The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:28, 31 May 2015 [1].
This article is about... five coins that were issued for the Panama-Pacific Exposition, a very successful World's Fair-type event in San Francisco. They were not popular at the time but are rather expensive today. And the $50 pieces are very handsome. I wish I owned one. Wehwalt ( talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – I sometimes think Wehwalt must be in league with the Devil: how else can he write such readable articles about so dry a topic as coins, for Heaven's sake? This one is well up to standard: clear, balanced, well sourced, beautifully illustrated and in top notch prose. – Tim riley talk 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Comments
Image review
Support, with the following nitpicks:
The usual slightly dodgy goings on, told with the usual brio. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:23, 31 May 2015 [2].
Onward and upward - this is the next in a bunch of constellations that are being buffed. Thought it was boring but has some fascinating tidbits. Has had a professional lookover from astronomer Mike Peel and a reasonably thorough GAN from Curly Turkey - so let me know what else needs doing. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Image review:
Source review:
Otherwise, everything looks good. -- Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 [3].
This article is about an important Native American leader named Irataba. I believe it should be featured because of the quality of the article, which has been edited and reviewed by numerous respected Wikipedians. RO (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Coordinator note - For the edification of anyone revisiting this for review, can the nominators provide a high-level summary of what was changed since the last nomination? I recall substantive disagreement in FAC1 about the suitability of Waters. I see he his no longer cited in the article—but has all the prose written in consultation with his text been removed? Also from FAC2: "Maunus ... seems to have some specialist books now to further expand it". Was that done? -- Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
SupportComment from John
I
took a wee hack at the prose which has been substantially rewritten since I last reviewed it. However and subsequently need to be used with care. I think on prose it now marginally passes FAC and the sourcing also looks ok to me, though I will defer to others on this. --
John (
talk)
19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
Irataba's travels Would he have used the Panama Canal Railway to cross the isthmus? It seems likely but I'd be interested to know. We can't just say he sailed to New York as modern readers may think he would sail via the canal, which was decades away at this point. -- John ( talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Sourcing As this has been raised in the past, can I confirm whether supporters ( Montanabw ( talk · contribs), Tim riley ( talk · contribs), Ssven2 ( talk · contribs), Ipigott ( talk · contribs), Jaguar ( talk · contribs), Wehwalt ( talk · contribs)) specifically support the current sourcing following review? I don't feel able to do this as I don't fully understand the questions that were raised in the previous FAC. I think I could support if this is the case. I am reasonably happy with the prose but a bit like Montanabw I have now edited the article quite a bit so may be thought to have a COI so my putative support would have to be read with that in mind. -- John ( talk) 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – a couple of suggested tweaks, but nothing to fuss about:
Those small points apart, very happy to support for FA. As a layman I find the content evidently comprehensive, the sourcing and citation are fine and the prose is pleasingly readable. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support — I am on a break. Having supported this article before, it does look better now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I'm glad to see there has been substantial progress on the points I raised during the last review.-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I've reveiwed this four times now, why isn't this FA already!? JAG UAR 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Thought it was one already!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I've made the odd copyedit since the last review, but I think I still count as an independent reviewer. The article is a good read and further improved since last time. Just a few comments and open questions:
* Conflict with the US army
I can't see anything here which will prevent my support. Well done to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. -- Mirokado ( talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. A couple of very minor MoS tweaks made to the citations, but all good throughout. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I've been involved in the peer review of this article, and all my concerns were addressed there; the article has had plenty of experienced input, and the article is certainly in much better shape than when I first saw it; the referencing concerns raised at peer review appear to have been dealt with. Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Ian Rose: did you want another spot check? I thought somebody already did one at the last FAC?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Although I'm crossing heavily-trod ground, I've looked over the article and I see no reason not to throw in my support before promotion. Nicely done.- RHM22 ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thankyou. This article has now endured a combined 7 weeks or so of FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source spot-check (recusing coordinator duties):
Coord notes -- looks ready to promote but a couple of things:
Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 09:47, 31 May 2015 [13].
This article is about an Earth-grazing meteoroid that flew over Czechoslovakia and Poland on 13 October 1990 and left into space again. It was the first event of this type, when the meteor was captured from two sites, which enabled geometrical calculations of its orbit. Jan Kameníček ( talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Really just a few comments, I'm afraid. I'm still recovering from my broken ankle and don't have the time to conduct a thorough review.
|subscription=yes
parameter to this and any similar citations.-- Mirokado ( talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Mirokado: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I did not know about the the subscription parameter before. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Right, interesting topic. Reading now....
Looks ok (I think), though is pretty short. Will think about what else it might need. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, I think I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any other improvements. FAs needn't be long if the topic matter is well-defined. Good luck. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I've read through twice and made a couple of very minor copyedits. Just one minor issue that doesn't affect my support.
A concise and well-written article. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Leaning support: This looks good, with one qualification. Long scientific articles tend to baffle the general reader and cannot be simplified without compromising their brevity and comprehensiveness. Here, we have an opportunity to take something which is intrinsically interesting and make it accessible for the general reader and not have to worry about it being too long. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to see if we can improve it on this score first. Additionally, an article as short as this should be almost perfect as an FA as there is greater opportunity for readers to focus on any issues!
Sarastro1 (
talk)
19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
@ Sarastro1: Thank you very much for the points. I do apologize for being very busy this week, but I will try to address them as soon as possible. Jan Kameníček ( talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm more or less happy with this, but I would still suggest looking for ways to simplify for non-specialists where possible. Let me know when everything is done and I'll take another look. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - please don't use {{Done}} and similar graphical templates (see FAC-instructions), they can cause problems with FAC-page processing (I took the liberty and changed them to bold text). Thank you. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
We have "The Červená hora image was especially valuable.", but wasn't this a series of images or something? After all, it recorded a trajectory and had a rotating shutter. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source #1 checked (10 items) - text faithful to source and not paraphrased.
Source #7 checked - text faithful to source (item/word only)
Source #8 checked - text faithful to source (item/word only)
Source #6 checked (5 items) - I can't see where it says in the source it is a type I bolide. Other 4 sentences ok.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 [16].
This nomination is a valediction to the late John Webber, who edited WP as Viva-Verdi. He and I worked separately and then together on upgrading the article, and I assumed he and I would co-nominate it for FAC. But I am sad to say that John died in March. He knew a hundred times more about Verdi than I ever shall, but I take it on myself to nominate the article in both our names. It had a very thorough and helpful peer review, and I hope it will be judged worthy of promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I share the sentiments expressed above, grateful for the immense contribution of Viva-Verdi towards our love of Verdi's music. For the moment a first comment: The lead deals in some detail with the neglect, without first positively saying something about the characteristics of the work, such as ensembles vs. arias. More to come. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Looking forward to more time with the music and the article, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
- SchroCat ( talk) 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
All good for me, in terms of the source review. I will return for a prose review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support, definitely. Alas I don't have much time at present for profound comments (or perhaps that's just as well) but this seems to me a magnificent article and a memorable tribute to User:Viva-Verdi. Here are some notes so jejune that they scarcely even amount to nit-picks: -
Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 12:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support from Cliftonian: I'm sure John Webber would have been extremely disappointed by my ignorance of Verdi and Sir John Falstaff, but I look forward to learning about them by reviewing this article. I did not know John but I'm sure he would have been very touched by this tribute from you, Tim.
