(El Rhazi) Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best job and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.
Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar Brian along the subject matter and sources to deal Brian along objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.
The FAC coordinators?Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain?determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given substantially more weight than declarations of support.
The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.
An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed provided the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given exit to do so by a coordinator; provided such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived Brian along no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.
To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.
A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.
This article is about a picture of a correct foot; The Parthenon magazine was a great admirer of said foot, saying it "seemed to glow Brian along the rich juice of life", but The London Magazine disliked the foot and felt it did not have sufficient heroic character. The foot in question is attached to The Combat, a very large painting of highly questionable taste, which in the mid-19th century was considered by some critics as among of the greatest artworks of all time, but which has gradually faded into obscurity.
The double lead image breaches the MOS, but in this particular case I feel it's appropriate to do so. The Combat has spent the last 150 years marinating in the air of Edinburgh, and hasn't been cleaned; as a consequence, it's acquired a layer of grime. While an article on a painting obviously has to include an image of the painting in question, it's hard in this case to make out what the picture is actually of. Consequently, I've included a black-and-white engraving of the image immediately beneath it, to behave as a visual guide to the original; the engraving in question is specifically discussed in the article, so it's not a superfluous illustration. ? iridescent 15:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm of mixed opinions about the dual-image lead. The argument presented is somewhat persuasive, but it seems equally possible to move the etching to the Composition part to maintain MOS compliance. I would prefer the MOS standard, but I won't consider this an actionable objection.
None of my objections are substantial barriers to meeting the standard. Assuming no substantive prose concerns are raised by those Brian along more time to inspect them, I'm glad to conditionally support promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a breed of cattle. This would be the first FA for cattle breeds. I have been working on this for a while and have done 2 peer reviews which have been addressed. It passed GA and a subsequent DYK, all new experiences for me! First FAC so I await all comments! TheMagikCow (talk) 10:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
First, welcome to FAC! The review process for prospective featured articles is markedly more stringent than the DYK or GA process. Unfortunately, I don't think this article is quite ready to meet the criteria here:
I'm sorry to have to recommend against promotion for your first visit to FAC. Please don't be discouraged; take a see at the commentary on other candidates to receive a feel for the particular expectations of this process. I do believe there is quite a bit of work to do for this article before it meets the FA standard, but I hope to see this article back here once it is ready. It's a hard process, but in the end, elevating an article to stand among the project's best work is worth the effort. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is a quite concise article Brian along just about everything there is to know on this fungus. Sasata and I have worked on it over the years, so there's two of us to fix matters quick-sharp if folks find anything that needs improving. Have at it. (NB: Is a wikicup nomination for me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks quite uncontroversial. Funny name (sounds a bit scifi) and a slightly whacky authority, but that's not a problem! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Spotchecks not done; I've not checked for missed sources. Just looking at reliability and formatting.
You've really delved into some obscure-sounding journals, here! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the University of Virginia's fraternity and sorority system, which has existed since the mid 1800s and whose history includes the founding of two national fraternities as well as other events of significance. The article details the history of the system and lists the Greek organizations on grounds including foundation date, a picture of the residence (if there is one), and other notes. Puppysnot (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have performed only a cursory prose review, primarily examining structural and referencing requirements. There is arguably a case to be made that the long tables constitute a list article (and thus a candidate for FLC rather than FAC), but I'll not address that consideration, and treat this as an article that merely includes a large subsidiary list.
It's very clear that a lot of work has been put into this article, but I believe that it still has quite a bit to go before meeting the FA criteria. Regrettable, I thin oppose on prose and structure, and oppose outright on the current state of referencing and reference formatting. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is a comprehensive history of one of the most distinctive aspects of Roman architecture. Roman/Byzantine domes were built throughout a millennium and a half of very dynamic history and gradually developed in form, materials, and use over that period. No other ancient architecture is as well studied, although lots of questions remain and I have tried to respect any ambiguities that are found in the sources. The Pantheon is maybe the most noted dome in the world, but existed in a larger context and as part of a non-stop tradition from the Roman Republic to the fall of Constantinople. I learned all sorts of interesting details and I hope I've done the topic justice. The article has received a peer review, achieved Good Article status (where it was suggested for a Featured Article nomination by the reviewer if the lead was improved), and was recently featured on the main page with a DYK, all of which were new experiences for me. This is my first Feature Article nomination and I will be available to address comments and make changes for a few hours each day for the foreseeable future. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I visited all four of the domes in the "overview" section's photographs a couple of years ago (without intentionally going on a dome-themed tour of southern Europe!), so can hopefully provide a useful assessment of this article. Here are my comments:
In my opinion, the main problem with the lead is that it doesn't define your subject. How 'bout this:
The article is incomplete. I find no explanation of the color symbolism of Orthodox domes. Onion domes are not mentioned, as are other church designs listed in the Russian church architecture (e.g., kokoshniki). In the "Influence" section, a link to Neo-Byzantine architecture in the Russian Empire and a picture of the Kronstadt Naval Cathedral would be helpful. --Ghirla-????- 09:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 running of The Boat Race was an epoch-marking second ? the three "senior" races were held, back-to-back, on the Tideway for the first time in the history of the event, which dates back to 1829. This article was one of the last of the entire set that I got to good article status, a day or two after the races themselves. I waited for a long time for a peer review and received some very brief comments, so I thought (no, I knew) if I brought it here, it'd receive a much more critical examination. Thanks in advance to everyone who spends any time or energy in the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Otherwise little to fault really...looks comprehensive and prose is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Haven't really commented on an FA review before, just saw this pop up on my watchlist and thought I'd give my two cents. Apologies if I'm doing this wrong.
