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) 15:56, 26 August 2016 [2].

California State Route 94[edit]

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After another long hiatus from FAC, I am nominating this article about an east–west freeway in metro San Diego. Rschen7754 00:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support I now pass this article.

Kevon kevono (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 13:31 (PDT)[reply]

• Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 01:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Source review—the two California Numbered Exit Uniform System citations in the last footnote have ISO-style publication dates, while the rest of the article's footnotes uniformly use MDY format. You will want to change those over. Otherwise, all of the citations are formatted fairly consistently, and they're all citing reliable sources. The following aren't deal breakers, but I'm including them as a little extra something to give the cites that last bit of polish:
  • You may want to see if the California Highways and Public Works journal has either an ISSN or OCLC to include. If any of the cited paper maps have OCLC numbers, it would be nice to see those appear as well, even if there is a scanned copy online.
  • If it were me, I'd move the "Streets and Highway Code" part of the citation into |work= Streets and Highway Code and leave the section number alone as the title.
    • Fixed the publication dates, found the OCLC for CHPW and some of the maps. I'll look at the rest tomorrow. --Rschen7754 06:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • All done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose review:
  • freeway may warrant a link on first usage for the non-American readers. YMMV.
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you spell out the full name for Caltrans on the first usage in the lead. I know what it means, but others won't.
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and west of SR 188 is part of the National Highway System" needs a subject slotted into that clause someplace to make it flow better with the rest of the compound/complex sentence.
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "SR 94 was built along the routing of an old stagecoach road that took two days to travel to East County in the 19th century". The road itself took two days to travel? I think you mean that travelers using the road took two days. Also, is "East County" a proper name in this case?
  • • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that first history subsection, things flip between "Campo Road" and "Campo road". I'm going to assume that one version isn't correct there.
    • I'm going off the capitalization found in the sources. While it's highly probable that they are the same, I'm playing on the safe side (in the event that "Campo Road" and "Campo road", or the road to Campo aren't the same). I can fix it if you think that's too cautious. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In June 1953, the Commission approved an eight-lane freeway for Route 94 from Home Avenue in San Diego to Palm Avenue around La Mesa;[33] The local Board of Education also gave their approval, which was required because the freeway would be built on land that was for a proposed school." Either that semicolon needs to be changed to a period (preferred) or the capital letter after it needs to be dropped to lowercase.
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state senator Fred Kraft criticized" since that's a title preceding his name, it should be capitalized. Later on in that same sentence, "long-term" should not be hyphenated.
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metal weakened-plane joints" I think the hyphenation here looks wrong; I parse it in a way that should read "metal-weakened plane joints".
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lanes in between" the "in" there isn't needed.
    • Done. --Rschen7754 05:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, just a few minor changes noted so far that should be easily fixed before I formally support. Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be too cautious, but I understand the idea. It just looks odd to have the two flipping back and forth. Imzadi 1979 → 06:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—based on my review above. Imzadi 1979 → 06:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- About ready to promote this but I always like to see a review from someone outside their comfort zone with the subject, to help ensure comprehensibility for the lay reader; Cas, you drew the short straw in my mind's lottery, would you have time for a quick read? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some queries...

In lead, "wagon road" redirects to wagon train...is that right?

It redirects to the general concept, so I think it's okay. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can "state highway system" link to somewhere? Should it be a stub as some other states have articles....

Linked to the California one. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put the length in the lead, possibly in the first one or two sentences.

Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

can we link "interchange"?

Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

is there an article on downtown San Diego?

Added. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

440 what? vehicles?

Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SR 94 was built along the routing of an old stagecoach road that took travelers two days to reach East County in the 19th century - odd construction...I'd say "a road takes travellers" but wouldn't use time like that...but use it with the people as the agent" the travellers took two days to go down the road" or something...

Shuffled it around again. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 1927, the Potrero bridge was replaced, after a storm washed out the bridge. - try and remove one the "bridge" words in the sentence.

Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"large haulers" - can be rewritten to dequote, surely...

Done. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks reasonably comprehensive - any notable accidents taken place on the road?

Not that would be considered notable, i.e. received a lot of news coverage or closed the road for days. Some of the minor ones are alluded to in other parts of the history. --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is clear enough and good enough to not make me think about it too much while reading (a good sign). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: All done, and thanks! --Rschen7754 16:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I support this on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 [3].

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an episode from the American television medical drama Private Practice. It received critical acclaim and attention for its representation of rape. I have recently created this article, gotten it through GAN, and based the structure and language on FA articles about television episodes. I believe the article meets the FA criteria: I have taken particular effort in examining as many reviews and articles written about the episode as possible and incorporating them into a comprehensive and authoritative treatment of the topic. I look forward to your feedback. Regards, Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/American television task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Episode coverage task force, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grey's Anatomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality

Comments from Numerounovedant

Will go through the article in the next couple of days.

• I would suggest you remove the "which some critics found surprising since his most familiar role was Xander Harris on Buffy the Vampire Slayer." part from the lead, because this has no context whatsoever. The article has neither talked about the actor, or the character and is just palin confusing.

• Not done: Nicholas Brendon and Xander Harris were both clearly mentioned in the "Production" section and the "Critical response" subsection of the "Reception" section so your comment "this has no context whatsoever" is not accurate. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of the lead is to summarise sections, without adding ambiguous information. The piece suggesting "which some critics found surprising", is just confusing because up until now the reader doesn't know about the character, the actor, or his previous roles. This just leads to confusion more than anything else, and I'd leave it out of the lead.

• Done. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The initial broadcast was seen by 10.18 million viewers" - "viewed by"

• Not done: Your suggest edit would result in an unnecessary repetition of a variation of the word "view". There is no reason to change "seen" for "viewed". Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you could change it to " was viewed by ... people". The use of "seen" sounds really informal.

• Done. Aoba47 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe talk about an award or two in the lead, since you already have a completely dedicated to it. NumerounovedantTalk 18:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not done: I have already mentioned this in the lead with the following sentence: ("Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" earned the series, Rhimes and Strickland several awards and nominations and was well received by critics, with Strickland's character and performance praised.) Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad.

No worries. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you for your suggestions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left further replies. NumerounovedantTalk 05:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: Left further remarks. Aoba47 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The plot is fairly well written and has good flow in most parts. Just the one concern, isn't Cooper teh one who escorts King out in teh hallway? (I haven't seen the episode, just went through the scenes on YouTube.) NumerounovedantTalk 16:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the catch! I don't know how I made that mistake lol. I have corrected this :) Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Numerounovedant: Sorry for the intrusion, but I was wondering if you have any further comments to make about this article/nomination? Aoba47 (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: Any further comments? Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for having abandoned the review in the middle. But, I have been extremely busy in RL with my college applications and would not be able to provide further detailed comments. However, having gone through the article previously during the FAC I am leaning towards Weak Support. I suggest a source review and spot-check for the article. Notify me once that is done and I can offer my final comments then. Good luck and good job so far. NumerounovedantTalk 18:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: No worries. I understand that we all have a lot to do so I hope I did not come across as rude. Good luck with your college applications! Those are always the worst to get through lol. I will request a source review soon, and I will do a spot-check as well. Thank you again, and good luck with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: Hello, I just wanted to let you know that a source review has been done for the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. NumerounovedantTalk 13:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Numerounovedant: I just want to confirm that your vote remains "weak support" and that you have not updated your stance.

Comments from Carbrera

Promote As the GA reviewer of this article, I heavily agree that this should be promoted to FA-status. I see nothing of major issue with the article, and it seems to pass all of the suggested criteria. Great work! Carbrera (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, Carbrera! Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus.

• File:Shonda Rhimes 2008.jpg: Caption is backed by the wiki text, file of the writer in the section about the production seems pertinent. Free image from Flickr with a good license. Other versions with smaller resolution exist on the web. OK EXIF, other uploads by the Flickr user have variable EXIF but no other indication of commons:Commons:Flickrwashing.

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I can replace the Shonda Rhimes image with another image from Wikimedia Commons if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:KaDee Strickland in Brentwood Magazine April 2005.jpg: Caption is backed by article text. File seems to be pertinent as the coverage about that actor is prominent in the pertinent section. Free file, certified by OTRS which I am inclined to trust although I don't have OTRS access myself.

Both files have good ALT text.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

• Sources are reliable for an entertainment-related topic (TV magazines and guides, reviews, award sites, etc.) - OK.
• Sourcing is consistent and thorough throughout the article - OK.
• A few brief spotchecks revealed no problems with factual accuracy - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments - done

• Production - "She praised Adelstein's performance, saying that he provided a 'nuanced portrayal of the sexual assault victim's partner'". Such an assessment should not be based on an involved cast member's opinion (no matter if the opinion is correct or not). You need an outsider's review to verify this appraisal of Adelstein's performance (and it should be moved to "Reception").

• I had my doubts about this part about as well, so thank you for drawing my attention to it again. I have revised the sentence to better fit the "Production" section. I modified the sentence so it discusses how the episode focused on the character's role as the partner to a rape victim. From the research I have found, Rhimes and other members of the production placed a lot of emphasis on how the rape would affect the entire cast so I find it important to mention in this section. I removed the parts about "nuanced portrayal" as it dangerously approaches the term of peacock language. Let me know if this revision is sufficient, as I can always change it more according to your suggestions.