I'm sorry not to have more to add, but the article is really that good. Thorough and engaging even to one such as me with next-to-no background knowledge. Thank you for yet another enlightening and enjoyable read. My comments above do not detract from the support I am happy to give above. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Bravo! Very well done indeed. Just a few comments:
Support An excellent article and a worthy FA in its own right. That this is in tribute to John Webber only adds to the experience of those here. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Yes as Schro says, this really is a top notch article on a core article in this field. A great read and a fine tribute too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I copy-edited this article and made various comments there that were resolved by Tim riley. This is an excellent treatment of the history, text, music and criticism of this opera. I believe it is some of the best work on Wikipedia, and I congratulate Tim riley on another excellent piece of work. I heartily support this for promotion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Johnbod comment Great stuff! The only thing I can think is that it would be nice to have a sort of canon tables relating the opera's scenes to the Shakespeare plays, mainly MWoW, at least as far as the action goes, not odd passages. Johnbod ( talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: I have been watching this article from afar (long ago it was on my "possibly to do" list}. I think that in short order Tim has converted a promising article into a gem, and have no hesitation in supporting its elevation. Great work. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support -- I missed this owing to real life, but I took the time to read this today at the BFI museum during a rare day off. I wasn't disappointed and you have done Verdi proud I'm sure. Cassianto Talk 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 11:26, 27 May 2015 [18].
"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X ( talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Prose comments
Media review
This is a great article and I only really have small nitpicks. Please feel free to disagree with any of them!
Source Review
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:08, 21 May 2015 [19].
This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the world. During its first FAC, some reviewers cited excessive length. We have now moved non-essential elements into sub-articles, making it very manageable. I believe it is FA quality. Khan is turning fifty this year, and I would like to see this have a shot at TFA. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support — I supported in the previous FAC. With a lot of copyediting and a second PR done, the article looks even better. Just a couple of comments though
Though I supported this during the previous FAC, the article has undergone substantial changes since, and some points I'd like to list:
Support – Other reviewers plainly know much more about the subject than I do, but from the layman's point of view I find the article comprehensive and evidently well balanced, the prose is easy to read, and the word-count has wisely been brought down to about three-quarters of the previous length. It is not obvious to me how any reader wanting information about this performer could be disappointed by this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 08:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support; nicely put together and appears well-balanced. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support -- That's my lot, none of it essential of course so please adopt or disregard at your discretion. A much improved article on an important figure within the Bollywood industry. Cassianto Talk 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although changes based on Cassianto's comments above (taken as a whole) would be an improvement over my work. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note -- plenty of support, don't forget to seek image/source reviews at some stage. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: or Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Nikkimaria:, but I have some questions above. BollyJeff | talk 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
'Article/page titles use sentence case' tells me that I do have to check/change them all. For FN81, NDTV is a television network with a website, not a publication. The wiki article does not use italics for them. I use italics where the wikipedia articles use them, generally for print publications, not for websites. I believe this is in agreement with the MOS. BollyJeff | talk 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 [22].
Greetings! I present to you the 1995 film Persuasion, an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. This is easily one of my favorite films, and it consistently scores high on lists of the best Austen adaptations. The article attained GA status in 2011, and since then I've largely rewritten it, modeling its structure after two other FAs I've written ( Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Unlike those films, sourcing was difficult to find, especially on its production. A recently closed PR review was very helpful, thanks to J Milburn. I hope the article is near the level of FA status, and leave it to you fine reviewers to decide if I am correct. So that said, thank you all in advance for reviewing! I plan to help with reviews on this page as well. Disclosure: this is a Wikicup nomination. Ruby 2010/ 2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Only have a couple of minutes, so two initial quick comments- I'll be back for a full review later.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
This is a great article, and I'd really like to see it get to FA status, but the writing's still a little short of stellar in a couple of places. Josh Milburn ( talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I've fiddled long enough- great work! Josh Milburn ( talk) 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Spotchecks by Cas Liber
Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows some false positives triggered by cast list etc. I didn't see any copied chunks of text.
i.e. what I seen is all good. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:51, 21 May 2015 [23].
This article is about the ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. He is not known to have had any hereditary claim to the throne, but some genealogists have claimed that he was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother. The genealogy expert Agricolae (who is sadly no longer editing) contributed, and Ealdgyth and Tim riley made very helpful comments at peer review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – Very pleased to support. I'm wholly a layman in history of this vintage, but the article seems to me comprehensive, and is widely and thoroughly cited. It is a pleasure to read, guiding the reader smoothly through a maze of Æth***s that in less skilful hands could have been frightfully confusing. The nominator's articles on early English topics have a wonderful way of transporting one back from the clamour of the 21st century to the quite different clamour of a millennium or so ago. This one meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment, and I much enjoyed rereading it for present purposes. – Tim riley talk 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Just a couple of comments.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your review Mike. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Right then....
Offline sources accepted in good faith (I have no subscription to UK library). cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:30, 21 May 2015 [24].
This article is about... a commemorative coin that didn't commemorate anything, and was conceived, by all accounts, as a way of extracting money from collector's pockets. Which it quite successfully did. These things happened in other issues, but this may be the extreme example. Wehwalt ( talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
A few minor points.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Everything looks good to me! I corrected a few small MOS issues, but it seems fine otherwise. This is a fine article on the subject of one of the most infamous, but interesting, early U.S. commemorative coins.- RHM22 ( talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review The sources used are all appropriate, as is the level of citation in the article. The only tiny inconsistency I can see is that, in the bibliography, you abbreviate states with postal abbreviations, but use the traditional "D.C." for Washington. Otherwise, all good. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 [25].
This article recently had a nomination that stalled with two supports followed by no activity for a month. This sometimes happens if the prose is on the unengaging side. To that end I asked some editors to take a look at the prosee, and Dr. Blofeld, hamiltonstone and Eric Corbett (thankfully) obliged...so here we are. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Looks in great condition, can't imagine it being a better article on the subject. A worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. There were a few things I didn't understand in the previous version, but that's all been sorted now. Eric Corbett 12:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus ( talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The references section appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Corona Borealis /kɵˈroʊnə bɒriˈælɨs/ is a small constellation in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy, and remains as one of the 88 modern constellations. Its brightest stars form a semicircular arc in the lower right of the modern constellation boundary.
Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown". In classical mythology Corona Borealis generally represented the crown given by the god Dionysus to the Cretan princess Ariadne and set by him in the heavens. Other cultures likened the pattern to a circle of elders, an eagle's nest, a bear's den, or even a smokehole. Ptolemy also listed a southern partner, Corona Australis, which has a similar pattern.
Support from Hamiltonstone. I made some comments after the unsuccessful FAC, in response to a request from Cas, and he has followed up all of those. Pick-ups and suggestions from Praemonitus and Maury all useful, and I'm supportive of the revised article. hamiltonstone ( talk) 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: This looks very thorough to me, and nothing stands out. Very nicely done, and I suspect as comprehensive as there is freely available. (I'm pleased to say I actually understood most of this!) Just a few minor points which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Closing comment -- will promote, pls just check for duplinks and lose what mightn't be necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23:36, 16 May 2015 [26].
Tales of Wonder was the first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke. The article is short, but I believe I've exhausted the available sources. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Can you verify the publisher for Tuck? That punctuation seems odd. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23:34, 16 May 2015 [27].
This article is about the political convention of a minor political party in 1880. The eventual nominee, James B. Weaver, collected only three percent of the presidential vote that year, but the issues debated in the convention's platform fights—women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, and the eight-hour-day—would become nationwide discussions for later generations. Enjoy! Coemgenus ( talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Nineteenth-century monetary politics is a subject that I always enjoy reading and learning about. You've done a great job with this article, and I can safely support. That said, I have a couple of minor comments about things that caught my attention.
