitiveness: "the process had been demonstrated to work, considerable work was still required"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I know the template does this, but "about 3 feet (0.91 m)" would be more sensible as "about 3 feet (0.9 m)" or "about 3 feet (1 m)" given that the 3 ft is an estimate in the first place, so you don't want to be too exact with the conversion.

  It sure does. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Lawrence's leadership style. His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm were contagious." Hmm, that's one way of putting it, I heard he was a tyrant!

  That too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Transition wording needed to switch from talking about TN to CA: "...training of workers to operate the production facilities at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By the middle of 1944, there were nearly 1,200 people working at the Radiation Laboratory."

  We're not talking about Tennessee. The Radiation Laboratory remained in Berkeley. It's still there today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Ohhh, they were being trained in Berkeley to work in Oak Ridge later. I misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear now that I reread it. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Typo? " a second stage on enrichment."

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "special procedures were instituted for handling the silver. Holes were drilled into the silver over paper so that the filings could be collected." This is confusing, I think it means "when they wanted to drill holes, they did it over paper", rather than what it kind of sounds like, that they went out of their way to drill holes.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "handfuls of rust were found inside. Moisture was also a problem" Maybe "also a problem in its own right" or something? It's just that the 'also' sounds redundant because moisture causes rust.

  This is true. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got for now! More in a few days. Sorry to be a total brat about the minutiae. Very nice work! delldot ∇. 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review ∇! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, everything's addressed! Back with more in a couple days. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more for right now:

• This sentence switched to hyphens from n dashes: "Alpha process buildings, 9201-4 and 9201-5, another Beta, 9204-2". Same with "The two Alpha I buildings, 9201-1 and 9201-2".

  Got rid of the ndashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't you think the paras beginning "Groves authorized Alpha II in September 1943" should be a table instead? It's TMI to integrate as prose, too hard to follow all the numbers, and repetitive. Anything that's not building, start date, or finish date could be kept as prose.

  It is prose in both the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but they've got a whole book to fill up, right? I don't know that that means we should follow suit. It's up to you, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but the prose does feel kind of word salady: a jumble of building numbers and dates. I think a table would be a lot more readable. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That noun -ing construction again (also I have a personal vendetta against 'with' as a conjunction with the present participle): "with S-50 product being fed into K-25 instead."

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back with more soon! delldot ∇. 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last set:

• Too much 'used in': "Enriched uranium from the calutrons would be used in the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945." you could say 'went into the Little Boy atomic bomb' or something.

  Re-worded to Enriched uranium from the calutrons provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "By May 1946, studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without accidentally creating a critical mass" This is the first mention that there was a danger of this during production. You might just change it to something like "unlike the racetracks, which had a danger of accidentally creating a critical mass [that could explode?], May 1946 studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without this danger" Or something much better written than that.

  No, the racetracks had very little danger of creating a critical mass, because you can just flick the switch on them if too much uranium-235 starts to build up. The gaseous diffusion plants were rather more complex. Care had to be taken with product though. A bad incident occurred at Oak Ridge on June 16, 1958. Product did not explode, because it didn't come together fast enough, but it irradiated the vicinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For the table "Manhattan Project – Electromagnetic project costs", I think all the figures should be carried out to the same number of significant figures, and either millions or billions should be used, not both. (e.g. 3.69 billion changed to 3690 million) Currently it uses $19.6 million and $6.63 million, I think it would be better either rounding up or using 0's to carry it to the same number of decimals.

  The magic is all in the FormatPrice template. I assume it conforms to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Dangling modifier: "In 1945, the British atomic bomb project built a 180° calutron similar in design to an American Beta calutron at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire." Could just put the phrase 'similar in design to an American Beta calutron' in parentheses.

  Added commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there anywhere else in the article that the single sentence under Calutron patents could be integrated? It would seem more logical to end the article with the discussion of the more modern-day applications, and this single-sentence section brings us back in time.

  Moved to the Research section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I expected more info on how a calutron works. The one diagram is small so you can't really see the separate parts or read the labels, maybe it could be cropped or enlarged in the article? (although I know some people don't like the latter).

  I tried to describe it as best I could. I have enlarged the diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, that's it from me! Excellent work overall. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot, did I forget to say support after all that? Sorry! Support. delldot ∇. 03:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- FTR I've checked the relevant MilHist ACR image and source reviews and note that no new images or refs have been added since then, so prepared to close this without further inspection here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (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) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (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) 22:51, 22 February 2016 [11].

---

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the family of French descent who were pivotal in later medieval English history and the contemporary view of it. Recently received a warm welcome at FAC before becoming embroiled in questions of sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm looking at this diff of the changes since the last time I did a prose review, in September. It's kind of slow going, because the intervening edits have a lot of typos. I've fixed a few; I'm down to "In the early 12th century, the marriage of Geoffrey V of Anjou to Empress Matilda, King Henry I's only surviving legitimate child and heir to the English throne.", which isn't a sentence. Please check the diff (from that point) for more typos before I do another prose review. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have run through the diff and done a quick copy edit on a few things. Will review again when all the responses to comments are edited in. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Magna Carta": Sometimes with "the", sometimes not. I'm not taking a position either way ... in fact, I don't personally think perfect consistency is required, but generally FAC standards require consistency.
• "agreed a treaty", etc.: I'm completely in favor (favour!) of exposing everyone, even Americans, to Briticisms in British English articles ... but I'm not convinced that all or even most Americans will work out what this means. In AmEng, this can only mean "agreed that a treaty (something)".
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. It was fine when I commented earlier (after my changes) down to where I said I stopped, and I've just copyedited from there to the end based on a diff from September through today. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Battle_of_crecy_froissart.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Richard_II_King_of_England.jpg

• Links fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Agincour.JPG: what is the basis for the "PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR NON EDITORIAL USAGE" notation?

• To tell you the truth I don't know and have been unable to find out. To resolve I have changed this to a simpler image.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:MS_Ghent_-_Battle_of_Tewkesbury.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my points below have been addressed and I can't find any new ones. I have made one comment immediately below but it has no bearing on my support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

• Forgive my confusion here, but I am left wondering one major thing: was the House, in the large, based in England or France? I realize this is a matter of some subtly, but it doesn't really seem to be addressed directly. The lede says "The family held the English throne from 1154" and goes on to describe their history almost solely in terms of English events. However, the maps in the body show that in terms of land, and I assume income, the majority of the family was in (today's) France. A little color here would be appreciated.

• Hi @Maury Markowitz:— could you please look at this one again because I thought this was clear. The Angevin kings were both Francophonic and largely preoccupied with French affairs. The loss of Anjou, Normandy and Maine reduced this although Henry III retained both his nominal claims until the 1250s and the Duchy of Aquitaine as a peer of France which passed in turn to the Edwards. Edward III claimed the English throne and through this the basis of the Hundred Years War. The War ebbed and flowed, during which Henry VI was crowned king of France and the family began to speak English. I think all this is in there and clear. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my only concern here is in the lede. Britannica and most other similar sources define the Plantagenets as English. I know this isn't strictly accurate, as this article notes, but I think we still need something to indicate/sooth this confusion. Perhaps something like "Although originally from the continent, and retaining large holdings in France, they are considered to be an English dynasty." Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to word it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the lede mentions "after the Plantagenets were defeated in the Hundred Years' War". For most of those 100 years, English troops were rampaging though France, and I'm not sure they could be said to have "lost". Is it not the case they ended up with more territory at the end? A second map, like the first one in the body, might be useful - the mapping crew is a good source for this.