• A bit too many quotes and quote-like bits in Production and Reception. It's not an absolute dealbreaker, but you should try to rephrase atleast a few more. Quotes are useful for crucial and/or personal statements, or in situations where paraphrasing might be confusing for the reader. But relatively trivial qualifiers and common statements are better rephrased in your own words. GermanJoe (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. I have the tendency to over-quote so I will definitely watch out for that in the future. I have reduced the quotes in both the "Production" and "Reception" sections, but please let me know if I should remove more quotes.
  • @GermanJoe: Thank you for the source review and the additional comments. I greatly appreciate both of them, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I have addressed the "Additional comments", but please let me know if I need to make more changes. If you need any help or assistance with any of your projects, I would be more than happy to help at anytime. Aoba47 (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No inconvenience at all. Both points are improved now (updated above), thank you for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @GermanJoe: Thank you again for your review. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @GermanJoe: I was wondering if you could possibly leave a full review or vote for this FAC (I would respect your decision either way). I do understand if you do not have the time or would not like to do so; thank you again for the source review. If you would like any assistance in any of your work, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992

• "since the characters had had similar traumatic experiences" (second subsection; fourth para)

• Fixed. That's embarrassing. I don't know how I let that slip in there.

• "as being worth of an Emmy Award." should change it to "worthy of an Emmy Award" (third subsection; first para)

• Another silly mistake. Fixed.

• Is it E! or E! News for both critics used in the article?

• They both should be E! News for both. I have corrected this as such.

• Overlinking (Xander Harris and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) – jona ✉ 22:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for spotting that. Must have been a hold-over from my first draft.

@AJona1992: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that my concerns were addressed, I now support this article's nomination. Best – jona ✉ 15:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Miyagawa

• Firstly, I have to hold my hand up. I've got a couple of FA's under my belt, but for the most part I'm still very much learning what it takes for an article to become FA, and I doubt I'd be confident about nominating articles until I've got at least another 10 to 20!! Anyway, here are my comments:
• In the first sentence of the lead, I'd drop the comma before Private Practice.

• Changed.

• Is there a reason why Tim Daly isn't linked in the plot section?

• Fixed. I must have overlooked him.

• "since he is primarily known as the..." I'd change this to "since he is primarily for portraying the..."

• Fixed.

• Are there any comparisons to be made with the viewing figures received for episodes of Private Practice before and after this one?

• Added the ratings for the episodes that aired before and after this one.

• "Critical response was largely positive" I'd add a "The" before critical.

• Added.

• "A TVLine post listed" I'd just say "later listed" as I doubt it would have been immediately after the episodes, but later when the nominations were announced.

• Changed.

• That's everything from me. Miyagawa (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Miyagawa: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate your feedback. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed, please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Miyagawa: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

• "the immediate aftermath of Charlotte King's (KaDee Strickland) rape": suggest dropping the mention of Strickland because it makes the possessive so clumsy.

• Done.

• "revolved around Strickland's character to accurately represent recovery from rape": this needs rewording. What does "revolved to represent" mean? Do you mean something like "revolved around Strickland's character, and was intended to accurately portray a victim's recovery from rape"?

• Changed to your suggestion.

• Is Blue Deckert worth a redlink?

• He appears to be in enough projects so I think a redlink would be worthwhile. Added.

• "The decision to portray King's resistance to reporting her rape was reached after consultation with the hospital": suggest "with the Rape Treatment Center", as that's what the source says.

• Thank you for that catch.

• "According to the reviewer, the first time Freedman saw King's injuries made it seem "like we weren't even watching TV anymore". The reviewer wrote that Strickland's performance was worthy of an Emmy Award." Suggest combining these into a single sentence; perhaps "The reviewer felt that Strickland's performance was worthy of an Emmy, and that the first time Freedman saw King's injuries was "like we weren't even watching TV anymore".

• Thank you for the suggestion. Changed.

• The first paragraph of the reception section is focused on Strickland's performance and the comments about Emmys; Marsi's comment about the pacing and Strickland's performance might do better at the end of the first paragraph. That would let you link up TVline, E!News and SpoilerTV's comments, all of which make similar points.

• Thank you for this suggestion too. I have tried my best to keep the "Reception" section as organized as much as possible around topic so it doesn't seem so random. Done.

• I think you might consider restructuring the second paragraph to include all the comments directly about the rape. It would also be good if you could make that paragraph a little more like a narrative for the reader; currently it does little more than list several opinions, one after the other. Can you come up with a sentence that summarizes the commentary on the rape? "Most reviewers felt..." or something like that? That would let you combine the information within the paragraph a little more fluidly.

• I agree with you about this. I have corrected this paragraph with your comments in mind. I also moved up the comments listed it as one of the best episode to the first paragraph as it does not pertain to commentary on rape. Do you think I should combine the second and third paragraphs? I initially separated the two to have the first paragraph focus on the critical response to the rape specifically in this episode while the third paragraph I wanted to focus on the comparisons with other television shows, but I am open to suggestions.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you again for the help. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything I noted above has been fixed; I think this is now FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 [4].

Canadian National Vimy Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Canadian World War I memorial in Northern France, the 80th anniversary or the unveiling is this July. This article has been previous advanced for consideration and the most recent nomination in Feb 16 was rejected largely due to concerns associated with imagery copyright.

After a couple months wait, OTRS tickets have recently been completed on the Commons for a couple of these images (File:Vimy Memorial - Foundation construction.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg) which effectively confirmed that images with a status of expired are released into the public domain by Canada (with a requirement to credit). Citations are improved on another (File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg and a the painting at the bottom of the article was confirmed as acceptable to the Commons via deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/22#File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg (closed by a sysop).Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looking really good; will read through properly and review.

At the risk of prolonging the image pain, a couple of quick thoughts:

• File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg is justified under a UK anonymous tag. UK law requires that this is based on reasonable research into the identity; this is reflected in the wording on the copyright tag, notes that "if you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." No information is currently provided, which invalidates the UK copyright tag.

This image is a Gallaher cigarette card from a series of Victoria Cross winners title "Victoria Cross Heroes". This particular image comes from the 5th series. The New York Public Library record of this object is the best I've seen yet with regards to completeness (complete with electronic images of both front and back) but even they acknowledge its not perfect. The only potential author of mention is Central Press, which I've take to assume from researching (The Press Photo History Project) is Central Press Photo Ltd or London but there is no mention of an individual either as photographer or artist that completed the colouring. I researched the records of other cards in the series and got no further ahead. The only hit in the online records or the UK National Archive was [5] for a card held at the Museum of English Rural Life but with no author details available and a search of the Imperial War Museum Records[6] drew a complete blank.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per the copyright tag, this information needs to be added to the image description on the file itself for the claim to be valid. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Vimy Ridge - Watkins memorial.JPG has a copyright tag for the photograph, but not for the owner of the underlying copyrighted text and the memorial itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The text is firmly the "short word combinations" scope for Canada. Further this is a statement of facts which in Cnaada does not meet the requisite level of creativity for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labatt, I don't agree with you about the short word combinations point; Canadian copyright law doesn't give copyright to titles, names, slogans, short word combinations etc., but the items copied here are 104 word paragraphs. While you cannot copyright a fact in Canada, expressions of a fact - for example, a paragraph of text - are certainly copyright. The material would similarly be copyright in the US where the Commons is hosted. The File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg issue still hasn't been fixed either, - the image description hasn't been altered as per the issue raised above, rendering the UK tag invalid. Reluctantly oppose at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo of the Watkins memorial isn't so central to the article to base approval/opposition on it alone. For it what I'll do is remove it from the article for now, send a formal request to Veterans Affairs Canada and if they come back with release that can be confirmed via a commons OTRS ticket. Would that be a satisfactory way forward.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hchc2009: Still waiting for a response from Veterans Affairs Canada. I've placed a note on the image page on the Commons but the image is removed from the article until a response is received.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll copy the text to the Jones cigarette card photo. I hope that addresses that concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support in terms of sources and academic background; I haven't done a copyediting check though. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As before: feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Did a little more; I made it down to Restoration and rededication. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reading the commentary at the deletion discussion for File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg, I find the arguments against it being free far more compelling than those in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "conclusion" was that life+50 applies; if that's so, absent any other information, this can't possibly be PD in the US, because that would mean copyright expired after 1996 and thus that US copyright was restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the decision is not my call but I don't make it a habit of questioning such conclusions. Maybe @Jdforrester:, as closing admin, can offer further clarity on that discussion. Nevertheless, the image isn't so central as to merit being such a distraction so I've removed it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

• King's position received unanimous support from both sides of the House and—after the Canadian federal election, 1921, there were three major parties represented. What does "both" refer to?

• both referred to government and opposition. I've simplified the text to simply state unanimous support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The 1997 ceremony at the memorial was attended by retired Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and at least 5000 people. Subsequent smaller-scale ceremonies were held at the memorial in 1997 and 2002.—meaning there was another memorial in '97 after BM visited? And were the 5000 Canadians?
• Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mulroney ceremony should read 1992 not 1997. Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - an excellent article. Some minor suggestions:
  • Maybe add a footnote to this sentence: "The commission revised its initial plans and decided to build two distinctive memorials—those of Allward and Clemesha—and six smaller identical memorials" - the footnote could link to the memorials: Saint Julien Memorial, Passchendaele Memorial, Hill 62 Memorial, Bourlon Wood Memorial, Courcelette Memorial, Dury Memorial, and Le Quesnel Memorial.