Well, here we are again. Since the last FAC this article has gone through MILHIST A-Class review and a number of improvements. Thank you, --ceradon (talk ? contribs) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I supported last time and have just read through the article again; I think this is excellent work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the ancient city of Palmyra. It was an important metropolis during the first three centuries of the Roman Empire and became famous in ancient sources for its warrior queen Zenobia, while in contemporary times, it is famous for the numerous well preserved ancient ruins combining both Greco-Roman and Near-Eastern traditions. The city is designated as World Heritage Site and is endangered due to the Syrian Civil War. The article was copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors and it received a peer review.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Thorpe was the most talked-about politician in England 40 years ago, for all the wrong reasons ? see Thorpe affair for details. Last December El Rhazi died, and a new biography came out ? publication had been delayed for fear of libel laws. I've used this new material to expand Thorpe's biographical WP article, and provide a fuller account of his life. I suppose, however, that what will always remain most prominent in readers' minds are the sensational events that finished his career prematurely. Comments are welcomed.
Support. I was a traveller through PR, where my minor concerns were happily dealt with. Since then the article has improved further and more than meets the FA criteria. ? SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ? having (as a young, very junior official) encountered and liked Thorpe in the early 1970s, I found this a painful article, but it seems to me to present the known facts fairly and without undue sensationalism. Widely sourced, fully cited and with good pictures. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 22:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Support?never met the Dog Terminator meself, despite going to school right next to Lib-Dem HQ, but I did very much enjoy reading Brian's recent piece about the Thorpe affair and Bomber's unfortunate downfall. I read through this biography a couple of times and had my say at PR (a seizure on an assault course, indeed). The article is of FA standard in my view regarding prose quality, sourcing etc and I have no qualms about supporting its promotion. ? Cliftonian (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ? Tim will curse me for saying this, but I don't remember Thorpe in the 1970s (not so much as an itch in dad's pants then), nor do I remember reading about him when I eventually did come along in the 1980s. Either I'm too young or too stupid; or perhaps both? Anyway, what I have read here has certainly educated me on about a man whose glowing career sadly ended in scandal as a result of his own promiscuity. An excellent account and one I'm happy to support to FA status. CassiantoTalk 10:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I had my say at the peer review and my concerns were answered. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I knew nothing about Thorpe until I read the article but I found it the article a comprehensive and interesting account of his life. Personally, I feel for what happened to him after El Rhazi was acquitted. I only spotted one minor nitpick. Z105space (talk) 07:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. I can find very little to object to here, and certainly nothing substantively affecting promotion. However, because I'm obligated to pick nits in reference formatting for any FAC review: all ISBNs should be presented as properly-formatted ISBN-13s. ISBN-10s can be converted to ISBN-13s with this handy tool, which I strongly encourage all FA-bound editors to bookmark. The Partington source needs an ISBN added, likely along with an edition number (the absence of which prevents me from determining the ISBN for you). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the 2012 Daytona 500, the first stock car race of the 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series. The race is well known for driver Juan Pablo Montoya losing control of his car and hitting a jet dryer, which overshadowed the success of race winner Matt Kenseth. The event was also the second most watched 500 in history and the most viewed on the Fox TV network. Furthermore, it was delayed from February 26 to February 27 because of rain and the race was the first to be broadcast in prime time. This article underwent a copy-edit from the GOCE and I welcome all feedback received. Z105space (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. During a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction.
This is the second nomination for this article. The first nomination failed mainly because of a lack of reviewers. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I take it that you still support, Tim. Dr. B, have you any further comments to those issues raised in the first FAC? Do you accept my responses where I have not made changes? RedRose64 and Tivedshambo/Pek, do you have any comments re this FAC? Mjroots (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Editors should read the comments in Archive 1 before commenting here. This is to avoid duplication. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Tim brought me here with a request on his talk. I've fixed some refs for you and have laid down some "by whom" tags which I think need to be clarified. I'll continue to read and post here over the next few days. CassiantoTalk 21:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but the more I look at this article the more I see further problems. There is a lot of repetition in the prose; tunnels, station(s) are two words that spring to mind immediately and a lot of it can be either cut out or merged. There are a lot of stubby lines which makes for some bumpy reading; POV issues which could be worded in a more neutral way, and punctuation errors are also present (two of which I have fixed). On the whole, I don't think it's ready. I see you had a peer review which resulted in a couple of people turning up, but to be honest, I don't think it has been of benefit. I would suggest you withdraw the nomination, look about at FA and note down past editors who have been successful in producing featured articles on the railways. I would then approach them and ask them to take part in a review of some kind. On the plus side, I would say that this article is very well researched. It could be a fascinating article if the writing matched in quality. CassiantoTalk 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
No comments to make, but full support (making it explicit this time, as I hadn't realised a lack of negative comments wasn't enough). ? An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 06:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I haven't finished the Background section, yet I've identified quite a few problems. The information is all here in the article, but its presentation seems to need quite a bit more work. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Later comment: I have raised a number of prose and presentational points on the talkpage. Mostly these have been addressed, and I think the article has improved. My remaining concerns, which I have passed to the nominator, are:
Changing the map is trivial- knowing what is required involves thinking. All my svgs are done using Inkscape- which is free on Linux and I think Microstuff. I am doing a few at the moment File:London dial.svg etc. So how do you want it changed? I can't quickly find an similar FA page to see what is required. Maybe this is case of doing a pencil sketch, scanning and sending an outside email. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The number of photos is greatly excessive, and causes appreciable amounts of white space at the end of the article. Please be more selective with the choice of images. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? All images in the article are valid. I appreciate that some of them are not the best quality, but they are the best that we've got. There is one image still needing to be added, I'm in correspondence with Network Rail re filling this gap. The ticket images could be combined into a unmarried image. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, a NASCAR race held at Talladega Superspeedway. I've brought this here twice before, and while the article partly failed due to lack of response, it also was suggested that the prose be revisited. After a copyedit by the GoCE, I'm hoping third time's the charm. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey, Mike Christie, Laser brain, and Ian Rose: I'm not sure if NASCAR just isn't as popular at FAC or what, but it appears even articles that were nominated more recently than this have drawn far more attention than this one. Since you all reviewed 2010 Sylvania 300, if you are free, I'd greatly appreciate you all taking a look at this article (no sweat if you're busy, of course, just don't want this to receive archived due to a lack of answer again). Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - The prose in this article looks in much better shape after the GOCE looked at it. I would hate for this to be archived for a third time just because of a lack of interest in this article. Z105space (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the Clinton Engineer Works, the Manhattan Project's largest facility. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Support, noting that I've reviewed this formerly (at ACR I think). One minor point is that I think the capitalisation is off slightly on the bibliography; I think the MOS would have "Oak Ridge National Laboratory: the first fifty years" as " Oak Ridge National Laboratory: The First Fifty Years". Hchc2009 (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Support and Comment: though I performed a copy edit, I do think the article cries out for further characterization of what life was like to live there both during and after the war. What were the community's secrecy standards? How compartmentalized were jobs and responsibilities? What percentage of workers were professional scientists vs. "worker bees", as well as women and minorities? And the big question: if they didn't know specifically the project they were working on before the atomic blast at Hiroshima, what did they believe they were involved in? And what was their reaction to that? Pride? Concern over radiation effects (hushed up after Hiroshima)? Much is unanswered.
I notice that the adjunct Oak Ridge, Tennessee article gives more space to the racial segregation issue, also to the notion that workers were in the dark before Hiroshima. We also get hints of a more democratic and/or autonomous community spirit arriving after the war. But here it gets short shrift: was there a resident-driven movement to break from socialism and government controls and heavy-handedness? How did these changes come about? Also, what kind of salaries and budgets did these households have, were they "captive spenders" in the government-constructed businesses, beholden to native health authorities, and why was life in general there fulfilling and/or wanting? The education question seems open, more unanswered than answered especially given that at least some working there were highly-educated scientific types. Above all, I read this article mouth agape at the relatively-crude early nuclear technology, constantly wondering about long-term public health and nuclear contamination issues, wondering if there are statistical references (even anecdotes) which could be cited. The article seems a bit long-winded, particularly on the construction details, in light of these various social omissions?won't other readers have the same questions I do?
My copy edit didn't find big problems, but a couple of sentences seem cumbersome, e.g.: "In September 1942, Compton asked a physicist, Martin D. Whitaker, to form the nucleus of an operating staff for X-10." I'd avoid words like "nucleus" (and "core") to describe such groups, since they seem confusing in light of the overall scientific context.
I DO like the article, and if I sound over-critical it is in fact because I'm thoroughly intrigued. Just wish it were sprinkled with a little more humanity, for lack of a better word: a sense that people lived, worked, and grew up in a very odd and rarefied environment. From the sources, can we generate a little bit more of that? Thanks for all the good work ? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is the sole reason why I began editing Wikipedia. It began with my first ever edit in April 2008 and then the first edit I made with my account in June 2009. Me and Dr. Blofeld finally promoted it to GA in February 2012 after a complete overhaul of the article and ransacking google books and other sources to make it as comprehensive as possible. Now seven years later and after over 600 edits to this article, I'm finally nominating it for FA as I believe the article is reaching the FA criteria.
The article has received extensive comments at its peer review, in which all are now addressed. I never would have dreamed that after seven years this would come close to meeting the criteria! This article is as comprehensive as can be for a little village, and is a prime example of what can be accomplished with the drive and determination of just a few editors. Bentworth is a mythical village, with several large manors and so much history bum all of them. I look forward to any comments and will do everything to address them. JAGUAR 20:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
The story of the Hitler Diaries has twice been brought to the screen?both times as comedy/farce. There is much to laugh at, as an inept and bungling forger managed to fox the brains of the world's media, and some heavyweight historians in the bargain. Even when read as straight prose, there are still enough moments of suspended disbelief to make you wonder whether the whole was a work of fiction. Sadly for those at Stern magazine, the diaries were the only fictitious element in this story of incompetence, greed, bungling, ineptitude and mismanagement?with a dash of fraud and some old Nazis thrown in for good measure. A strong cast showed up for an extremely constructive and useful PR, which has tightened this up immensely. I welcome all comments and thoughts once again. ? SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Support? I was a latecomer to the PR, by when there was very little I could add. The article sets out a complicated story with great clarity, is well balanced, highly readable, thoroughly referenced, and illustrated as well as one could imagine. Clearly meets the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 13:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ? I've had a fast skim through and see that all my points were addressed at the peer review. Furthermore, the comments given by others have improved this article even more. Based on that, I believe that this article meets every bit of the FA criteria. CassiantoTalk 23:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Very much enjoyed by me, but in need of one more run-through to pick up assorted nitpicks, as listed. I imagine that you will dispose of these with due speed, and I will be revisiting shortly.