• No, it is not the case they ended with more territory at the end, after 1453 the only remaining holdings were Calais and the Channel Islands. I don't think a map of this would be too instructive? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "was scourged by monks" - what does this mean?

• It means severely whipped, I have ammended to this effect.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The rivalry between " - should this not be the start of a new paragraph?

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Conflict with the House of Valois" - the first para seems to be damaged. Actually this whole section reads oddly and could use some copyediting.

• Done—is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The younger Henry rebelled" - this is a different rebellion mentioned in the earlier para? If so, was Henry the Young not involved in those events?

• Added "again" to indicate he was a repeat offender Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "accept humiliating peace terms, " - to which conflict? Is this the one Younger's wife started?

• Rephrased to be clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Richard was captured by Leopold" - why? it seems odd one would simply place another in captivity without a cases belli. is this over the spoils?

• In part yes, I've added some detail to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "was injured by an arrow during the siege" - what siege?

• Amended to a more general "a siege"—I don't think which one is of great interest.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "when Arthur's forces threatened his mother" - how, exactly? A verbal threat or military action?

• amended for clarity Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "As a result of John's behaviour" - uh, what behaviour? Winning a battle over rebels? Or did he do something to them?

• He did, more detail added to help. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was rumoured in the" is this part of the earlier narrative, or did this occur later? Is this the "behaviour" part?

• The revolt happened before the rumour, I have tried to make this clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "explaining John's sudden capitulation" - what sudden capitulation? Was there a treaty signed in here somewhere?

• I've rephrased this, no treaty at this point, just a collapse.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have read the comments at the earlier FAC and of course I defer to those more expert than I in English history, but as an averagely well-read layman I found the article fascinating, and it seems to me balanced and well sourced. I feel I must support its promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 15:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments taking a look now. Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually before I do, I recommend @Hchc2009: having a look to see if they are satisfied with improvements since the last FAC as I am not knowledgeable with the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Ealdgyth: - I'm waiting to see what those two say, as my comments last time were mostly dealt with ok, but theirs not, during the FAC. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look at this again - but my main question is ... were all the citations checked against the sources that are supposed to be supporting them? If not, its going to be very difficult for me to support this, given the problems I found last FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Largely the answer is yes. All the Jones references which was the main objection last time have been replaced and all those that you identified in your review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the concern was whether all the references had been checked back against the original sources; last time around quite a lot proved to have problems when they were examined, and Eadgyth was keen that all the references had all been individually checked. I share her concern with this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, HCHC2009. While I am wading through these, now would be the time to raise any other concerns (from any reviewer). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—71/152 checked so far. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—97/152 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—99/ what is now 145 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update—110 / 139 checked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update—112 / 126 checked. 14 to go, nearly there! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y—@Hchc2009:@Casliber:@Johnbod:@Ealdgyth:—for information I have checked what I could and replaced those that I couldn't check. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, my understanding is that at present there are no outstanding comments that required addressing at this point. If this understanding is incorrect then please let me know. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Norfolkbigfish. @Hchc2009, Casliber, Johnbod, and Ealdgyth: Can you guys take another look now? It seems to me that now that the nominator has double-checked all citations (admittedly something that should take place before FAC, not during) we need a spotcheck of a selection of sources to verify things from the reviewer perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am keeping an eye on the page. I am not an expert, so am waiting for @Hchc2009 and Ealdgyth: to take a look first. Then am happy to take it from there.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave a note on Ealdgyth's talk page but she says she is busy in RL and may not be able to give this a look.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working my way through. A few bits picked up so far:

• "the term "espace Plantagenet", Plantagenet span in English" - isn't "the Plantagenet space" a more common translation?

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• why isn't Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou linked on first use? (vice 2nd)

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "13th century depiction of Henry II and his legitimate children:" - "13th-century depiction"

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the king's realm" - "the King's realm" (it is a specific king)

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "after the king refused" - ditto

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• consistency of how "battle of..." is capitalised

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "William had a long career at the highest political levels demonstrating the important role played by royal bastards as well as his competence in administration, diplomacy, and war typical of leading figures amongst the Angevin elite." - very similar (feels like close paraphrasing) to the original cited text of "Longespée was a political figure of the first rank, symbolizing not only the important role played by royal bastards, but the multifaceted competence in administration, diplomacy, and war which characterized leading figures in the Angevin regime" (NB: I haven't checked other references for close paraphrasing, spotted this one by chance).

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is alleged that Pope Adrian IV issued a papal bull in 1155" - alleged by who?

Y—reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Duggan 2005" - missing a page number in the citation

Y—changed to web source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " The old king died two days later," - capitalisation

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "When close to complete victory, he was injured by an arrow during a siege" - an arrow, or a bolt?
• "Foolishly John disregarded his allies opinions on the fate of the prisoners" - "allies'"

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " Instead he kept his prisoners so vilely and in such evil distress that it seemed shameful and ugly to all those who were with him and who saw this cruelty according..." why the italics here and not speech marks like the other quotes?

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "These children probably included nine sons called (Richard, Oliver, Henry, Osbert Gifford..." - second bracket is missing

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "recognized as the first Parliament because it was the first time the cities and burghs had sent representatives" - do we really mean burgh here?

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth checking the dates ascribed to the ODNB entries. "Cooper, J. P. D. (2004)", for example, is dated as Jan 2008 for the on-line version (2004 is the earlier hard-copy edition).

Y It was a pain but all done! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now covered all these—what do you all think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is back to the point where there are no unaddressed comments. Are there any more notes @Hchc2009:? Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment. I am not sure that the picture of the state of England in the fifteenth century is balanced. Some of the third para of the lead with its "rampant crime" etc is not covered in the main text. It also arguably exaggerates how bad the situation was. See for example Economy of England in the Middle Ages#Agriculture, fishing and mining. It was a bad time for the aristocracy but not for the peasantry. In the main text the Great Slump is attributed to Henry VI's mismanagement, but not in the article on the slump (which is a stub article but cites a more specialised source). Dudley Miles (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the comment, Dudley. I have removed the unsupported statement regarding crime in the lead as it doesn't really add much. On the subject of balance there are two factors to consider. 1) The question of timing. The cited source Davies notes that "The state of commerce is rather more bleak if we narrow our perspectives to the years around 1450….a deep commercial crisis in the years 1440-70". The link given, Economy of England in the Middle Ages#Agriculture, fishing and mining, doesn't have much to add on this as it largely concerns the 13th and 14th centuries. 2) The article does acknowledge improved financial conditions for the bulk of the population. However, the economy and economics is about aggregate demand. The bulk of commercial activity was undertaken by the aristocracy and wealthy and it is clear that this did go through a sharp depression as Hicks notes "A savage slump of c 1440-80 beset most parts of the economy……war had plunged the government deep into debt and the depression had slashed its income". I hope the lead is now more balanced and the context makes the body less controversial. It is an article about an aristocratic family rather than England afterall. What do you think @Dudley Miles:. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had a further dig and this article marries up quite well as it stands with England_in_the_Late_Middle_Ages#Economy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now Enough has been done, imo, and the article meets the FA criteria. My comments are above. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- I tend to agree with Johnbod that it's about time to promote this but first: I don't have time to check but can we assume that everything in the Family tree, List of members of the House of Plantagenet, and Titles subsections is covered by the cited material in the main body of the article? I ask because there are no overarching, and very few individual, citations in those subsections. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have removed the Titles section on the grounds it was selective (e.g. didn't even include the duchys of York and Lancaster), didn't really add any further information of note and if completed would probably have justified and entire list article all to its' self. The family tree is all covered in the article and so is the List but I have added overarching citations to Weir's genealogy to both to make sure. @Ian Rose:—if further citations are needed I could work through Weir's work adding theme page by page but I am not sure that adds anything, what do you think, Ian? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks, I think that should do it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2016 (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) 22:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2016 [12].