Other than that, everything looks good and proper to me. Nicely done!- RHM22 ( talk) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Support. A well-written and interesting article. I can find almost nothing to comment on, but here are a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 [30].
This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. There's a minor point about currency notation that I'll ask about at WT:FAC, but I'm not going to withhold a support over that. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Generally the article is in good shape; I expect to support once these points are taken care of. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I support, a few quick things
A minor technical problem is not worth fussing about - all OK. GermanJoe ( talk) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 10:22, 16 May 2015 [32].
Another German commerce raider from World War I, though one less famous (and less successful) than Emden - this ship was eventually bottled up in the Rufiji River in German East Africa and sunk by British warships, though Königsberg's war was not yet over, her crew (and her guns) having gone to join von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign. I'd like to run this article on the main page on 11 July 2015, to mark the centenary of the ship's sinking. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (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) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comments Support by
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
more to follow.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Overall the article looks very sound; I expect to support once these minor issues are addressed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
This article is in excellent shape, and does a great job of balancing the various elements of this ship's career. I have the following comments and suggestions:
Support My comments are now all addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D ( talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 10:23, 16 May 2015 [34].
This article is about the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. It is part of a new series of topic articles, and was only created in December of last year. It has already passed GA and A-Class reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (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) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: an image review was conducted as part of the A-class review. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
SupportComments
I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Really nothing to add. Superbly written and engaging. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 16:44, 14 May 2015 [35].
One of Star Trek: The Original Series most influential episodes, and the origin of Khan Noonien Singh, one of Star Trek's most well-known villains. Article has been through a GA and had a copyedit by Laser Brain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Crisco comments More specific image review:
Images are okay — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Leaning opposeComments: A few prose issues here and there, and a couple of other things that might need a last little polish. Nothing major, but I don't think we are quite there yet. There seems to be some redundancy. Some of this may be my own personal preference (and feel free to disagree), but I'm not sure the prose is quite tight enough. I think it's easily fixed, but it should at least be considered.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
Lead
Plot:
There is more to come, but I'll give people a chance to reply and/or violently disagree before I continue! Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Production
I've done some copy-editing myself to save time; feel free to revert anything I've messed up, or that you don't like. More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Reception:
Home media release:
Legacy:
That's it from me. I think it's almost there, and did a touch more copy-editing. I'll be happy to switch to support once my final concerns are addressed (or disagreed with) and thank you to the nominators for their patience with my nit-picking. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: There is one main point unaddressed above (the NBC one) and a few minor ones that haven't had a response yet. I'd like to see these at least looked at, but assuming that they are, I am happy to support this now. A nice piece of work, finding so much information and analysis on one television episode. Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - Notes look good. References look good, but ISBNs are inconsistently formatted. That's all I have. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing Note - I am confident that any remaining issues will be addressed post-FAC. Graham Beards ( talk)
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 [36].
This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but was commandeered in mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I as an aircraft carrier. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally intended role and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character for us. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and should meet all of the FAC criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
This article has been improved further since its ACR, and I've made some small tweaks which I hope are OK. I also have the following comments and suggestions:
Support - I reviewed the article at the MILHIST A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015 [37].
This article is about something different for me. Instead of being about the cinema of the Indies, it's about a little known photographer from the 19th century Dutch East Indies, active in both Padang and Batavia. I think you will find it an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
{{ill}}
s are enriched redlinks in that they provide at least some info to people who can either read those other languages or make good use of Google Translate, and give editors something to work with that a plain redlink does not.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
{{ill}}
s. There are now only a handful left, and some (
Kanae Yamamoto) have become quite substantial. Without that {{ill}}
I likely wouldn't have created it at all.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
00:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Excellent article and very enjoyable to read. A couple of minor points to mull over:
There are a few dates that are followed by a comma (per US practice), and a few that are not (per UK practice). Probably best to select one and stick with it.
Photography
Style and legacy
References
Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 12:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:34, 13 May 2015 [38].
The Battle of Labuan was among the last engagements of the Second World War, and was fought between Australian and Japanese forces during mid-June 1945. The Australians invaded the island in Brunei Bay as part of a campaign whose value remains controversial, and overcame its considerably outnumbered garrison after 11 days of at times fierce fighting. As such, it provides an interesting example of engagements late in the Pacific War, where the suicidally brave Japanese forces were totally outclassed by the firepower available to Allied units.
I've been working on this article since January, and am hoping that it can reach FA status by the 70th anniversary of the start of the battle. The article passed a GA nomination in January, and recently passed a Military history Wikiproject A-class review. I have since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it meets the FA criteria. As I noted in the A-class review, I have a family connection with this battle, as my grandad was a member of one of the Australian infantry battalions involved.
Thanks in advance for your comments Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the diff since my last edit during the A-class review, and I supported on prose there. Very happy with this one. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Support My apologies for not reviewing this article at A-class. The article is very good, but I do have some concerns.
Comments Support from Cliftonian
Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Will note thoughts as I go through
Overall the article looks in very good shape and was an interesting read. I hope the above thoughts are helpful. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2015 [42].
Florence Nagle was a trainer of race horses at a time when women were not allowed to hold trainers licences, a breeder of champion dogs when women were not allowed to be members of The Kennel Club. and a feminist described by one commentator as "the Mrs Pankhurst of British horse racing". She must have been a formidable woman, as even in her eighties she was actively campaigning for a change to The Kennel Club's constitution to allow women members.
This article is the result of the labours of many editors since Giano created it in October last year, only some of whom are listed above as nominators. Much of the credit must go to Sagaciousphil though, who was too modest to write up this nomination herself. This is our offering to those who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of significant women ought to be improved. I hope you enjoy reading it, and perhaps even find Florence's robust defence of the rights of women to be a little inspiring. Eric Corbett 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Comment: Did Stud & Stable Magazine really call her "Racing's Emily Pankhurst"? I assume they meant "Emmeline"; it's not your mistake, but it should be acknowledged by a [ sic]. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support by a too-involved editor for a neutral review and not-enough-involved editor to co-nom. I have edited this article early on, and I just wanted to pop by and say that I support the FAC nomination. I can also answer/clarify any horse-related questions if I'm pinged. Montanabw (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Support - citation 69, the "online casebook" link gives a 403 error, although the "extract" link works fine. Otherwise, it looks good.
GregJackP
Boomer!
14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Image review
Support from Hamiltonstone. Generally fabulous prose and construction.
Note -- source review from anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support – I boggled slightly at the idea of a dog as a linchpin in a revival, but apart from that, nothing but praise. Clearly meets all FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – There was just one thing I noticed:
Again, I had no idea who Florence was but thanks to this excellent article, I do now. It is comprehensive, not overly detailed, brilliantly written and interesting. Well worthy of FA. -- Cassianto Talk 09:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 [43].
The sole wordless novel by Canadian artist Laurence Hyde, who was late to the party—the major practitioners of the form had already moved on to other things, and there have been few such works since (a surprising number of which have been Canadian). This is a work of indignation against the nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll, though you'll likely read it for the artwork rather than the story. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. Concise and cleanly written; I've read it twice and can see nothing to complain about. One question did occur to me: it sounds as though this was about the last of its genre. Was it the very last? Can a short note be added about the subsequent life of the genre, if any? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. nice read so far,
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Otherwise looks fine. cheers,
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
Source review:
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 14:13, 13 May 2015 [44].