• The list of sites is already contained within note #5.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • Suggest adding a mention of the upcoming centenary commemoration of the battle. It seems as if the official programme has not yet been released by Veteran Affairs Canada (UPDATE: found this page), but some additional mention would be good. Possibly of interest (though maybe not suitable for the article) is this.

• At this point the only possible mention is that Canada intends to hold a 100th anniversary with a service at the memorial on 9 April 2017. I think we should wait until there is more to say.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • The 'Sociocultural influence' section has a 'when?' tag in it.

• Corrected.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article; I should be able to finish the review tonight.

• "The commission committee initially took the position of placing the monument in Belgium on Hill 62": a bit long-winded; how about "The commission committee initially recommended placing..."?
• "King's position received unanimous support of the House": either "received the unanimous support of the House" or "received unanimous support in the House".
• "the ruins of the Diocletian's Palace": surely it should be "the ruins of Diocletian's Palace"?
• "$2,779.18 in present terms": needs an "as of" date; perhaps "in 2016 dollars"?
• "Immediately following the Second World War very little attention was paid to the Battle of Vimy Ridge or the Vimy Memorial, having been overshadowed by more contemporary events": it's clear what is meant, but "having been" has no subject, since the previous sentence is in the passive voice. How about "The events of Second World War overshadowed both the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the Vimy Memorial, and they received very little attention in the immediate post-war years"?
• "The site's rough terrain and unearthed unexploded munitions": is this what's intended? The munitions have been unearthed but not removed?
• "The figure of a cloaked young female stands on top and at the centre of the front wall and overlooks the Douai Plains. The woman has her head bowed...": suggest "The figure of a cloaked young woman..." and then "She has her head bowed..."
• "the names of the 11,285 Canadians killed in France and whose final resting place is unknown": does this refer to both those who have known graves and those who do not? If so, I'd make it "...France, along with those whose..."; if it refers only to those with no known grave, which is implied later in the paragraph, then I'd cut the "and".
• You have "as a consequence" twice in quick succession at the end of the "Vimy memorial" section.
• "identified the Moroccan Division as the only divisions where": singular or plural "divisions"?
• "that is widely published in military and general histories of Canada": suggest "widely repeated".
• The "Sociocultural influence" section has three "X suggests" within three consecutive sentences; can at least one be reworded? Perhaps run the two sentences quoting Hucker together?
• "it was so designated, one of only two outside of Canada, in 1997": perhaps "it was so designated in 1997, and is one of only two outside of Canada".
• Suggest starting a new paragraph at "The memorial is not without its critics"; that's a long paragraph and it would make a natural break.
• Is the Jane Urquhart novel sufficiently notable to be included? I know nothing about it; I ask because it's common to see novels that mention or include elements of an article's topic listed in that article, even if there is no particularly notability or third party mention of the novel in that context, so I'm just checking to see if another source mentions it. In fact, that sentence doesn't appear to be sourced.

-- That's everything I can see. This is very cleanly written, and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Labattblueboy, can you update us on progress with Mike's comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I've struck the points that are already taken care of. If Labattblueboy is busy IRL, I can make a couple of minor tweaks to address the few remaining points, and I'd be glad to support then. It would be a pity to see this fail when it's clearly on the verge of promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, Mike -- it's been open so long already I don't mind waiting a little bit longer to try and put it to bed in the best way possible... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I went ahead and fixed what I saw as the remaining issues, and am now happy to support promotion. Labattblueboy, if you feel anything in that edit is a mistake, ping me if you'd like to discuss. Regardless, it's a fine article, and I'll be glad to see it acquire featured status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously completed some but I was working our of a poor internet connection on a tiny phone and so am very thankful for Mike's remaining edits.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's high-quality work; glad I could help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly, I re-added the Urquhart sentence, and provided a reference, in this edit. I raised this with Mike on his talk page and he was fine with that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2016 [7].

No Me Queda Más[edit]

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song recorded by American Tejano music singer Selena for her last fully recorded album before she was shot and killed a year later. This song holds very dear to me as it brings back nostalgic memories of my mother while growing up. I've made a major overhaul a few months ago and updated the article and subsequently asked the GOCE to copy-edit it. After that, I re-read the article a few times in the weeks following the c/e to make sure the article is indeed ready to be nominated at FAC. I hope you guys enjoy reading the article as much as I had writing it. Best – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cartoon network freak[edit]

@AJona1992: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

• File:No_Me_Queda_Mas.ogg: FUR for this article should be expanded
• File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg: FUR does not adequately explained why it is necessary to include this image - what information is it intended to convey? Needs expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I added the album cover FUR template to the cover art that provides a more understanding than the previous method used, while also expanding the sound file with additional information that may had been missing. Thanks again for your comments – jona ✉ 12:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just the second point remaining. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I took another jab at it and tried it in my own words, I hope that my explanation for the purpose of the cover art has fully satisfied your concerns. Thanks – jona ✉ 14:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er...jona, you're editing the fair-use image that I didn't have concerns with. File:Selena_No_Me_Queda_Mas.jpg is the one at issue here. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that :/ I have removed the image and tagged it orphaned for deletion as it does not convey any necessary information the reader can gather without reading the article; the caption was addressing the singer's dress which did not provide any value to reader. – jona ✉ 18:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EditorE[edit]

OK. The article looks pretty good from a quick scan through, but after looking at a few parts of it a little more, I have a few comments:

• I'm not so fond of how the Billboard.biz citations are formatted. Billboard.biz is still Billboard magazine, and it is published by Prometheus Global Media. The publisher for these sources are missing in the cites, and should be added. Billboard.biz should also be changed to Billboard.biz.

• Done

• The Alt description for the cover is decent, but not perfect. It should include a mention or the background and that the photo Selena is in is covered by a frame and is titled. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Done

• I'm also gonna have to be picky with the English, since this is, after, a FA nomination. Starting with the lead, you need to put the period in the quote. In this case, its the quote of "nothing but happiness"

• Done

• "children's singing competition" Did the source specify which competition? If it did, the name of the competition should be added.

• Added

• The infoboxes and charts lists for two of the cover versions of the song are unnecessary. Since there isn't a lot of chart peaks that the cover versions, they should be removed and any bit of commericial performance info should be handled by the prose. The subsections are also unneeded in this case, given that there's not a lot of info on both covers.

• Done

• The year-end and all-time chart lists needs to be scoped.

• Done

editorEهեইдအ😎 22:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorE: Thank you for your comments, I have fixed all issues. – jona ✉ 23:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EditorE: Have I satisfied your concerns above? – jona ✉ 14:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but I might still have more, so stay tuned. editorEهեইдအ😎 18:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looking forward to it. Best – jona ✉ 22:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DivaKnockouts[edit]

• @DivaKnockouts: Thanks for your review, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona ✉ 14:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job on the article. DivaKnockouts 18:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by magiciandude[edit]

• @Magiciandude: Thank you Erick for your comments, I have fixed all issues. Best – jona ✉ 17:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you have, support. Great job! Erick (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work with this! It is a very comprehensive and well-written article. This definitely deserves FA status. Aoba47 (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism[edit]

• is a song recorded by American recording artist Selena for her fourth studio album, Amor Prohibido (1994). → is a song by American recording artist Selena from her [...]

• Done. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• while production was handled by Selena's brother-producer Since production is already mentioned, is producer really needed? Plus, I'm almost sure the term you used doesn't exist.

• Done. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Its lyrics express unrequited love Perhaps express an unrequited love.

• Done. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Avoid "with verb[ing]" constructions such as with the singer wishing her former lover and his new partner "nothing but happiness." Can "nothing but happiness" be paraphrased?

• I rephrased it to wishing for the best. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• during the publication's quarter-century celebration Is this necessary?

• Removed from lead. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• An accompany music video (also incorrect by the way, should be accompanying) → A music video

• Removed. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It received the Music Video of the Year Add award at the end.

• I added it. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused. Reading Billboard I understood that the original version was remixed for commercial purposes, while here it says that there was never an "original" version.

• The "original" version was released during the early distribution of Amor Prohibido while the "sweeten" version replaced it a few months later; where the front-cover reads "includes new version" of No Me Queda Más. – jona ✉ 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Prism | (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

• This nom has been open a long time, @EditorE and Prism: do you have any further comments?
• It's been several years since the nominator's last FA so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- unless one of the reviewers above has done so and is prepared to clearly sign off on it, if not you can list a request at the top of WT:FAC.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

• Consistent formatting and sufficient details – The formatting is consistent across the board.
• Reliable sources (books, academic journals, expert websites) – All the sources are reliable. I just have one question about “El Nuevo Diario”. Could you please clarify the site’s background and expertise? It looks reliable and credible, but I just want to double-check (especially at this level).