---

Nominator(s): Cassianto^Talk 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly 60 years, the English actor Michael Hordern appeared on stage, television, and film. He was as frequent in Shakespearean plays as his more famous contemporaries, Olivier, Richardson, and Gielgud. The title role in King Lear was perhaps Hordern's most notable role for which he sought the advice from Gielgud on how best to play King Lear. Gielgud told him: "All I can tell you is, get a light Cordelia." Hordern was as comfortable playing straight roles as he was comedy. He was, as one critic put it, "one of the great eccentrics of his profession, perched perilously somewhere half way between Alistair Sim and Alec Guinness."

Having worked on this article since Christmas, I feel that this article now meets the desired criteria for it to become a featured article. It has had an extensive peer review and now I'd be most grateful for any comments anyone has to offer here. Cassianto^Talk 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Has undergone significant change since the beginning of the PR. Much improved overall, I've been monitoring progress and it definitely meets FA criteria. I was initally concerned (and more fussy than I'd usually be!) that it didn't have enough detail on his film coverage, but I believe it now highlights most of the ones worth mentioning and Cassianto edited it deftly to balance it within reason. It's really a great article on one of Britain's best actors and deserves to be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Read this a few times (copyediting as I went) during PR, which I followed closely. Comprehensive, very well written, very well sourced, nicely illustrated. I was drawn in and delight to see it here. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I had my say during PR as well. Very well put together article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support having watched Hordern from an early age I was happy too read his life and career so well presented. I was also delighted learn things that I had not known before. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another happy punter from PR. The article was excellent at PR, and I see it's got even better since. – SchroCat (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This had one of the longest and most thorough peer reviews that I can remember – here it is, yards and yards of it. Cassianto dealt with the myriad comments and suggestions calmly and positively. I'm not saying that the multiple reviewers picked up everything, and that no further improvement is possible, but I am confident that the FA criteria are fully met. The fact that so many were prepared to pitch in is a compliment both to Cassianto and, most especially, to Hordern who, nearly 20 years after his death, is most fondly remembered by those who grew up when he was a staple of film and theatre. I look forward to an appropriate TFA in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—I had been intending to have my say at the PR stage but didn't get to it until we were already here at FAC. I've had a look through and I could find nothing to quibble about except for a missing comma before a footnote. Excellent work about a subject I had known very little about previously—and as an added bonus my neck of the woods gets quite a few mentions along the way. Very well done, Cassianto, a pleasure for me as a reader. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

• Support Looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

• Supporting now. Excellent job. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 10:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

• Support - looks to me like it meets all the criteria for FA. Good work on the article. Jack1956 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN58: which Wearing? Same with 114
  • Any advice on how I would differentiate between the two? They are the same person with the same year. Cassianto^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could use 2014a and 2014b, or include the year range alongside the author as a form of shortened title in the footnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I opted for the year ranges, thanks. Although, I may change to former in the future as I'm pretty indecisive about formatting issues. Cassianto^Talk 22:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• FN77: formatting doesn't match other newspapers
  • Done. Cassianto^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hand-formatted citations are fine, but they've got to be consistent - for example, FN22 has the punctuation as part of the link, 78 has it outside, and 82 and 91 have no punctuation at all
  • Fixed all. Cassianto^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do FN111 and 155 differ in publisher?
  • Good catch, fixed. Cassianto^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• FN163: author/editor? Where full book citations are included in footnotes, they should be formatted the same as those in Sources
  • Ive deleted this and have put in a better source. Cassianto^Talk 10:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• FN185: is that the spelling of the work used in the source?
  • Corrected. Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are FN158 and 191 formatted differently?
  • Ammended to 191's version. Cassianto^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources: North Carolina is a state, should include city. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Cassianto^Talk 10:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to conduct both this and the image review, Nikkimaria. Cassianto^Talk 10:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2016 [13].

---

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... McKinley's groundbreaking campaign of 1896. I did the Bryan campaign a few years ago, now we see the other side of the first modern presidential election. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very clean and readable article; only a couple minor copy edits. Weird to think of Karl Rove as a Reliable Source for anything, but his book on this subject was well-received. Good work, Wehwalt. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same way, actually. But Rove has the credentials, studied McKinley, and he wrote an excellent book (though I don't agree with all his conclusions). In fact, the publication of the book made me feel I had enough material to go forward. Everyone gets distracted by Bryan's campaign. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support How could I not, I just wrote a McKinley-related article myself! LavaBaron (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was perusing the FA nominations section and, because I have an interest in American history, clicked on this one. In the lead, it is stated that McKinley's victory launched "an era of dominance for the Republican Party." I have no problem with the article saying that the victory as a "realigning election," but the era of Republican dominance did not with this victory. It began with the victory of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. From 1860 until 1912, Republican candidates won all but 2 of the presidential elections of the period. Perhaps the sentence could be amended to say something like this: "McKinley's decisive victory in what is sometimes considered a realigning election brought about an end to the Third Party System and ushered in the Fourth Party System by helping to continue Republican dominance of national politics." Display name 99 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts. I'm flexible on the subject, but I wonder if saying "Third Party System" and "Fourth Party System" in text rather than behind links is a good idea, because the reader very likely will not know what they are, and I'd rather keep them than lose them to another article. Instead, I tried to have the explanation be the text, with the articles available by pipe. As for Republican dominance, from the distance of 120 years, of course, we see who was elected and who was not. But from an 1896 perspective, the Republicans had to deal with a Democratic president. The Democrats had won the popular vote in the last three elections, in fact the only Republican to win the popular vote in the past 20 years was Garfield. Barely. Presidential elections were turning on who would win New York and Ohio. Beginning in 1896, Republicans generally had a popular majority and a easy electoral victory, and usually were in control of Congress. Since 1875, Republicans had only really controlled Congress in 1889-91 and 1895 on. Democrats only controlled Congress in the 1910s, because of the Roosevelt/Taft conflict. So I'm dubious that Republicans controlled national politics at any time between Grant and McKinley. What do you think?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in: Please keep the matter simple. The terms "Third Party System" and "Fourth Party System" will, as Wehwalt indicates, befuddle and confuse British readers, who will not, I believe, read through the link articles. I think the above explanation justifies the wording presently used, but as a possible alternative, can I offer: "McKinley's decisive victory, sometimes seen as a realigning election, ended a period of close presidential elections and ushered in an era of electoral dominance for the Republican Party". This avoids "launching", which seems the word most objected to. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've adopted Brianboulton's suggestion. Please let me know if this does not resolve the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map size
• File:William_McKinley_campaign_speech_1896.ogg: source link is dead
• File:Front_porch_campaign_2.jpg needs a US PD tag
• File:ElectoralCollege1896.svg should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I gave this a detailed going-over at peer review. It's a fascinating account, one of several of its kind that Wehwalt has expanded and improved. Required reading in a presidential election year (how they used to do things). Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I read this through today with much ease and enjoyment. It also has one of the most attractive lead images I've seen in a while. Cassianto^Talk 20:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support. I agree, and it matches the one on the Bryan article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 94: pp. should be p.
• For the two Kindle books (Dean and Taliaferro) you give the publisher location for the latter but not the former.
• The OCLC for the Walters book is 477641
• I'm no expert on state abbreviations, but "Kan" doesn't seem consistent with the earlier "NE", "TX", "OH" etc
• I don't want to be over-fussy, but footnote "d" deems to contain a little more than simple clarification details, and as such probably ought to be supported by a citation.