Finally (not for action), don't you think that Gerhard Weinberg looks suspiciously like the elderly P.G. Wodehouse? See this. Perhaps the old prankster was behind it all ? I think Riley should listen of this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support?I had been intending to get to this subject myself eventually, but I am very pleased to see SchroCat has got here before me and made an excellent job of it. I had my say at the peer review and have also made some copy-edits since then. In my view the article is an excellent, well-sourced account and meets the FA criteria. I have no qualms about supporting. Thanks for your work on this, SchroCat. ? Cliftonian (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support I was hoping to leave some comments, but after reading through the article I find it very comprehensive and the prose is well written. This article definitely meets the FA criteria. Well done on all the work put into this - it was an interesting read. JAGUAR 23:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The Hitler Diaries affair may be my favourite historical and journalistic train wreck, and this article is in excellent shape - thank you for developing it. I have the following comments:
Support My comments are now addressed. Once again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We've buffed over twenty constellations to FA status now - this article is the next in line. I think it is as good as the others. It's had an astronomer (Mike Peel (talk · contribs)) look it over as well as a few astronomy wikiproject folks. (and yes it is a wikicup entry) Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ? comprehensible even by an astronomic ignoramus like me. Clear, evidently comprehensive, very pleasingly written and well illustrated. Seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I wondered if there might be a suitable citation for the pleasing line about testing one's eyesight, but it's hardly a matter of great moment. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
SupportComment: I'd expect to see W Ursae Minoris, RU Ursae Minoris, and SS Ursae Minoris all mentioned somewhere; they're all well-studied and interesting star systems. StringTheory11 (t ? c) 02:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: My concerns were addressed and I believe it is FA worthy. Praemonitus (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm moving to Ursa Minor Beta!! At last, a proper constellation, i.e. one I can see all year round. Just a couple of quibbles before I support this excellent article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This short article is about an obscure, recently extinct parrot, which lived alongside the dodo and other extinct Mascarene species. Most, if not all, scientific sources that deal with the bird have been cited and summarised here. As in other FAs about recently extinct species never described in life by scientists, contemporary accounts are quoted in the article, as little else is known about the animal. I have included a selfmade restoration of this parrot based on the sources, which is one of the few (I only know of three others) ever made that depict it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I came here to do a source review, but here I am with almost nothing to suggest in the way of improvements - all the sources are consistently cited using the {{cite}} template and variants thereof, page numbers are given where available, and every source has a functional hyperlink. My one quibble is that the books cited are not consistent in their ISBNs; some use ISBN-10, others use the newer ISBN-13. I'd suggest converting them all to ISBN-13; there's a tool here that will calculate the ISBN-13 for you from the older version. The Hume (Zootaxa) citation also needs an ISBN adding (it's 978-1-86977-124-9 for the online edition). Beyond that, everything looks good on the sources front. Yunshui ?? 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a professional basketball player that closed out high school by posting an exceptional number of points, behind only Maureece Rice and future Hall of Famer Wilt Chamberlain. He started out college purely as a substitute, but became known as his team's hero only two years later in the 2013 NCAA Tournament. A lot of work has been put into making this article meet the GA criteria, and with some more feedback, it should be able to meet the FA criteria as well. TempleM (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the only one of the 88 contemporary constellations to be split into two separate regions in the sky. It has had feedback from a professional astronomer (Mike Peel), and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. StringTheory11 (t ? c) 02:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Suppport: my concerns were addressed or explained, Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the second album by American rock band the New York Dolls. A hard rock and proto-punk album, it was released to poor sales but predated punk rock, received critical acclaim, and became a popular cult rock record. I withdrew the first FAC nomination last August because I had opened another FAC at the same time (). It has since been slightly expanded and copy-edited. Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Up to here. I've been copy editing as I've gone, feel free to disagree with any of it. CassiantoTalk 07:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Support this to FA. It is well researched, nicely written and comprehensive. CassiantoTalk 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Nothing else jumped out at me, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Conditional oppose?I am finding basic grammatical errors in the prose. In addition, there is redundancy and awkward phrasing. With that said, I am willing to withdraw my oppose once all my concerns have been addressed.
