Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2014

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

---

The Fifth Element

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1997 science fiction film. The first nomination for this article was archived just over 2 weeks ago; it did not pass as only two people were supporting it. Numerous concerns were originally brought up, 100% of which were addressed in order to obtain the support of the two reviewers. Naturally this was a time consuming process, and by the time I had the support of the second editor the nomination was at the bottom of the queue, ready to be closed. As all issues known issues have already been addressed, however, I anticipate this nomination being much smoother and quicker. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I was asked to support the nomination on my talk page, but I don't have a problem with that, since I supported the first nomination and the changes since then have been minor. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

Back from an involuntary Wikibreak of several months, and I'm happy to dive right back into FAC. I love this film, and I'm really excited to see it here at FAC. Unfortunately, I don't quite think this is to the point where I can support its promotion. I'll start with references and reference formatting, as that's always been my primary evaluation demesne here:

Well, most of those problems seem taken care of, so I've collapsed to make some room. I can still wish for content from that Buckland source, but I've only been able to track down excerpts on line. Pedantically, that's a mark against being a comprehensive literature review, but if it gets down to that being my only objection, I won't hold it against the article; FACR does not quite demand perfection, after all! Some of the references for things like DVD release dates aren't sites that I'd consider RS for broader purposes, but there's a longstanding tradition of tolerance for those sorts of relatively trivial, bare-fact details (and it is a tradition I've benefited from myself). Sourcing looks much better across the board at this point.

• The "Milla's Tale" reference isn't cited adequately. What you've pointed at is Milla Jovovich republishing an article from a periodical on her website. We can, I think, AGF regarding the fidelity of the reprint. But, importantly, Harpers & Queen is the periodical title (so needs to be styled in italics). And Sara Buys should be credited as the author.
  • Done. Freikorp (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Moving on from sources, is there a reason this article doesn't fair use in an image from The Circles of Power? The screenshot used in here even has a FUR that explains it is being used to highlight the influence and comparison, and the other article uses both for that reason. It's a topic clearly discussed in the prose, so I would think a FUR there would be no problem at all.
  • No particular reason. Before I started overhauling The Fifth Element that image was the only one there, whereas the other article had both. Do you think it is acceptable for FAC to format the two pictures in the same manner they are formatted at the other article? It bothers my OCD that the two pictures are not even sizes, and they do take up a rather large chunk of space when set together the way that they are. Freikorp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't do it exactly like it's currently done in the other article, no. Since the Circles image is more vertical, perhaps resize them to a consistent width and display them stacked in a column? I'm uncertain, but I do think we do the readers a disservice when we talk about the visual similarity between the two works, but then only illustrate half of that comparison. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done :). Freikorp (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll try to get back here in the near future for a more thorough prose review, but I caught one issue quickly:

• From Plot, "The current Mondoshawan contact": This implies that Vito Cornelius is a Mondoshawan. Rather, consider "The Mondoshawan's current contact" or something to that end.
  • Done. Freikorp (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References are in a better place than they were previously. No official stance on the prose until I get some more time with the article, but striking my opposition; I am neutral on promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Sorry to bother you but i'm a bit anxious to get this passed. Were my previous edits enough to gain your support, or have you noticed more things that need work? :) Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get time for a prose read in the next couple of days. Don't feel anxious! This is still really high up on the FAC page. There's plenty of time (and there ought to be more reviewers) before the coordinators evaluate promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Hi, a good deal of time has passed now so if you're able to return it'd probably be helpful... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't made a edit to Wikipedia since October 2nd, and also hasn't left any clear indication on his user page of why he is currently absent, so i'm not filled with confidence that he will return before this review is closed. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edgepedia

• I will review Edgepedia (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This (could) be my first film article that I've reviewed, so please treat these as suggestions:
  • There appears to me too much blue in the lead. No sure why Earth and taxicab is blue, and we have science fiction action film and special forces major.
    • Unlinked Earth, action film and major. Freikorp (talk)
  • Plot: In the first paragraph "a Great Evil" seems wrong - surely grammatically it's either the Great Evil or a great evil? I can see what you're trying to say, but perhaps this can be re-phrased?
    • Good point. Changed to 'great evil'. Freikorp (talk)
  • Themes: The quote: "echoe[d] stereotypical beliefs about gender"; don't you mean echo[ed] - i.e. you've added an 'ed'?
    • The original source said 'echoes'. Come to think of it it doesn't need to be passed tense, so i've changed it to 'echoes'. Freikorp (talk)
  • Production: "Besson envisioned the entire world...". Is 'entire' overkill? My brief glance at the source didn't justify it - surely he made up something during the film's development?
    • Good point. Removed 'entire'. Freikorp (talk)
  • Effects: Does "20 feet" need conversion? e.g. {{convert|20|ft}} -> 20 feet (6.1 m)
    • Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • Release:
    • Initial Screening: You have a repetition -> 100,000 square feet 100,000 square feet (9,300 m2). Does square feet really need linking?
      • Removed repetition and wikilink. Freikorp (talk)
    • "Gaumont spent between $1 million and $3 million"; I assume you mean US$ (As Cannes is in France it's not obvious as it is in the next paragraph).
      • Added wikilink to US Dollar. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical response and legacy: percent, per cent or %? (see WP:PERCENT). Also, in the same section "million euros in damages and interest and 2–5%".
    • Changed all variations to 'percent' for consistency. Freikorp (talk)

References

• Books do not need an accessdate, as long as you've given the edition. See refs 8, 11, 13, 16, 31, 46, 55 (I may have missed some).
  • I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Removed. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. Thanks so much for reviewing. Please let me know if I haven't addressed any concern adequately enough. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi. just following this up. Were my replies to your concerns adequate for you to support the nomination, or are there further concerns that you would like me to address? :) Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Freikorp, got your message on my talk page; unfortunately, I'm going to be busy travelling for the rest of October, so the time I have limited. However, I have had a chance to watch the DVD over the last week and I have a couple of a minor points:
    • When I was watching I never heard the evil planet thing being referred to as the "Great Evil". The sleeve notes call this "a planet-sized sphere of supreme evil" and the "Making of ..." special feature calls it a "dark and powerful force of evil". When I read it I though that the "Great Evil" (with capitals) was named as such. Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to lose the capital letters!
      • Removed caps. Freikorp (talk)
    • My DVD sleeve notes say most of the events take place in 2257 (The fifth element (Liner notes). Pathé. 1997. P8920DVD.). I can find sources on the internet for 2263, such as this one published in 2009; however by 2007 we have the 2263 date in the article and perhaps someone looked it up on wikipedia! Does this date come from elsewhere? Edgepedia (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm, it's interesting that it says 2257 in the dvd sleeve; 2263 is taken from the film itself. When Korben wakes up from his 'nightmare', you can see the time and date on his alarm clock. 2:00am 18 March 2263. The alarm clock clearly comes into focus at exactly the 16 minute and 58 second mark (at least on my iTunes copy of the film). Not sure what to do about these conflicting primary sources, i'm happy to leave it as it is but maybe we could just give an estimated date, describing the date as the mid 23rd century of something? Freikorp (talk)

PS: Can I echo Squeamish's "don't be anxious" – it took two months of my first FA to pass! The article is now a lot better than when I last looked at it! Edgepedia (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry to be on your case about it, maybe I should switch to decaf lol. Freikorp (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Edgepedia. Just a friendly reminder about the review and also letting you know i'll be on vacation myself from 22 October until 2 November. I anticipate having no internet access on vacation (probably a good thing lol) so if you comment during this time I may not respond. Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<------ unidented

Got your message Freikorp. On the subject of the date of the film's events, I think that needs at least a reference in the article; You could use {{cite AV media | people=Besson, Luc (Director) | year=1997 | title=The Fifth Element | time=16 minutes 58 seconds | medium=iTunes | publisher=Gaumont}}. When sources conflict, I usually give both sources and say they conflict – this could help in stopping editors getting confused and changing the article when they find the "wrong" source. So in this case the reference would be something like The year is shown on a clock in the the film (at 16 minutes 58 seconds in the iTunes version), although it is given as 2257 on the DVD sleeve notes published by Pathé in 1997. Edgepedia (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks Edgepedia. Was this the only outstanding concern? Can you support the nomination now? :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friekorp, please do not solicit declarations of support, as you have multiple times here. Reviewers are quite capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to explicitly declare their support (or opposition) re. promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ian Rose. Apologies, I didn't realise asking whether my changes were good enough for the article to be supported or whether I needed to do more work was not OK, I won't do so again. And yes, i'll stop doubling up with the headers from now on also. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mirokado

The proposer also asked me nicely to look again at this article. I have read it through from scratch and will be happy to support it again once the following points have been addressed:

• Lead: It has been called the best and worst summer blockbuster of all time. I suggest "it has been called both the ..." as later in the article, to make it clearer that it is not one reaction being referred to.
• Plot: divorcee: I don't see the relevance of mentioning this. It is presumably added to the script to explain why Dallas is living in a batchelor pad with a cat, but it plays no part in the plot or the rest of the film.
• Effects: proprietary software: the wikilink refers to the difference between closed- and open-source software, but the reference is referring to Digital Domain's use of standard (including closed-source) packages as well as its own in-house software (that is my understanding of page 60 of the reference, not something I "know"). I think it will be clearer if we say "in-house software" here, or remove the wikilink
• Soundtrack: The Fifth Element is amongst Besson's films that have been described as "intrinsically musical": this reads a bit clumsily, please rephrase, perhaps: "The Fifth Element is one of Besson's films which have been described as "intrinsically musical";" or say "among" instead of "amongst"

In this edit I have corrected the punctuation in "mixed or average reviews" and tweaked some source spacing for consistency. --Mirokado (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All issues addressed. Thanks so much for your review. Hopefully the nomination will pass this time :). Freikorp (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was quick!

• In the update to Soundtrack: Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software was used by Digital Domain...: need another comma and "were" here: "Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software, were used by Digital Domain..."

Supporting now. Good luck with the proposal. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments support

Love this movie! Here's my review.

• Budget - Why not give a footnote instead of hidden text? This will allow you to hedge a bit more, rather than being verifiable but possibly incorrect.
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
• Really light on production information in the lead. It took 22 years... did anything happen aside from people being hired? I mean, you dedicate so much text to it in the body, but the lead is sorely lacking.
  • Added some information the lead about why it may have taken so long. Freikorp (talk)
• it remained the highest-grossing French film at the box-office until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. - what's with giving the reference here? Per WP:LEAD, this should be referenced in the body.
  • Moved reference to the body. Freikorp (talk)
• but their compatriots determine to seize them for themselves. - perhaps a way of making it clear that the stones are the "them" in question?
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
• Plot section is a bit overly detailed. I know less than 700 words is recommended, but a lot of the 640 words of the current plot summary are fat. Is it really pertinent that he was a radio call-in winner (rigged or not?). Is their "consummating their love" (or, really, that whole paragraph) plot relevant, or is it just dénouement? I can imagine that this plot summary could be trimmed to 550 words.
  • Plot trimmed to 551 words. :) Freikorp (talk)
• While I'm discussing the plot: you don't explain why the Great Evil is returning sooner than "300 years".
  • To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable on this subject) there is no explanation. It is widely considered by fans (and wikipedia users I might add) to be a source of confusion. Freikorp (talk)
    • In that case, let's not be that specific. "in several hundred years" gives some wiggle room without being inaccurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to have trimmed this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes sorry I forgot to mention that. I think it would just be easier to leave it out, I know this article and if I say several hundred years IP's will just keep changing it to "300". Hopefully if it doesn't mention it at all there will be less disruption. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The book Science Fiction Film, published by Cambridge University Press, credited the film with exploring the theme of political corruption. - I'd expect the author to be the one we're supposed to mention in text, not the book. Mentioning only the book and publisher gives the impression that the book had no author. This goes for the rest of the journals etc. mentioned as well; these are ideas held by people, not necessarily the journals or the journals' editorial staff. Furthermore, this makes the mention of Susan Hayward and Phil Powrie appear WP:UNDUE, as they are the first authors actually named.
  • I have now specified authors as well as the book and journal. Freikorp (talk)
    • I'd probably trim the publishers though (Cambridge Uni. Press, etc.), but if you prefer them that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, the only reason I added them was to give it some notability to the source, I mean 'Stefan Brandt' clearly isn't notable enough to have a wiki article, and neither is his book 'Subverting Masculinity'. I thought if I showed that the publisher was notable it would give some indication of why we should value his opinion - because a notable publisher thought it was worthy to print. Do you think this is unnecessary? I have no qualms with removing it, I just thought it serves a purpose of sorts. Freikorp (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • IMHO, people who are going to question the reliability and/or weight of the source are usually those who know enough to check the references section (where you have the publisher spelled out). That being said, I'm fine with the way things are now if you'd rather not remove the publishers, and I'm not aware of any policies against including them in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The love story within The Fifth Element was considered to be one of the main narratives in the film, and it faces the same deadline as the main storyline. - "was considered" begs the question "by whom". Just say "the authors considered it" or whatever.
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
• The section #Related media is way too short and underdeveloped. It can probably be safely merged into the release section (actually; split off the legacy text as its own section; that should work, and allow you to incorporate these alternative media).
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
    • I reworked. Check if you agree or not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me :) Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• He states he was waiting to build a reputation for himself as a filmmaker before he commenced production of the film, so that he would be able to make it with creative control. - Well, after a sentence like that we'd expect to be introduced to one or more films that made Besson well enough known that he could take control. Instead we jump right into the budget, and only then do you mention a film he made.
  • Moved some info around so that information about the 1994 film Leon appears right after that statement. Freikorp (talk)
    • Reworked. Please check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's much better, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Standardize whether your punctuation goes inside or outside of quotation marks.
  • Done. Freikorp (talk)
• Gaultier also borrowed designs from others to help create his effect. - any examples?
  • Not in the source quoted unfortunately. Text reads: "Gaultier explains that he pulls from past designs - not just his own - to create his effect." Happy to delete this mention entirely if that would be better than not being able to specify whose designs he borrowed. Freikorp (talk)
    • Important enough for the subject. Just was hoping that we could show and not simply tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• He relies heavily on the use of orchestral textures and exotic influences, such as the oboe and strings heard as the surgeons prepare to regenerate Leeloo, and the pizzicato as she is reconstructed, as well as the shawm sounds as Leeloo tries to communicate with Korben after she falls into his taxi, and the Middle-Eastern unison strings as he tries to convince her to give herself up. - What a mouthful! can we split this, please?
  • I just deleted the second half of that very long sentence - there are enough examples without the second half anyway. Freikorp (talk)
• The soundtrack section jumps around a bit. Content then sales information then content again. Perhaps a somewhat more organized presentation would be in order. Also, worth mentioning any of the review comments?
  • Reorganised and a reviewer comment added. Freikorp (talk)
    • Tried reorganizing... what do you think? Also, added two CN tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. I found a source for one of the cn tags. I'm confident that no source specifically backs up the statement: "Part One (titled Lucia di Lammermoor) and Part Two (titled The Diva Dance) of this piece are included as separate but consecutive tracks on the soundtrack" (other than listening to the soundtrack itself) so i've just removed that sentence and the tag with it. Freikorp (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not just cite the album itself? We're allowed to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh I didn't know that lol. Done, though i've never cited an album before so do feel free to check i've filed out enough parameters. Freikorp (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Grand. I've done similar citations with some lists, so I knew it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps clarify what "exported" film means.
  • Changed to "As of 2011 it still held the record for the French film with the highest foreign box office gross." Freikorp (talk)
• which called him "the summer's most outrageous special effect" - LA Times or Time?
  • Clarified it was Time. Freikorp (talk)
• The case was dismissed in 2004 on the grounds that only "tiny fragments" of Giraud's artwork had been used - What about Jodorowsky?
  • Clarified it was "tiny fragments" of the comic, rather than specifically Giraud's artwork. Freikorp (talk)
• Anybody else give feedback regarding this film? If you mention only Oldman, it comes across as undue weight.
  • Another user added Oldman's comments after I nominated the article for FAC. I'd be more than happy to remove this information on the grounds of undue weight, though i'll have a look for other actors opinions later. Freikorp (talk)
    • If you can get 'em, that'd be great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Finding this surprisingly difficult - found a basic quote from Willis and added it, will look for more. Freikorp (talk)
        • Having Jovovich or Maïwenn Le Besco would round this out (or Besson himself). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Ultimate Edition DVD contains featurettes with Tucker and Jovovich, both of whom speak fondly of their experiences working on the film. I was hoping to find something more specific, but i'm hoping this will be enough. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Any direct quotes? You can cite the actual featurette. See Departures for an example of how that works (with the format system my co-author and I used; it can be adapted for this article easily) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Done. Also have a look at my reply to the concern regarding the year the film was set in at the bottom of this discussion :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for both The Fifth Element and Money Talks. - be clear if this applies to both Tucker and Jovovich, or just one or the other.
  • I'm not 100% sure what the issue is here - i've reworded to "Conversely, Jovovich received a Razzie nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for his performances in both The Fifth Element and Money Talks." Does this address your concern? Freikorp (talk)
    • Excellent. Yes, the way you had positioned your subjects suggested (erroneously) that Jovovich could have been in Money Talks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The second disc provides various special features, focusing on visual production, special effects, fashion in the film, featurettes and interviews with Willis, Jovovich, and Tucker, featurettes on the four different alien races in the film, and a featurette on Diva Plavalaguna. - can we avoid having featurettes stated three times in a row?
  • Removed one appearance. Freikorp (talk)
• The Ultimate Edition was praised for its special features. - by whom?
  • I have specified who praised it. Freikorp (talk)
• Suggest linking to newspapers and/or reviewers with articles.
  • In regards to what? Sorry i'm not sure what you mean here. Freikorp (talk)
    • i.e. DVD Talk has an article but is not linked (article could use some work, but that's not FAC relevant). The one that brought this to mind was LA Times, but it appears I forgot that you had already linked it previously. No need to worry about that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikilinked. Looks like the DVD talk article was created after I added the source to this article. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Any further details on the novelization (reviews? Changes in plots as mentioned in RSes? anything?)? How about the games? I'm sure they have reviews you can mention, at least one or two. I mean, you give sound bites for the DVD releases. (TV Tropes says that the PS1 game got on several "worst game of the year" lists... if we can cite that, it's fairly important).
  • Added two game reviews. You'll have to post a link to that TV Tropes article you're talking about if you want me to do anything about that; i'm not familiar with that website and I haven't heard anything else about these lists the game is apparently on. Freikorp (talk)
    • Not cite TV Tropes (its a Wiki, and non-reliable), but the fact. Gamespot has a review here (not familiar enough with WP:VG's RS guidelines to say off it's an RS or not here). IGN (RS) has a review. Game Revolution too (RS). Can't find anything for what TV Tropes claims, but those two (three?) reviews would certainly be plenty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now added two reviews for the game adaptation and one review (the only one I could find) for the racing game that is based on the film. I can't find a review for the novelisation from a reliable source (google books doesn't list any reviews of the book either [5]). Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why the discrepancy in film length? Infobox says 126 minutes, but Ebert says 127. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how that happened - changed to 127. Freikorp (talk)
• Duplicate links: Gary Oldman — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for your review, i'll begin addressing these issues one at a time and will ping you when i'm done. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crisco 1492. I've either addressed everything or requested clarification on what you were after. Feel free to strikethrough any resolved issues so I know what you're pleased with. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have done so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jean-Paul Gaultier is a redirect to Jean Paul Gaultier. Which is correct?
  • Jean Paul Gaultier is correct. Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you been able to consult The Adventure and Discovery of a Film: The Story of The Fifth Element or Valérian: Les Extras de Mézières, tome 2: Mon cinquième élément? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to (non-RSes) these two books have information on how Besson approached Mezieres, and on what Besson intended the fifth element to be... might be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certainThe Adventure and Discovery of a Film would prove very useful, i've previously looked into buying a copy. Unfortunately it was limited edition and is out of print. The cheapest I can find a copy for sale is $200 [6]; my fiancé would kill me if I spent that much money on a book lol. Neither my local public or university library has a copy. The other book is not available at any library near me either, though it is more affordable to buy; I don't relish the idea of having to buy it though, and if I ordered a copy it probably wouldn't arrive at my house for a couple weeks anyway as i'd have to order from overseas. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about an inter-library loan? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't looked into that. I might get a chance to go to the library and ask the day after tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Managed to get to the library today. I put in a written request for both books, I was told someone would call me when the book(s) had either come in or if they knew they couldn't get a copy. I was told it might take a week or longer. I'm not sure if Ian Rose is happy for this nomination to stay open just on the chance that a) they can get the books in and b) that said book would have useful information. Would it be a massive problem to just let the issue of comprehensiveness slide for the time being? I mean, the article isn't obviously deficit without said sources, and as I have a clear interest in this article I can assure you that if I ever get a copy of either of the books, I will do my best to improve this article with their information, regardless of whether the article is already promoted to featured status or not. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comprehensiveness is part of the FAC criteria, so any objections on that count are prima facie actionable. How much a barrier to promotion it should be in this instance is therefore more in the hands of Crisco as an experienced film article editor/reviewer, than in mine as a FAC coordinator. No pressure, Crisco (honestly!) but if it's a stopper for you then given the time this has been open I'd be inclined to archive the nom until the books are obtained and worked into the article. If you think it does meet the criteria after all (but could simply be further improved with the additions) then we may still be on track for promotion shortly, pending image check and resolution of Nimbus' remaining points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Despite what my students may try and tell you, I'm not evil enough to oppose over that. Yeah, it would be a great addition, but this is already one of the most comprehensive single sources on the internet. I can easily assume that Freikorp will add further information as it becomes available. Images below are dealt with too, so
• Support on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I hope that the book does become available. I doubt it would cause a fundamental rewrite of the article, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage (for me, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The public library just called me. It might interest you to know that there wasn't a copy of either of those books in any library in Australia, which is precisely why my local library has decided to purchase The Story of The Fifth Element for their collection. As they have to order it from overseas it will probably take 2-4 weeks to arrive, and they told me they'd put it aside for me so that I can borrow it first. Not surprisingly they weren't interested in ordering the other one as it isn't in English. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say, the Australian library system sounds pretty damn good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, any of the special features on the DVDs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used to own the original (no special features) version of the DVD; I now own the iTunes copy, which also has no special features. Thankfully, people have uploaded at least some of the special features from the Ultimate edition DVD to YouTube, hence why I was able to cite the interviews with Jovovich and Tucker in the 'Legacy' section. There are snippets for sure that could be added to the article (For example I was surprised to find out via Jovovich's special features interview that after 2 months of repeatedly bleaching her hair and dying it orange her hair started to fall out; she had to wear a wig in the second half of the film) but I don't recall hearing anything of vital importance. Was there a particular part of the 'Production' section that you think could use expanding with potential information from said special features? Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not exactly in a position to have the DVD features myself (Indonesia and all that). No, I am not aware of anything particularly important, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• K, so these "Comprehensiveness" questions are all I have left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nimbus

Very nearly a 'support' from me. There are two cites in the lead, should not be there per WP:LEADCITE as long as the facts are cited later. Gaultier does not use the hyphen according to his official website. On the fictional date of the film is a date of the first Egyptian scene not given on screen then a cutaway says '200 years later' or similar? Been a while since I've seen it. The Cornelius/Zorg choking scene seems to have been left out of the plot? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments. I have removed the two cites in the lead, and the hyphen in Gualtier's name. Yes, you're right - the movie opens to the text on screen "Egypt 1914". Then when it cuts to the future it says "300 years later", though Korben's alarm clock clearly states the year is 2263. How Luc Besson managed to contradict the date that badly is completely beyond me. This 'movie mistake' has proved quite annoying for me to work around. As for the choking scene - I had to leave most of the non-vital scenes in the film out of the plot in order to shorten in to 550 words. Freikorp (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, the alarm clock is clearly visible. And I mean clearly. Screenshot. It's huge. And yes, the earlier text says 300 years. Screenshot. How about including this discrepency in the footnote, citing the film (of course). No screenshots, owing to copyright concerns, but at least text and time the text is shown (or the Mondoshawan makes its pronouncement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've reworded the reference after the year 2263 to take all this information into consideration, any better now? Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ping@Nimbus. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the date thing is covered now, perhaps it was deliberate?! I can't immediately learn where this was filmed, should be in the production section with a mention in the lead. The soundtrack infobox looks odd, it is not used in Blade Runner (a Featured Article) but is used at Blade Runner (soundtrack) at the top of the article where I would expect to see it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm good point about the location of filming not being specified - i'll look for a source for that. No-one's mentioned anything about the soundtrack info-box before. After looking up about 15 featured film articles I did note the majority of them indeed do not have info-box, though two of the ones I looked at did (Manhunter (film) and Hoodwinked!). Does the info-box present a big problem? While there are only 2 notable reviews of the soundtrack, I do like how the inbox conveys the review scores with just a glance, and in this case there is not a separate article for the film's soundtrack; if there was i'd be willing to ditch the info-box immediately. I'd prefer the inbox to remain unless doing so would cost me your support, in which case I would be willing to permanently remove it. Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox album states that the coding should appear at the top of the page, reading between the lines I guess it is only intended for use in album articles. My worry is that editors follow other Featured Articles, they may do the same citing this one as the precedent. The template could be used in a new soundtrack article in the same way as the Blade Runner example mentioned. Look forward to learning more about filming locations.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the inbox and added information on filming locations. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker. I'm seeing current cite 92 as a dead link (70th Academy Awards). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it was dead for me too; I replaced it. Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Squeamish Ossifrage gave a source review already? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question was retrieved in July this year, and I double-checked everything was still live before nominating for FAC, so it looks like that source must have gone dead quite recently, but in any case it's fixed now. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was referring to "I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, righto. Yes, Squeamish Ossifrage did do a thorough source review. Is this issue resolved now Nimbus? Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read Squeamish Ossifrages review thoroughly, they had many points, some resolved, the collapsed dialogue box had an 'oppose' comment then later this changed to 'neutral' which I believe just related to the referencing, not the article as a whole (may be wrong). It is unfortunate that they have have not returned to close the reference review. My normal field of editing is aviation and I have a very good knowledge of what is and isn't considered a reliable source, we need a film article referencing expert in here to guide us. One website 'Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film and Television' seems to be a cross between a wiki and a one person self-published enthusiast site on reading the 'FAQ' there, is it a reliable source in the WP sense? I can't tell though I would not use a site like that myself for referencing. Sorry if this is causing pain but myself (and the FA delegates) would be much happier with a positive yes or no for WP:WIAFA 1c (Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eofftv is the only source i'm using that I wasn't completely sure was reliable. I only used it as a last resort; when I couldn't find any other sources. When you asked for information on filming locations it was one of two sources I found stating scenes in the film were filmed in Mauritania. The other was a (much more reliable) article in Cinefex. I only had a snippet preview of said article from Google books [7] though that was enough to confirm that filming did take place there. I found a copy of said article on sale on eBay for $5, so I ordered it. The reason I wasn't using it as a source yet is because until the article arrives, I don't know what the article's title is, or its author. It would be a good guess that the author is Don Shay and the title is The Fifth Element, but I didn't want to assume. As the used source has now been questioned, I will add the Cinefex source despite its temporarily missing parameters, and will fill in the blanks once my copy of the article arrives. In the meantime i'll see if I can find alternate sources for the two other facts that Eofftv currently backs up. Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the correct author and title for the Cinefex article. I removed one of the other statements the Eofftv reference was backing up, it wasn't very significant anyway, and I found a reliable source for the last claim that reference backed up, so it's completely removed from the article now. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- This has been open a long time but does appear to be close to reaching consensus so I'll allow some more time for Crisco's and Nimbus' comments to be resolved. In the meantime, did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have, I'll do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review
• File:Fifth element poster (1997).jpg - Needs the source to be stated, rather than just the copyright holder. Also, the "Article" parameter links to a dab page. That needs to be fixed. Also, technically this is a bit over the maximum of 100k pixels. Downsampling to 350px on the long side will fix that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better now? Freikorp (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Valerian FifthElement2.jpg and File:Valerian FifthElement1.jpg - Since these are being used in conjunction, to better meet the "Minimal use" criterion I think you should combine the two images into one, and downsample a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Freikorp (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

• Corrected the odd formatting error (including a stray "}").
  • Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is The DVD Journal really a Reliable Source? It sure looks amateur, and the "About Us" page doesn't inspire me with confidence.
  • Fair enough. I've removed the three inline citations that DVD Journal was used for. I couldn't find another reference for one of the statements the source backed up in the production sections, so I replace it with some new information. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref#29: page?
  • Well I don't really have a specific page per se, since a large portion of the comic is about the "character named S'Traks, who drives a flying taxicab through the congested air traffic of the vast metropolis on the planet Rubanis." The character and these facts don't all get introduced at the same time if I remember correctly (I don't have acces to the book currently). Does this really need a page number? Or for that matter, does it need a source at all? Freikorp (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, other citations to this source give page numbers, so this one appears to be an omission. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just removed the source entirely; it wasn't really needed considering that the fact that S'Traks drives a taxi through the planet Rubanis in the comic is still backed up by the source used at the end of the next sentence, which states Korben's character was inspired by S'Traks. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Are Thierry Arbogast and KEG FX appropriate sources? Are there not other sources that report the awards?
  • The Thierry Arbogast reference is no longer needed, so I removed it. I added it before I found the source that backs up all the Cesar awards nominations and winners. I haven't been able to find a more reliable source than KEG FX for the Saturn Award. The Saturn Awards official website doesn't list the previous nominations for best special effects: [8] IMDb and Movie Collection back it up, but I don't think they're any more reliable. It's the recipients offical webpage, so I was hoping it would be accepted. Given the circumstances, do you think it could be? Freikorp (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might get away with it since it's strictly factual data, but another source would be batter. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guessing these two aren't reliable either, but it's worth asking: Awards and Winners Cinetaka Freikorp (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first one's user-generated, and says at the bottom of the page that it gets some of its content from Wikipeida, so it's definitely out. The second one, I'm not sure—I think it's in Portuguese. I wonder if there's a Portuguese speaker who could tell us if it's a RS or not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is Portuguese. On closer inspection the website appears to be some form of movie rental site, and the awards list looks remarkably similar to the one at IMDb (not exactly the same, in a very slightly different order and it doesn't contain two of the awards that IMDb lists). I wouldn't bet that it is reliable. Hoping you'll let me get away with the reference I currently have. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Translations of non-English titles would be nice
  • Done. I haven't bothered to translate "Das fünfte Element" or "Le Cinquième élément", as I think that's a bit condescending. But let me know if you'd like me to do that. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't call it condescending—Wikipedia serves a worldwide audience, many of whom live in places where it's unlikely they'd be familiar with any amount of French or German. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Otherwise ref formatting looks fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Curly Turkey. I've finished initial replies to your concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A quick look suggests to me that all the source review comments are addressed -- Curly? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, it looks fine now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]

---

Paraceratherium

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the largest land mammal that has ever lived. The article was in a sorry state before, but luckily the first semi-technical book devoted to this animal was published last year, which synthesised a lot of obscure information, and is the main basis for this article. Much of its history is very complicated, and I have tried to explain it in an understandable way. The article is part of the Wikipedia CD Selection, which may be of importance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Indricotherium.jpg: both of the links under the description are dead - they're not essential, but if you have updated links that would be nice

I'd rather just remove them, but do you prefer archive.org links perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is "restoration" really the correct word for those drawings? It's not a usage I'm familiar with

It is widely used for "palaeoart". Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Indricotherium11.jpg: this appears at deviantart under a different license, one not acceptable for Wikipedia

It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Commons. He has dozens of other images there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg: again, published elsewhere under a more restrictive license. The situation needs to be clarified as the two licenses are not compatible. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Russian Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - ooh goody, glad someone has buffed this. I'd planned to do it one day but pleased someone else has...I'll just order the book and read at my leisure :)

....comments below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the book is weirdly balanced I think, I'd have liked more info about specimens for example, but instead there's pages and pages of biographies... FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alot of sentences in para 2 of lead start with "It..." - it'd be good to vary the sentences a bit.

Ah, forgot this, varied a bit, does it need more? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the shoulder height was about 6 metres (20 feet), and the length about 8.0 metres (26.2 feet). - why 8.0 metres and not 8 here?

Not sure, conversion templates were added by the copyeditor. But their parameters seem to be set the same way? How can this be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I removed the .0, fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The classification of the genus and the species within has a long and complicated history. - I suspect "taxonomy" may be a more accurate word than "classification" here.....

Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

although the latter may be a distinct genus. - "latter" --> "last" as there are three not two items listed.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link taxonomy at first mention

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The superfamily Rhinocerotoidea can be traced back to the early Eocene age - "age" is redundant and misleading here - should be removed

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've erred slightly on the side of underlinking - I'd link vertebra, molar, premolar, incisor...some of the more obscure things in para 2 of skull section might have links too.

A lot links were removed and much was reworded during copyediting, I'll fix it. SOme words, like incisor, are already linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more on the habitat at all in the source?

I'll see if I can squeeze some more out. Perhaps the stuff about territories and "home ranges" could be moved into that section from behaviour as well? This: "Prothero suggests that animals as big as indricotheres would need very large home ranges or territories of at least 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres), and that because of a scarcity of resources, there would have been little room in Asia for many populations or a multitude of nearly identical species and genera. This principle is called competitive exclusion; it is used to explain how the black rhinoceros (a browser) and white rhinoceros (a grazer) exploit different niches in the same areas of Africa." FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that'd be good into a paleobiology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant whether it should be moved from palaebiology to habitat/distribution? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry/yes/my bad/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support on comprehensiveness and prose. overall a good read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and comments Article reaches the standard, just a couple of points for you to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for the animal's extinction is unknown— "reasons... are"? Likely to be multiple according to your article
• sizes ranged from dog-sized to the size of Paraceratherium.— rephrase to avoid three sizes in one sentence
• pi (π) shaped— should be hyphenated, and I think piped "π-shaped" looks neater anyway

Thanks, fixed the two first suggestions. You don't think I would need to spell pi out? I'd believe not all people are familiar with the sign? FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the hyphen is obligatory, as with L-shaped later, so you need would pi- (π-) shaped, which is awful. I think that anyone reading this article would be familiar with what is probably the best known of all Greek letters, more so than with perissodactyl, and the link through to the article would immediately enlighten anyone who didn't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

• Interesting beast, and interesting article. Quite a few prose/accessability issues

The article was thoroughly copy edited by bafflegab, so should be ok, but I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1908, he referred the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium, as the new species A. bugtiense." I couldn't understand this sentence; I am guessing the reason is an odd use of the word "referred", but can't be sure.

"Refer" is standard taxonomy language, changed to assigned or moved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1913, Forster-Cooper named Thaumastotherium ("wonderful beast") osborni based on larger fossils from the same excavations..." Not sure what this is saying exactly. This appears to be talking about a new species called Thaumastotherium osborni - is that correct? If so, then the paragraph probably needs clearer signposting that we are going to be talking about multiple species. If not, then i don't understand what it's saying.

It is saying he named a new taxon, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a literally correct, but very unorthodox use of the term "preoccupied" that would be better replaced with something else, such as "the former name had already been used to describe..."

I'm not so sure, that is standard taxonomy language, and even has a good redirect. The taxonomy section uses taxonomic language, simplifying it will probably not be helpful to convey the exact meaning. But I have clarified this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "... so fragmentary that Foster-Cooper was unsure what kind of perissodactyl they belonged to..." This isn't fair to the reader - it isn't enough to provide a link to such an obscure term, particularly when that link turns out to be a redirect. The text should explain more fully what the difficulty here was about.

Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1936, Walter Granger and William K. Gregory proposed that Forster-Cooper's Baluchitherium osborni was likely a junior synonym of Paraceratherium bugtiense because these specimens were collected at the same locality and were possibly part of the same morphologically variable species.[16] Forster-Cooper had expressed similar doubts.[17] This was also suggested by William Diller Matthew in 1931." - how can someone "also suggest" something before the other person proposes it? The chronology of this section needs to be reworked to put the proposals in chronological order, oldest first.

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• regarding the same passage, i think a plain English explanation of junior synonym will help readability.

Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Similar issue with nomina dubiae

Changed to the English term dubious names. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Paraceratherium is considered the largest known land mammal that has ever existed" - very unusual to use the singular for a genus containing several species. Should it not read "are considered to have been the largest known land mammals ever to have existed"?

Well, it is a genus, singular, just like for example Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, etc. Likewise, you could say "the elephant is the largest living land mammal", or "Stegosaurus had spikes on its tail" even though the terms denote multiple species. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't look at the rest right now, but there's some to start with. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I clarify: current literature recognises multiple species, is that correct? At least 3 and possibly as many as 7? It is hard to be clear from that section what the current view(s) are.

Four species. This is specifically mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph under Species and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see an explanation or link for the reader to explain the Christian cross-shaped symbol used in the infobox. What is its significance?

(Animalparty responding) The dagger symbol (not a Christian cross) is a widely used symbol in biology and paleontology to indicate extinct taxa. Some articles have the dagger wikilinked to extinction, or have an HTML code that says "extinct" when a pointer hovers over it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is extinction. It has been added to most articles about extinct animals, so it is a wider issue that I have little to no control over. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I meant to say is, this should be explained and/or linked for readers. I've fixed that with a note in the box. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They used to be links, it seems the template has been altered. It should be relinked, then a note will be redundant. I'll see if I can fix it. See also this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Archive_4#.22Extinction_dagger.22_guideline_needed Also see here[10], where I've proposed the dagger should be a link. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Like User:Animalparty, I don't believe the article should begin with taxonomy. I don't believe any article about a thing should start with anything other than a description of that thing, a view I have expressed in the past at FAC. It is a pattern that has become mistakenly established in our articles about animals, and I don't really have the energy to try and turn all of them around. However, the pattern in plant FAs, such as Banksia marginata, which I do support, is to begin with the description. This is also the convention set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Note also that the article template at Wikiproject animals also does not start with taxonomy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template - instead it begins with anatomy and morphology, which is essentially description of the thing. I think it is crazy to have an encyclopedia for everyone that has articles that do not begin by telling the reader what it is we are talking about. I believe that this has resulted from our animal articles following the practice of the scientific literature. But Wikipedia isn't the scientific literature, it is written so that an everyday reader can access it. I propose the order to be: description - taxonomy - palaeobiology - distribution and habitat. In the case of the P. article I would have thought this would be particularly helpful, since the description (and its uncertaintly) would help the reader understand why the taxonomy is so complicated. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see my response to Animalparty, which he agreed with. Most other FAs about mammals start with taxonomy, so I prefer to follow this clear precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, i'm just wanting to be clear that I don't support the practice, in those precedents or here - i don udnerstand why you would want to follow it. One of the difficulties is in knowing how to change the practice, given that the approach isn't grounded in a Wikiproject template or guideline. But I'll leave this for delegates. :-)

I've actually reconsidered and think precedents should be questioned. There are relatively few paleo mammal FA, and while there does appear to be a common structure of having Taxonomy or classification before description, lets face it some go pretty deep into the minutiae. The trend appears reversed in dinosaur articles (e.g. Allosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus), which often delve deeply into the history of discovery well after the description, and I don't see why that can't be a precedent. The mammal taxa on average don't seem to have taxonomic histories as complex or detailed as Paraceratherium, and the length alone might suggest it be restructured. It may just come down to style differences (i.e. opinions), but I feel most readers would be interested in the size, description, and biology first, and care less about soldiers in Baluchistan (do we need to know his name was Vickaery?), nomenclatural nuances, and lots of names unfamiliar to the average reader (notable scientists be they may). Like I said below, I believe little to nothing would be lost by restructuring, and big-picture clarity might be improved. But I also don't think it's worth debating a whole lot, so I've said my piece. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then all it comes down to is taste, not policy. Dinosaur articles are structured quite differently from mammal and even bird articles overall, so I don't think they work as precedents. As also noted below, most sources about this animal start by untangling the taxonomic issue before anything else, which gives the subsequent info context. I think you can find as many people (including myself) who prefer taxonomy first as not, but I don't think this article should be a battleground for that. Better to bring it up on the tree of life wikiproject talk page or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Animalparty

--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxomomic history is probably the least interesting and least useful to the majority of readers: I think it should be moved to below the Description and Paleobiology. I don't think any clarity is lost by doing so, i.e. there is little in the Taxonomy section that is crucial to understanding the description, etc. Moving the taxonomy to the end would also mirror the current layout of the lead, which is preferable for logical flow.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure, first, it follows the structure of most other mammal FAs (lion, elephant, giraffe, woolly mammoth, etc.), which almost always have the taxonomy sections first. Secondly, after its size, the taxonomy issue is the most often mentioned and potentially confusing issue regarding this animal, so it is therefore one of the most important things to clarify before the reader goes on to the rest of the article. Thirdly, the section flows naturally into evolution, which should definitely be at the beginning of the article. And I'd hesitate to claim that most people would find the section the least interesting, if they do, it is rather easy to skip it. Prothero 2013 devotes a very long chapter to taxonomic history, before even describing the animal and its biology. I think this article should follow the precedents set by other FAs and the sources cited. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I won't object to precedents.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a couple of red-linked terms in the Description section should be defined in plain English or omitted rather than left red-linked: e.g. "had pleurocoel-like openings" means virtually nothing unless the reader already knows what a pleurocel is, and "graviportal build" is similarly jargony.

Fixed those you mentioned. More? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Additionally, I'd like to see a bit more nuance in the evolution section. Is the 1989 cladogram still the consensus (if there is any)? The cladogram shows one hypothesis, yet the following sentence suggests at least one opposing view. Is there anything more recent that resolves the conflict? Here, citations to review articles or secondary texts (like Prothero 2013) might be best to provide balance and context. If there is controversy, explain it!

Prothero strictly follows the 1989 cladogram, the other hypotheses, Holbrook and the Chinese ones (which are already explained as iffy in this article), are minority views. Not much more to say about Holbrook's view, because his conclusion regarding indricotheres was just a short side remark in a study about a wider group, including tapirs. Also, this article is about a specific genus, not the indicothere subfamily as a whole, so in depth discussion of classification issues for the entire group is best left for the subfamily page. But I've added a bit more clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better now.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the text above the cladogram, why is it emphasized that Triplopodinae was found to be the sister taxon to Indricotheriinae? Assuming there are only 2 subfamilies, isn't this a likely result?(oops, see below) or was this the first time Triplopodinae was proposed? Since Triplopodinae is red-linked, you may want to define or clarify it, and perhaps invert the sentence structure so that Indricotheriinae (the more relevant clade to Paraceratherium, and one which the readers will have encountered by this point) is mentioned before Triplopodinae (an otherwise foreign term for the reader).

Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the cladogram itself: Why is the rest of Hyracodontidae omitted? Going only by that cladogram, one might assume (as I did) that Hyracodontidae consists only 2 families. The stem of the cladogram should be more clear.

The original source does not include more clades at the stem, so adding any would be original synthesis. But I have added the hyracodont name, as in the source, so should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In a 1999 study, Luke Holbrook instead found the indricotheres to be outside the hyracodontid group and wrote that the indricotheres may not be a monophyletic grouping. K. Heissig suggested that they were most closely related to rhinocerotids" - The form of these sentences gives the impression that Heissig' suggestion was published in Holbrook 1999, which presumably is not correct. Heissig should be individually referenced (or at least "Heissig (cited in Holbrook)"), and some kind of conjunction between the clauses (similarly? alternatively?) might also help flow.

I will add a year in front of Hessig's sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing my comments. Reads a bit better now. P.S. there are some public domain tooth and bone illustrations in Forster-Cooper (1911) that may or may not be useful to include.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the illustration of a jaw is actually from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• New comment: I noticed some of the old journal titles were incorrect (e.g. "Journal of Natural History" rather than "Annals and Magazine of Natural History"). I've fixed some, but more might need double-checking: e.g. "Records of the Geological Survey of India" might in fact be "Memoirs of ...". --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, especially since those refs are filled in by a bot. And by the way, DOIs are already links, so for example here[11], there are two links to the same page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why you can't trust bots! :) Also, some DOIs link to Subscription sites, e.g. this one, because for some reason Taylor & Francis publishers demand payments for public domain works, even some over 100 years old!--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank the maker for archive.org and biodiversity library... FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• New Comment: The duration and time that Paraceratherium lived should be emphasized and clarified a bit: the lead mentions the Oligocene, the taxobox says 34–23Ma, but that seems to be the entire duration of the Oligocene. Do Paraceratherium fossils span the entire Oligocene or just a section? The Distribution and habitat mentions 11 million years but that has not been firmly stated in the article yet beyond the taxobox. Some dates (even if rough) in the lead and body would help, e.g. "...lived in the Oligocene epoch, from around XX to XX million years ago", with maybe some discussion of earliest and latest stage/age of occurrence in the body. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are a bit superficial when it comes to this issue, Prothero writes several pages about how some formations have been inaccurately dated in the past, but there is little about when the various species then actually existed. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it a bit clearer now, and added a bit more info about other things. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any further comments, Hamiltonstone and Animalparty? Your points have been addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • "and that it contains three discernible species; P. bugtiense (the type species), P. transouralicum, P. prohorovi, and P. orgosensis, although the last may be a distinct genus"- Did you mean four discernible species, or three discernable species with one equivocal species?
  • "The three species of Paraceratherium are mainly discernible through skull characteristics. P. bugtiense and P. orgosensis..." same as above, are there 3 or 4 in referering to P. orgosensis?

I was a bit unsure what to do with P. prohorovi, Prothero says it may not be possible to evaluate its placement, which I interpreted as him saying it was a dubious name, but he doesn't say this specifically, so I added the species anyway. So it should be four, I have fixed this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The first fossils of Paraceratherium were discovered by the British geologist Guy Ellcock Pilgrim ... In 1908, he moved the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium..."- this might be clarified to something like: "The first fossils now recognized as Paraceratherium... In 1908 he placed the species in the extinct ...", since Pilgrim didn't really move anything yet.

Good catch, I implemented the first suggestion you made, but worded the rest a bit differently. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Shouldn't P. bugtiense Pilgrim, 1908 be written as P. bugtiense (Pilgrim, 1908) due to Forster-Cooper's new combination?

Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • "and distinct crochets of its molars" -what's a crochet?

Good question, the source doesn't give a definition... I'll give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, nothing... FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be a hook-like projection or hook-shaped structure, given the derivation of crochet. I've seen it mentioned in some paleo works but not clearly defined. I'll keep looking. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Just a question that's not mentioned: How many toes did Paraceratherium have?

I think one source specifically says that this is unknown, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It only said the front feet had three toes, but it seems all rhinos have both three front and hind toes on each limb, so I'm not sure if this is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (No not yet. see below)- I think with the resolution of this last set of comments the article is readable, coherent, and complete. Some of the red-linked terms do stand out a bit, but not detrimentally, and I think the word graviportal can be omitted entirely, or at least unlinked, as the adjective seems an unlikely article to be created (Graviportality? List of large and heavy animals?) and all necessary context is in the article. I think it meets WP:FACR, although there is always room for future improvements: one might be to include views from other secondary sources besides Prothero's- recognized authority as he is- to ensure that a western bias or personal bias isn't inadvertently introduced, and to fairly reflect how other researchers synthesize primary literature, but I don't think this prevents FA promotion. Lastly, it would be really cool to get this image in the article, if allowable, to really hammer home the size of the beast! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We did actually have that image once, but I realised it was made after 1922, and therefore not PD US. In any case, we do have an image that shows the animal's size next to a museum crowd (with a cast of that skull in an armature), and we do have a photo of that exact skull, so it would be fairly redundant. As for competing hypotheses, I'll add which species and genera that are recognised by Chinese researchers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old skull image has been readded (from another source), see below... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another set of comments (which is why I've temporarily stricken my support):
• First, I don't think this should be passed on as FA until someone with access to the original references does at least a cursory review. I may be able to access a university library within the week, or otherwise obtain the subscription journal articles.

That is how FACs are always done (standard practice), there is a "source review" and an "image review". The source review is done before the article can be passed, so supports have no bearing on it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxobox mentions 4 species under Species, yet only 3 species under species synonyms. Is P. prohorovi without synonyms? (totally fine if so). But going solely from the info in the article (please verify), shouldn't P. transouralicum Pavlova, 1922 and ?P. orgosensis Chiu, 1973 be written P. transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922) and ?P. orgosensis (Chiu, 1973) since they were both originally in a different genus?