Subject to the above, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are fixed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I missed the peer review for some reason, but reading through the article now with critical eye I find nothing to quibble about, and am happy to add my support for the FA candidacy. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 10:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I will be sure to notify you of the next one!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2016 [14].

---

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 70th Infantry Division was a short-lived British unit (with it's origins in the 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions) that fought during the latter stages of the Siege of Tobruk, before being dispatched to India and broken up to reinforce the Chindits. The article has previously passed it's GA and A-Class reviews, I am hoping the good run continues. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've reviewed all of the changes since its A-class review and believe that the article meets the FA criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "During this fighting, two men – from units attached to the division – were awarded the Victoria Cross.": The Victoria Cross for one of them wasn't gazetted until February the next year, and I'm guessing the other VC wasn't instantaneous, either. It seems unlikely to me the medals were awarded during the fighting, but you may know different. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both your comments. I have amended the references to earning them during the battle, per your observation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I added about a para or two of material to this article, but I think that I'm sufficiently uninvolved to be able to review it. I have the following comments:

• Given that the article traces the (somewhat torturous!) history of the division back to 1939, the lead (especially the first para) is a bit lacking

  Expanded somewhat.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The material on the division's operations in 1939 is a bit undetailed, and what's meant by "O'Connor had stated "harshness and unnecessary violence on the part of our soldiers" were to be curbed" is unclear as a result: what were the troops doing?

  Added some material, seems the 8th Division (and the SNS) were being somewhat naughty!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there" what did these comprise? (eg, was it basically an infantry division minus a HQ, or something else?)

  I have added brigade info, does this resolve this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good, especially as there's a full order of battle at the end of the article Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "and its headquarters transformed into the Western Desert Force (WDF)" - perhaps note that this was basically a corps HQ

  I amended the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful to provide an outline of the 6th Division's order of battle upon formation in 1941 in the text of the article (at least which brigades were in the division). Also, where did its troops and constituent units come from?
• "he was overruled by London" - it would be preferable to say what individual/organisation in London made this decision Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources used, and others I have just checked out, all agree that Wingate's relationship with Churchill was key; what Wingate wanted, Churchill made sure he got, including the breakup of the division it would seem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now adressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods

  I believe I got them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest scaling up the map size. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I have scaled it up per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and review guys, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Look forward to your continued feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- reminder that the article will require a source review for formatting/reliability, you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless one of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have followed up on your recommendation and requested a source review. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

Comment The sources in general look properly and consistently formatted. I'm just about ready to support, but have two minor things. For a few of the references, the square brackets have "1st. pub. HMSO <year>" which is different from the other citations. Is this necessary or have some significance I'm not aware of (if so it should be kept). Second, in the citations section there is a full citation mixed in with the shortened footnotes (It's ""7th Division Commander". The Times. 5 October 1938."). It's rather minor, but I'd like to see the formatting consistent with the full citation in the references and it linked to by a shortened footnote. Anyway, looks good and I'll support once those two things are addressed. Wugapodes (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comments, I have made amendments to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on sources Looks good! Wugapodes (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2016 [15].

---

Nominator(s): Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Behold the Baron! The brainchild of an 18th-century con artist who fled his country with a price on his head, the unbelievable Baron Munchausen flourished as an international pop-culture hero from the 1780s onward … much to the frustration of the real-life nobleman who inspired the character in the first place. This article is a GA and has been peer-reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, it's the most comprehensive introduction to the Baron available anywhere, but I look forward to any suggestions for improvement. Lemuellio (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Happy to take a look through. I actually looked at this article the other day for "research" purposes after coming across Nietzsche's mention of him and wondering what was going on.

• You say that "Most ensuing English-language editions, including even the major editions produced by Thomas Seccombe in 1895 and F. J. Harvey Darton in 1930, reproduce one of the rewritten Kearsley versions rather than Raspe's original text." and then immediately say "Raspe's English version of the Munchausen stories became the core text for almost all later versions, not only in England but also in Continental Europe." I'm struggling with this.
  • Yes, that is a bit weird. I've removed that confusingly worded second sentence.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "an original German sequel was published in 1789" Title and translated title?
  • Fixed. This info was in the collapsible table of translations and sequels.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "which circulated widely soon after the book was published" Which? The original German translation?
  • Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm all for tying the various Wikimedia wikis together, but is a link to the German Wiktionary really all that? How about knocking together an entry for the English Wiktionary and linking to that instead?
  • Now that you mention it, a link to anything seems like overkill here, since the word is clearly defined in the paragraph. I've unlinked it.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• What's an "academician"?
  • Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "a film version was made in 1980" The version you're linking to is apparently 1979? The same film is mentioned further down, again with the 1980 claim.
  • The cited source claims the film is from 1980. IMDb says 1979, but that info is of dubious reliability. So to be on the safe side, I'm siding with the source.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "was the second most popular series on the air" In the US, I assume? I must confess that the article occasionally seems to have a slight US-centric tone.
  • Good point! Please point out any other American-centric wordings so I can fix them.--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "as a modern-day descendant of the Baron" Hardly- "modern-day" to those 75 years ago, I'm guessing!
  • Fixed. Thanks for your comments; I look forward to more!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, and I'll be "back for more" in the coming days. I've made a few copyedits. I want to pre-emptively defend my redlinks; per WP:REDLINK (and see also my Signpost piece on the subject) redlinks are not something to be scared of; while I see the value of interwiki links, they are of minimal interest to the large number of readers who are unable to read German/French/Russian/Italian/etc. We can have both a redlink and an interwiki link if we make use of the template I've added. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Josh, good to see you at FAC, I've been a fan of your work for a long time. To start off, I've reverted your addition of a link to de.wp in running text when we had a perfectly good page here (on the 2012 film) ... I can't think of a single case where putting such a link in the text itself has been okay at FAC, but maybe others know more than I do about that, since I don't focus on link issues. I also reverted your addition of the {{ill}} template, based on the discussion we already had about this at PR, I'll reproduce it here: - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"His cousin, Gerlach Adolph von Münchhausen [de]": The {{ill}} template is fine while an article is being developed, but it's not fine at WP:FAC (and I would argue, not at PR or GAN either), because non-Wikipedians are unlikely to know what "(de)" means, and even if they know, it won't help them unless they read German. It would be better to write a stub on en.wp and link to that; the stub can then link to de.wp.