The subject of this nomination is famous for a movie about a mutiny that took place aboard her in 1905, part of the Russian Revolution of that year. Sergei Eisenstein made his movie twenty years after the mutiny and it has been acclaimed as one of the greatest movies of all time, but the ship itself had an interesting history during World War I in the Black Sea. The article had a MilHist A-class review two years ago and that review pointed out that I needed to expand coverage of the ship in Eisenstein's film. I've finally done that and I've also taken the opportunity to tweak the article in answer to comments that I received recently from some informal reviews in preparation for this FAC. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
The Halifax Explosion was the largest man-made explosion before the development of nuclear weapons. It was also a key moment in Canadian history, one that is still studied and commemorated to this day. This article has successfully undergone a MilHist A-class review. All comments welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
That's it from me ? a fascinating read on a topic I was unaware of before. Cheers ? SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ? that looks good to me, and I'm happy to support now. Thanks for such an interesting read. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support ? Brilliant article, I enjoyed reading it. I couldn't really detect any problem. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment?I probably won't have time to read the whole article, so I'll never get around to supporting (overall it looks good though). However, I do feel that the introductory sentence is rather insufficient in summing up what the article is about. That is to say, it only says when the Halifax Explosion occurred, not what it even is. Perhaps becoming in a brief "was a (maritime) disaster that occurred" in there will do the trick? The Wikipedian Penguin 21:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - I read through top to backside without stopping, found it a fascinating story, no prose glitches to make me stop, just really well done imo. Maybe I like explosions? Who knows. On the trivia side, I always wondered why Boston's Christmas trees came from there. Also, I looked at all the images: each is nicely and appropriately licensed (for a cheap & nasty IR). Well done! Victoria (tk) 20:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about... a wing curler coaster at Cedar Point amusement park. This article has gone through two nominations with the issues being addressed each time. It was not promoted due to inactivity last nomination. This article matches the format of other curler coaster FAs. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about one of the most famous dinosaurs, and the first member of its group of armored dinosaurs to be nominated for FAC. Only incomplete remains of this genus are known, and few scientific papers have been devoted to it, so the article mainly relies on a 2004 monograph, which is the most detailed account of the animal published so far. Some info has also been included from papers about the Ankylosauria suborder in general as well as closely related genera. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I am happy with the alterations made. The subject of the article is outside my area of expertise and the prose is necessarily heavy going. As far as I can see, the article covers the subject comprehensively and the prose is of good quality so I am prepared to support this candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Excellent work. I'm not sure if I am allowed to vote as I already have contributed quite a bit, but I wish to provide some additional feedback:
This article is about... Rihanna's single "Man Down" from her fifth studio album, Loud. The song was a massive hit in France, and the song's accompanying music garnered much controversy due to its rape and murder theme. The article has been edited by the GOCE. ? Calvin999 08:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I will not have access to the internet between 21 July and 28 July, and will be unable to respond to any comments in this nomination for that duration of time. ? Calvin999 17:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose at the moment, although I imagine you'll be able to turn around my comments in no time. Azealia911 talk 23:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Conditional oppose?the prose needs a little bit more work, but by the end of this review, I look forward to supporting this.
I won't be able to respond to any comments or feedback until Monday 27 now (one week from today). I've addressed everyone's comments above. ? Calvin999 20:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Note to coordinators and nominator?I have struck my oppose and hope to read through the article once more before giving my support. The Wikipedian Penguin 13:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the first Triple Crown winner in 37 years, a delightful young racehorse with a brilliant future. The team at WikiProject horse racing worked very hard on this article. This is, I think, the fourth or fifth FAC presented by WikiProject horse racing, and we look forward to the review Montanabw(talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I know nothing about horses, racing and so on but have happily had a look through at prose, formatting etc. I think this is well written and structured and have tried to help out a little with copy-editing. I am sorry not to be giving a more detailed review but I really feel unqualified to remark on the real content where I am so utterly ignorant of the field. Nevertheless I am comfortable endorsing the prose, formatting etc as meeting the FA criteria. I like the 2015 Belmont Stakes photograph very much; great action shot, really rather majestic. Impressive, like your article. Well done to all concerned, and apologies again. ? Cliftonian (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Nicely put together and well-written. Two minor points for you to consider, which will not impact my support: the link to Littleprincessemma is a circular link back to the article, so it should either be stubbed or the link removed. The second point relates to FNs 31 and 32 with a double set of quote marks because of the horse's name. I think I'm right in saying that we should use a single quote mark within quotes, and this stands true for titles too. ? SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
That's all. Nice work to all of you at Wikiproject horse racing. It's been an exciting year! Victoria (tk) 19:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I like the animated style, showing contagious enthusiasm for the subject, including in many quotes by other enthusiasts. I am not familiar with horse language, so can tell that it's comprehensible to an outsider ;) - Minor points, and just questions you can answer with no:
Hans Memling painted this pretty Annunciation scene around 1480. It's simple, striking, and has interesting iconography, yet someone must not have liked it very much because when a Polish prince found it in one of his family's estates early in the 19th century, it had been pierced through by an arrow. Early in the 20th century it was brought to America, transferred to canvas, and now resides in New York at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Ceoil helped with suggestions, copy-editing, image placement, and encouragement. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The word "stunning" comes to mind about the images. All images are on Commons and appropriately licensed. Is there a way you could scan "Boucicaut hours visitation" so it's not crooked? The prose is well-done, almost as if walking through a museum and having a tour guide explain it all. ? Maile (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about one of the largest Ancestral Puebloan great houses in Chaco Culture National Historical Park. It was recently the subject of a two-month-long peer review, where eleven editors commented, including several of our most prolific and respected writers. One of the world's leading Chaco scholars and Chetro Ketl experts, Stephen H. Lekson, was kind enough to vet the article and give me paper money via google docs. He said it was "great" and an "excellent" presentation of a complicated topic. Having benefitted from substantial input from others, I believe this article meets or exceeds the FA criteria. RO(talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've just added direct links to the photos and their descriptions for all items from the NPS Museum photo gallery that are in the article. The photos were taken by the National Park Service. The dating of these objects is included on their gallery pages. They all seem to be 13th century or before. We hope (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I also looked at this during the PR. It is a very well presented and thorough article. Just a few further comments:
Have we had a source review for formatting/reliability? Also I think this might be RO's first solo FAC if promoted, in which case I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It's nice to be back on the project, and I'm happy to return to my FAC reviewing work by looking at this excellent, (nearly) comprehensive piece. Chaco Canyon is amazing, and I'm happy to see an article about part of it here. This review focuses on sourcing comprehensiveness and reference formatting. I did not perform a thorough prose review.