The tragic story of a hometown hero turned basketball icon who parlayed his fame into political office (Commissioner of Agriculture, naturally!) but abused the public trust and now sits in federal prison. This article just passed a GA review with few issues, and I hope to take it to FA status and claim a much-delayed WP:FOUR award. (I created the article a few days after joining Wikipedia in 2006!) Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
|location=
in the citation template. The same applies to The Kentucky Post in n117, etc.
Imzadi 1979 → 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I've done review and would love to support it, Since it should must have few more images (original) of different location that will make article bit more interesting to readers. -- A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. This is FA quality; there's an issue outstanding but it's a matter of editorial judgement and I think it can be left to an RfC. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The prose is in excellent shape. I made a couple of minor edits; please revert as needed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 [45].
This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. -- Gaff ( talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:
I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....
::They are born toothless, blind and hairless; growing rapidly, the young are weaned at about six weeks of age. - might work better as "Born toothless, blind and hairless, the young grow rapidly before being weaned at about six weeks of age."
::: fixed elegant.
support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers,
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Notes: Spotchecks not done; footnote numbers as at
this revision -
Evad37 [
talk
15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
=== Footnotes ===
instead of '''Footnotes:'''
– as per the "Heading use (and misuse) examples" on that MOS page, and explicitly stated as "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup" just above the examples. Fixed with this edit
[46]. -
Evad37 [
talk
03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
reply|titlelink=s:Page on wikisource
and |via=Wikisource
(linked to
Wikisource for the first use)|publisher=
parameter contains "Series 6:1–761" after the publisher, breaking the
CS1 style of separating fields with periods. Suggest separating these into |series=
and |pages=
I have struck the resolved issues above - Evad37 [ talk 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (Japanese: 聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Hepburn: Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana") is way too long an interruption to the first sentence. The lay person shouldn't have to read two lines of alternatives, translations and transliterations of the title before he finds out that this article is about a video game. You should either trim it or relegate it to a footnote. I wonder if the DS should be introduced as a handheld console?— indopug ( talk) 13:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I've gone through the article and made some copy-edits where I saw necessary. Have just a few points before I'm willing to support:
Made a few more copy-edits. All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I have found something.
Those are the only things that jumped out. Sorry it's not any longer, but I seriously can't think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned above. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Planning on review this article soon.
GamerPro64
20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Placeholder <3 - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hey @ PresN: and @ ProtoDrake:! Been a while, I hope to more active this summer, glad to see you are keeping this project sprinting in a way no others seem to do. Article looks great, well written, covers all the bases, references are archived where appropriate. I Support its candidacy. One small point, and I may not be up to date with our current best practices on this, but shouldn't the plot section have references? Awesome job overall, never stop! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The references are all formatted consistently and correctly, and appear to be reliable, as far as I can tell. My only question is the same as Judgesurreal777 raised above: is there no way to provide a source for the "Story" section? I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the style of video game articles, so I'm happy to be educated on that point. Have others passed FA recently with similarly uncited sections? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, to clarify: the "source review", which is to do with formatting/reliability of citations/sources, is something we like to see carried out on every FAC (like the image licensing review), whereas the "source spotcheck", meaning to check some of the sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, is something we generally only require for a nominator's first FAC, and then on the odd occasion subsequently -- we never discourage them though! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 15:03, 9 May 2015 [47].
There was nothing revolutionary about the 1936 Jarrow march; it was the polite, constitutional action of a town brought to destitution by 1930s economic policies. They came to London, presented their case, were fobbed off with tea and sympathy, and quietly went home. Yet the march became one of the defining images of the decade, and greatly influenced post-war policies towards full employment – at least until the 1980s. But that's another tale. My thanks to some careful peer reviewers who have watched over the article's preparation and made numerous helpful suggestions. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That's it for the moment, but I'll go over it again later to make sure I've not missed anything. – SchroCat ( talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – Another peer-reviewer: happy then and happy now. The prose is compellingly readable, the illustrations are admirable, the text is balanced and thoroughly sourced and cited. Plainly of FA quality – as well as thought-provoking, and touching. Happy to support, on St George's Day, an article that does justice to the Englishmen and Englishwomen concerned. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Support from SchroCat. I made some minor tweaks four or five days ago (see here) prior to the source review I gave. I have only one comment: in the UK unemployment section, is it worth a link to gold standard? Oh, and one further thought: T. Vosper Salt? Was Blandings Castle nearby? – SchroCat ( talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Crisco comments
Blofeld comments Been rather busy today, I'll be better off giving this a full read tomorrow after a good night's sleep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The only other thing I can think of is perhaps asking at the graphic lab for somebody to make you a map of the route of the march or something like that with the towns illustrated and the dates. That might be useful to the reader. Aymatth2 is often good with that sort of thing, but I believe is still on holiday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support This is really an impeccable piece of work, found it very difficult to see anything to complain about at all. Easily meets FA criteria, excellent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I read through this a few days ago as the subject interests me; I fixed the DABS referred to above automatically without realising they had been flagged by another reviewer, sorry. I've watched the other tweaks made since then and I'm happy to support this interesting, well written nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 [48].
This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (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) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. All my comments below have been addressed. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive in that it outlines some of Denny's major policy initiatives. The only hesitation on my part is whether the prose amounts to "engaging". At times the article is a fairly bare chronology. But ultimately I don't think the prose is any less engaging than in a number of FAs I've recently seen promoted. And hopefully it will benefit from one or two other commenters dropping by and picking up prose matters to be further improved. So I'm happy to support. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:
Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm copyediting a little as I go; please revert as needed. Overall this is in fine shape.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ FAC coordinators: this one seems to be travelling ok with three supports, an image check and no opposes. Given it is an older nom, any chance I can be granted leave to nominate a fresh one while this one goes through? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nikkimaria: would you mind having a look at the sources for this one? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 [49].
This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton ( talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Looks good - few queries below:
Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
A few (non-academic) spotchecks, as requested on WT:FAC, focussing on 10 randomly picked online sources:
Aside from 2 questions, all statements are covered by their sources without any signs of close paraphrasing. When a reference was used multiple times, all usages have been checked (but IANAM). GermanJoe ( talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) [50]. reply
This article is about... a President of the United States. James Garfield is almost forgotten today but for the manner in which he met his death. Yet in 49 years he rose from poverty (the last president born in a log cabin) to the White House. He did much in those 49 years, and possibly could have done more if he had been spared for four more. Wehwalt ( talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Crisco comments
Image review
Support – comprehensive and a really good read. A few minor quibbles, not affecting my support:
That's all from me. This article plainly meets all the FA criteria, in my view. The prose is a pleasure, the proportions and balance judicious, the sourcing wide and thorough, and the images excellent (even the one of the incomparably hideous Baltimore & Potomac station). Tim riley talk 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Otherwise, the sources are all of appropriate quality, and there are no other format issues. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:28, 31 May 2015 [1].
This article is about... five coins that were issued for the Panama-Pacific Exposition, a very successful World's Fair-type event in San Francisco. They were not popular at the time but are rather expensive today. And the $50 pieces are very handsome. I wish I owned one. Wehwalt ( talk) 12:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – I sometimes think Wehwalt must be in league with the Devil: how else can he write such readable articles about so dry a topic as coins, for Heaven's sake? This one is well up to standard: clear, balanced, well sourced, beautifully illustrated and in top notch prose. – Tim riley talk 08:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Comments
Image review
Support, with the following nitpicks:
The usual slightly dodgy goings on, told with the usual brio. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently formatted. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:23, 31 May 2015 [2].