@Dank: Thanks so much! I'll polish up the article.

One question: can you give me a source for your assertion that the {{ill}} template is "not fine at WP:FAC"? I can't find anything in the MOS to discourage it, and indeed H:ILL seems to encourage it.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing it rejected once, and rarely brought up in the first place, but that's not much of a source. It doesn't seem like a hard call to me, for two reasons: 1. The purpose and effect of the template is a big "under construction" sign, in the hope that someone will notice that there's work that needs to be done here, and get to it. FAC is for articles where the work that obviously needs to be done already has been done. 2. I don't always keep up with new trends so I could be wrong, but it looks like a honking big Humpty-Dumptyism to me. Do you know of any professionally copyedited print text that uses "(de)" to mean "better information can be found for the thing immediately preceding, if you follow this note or reference, in German"? If not, then let's have a look at where it's used on the web, and see if the tone is suitably encyclopedic. - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I'll remove the template from the page. Thanks again!--Lemuellio (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• End of quoted text. I'll stop there for now, I just wanted to jump on this to see if we can get everyone on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry- it did occur to me that the interwiki template might cause a bit of controversy. I don't like the idea of interwiki links dropped into the text in the place of links to enwp (red or blue), but I know that some people are frustrated at the thought that we redlink when there are perfectly good articles on other language Wikipedias. The template offers a degree of compromise between the two, but I agree that it's not ideal for many of the same reasons you're concerned about it. That said, you are wrong that we have a perfectly good article on the 2012 film, unless I misunderstand the claim- there's an article on dewp, but not here on enwp. If we have to make a choice between an interwiki link (useless to most readers, who cannot read all of these languages) and a redlink (actively encouraged by our guidelines) then it's an easy choice- we should be redlinking, or, if we're really opposed to redlinks (an attitude contrary to our guidelines!), creating stubs. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I thought I remembered an article on the film, must have been hallucinating. I think the bottom line is: at FAC, we can and regularly do ask people to create stubs, for all kinds of reasons, this is just one more reason. It's not a problem for me if the stubs link prominently to de.wp. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  For now, I have replaced them with simple redlinks; I of course have no objection to people creating stubs, and hope that someone (at some point) will! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuing.
• Regarding the collapsed tables, see MOS:DONTHIDE at WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 23:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the tables merely provide further details of a bibliographic history already covered in summary form by the article text, it seems to me that this sentence from MOS:DONTHIDE addresses the situation: "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text." It sounds like the two of us are reading this MOS section differently.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table contains information not already present in the main text, so it doesn't "consolidate information covered in the main text". "sections or cells ... in tables" can't mean "the whole table". This subsection of MOS has AFAIK had a consistent interpretation since the beginning of the style guide. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll uncollapse the tables.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable and engaging. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the second paragraph of the section Baron Munchausen#Historical figure is the following sentence:

• However, Münchhausen was considered an honest man, rather than a liar.

I recommend reversing the order of the parts of this sentence:

• However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man.

Putting "rather than being considered a liar" first creates a link to the previous sentence, and putting "was seen as an honest man" second creates a link to the next sentence. If you feel that the phrase is too long, then it could be shortened to:

• However, rather than a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. (or)

• However, instead of a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like your first suggestion. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By trying to be "about [both] the literary character and his historical namesake", this article becomes confusing. It's as if the Jerry Seinfeld (character) article had all the Jerry Seinfeld stuff as well. As I see it this article is basically the character article; but unlike in the Seinfeld case the real person's article doesn't need to exist as he isn't notable.

You should therefore treat this article as a straightforward fictional biography, with the real guy's info there only to provide background to the character. In effect though, none of the content will drastically change, just remove the WP:MOSBIO elements: the real guy's infobox, the bolding of his name in the lead, and his birth/death dates (move them to Historical figure). And start the article with "Baron Munchausen is a fictional German nobleman in literature and film, created by the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1785". That'll make it crystal clear what this is article is about.—indopug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, am sympathetic to this approach, and was thinking about it as I read through the article. On the other hand, I suspect that the real-world Munchausen is notable. Perhaps the shift in focus suggested by Indopug along with the creation of a short article (there's easily enough here for a good start class, and that'd give you somewhere to put the infobox/categories, which don't really belong here) would be the best way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the namesake is notable by WP standards; since inspiring the fictional character is the reason he's remembered and written about, he strikes me as a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E. On the other hand, that's exactly what makes this article's focus a bit tricky to pin down: in order to explain the fictional character sufficiently, the historical storyteller has to be given good coverage as well. The fiction/reality overlap seems unavoidable. As one of the writers quoted in the article says, "These two barons are the same and they are not the same…"