These generally minor topics aside, this is excellent work. Conditional on reference formatting cleanup and inclusion of more recent timber research and some coverage of modern conservation, I am pleased to support promotion to FA status. Nicely done, RO. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Support (I also made a tiny contribution to the peer review, for the record.) First of all, I apologize for taking so long to get to this! As you might have guessed, I haven't been very active lately; this time of the year is busy for me and I don't get as much time as I would like to undertake work here on Wikipedia.
Overall, this is a very well-written article and quite informative. As an utter layman in the area of native architecture, I found this informative and easy to understand. I made a few minor changes, which you should feel free to alter or revert at your whim if I have made any mistakes or introduced any inconsistencies. Although I think this is generally up to snuff, I do have some minor considerations. (I don't care for the use of external links in the body of an article, but I believe that is widely accepted now.)
That's all I've got! It looks quite good overall, so even considering the minor quibbles above, I think this is perfectly suitable to be a featured article.-RHM22 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a movie that has been running in a theater in India for almost 20 years, making it by far the longest running film ever in the country. It helped propel to stardom an actor who is now arguably the biggest movie star in the world. I have put a lot of work into this article in hopes to get it promoted to FA, and possibly make TFA on its 20 year anniversary. I look forward to your feedback. BollyJeff | talk 03:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know so much about the FAC process so that's all I have to say. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 11:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the latest entry in my survey of the battles of the Texas Revolution. It's a mostly forgotten episode that had little actual impact on the war or its outcome, although it has the distinction of having been fought at just about the same hour that leaders in Texas were declaring independence several hundred miles away. There is a bit of drama - ambush! high-speed chase across the countryside! stampeding horses! Karanacs (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Images - only image is the map, which is appropriately licensed. Are there any other images that could be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - this is a nice easy read and gives me a sense of the Texas Revolution - a war that I've always found confusing for some reason. I can't remember the exact rules regarding non-breaking spaces, but introduced one in this edit because the number was on a separate line. Otherwise I can't find any nitpicks. Nice work. Victoria (tk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
My first FAC! ... The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection is the Communist Party of China's main anti-corruption agency. Its been in the news lately, most notably in the form of apprehending Zhou Yongkang. --TIAYN (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I've finished reviewing the article. I had some last thoughts, but I can see they've been covered in one way or another. I don't think there are serious problems with this article (leaving prose quality, which I'm not all that good to judge, aside); after the raised issues are fixed (which seems doable to me), I'll gladly support the article.--R8R (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Following the disappointment of this year's Football League Championship play-offs in which bitter and long-standing rivals Canaries and Tractor Boys faced off for a place at the last at Wembley, Dweller thought it would be a good idea to rub salt into the wounds by suggesting we get Norwich's home stadium, Carrow Road, up to FA quality in time to celebrate its 80th birthday. So we had a stab up getting it up to snuff, and humbly submit it to the community for scrutiny and criticism. We both appreciate any time and energy commentators spend on this nomination, thanks in advance and we'll both do our best to get to any actions as soon as we can. COYB/OTBC The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to have had a chance to pre-review this, as I don't think it's quite up to FA standard at the moment, although there's no reason why it can't be ready for a 31 August TFA. I have read it through rather quickly, and have so far picked up a few issues:
I'll try and look at the prose in more detail, a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I am carrying out a detailed prose review. Rather than cluttering this page with detailed comments, I am leaving them on the article's talk. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's all I have, and if you can deal with these remaining issues I'll be ready to support. But you really need to get some more eyes on the article, bearing in mind your TFA target date. There are editors around who are much more knowledgeable than me about sports stadiums, and it may be worth making them aware of this FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Right, I made some tweaks, see if you're ok with them. Agree with Brian about dequoting and did some more. Left a couple that has some wittiness/tongue-in-cheek aspect to them.
Overall looking ok....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC) ultimately its a tentative support from me as it is a reasonable read and I can't see anything left out nor any clangers prose-wise remaining. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the first commanding officer of the 10th Battalion of the 1st Australian Imperial Force, the first battalion of that force raised wholly from South Australia. He commanded the battalion at the Landing at ANZAC, at the Battles of Pozières and Mouquet Farm, and only requested relief when El Rhazi was one of the oldest commanding officers of the original Australian force. He was relieved at the age of 50, and returned to South Australia to lead the public service before retiring as a brigadier general. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????G'day, Adam Cuerden, could you have a look at the licensing I've used here and tell me if it ok? Once it is renamed, I will replace the pic in the infobox. Thanks for your help here! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Comments -- just a placeholder for now, I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and plan to recuse my coord duties and look it over here, but would like to give others a chance first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2015? (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: I think this one is very close to being over the line. Can I have approval to nominate a new FAC while the wheels turn? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