Onward and upward - this is the next in a bunch of constellations that are being buffed. Thought it was boring but has some fascinating tidbits. Has had a professional lookover from astronomer Mike Peel and a reasonably thorough GAN from Curly Turkey - so let me know what else needs doing. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Image review:
Source review:
Otherwise, everything looks good. -- Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:21, 31 May 2015 [3].
This article is about an important Native American leader named Irataba. I believe it should be featured because of the quality of the article, which has been edited and reviewed by numerous respected Wikipedians. RO (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Coordinator note - For the edification of anyone revisiting this for review, can the nominators provide a high-level summary of what was changed since the last nomination? I recall substantive disagreement in FAC1 about the suitability of Waters. I see he his no longer cited in the article—but has all the prose written in consultation with his text been removed? Also from FAC2: "Maunus ... seems to have some specialist books now to further expand it". Was that done? -- Laser brain (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
SupportComment from John
I
took a wee hack at the prose which has been substantially rewritten since I last reviewed it. However and subsequently need to be used with care. I think on prose it now marginally passes FAC and the sourcing also looks ok to me, though I will defer to others on this. --
John (
talk)
19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
Irataba's travels Would he have used the Panama Canal Railway to cross the isthmus? It seems likely but I'd be interested to know. We can't just say he sailed to New York as modern readers may think he would sail via the canal, which was decades away at this point. -- John ( talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Sourcing As this has been raised in the past, can I confirm whether supporters ( Montanabw ( talk · contribs), Tim riley ( talk · contribs), Ssven2 ( talk · contribs), Ipigott ( talk · contribs), Jaguar ( talk · contribs), Wehwalt ( talk · contribs)) specifically support the current sourcing following review? I don't feel able to do this as I don't fully understand the questions that were raised in the previous FAC. I think I could support if this is the case. I am reasonably happy with the prose but a bit like Montanabw I have now edited the article quite a bit so may be thought to have a COI so my putative support would have to be read with that in mind. -- John ( talk) 18:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – a couple of suggested tweaks, but nothing to fuss about:
Those small points apart, very happy to support for FA. As a layman I find the content evidently comprehensive, the sourcing and citation are fine and the prose is pleasingly readable. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support — I am on a break. Having supported this article before, it does look better now. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I'm glad to see there has been substantial progress on the points I raised during the last review.-- Ipigott ( talk) 14:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I've reveiwed this four times now, why isn't this FA already!? JAG UAR 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Thought it was one already!-- Wehwalt ( talk) 14:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I've made the odd copyedit since the last review, but I think I still count as an independent reviewer. The article is a good read and further improved since last time. Just a few comments and open questions:
* Conflict with the US army
I can't see anything here which will prevent my support. Well done to everyone who has worked so hard on this article. -- Mirokado ( talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. A couple of very minor MoS tweaks made to the citations, but all good throughout. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I've been involved in the peer review of this article, and all my concerns were addressed there; the article has had plenty of experienced input, and the article is certainly in much better shape than when I first saw it; the referencing concerns raised at peer review appear to have been dealt with. Simon Burchell ( talk) 11:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Ian Rose: did you want another spot check? I thought somebody already did one at the last FAC?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Although I'm crossing heavily-trod ground, I've looked over the article and I see no reason not to throw in my support before promotion. Nicely done.- RHM22 ( talk) 14:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thankyou. This article has now endured a combined 7 weeks or so of FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source spot-check (recusing coordinator duties):
Coord notes -- looks ready to promote but a couple of things:
Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 02:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 09:47, 31 May 2015 [13].
This article is about an Earth-grazing meteoroid that flew over Czechoslovakia and Poland on 13 October 1990 and left into space again. It was the first event of this type, when the meteor was captured from two sites, which enabled geometrical calculations of its orbit. Jan Kameníček ( talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Really just a few comments, I'm afraid. I'm still recovering from my broken ankle and don't have the time to conduct a thorough review.
|subscription=yes
parameter to this and any similar citations.-- Mirokado ( talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Mirokado: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I did not know about the the subscription parameter before. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Right, interesting topic. Reading now....
Looks ok (I think), though is pretty short. Will think about what else it might need. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, I think I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any other improvements. FAs needn't be long if the topic matter is well-defined. Good luck. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I've read through twice and made a couple of very minor copyedits. Just one minor issue that doesn't affect my support.
A concise and well-written article. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Leaning support: This looks good, with one qualification. Long scientific articles tend to baffle the general reader and cannot be simplified without compromising their brevity and comprehensiveness. Here, we have an opportunity to take something which is intrinsically interesting and make it accessible for the general reader and not have to worry about it being too long. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to see if we can improve it on this score first. Additionally, an article as short as this should be almost perfect as an FA as there is greater opportunity for readers to focus on any issues!
Sarastro1 (
talk)
19:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
@ Sarastro1: Thank you very much for the points. I do apologize for being very busy this week, but I will try to address them as soon as possible. Jan Kameníček ( talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: I'm more or less happy with this, but I would still suggest looking for ways to simplify for non-specialists where possible. Let me know when everything is done and I'll take another look. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - please don't use {{Done}} and similar graphical templates (see FAC-instructions), they can cause problems with FAC-page processing (I took the liberty and changed them to bold text). Thank you. GermanJoe ( talk) 12:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
We have "The Červená hora image was especially valuable.", but wasn't this a series of images or something? After all, it recorded a trajectory and had a rotating shutter. -- JorisvS ( talk) 08:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source #1 checked (10 items) - text faithful to source and not paraphrased.
Source #7 checked - text faithful to source (item/word only)
Source #8 checked - text faithful to source (item/word only)
Source #6 checked (5 items) - I can't see where it says in the source it is a type I bolide. Other 4 sentences ok.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:18, 27 May 2015 [16].
This nomination is a valediction to the late John Webber, who edited WP as Viva-Verdi. He and I worked separately and then together on upgrading the article, and I assumed he and I would co-nominate it for FAC. But I am sad to say that John died in March. He knew a hundred times more about Verdi than I ever shall, but I take it on myself to nominate the article in both our names. It had a very thorough and helpful peer review, and I hope it will be judged worthy of promotion to FA. – Tim riley talk 14:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
I share the sentiments expressed above, grateful for the immense contribution of Viva-Verdi towards our love of Verdi's music. For the moment a first comment: The lead deals in some detail with the neglect, without first positively saying something about the characteristics of the work, such as ensembles vs. arias. More to come. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Looking forward to more time with the music and the article, -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
- SchroCat ( talk) 18:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
All good for me, in terms of the source review. I will return for a prose review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 14:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support, definitely. Alas I don't have much time at present for profound comments (or perhaps that's just as well) but this seems to me a magnificent article and a memorable tribute to User:Viva-Verdi. Here are some notes so jejune that they scarcely even amount to nit-picks: -
Best, -- Smerus ( talk) 12:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support from Cliftonian: I'm sure John Webber would have been extremely disappointed by my ignorance of Verdi and Sir John Falstaff, but I look forward to learning about them by reviewing this article. I did not know John but I'm sure he would have been very touched by this tribute from you, Tim.