I'd be glad to hear others' opinions on how to handle this. If removing the second infobox and unbolding Hieronymus's name will make this article less confusing, I'm happy to oblige.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all barons are "notable by WP standrds", certainly this one. But I think the existing approach is correct, though a little clarification at the start of lead would help. I too was briefly unsure of the subject here, but it did not last long. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, for the purposes of this review, that we needn't decide whether the real-world baron is notable. That said, a slight shift in focus to make sure that we're clear that this is an article about the character (so, debold the real name in the lead, remove the infobox but keep the image, remove the categories added for the person) is likely appropriate either way. If someone chooses to create an article on the baron, it can be linked as appropriate (or taken to AfD if we/someone is of the view that he is not notable, though I remain fairly sure that he is). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and shift the focus, and see what happens. Thanks.--Lemuellio (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an improvement; I am leaning towards supporting, and will take another look through in the coming days. (Shout at me if I haven't said anything in a week...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. I think the article is very good, but there may be elements I have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck due to the reintroduction of the topic ambiguity. This needs to be sorted before this can be promoted to FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I think I've successfully undone the ambiguity; please do let me know what you think of the article as it now stands. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed- I'm happy to support on the condition it stays as-is in that regard. Sorry for running you around a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Dore-munchausen-illustration.jpg: source link is dead, and should use original rather than upload date
  • Thank you for this image review! I've done my best to remove the problem on the Commons page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Rudolf_Erich_Raspe.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:G_a_buerger_sw.jpeg, File:Gottfried_Franz_-_Munchhausen_Underwater.jpg
  • Same as above.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Stamps_of_Germany_(BRD)_1970,_MiNr_623.jpg is tagged as being non-free
  • Thank you for catching this. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Muenchhausen-1lats.jpg: the given tag states that Latvian coins no longer circulating by 2004 are PD, but this coin is dated 2005
  • According to the tag: "Per 2004 amendments of Latvian copyright law … reproductions are allowed … [if] criteria for reproduction set by issuing national bank or country are met. … [T]he criteria limit reproduction of coins as actual objects (i.e. tokens, medals etc.), which could be mistaken for genuine coins, but have no requirements for images that are flat (i.e. drawings, paintings, photographs, etc)." So, unless I'm misreading the tag, it would appear that any photograph of any Latvian coin is free for use as long the photograph itself is freely licensed.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• File:BaronM.jpg: freedom of panorama in Russia does not extend to sculpture, so we need a licensing tag for the statue itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sculpture is by Andrey Orlov (b. 1961) and was unveiled in 2004, so it most likely cannot be used here. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Never do an FAC too close to Christmmas though! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man." What does the "however" relate to? The preceding sentence does not seem to indicate anyone considered him a liar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "However" is to clarify that despite the unusual nature of Münchhausen's performances (he told long outlandish stories about things he claimed happened to himself, and told them as casually as if they had really happened and were not at all astonishing), his contemporaries were able to recognize that what he was doing was storytelling rather than lying.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think "rather" would be enough to make that point (seems a bit like a pleonasm now), but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a bit of a potentially confusing issue, in that the original German books use the exact same name for the fictional character as the real person, while only the English translations use a slightly different name. I've listed some resulting issues below.
  • On the contrary, "Munchausen" is the original name of the fictional character (see the Fictionalization section). It was only in translation into other languages, including German, that the spelling shifted to "Münchhausen" to match the real-life man's name.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the issue was that the German version is identical to that of the real life person, unlike the English version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Raspe, probably for fear of a libel suit from the real-life Baron von Münchhausen" But was the real person actually a Baron? It seems "Baron" is considered a type of "Freiherr" in Germany, according to the German Wikipedia. Yet it seems the real life person was never referred to specifically as a Baron there? If "Baron" simply substituted "Freiherr" in English translations, this should probably be stated somewhere, and the real life person should perhaps not be referred to as one.
  • The German WP says that the honorific "Baron" can be applied to a Freiherr (bisweilen mit der Höflichkeitsformel „Baron“ angesprochen). So, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life person can accurately be called "Baron von Münchhausen". Raspe, at the very least, seems to have considered "Freiherr" and "Baron" equivalent.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "von" used in the name of the fictional character as well? If only in translations, this could be noted, as the lack of umlaut is noted too.
  • I've never seen the "von" used in versions of the English original; only in German translations.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps the full name (or the words "real life") should be added to the caption of the image that shows the real life person ("Münchhausen circa 1740 as a Cuirassier in Riga, by G. Bruckner"), to differentiate the two.
  • Fixed. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Could dates be mentioned in relation to the various reviews under "Critical and popular reception"? Now it is unclear whether commentary is contemporary or from much later.
  • I'm not sure how necessary that is, since the commentators are all wikilinked and so their time periods can be easily checked. (There's a year given for the one unlinked exception, Sarah Tindal Kareem.) I can definitely add a few words to clarify that the review in The English Review is contemporary, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure what others think about this, but I think it would be helpful to add date after the name of the artists in the captions of the illustrations.
  • I'm not sure either, but I'd be happy to do so if there's a consensus in that direction. So I'd value a second/third/fourth opinion on this.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "Pearl's popularity gradually declined between 1933 and 1937, though he staged several comebacks before ending his last radio series in 1951.[9]" I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the subject of the article?
  • It seems like a good way of establishing how long the Baron-as-radio-phenomenon lasted, so I would recommend keeping it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but as is, the reader wouldn't know that the two issues (Baron's/Pearl's popularity) are connected, since you don't mention whether Pearl used the Baron as a character until the end. If he didn't, there isn't much relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I'll fix it. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Since a lot of text is devoted to von Münchhausen's telling his stories, an image like this[16] that is used on the German Wikipedia might be fitting to illustrate that.
  • For a while, that very image was indeed used to illustrate this article. However, it's unclear when exactly that image was made—and, therefore, whether or not it's fallen into public domain—so it was eventually removed.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the artist died in 1934 (more than 70 years ago), and the images were published before then, those images are definitely in the public domain. Where was this concern raised? FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Herrfurth images are definitely PD in their country of origin, but WP has to follow USA copyright laws, which (alas!) are considerably weirder; see WP:PD. In brief, for these images to be in PD in the USA, there needs to be proof they were published before 1923. I can't track down the publication date, so the copyright status remains a mystery to me.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the images would also need to be nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I'll do that[17], and the resulting discussion will decide what will happen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The image was kept by an administrator[18], so it should be safe to include. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in. Thanks so much for looking into this!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The character is loosely based on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen" Perhaps bold this name in the intro, as it is also a subject of the article?
  • For a long time, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen was in bold on this page; then, during this FAC discussion, there was some conversation about whether or not the real-life man really counted as a subject of the article, and eventually the name was unbolded. I could go either way on it; please don't be afraid to reopen the conversation above. And thank you for all your comments!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the real life person doesn't have an article, and has a substantial amount of text devoted to him here, I'd say he's a subject, but well, I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - me, I'd re-bold. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there's a 2-2 tie, so I'll take a stand myself now. I'll be bold and re-bold (pardon the rhyme).--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, makes sense, also since the article has categories about the real life person as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted per LEAD. One of the burdens of FAC (for better and worse) is MOS compliance. Bolding is for synonyms of the title. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Dank! I think the "To bold or not to bold" problem stems from the ambiguity, already raised on this page, about what the article's subject is. If the subject is the fictional Baron, full stop, then clearly Hieronymus's name should not be in bold. But if the subject is both Barons—in other words, if the article is for all intents and purposes a joint biography—then both names should be in bold, as is done on all the rest of Wikipedia's many joint biography articles.

Me, I'd argue that the joint-biography approach makes a whole lot of sense; it would be ridiculous for (to take a random example) Maud and Miska Petersham each to have their own biography, since they're notable specifically for the work they did together. The same logic seems to be applicable here; without the fictional character Hieronymus comes dangerously close to being a WP:1E, and without the historical personage the fictional Baron has no context whatsoever.

Of course, I don't own the article, so I'm happy to go whatever way a strong consensus leans.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this, once again. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The categories for the real life person were also removed at one point; perhaps they've been added back now. I think the best solution would be to create an article for the real baron; given the amount of information about him in this one, it probably wouldn't be too difficult. The worst solution, I think, is this ambiguous "two subject" article. I note that this isn't really a joint biography at all, but an article about a real person and a fictional version of that real person, and we have plenty of precedent for separating them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against separation. But I think as long as the real life person redirects here, he is certainly a subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The redirect guidelines allow that a redirect can be appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article"- this case seems to be an example of that. If we're not having a separate article, this should be treated as a subtopic rather than as a second main subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the main problem here is that we don't seem to have a clear precedent, so that it becomes a matter of taste/opinion. I'd go with a split (with a summary about the real person, of course). The real life person seems to be notable enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A split is fine by me, as long as the real-life Münchhausen really is notable on his own; that's the point that seems unclear at the moment. That he was adapted against his will into a pop-culture icon is remarkable, but it's only one event. It's true that he was born into a noble family, but to the best of my knowledge, nobility doesn't automatically imply notability.

This is where the article differs from, say, Jerry Seinfeld (character); the real Jerry Seinfeld has a public life separate from his fictional persona. Münchhausen was so much more private an individual that it seems difficult to pad his biography out any further without steering dangerously close to WP:PSEUDO.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think more info about him could be found in German sources, if one really wanted to be comprehensive. And considering that we have articles about the spouses and parents of various US presidents, who aren't notable past being just that, I think this case is notable enough as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position, but please note WP:INVALIDBIO: "relationships do not confer notability". (See also the essays "Other stuff exists" and "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability".) That more info could be found in German sources is probably true, but seems to fall under the category of arguments described in the essay "But there must be sources!".

Again, I have no personal reasons to oppose a split, but since several reviewers have indicated support of the article as it stands, it looks to me as we need a strong policy-based reason to leap the one-event hurdle and split the article.--Lemuellio (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that 1E applies. If tomorrow J. K. Rowling was to reveal that Harry Potter was based on Harold Lotter, a schoolfriend who is now an assistant manager in a shoe shop, the creation of an article on Lotter could be opposed on those grounds. The real Baron has significance as the source of the fictional character, but also as a member of the nobility, a minor celebrity of days gone by, a military man with connections to other notable people, a part of a somewhat-notable family and perhaps for other reasons. I suspect there would be sources available, and I'd be inclined to say that there's easily enough material in the current article/its history to create a decent enough start- or C-class article. If, on the other hand, you're of the view that he's not notable, surely that's all more the reason to clarify that the current article is very much not about him. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty close to supporting, but I'd like to see this issue resolved somehow... As Josh points out, the Baron seems to be historically notable in his own right. You could argue that he has of course been overshadowed by the fictional character, but that does not take away from his own achievements and significance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the best compromise, at least for the moment, is simply to make it unambiguous that our focus in this article is the fictional character. I've re-removed "and his historical namesake" from the hatnote, as well as the categories describing the historical figure.--Lemuellio (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The new image layout looks good. I'll just go ahead and support this, as the remaining issues don't hold it back for me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article, I have no major complaints. I do prefer it with the real baron covered in this article, it is an important part of the story with their similarities and differences, and his feelings on the coverage. I think it would lose a lot if he were split out. A few nitpicks:

• "with each of the three trying to outdo one other" one another?

Good catch! Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "some of his most well-known stories" best-known?

Very good. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In the para beginning, "In the first published illustrations, which may have been drawn by Raspe himself..." wouldn't it be great to have examples of each type of illustration accompanying the para?

One of the images attributed to Raspe appears under "Fictionalization"; illustrations by the 1792 artist, Cruikshank, and Doré can all be found in the gallery "Illustrations for the stories".--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it make sense to arrange these next to the paragraph that discusses them to illustrate the changes that take place? This is a minor thing and up to you, but it does seem like the perfect time for images. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. I've moved the Raspe image into the gallery, which appears just above the two paragraphs discussing illustrations; now the whole evolutionary process can be seen together. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is a complex one." Would it change the meaning if we cut out wording just to say, "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is complex"?

Good idea!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really great work! delldot ∇. 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, everything looks great. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, although I should disclose that I have made a number of prose edits, both to improve article clarity and to ensure that all sections of the article are properly summarised within the lede as per WP: Lede. Well done to the primary authors of this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Coordinator note - Lemuellio, this will need a source review and, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, a source audit for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Laser_brain. I've made the request.--Lemuellio (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Marvellous article. Coming in late but seeing none of the confusion between real-life and fictional baron. All is clearly signposted. Some comments regarding the sources:

Thank you! I've tried to address your concerns below. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A few books lack an ISBN.
  • Since quite a few of the books are older, they won't have an ISBN to begin with … so really, for sake of consistency, I'm not so sure that any of the books should have an ISBN listed. What do other editors advise? Consistency for books with ISBNs, or consistency across the whole bibliography? I'm completely open to suggestions. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There are some characters not rendering well in Balina, Marina; Goscilo, Helena; Lipovet︠s︡kiĭ, M. N. (2005)
  • I'm guessing those are the t︠, s︡, and/or ĭ characters. I'm sorry to hear you're having problems with them, but since they're part of the spelling of a person's name I'm not certain they can be replaced with plain old ASCII "t", "s", and "i". Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• At my first FAC I learned that placenames for publishers need the country or state, unless they are really obvious. Bayreuth for example needs Germany added
  • Thanks! I've added where it seemed appropriate, though of course "obvious" is a bit subjective (e.g. I've left Geneva, Edinburgh, and Boston as they are). If there's a specific policy in place to determine how detailed placenames should be, please do point me toward it. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Foreign language references need English translations as well. And also state the language they are in (I can spot only one "in German")
  • I've added language tags. Could you please clarify what you mean by "English translations"? I can't remember seeing anything in the MOS about this. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• the Mitchel reference links to page 100 on Google books, but actually starts on page 98
  • Good catch. Thanks! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• the Nietzsche book seems to be from 2009 and by Random House according to the link to Google Books. And Kaufmann was also editor.
  • Added "ed." for Kaufmann; thanks. Random House owns Modern Library, which would explain the Google Books attribution. As for 2009, I think that's an error. The usually reliable WorldCat lists the edition as 2000. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Inconsistency: Orly's first reference has only the initial R but the second one has first name
  • I think the usual practice is to give the author's name as it's printed in the source, even if that introduces an inconsistency. If there's something in the MOS to discourage that, please let me know. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Inconsistency: Raspe only has initials, whereas virtually everybody else gets full name
  • Same as immediately above. Again, thanks very much! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Earwig's copyvio check clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• references - some use 2 digits for page range (e.g. "Investigating the Barons: narrative and nomenclature in Munchausen syndrome"), others use all digits. align them
• Willis, Donald C. (1984) and Schwartz, Alvin (1990), have no ISBNs
• ...references otherwise look in order.

Spot checking..

• Seccombe (1895) used multiple times - checks out ok.
• Apel source (used once) - all in order.
• Nagle (used once) - all in order.

i.e.very minor tweak above and good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges and missing ISBNs fixed. Thanks so much! Lemuellio (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2016 [19].

---

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Etty is something of a case study in changing fashions. A wildly wide-ranging and exceptionally gifted artist, he was once considered England's answer to Rubens and Titian, and the man who unified the diverging artistic traditions of English, Italian, French and Netherlandish art after generations of separate development owing to the French revolutionary wars. Unfortunately, he had the bad luck to die just before the great upheavals in European art and culture, and is nowadays remembered (somewhat unfairly) only as the man who brought pornography into the mainstream. His life is an interesting mix of contradictions—a poor northern boy who became an inveterate reactionary, a Francophile who hated France and the French, a devoutly religious man who made his living painting (in John Constable's words) "revel routs of satyrs and lady bums", a proud Yorkshireman who spent his entire adult life in London. This is a long article (although not unduly long—it wouldn't even make the top 150 in terms of size), but I don't think it's appropriate in this case to split it as the change in his style over time is an important part of the story.