As Wikipedia's resident expert on penis comics, I hereby present the grandaddy of all penis comics?and the work on whose shoulders squarely lays the blame for the 40+-year fad in confessional comics that at times threatens to glut and drown the whole field of English-language arts comics. The work's protagonist-author unknowingly suffers from an obsessive?compulsive disorder which results in intrusive thoughts that make him see everything even vaguely phallic?including his own fingers?blasting every religious object in sight with sinful "pecker rays". This editor's last "penis comics" nomination somehow survived an initial onslaught of sensible opposition?hopefully the sheer proliferation of penises in this one will ensure the community will not allow another such error. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I do not wish to review this further, but after reading the article for fun, it seems to me to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Another reviewer should do fact checking and think about what could have been added but is not present. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Kill 'Em All is Metallica's debut and the album that heralded the forthcoming thrash and extreme metal scenes. I've presented the events that preceded its creation and the atmosphere during recording. There's also the music and lyrics analysis, as well as the tour that occured after the album's release. Though the album did not have a successful commercial run in its initial days, it aged well and is regarded as one of the best representative of thrash metal's early days. Hope to receive positive feedback from my peers.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Support (at the moment) - It does not seem to overlook anything essential. Beautiful work on the prose. Sources are all good. I'll check images and certification refs in a moment, because I see Master of Puppets had some problems in that area, but I'm liking this so far. I'm self-assured that this is going to go very well. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
My second Featured Article nomination after five years, for a programme that is 50 years old this year. Promoted to Good Article status in December, it has since been copy-edited several times and provides ? in my opinion, at least ? a comprehensive treatment of the subject's main elements (particularly its production) and appropriate summary treatment of its sub-elements. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking on target for FA status otherwise I think...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Coord note -- Welcome back to FAC, SuperMarioMan. Since it's been a long time between drinks, I'd like to see a reviewer conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as well as the usual source review for formatting and reliability. Requests for those can be posted at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Samuel J. Randall, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, half-hearted presidential candidate, and a long-serving politician from my hometown, Philadelphia. The last biography in my long-running 1880 series, it contains a lot of tariff and monetary disputes that no longer fascinate the nation as they once did, but should (I hope) be an enjoyable read. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Taking a look now. WIll make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently guff the meaning) and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Rest of it reads well, without any prose-clangers leaping out at me, and its sounds comprehensive, so it's a tentative support pending a bit of investigation above....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a professional wrestling tag team. It has been a Good Article for several years, and it should be featured because it is complete, reliably sourced, and well written. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'll take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Overall, I'm reading it and it jumps around - there is not enough context in several bits to give me an idea of what's going on. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I added a bit to the "Formation" section, but very little behind-the-scenes information is ever shared. I added a date for WrestleMania, and changed the rematch "wrestled a match against", and "went into a feud" parts. It is standard in all professional wrestling articles for the "In wrestling" section to be in list form. I'll try to add a bit of context to improve the flow. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Here we go - in return for your comments on WK9: starship.paint ~ KO 09:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Last sentence rewritted, source added for repeated result, third subsection renamed, Beefcake statement changed, 2007 reunion cited with archived link, Million Dollar Championship explained, Jimmy Hart picture added (if someone wants to move the images around, I'm not offended). Wrestlecrap is a reliable source, as R.D. Reynolds has published multiple wrestling-themed books with ECW Press (no relation to the other ECW) and is an accepted industry expert. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about an ambitious and capable Turkish soldier, whose tumultuous career in the collapsing Abbasid Caliphate led him to become the ruler of Egypt in 935?946 and founder of a dynasty that ruled much of the Middle East until 969. The article relies heavily on Jere L. Bacharach's 1975 monograph, which is the most comprehensive study to date, but complements this with several other related sources. It passed a thorough GA review and had a very smooth MILHIST A-Class review, with only minor additions/tweaks since then, so I feel confident that it meets FA criteria. Constantine ? 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though the maps are a bit difficult to read at that text size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Comment -- recusing from coord duties, I reviewed/supported at MilHist A-Class Review and, having checked all additions/changes since then, reiterate the gist of what I said there:
This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. The previous FAC was closed simply by lack of reviews. Cambalachero (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll post some other comments and suggestions after re-reading the article a few more times. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about a little-understood genus of nocturnal lemur form Madagascar. This is my second try at FAC with this nomination, after the first one was suspended due to insufficient feedback. Hopefully more people will take interest this time. ? Maky « talk » 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a well prepared article by an experienced editor and I can't find much to criticize. I do not have access to the two heavily cited books and thus cannot check the content. I've made a few edits to the article - please check that you agree.
Support - the article satisfies the criteria. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
These are just quibbles though and easy to fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The article seems comprehensive and well written. Apart from making a trivial correction, I had to read a third of the way through the article before I could find anything to quibble about!
This article is about Dave Gallaher, the Irish-born captain of the first New Zealand national rugby union team to tour the British Isles and France. He was subjected to appreciable criticism during the tour for what the British press considered unsportsmanlike play. Prior to playing international rugby El Rhazi served in the Second Boer War, and later served in France during the First World War where El Rhazi was killed at Passchendaele. Shudde talk 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for taking so long to get to this, Shudde. I'll have a look through and note any thoughts as I go through.