I'm sorry not to have more to add, but the article is really that good. Thorough and engaging even to one such as me with next-to-no background knowledge. Thank you for yet another enlightening and enjoyable read. My comments above do not detract from the support I am happy to give above. — Cliftonian (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Bravo! Very well done indeed. Just a few comments:
Support An excellent article and a worthy FA in its own right. That this is in tribute to John Webber only adds to the experience of those here. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Yes as Schro says, this really is a top notch article on a core article in this field. A great read and a fine tribute too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I copy-edited this article and made various comments there that were resolved by Tim riley. This is an excellent treatment of the history, text, music and criticism of this opera. I believe it is some of the best work on Wikipedia, and I congratulate Tim riley on another excellent piece of work. I heartily support this for promotion. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Johnbod comment Great stuff! The only thing I can think is that it would be nice to have a sort of canon tables relating the opera's scenes to the Shakespeare plays, mainly MWoW, at least as far as the action goes, not odd passages. Johnbod ( talk) 17:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: I have been watching this article from afar (long ago it was on my "possibly to do" list}. I think that in short order Tim has converted a promising article into a gem, and have no hesitation in supporting its elevation. Great work. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support -- I missed this owing to real life, but I took the time to read this today at the BFI museum during a rare day off. I wasn't disappointed and you have done Verdi proud I'm sure. Cassianto Talk 18:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 11:26, 27 May 2015 [18].
"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X ( talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn ( talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Prose comments
Media review
This is a great article and I only really have small nitpicks. Please feel free to disagree with any of them!
Source Review
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:08, 21 May 2015 [19].
This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the world. During its first FAC, some reviewers cited excessive length. We have now moved non-essential elements into sub-articles, making it very manageable. I believe it is FA quality. Khan is turning fifty this year, and I would like to see this have a shot at TFA. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support — I supported in the previous FAC. With a lot of copyediting and a second PR done, the article looks even better. Just a couple of comments though
Though I supported this during the previous FAC, the article has undergone substantial changes since, and some points I'd like to list:
Support – Other reviewers plainly know much more about the subject than I do, but from the layman's point of view I find the article comprehensive and evidently well balanced, the prose is easy to read, and the word-count has wisely been brought down to about three-quarters of the previous length. It is not obvious to me how any reader wanting information about this performer could be disappointed by this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 08:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support; nicely put together and appears well-balanced. - SchroCat ( talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support -- That's my lot, none of it essential of course so please adopt or disregard at your discretion. A much improved article on an important figure within the Bollywood industry. Cassianto Talk 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although changes based on Cassianto's comments above (taken as a whole) would be an improvement over my work. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 02:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note -- plenty of support, don't forget to seek image/source reviews at some stage. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 15:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Crisco 1492: or Nikkimaria?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Nikkimaria ( talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks @ Nikkimaria:, but I have some questions above. BollyJeff | talk 23:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
'Article/page titles use sentence case' tells me that I do have to check/change them all. For FN81, NDTV is a television network with a website, not a publication. The wiki article does not use italics for them. I use italics where the wikipedia articles use them, generally for print publications, not for websites. I believe this is in agreement with the MOS. BollyJeff | talk 15:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 [22].
Greetings! I present to you the 1995 film Persuasion, an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. This is easily one of my favorite films, and it consistently scores high on lists of the best Austen adaptations. The article attained GA status in 2011, and since then I've largely rewritten it, modeling its structure after two other FAs I've written ( Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Unlike those films, sourcing was difficult to find, especially on its production. A recently closed PR review was very helpful, thanks to J Milburn. I hope the article is near the level of FA status, and leave it to you fine reviewers to decide if I am correct. So that said, thank you all in advance for reviewing! I plan to help with reviews on this page as well. Disclosure: this is a Wikicup nomination. Ruby 2010/ 2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Only have a couple of minutes, so two initial quick comments- I'll be back for a full review later.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
This is a great article, and I'd really like to see it get to FA status, but the writing's still a little short of stellar in a couple of places. Josh Milburn ( talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. I've fiddled long enough- great work! Josh Milburn ( talk) 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Spotchecks by Cas Liber
Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows some false positives triggered by cast list etc. I didn't see any copied chunks of text.
i.e. what I seen is all good. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:51, 21 May 2015 [23].
This article is about the ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. He is not known to have had any hereditary claim to the throne, but some genealogists have claimed that he was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother. The genealogy expert Agricolae (who is sadly no longer editing) contributed, and Ealdgyth and Tim riley made very helpful comments at peer review. Dudley Miles ( talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – Very pleased to support. I'm wholly a layman in history of this vintage, but the article seems to me comprehensive, and is widely and thoroughly cited. It is a pleasure to read, guiding the reader smoothly through a maze of Æth***s that in less skilful hands could have been frightfully confusing. The nominator's articles on early English topics have a wonderful way of transporting one back from the clamour of the 21st century to the quite different clamour of a millennium or so ago. This one meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment, and I much enjoyed rereading it for present purposes. – Tim riley talk 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Just a couple of comments.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your review Mike. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Right then....
Offline sources accepted in good faith (I have no subscription to UK library). cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:30, 21 May 2015 [24].
This article is about... a commemorative coin that didn't commemorate anything, and was conceived, by all accounts, as a way of extracting money from collector's pockets. Which it quite successfully did. These things happened in other issues, but this may be the extreme example. Wehwalt ( talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
A few minor points.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Everything looks good to me! I corrected a few small MOS issues, but it seems fine otherwise. This is a fine article on the subject of one of the most infamous, but interesting, early U.S. commemorative coins.- RHM22 ( talk) 02:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review The sources used are all appropriate, as is the level of citation in the article. The only tiny inconsistency I can see is that, in the bibliography, you abbreviate states with postal abbreviations, but use the traditional "D.C." for Washington. Otherwise, all good. -- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 [25].
This article recently had a nomination that stalled with two supports followed by no activity for a month. This sometimes happens if the prose is on the unengaging side. To that end I asked some editors to take a look at the prosee, and Dr. Blofeld, hamiltonstone and Eric Corbett (thankfully) obliged...so here we are. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Looks in great condition, can't imagine it being a better article on the subject. A worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. There were a few things I didn't understand in the previous version, but that's all been sorted now. Eric Corbett 12:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus ( talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The references section appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments:
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Corona Borealis /kɵˈroʊnə bɒriˈælɨs/ is a small constellation in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy, and remains as one of the 88 modern constellations. Its brightest stars form a semicircular arc in the lower right of the modern constellation boundary.
Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown". In classical mythology Corona Borealis generally represented the crown given by the god Dionysus to the Cretan princess Ariadne and set by him in the heavens. Other cultures likened the pattern to a circle of elders, an eagle's nest, a bear's den, or even a smokehole. Ptolemy also listed a southern partner, Corona Australis, which has a similar pattern.
Support from Hamiltonstone. I made some comments after the unsuccessful FAC, in response to a request from Cas, and he has followed up all of those. Pick-ups and suggestions from Praemonitus and Maury all useful, and I'm supportive of the revised article. hamiltonstone ( talk) 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: This looks very thorough to me, and nothing stands out. Very nicely done, and I suspect as comprehensive as there is freely available. (I'm pleased to say I actually understood most of this!) Just a few minor points which don't affect my support. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Closing comment -- will promote, pls just check for duplinks and lose what mightn't be necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 23:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23:36, 16 May 2015 [26].
Tales of Wonder was the first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke. The article is short, but I believe I've exhausted the available sources. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Can you verify the publisher for Tuck? That punctuation seems odd. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 23:34, 16 May 2015 [27].
This article is about the political convention of a minor political party in 1880. The eventual nominee, James B. Weaver, collected only three percent of the presidential vote that year, but the issues debated in the convention's platform fights—women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, and the eight-hour-day—would become nationwide discussions for later generations. Enjoy! Coemgenus ( talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Nineteenth-century monetary politics is a subject that I always enjoy reading and learning about. You've done a great job with this article, and I can safely support. That said, I have a couple of minor comments about things that caught my attention.