Before any MOS purist complains, the placement of Andromeda looking out of the page is intentional; in art if she's not centred she's almost always depicted at the edge of the frame looking outwards. Likewise, I feel Holman Hunt's picture of Etty sketching works better with Etty looking out of the page, whatever MOS says to the contrary. ‑ Iridescent 10:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with brief comments
  • There are several formatting details that are not as I would wish, and occasionally text was sandwiched between images and margins (aggravated no doubt by my use of zoom to make the text larger & spare my poor eyes). However, I will let others hash out all these formatting questions. I have only one question: why was Etty voted in as an RA in Feb but was not fully a member until Dec? [And speaking of Feb/Dec, it would make both me and MOS happy if you would put &nbps; between numerals and months such as 16 August or whatever]. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The RA's admissions system followed (and still does follow) the masterpiece system inherited from the mediaeval trade guilds. Election gives one the right to create a diploma work, and only once that diploma work is judged up to scratch (and gifted to the institution to which one's applying) does one actually get the title. Thus, Etty was elected in February 1828, but it's only when Sleeping Nymphs and Satyrs was completed, donated to the RA collection and deemed of decent quality that he actually got the certificate.
    • Regarding formatting, pretty much anything with left-aligned images is going to get a sandwiching problem at some screen widths and resolutions as things stand; as long as formatting doesn't disrupt the flow at typical sizes (between a smartphone and about 1400px width), and doesn't actually make the text unreadable at higher widths, I don't consider it an issue, although others may want to wade in. At some point in the future, the WMF are introducing a maximum text width with further screen width whitespaced (view BBC News in a wide window for an idea of how it will look), which should make the issue moot. I'm loath to remove images if at all possible; although this looks a little cluttered with images, they're carefully chosen to illustrate his changing style and the key points of his career, and there aren't any obvious ones to remove. ‑ Iridescent 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Something about the masterpiece system could profitably be inserted into a well-cited footnote, it seems to me. Otherwise, my work is done here. ;-) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • How's that, which expands on the existing footnote to (hopefully) make it clearer what the purpose of a diploma work is? ‑ Iridescent 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's good. Thank you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A huge undertaking taken on with skill and taste; have now read most of it, with little inclination or need to ce. My impression is: Wow. Support. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
• I bridled somewhat to see Reynolds' portrait of the Prince in Wales looking unusually puddingy used as a representative example of his work (even though I wrote parts of WWW's bio). Almost anything else would be better.
  • Per the talkpage, I used that because I think Reynolds's painting of WWW ties in nicely with Etty's later work for the Williams-Wynns. I've no strong attachment to it if you want to substitute in something else. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the association of "the Torso of Michelangelo" with the Belvedere Torso is strong enough to link it in the text. I assumed it was that before reading the note, as M's near-obsession with it was well-known. But whatever.
  • It's likely the "Torso of Michelangelo" was the Belvedere Torso, but there's enough doubt that I'm reluctant to state it as fact. Farr explicitly says that while the BT is the most likely candidate, there's also a possibility it referred to the River God model, or even to a partial cast of David. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• A Sketch from One of Gray's Odes (Youth on the Prow) - work in a link to the poet in the note? (ok, linked later)
• "the private Titians of that nobleman" - you might link to those that have articles in a note. Diana and Callisto and Diana and Actaeon etc.
  • In this context the actual works are less important than the fact they were seen as vaguely smutty, as the quote is clearly an insinuation that neither Etty's work nor Titian's was fit for public display. This is so footnote-heavy already, I'm reluctant to add more. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "a passage from Homer's Odyssey in which sailors resist the irresistible song of the Sirens" - not exactly!
  • A near enough approximation, surely? Anyone who wants the full story can click through to the articles on either the book or the painting. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• "were thought by the English a uniquely Netherlandish form" - seems rather strong, whatever the source says; there must have been plenty of French and even Italian examples in English collections by then. "Mainly" for sure.
  • I agree; George Lance was already producing and exhibiting them in England, albeit with little impact. Changed to "primarily Netherlandish". Etty was the first major English artist until Sickert to treat still life as a significant genre in its own right, rather than a painting exercise. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• hmm "public display in the cellars of the National Gallery" - "basement galleries", perhaps? In my book cellars have bare walls of brick or stone.
  • "Cellars" is what the NG themselves called the makeshift room under the staircase where the Vernon Collection was housed prior to 1850 (or The National Cellar-ius to Punch). Feel free to change to "basement" if you think it reads better. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Ten or more years ago the Royal Academy had a (free) display of some 20-30+ of its Etty drawings and studies for several months. Might be worth mentioning.
  • I've found it impossible to find any sourcing, although I agree if it can be found it would probably be worth mentioning. The main narrative of that section - that the Tate exhibition in 2001 rescued Etty from being a curiosity confined to the Lady Lever/Anglesey Abbey bastions of kitsch in critics' minds, the publicity surrounding Sirens in 2010 prompted the press to start looking at him more closely, and the YAG retrospective rehabilited him back into respectability - is accurate, I think, but in an ideal world it would be nice to have more on where his works have been exhibited. (He was so prolific, and his works have historically been so cheap, that they tend to pop up in all kinds of unlikely collections.) ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor quibbles on a very fine piece. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My points adequately dealt with. The corner-stone of a fine series of articles, FAs & not. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• May I ask about the practice of stating page ranges in the Bibliography in addition to the footnotes? I note that you have done this in other articles but not in The Wrestlers. It's not an issue per se, but it seems a bit redundant.
• I don't see any other issues. I suppose I had to raise some trivial question so as to feel I'm earning my keep. --Laser brain (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the page ranges, but on The Destroying Angel people were getting very het up about their absence, so from then on when I've cited a chapter as a separate work I've included the page range. The extra effort—and space—is marginal, and if people find it useful I don't see any reason not to include them, even though I personally also consider it redundancy. (My preference would be to treat a book as a single work and have the footnotes say "Jones in Smith, 1988"—I think treating each chapter as a separate work makes the bibliography look unnecessarily bloated—but recognize consensus is against me here.) I can see a use-case for including them, if people want to read a particular chapter on Google Books; for legal reasons Gbooks in the UK only lets one read a limited number of preview pages of copyrighted works before locking you out and telling you to buy the book, so it can be useful to know exactly where to start. ‑ Iridescent 17:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- this is close to promotion but:

• Looks like we still need an image review.
• I'd expect to see a citation for the last sentence in Candaules.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've removed that last sentence altogether—it was a fragment left over from when I was rewriting it, and doesn't really add anything to discuss works which didn't have an impact. I did request an image review but I think the request got lost when the requests box was redesigned—to save time, the only images which aren't straightforward reproductions of public domain works are File:St Edmund the King and Martyr, Lombard Street, London EC3 - Sanctuary - geograph.org.uk - 1084894.jpg, File:Monk Bar Gatehouse 4 (7374413778).jpg and File:Statue of William Etty, York 3.jpg. ‑ Iridescent 13:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

Support on Images All the images look good. Most are public domain and the ones that aren't are appropriately licensed on commons based on their original publication. Wugapodes (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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