P. prohorovi has no junior synonyms. As for parenthesis, this is not done in the sources, though, but it is technically true. Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Paraceratherium/Indrocotherium synonymy debate seems a bit more equivocal than stated. Ye et al. (2003) mention that McKenna and Bell's classic Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level (1997) recognizes the two genera as distinct. A 2004 description of P. yagouense recognizes both genera as well as Dzungariotherium. Sen et al 2011 (p. 12) do appear to show that most authors favor synonymy, but mention that Fortelius and Kappelman 1993 considered the two genera distinct, which is evident in the abstract. A 1959 monograph by Gromova apparently makes a case for the distinction of the two. I haven't seen McKenna & Bell or Fortelius & Kappelman to evaluate, but they may have salient comments. I realize that these conflicting opinions make a single article harder to write, but that's what we're stuck with. I don't know if Prothero mentions this or if newer literature clarifies it, but to dismiss or understate the views of non-western paleontologists would make an imbalanced article. Even if the 2-3 genus view is a minority, I think it warrants more coverage than "a 2003 paper by Chinese researchers".

McKenna and Bella (and others) only used the names without any analysis, therefore it has little scientific weight. Prothero complains about this in his book. The Chinese researchers actually argue for it, but with arguments that are not considered valid by Prothero and others. I can add a little more commentary. Pre-1989 articles can't really be used to contest more recent opinions. Also, P. yagouense has since been moved to Urtinotherium.FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added mention. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference of P. yagouense being reassigned? Not arguing, just curious. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be worth stating the most common synonym(s) at the top of the article, e.g. "Paraceratherium, also known as Indricotherium,.... " or perhaps at the end of the first paragraph. Both names (with and without "also known as...") are fairly prevalent both in popular and scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for Indricotherium -Paraceratherium in the last 20 years yields about 150 results, while the opposite yeilds about 100. A Google N-gram search similarly shows I. a little more common than P. (but both dwarfed by Baluchitherium!) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate to do this, these are not common names, they are synonyms (and are often mentioned in most works that don't even recognise them, therefore they get recent scholar hits) and they are already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead (which used to be the second, until someone complained on the talkpage it was too complicated for regular readers to start with). Baluchitherium is not considered valid by any researchers today, which also shows that scholar hits may not be entirely useful for determining anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, in case a new, authoritative revision splits the genera apart again, almost all of the info in this article would be moved to an Indricotherium article. It seems more likely that Dzungariotherium will be split, though, but splitting that off would have little consequence here, as there is little info abut it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hamiltonstone and Animalparty, I'm not sure if you left your reviews without conclusions due to the taxonomy section not being move, but the issue has a general discussion here, which is a better place to continue that point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animals#WikiProject_Anatomy FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review #2

I'm sorry to repeat this when one was already done, but I found a big issue in the initial check, so... File:Paraceratherium.jpg - This is listed as PD-Old-70, but the death date for G. M. Woodward is not given, so there's no evidence it is. Possibilities:

• If this was published in the U.S., say so, replace license with {{PD-US-1923}}
• If it wasn't published in the U.S., find Woodward's death date, show he died over 70 years ago.
• If neither apply, since it's from 1911, it can be hosted here, on English Wikipedia, but not commons. If moved to here, you must use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{notforcommons}}.

Unfortunately, This blocks promotion to FA.

Other images:

• File:Baluchitherium osborni.jpg has the same issues as the previous

All the above need more documentation to be used.

Two that are fine to use, but which I have notes for:

• File:Paraceratherium_skull_AMNH.jpg The metalwork can probably be considered incidental, so this passes.
• File:Paraceratherium herd.jpg Go to the source, flip back two pages, and you'll see a copyright notice. However Looking at [12] we learn that copies of Natural history from before 1927 are out of copyright! So, I've switched the copyright notice to the correct one.
• File:Paraceratherium restorations 1923.jpg This seems dubious. A single copyright at the front of the book this is published in is enough to make this in-copyright; the licensing isn't documented. Probable copyvio, but could reasonably be used as fair use. Suggest checking to see if the book has been renewed, as {{PD-US-not renewed}} is reasonably likely. FIXED: it's oddly cited, but this is from Natural History. See above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg Insufficient documentation to show sculpture (not just photo) is out of copyright Photo collage Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• File:Paraceratherium outline.jpg - this is a photograph of an apparently modern artwork, and is thus likely copyvio No longer in article, nominated for deletion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: Lots of problems, I'll see what I can do about documenting the problematic ones. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will check later. Doesn't seem like huge problems to me, just a matter of switching out licenses, checking if people are dead, and possibly cropping out armature in a few photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we can definitely deal with this. I'd say we should be able to salvage at least 80% of this (for example, the last one listed I've already saved. =) ) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped the mounted skull image to hide most of the armature. More later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like Woodward might well be British - the journal the images appeared in was. Annoyingly, there's a more-famous G.M. Woodward who died about a century to be ours; best solution might be to move all his stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find more about him. By the way, Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is not a sculpture, it is a photo collage (made like this[13]), created by the uploader. Not sure if the base photos are selfmade, but I'd say they are different enough from the originals (every shape is changed) to not be considered derivative works. See also: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/04#Photo_collages FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very good photo collage. I think that's acceptable then; since it looks like he sells them, I think it's safe to presume they're licensed if not self-made. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears our G. M. Woodward could either be a descendant of the more famous George Moutard Woodward, with lithography being a family speciality, or that G. M. Woodward turned into a sort of "brand" of a workshop. Will look some more into it. There is a little more info at the side here, ring any bells?: https://archive.org/stream/annalsmagazineof881911lond#page/n844/mode/1up FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've replaced the armature silhouette with a famous PD image, and nominated the photo for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • New image is fine. So, by my count, all that's left is the Woodward images. Given the dates, I don't think it'd be a brand or workshop - the "original" Woodward died quite a bit before that kind of practice became common. I could buy descendant, that's certainly common - the Peale family of artist, the Dalziel brothers, the Cruikshanks... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh ho ho! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v110/n2761/abs/110445b0.html mentions a MISS G. M. Woodward doing anatomical lithographs at the right period! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gertrude Mary Woodward (1861-1939) [14] Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hey, I know her sister's work, actually. Alice B. Woodward. So it is a family of biological artists. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support We've cleared all issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! So we can be pretty sure it's the same person? Thanks a lot! And I also thought of Alice Woodward (she drew many palaeontological restorations), but wasn't sure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it was all but certain, given the list at that site. I mean, we know from that sample list of works that Gertrude Mary Woodward was an expert anatomical artist specializing in fossil bones. That's a fairly unique specialty. The artworks are signed, so we can compare to other works by her to be sure - she apparently did some of the initial illustrations for the Piltdown Man skull, so...Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is a photoshopped image composed of at least two source images. The providence of these source images and under what license terms they were obtained, is not indicated. Roman Uchytel, who contributed the image to the Russian Wikipedia, claims copyright for the composite image. However, the background is a picture taken by the Rowan family, on one of the visits they made to Ethiopia, and a high resolution version of the image was available from their blog. Tineye has the evidence. I'm not sure that re-using a scenery image as a background crosses the threshold of originality. The image therefore may constitute copyright violation. Samsara 16:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to the image in question? That is a pretty long page. In case the background is too similar, I can just paint it white or otherwise alter it enough. Perhaps even a tight crop will do. The important part of the image are the animals, and they seem to be radically modified African rhinos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it myself.[15] So what do people think? White background, or close crop with blur effect on the bg photo? Here's an example of the latter, can be blurred and changed further if it is still too close.[16] FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say white would probably look better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. All are fine with that? Or how about black bg? Works pretty well here:[17] Also, what does that family's page say about photo copyright? Perhaps they use free licenses? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and painted it black, so that it looks more distinct form the drawing under "description". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Are we still awaiting a source review? If so pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate if I make the request? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, saves me doing it... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now made the request. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

• I corrected one case of incorrectly formatted quotemarks. Otherwise, the sources all appear correctly formatted, although can we not get more specific than, say, Ref#34, which cites a page range of 164 pages for a single citation ("Vera Gromova published a more complete skeletal reconstruction in 1959, based on the P. transouralicum skeleton from the Aral Formation, but this also lacked several neck vertebrae.")? Can we not get the specific page(s) for the statement being cited? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Gromova. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - thanks for the thorough reviews. Are we all done and dusted here? Graham Beards (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [18].[reply]

---

Léal Souvenir

Nominators: Ceoil, Kafka Liz 23:128, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most penetrating and careful represntations of a late medieval prole, even one so seemingly highly placed. Jan van Eyck signed and datd this oil on oak in 1432, leading the way for secular portraiture across centuries. But even this is to undersell the painting; there is a lot more bubbling underneeth the surface, given the apparent empathy in this man's expressive face. Co-nom with Kafka Liz who knows things about ancient languages and symbols I dont. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

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

• Fixed. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Tombstone_of_C._Vetienus_Urbiqus.jpg: since this is a 3D work, the photographer also holds a copyright - what is the licensing status of the photo?

• Unknon photographer, unknown date. We might have to loose this, looking for alternatives. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Portrait_of_Baudouin_de_Lannoy_c1435.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:DufayBinchois.jpg and its sources File:Guillaume_Dufay.jpg and File:Binchois2.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Those aren't the sources for DufayBinchois.jpg. Two images that only show small parts of the image that they are claimed to be sources for can't, in fact, be the source. Where's the rest of the image come from? For that matter, they don't look much like the relevant bits of DufayBinchois. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Added these. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment: Per WP:LEAD, 4 paragraphs is a bit much. It takes up about 22% of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, why not use File:Jan van Eyck 092 (big).jpg? This appears to be the version on the National Gallery's website. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've chopped the lead somewhat, and replaced the lead image with the NG version, which, yes has better colourisation. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Sorry to butt in, I didn't see Nikki and Crisco already doing the image review. One more point though: File:Follower of Jan van Eyck Marco Barbarigo.jpg is obviously "PD-art|PD-old-100", but still needs some source information (ideally a link, or a brief description of the file origin). GermanJoe (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GermanJoe, good catch. Added that now. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments (Crisco 1492)

• The stone parapet contains three separate layers of inscriptions, each painted in an illusionistic manner to give the impression that they had been chiseled into stone. - Avoid repeating "stone"?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory) - letters or words?
• Apart from the dual portraits of the donors in his Ghent Altarpiece which were probably completed in 1431 or in the early months of the following year - source?

• Bit of OR here; Ghent is his earliest ascribed panel, and it has a portrait. Also it was "completed in 1431...". Tried to find a source that says this all in one, but its a low value statement, might just remove. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 8mm - worth using a convert template?

• Coverted Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The oak panel consists of one board, vertical in grain and about 8mm thick. It is tightly cut at the edges of the paint surface, while at some point the support was cut in eight pieces. - didn't you just say this in the preceding paragraph?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Its - Your previous subject was "Infrared photography", which I doubt is the "its" you mean
• original colour hard to read - is "read" the best term here?

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Standardise whether you put periods after the c in circa (compare text and caption)

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dab links: canon, Lucchese

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The first was on copper, an exact replica or original was found by Eastlake in the collection of the Lochis family of Bergamo in Italy. - not sure what you're saying here

• yikes. fixed. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• over two horizontal - two horizontal whats?

• Removed Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• During the 19th century it appears in the collection of the Scottish landscape painter Karl Ross; there are records of a sale from him in 1857. - shouldn't this be in the second paragraph of this section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dup links: Erwin Panofsky, parapet, Erwin Panofsky, Bergamo, and Turin

• Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sound Crisco, working, slowly through these. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the (really delayed!) feedback; I don't seem to have watchlisted this. The current revision is considerably better than the one I reviewed, and it looks ready to be promoted. Like Adam, I expect that the issue with the Greek can be worked out soon (at the very least, before this hits the MP). As such, I'm glad to support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Crisco. Adam is on it, and I feel confident that it will be sorted out soon. He has been a great help so far. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and image review by Adam Cuerden

This badly needs a proofreading. I've just caught two very big typos in the handling of the Greek ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L%C3%A9al_Souvenir&diff=630324531&oldid=630319617 ) , which weren't even consistent [Timotheus in first sentence, the theta appeared in a different transcription. Perhaps it's just the Greek, but it's not a good sign. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues: "The middle inscription contains the letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory)," - Technically, it says "LEAL SOVVENIR" - I'd give the actual text, THEN convert to standard lettering. Also, what language is it? Latin? If it's Latin, where's the é coming from?

As for the images:

• File:201005151356 NE CSM Pancuius.jpg - Should probably have an English translation of the file description page (keeping the German, of course)
• File:Portrait of Baudouin de Lannoy c1435.jpg - Should probably have the border with the computer-added text cropped.
• File:DufayBinchois.jpg - Source, as given, is nonsense. Should probably have an {{Information}} template.

Otherwise, the images are fine. Oppose for the moment - we need to fix up that DufayBinchois image, and I'd like to know what's going on with the inconsistencies, and think knowing the language of the title matters. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all noted, and thinking. It's worth saying that the sources contradict each other, with Campbell IMO the most authorative and he does speak in meta at times, ie gives an overview, with refutations. The difficulty is that van eyck did not have a command of the languages, and made errors, which we had reproduced, but you 'copy edited'. Ceoil (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I looked at the image. That's clearly a theta, not an O on the artwork. "TγΜ.ωΟΕΟς" is patently wrong. I could understand discussion about the Sigma at the end, as it's weirdly shaped on the artwork, but if we're going to pretend an omnicron translates as th, but isn't a theta, and that, of two completely different figures on the artwork, both the theta and the omnicron are omnicrons, that's just patently wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actually we are pretending nothing, just reading, interpreting and thinking. If you want to be cute I will ignore you from now and carry on. You can either help and be construive or be defensive and aggressive. Don't really care, because I hadn't asked you a question. No to what. [User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

your comments, position, refractoring and temperament is noted, but this is not a simple matter, and is being addressed, but I hope not within the glare of such an aggressive reviewer. Noted adam, now get lost, and I will post back when I am happy that this is resolved. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what the hell brought that on? If you're so sensitive that simply pointing out obvious-to-those-who-have-learnt-the-language errors in transcription of Byzantine Greek causes you to tell the reviewer to "get bent", "Get a grip", and even an attempted outing that would probably have worked better if everyone and their brother didn't know I used to edit under a pseudonym, one has to ask how you expect to get through an FAC. We may as well close this, because the nominator clearly isn't interested in dealing with the problems. There's quite a few issues in this article's handling of foreign languages, such as "It reads "LÉAL SOVVENIR" (Loyal Remembrance, or Faithful Souvenir)" - well, no, it doesn't. there isn't an accent mark on the painting. You can't state things are on the painting that quite simply aren't there, but when such things are pointed out, you're throwing a fit, and devolving into insulting the reviewer for no apparent reason. If you can't handle polite criticism, you shouldn't be here. I'm not going to drop the oppose, because the problems still haven't been dealt with; but I'm washing my hands of this article, as I don't want to deal with the nominator. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

• Adam Cuerden, about the lettering: I think this file (the first page is visible) gives a good sense of how very difficult it is to write about Jan van Eyck's inscriptions. Suggest giving the nominators a chance to re-read the sources and sort it out. It's never easy with JvE (I looked at a few sources yesterday and they were all contradictory) - there isn't a deadline. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks Victoria. Guys, please just try to see the other's perspective. Ceoil, you may have found Adam's comments a bit overbearing but reviewers are here to help and there are other ways of asking for space without telling them to get lost. Adam, your oppose is helpful for the coordinators to judge your level of concern, so you can afford to give the nominators a chance to act on the comments in their own time. Consensus to promote is best reached through collegial discussion. Thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's fair. I will not answer this person again, his oppose is welcome to stand, and his slander noted. I've always enjoyed the ruff and tuble of a challenging review, but something is very off here. The how dare you tone is one reveal, there are others. Yours in scumines, as stands on Ian's talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to out me. What the hell did you expect? I'm happy to keep this focused on the article, but you have acted abominably, and haven't shown the slightest sign of remorse for something WP:OUTING says should get you blocked. I don't want you blocked. It's a very open secret, and I've made the connection publicly a few times - but you apparently didn't know that, because you had absolutely no reason to bring it up. If you recognise your behaviour has been completely inappropriate, we can work on improving the article. But as it stands, you have shown no ability to handle minor criticisms of your article, and shouldn't be here if you're not actually interested in improving it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam Cuerden, I didnt know it, no. It was off the cuff, nothing behind it. Um, can we start again, considering there was no beef between us before this. I think Ian's advice is sound. If you were hurt or offended, thats not good, and I now apologise and retract. I felt somewhat dissed by your review comments, but I suppose, so what. The fact is, I would like your help on this article. I think its a very moving portrait, and would libe to give it exposure on the main page, in the best condition it can be in. You have knowledge. Deal? 12:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, deal. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main problem is that File:DufayBinchois.jpg has more in it (the text at the top) than the two files listed as its source. It's obviously inaccurate, but it's not quite clear what's going on, and it's a bit of a blocker. I'm trying to decide if it was just really terribly documented - if we presume that the "sources" are "related images", then we can presume that the source is the book listed - but it would be good to know the image source - but I think it may have been cropped... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

• wanna hyphen in "inward looking" and "vertically cut"?
  • Tks Cas, as I recall we don't hyphenate after "ly" though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Today its varnish is severely degraded - "today" redundant here

• Fixed Kafka Liz (talk) 04:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• link Infrared photography somehwere

• Done. Kafka Liz (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• link bourrelet and cornette too

• Done by Ceoil. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Descriptors for Panofsky and Danens at first mention

• This is now done. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on comprehensiveness and prose. a good read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoriaearle

• I've made a few edits; please feel free to revert anything that you don't agree with.
• The description of pigments (red lake, etc) and fingers is repeated at the bottom of the "Description" and at the bottom of the "Portrait" - probably best to combine somehow
• I've had a look at a few sources regarding the inscriptions and in my view everything that can be said is being said here: basically no one really understands the inscriptions but there has been plenty of speculation.
• I've removed the accent from LEAL SOVVENIR - either JvE decided not to use it or it wasn't used in 15th cent French; but all the sources agree that is French, as indicated in the article. Sources seem to be split about 50/50 whether the accent is used in the title. fwiw.
• I thought about suggesting italics for the foreign language words (and quotes for the translations) but I'm thinking for this article it's probably best not to follow that convention because "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς" is enough of a mystery without giving it a slant.

Otherwise looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after really thinking about how to handle the Greek lettering and reading the article mentioned below (much of which is taken into account in the text). Elisabeth Dhanens has the final Greek letter as a character that looks to me like a squared off C, and the lead here says "The first inscription is in a form of Greek and seems to spell "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς", which has not been satisfactorily interpreted but has inspired some to title the work Timotheus" (emphasis mine), so maybe mention too in the body that the final letter is difficult to read and perhaps a note about the various interpretations. Anyway, other than the small bit of repetition, no other quibbles. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits and support. Re the accent; its odd that the NG gives Léal, but have decided agaist a page move, per commonname. I did toy with renaming it TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, but life is too short. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I agree that it's odd about the accent, but no, I wouldn't do a page move. It's in enough sources with the accent. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy Halloween. I posted some musings about the inscriptions on the talk page nearly 18 months ago. I'm not sure if they have been taken into account already or quietly dismissed (no doubt we should be comparing and contrasting what the sources say about the inscription, rather than adding our own glosses anyway). The article I mentioned - Paviot - may be helpful, but perhaps it has already been included indirectly through the existing citations? -- Theramin (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Square Sigma. He's known to have used it. Though that atrticle also mentions an interesting suggestion where the last letter is interpreted as an N, giving a Greek phrase. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, square sigma, now added. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article now gives "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC" in the lead, and later reads, The top lettering is in chalk white, and contains the Greek script "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC", however the last character is deliberately concealed by a chip in the imitation stone, a device described by Panofsky as a "terminal flourish".[25] This makes it difficult to discern, with a general consensus among art historians that it is a square C or sigma sign. Campbell cautions that the fact that the inscription is in Greek indicates that it's meaning was probably intended "to be obscure", and that there may be a significant reason why the final character is partially illegible. He cautions that it would be "rash to attempt to supply the missing verb".[26]. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also added - Art historian Lorne Campbell points out that van Eyck "appears to have employed the Greek alphabet systematically", and always employed the square sigma C for the Latin "S", and a majuscule omega ω (in the uncial form) for the Latin "O".[26].

The Paviot article found by Theramin is excellent, both for reviewing existing research and speculation, and throwing new light. Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to rely a little too heavily on Campbell; it'd be nice to include the TγΜω ΘΕΟν "I honour God" interpretation from http://www.jstor.org/stable/750257 - even while mentioning this is doubtful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added...Panofsky considers the hypothesis the the final letter is a "N", and that the lettering forms two words rather than one. In this interpretation, the letters spell TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, meaning "Honour God". While he admires the convience of the interpretation, and the fact that it would make interpretation more straight forward than if we accept "Timotheus", he rejects the posibility. He writes that "the presence of a shorter horizontal line connecting with the slightly tapering top of the vertical stroke and completing it into a Γ form... evidently precludes a "N".[29]. I wonder am I correct in using "Γ"? Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - this is a technical issue, but I'm a little worried that we may be mixing Greek letters and similar non-Greek letters, in ways that could be very confusing for screenreaders. To be fair, this is a very, very hard thing to do - lunate sigma, for example, isn't a standard character, much less square sigma. Would Ϲ be too likely to fail? Of course, there's a lot of awkwardness in transcribing very bad Greek - the lower-case gamma, γ, is arguably better transcribed as Υ, because not one source gives it a value of "g" in transcription. Upsilon, though, is shapped like a Y in upper case, and that's what the sources seem to be using? .

The second level of awkward is that TMOEN [Latin alphabet] and ΤΜΟΕΝ (Greek alphabet) are actually different characters in Unicode. For example, compare clicking on Ν and N - and, no, I didn't pipe the link text, that's just the letters linked. As I said, though, this is VERY bad Greek, mixing upper and lower cases, so we need to decide how accurate to get. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A really good read. I made some minor corrections; looks good...Modernist (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to figure out Greek

There's a lot of inconsistencies in how this article handles Greek. If we can sort these out, I'm actually quite happy to support, but, as it is, if you know the Greek alphabet, there's a lot of little errors and inconsistencies.

We have TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, which appears several times, and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, which appears once.

First of all, γ is lower-case gamma. From the way the articles are transliterating it, it has to be Upsilon, Y [Or, more properly, Υ - yes, they look identical, but we'll get to that]. If it's γ, then the phrase becomes something like Tgmotheos when transliterated - Y gives Tymotheos or Tumotheos, depending on transliteration; Timotheos is within acceptable bounds of dealing with bad Greek. - Checked three sources, one used an explicit Upsilon, two used Y. Made the change.

Secondly, TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN are not as different as you're making them look. Ω is an upper-case ω. Consistency really is necessary here. Made the change.

Thirdly, The letters following the punctuation probably read 'THEOS' - this is just wrong. Θ is TH, ωΘΕΟC is OTHEOS, and if you're translating, you may as well go to lower-case. "theos" is, indeed, Greek for God, or, more properly, "god". Also, this is complete not^{See Paviot 215} Original research, but O is basically the Greek word for "the". ω ΘΕΟC is the vocative. http://www.foundalis.com/lan/definart.htm - the vocative addresses someone.

Added a note, but we need a source. Found LOTS of errors when I checked sources in this section - please recheck Campbell. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The "o" probably indicates the past tense" - this really, really doesn't make much sense as written. The "o" probably indicates the past tense; put together the inscription may read "Timotheus, Then God" - what? - I don't know what scholar said that, but they can't know much Greek; the greek articles - O and ω being two of them that can be attached to Theos - are basically one of the first things you're taught. Or you're misinterpreting it. But that's... I really don't get it. Hell, in Greek grammar, ending a verb in ω is basically the first-person present. I don't have advanced Greek knowledge, but... I'd really want a LOT more text before accepting that. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section this was part of wasn't in the sources! No clue where it came from. Deleted and added some material from the source that had related material. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthly, we can probably get away with T for tau, O for omicron and so on, but maybe we shouldn't? ΤΥΜ.ωΘΕΟ- looks the same, but is probably more accurate. I've added a -. I'll come to that.

Fifthly, there's a unicode character for the lunate sigma that's as near as we can get to square sigma. It's Ϲ - but I'm a bit worried on this one, as basic Greek is really, really widely supported, because of its use in maths and physics. Things like the lunate sigma? Not quite so much. On the other hand, C isn't particularly accurate. We may be best off just using ς, and explaining about square sigma earlier. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian specifically asked me to make my views on whether something should pass clear, after the incident where me not doing so led to something accidentally being promoted with a copyvio image which got to the main page. So oppose, because I think anyone with even a little bit of Greek will find this one aspect of the article really problematic, but we should be able to fix it, and the article is good outside of the Greek. But... well, see above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did, tks, I'll walk through recent comments when I get a chance. In the meantime though, one bolded oppose is enough -- I assume the original one has been overtaken by this, so could you strike or unbold the first pls, Adam? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although we do need to fix the image mentioned there. I still haven't figured that one out, although I think I might have a plan. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the image is from Martin le Franc's, "Champion des Dames", created in Arras in 1451. I dumped a comment about it over on article talk. The image has been removed from the article, though it's of a 570 plus year old page from an illuminated mss. Re the Greek: I ran the article through the screen-reader on my computer and it read all the Greek characters properly and "C" as "C". I ran the comment above with the unicode character through the screen reader and it skipped right over it (in other words, ignored, didn't recognize). I think if we can't create the character that looks like an "E" without the middle line, then we just can't, nor should we try to substitute with another character. My final remark is simply that we have to follow the sources. All the sources say the final letter is hard to distinguish, then various interpretations are given, and then various translations. But basically no-one is certain. I don't think our article can go beyond what is in the sources. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but, at the same time, the sources are a bit confused. If I'll be forgiven for not using proper Greek characters where unnecessary:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/750257 gives TYM.ΩθEO- [describing the missing letter]. that is, using a capital Upsilon, not a lower case gamma, but converting the lower-case omega of the painting to an upper-case one for some reason. It does, however, use C for square sigma later.

Paviot and Wood, rather horrifyingly, uses TYM.WθEOC - that W is meant to be a lower-case Omega. Let's not follow their example.

Also, when I checked sources - I literally couldn't find some of the claims cited to them, particularly the one I objected to. I only have access to the journal sources, but can the section "Inscriptions and identity of sitter" please be rechecked carefully, because two different sources were misrepresented in it. Both Paviot and Wood's interesting points are mangled, in particular, two separate ideas on Paviot 214-5 were mangled together in ways that completely change the argument. I can help out a bit, but when two of the sources I can check were completely mangled in the move to the article, I think we need to check all the sources related to the Greek in that section, because - to put bluntly - it was completely and totally wrong in several claims according to the cited sources. I'm also 100% convinced this is nothing more than an error produced from not knowing the Greek alphabet, without which the complicated arguments would be very, very hard to follow. Ceoil knows what they're doing. If you can e-mail me the relevant bits of Campbell, and any other sources talking about the Greek inscription that aren't the JSTOR sources, I will personally make sure that that section is fixed.Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds just great. I'll photocopy the pages from Campbell at work tomorrow and send on scans. It seems many of the subtitlies of your initial objection were lost on me. I have a good grasp of the history, incongraphy, context etc of the painting, but as you say not the the Greek alphabet. Thanks to you and Victoria both for stepping in. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
• File:DufayBinchois.jpg has source info added. Couldn't find an actual link to the file at BnF but the book is there; I found mention of it.
• Sorted Paviot, Wood, and Dhanens, [19].
• Commented out Campbell for now, [20]. If the book is anything like the size of Dhanens, it's hard to make copies & scans, but sounds like Ceoil is trying. The other points in that section from Campbell are in line with what's said in other sources, so imo, should be fine. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I still think we need to do this, I'm also convinced it's going to get done. So long as it's not going to be rushed onto the main page, I really don't want my opposition causing this to be closed as not promoted, so am striking it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out the Campbell quote seems like the sensible thing to me, until we get this sorted. Adam, no it wont be rushed to main page, not until you are happy with the section. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [21].[reply]

---

Ford Island

Nominator(s): v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the island at the center of the attacks on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. I recently got stationed on Pearl Harbor and for the first two months here I was staying on this island at the Navy Lodge. I initially wrote Admiral Clarey Bridge which leads to this island. Then I started improving this article and I realized there was a lot of material that could be covered outside of the attacks themselves. I received help from User:Mareklug and User:Mark Miller and they should both receive credit if this is accepted.

This article has been peer reviewed and given an A-class review by the MilHist project. I am trying to get this accepted before Dec 7 so it can be featured on the main page on that day. I know it's a tight schedule and it's my fault for sitting on the A-class review for 3 months. I apologize. I hope ya'all can work with me on this one.v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review here.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

Ooh, if you need it on the main page on December 7, it'll need to be accepted probably a couple of weeks before that, per the processing speed of WP:TFAR. I don't have time right this second (actually, I really need to be studying), but I'll try to start giving my opinions here later today, though I'm not a big MILHIST guy or World War II buff. Best of luck. Tezero (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Yeah, I gave Bencherlite a heads up a few months ago about what I was up to. I'm just hoping the stars align at this point. It's completely my fault for sitting on the ACR. Life had become pretty busy and I was trying to chip away at the ACR needs a few at a time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have a GAN that's been on hold since, like, the start of August because I keep putting off working on it and don't have a whole lot of sources for things that the reviewer has decided are necessary to include. Actually, I should probably just request he fail it and thank him for his time until I can actually get it up to snuff, now that I think about it. Things happen. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to get down to business and defeat the Huns:

• "with landfill from the dredging of Pearl Harbor." - a bit confusing
  • Can you tell me which part is confusing? Let me try to explain what that means: Pearl Harbor was originally called Pearl river. It was deep enough for the ships in the 1700s and 1800s to get through, but as the United States started to build battleships in the 1880s, it became necessary to deeper harbors. A underwater trench was dug (as seen in this map) to allow the ships to transverse the river up into the lochs. The east loch was also deepened to allow mooring within the loch and it was deepened around Ford Island, specifically, to allow ships to turn around and exit. Land that was dug up from under water was used to increase the size of Ford Island by nearly a full third.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done I also found out that land fill and landfill mean two different things. So I corrected inappropriate instances of that word.--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The organization of the lead baffles me. It's... mostly chronological, but with stuff like the 2011 designation as an endangered site thrown in at odd places. Mind explaining what you were going for, or doing a clearer, more consistent organization scheme?
  • I organized it chronologically with grouping of similar topics. So because I mentioned it becoming a national historic landmark in 1964, I also mentioned the historic endangered list in the same sentence even though it's 2011. If I did it completely chronological then I'd have to use simple sentences and someone cautioned me against that. I'm willing to go with whatever you suggest though.--v/r - TP 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "The island has been featured in films such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor," - ditch the comma
  •  Done--v/r - TP 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Ford Island is in the center of the East Loch of Pearl Harbor" - I know, stupid American who doesn't know his own history or geography reporting in, but... Pearl Harbor has lochs? Can you give a very brief rundown in the article of Pearl Harbor's structure? I don't imagine most Americans know, especially without even giving a link to Pearl Harbor there.
  • No problemo. There is the East Loch, Middle Loch, and West Loch. Most of the active base is around the East Loch.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... I mean, in the article. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Righteo, I gotcha. I was just sharing.--v/r - TP 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done--v/r - TP 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if Flora and fauna couldn't be expanded. I know nothing about the life forms in Pearl Harbor, other than that the humans there are probably either timid or tourists. Are any life forms typical of Pearl Harbor also found on Ford Island?
  • The island is quite barren since the Army took it over. Mostly pavement and building, grass and trees. I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up, but I really doubt it.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor note, but when discussing the name of the island you should probably throw a link to Hawaiian language somewhere.

OK, I think I have this figured out now. Originally there was some conflicting information about the interpretation or translation of the name and how to reference that. Reliable sources are firm on the interpretation but the direct translation and mention of the Hawaiian language is an important detail. No need to change any existing reference but simply add a small referenced line. I used both the online dictionary and a book source. For now I'll add both and we can trim off anything that doesn't work for FA. The translation is simply: "Moku (island, inlet) and 'ume (1- To draw, attract or entice. 2- Sexual game of the common people. Because opposite sexes are attracted to each other, the word ʻUme is used in the name ("kilu" is the game chiefs' would engage in). --Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Let me know if the addition needs more work.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't stand one-line paragraphs. Can you expand the middle one in Ancient Hawaiians or merge it somewhere?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider italicizing or double-quoting the various names used for the island when they're discussed as names, e.g. Rabbits Island, Moku'ume'ume.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "9 February 1818", "28 August 1865", etc. - pfft, you might as well just be burning an American flag, commie.
  •  Done I'm in the USAF and this is the date format we use in the military. It's habit.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "who believed that the land was fertile, sacred and could not be owned by anyone" - grammar; it should be "was fertile, was sacred, and could not be owned by anyone" or "was fertile, sacred, and unable to be owned by anyone".
  •  Done Protonk (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The empty space in the table's a little strange. I'd prefer making it a closed-in space and simply nulling it out with an em-dash or coloring it grey.
  • Which table? Is it the "Army Air Force Aircraft at Luke Field" or "Ford Island Air Traffic Statistics"?--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • First one. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few redlinks in the article. Yes, I know, this isn't a requirement, and I won't push it if you're not interested, but I think it'd look better if you either delinked them or redirected them somewhere.
  • (not the nom or a contributor, just another commenter) Is removing redlinks a common FAC suggestion? Protonk (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could probably create a few stubs, no problem. I'll do that later today.--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "was headquarters of Patrol Wing Two" - shouldn't it be "was the headquarters"?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island" - I don't understand this section title. It might help if some of the words were de-capitalized.
  • NALF Ford Island was it's name. I could possibly cut out the "Ford Island" part of it and leave it as "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field". Would that help?--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I so want to chime in here with:  Not done. I was taught by my English Composition teacher (who also read in Anglo-Saxon to us for extra fun) that if something is at first confusing but on inspection passes muster, it is fine. This really is the name, and it is fine. One might consider reusing that full name in text soon after the heading to reinforce, but absolutely, Tom, don't fix what ain't broke. Kind regards, --Mareklug ^talk 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could possibly be shortened to NALF Ford Island - that would be an appropriate abbreviation.--v/r - TP 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Two short paragraphs again at the beginning of Film and television. You could probably just merge them.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is "F" used as an index for the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" category? The page is already called "Ford Island".
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Likewise with the "United States Naval Auxiliary Landing Fields" category.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably it for me; take a look at these when you have the time. Looks nice. Tezero (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; I still don't get that six-word capitalized section title, but whatever; I ain't gonna withhold support just for that. Tezero (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Protonk

I'll have some specific comments later, but I'll broadly support this for FA. See my comments on the A-Class review for some color on the suggestions I've made so far. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made a few copy-edit so far. Struggling to find some more actionable suggestions. :) Protonk (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• You're sometimes including multiple authors in short cites, sometimes just the first - should be consistent
  • Done. I only found this happen once. With regards to the Dorrance cite, there are two different citations from William Dorrance. One has multiple authors, one is just him.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent in how author names are formatted - sometimes you have last name first, other times first name, still other times a mix
  • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent in when or whether you include publication locations
  • All done.--v/r - TP 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Missing full bibliographic details for Lee 1966
  • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Compare FNs 25 and 59
  • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Prange 1987 or 1988?
  • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Newspaper names should consistently be italicized
  • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN6: where does this page range end? Same with FN14, 21, 22
  • Done.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN7: why is the format at the beginning of the citation?
  • That's part of the {{cite report}} template. I could remove the format.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FNs 11 and 12: publisher, page numbers?
  • Done.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN35's formatting doesn't match the style of the rest of the citations
  • Done.--v/r - TP 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN57: you've got the Command italicized here and the Library listed as publisher - neither is true of other cites like FN69, 76, etc
  • Done. Turns out that this citation is a copy/paste from a book. I changed the citation to reflect the original publication instead of the website.--v/r - TP 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN78: page?
  • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN84: title, accessdate?
  • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN93: publisher?
  • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• FN96 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "As the Vietnam War escalated, the U.S. Pacific Fleet required an intelligence branch in addition to the one in Guam.[1] The Fleet Intelligence Center, Pacific (FICPAC) opened on Ford Island in 1955, although the new office had little to do with Admiral Chester W. Nimitz's Joint Intelligence Center Pacific Area (which had been formed a decade earlier and then moved to Guam).[1][2] In 1962 the Navy decommissioned Naval Station Ford Island, although the island continued to be controlled by the Navy as a sub-component of Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor.": I'm not following your train of thought here.
  • Done. I rewrote the paragraph.--v/r - TP 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "the undertaking were about to begin": Something's wrong in that quote.
  • Done. That is a direct quote, so I added the {{sic}} template.--v/r - TP 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited some of this at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - After my comments at PR, this has only improved. Do you still need an image review? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the offer, image review was done in the ACR. Thanks for the support as well.--v/r - TP 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might want to leave a note to that effect for the delegates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Roger, left it above.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [22].[reply]

---

Garnet Malley

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to commemorate the centenary of World War I, I offer another Australian fighter ace of that conflict to follow on from my earlier nominations of Elwyn Roy King and Roy Phillipps. Garnet Malley's score of victories never reached the heights of King and Phillipps but unlike them he did manage to live to a relatively ripe old age, and is probably of greater interest for his association with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists during the 1930s than his exploits in World War I. His on-the-spot observations of air tactics in the Sino-Japanese War might've been of considerable assistance to Australia as war in the Pacific loomed but his apparent status-seeking in China seems to have led the Royal Australian Air Force to take his reports with a grain of salt. This has recently been through GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, and I'd like to acknowledge Georgejdorner for the initial work that got it to around B-Class. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (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) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN4 and similar: this title shouldn't be italicized, as in the full citation
• FN38: other short cites use fuller title - compare FN17
• FN48: "shek" shouldn't be capitalized
• Bean vs Cutlack: different editions but same publication year - is this correct?
• Gill: which volume is this in that series? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, all bloody good points -- think I've caught them all, and highlighted that I needed to update the link for an official history. Tks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a look at this article earlier at A-class and having reviewed the changes since then, I believe that it meets the FAC requirements. For the purposes of this review, I have checked the following images: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Garnet Malley 1930 (nla.pic-vn6256044-v cropped).jpg: source checks out, and licence seems appropriate;
• File:GFMalley.jpg: licence seems fine, although the source does not appear to state 1918 explicitly. This date appears to be supported by the article, though, which mentions Garnet's posting to the unit in in 1918. Perhaps this could be explained on the image description page, or a citation added?
• File:LukisRichmond1925.jpg: licence seems fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding sooner, Rupert. Tks for stopping by and supporting, I suspect I said 1918 because that's the only year he was instructing in England but I should indeed add that info to the image file, with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

• Madame Chiang Kai-shek - Why not name her directly, rather than identify her with her husband's name?
  • It was the sources' common way of mentioning her, and I did think she would be better known in En-WP by that, but no reason we shouldn't educate people, eh? I think the relationship should be made clear without opening the link though, so how about "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Soong May-ling" or similar?
    • That would be okay. I would hope that we are past the point where women are known only as Mrs. (Husband's name). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well perhaps not, given the title of at least one recent book I've used, but happily made the change to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• After the war he bought a plantation in Fiji, where he died in 1961. - died on the plantation or Fiji? This could mean both
  • Well, yes, but in the interests of brevity/flow I thought that since the plantation was on Fiji it was close enough for the lead. If you still think not I'll look at recasting...
• the Oxford University air school - worth a redlink?
  • Maybe -- I don't think I'd be creating the article though.
• was promoted lieutenant or was promoted to lieutenant
  • "promoted lieutenant" is standard militarese but if you think it jars for the general reader then I'm happy to alter.
    • If it's standard militarese, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Malley's final victim, - victim? Erm... is there a more neutral word?
  • Pretty standard terminology in sources, and I thought it better than "kill" as a variation on the ubiquitous "victory", but will have a think...
    • Alright... for me, at least, "victim" has connotations of crime. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• by a bullet in March, and shrapnel in May. - any information on these?
  • The exact date for one of those was not given, from memory, and they weren't life-threatening, so I didn't go into more detail but I could if you think it'd work better.
    • A little bit of information (like that these were not life threatening) wouldn't be out of hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Peace Loan - link?
  • If there is one, sure.
    • No article yet, but it sounds like a fairly large project (mentioned in at least 3 articles so far) so probably worth a redlink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The union would produce one son, Maldon. - worth saying "in 1940"?
  • Why not?
    • Uh, now I re-read it, the article says he was fifteen in 1940 and I'd rather not guess the exact year based on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Malley's Ltd - I believe the MOS recommends we drop "Limited" and such
  • Okay, tks.
• Southern Cross (aircraft) - mention that it was successful?
  • Was probably concerned about over-detailing but happy to add something.
• One of the tasks she assigned him was investigating corrupt procurement practices in the air force. - did he have an impact? Also, link something related to the Chinese air force?
  • Yes, could certainly add further detail to this bit.
•  in attempting to evaluate his role and importance – both within the Australian aviation scene but more particularly the decade he spent in China ... it is plainly inappropriate to dismiss or discount his contribution; yet equally it is not possible to verify all that he claimed, and therefore to attach the same weight or significance as he did in assessing his impact and influence. - can we contextualize this a bit better? I mean, there's obviously commentary on his impact... but that's not evident from the article. Another paragraph would be grand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm, I felt the quote tended to sum up quite well what had been said in the paragraphs on his time in China (which for instance spelt out that any details at all on his first five years there was sketchy at best). The point I get from Chris Coulthard-Clark -- author of that quote and evidently Australia's leading expert on Malley -- is that there is little independent commentary on his impact in China. Perhaps I've missed something though so by all means let's discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, why not move the quote up higher, where the topic's actually discussed in-text, rather than below, which is unrelated? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh yeah, I've copyedited; please see my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine with those, tks for looking it over, Crisco! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, Crisco, I think I've addressed everything one way or another now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose. Good work, Ian! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tks again, Crisco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [23].[reply]

---

William Beach Thomas

Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a war correspondent of WWI who gained both fame and infamy for his efforts and was also prominent as a writer of articles and books concerning rural affairs and nature. He was imprisoned for his activities in the early part of the war and also much parodied in the Wipers Times trench newspaper. He was later knighted by both the British and the French. It has been suggested that he may have been the inspiration for the character of William Boot in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop. -Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Why are you italicizing the titles of periodical articles?

• That is to be how {{citation}} does it when |newspaper and |journal are used. It does so even in the examples on at the template documentation page as of right now, although elsewhere in the documentation it suggests otherwise. Bizarre but I will ask around; perhaps the template has changed recently or perhaps I've misread things. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be a recent bug affecting the template. See this at the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been suggested as a fix but surely a template that is used on so many articles is not going to remain broken? - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've had a chat off-wiki about this issue with {{citation}} suddenly causing problems. The issue in this article will be resolved by amending the citation style but there are probably a lot of FAs and GAs that will require changing unless the bods who are into templates manage to fix this issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Eric Corbett: has helped me enormously with this, for which I am grateful. We've now converted all of the citations affected by the recent bug in {{citation}} so that they use {{r}} instead. There is one outstanding issue, which is my dislike of how citation #35 appears. That should hopefully be fixed shortly, whether I am here or not. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Auden includes a location, most other books don't - be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed by removal. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

• although it was also met with criticism and parodied by soldiers: was the criticism restricted to the soldiers?

• No. With hindsight, I think that the lead needs a bit of work. The body makes it clear that the criticism continues to the present day. I'll update this point when I have modified the lead, although I'm really not very good at writing those things. IIRC, Drmies wrote up this one, at my request. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Beach Thomas's real interest was countryside matters however.: I don't think the "however" is adding anythign here, and the "real" seems to imply his war correspondence was a "false" interest. Perhaps something like "Beach Thomas had a greater interest in countryside matters." or "Beach Thomas's primary interest was in countryside matters."?

• Yes! Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• in the county of Huntingdonshire, England on 22 May 1868: Looking throughout the article, you appear to be one of those who disagree, but many would insist on a comma after "England". You could move "on 22 May 1868" earlier in the sentence and not have to worry about people "fixing" it.

• Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• played [[Association football|football]], [[rugby union]]: any reason you'd shorten "association football" but not "rugby union"?

• I seem to recall many discussions about football/"soccer". IMO, "football" is globally recognised as meaning association football, with the possible exception of the US and just maybe Australia. "Rugby", on the other hand is a less popular sport and can be confused with rugby league. That said, I'm easy: if people think it would be better to say "association football" then just do it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I wasn't trying to say I thought anyone would assume an old English country gentlemen would ahve played something like Canadian football. Rahter, I meant that I thought there was no reason in the context not to shorten "rugby union" to just "rugby". Although, I say that as someone who knows nothing of rugby. Or football, football, or football. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok. I've removed all doubt by using "association football". - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • ?? Um, okay. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• His exhibition was superseded by a scholarship but he was not academically successful: an "exhibition" appears to be a type of scholarship—can you clarify this second scholarship?

• At Oxbridge, an exhibition is not a scholarship. I held an exhibition during my first year but it was replaced with a scholarship for the remaining years. At least at my college, an exhibition is an award of money (a tiny amount, nowadays - £60 in my case) but carries no other privileges or responsibilities: it is an award recognising ability and can be gained or lost in later years. Oxbridge scholarships generally do carry responsibilities, eg: reading grace at meals, playing the organ at chapel services, "officiating" in various other aspects of college life. I think this is something that would require elucidation at the relevant technical article rather than in this one. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• assisted him in getting his first job at a public school: the way this is worded, it seems to suggest that it helped him get a job at a public school rather than another kind of school; unless that's what you intended, I'd move Public school (United Kingdom) to the next sentence, qualifying Bradfield School.

• Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• his duties while he holidayed: if you're much interesting in WP:COMMONALITY, you might want to choose something like "took time off" instead of "holidayed".

• Not sure about this one. Someone could take time off because of illness or bereavement or something similar. Holidayed means what it says. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "holidayed" means what it says where it means what it says. In the US, they "vacation" rather than "holiday"—there, "holiday" is restricted to the sense of "national holiday". It's hairsplitting, but if there's an appropriate common term, it would be best to use it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I'll change it to suit the US audience. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• published by [[Ward Lock & Co|Ward Lock]] in 1901, following his 1900 contribution: </nowiki>ou might want include the "& Co"—otherwise "his contribution" could appear to the contribution of a man named Ward Lock.

• Yes, fixed. My familiarity "bred contempt" there. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To his delight the newspaper's owner, Lord Northcliffe, recognised that for him to perform his duties well it would be necessary for him to live in a rural environment and thus limit his visits to London.: Lord Northcliffe appears the antecedent of those hims

• It is a clumsy sentence. I'll work on it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this any better? - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that works. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• he explained that ... We could not run: not a fan of changing from one voice in the main sentence to another in a "that" clause (read it aloud and you may hear why); perhaps change "explained that" to "expalined:"?

• OK, I've changed it. I don't pretend to understand why it jars but the change is minor. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare these sentences: "He said that he saw her."—"He said, 'I saw her'"—"He said that 'I saw her.'" A direct quotation is a direct object of "say", "explain", and thus cannot come after "that"; if it comes after "that" the quote must be indirect. Read "He said that 'I saw her.'" aloud and you'll hear that it parses very differently from how it reads. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dank has copyedited the various lead-ins to quotations. I seem to have a general problem in writing those and will have to be more discerning in future, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He described the episode as "the longest walking tour of my life, and the queerest.": again, a queer switch in POV when read aloud

• I do not understand the problem here, given that it is a quotation. sorry but could you elaborate or is it one of those things that is can really be appreciated only if spoken aloud? - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• downplayed the unpleasant aspects of the conflict such as the nature of death: surely not the actual "nature of death"?
• I imagine Beach Thomas' war correspondence is in the Public Domain—would it be possible to have a snippet to show what people were criticizing and parodying?

• Someone asked this on the talk page ages ago. I have thus far been unable to find anything of decent length. It might necessitate a trip to a copyright library, which is a significant effort for me. I've seen very brief snippets and I've seen longer snippets on TV programmes but neither are much use in this context. However, I'll take another look at it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB: my ideal was to have his 18 September report side-by-side with the parody. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is something from the Daily Mirror here. It looks very similar to the version I saw on the TV programme and to this cut-down version of the same story as printed in the Daily Mail at least for the section subheaded "Fantastic Monsters". - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Curly Turkey: I have just added this. I made a bit of a hash of it and I am walking away from it for a few hours but will it suffice once the formatting and citations are fixed? - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's hilarious! Personally I'd arrange it so the real thing came before the parody, though. I don't think it matters if it comes close to the parody, but I do think it would be best if it came earlier. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right. I've moved it. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The parodies of Beach Thomas in the Wipers Times were under the by-line of "Teech Bomas".: why shunt this into a footnote?

• Moved it inline, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• somewhat contrary to the official line that tried to emphasise that this was a British war rather than an English one.: this'll be lost on non-British readers, especially us colonial-types who were taught that when Empire went to war, we were all automatically on board. Is there perhaps an article on this issue that can be linked to?

• Not that I know of. I suppose we could link British Empire and England but I cannot see anything that might be more specific. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improved with this. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really important, but what I was getting at was not that people won't understand the difference between Britain and England, but why non-English Brits would see this as an English war rather than a Brtitish one (Canadians certainly saw it from a British Empire perspective). If there isn't something to link to, don't worry about it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do understand your point. British people encompasses the old empire thing as well but I suspect that British Empire is just colonial. The quote says "the Scot, the Irishman or the Colonial". No easy answer and, while I'm not worrying about it, I would be grateful for input because your overall point is valid: a lot of people confuse the "Britain" and "England" terms (even within the UK). - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US.: Did he go? What happened if he did? The way it's worded, we have Beach Thomas being asked to go to the US and then suddenly accompanying the King to France.

• Yes, he went. Details of what he actually did there are scarce but I will see if I can pump it up a bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added this. Ford and Roosevelt are also mentioned in the prior source used in that paragraph (a book review) but that source is less clear regarding whether he met them or was telling an anecdote. Other than this, I would have to rely on Beach Thomas's book itself and, well, we already know that he was not the most reliable of sources and was prone to self-promotion. I could always get the thing out from the library again, though, if that is what you need. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• including that "comparative wealth [there] is admired, not envied": I had to read this several times to figure out what appears to be its sense—could this be "stating" (or somesuch) rahter than "including"?

• Is this any better? - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• that catered both for those pursuing: is "cater for" (rather than "cater to") a BrEng thing?

• No idea. It has always been my usage but I'm no expert. @Eric Corbett: for this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, I just have to double check these things—when something comes across as odd to my NAmEng ears it's sometimes hard to judge whether I'm dealing with a typo or an ENGVAR. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Later, in 1946, he harked back to a lost world, perhaps even a world that was more of his imagination than it ever was fact.: in what way did he "hark back" in 1946? Everything that follows is rather general and vague.

• I'm not sure that it can be improved. I don't understand your stress on 1946 and the entire issue seems clear enough to me (perhaps this is a failing attributable to me being a Brit? Some sort of innate understanding?). In large part, the rural revivalists seem to have engaged in invention of tradition but we'd need an explicit source to use such a loaded term. Perhaps we really need is an article that deals with the subject of rural revivalism itself, and that is a pretty big topic that encompasses art, architecture, philosophy, politics, economics, etc. It is also not limited to the inter-war years: for example, compare Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village to Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I'm asking is: what happened in 1946? Giving us this year makes it seem like you're about to follow up with something concrete—an event, the publication of a book, a declaration of something-or-other ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was in his book, A Countryman's Creed. I have requested a copy of the paper by Malcolm Chase - This is no claptrap: this is our heritage - in the hope that I can improve on the "invention of tradition" element. That paper is already cited but, rather stupidly, I didn't retain a copy after using it. Chase's paper was published in The Imagined Past: History and Nostalgia, a review of which in Victorian Studies journal (JSTOR 3828139) does say that the collection's theme is "pasts invented by the Victorians to serve their present needs" - is that too tenuous a connection to permit us to use the "invented tradition" phrase? - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think that's fine—the only issue I had was what conretely "hark back" was intended to mean, which you've clarifying by naming the book. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the sons predeceased the parents, serving as a naval officer during the Second World War.: is this all we get? No date or cause of death?

• Not known, although he was killed rather than died of natural causes. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• who died at home: no cause of death?

• Not without a copy of the death certificate, if someone wants to spend money on that. He was an old man. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Among the obituaries to Beach Thomas were those published in Nature and The Times.: short, one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon, and I don't see anything in this one that one grant it an exception. In fact, I might merge all three paragraphs in this section.

• Merged and rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• you might want to find a way to fit in links to National parks of England and Wales and National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

• I've managed to link the second in a footnote but I think it might be difficult to link either or both in the body text without making it look contrived. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could throw it into a "See also" section. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it into the lead. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support on prose, although as I wrote above I think the article would benefit enormously if an appropriate quotation of Beach Thomas's writing style were added. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sample added, as per our discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

• "he harked back to a lost world": Agreed with Curly. That means he turned back to an earlier topic; how did he do that? Did he write something? Say something?

• I've just left a comment about this in Curly Turkey's section. Thanks for the copyedit. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Thanks to both of you (Sitush and Curly) for making this easy. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• All images fine & properly tagged—one under a Creative Commons licence and the others Public Domain. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I reviewed this for GA and am glad to see it here at FAC. A couple of minor points:

• "preferring instead to control the media through the issue of official press releases": I think "issue" should be "issuance", but that sounds a little pompous. How about "control the media by issuing official press releases"?

• Yes, that is better and I've done it, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "between 1992–2002": per MOS:ENDASH this needs to be changed to avoid mixing "between" with an en dash.

• Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Another potential model for the character of William Boot was Bill Deedes": this is uncited, and I think really needs a citation.

• Thanks, Mike. I'll work through all of these points. Regarding this particularly one, you'll recall that I said Deedes told me of this connection in person. I've found this as a potential source - would it suffice? - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I remember, and was hoping there was a source; I think what you've found is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beach Thomas had worked under James Louis Garvin at The Outlook and it was he who brought him to The Observer": I can't tell whether Garvin is "he" or "him" here.

• Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US": this paragraph says nothing about what Beach Thomas did for Northcliffe -- presumably he wrote dispatches, or articles?

• ODNB says "he was sent on an American tour". He certainly filed some stories, eg: this, but I'm not sure that was necessarily his primary purpose. Northcliffe had himself been a special emissary to the US from the UK in 1917 and it is possible that Beach Thomas was furthering Northcliffe's work with meet-and-greets etc. I'm afraid that we would have to rely on what Beach Thomas himself says in his book if further elaboration is needed ... and BT is far from being a dispassionate documenter of his own activities. If you believe WorldCat, the nearest library to me that holds a copy of that book is 800 km away, in Germany (!), but I did find a copy in the university library at Cambridge. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck; if you've covered what the source says, I don't think we need Beach Thomas's own work to support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "a situation he considered analogous to that of Henry II and Thomas à Beckett": does the source actually say "analogous"? I can see "reminiscent" being reasonable, but "analogous" seems to go beyond the humour of the situation. Unless the photographer were subsequently killed, of course....

• Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I tweaked it a little; revert if you wish. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need, your tweak is correct. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'considered writers such as him to be "so fond of the past that': I think this should be "such as he", though the usage is rather formal and it might be worth rephrasing to avoid it altogether.

• Rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "and in part echoed the concerns raised by Clough Williams-Ellis": you don't say what these concerns were -- the following sentence talks about national parks.

• Modified with this. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'The new government, according to Robert Hemmings, saw the countryside "as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city."': is this Beach Thomas's opinion, or just a colourful background quote illuminating the general position? I think there needs to be some connection between Beach Thomas and this opinion; if his own published work says the same thing less pithily then that's fine.

• I will do some reading for this point. "Less pithily" will probably be an understatement, though: everything that I have read of BT tends towards the long-winded. It may well turn out to be better just to dump the Hemmings quote. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, a more complete rendition of the Hemmings quote would be: "The tensions and anxieties of the present that shape Thomas's construction of this past include not only the aftermath of the war, its physical, psychological and moral destruction, but also the sweeping victory in 1945 of the Labour government, and its ideological threats to the rural English social tradition, in which the countryside is figured as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city." The "construction of this past" is the "invention of tradition" point that I've raised elsewhere on this page. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The longer quote makes it clear that Hemmings is using this in the context of Thomas's opinions, so I think there's no problem with the quote. It might be a bit easier on the reader to add an explanatory phrase, making it clear who Hemmings is and the relationship of the quote to Thomas. How about 'The new government was a threat to Beach Thomas's view of the world because, in the words of literary critic Robert Hemmings, it saw the countryside "as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city."'? (Not sure if "literary critic" is the right description for Hemmings.) How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very brief bio of Hemmings here that would support "literary critic", although the book is pretty heavy on cultural history/psychology. I think your suggestion for rewording is great and I'm going to use it now. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of minor points left; I will support once those are cleaned up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported above. The article is a pleasure to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [24].[reply]

---

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last of the US Highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to come to FAC. It runs in the rural western UP, and it is the site of an alleged apparition according to local folklore. While it is not that long compared to other highways in Michigan, the resulting article is a good compact read. Imzadi 1979 → 20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I reviewed this at ACR, where I only had a few minor concerns, and feel that this is yet another Michigan road article that meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very well-sourced and it meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (1 question)

• File:U.S._Route_45_in_Michigan_map.svg - (replaced) Source data appears to be from the Michigan Geographic Framework, but I am not completely sure. I noticed, that you asked for the data source during the article's ACR - did you get any information about it? (uploader has not been active lately).
• Aside from this point all images are CC and have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fredddie created a new map in a style that will match the other maps in other Michigan highway articles, File:US 45 MI map.svg. In doing so, he noted all of the GIS sources used. That will resolve the issue with the other map. Imzadi 1979 → 07:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK great. Thanks to both of you for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see I was reverted ... I don't know what "debuted in Michigan by 1935 on maps of the time" means; this isn't the usual usage of "debut". Random House (in dictionary.com) gives: "5. to make a debut, as in society or in a performing art: She decided to debut with several other violinists. 6. to appear for the first time, as on the market: A new product will debut next month." merriam-webster.com gives: "to appear in public for the first time : to make a debut". - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank:, this edit introduced an inaccuracy. First off, at that time, US 45 was extended northward from Illinois through Wisconsin and into Michigan, debuting in the state for the first time on those maps. Maps showing more than just the state of Michigan would have displayed the updated routing for the highway, so "Michigan maps" isn't quite accurate as maps of the general US Highway System, the Midwest, or even maps of Wisconsin would have shown the extension into Michigan. Sadly, AASHTO has only released committee minutes back to the 1960s, or we could avoid any reference to maps and cite the exact date of the extension. Imzadi 1979 → 00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, that's helpful. I'm not going to make a call here, I'm just giving the dictionary definitions of "debut", in case people find the information relevant. I'm not sure that "debut" fits in this sentence (and if I had it to do over, I wouldn't have used the word myself). - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC) [25].[reply]

---

Australian raven

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a bird I see most every day..it got a good going-over at GAN and I am feeling pretty happy with it. I reckon any fixes will take less than seven days and promise to fix issues pronto. Have at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• blamed of killing lambs—blamed for?

oops, changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• the nest a bowl-shaped structure of sticks—missing word "is"

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The location that the type specimen was collected is not recorded—missing words "in which"

hmm, no but agree is ungainly. changed to "where" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• He named this the crow and C. australis (as Corone australis) the raven.—reads strangely, quote marks round names perhaps

rejigged it a bit as is tricky. added quotes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely. —"became" rather than "was" if I'm reading this correctly

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, the eastern diverged into nomadic little ravens and, in forested refuges, forest ravens —missing word after "eastern"?

added a noun Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ornithologist Ian Rowley suggested the western populations may be older in origin as they lack the vigour of the eastern.[5]—How do you measure vigour, and why does it correlate with age of populations. Reads like something from 1870 rather than 1970

I have rejigged it some. Rowley said it - who knows, maybe he was working backwards after noting the western one has affinities with the little/forest raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• galahs and starlings—links to species, and binomials since you have done so for other birds

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure of the logic behind binomials for birds and ticks, but not red fox, yabbie or Christmas beetle

oops, oversight. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Corvus_coronoides_map.jpg: source for base map and data used? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The base map is File:World map.jpg. I will get a page number for data shortly source for map range added now to image file too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco

The Criscraven

Once upon a noonday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious volume of animal lore—

I thought of the species, of Vigors and Horsfield, and was rearing

The subject had been "the two subspecies" the sentence before

A shift in subject it was, from the sentence before

Only this and nothing more

Onward I trekked through my page and a half of taxonomical flair

And across Parramatta district did I stumble, then implore

This great name could surely be linked, if you dare

To Electoral district of Parramatta, and its lore

And "Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied", the lore

Unclear for now, and evermore

Upon this statement I stumbled, of ravens of intermediate features

And wondered, if in western ravens interbreeding did occur

I tripped upon the mulga-eucalypt boundary line, and in tears

I called for information, for data, for more, more, more!

Knowing so little, I can only beg for a redlink or more

So let us see it, I must implore.

To be continued... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is it about the end of October? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

heh...not sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments I have read

agree with them all, I do

let me continue

The night now young, I continue on, moving forth 3 cm

Yet the loss of inches that I face ... Despair to the core!

I dig into this animal lore, and still my mind wanders

Questing for a link to Brisbane, a city I admit I adore

Though Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, and Adeleide I adore

No standardized linking is something I so deplore

Confusion strikes me, as I read of spiders, caterpillars, and friends

Which of our many-legged fiends are eaten by ravens on the soar

And which, at the beaks of the crying young, meet their ends

And must we again say it is not feet that do their chore

Of feeling and grasping and turning, all the bill's chore

This repeated repetition repeatedly leaves my eyes sore

As the evening grows dark, I must admit that I grow leery

Not wanting to push too hard, should I be shown the door

Dare I say that two sections are too short and bleary

Lead of Crow, trickster of old, but no examples of folklore?

And of the European and immigrant Australian folklore

Are there not films, or legends, or tales of yore?

Quoth the Crisraven

Forever sore — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Worry not, oh Cas

Question not specific birds

But specific tales — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I.e. examples of folklore stories would be interesting; don't just say its a trickster, show it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

damn - this is proving hard to find some specific to ravens. We have Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology) already though....might need to go to library....or something... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support = What the hey, it's a really minor point, and we do have an article that goes into more detail. If you can get it, that's fine, but this shouldn't hold up the nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

Will add comments as I read along. Feels a bit anticlimactic commenting after the above, like being scheduled to play a concert after Led Zeppelin. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think all bird article should have a photo of how the animal looks in flight (when available, of course). Could only find this for the species here:[26]

added it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Potentially interesting free Flickr images (article feels a bit empty): Individual harassing a rainbow lorikeet:[27] Individuals foraging on garbage (with an ibis in background?):[28] Some kind of social activity (caption says two adults with juveniles):[29] Individual with fish head:[30] Individual taking road kill (a Vanellus chick):[31]

hmm, need to think on these. none are as exciting as some others I've seen. I could also take my camera to work and see as ravens are everywhere (as are ibises and silver gulls, makes for some potential interesting pecking order type photos) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they're not great as photos, but they do show some interesting behaviour not depicted in the article. The one with the parrot I think is quite interesting, and showing them with garbage would make sense under human relations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "John Gould noted a single species of corvid in Australia, Corvus australis". Is this a synonym of something? Same with Corone australis. Neither redirect to anything...

I tweaked it to see if it makes it clearer. Essentially he went with precedence using the oldest available name, which was Corvus australis Gmelin 1788 - which was listed as from Tonga but was from Tasmania (note this is actually the forest raven, which was only recognised in the 1960s.) Neither links to anything as neither is a recognised name and there are other links around to forest raven and I didn't want to labour it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The above mentioned names should probably also be listed under synonyms in the taxobox, though they were preoccupied.

I added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "after declaring Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied" Preoccupied by what species? I see it is in a note, but would be nice to see in the article, by just adding "by the black nunbird".

I de-footnoted it as on reading it again think it flows better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why marianae was erected, when coronoides was already available as replacement name?

Mathews' egotism? Mathews was a heavy splitter, so has described many subspecies now not recognised - this was a case over oversplitting corvids Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, could the sentence about australis being preoccupied be moved up to where australis is discussed? Now it seems a bit disjointed.

These can be a real headache. In the past with complex naming situations like this, I have been told it makes most sense if listed chronologically. The final australis ruling was much later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the story behind the affinis and difficilis synonyms? Seems like an oversight, when other synonyms are treated in some detail.

Added material on difficilis now.Looking for other. Found initial entry in German.................. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for affinis, I can't say anything more than "Christian Ludwig Brehm described Corvus affinis in 1845, later determined to be this species". Shall I add it (or something similar?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good enough to me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When this is implemented, I'll add my formal support. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Although called a raven" Maybe it should be noted that the words raven and crow have little taxonomic meaning? Now readers could be led to believe that the species is somehow "misnamed" as a raven, as it is related to species called "crows", even though it just means a big member of Corvus...

good point...I just removed "although". Will look for a sentence on the interchangeability of crow/raven Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the sentence does not explain why it starts with "although". Two other ravens are listed with the crows.

agreed - just removed "although" and rejigged it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Rowley noted that the western ravens had features intermediate between Australian and little ravens." A bit unclear, the western ravens are Australian ravens as well, so why is the eastern raven only named as such, and not as "eastern"?

first "western" is ancestral, so left as western, second is western ssp. Rewrote second bit to clarify. I was being a bit sloppy there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since so many different "ravens" are mentioned in that paragraph, I think it would be clearer if you added "Australian" after each time eastern or western is mentioned.

enough now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do the subspecies have common names?

Sort of/not really. They are generally just known as "Australian raven" everywhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be possible to note which subspecies are shown in the included photos?

all are eastern subspecies apart from a single photo from Perth - I did wonder about adding but mused it might look a little repetitive. I thought adding locale would be helpful.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the sections about evolution and genetic affinities should have an "evolution" subheading under taxonomy? It's quite a chunk...

Tempted to...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything on when corvids entered Australia, and when this species diverged?

Aaah yes, the paper has it :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "the feet large and well developed" What does "well developed" mean here?

the claws are described as "powerful" in the source, so maybe "strong" is better...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "while the other four species have" I would add "of Australian corvids" the first time "four other species" are mentioned, for clarity.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Torresian crow is linked to a second time under distribution. Should it be?

de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The video seems little relevant to the section it is next to.

been scratching my head 'bout that one...is nice to have a video...but the bird isn't doing anything specific.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "that was banded and recovered 12 years and 5 months later" Live or dead?

alive! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "and so trees taller than surrounding trees are selected." Isn't either and or so redunda

reworded to "tall or emergent trees" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's about it from me, looks good. A bit to pass the time with until next reviewer shows up... FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, all concerns addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lithistman

While I prefer the form and structure of the "old days", when a reference wasn't breaking up the prose every sentence, I really found this article quite a pleasure. The image placement works very well, the prose is sound, and the content interesting. I love reading featured articles (and, in this case, featured article candidates) on such lesser-known topics. Given all this, and the improvements that have been made to an already well-crafted article based on Jimfbleak's suggestions above, I support making Australian raven a featured article. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Victoriaearle

Support. Nice easy read, clearly explained - well, as clear as crows/ravens can be explained! I have flocks of something come through my backyard in the wintertime and have always wondered whether ravens or crows, but I'm still none the wiser. It's interesting too that the folklore/mythologies about crows/ravens down under seem to be identical to Native American mythologies. Anyway, nice job. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanx - typo catches much appreciated! I suspect yours will be carrion crows. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmanradio's comments

mostly introduction

• In the introduction; "Scavenging on ... as well as lamb faeces". Needs more explanation for clarity. I recall hearing about hungry ravens eating horse faeces at a time when they lived in towns and villages in England during the winter when food was sparse. For the body of the article, is there anything about what nutrition there is in this sort of animal faeces? Would Australian Ravens birds eat faeces only when other food is in short supply? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources seems to be saying that they eat them pretty readily. It does not elaborate on their nutrition. The birds are omnivorous so I dn't think there are any particular nutrients they are getting. I suspect that a newborn lamb's first faeces might have a higher proportion of blood and contents like that but have not seen anything in the source to corroborate that. I will try and investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If it applies only to young lambs, then it might be undigested milk (and some protein in sloughed epithelial cells). Same as in humans. I have heard that some dogs in Africa eat (or lick-up) human babies faeces. I presume that the birds will not be able to digest lactose from milk, but it might be worth find out if this is a special case. I guess that, an adult sheep's digestion will be more effective and extract as much nutrition as is possible. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I found some info about the faeces and have added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more understandable now, as least for the faeces of newborn lambs. Would this imply a lamb up to two or three days old or something like that? Is the faeces of older lambs nutritious? Do ravens eat the faces of a lamb that is a month old? In the case of dogs eating human babies faeces, I think that this can continue for babies up to several months old, as least. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means the faeces of very young lambs - I don't think lamb faeces stay treacly for very long at all. I don't think it means more than a few days. Dogs eat all sorts of faeces of all ages so that is not a good comparison. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds a bit like meconium. Are you describing meconium? Snowman (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like. Pity the source doesn't make the link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The grey-black legs and feet are well-developed". This has no meaning to me. I would be surprised if the legs and feet were under-developed or not developed. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

changed to "strong" - source uses "large and powerful" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Like those of the other two species of raven". I would suggest mentioning the two species or leaving this out of the introduction. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Two subspecies are recognized". Chronology? I presume that initially when the species was described to science that the two subspecies were lumps as one type. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the timing is not significant enough for the lead - the splitting and lumping of corvids in Australia is complex (not surprising as they are all very similar in appearance!) and the person who named the western subspecies (Mathews) was an extreme splitter, most of whose subspecies are no longer recognised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is more complicated than I first thought and probably best not featured in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, this is very rare". Does this refer to killing lambs or being blamed for killing lambs? One of my books says that they can not kill a healthy lamb. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the killing is very rare. This is the original paper. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see, my book appears to have over simplified it. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the aritcle does mention it can be difficult. If a farmer finds a dead lamb in a field, it might be impossible to tell if it was weakend before it was attacked and died, or whether the ravens just found a dead one and ate it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar seen in introduction for re-phrasing. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

other

• Omission: I have just opened a book about Australian birds and it says as a general statement that Australian ravens are intelligent. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All corvids are intelligent and as far as I know I have not come across a source that suggests they are more intelligent than other corvids. If the book you are reading has a specific example of their capabilities I think that would be worth adding. Otherwise I have my doubts. If you do think we should add nonetheless where would you put a statement and what would it say? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that the peoples of ancient Australia noticed that raven was "the Watcher and was wily and unpredictable". This suggests they thought the ravens were intelligent. I would complement this with a comment about the intelligence of ravens in the main description in the "Behaviour section". My book just says that ravens are "resourceful and intelligent", so I would just add that. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if you give me a page number I can add it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence on page 351. Snowman (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity we can't use clips like this really... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

update - have added a ref which mentions intelligence and innovative foraging Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Its range is also highly correlated with the presence of sheep." Is anything known about its range before the arrival of sheep in Australia? Is there any association with the huge numbers of feral goats and camels in Australia now? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rowley (an expert on Australian corvids) doesn't explain but he thinks it was expanding (I think, will double check on this). I just drove from Adelaide to Sydney via Broken Hill and was surprised at how many goats I did see. Goats and camels are spread right across the continent and often in dryer areas where there are no ravens, so no there isn't. The books don't link them either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the range before sheep a mystery? Snowman (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pretty much - sheep have been around since the start of the colonies here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest and for a sense of completion of this topic, is there any association with this raven with kangaroo's including the extinct species of kangaroo or any other Australian mammals. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have seen or read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• About juveniles; "... and sometimes have a pink fleshy gape.[30]". They may have pink gapes, but I think that this is a misunderstanding, because my book says that the bare skin on the sides of the neck and near the beak is pink. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which book do you have. HANZAB and rowley are the best sources for getting it right. Gape is inside the mouth. I have not seen a juvenile like that. I see these birds alot and even rescued a juvenile that couldn't fly last year at the end of my street. Maybe a very very little bird but juvenile usually means a 1 year old like this, which I took. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book I had been looking at is; Simpson, Ken (1986). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia: a Book of Identification. Illustrated by Trusler, Peter (2nd ed.). Australia: Viking O'Neil: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-670-900729.. I bought it a few weeks ago from a local secondhand book shop. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact words used in the book is; "1st year extensive pink skin on the sides of chin". Perhaps, that does mean gape, but "side of chin" sounds like outside the gape to me. The illustration shows some pink around the gape looking like some pink is outside of the birds mouth. Anyway, you should know what juveniles look like. I have never seen an Australian Raven. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aah well, if you ever come to Australia, they are all over Sydney and very easy to see. They are shyer than magpies, which my mum feeds on her verandah - the ravens seem happy enough outside the dumpsters and garbage bins Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a juvenile on flickr and it has a pink chin as described in my book. My book says that the pink chin is seen in the first year, so it would not be apparent in the one you photographed, because it was one year old apparently. Surely, the description of the juvenile should include the first-year pink chin. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I have seen many ravens and never seen that. must be pretty young. I will check the source again and try to calibrate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

update - source checked and info on pink bare skin of birds recently left the nest added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Australian ravens can kill birds as large as galahs (Eolophus roseicapillus)". It does not actually say that they kill Galahs, but birds as big as a Galah. A Galah is a strong quick bird, agile in the air, and its beak can give a strong bite. I am surprised that a raven can kill a healthy adult Galah, so could this be double checked please. Galahs form big flocks, so I do not know how a raven would isolate a healthy one. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source says, "On two occasions a group of C. coronoides was watched attacking young galahs, Cacatua roseicapilla, and one of these attacks ended in hte galah being killed. On one occasiona a coronoides was seen to seize a starling, Sturnus vulgaris, from a flying flock; the prey was grasped in the feet and borne to the ground for dispatch." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a juvenile Galah would be slower and weaker than an adult. Snowman (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added "young" to galah Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See Willy Wagtail behind a raven. The flickr photographer says that the WW was mobbing the AR and that the AR moved on. Is it common for AR to be mobbed by small birds protecting there territory? Snowman (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

small pugnacious birds such as willie wagtails and noisy miners readily mob all/any bigger birds, so this is not specific to the raven. Mobbing is pretty common - two years ago I picked up a stunned barn owl off the ground just outside my work after it was mobbed by ravens and pied currawongs (funny coincidence as barn owl is at FAC too) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be specific to the raven, but it does happen. Article says that ravens eat birds' eggs. I think that it would be reasonable to say that smaller birds mob the raven as they would do any larger bird in defense. I think it would paint a better picture of the ravens going about their daily foraging. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any mention of this in hte HANZAB source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread may not have been fruitful. Often, I have no idea what will follow after I find a topic to discuss in a FA candidate review. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was worth checking. Sometimes we come up with dead ends Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the bulleted descriptions of the two subspecies be placed in the taxonomy section? Snowman (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are - the header above them (Evolution and systematics) is a level 3 subheading of Taxonomy and naming. Funkmonk suggested the subdivision of the section. It is very long otherwise. I thought the material on the subspecies belonged near the material on evloution Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the phylogram be headed Australian corvids and not Australasian corvids. The extinct New Zealand crow (Palaeocorax moriorum) and probably others would be included if the phylogram was for all the regional corvids. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed that the Bismarck crow is native to New Britain and not Australia. The phylogram includes the Bismarck crow, so it can not titled "Australian Corvids. The phylogram does not have enough corvids to cover all the Australasian corvids, so the title Australasian corvids is also not suitable. It seems to me that "crow" and "raven" are somewhat random in the genus, so "crow ancestor" and "raven ancestor" on on the phylogram might be confusing. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I had "Australasian corvids" in the beginning as the Torresian crow is also from New Guinea. The Bismarck crow is only recently recognised as a species so is hard to incorporate if not discussed in systematic papers. Most people would assume that "Extant.." is implied in the heading. I don't think enough is known about the extinct NZ crow to consider it, and I would personally not see the need to add "Extant.." to cover it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read a little more about Australasian corvids. Of course, it depends on how Australasia is defined, but lets use the traditional view as expressed on the Wiki page on Australasia is correct. Lets also look at the chart that is in one of the sources; see Figure 2. The source lists 7 species of corvids in Australasia. The article has 6 species of corvid, but spits one that is not split in the source. The species that are missing from the phylogram in the Wiki article are the grey crow (Corvus tristis) and the brown-headed crow (Corvus fuscicapillus), which are both native to the island of New Guinea and are therefore Australasian corvids. There is also the long-billed crow (Corvus validus) from the Northern Moluccas. I am not sure if this range in part of Australasia or not, but it is on the Australasian side of the Wallace Line. In short the phylogram in the article only features some of the Australasian corvids, and I have no idea why some have been missed off. Also, should the explanation in the article of the evolution of the regional corvids include all the Australasian corvids or just some of them? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tricky. I have renamed to "Evolution of australian corvids" as it is what it's about. Thus, the fact that Bismarck crow is present does not contradict the article as it is a part of this evolutionary tree even though it does not occur in Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The text is that bit more difficult to follow now that bird names are lower case. I am not sure if Tasmanian ravens means ravens in Tasmania or the species. Tasmanian ravens are now called forest ravens, so for me this leads to some confusion in the long section and subsection on Taxonomy. Should the article use the name forest raven instead of Tasmanian raven? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they both meant forest ravens and are now changed. Tasmanian raven is an alternate common name often used but is confusing as it occurs outside Tasmania Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "eating rubbish and scraps". Eating food scraps in rubbish? Eating discarded food in rubbish?

changed - "in rubbish" is redundant I just realised as mentioned a few words later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparent inconsistency: in the "Breeding" section; usually 4 to 5 eggs: in the "Behaviour" section "During this time they produce two young each year.[40]". Snowman (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Eggs often don't hatch or yound birds die etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Something like; "During this time they produce two surviving young each year on average.[40]"? Snowman (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The introduction seems a little bare to me. I would think that either two or three paragraphs would be acceptable here. I suspect that a few more key facts could be added to the introduction, but I am not sure if a longer introduction would be better or not until it is expanded. ? colour of eggs. ? longevity of birds ? black bare skin on neck in adults? flocks of young? Aboriginal culture, more? This may not be an FA criteria based on length alone, but I am a left a little dissatisfied with the introduction, so my subjective impression would make it relevant here. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am trying to think of facts that would be interesting. The egg colour and lifespan are pretty unremarkable and average for corvids....let me think..........I added eye colour to lead as it is a common misidentification issue...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do the sources say which subspecies live on the two Australian islands? Snowman (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the sources don't explicitly say but it would be Western on Rottnest and Eastern on Lord Howe. They are at opposite ends of the range so is easy to figure out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about on Kangaroo Island? Snowman (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be eastern - Kangaroo Island is well east of border area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I think that the article is interesting. It would be good to have replies to the last two topics, but even without those replies, I think that the article content has achieved FA status. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou - I have been pretty busy IRL. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Late comments:
• mulga-eucalypt boundary line - red link and look like jargon in the UK. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have read the new Stub, which explains where the line is in Western Australia. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• See late comment on the phylogram above. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "The Australian raven's closest relatives are the other four species of Australian corvid: ..." The Bismarck crow is very close to the Torresian crow, and they were once thought to be the same species. Why is the Bismarck crow mot mentioned as one of its closest relatives? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's only recently being separated as a species, so there won't be any sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User Ceoil

Generally very good, but one thing struck me - younger birds have dark brown eyes until fifteen months of age, and hazel eyes with an inner blue rim around each pupil until age two years and ten months. The two years and ten months sounds very specific, to such changes take place at this specificity? Note, I am not a scientist. Ceoil (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah...spun me out when I first read that too, but that was based on extensive studies of captive crows and ravens in Oz - and they found that all five do the same colour shift but at slightly different ages..cool eh? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Ceoil (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... and would it be worth mentioning in the main text that the observations of eye colour were made on captive birds. I am not sure about ravens, but in some species of parrots the eye colour can be different between wild and captive birds - possibly owing to diet or other aspects of captivity that is different to the wild. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

have added an explanatory footnote now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

• No issues with formatting.
• No dead links.
• No DAB links.
• Reliable sources used throughout (as far as I can tell), including Higgins (2006) as apparent "standard" literature for the topic - OK.
• Several source points have already been verified in earlier reviews - OK
• fixed 2 minor nitpicks. GermanJoe (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Iselilja

• Fine article; the eye change photos add a lot.
• Regarding the Relationship with humans section.

It says "shot, killed or poisoned". Isn't shot and poisoned sub-groups of killed? What does "killed" refer to here? Also, would it be relevant to include something about regulations: as I understand poisoning is not allowed; for shootings there are some regulations (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950).

d'oh! - removed the "killed" as those are the two methods used - intrigued that poisoning is not allowed given how much 1080 is used sbout the place for feral animals.....will have a look and see. Not sure if this is too general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the birds are listed as a declared pest to agriculture in Western Australia. Relevant to include?

yes! will add a bit later after I do some RL chores.... added now 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Iselilja (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use level 1-3 headers (they corrupt the FAC-page). Level 4 headers are OK though. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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