• According to their about me page, they consider themselves to be a "commercial company" whose articles are targeted to the culture and activity of the Dominican Republic and their people inside the island and elsewhere worldwide. They have also published books and magazines under their publishing company. – jona ✉ 00:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes perfect sense to me. According to the above information, it definitely passes as a reliable source. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thorough referencing – Everything is thoroughly cited. The only sections unreferenced are the parts about the synopsis of the music video, which do not require citations.
• To the best of my knowledge, there is not any close paraphrasing or any improper use of sources or sourced material
• Spot-checking – While I am not an expert on this song, I found no signs of problem during the spot check. Aoba47 (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Aoba47: Thank you for your review, I have answered your question above on El Nuevo Diario. Best – jona ✉ 00:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course, I am glad that I could help in any way possible. That should be it for my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Aoba for source review and spotcheck. Could I ask you to list the citations you checked for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? It's something that many spot-checkers do; I ask because I just checked a couple at random, FN22 and FN23 for the statement ""No Me Queda Más" was praised by music critics, who considered it one of Selena's most successful singles", and both seemed to relate to a performance by Jennifer Lopez without clearly referring to the success of the single. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: FN#22 explicitly says "Selena's hits "Bidi Bidi Bom Bom," "Como La Flor," "I Could Fall in Love," and "No Me Queda Mas." while FN#23 said it is her "most beloved hits", but I see what you're saying. A google search brings up a biography book on Lopez where the author said the song became "an instant classic", Ilan Stavans (who is sourced in the composition section of the article) named it a "hit", but besides a speculative assumption there are no other mention of the single being one of her most successful (other than the ranks by music critics). – jona ✉ 15:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I will do a thorough check of the sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and I will post any suggestions/comments/questions by the end of today. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I apologize if I made any mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992:@Ian Rose: I apologize for the delay. I have listed my comments below:

• Reference 65 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/hillary-clinton-abuela-factor-n485226) is used to support that Clinton's use of Selena's music was well received, but according to the source, this decision was criticized with the emergence of hashtags like "Hispandering" and "Not My Abuela" so I would recommend revising this. I might add something along the lines about a mixed reaction to Clinton's attempt to appeal to Latino voters through Selena's music.

• I revised that Hispanics gave her a mixed response by using her music. – jona ✉ 23:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I have struck out the above comment as you have addressed.

• I am having issues with the following Reference 70 (http://www.allmusic.com/search/albums/un+tipo+comun) as I am receiving the following error message "No search results were found for un tipo comun".

• The link here is fine, can you try again? – jona ✉ 23:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only two issues I could find while checking through the sources. I was unable to access the sources that require subscriptions, but I will go on good faith with those few sources. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The link works correctly now. I am not sure why I kept getting a different one earlier. I have struck out my comment as you addressed that as well.

@AJona1992:@Ian Rose: Everything looks good, and the two points I brought up were addressed and corrected where necessary. I did not find any evidence of close paraphrasing and the sources are accurately used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes (2)[edit]

Hi guys, just glancing at the Critical reception and impact section again, I think polishing is needed before we consider promoting the article:

• "No Me Queda Más" was praised by music critics, who considered it a hit single for Selena. -- I don't think critics "consider" something a hit, it is or it isn't, and that should be discussed in the Commercial performance section anyway.
• You use the word "calling" five times in five sentences -- more variation of expression is needed. @Mike Christie: I think you've recently written an essay on "critical reception" sections, would you mind having a look at this one and either CE or offer suggestions for improvement (feel free to look over the whole article, this just caught my eye)...

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look this weekend; I think I'll have time today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the section once more and tried polishing it some more, hope it is looking better for the both of you and is up to FA standards. – jona ✉ 15:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Ajona1992, take a look at this essay, which is what Ian was referring to; it's just my opinion and not any kind of Wikipedia style guide, but I hope you will find it useful. I've taken an initial look at the reception section in this article and I agree with Ian that it could be improved. Here are some thoughts.

First, you have several sentences at the end about awards and top lists; those could be usefully split off into a small paragraph about the awards, with an introductory sentence such as '"No Me Queda Más" received several awards and accolades.' I think those last few sentences are fine.

Here are the key words from the quotes (other than the long one from Burr): "romantic", "popular", "instant classic", "evocative", "bonafide hit", "one of Amor Prohibido's biggest hits", "key hit", "world music flourishes". Four of these ("romantic", "popular", "evocative", and "world music flourishes") are descriptions of the song, and the others describe its success. How about restructuring the section as follows?

• Positive comments about the song
• The song was a hit from Amor Prohibido
• It received several awards and accolades

Here's a draft; how does this look?

The song was well-received, with reviewers describing it as "evocative", "romantic", and "bittersweet"; Quintanilla's use of "world-music flourishes" on the song was noted approvingly by Michael Clark. Ramiro Burr felt that the lyrics, about "finding the strength to walk away", evoked "the pain of love and the tone of redemption". The song became an "instant classic", according to Roger Burns, writing in Icons of Latino America. Other reviewers agreed that it was one of Amor Prohibido's most successful singles releases, with Lisa Leal of KVTV commenting that the song is a Spanish-language counterpart of the Beatles' 1965 single, "Yesterday", in fan popularity.

"No Me Queda Más" received several awards and accolades. It was the Song of the Year at the 1995 Broadcast Music Awards, while Vela received the Songwriter of the Year award in 1996. Its video was honored Music Video of the Year at the 1995 Billboard Latin Music Awards. "No Me Queda Más" was ranked as the ninth-best Tejano song of all time on Ramiro Burr's top-ten list. It has appeared on several critics' "best Selena songs" lists, including BuzzFeed (at number one), Latino Post (number four), and Latina (number five).

I've cut specific mention of some of the reviewers, because I don't think the reader really needs to see them inline; the footnotes can give the details. I compressed several points ("key hit", "one of the biggest hits" and "bonafide hit") into a single sentence without direct quotes, as I don't think the quotes were adding anything that we can't say with paraphrases.

Are Michael Clark and Ramiro Burr worth naming? They both wrote in the same newspaper, I gather, so perhaps we should just give the name of the paper rather than their name?

How does this look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the draft into the article, Ramiro Burr is a well-known Latin music critic than Michael Clark who happened to just write an article on the singer. I found another comment on the song by a reviewer on the San Antonio Current where one said it was "overwhelming [sad]", but after reading your essay and re-reading the draft, it's best to leave it out of it since we already have a laundry list of critics who basically said the same thing about its lyrics in the composition section. There is also a MAC cosmetics line bearing the songs name but I found it to be too promotional and left it out of the article. – jona ✉ 17:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found the draft useful. Ian, would you like me to review the rest of the article, or was it just this section you wanted another opinion on? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, I think that'll do, the reception section was the main thing that seemed to need more work, and it looks greatly improved now -- tks also Ajona of course. One last thing though: in the Music section, I believe we should be attributing inline the quotes in the sentence Selena sings the song "in a low, sober voice", in a "desperate" and "sentimental" way. In the rest of the paragraph we give names or at least the generic "music critics" as the sources for descriptive quotes, should do the same here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I attributed the two authors of the quotes you mentioned above in the section. Thanks – jona ✉ 12:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Jona. Sorry, my last glance through raised another query in my mind: critics have described "No Me Queda Más"' lyrics as "torchy", "mournful", "piercing" and "heartbreaking" -- I can imagine lyrics (i.e. the words of the song) as well as vocals being described as "torchy", "mournful" or "heartbreaking", but lyrics being described as "piercing" sounds a little odd. Is it really the lyrics that all these critics refer to, or is it in fact the vocals, or a mixture? If a mixture, perhaps the simplest solution is to just drop the word "lyrics" from the sentence, and it will make sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: He called it a "piercing ballad", here is a free text version written by the same editor. – jona ✉ 15:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that link -- "piercing ballad" sounds to me like a description of the song as a whole, not the lyrics alone, so my suggestion (unless anyone has a contrary opinion) would be dropping "' lyrics" from the sentence I quoted and then you have all the bases covered and nothing jars. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I have removed "lyrics" per your suggestion. Thanks – jona ✉ 23:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone have a problem with my edit changing (English: "There's Nothing Left for Me") to ("There's Nothing Left for Me")?
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your edits and support. – jona ✉ 11:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2016 [8].

Science-Fiction Plus[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the last attempt by Hugo Gernsback, the creator of the first science fiction magazine, to compete in the field. Science-Fiction Plus was an anachronism; the field had matured since Gernsback's heyday in the 1920s and 30s. It failed quickly, and Gernsback never returned to the fray. There are only seven issues of the magazine, so the sources are a little thin, but the article covers everything I was able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp[edit]

Publication history:

• "but he did not return to the field for nearly seventeen years, when Science-Fiction Plus appeared": suggest to specify "return to the sf field" for extra clarity.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "and in theory should have given Gernsback a marketing edge": probably better to mention in the text the writer whose opinion this is.

  I think this doesn't need attribution -- it's not controversial (i.e. it's not a matter of opinion) in the world of magazines that slick format is a marketing advantage, so I think if I attributed it inline it would give readers the wrong impression. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What if you said "So-and-so notes that in theory this should have given Gernsback a marketing edge"? "notes" sounds closer to a statement of fact than a verb like "argues" but it still takes some edge off the "should have"—which jumps out at the reader as sounding like an opinion—even if, as you maintain, it's not an opinion. Not all readers (myself included) will have a background in the world of magazines to that know that this isn't a controversial statement. I just think if you can gently attribute it somebody with a verb like "notes", you could have the best of both worlds. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough; I've gone ahead and attributed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "and if the circulation of the new magazine had been comparable to that of his other titles it would have been profitable despite the more expensive slick paper": here too.

  I also don't feel this needs attribution; I don't think this is opinion. Slick paper was definitely more expensive; what's really being cited here is that the circulation Gernsback hoped for would have been enough to cover the extra cost of the paper, and that seems like a factual statement to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point. If it was me, I might consider here too trying to reword it somehow to make it all the more clearly not sound like an opinion. But I think some of the other instances need it more than here.

  I've left this one alone for now but I'll have a think about rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception:

• "it evolved away from his focus on facts and education, and became more mature": I'm not sure what "mature" implies here; also may be better to specify the writer whose opinion this is.

  I cut "and became more mature"; I think it would be a digression to explain this and the important point is that sf was no longer focused on education. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, also had a long history in the field, having helped organize the First World Science Fiction Convention in 1939, and he too had strong views about what constituted good science fiction, though his views did not always coincide with those of his publisher": quite a long sentence, with lots of clauses. Possibly consider breaking it up into two sentences?

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Moskowitz was the one in charge of obtaining stories, and he succeeded in acquiring work by many of the best-known names in sf, including Clifford Simak, Murray Leinster, Robert Bloch, and Philip José Farmer, but he also bought many stories by writers from the early years of the genre, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates." Also a little long, with three independent clauses. But if you feel it's a matter of preference, I won't insist.

  This one I'd like to leave as is, because the "but" construction is what makes it long, and that's necessary for the "result" statement in the next sentence. I don't see an easy way to shorten it because of the lists of names. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The result was a magazine that felt old-fashioned, despite its smart appearance: in Ashley's words, "for a magazine to be 'slick', it didn't just have to look slick, it had to feel it, but in the case of Science-Fiction Plus all that glittered clearly was not gold"." Consider specifying whose opinion it is that it "felt old-fashioned". The quote from Ashley does not precisely support this. Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm on the fence about this. The only two sources that spend time discussing the magazine in detail are Lawler and Ashley, and they both support this; Ashley calls the magazine "archaic" and Lawler describes it as "an anachronism". From my own knowledge of the field, I would say this is uncontroversial -- that is, nobody knowledgeable about the field would disagree. However, it is an opinion, even if it's one shared by all the sources. If I attribute the statement to Lawler and/or Ashley, I'm concerned that the reader will think it's not a unanimous opinion, which would be misleading. Any suggestions on how to handle this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I would say it's safest to attribute it to them here. Again, maybe you can use a softer verb like "note". And even if you used a verb like "comment", which implies a little bit of opinion, I really don't think readers are going to think deeply, "Ah, 'comments'—so maybe lots of other people disagree with this opinion, and it actually wasn't old-fashioned." It's probably more likely that if you leave it as it is, sophisticated readers are liable to think, "This sounds like the opinion of this writer of this Wikipedia article. I wonder if it's true." Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You make a good point; I've suspected the writer's opinion at work in articles I've read. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and the copyedit; your commas look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome! I have at least one more comment:

• "The artwork was of variable quality ... Paul's work had not improved over the years. Alex Schomburg, who was also a frequent contributor, did provide some high-quality covers." This is definitely opinion, and as much as or more than any other instances in the article, I would strongly urge you to attribute these inline. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your changes are very good. Here are some final mini-suggestions, and then I'm going to try to do a source check:

• "The editor, Sam Moskowitz, had been a reader of the early pulp magazines, and published many writers who had been popular before World War II, such as Raymond Gallun, Eando Binder, and Harry Bates. Combined with Gernsback's earnest editorials, this gave the magazine an anachronistic feel." It may be okay as it is, but for extra clarity you could spell out what "this" refers to: for example, "this use of early writers". But if you don't think it needs it, I'll leave this to your judgement.

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gernsback believed from the beginning of his involvement with science fiction in the 1920s that the stories should be instructive,[8] although it was not long before Amazing Stories had begun to print fantastical and unscientific fiction to attract readers." So this was after he lost control of it in 1929, not while he was still involved with it? Either way, it could be good to specify this.

• I found the answer while doing a source check. On page 54 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950, it says "When Gernsback began serialization of 'The Moon Pool' in the May 1927 Amazing he faced the dilemma of introducing a story that was, by his definition, a fairy tale and not science fiction." In the Science-Fiction Plus Wikipedia article, the next sentence is "During Gernsback's long absence from the field, it evolved away from his focus on facts and education." But it might be good to clarify that this trend began while he was still publisher. (Or does "it" here refer to "the field", not to Amazing Stories?) Moisejp (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Reworded; let me know if that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition to the fiction, Gernsback included departments such as..." I'm not sure if I would use the word "departments" here; "sections" sounds more natural to me. But if you are very comfortable with "departments" please disregard. Moisejp (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to leave this as is; "department" is the most frequently used term for this in the sources, and I think it does the reader no harm to acquire this sort of vocabulary by the usage in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source check so far:

• All of your online sources match what is in the article, and I couldn't find any instances of plagiarism. The information sourced to pages 50, 54, and 91 of The Time Machines: The Story of the Science-Fiction Pulp Magazines from the beginning to 1950 (available on Google Books) also matches. In the next couple of days I'll check (or spot check) any other sources that happen to be available on Google Books. Moisejp (talk) 07:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now completed my source check of all sources that are either available online or on Google Books. (In the end, I didn't have access to any more than what I mentioned just above.) I am very happy to support. Moisejp (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the support, and for fixing the mess I left behind; I changed it to "sf publishing" because he did continue to publish non-sf magazines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed but ile:Science_fiction_plus_195303_v1_n1.jpg gives an incorrect date. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by starship.paint[edit]

• I hope to take a look at this within the next week! starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The category says this is an American magazine but not the text.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Does reference 2 provide backing to the claim at the height of the pulp magazine era?

  I switched this to the "SF Magazines" article in SFE3, which is explicit about this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. I think doing a double cite is clearer, and have added that accordingly. starship.paint ~ KO 13:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Why does the picture for Frank R. Paul's cover for the last issue (December 1953) of Science-Fiction Plus have a caption at bottom left saying "M___ by Michael Fischer"? Although later I noticed Paul's signature on the bottom right...

  That's the title of the story being illustrated -- see here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Mentioning The Golden Age of Science Fiction seems irrelevant unless a clearer link is established to "unscientific fiction"?

  The intended point is that science fiction moved on after Gernsback left the field in 1936 -- his idea of what an sf magazine should be was relevant in the 1920s, but by the time he launched SF Plus, the genre had transformed itself. He and Moskowitz were harking back to pre-Golden Age SF, which is why the commentators describe the magazine as old-fashioned. Is this not clear in that paragraph? I've moved the sentences about the five-pointed star to the end of the paragraph, as I think they interfered with the flow of the argument; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Suggest after During Gernsback's long absence from sf publishing you also add from 1936 to [year] with the appropriate cite :) starship.paint ~ KO 07:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, cited to Lawler. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Howard Menzel. James H. Schmitz and Eric Frank Russell also wrote stories published in this magazine - as seen from the pictures of the covers. Are they worth mentioning?

  The main mention of the featured authors is in a sentence comparing the best of the new writers with the old guard. I checked Ashley; he does list Schmitz as one of the good new writers, so I added his name. Lawler lists most of the writers, but doesn't single out Russell in any way, and doesn't mention Menzel at all, so I think there's no particular reason to add them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The pictures of the covers list Gernsback as the editor, not Moskowitz?

  Moskowitz was managing editor, and actually bought the stories and assembled the issues; that's the usual description of an editor's job, regardless of the specific title. However, editors also usually write the editorials, so I've clarified who did what in the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The pictures of the covers list the tagline "Preview of the Future". Is this worth mentioning?

  Neither Lawler nor Ashley mention it, so I don't think it's necessary. I did a Google Books search to see if there are other critical mentions, and only found passing references in books focused on other topics. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay. I take it that the mention in "The Generation Starship in Science Fiction" is one of the passing ones? starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I think so -- it's just a mention of the magazine that includes the subtitle; it makes no critical comment about the subtitle. However, I took another look at Lawler and realized that in the publication history data he appends to his article he does mention the subtitle, so I've added it to the bibliographic details section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we use single quotation marks for 'Spacebred Generations' / 'Strange Compulsion' / 'Nightmare Planet' / 'Freedom of the Race' to distinguish from quoted phrases in double quotation marks?

  I would rather leave this as is -- use of double quotes for short story titles is standard formatting. See "The Open Boat", for example, which is an FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Did the pictures appear in Häpna! only in 1954, or did you mean Häpna! was first published from 1954? It's not clear.

  Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a link to Ashley (2004). Also one for de Camp, one for Moskowitz. That's all for now. starship.paint ~ KO 09:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for these. I didn't use the de Camp one as it points to the 1975 revised edition, rather than the 1953 edition I used, but I've added the other two. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You're welcome. I don't have time left today to take a look at all the new changes. Another day then! starship.paint ~ KO 13:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, I'm done, all issues addressed! I am not an expert in this article's fields, but I believe it meets the criteria. Support. starship.paint ~ KO 12:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing from coord duties as I enjoy the history of sf magazines even though I hardly ever read them...

• Not much to copyedit, reads well as usual.
• No dab or dup links.
• Structure and level of detail in keeping with similar articles.
• Taking Nikki's image review as read.
• Sources look impeccable, just a couple of formatting queries/suggestions:
  • For the last citation to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (FN12), shouldn't we have Gollanz as publisher as well?

    Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it fair to ask for publishing and access dates to be written in full rather than in that template-y format?

    I used that format because I was getting some kind of error when I used the full dates; I remember being baffled by that. Whatever I was seeing, it's not happening now, so I've changed the dates (and added a missing source date). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's quite common to use authorlink (on first appearance) in the cite book template -- do you prefer not to?

    No, just habit; I should try to get in the habit of adding these. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the absence of an ISBN, could we have the OCLC for Science-Fiction Handbook?

    I can't find the 1953 edition there -- this only shows 1975 and later. I haven't done much searching with Worldcat; is there something I'm missing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Try here -- page three of the WorldCat listing. Tks for changes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it, well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support; and I'm glad you enjoy the articles! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Andy, I'm available to do a prose review if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm offering only because this one is growing whiskers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dank: Thanks for the offer but looking through this, I don't think additional review should be necessary. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 [9].

The Boat Races 2016[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Boat Race article... I've brought three or four to FAC before with some level of success, and I worked on keeping this one up to date, so much so that it was posted to ITN within hours and promoted to GA within days of the actual event concluding. As ever, I'm eternally grateful for each and every comment made here in an attempt to improve the article to something Wikipedia can be proud of. Cheers all. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a high quality article. I do think it misses on the economics of the race. I assume there is no monetary prize, but maybe this should be spelled out since pretty much every sports competition out there has a prize. Also, the article misses on the TV coverage: broadcast outside UK? viewers? paid rights? Nergaal (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you Nergaal. This year's race has scant sources about the broadcasting, we have the usual 250,000+ spectators along the Thames but I'll need to do some digging to see if there's anything out there regarding the international viewing figures - as you know these are typically ridiculed (estimates range up to the 100s of millions), and they are absolutely impossible to gather with any credibility, but I'll look. Regarding prize money, etc, that's a good question too, and I'll see what I can find. Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could be vague along the lines of "was broadcast live in X countries, including y, z, and w". Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some stuff about the broadcasters, online streaming and lack of prize money. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering the content; but I think you should mention China's CCTV also broadcasting it live. Nergaal (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map (using |upright= rather than fixed px size)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Oxford-University-Circlet.svg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't edit Commons, perhaps you could do the honours. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Does ((PD-US)) apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You just told me it did. And to tag it as such. I'm not an image copyright expert. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, let me clarify: the image needs to have any US public domain tag. ((US-PD)) would be correct if this particular design predates 1923 - does it? That's the part I'm unsure of and was hoping you would know. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, I didn't upload it. I'm not the person to ask. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I've replaced it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few to start with, more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "while the women's race saw BNY Mellon's subsidiary Newton Investment Management as sponsors": I'm never entirely happy with the use of "saw" like this. I think the repetition of "sponsored by" would be justified.

  Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "it was announced that the sponsors would be donating the title sponsorship to Cancer Research UK": The phrasing seems a little awkward here. Maybe something along the lines of "would donate the prize money to"? (Although I realise it wasn't prize money... hmm)

  Reworded a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "and that this year's event was to be retitled": Maybe "that year's"?

  Tweaked, not exactly the same as your suggestion, but an improvement I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside, the coaches section plods a little, but I think that is unavoidable and the section is undoubtedly necessary.
• "Umpired by Rob Clegg, the Oxford boats, Scylla and Charybdis took part in a "phenomenal race"." As written, it looks as if Clegg umpired the boats rather than the race

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "As conditions worsened past Chiswick Eyot,": Conditions worsened in what way? Sarastro1 (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what the source says, and I can't find any other sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I got another souce (albeit OUWBC) which describes a strong headwind which caused rough water, and it was these conditions that "worsened", so I've incorporated that into the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I have responded to each, and look forward to your further review. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: Sorry for the delay, real life a little hectic at the moment! Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "With the umpire having to warn both crews for encroachment": Can we say what encroachment is in this context.

  Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Cambridge were considered the favourites to win for the first time since the 2012 race": The old favourite: considered by who?

  As usual, the bookies. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The second segment from the Mile Post to Chiswick Eyot saw further clashes between the crews", "The second race saw the crews rowing back from Chiswick Eyot to the Finish Post" and "Oxford also saw three participants with Boat Race experience return": Saw again. Sorry!

  De-sawed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A minor point that may not be obvious to everyone: Should we explain the purposes of the trials and the practice races? Not everyone may know why there were so many different races before the main ones.

  Trials are less obvious so I've added a sentence preceding the subsections. Practice races seem self-evident to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Was there any media coverage after the event, or comments on the race in general afterwards?

  That's in the Reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is looking good overall. Perhaps my only issue is the lead; it seems a little brief and does not perhaps summarise each section of the article. Could we expand it a little? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Will work on the lead now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Sarastro1 lead expanded a touch, is there anything else there you'd like to see which isn't currently suitably covered? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks good to me now. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, this article looks well written and covers the races well. A few niggles:

• I agree with Sarastro1 that the lead section seems a bit inadequate.

  Still working on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oxford went into the race as champions" - The subject of the previous sentences was the generic boat race, so you need to specify here that you are talking about the 2016 event.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "but Cambridge led overall with 81 victories" - It's a pity to use "led" for the overall score as well as the crews' positions in the race.

  I know what you mean but could you suggest an alternative? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but Cambridge had amassed 81 previous victories to Oxford's 79"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "amassed" revolts me, perhaps the sentence works as well without it? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ping me when you are finished with the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to be consistent on how you use apostrophes in "men's reserves'" and similar places throughout the article.

  Have tried. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "the former becoming the first female official of one of the men's races in history." - This could be better expressed.

  Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "He was a former Great Britain Olympic coach" - Using the past tense makes it sound as if he is dead.

  Reworeded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "CUWBC's trial was conducted between Twickenham and Tideway in rough water and windy conditions." - This took me by surprise as I at first thought it referred to locations on the river rather than boats.

  Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Goldie had lost both races against an alternate Oxford Brookes crew earlier." - I don't think the article explains the term "Goldie", nor in fact "Isis".

  Included in Background now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly for "Blondie"

  Included in Background now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oxford's crew also contained hree participants with Boat Race experience" - typo.

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oxford's Isis beat Goldie in the men's reserves race, their sixth consecutive victory and eighth in nine years, by two lengths in a time of 18 minutes 55 seconds." - This sentence needs rephrasing.

  Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "as the crews passed below Hammersmith Bridge two seconds down," - Which team was two seconds down?

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• " while Oxford remained in the rough water, losing some of their advantage. Oxford were eight seconds ahead by Chiswick Steps and continued to pull away." - Contradictory?

  Seems so. Rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "probably the worst I have experienced on the Tideway" - The Reaction section mentions the conditions being bad, but I don't see mention of this in the main text. Perhaps we could have a sentence or two earlier in the article describing the weather conditions (and tide if significant).

  Weather noted, wind and water. Tide not noted in RS.

  • That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments, all bar the short lead have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cwmhiraeth lead expanded a touch, is there anything else there you'd like to see which isn't currently suitably covered? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am happy with the alterations made and support this nomination on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – In honor of Britain's fine Olympic performance, I read through this one several days ago and was happy with it, but decided to wait until Sarastro's review was done. I noticed one little glitch that I fixed, but other than that the article is well worthy of the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, and cheers for fixing the the the thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment -- I think we're just looking for a source review for formatting/reliability now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

• Unless I'm missing the rationale for linking or not, I think we need some consistency whether newspaper titles are linked in the references

  All consistent now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Boat Race Company: This might have come up at previous reviews, but what makes this reliable (and I'm sure it is, just checking)? Also, do we need the External Link if we are using the site as a reference? (I'm always vague on the rules for this one)

  They are the organisation which runs the event, such as Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or The Nobel Foundation. I don't see why their reliability should be called into question, unless there's something truly controversial in the text I've written and used their sources to verify, if so can you specify please? As for the EL, it links to the homepage which is not used as an inline reference, so, again, I don't see any problem with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's fine as far as I'm concerned. (And just asking rather than questioning their reliability) Sarastro1 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor point, Ref 29 does not quite go to where it says: it goes to the "live" page, but the information cited is at the bottom of that page which has a different title

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources fine for formatting and reliability. Spot checks not done. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all addressed and/or responded to above. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I won't hold up promotion but could you pls check the Build-up section for overlinking? Craven Cottage is the worst offender, showing up twice using Ucucha's checker, meaning it's linked three times in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Had I known such a tool existed, I'd have been using it forever. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 [10].