Other than that, everything looks good and proper to me. Nicely done!- RHM22 ( talk) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Support. A well-written and interesting article. I can find almost nothing to comment on, but here are a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 [30].
This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. There's a minor point about currency notation that I'll ask about at WT:FAC, but I'm not going to withhold a support over that. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Generally the article is in good shape; I expect to support once these points are taken care of. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I support, a few quick things
A minor technical problem is not worth fussing about - all OK. GermanJoe ( talk) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 10:22, 16 May 2015 [32].
Another German commerce raider from World War I, though one less famous (and less successful) than Emden - this ship was eventually bottled up in the Rufiji River in German East Africa and sunk by British warships, though Königsberg's war was not yet over, her crew (and her guns) having gone to join von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign. I'd like to run this article on the main page on 11 July 2015, to mark the centenary of the ship's sinking. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (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) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Comments Support by
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
more to follow.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Overall the article looks very sound; I expect to support once these minor issues are addressed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
This article is in excellent shape, and does a great job of balancing the various elements of this ship's career. I have the following comments and suggestions:
Support My comments are now all addressed - nice work with this article. Nick-D ( talk) 23:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 10:23, 16 May 2015 [34].
This article is about the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. It is part of a new series of topic articles, and was only created in December of last year. It has already passed GA and A-Class reviews. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (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) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: an image review was conducted as part of the A-class review. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
SupportComments
I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support Really nothing to add. Superbly written and engaging. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot ( talk) 16:44, 14 May 2015 [35].
One of Star Trek: The Original Series most influential episodes, and the origin of Khan Noonien Singh, one of Star Trek's most well-known villains. Article has been through a GA and had a copyedit by Laser Brain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Crisco comments More specific image review:
Images are okay — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Leaning opposeComments: A few prose issues here and there, and a couple of other things that might need a last little polish. Nothing major, but I don't think we are quite there yet. There seems to be some redundancy. Some of this may be my own personal preference (and feel free to disagree), but I'm not sure the prose is quite tight enough. I think it's easily fixed, but it should at least be considered.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
Lead
Plot:
There is more to come, but I'll give people a chance to reply and/or violently disagree before I continue! Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Production
I've done some copy-editing myself to save time; feel free to revert anything I've messed up, or that you don't like. More to come. Sarastro1 ( talk) 21:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Reception:
Home media release:
Legacy:
That's it from me. I think it's almost there, and did a touch more copy-editing. I'll be happy to switch to support once my final concerns are addressed (or disagreed with) and thank you to the nominators for their patience with my nit-picking. Sarastro1 ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support: There is one main point unaddressed above (the NBC one) and a few minor ones that haven't had a response yet. I'd like to see these at least looked at, but assuming that they are, I am happy to support this now. A nice piece of work, finding so much information and analysis on one television episode. Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - Notes look good. References look good, but ISBNs are inconsistently formatted. That's all I have. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Closing Note - I am confident that any remaining issues will be addressed post-FAC. Graham Beards ( talk)
The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot ( talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 [36].
This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but was commandeered in mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I as an aircraft carrier. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally intended role and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character for us. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and should meet all of the FAC criteria.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 00:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) reply
This article has been improved further since its ACR, and I've made some small tweaks which I hope are OK. I also have the following comments and suggestions:
Support - I reviewed the article at the MILHIST A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy ( talk) 12:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015 [37].
This article is about something different for me. Instead of being about the cinema of the Indies, it's about a little known photographer from the 19th century Dutch East Indies, active in both Padang and Batavia. I think you will find it an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
{{ill}}
s are enriched redlinks in that they provide at least some info to people who can either read those other languages or make good use of Google Translate, and give editors something to work with that a plain redlink does not.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
{{ill}}
s. There are now only a handful left, and some (
Kanae Yamamoto) have become quite substantial. Without that {{ill}}
I likely wouldn't have created it at all.
Curly Turkey
¡gobble!
00:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Excellent article and very enjoyable to read. A couple of minor points to mull over:
There are a few dates that are followed by a comma (per US practice), and a few that are not (per UK practice). Probably best to select one and stick with it.
Photography
Style and legacy
References
Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 12:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:34, 13 May 2015 [38].
The Battle of Labuan was among the last engagements of the Second World War, and was fought between Australian and Japanese forces during mid-June 1945. The Australians invaded the island in Brunei Bay as part of a campaign whose value remains controversial, and overcame its considerably outnumbered garrison after 11 days of at times fierce fighting. As such, it provides an interesting example of engagements late in the Pacific War, where the suicidally brave Japanese forces were totally outclassed by the firepower available to Allied units.
I've been working on this article since January, and am hoping that it can reach FA status by the 70th anniversary of the start of the battle. The article passed a GA nomination in January, and recently passed a Military history Wikiproject A-class review. I have since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it meets the FA criteria. As I noted in the A-class review, I have a family connection with this battle, as my grandad was a member of one of the Australian infantry battalions involved.
Thanks in advance for your comments Nick-D ( talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the diff since my last edit during the A-class review, and I supported on prose there. Very happy with this one. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Support My apologies for not reviewing this article at A-class. The article is very good, but I do have some concerns.
Comments Support from Cliftonian
Sorry for not getting to this sooner. Will note thoughts as I go through
Overall the article looks in very good shape and was an interesting read. I hope the above thoughts are helpful. Cheers, — Cliftonian (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2015 [42].
Florence Nagle was a trainer of race horses at a time when women were not allowed to hold trainers licences, a breeder of champion dogs when women were not allowed to be members of The Kennel Club. and a feminist described by one commentator as "the Mrs Pankhurst of British horse racing". She must have been a formidable woman, as even in her eighties she was actively campaigning for a change to The Kennel Club's constitution to allow women members.
This article is the result of the labours of many editors since Giano created it in October last year, only some of whom are listed above as nominators. Much of the credit must go to Sagaciousphil though, who was too modest to write up this nomination herself. This is our offering to those who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of significant women ought to be improved. I hope you enjoy reading it, and perhaps even find Florence's robust defence of the rights of women to be a little inspiring. Eric Corbett 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Comment: Did Stud & Stable Magazine really call her "Racing's Emily Pankhurst"? I assume they meant "Emmeline"; it's not your mistake, but it should be acknowledged by a [ sic]. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support by a too-involved editor for a neutral review and not-enough-involved editor to co-nom. I have edited this article early on, and I just wanted to pop by and say that I support the FAC nomination. I can also answer/clarify any horse-related questions if I'm pinged. Montanabw (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Support - citation 69, the "online casebook" link gives a 403 error, although the "extract" link works fine. Otherwise, it looks good.
GregJackP
Boomer!
14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Image review
Support from Hamiltonstone. Generally fabulous prose and construction.
Note -- source review from anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support – I boggled slightly at the idea of a dog as a linchpin in a revival, but apart from that, nothing but praise. Clearly meets all FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 16:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – There was just one thing I noticed:
Again, I had no idea who Florence was but thanks to this excellent article, I do now. It is comprehensive, not overly detailed, brilliantly written and interesting. Well worthy of FA. -- Cassianto Talk 09:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 [43].