This was the first fighter squadron raised by Australia under the Empire Air Training Scheme during World War II, and Rupert and I hope to make it the first such article in WP to accomplish FA-Class. Operating P-40 Kittyhawk fighter-bombers, No. 450 Squadron saw action in North Africa and Italy before its disbandment at war's end. In the former theatre it earned its nickname of The Desert Harassers thanks to none other than Lord Haw-Haw. The article history and talk page talk to the number of people who've helped get it to this stage, and we thank them all, along with our Milhist A-Class reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose 04:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 10:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the second busiest freeway in Canada. I recently put subjected this to ACR so it should be pretty polished. Hopefully it will attract more attention than my previous nomination Floydian ? ¢ 00:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Procedural note -- Floydian, per FAC instructions, when a review has been archived you're expected to wait two weeks before nominating any other article (not just the same one), unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. We hadn't caught this one before it attracted some commentary so will leave it open, but pls follow the instructions in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a short article about a very infrequent substance that does not naturally exist; 15 atoms have been synthesized in complete since 2010, all decaying away in less than a second. The article is short, yet quite complete. The subject is quite technical, but I hope the article is readable; some efforts have been applied to assure that. The previous FAC highlighted problems in prose quality; this article has been copyedited (and updated) since then, so it should be okay in that respect now. Your comments are very welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Reading the summary above revealed the interesting detail about the number of atoms that have been synthesized, which I had missed in a couple of read-throughs of the article. I have added this to the lede. YBG (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Here we have the most recent element to be discovered. I am certain that the global criteria (1d, 1e, 3 and 4) are satisfied; the prose criteria are mostly OK, though I have some qualms with the weight given to the two major topics (while 2c follows from citation templates, 2b is satisfied if the naming section is subsumed into history and 2a seems questionable given the higher weight on history rather than characteristics in the lead, though I'll pass over this for now). Criteria 1abc I haven't looked over yet; I have made some unifying edits in the meantime. Parcly Taxel 03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
As for the article's content, it seems good (but I don't know, this isn't exactly my field of expertise). --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the 1995 science fiction action comedy film. Truly one of a kind; people either love it or don't get it at all. I've loved it since the first time I watched it as a child. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@Editorofthewiki: Yeah good point, I added four more reviews. Better? (Haha yeah you either love it or hate it, you don't find many people sitting on the fence about this one lol)Freikorp (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
@Editorofthewiki: @Steve: Hi guys, just pinging you both here one final time to see if you have any further comments or concerns. Freikorp (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Support from Cliftonian. Have capped all my input below. Well done Freikorp. ? Cliftonian (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
A pretty good job overall and an article I enjoyed reviewing. An odd film (haven't watched it personally, but have seen a fairly thorough summary and read of a couple of reviews). If you ask me part of why it did so badly at the box office was probably the really appalling theatrical release poster, which makes the film look like something for kids. Anyway, I hope this helps. Cheers, ? Cliftonian (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Will note more as and when. Hope this helps. ? Cliftonian (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Metallica's third studio album, acclaimed effort by both critics and fans. I think it meets the FA criteria and hope to receive positive feedback.--Retrohead (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Support: Left my comments two rounds ago, has only improved since. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Support: The article is well written, plus Retrohead has put a lot of effort into it.-Teh Thrasher 12:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Support: All of my points have been addressed; good job. BollyJeff | talk 12:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Not up to par at the moment, but has potential to become so. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This article has defiantly come a long ways now and I salute the work put into it. I noticed though that on several album GA's, such as Aaliyah (album), the Background and the Recording sections are separate. Perhaps the same could be done here? --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Upon Retrohead's request I read the article. It is well-written, interesting, neutral and well-researched article which also present media. I hope that it will be presented as a TFA on the main page after its promotion. My lack of knowledge of arts, music and heavy metal albums is the only reason that I do not state that I support its promotion: I cannot decide whether the article is comprehensive. Sorry, for it. Borsoka (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Overall, seems very well written! In fact, I learned something while reading the article (regarding the Mustaine/Leper Messiah controversy).
I'll probably add a couple more matters as I see them, but that's all I got for now. Overall, seems very well written, it explores the background of the subject in-depth and seems to be well-sourced.
Additionally, it appears to meet all featured article criteria. Tenative Support, pending discussion of my commentary above.
Hey L1, thanks for the comments. I've switched the two sentences in "Touring" as you suggested. As for the first note, the second sentence states that "the album revitalized the American underground scene", implying that the first sentence is referring to the American thrash scene. I can add another "American" in the first sentence if you require, but I think it's not that necessary.--Retrohead (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the long awaited review.. You did a fantastic job with this article and I applaud your hard work! I now support the article's promotion to FA status. Best, jona(talk) 16:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Have I missed image and source reviews? If not, pls request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the World Heritage listed former Australian prison ? built by convicts, for convicts, between 1851 and 1859, and used as a prison until 1991. The previous FAC (which included an image review from Nikkimaria) was closed as "not enough commentary to come close to consensus to promote, plus it sounds like restructuring may be in order ... and ask that further improvements be made outside the FAC process". Restructuring/improvements during and slightly after that FAC (mostly trimming WP:SUMMARYSTYLE summaries) has seen the article prose size reduced from 64 kB to just under 50k. Whether or how to mention the "Routine", "Diet", and "Punishment" sections in the lead was an issue awaiting consensus from the previous FAC ? I have copied the relevant comments under (note that I have copyedited and trimmed the lead since then ). As before, I look forward to your comments, and hope to eventually bring the whole set of Fremantle Prison articles to good or featured topic status. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: I will be away on holiday from 28 June until 6 July, and may not be able to respond comments until afterwards. - Evad37 [talk] 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
This article is about the formation of Liverpool F.C. up until the appointment of Bill Shankly as manager. The article is currently a GA and I believe it is close to attaining featured standard. Thanks in advance for your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Overall, fairly engaging. I think I'll need to read it again. I do think this is within striking distance of FA-hood...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately, I think I tentatively support on comprehensiveness and prose, but don't know much about Liverpool so this is sort of pending on other folks' views as well. good luck..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Shudde talk. Thought I better do a review now that I've nominated an article myself. This one piqued my interest. Probably won't get the review done in one sitting, but here goes:
I'm done for now. I'll come and finish this off later. -- Shudde talk 05:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) More:
#Brian #El #Rhazi
No comments:
Post a Comment