Wrestle Kingdom 9[edit]

Nominator(s): リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) and starship.paint ~ KO 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2015 professional wrestling event. It has been an FAC three times and failed every time due to lack of reviews. It has also undergone peer review once. Whether you are familiar with wrestling or not, I invite you to share your comments. Plus, I will review an article of yours to the best of my ability if I have not done so already. starship.paint ~ KO 04:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Good888, Freikorp, James26, Jo-Jo Eumerus, GaryColemanFan, MPJ-DK, Wrestlinglover, and Mike Christie: - notifying all previous reviewers, could you please help out again? Thank you! starship.paint ~ KO 04:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I reviewed the version with FA3 and the qua?ity has not degraded since then, SK transferring my support over to FA4.  MPJ-DK  10:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per my previous review. Prose is fine, sources seem reliable; did not do a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll try to make an image review this evening. I don't know of the subject matter enough to comment on other aspects, sorry! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, here we go:

• File:Wrestle Kingdom 9.jpg: Non-free, which is appropriate here. WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#2, WP:NFCC#3, WP:NFCC#4, WP:NFCC#5, WP:NFCC#6, WP:NFCC#7, WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#9 appear to be met, for WP:NFCC#10 one may want to go into more detail on how each of the previous point are met - I can tell, but the text ought to specify I think.
• File:Jeff Jarrett.jpg: Free file, using it to show an individual with importance in preparing the event seema OK to me. Caption is backed by the article text. Good EXIF, the uploader has given some information here which makes own work plausible, for the sake of my laptop I am not going to check his other uploads. File exists all over the web in lower resolution, or on a "site suspended" page.
• File:Kazuchika Okada at BCW East meets West.jpg: Free file, using it to show a character in the section on storylines seems OK to me. Caption is backed by the article text. Good EXIF, the uploader has given information consistent with this being an own work on Commons and is an administrator on Commons, some other uploads of Tabercil have the same EXIF. Can't GIS the image as it's too large.
• File:Kyle O'Reilly and Bobby Fish.jpg: Non-own work free file, caption is backed up in the article text. Showing the starting competition in the section for it seems OK image use. Good EXIF, FlickreviewR checked the license, can't check the other uploads by the Flickr uploader though although they seem to be of the same theme. File exists all over the web in lower resolution, one same resolution display has no detail and the other postdates the Flickr upload.
• File:Shinsuke Nakamura at BCW East Meets West.jpg: Free file, own work by Tabercil like the image of Kazuchika Okada. Caption is backed by article text, image to illustrate the person who is the first mentioned in the section seems OK. Same considerations regarding uploader and EXIF as the photo of Kazuchika Okada. This image can be GIS'ed, all other copies seems to be in lower resolution but the seach display appears to be broken.
• File:Hiroshi Tanahashi at BCW East Meets West.jpg: Another free file by Tabercil, same considerations as the other two in regards to EXIF and uploader. I note the change from active to passive voice in the caption vis-a-vis the article text; showing Tanahashi in a section where he is explicitly mentioned seems OK. GIS doesn't seem to work.
• File:BULLET CLUB 2015.JPG: Free file, showing a follow up event in the section on aftermats seems fine to me. Caption is backed by article text. Good EXIF that matches othe ruploads during that time of the uploader, another file uploaded by the uploader was tagged for deletion and kept on Commons because no reason for doubting the license of the file was given. Other uploads are also about pro wrestling. File exists elsewhere on the web in lower resolution, one same resolution image postdates the upload and the other apparently references a source also postdating the upload.

All files seem to have good ALT text. Pardon for the somewhat copyvio-paranoid approach to individual files.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - thank you for the detailed image reviews. You don't need to apologize for the thorough check! I have updated the description for File:Wrestle Kingdom 9.jpg. Is there anything else that should be changed? starship.paint ~ KO 12:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I did analyze the uploaders and their contributions quite extensively. One could consider that paranoid or bad faith-y. Anyhow, the updated non-free use rationale seems good to me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever floats your boat LOL. Thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 13:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlinglover Review

• • Support No more important issues left to me--WillC 06:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead
  • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 in Tokyo Dome" - Was it just in Tokyo Dome or was it in the Tokyo Dome? Just for grammar sake.
    • It's "in Tokyo Dome". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced by New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW) " → "produced by the New Japan Pro Wrestling (NJPW) promotion"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "group began wrestling at Noah events from the week after Wrestle Kingdom 9." → "group began wrestling at Noah events starting the week after Wrestle Kingdom 9."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The event was attended by 36,000 fans." → "The event was attended by 36,000 people" or "There were 36,000 people in attendance."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Background
  • "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015." → "Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, and scheduled to be held at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Storylines
  • " on October 13, 2014, at the NJPW King of Pro-Wrestling event" - Remove comma
    • Not accoding to MOS:DATEFORMAT. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "November 8, 2014, NJPW Power Struggle show." - Remove secondary comma
    • See above リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A previous singles match between Nakamura and Ibushi during the 2013 G1 Climax was ranked the "Best Bout of the Year" by the Tokyo Sports newspaper." - Not sure why this is relevant to this event at all.
    • Because the WK9 match received 2015 Pro Wrestling Match of the Year from Observer readers. The 2013 match also received accolades, so it is worth highlighting. starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were booked together at Wrestle Kingdom 9." - Kind of jargony
    • Changed. starship.paint ~ KO 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "January 4, 2014, NJPW Wrestle Kingdom 8," - Comma
    • See above リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the two former high-school classmates named their team "Meiyu Tag"" - Backstory not needed here. Just that they teamed. High school is irrelevant
    • It's relevant when you consider (meiyu means "sworn brothers" in Japanese)...? starship.paint ~ KO 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pre-show
  • " Tama Tonga scored the first elimination, of Captain New Japan. " - Awkward wording. Explain he threw him over the top rope. Shows how people are eliminated.
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link New Japan Rumble to battle royale
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Undercard
  • "The first match of the pay-per-view show" - Change to PPV show or just remove PPV
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 3D from Tencozy and a Kokeshi diving headbutt from Honma" - Tencozy isn't mentioned prior so lost as to whether this is one or multiple people
    • They were mentioned in the Storylines section. starship.paint ~ KO 13:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references to titles belonging to the wrestlers. I'd switch them from "his" and "theirs" to just "the". No one owns the belts. Kind of misleading.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 12:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Main event matches
  • No issues found. I'll check more later.
• Reception
• Aftermath
• Results
  • Personally I'd capitalize the match names. They are official match names afterall. Otherwise, everything looks in order.
    • I'm against this stylistically. The PWTorch source for times in that section didn't capitalize them in the report either. starship.paint ~ KO 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• See also
  • It has everything I could think to include. You got the right links and all the necessary portals.
• Notes
  • Looks good until I read the article. This is useful and I like the inclusion.
• References
  • First reference is used way too much
    • It's the primary source, NJPW. In this case the primary source is the most reliable source for official things like official match times, official attendance etc. starship.paint ~ KO 09:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credentials for pro wrestling dot net please
    • It was listed in our style guide as a reliable source following this discussion. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 17:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24, 42, 43, and 45 are used an awful lot
    • 24 is a preview of the incoming storylines, since there are multiple storylines this is used a lot. 42, 43 and 45 source what happens in each match. Since there are multiple matches, these sources are used a lot. starship.paint ~ KO 09:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beyond the above, all other references check out and I see no other issues but these.
• External links
  • An aesthetic issue, but I'd rewrite GFW link to look more professional
    • Check it out. starship.paint ~ KO 09:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Images
  • No issues I can see of at this time.--WillC 07:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it time and time again that I'd review this article and if it isn't one thing it is 7 that prevents me from upholding that statement. I will complete the review this time so that this can finally be an FA. This is reminding me of Lockdown (2008).--WillC 08:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is "using a source too much" an issue? リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 16:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same argument as Wikipedia:Citation overkill is trying to make.--WillC 05:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that refers to an over abundance of citations for ONE sentence, not multiple uses of the same source doesn't it? I did not think that is what you said?  MPJ-DK  09:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was quoting the argument, not the policy. The argument is basically using a few references to source an article hurts its professionalism and style. Same idea. Using the same source 27 times makes it look under reported and kind of not notable. I've dealt with the issue being brought up in FA and FL but I couldn't remember what was referenced. I found that and it basically had the same argument so I directed to that area.--WillC 04:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed some and will do more when I am free. starship.paint ~ KO 01:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wrestlinglover: - done, 11 is now the most times a source is cited. starship.paint ~ KO 02:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you WillC. So there are 7 things keeping you from reviewing? At first I thought you meant reference 7. I agree with MPJ-DK's view of citation overkill. starship.paint ~ KO 09:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apartment hunting, house construction, school, other tasks, bills, family, etc. Statement for citation stuff is above.--WillC 04:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Wrestlinglover: - our replies are above! starship.paint ~ KO 13:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wrestlinglover: - thank you for the review. I believe we have addressed/replied to your comments! starship.paint ~ KO 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will check shortly and add the last two sections if I see any issues. So far, it looks like all concerns are addressed.--WillC 08:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Article is neutral, well written, and everything is cited to reliable sources. I'm really not familiar with wrestling, so I won't try to give a full review, but it looks like it meets the FA criteria to me. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 15:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GaryColemanFan Review

• Lead
  • In the first sentence, I would add a comma after "event" to clarify that the event, not the promotion, took place at the given time and place.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd to use "24th" instead of "twenty-fourth". Is this standard?
    • WP:SPELL09 and WP:ORDINAL seem to indicate this is acceptable for integers over 9. This may help non-English readers. starship.paint ~ KO 01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Dash#Relationships and connections, it looks like an en dash should be used instead of a hyphen in "A Tanahashi-Okada heavyweight title match".
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for "Ibushi-Nakamura match".
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Background
  • Same as above for "24th"
    • See above. starship.paint ~ KO 01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

**"Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, and scheduled to be held at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015." - Including the second date is confusing. It's unclear if the company decided on January 4 to hold it at the Tokyo Dome, or if the company decided to hold a January 4 event at the Tokyo Dome. This also leads to confusing with "That day" in the next sentence (which should also be followed by a comma).

• • • Rephrased. starship.paint ~ KO 06:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before the event the GFW broadcasts experienced setbacks." - comma after "event"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Storylines
  • "Kota Ibushi entered the ring, assaulted Nakamura and issued a title challenge;" - I guess it's personal preference, but I would put a comma after "Nakamura".
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranked the "Best Bout of the Year"" - no need for the "the" before "Best"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the IWGP Tag Team Championship with Doc Gallows and Karl Anderson" - comma after "Championship"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December Goto and Shibata" - comma after "December"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one between former mixed martial artists Sakuraba and Suzuki-gun leader Minoru Suzuki and a tag team match" - I would use a comma after "Suzuki" for clarity.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would wikilink "eight-man tag team match" to Professional wrestling tag team match types#Multiple man teamed matches.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "represented by Iizuka, Shelton X Benjamin and the Killer Elite Squad" - again, personal preference, but I would use a comma after "Benjamin" -- even more so with this one, as the combination of people, tag teams, and stables mentioned in the article could be unclear without the Oxford comma.
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NJPW-GFW partnership" - en dash
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jeff Jarrett joined Bullet Club" - "Bullet Club" has been preceded by "the" in every other mention
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six-man tag team match" - this could be linked the same as above, but it seems less necessary if the eight-man match is already linked
    • Linked for clarity starship.paint ~ KO 01:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Event
  • "pinfall, submission, disqualification or being thrown out of the ring" - Oxford comma after "disqualification"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Great Kabuki, Yoshiaki Fujiwara and Hiro Saito" - same after "Fujiwara"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Time Splitters (Alex Shelley and Kushida) and the Young Bucks" - same after "Kushida"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Romero hit the Forever Clothesline" - "hit" sounds informal, and is it standard to italicize move names? Italicizing English terms seems unnecessary and distracting.
    • Changed "hit" to "performed". Italicizing move names is to standardize with In wrestling sections of wrestlers where their move names are italicized. starship.paint ~ KO 01:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the pin was broken up at two" - this could be a confusing statement to non-fans -- perhaps "the three-count for the pinfall was broken up at two" (or something like that)
    • Reworded. starship.paint ~ KO 01:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a backbreaker and diving knee drop on Shelley, a double arm DDT and wheelbarrow suplex on Matt and a super falcon arrow" - comma after "Matt" for clarity
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 01:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "O'Reilly pinned Koslov a second time" - I don't understand "a second time" -- the first time being the unsuccessful attempt? When I see that someone pinned someone, I assume it means for a three-count.
    • Removed "a second time" starship.paint ~ KO 01:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bad Luck Fale, Jeff Jarrett and Yujiro Takahashi" - Oxford comma after "Jarrett"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hiroyoshi Tenzan, Satoshi Kojima and Tomoaki Honma" - same after "Kojima"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "guitar shot meant for Honma, a 3D from Tencozy and a Kokeshi" - same after "Tencozy"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davey Boy Smith Jr., Lance Archer, Shelton Benjamin and Takashi Iizuka opposing Toru Yano and Pro Wrestling Noah representatives Naomichi Marufuji, Mikey Nicholls and Shane Haste" - same and same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "powerbomb of Nicholls, Archer's chokeslam of Haste and Benjamin's super overhead belly-to-belly throw" - same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "low blow by Yano, a double-team gorilla press slam by TMDK and a Tiger Uppercut knee lift" - same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

**"by Marufuji which pinned Iizuka" - "which" seems like a strange word choice

• • • Elaborated. starship.paint ~ KO 06:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "knockout, submission or referee stoppage" - Oxford comma
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

**"Sakuraba used a kimura lock on the entrance ramp" - during the match, or as Suzuki was coming to the ring?

• • • Explained. During the match. starship.paint ~ KO 06:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "kicks, stomps and a cross armbreaker hold" - Oxford comma
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

**"he lost consciousness, when the referee stopped the match" - seems like it should be "and" or "at which point" instead of "when"

• • • Changed. starship.paint ~ KO 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...powerbombs and German suplexes" - Oxford comma
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bicycle knee strike and the One Winged Angel" - same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but after Goto tagged in Shibata all four men" - comma after "Shibata"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Styles returned to the ring after a 19 count" - how long is a countout in this promotion? I don't know how to put the answer into the article--I'm mostly just curious? Is a 20-second count standard in Japan?
    • Yes, a 20-count. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Main event matches
  • "reverse powerslam and the Boma Ye knee strike" - Oxford comma
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an elevated sit-out powerbomb and a double stomp to the chest" - same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heavy Rain (Death Valley driver) on the entrance ramp and the D.I.D. submission" - same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Okada rolled through for a Tombstone piledriver which Tanahashi countered" - I would use a comma after "piledriver"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "series of dragon-screw legwhips and three High Fly Flows" - Oxford comma
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reception
  • "Jason Namako of Wrestleview.com" - It was just Wrestleview in the previous sentence. Is there a difference?
    • No, synchronized. starship.paint ~ KO 01:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James Caldwell of the Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter..." The last two quotations in this paragraph are introduced with colons, which makes it feel kind of disjointed. Could one of the quotations be worked more naturally into the prose (e.g. "The IWGP Heavyweight Championship match received five stars, with Caldwell stating, "There's nothing better...)
    • Done earlier. starship.paint ~ KO 06:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cut through the language barrier" for American wrestling fans and likened" - a comma after "fans" would help
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Powell described the following matches as overtaking each other as the night's best as the event progressed: the "very physical" Ishii-Makabe, then Naito-Styles, then Ibushi-Nakamura" - en dashes, and "the following" sounds a bit strange--perhaps "several"?
    • Changed. starship.paint ~ KO 01:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philly.com" was capitalized earlier; this should be consistent
    • Changed. starship.paint ~ KO
  • "openly crying after his loss to Tanahashi" in a main event which was "just as much a spectacle" - I would use a comma after "event" or use "that" instead of "which".
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He wrote that to call the Nakamura-Ibushi match" - en dash
    • Changed. starship.paint ~ KO 01:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Aftermath
  • "Bullet Club captured two more titles" - Are they referred to as both "Bullet Club" and "The Bullet Club"?
    • NJPW never uses the definite article, but Americans like to use it. In this article it is only used in running text where necessary. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the Young Bucks winning the IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship and Doc Gallows and Karl Anderson defeating Hirooki Goto and Katsuyori Shibata" - comma after "Championship" for clarity
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he defeated Fale, which was followed by him defeating Styles" - personal preference, but I'd use something more like "which he followed with a victory over Styles..."
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The day after the event he was scheduled" - comma after "event"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the event the eight Suzuki-gun members" - comma after "event"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and by March 15 the group" comma after "15"
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "GHC Junior Heavyweight Champion and El Desperado" - Oxford comma
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tama Tonga and Yujiro Takahashi" - same
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Results
  • Oxford commas (match 2, match 3 [x2], and match 4)
    • Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 22:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Images
  • Things look good, but I've always been told that image captions that are complete sentences should end with periods (i.e. all of the images from "Main event matches" to the bottom").
    • Done. starship.paint ~ KO 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is really well written. I have no concerns about neutrality, stability, etc. A bunch of the commas are optional, but some seem necessary for the reader to understand easily. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @GaryColemanFan: - thank you very much for the review. I believe we have replied to all your comments! :) starship.paint ~ KO 01:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I've struck everything that's definitely dealt with. There are a few small things that I've left for now. I looked through some other featured wrestling content, and the italicization of English move titles doesn't seem to be standard--this may be a question to as the Wikiproject about. I'm out of town for the weekend, but I'll take my laptop with me so that we can change or discuss the remaining concerns. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay GaryColemanFan ! I've edited per your comments that I missed earlier, and brought up the last issue at WT:PW starship.paint ~ KO 06:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck everything except the move names, and I'll wait to see how that discussion goes. I know that FACs are often closed in the middle of discussion with no warning, though, so I will Support. The remaining issue is not serious enough to prevent promotion, and I am confident that we will follow up when the discussion at WT:PW has run its course. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree with Gary and Ribbon that the italicizing of English move titles is strange, regardless this is up to WP:FA quality.LM2000 (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 [11].

Rare Replay[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a month to go, we are approaching the first anniversary of this compilation of 30 video games by Rare and its predecessor, Ultimate Play the Game. If you're a FAC regular, you might already know that a few of us have been working to improve each of these 31 articles as a Good Topic set, and now that (1) they're all at GAN and (2) we're in the home stretch, I thought it would be nice to try to put a crown on the parent topic in time for its first anniversary on August 4, 2016. Maybe you'll agree?

The compilation of 30 games span a 30-year history across consoles from the ZX Spectrum to the Xbox 360. They include 80s classics that defined an era of British gaming (Knight Lore, FA), 90s classics that characterized the Nintendo 64 (Banjo-Kazooie, Blast Corps, FA), and, well, some weirder variations in the 00s (Viva Piñata). The compilation was fairly well regarded with many reviewers waxing poetic on their youth. But they also agreed that the games weren't all great, which we can affirm after suffering through writing their reception. But this is a homecoming and this parent article is in great shape, with thorough prose as the most complete treatment of the topic in its short life. I look forward to your feedback. czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

• Would it be a better idea to reword "but an inevitable absence due to licensing issues" (Reception, third paragraph, first sentence) to "but were absent due to licensing issues"? Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to preserve the sentiment that they both didn't like the circumstances and acknowledged that there was little to do about them. (I don't want to pummel the reader with reminders about the licensing, but it was a major point, so I want to make sure its handling by reviewers is in full context.) czar 13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The article exemplifies how a compilation game should be made. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Hmm, sorry for missing the ping. Anyway, I feel this meets the FA criteria now, so I'm good with giving it a Support. Also, just wanted to remind you about possibly reviewing my FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]