The sole wordless novel by Canadian artist Laurence Hyde, who was late to the party—the major practitioners of the form had already moved on to other things, and there have been few such works since (a surprising number of which have been Canadian). This is a work of indignation against the nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll, though you'll likely read it for the artwork rather than the story. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 16:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. Concise and cleanly written; I've read it twice and can see nothing to complain about. One question did occur to me: it sounds as though this was about the last of its genre. Was it the very last? Can a short note be added about the subsequent life of the genre, if any? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. nice read so far,
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Otherwise looks fine. cheers,
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
11:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
reply
Source review:
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 14:13, 13 May 2015 [44].
The tragic story of a hometown hero turned basketball icon who parlayed his fame into political office (Commissioner of Agriculture, naturally!) but abused the public trust and now sits in federal prison. This article just passed a GA review with few issues, and I hope to take it to FA status and claim a much-delayed WP:FOUR award. (I created the article a few days after joining Wikipedia in 2006!) Acdixon ( talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
|location=
in the citation template. The same applies to The Kentucky Post in n117, etc.
Imzadi 1979 → 17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I've done review and would love to support it, Since it should must have few more images (original) of different location that will make article bit more interesting to readers. -- A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. This is FA quality; there's an issue outstanding but it's a matter of editorial judgement and I think it can be left to an RfC. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The prose is in excellent shape. I made a couple of minor edits; please revert as needed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 12:58, 13 May 2015 [45].
This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. -- Gaff ( talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:
I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....
::They are born toothless, blind and hairless; growing rapidly, the young are weaned at about six weeks of age. - might work better as "Born toothless, blind and hairless, the young grow rapidly before being weaned at about six weeks of age."
::: fixed elegant.
support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers,
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Notes: Spotchecks not done; footnote numbers as at
this revision -
Evad37 [
talk
15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
=== Footnotes ===
instead of '''Footnotes:'''
– as per the "Heading use (and misuse) examples" on that MOS page, and explicitly stated as "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup" just above the examples. Fixed with this edit
[46]. -
Evad37 [
talk
03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
reply|titlelink=s:Page on wikisource
and |via=Wikisource
(linked to
Wikisource for the first use)|publisher=
parameter contains "Series 6:1–761" after the publisher, breaking the
CS1 style of separating fields with periods. Suggest separating these into |series=
and |pages=
I have struck the resolved issues above - Evad37 [ talk 02:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! -- Pres N 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (Japanese: 聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Hepburn: Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana") is way too long an interruption to the first sentence. The lay person shouldn't have to read two lines of alternatives, translations and transliterations of the title before he finds out that this article is about a video game. You should either trim it or relegate it to a footnote. I wonder if the DS should be introduced as a handheld console?— indopug ( talk) 13:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I've gone through the article and made some copy-edits where I saw necessary. Have just a few points before I'm willing to support:
Made a few more copy-edits. All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. -- JDC808 ♫ 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I have found something.
Those are the only things that jumped out. Sorry it's not any longer, but I seriously can't think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned above. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Planning on review this article soon.
GamerPro64
20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Placeholder <3 - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Hey @ PresN: and @ ProtoDrake:! Been a while, I hope to more active this summer, glad to see you are keeping this project sprinting in a way no others seem to do. Article looks great, well written, covers all the bases, references are archived where appropriate. I Support its candidacy. One small point, and I may not be up to date with our current best practices on this, but shouldn't the plot section have references? Awesome job overall, never stop! Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The references are all formatted consistently and correctly, and appear to be reliable, as far as I can tell. My only question is the same as Judgesurreal777 raised above: is there no way to provide a source for the "Story" section? I'll admit I'm not too familiar with the style of video game articles, so I'm happy to be educated on that point. Have others passed FA recently with similarly uncited sections? -- Coemgenus ( talk) 12:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, to clarify: the "source review", which is to do with formatting/reliability of citations/sources, is something we like to see carried out on every FAC (like the image licensing review), whereas the "source spotcheck", meaning to check some of the sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing, is something we generally only require for a nominator's first FAC, and then on the odd occasion subsequently -- we never discourage them though! Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 15:03, 9 May 2015 [47].
There was nothing revolutionary about the 1936 Jarrow march; it was the polite, constitutional action of a town brought to destitution by 1930s economic policies. They came to London, presented their case, were fobbed off with tea and sympathy, and quietly went home. Yet the march became one of the defining images of the decade, and greatly influenced post-war policies towards full employment – at least until the 1980s. But that's another tale. My thanks to some careful peer reviewers who have watched over the article's preparation and made numerous helpful suggestions. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
That's it for the moment, but I'll go over it again later to make sure I've not missed anything. – SchroCat ( talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support – Another peer-reviewer: happy then and happy now. The prose is compellingly readable, the illustrations are admirable, the text is balanced and thoroughly sourced and cited. Plainly of FA quality – as well as thought-provoking, and touching. Happy to support, on St George's Day, an article that does justice to the Englishmen and Englishwomen concerned. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Support from SchroCat. I made some minor tweaks four or five days ago (see here) prior to the source review I gave. I have only one comment: in the UK unemployment section, is it worth a link to gold standard? Oh, and one further thought: T. Vosper Salt? Was Blandings Castle nearby? – SchroCat ( talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Crisco comments
Blofeld comments Been rather busy today, I'll be better off giving this a full read tomorrow after a good night's sleep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The only other thing I can think of is perhaps asking at the graphic lab for somebody to make you a map of the route of the march or something like that with the towns illustrated and the dates. That might be useful to the reader. Aymatth2 is often good with that sort of thing, but I believe is still on holiday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support This is really an impeccable piece of work, found it very difficult to see anything to complain about at all. Easily meets FA criteria, excellent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Support I read through this a few days ago as the subject interests me; I fixed the DABS referred to above automatically without realising they had been flagged by another reviewer, sorry. I've watched the other tweaks made since then and I'm happy to support this interesting, well written nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 14:04, 9 May 2015 [48].
This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (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) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Support. All my comments below have been addressed. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive in that it outlines some of Denny's major policy initiatives. The only hesitation on my part is whether the prose amounts to "engaging". At times the article is a fairly bare chronology. But ultimately I don't think the prose is any less engaging than in a number of FAs I've recently seen promoted. And hopefully it will benefit from one or two other commenters dropping by and picking up prose matters to be further improved. So I'm happy to support. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:
Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm copyediting a little as I go; please revert as needed. Overall this is in fine shape.
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ FAC coordinators: this one seems to be travelling ok with three supports, an image check and no opposes. Given it is an older nom, any chance I can be granted leave to nominate a fresh one while this one goes through? Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nikkimaria: would you mind having a look at the sources for this one? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 [49].
This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton ( talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Image review
Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply
That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Looks good - few queries below:
Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank ( push to talk)
A few (non-academic) spotchecks, as requested on WT:FAC, focussing on 10 randomly picked online sources:
Aside from 2 questions, all statements are covered by their sources without any signs of close paraphrasing. When a reference was used multiple times, all usages have been checked (but IANAM). GermanJoe ( talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 10:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC) [50]. reply
This article is about... a President of the United States. James Garfield is almost forgotten today but for the manner in which he met his death. Yet in 49 years he rose from poverty (the last president born in a log cabin) to the White House. He did much in those 49 years, and possibly could have done more if he had been spared for four more. Wehwalt ( talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Crisco comments
Image review
Support – comprehensive and a really good read. A few minor quibbles, not affecting my support:
That's all from me. This article plainly meets all the FA criteria, in my view. The prose is a pleasure, the proportions and balance judicious, the sourcing wide and thorough, and the images excellent (even the one of the incomparably hideous Baltimore & Potomac station). Tim riley talk 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank ( push to talk) 22:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
Otherwise, the sources are all of appropriate quality, and there are no other format issues. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply