Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2016

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2016 [1].

---

1999 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 1999 Atlantic hurricane season, which featured an above average number of hurricanes and major hurricanes, with a record number of Category 4 hurricanes. During the season, several interesting events occurred. Hurricane Bret narrowly missed Corpus Christi. Hurricane Floyd posed a serious threat to Florida as a hurricane far larger in size than Hurricane Andrew. In the end, Floyd caused over 2.6 million people to evacuate and left devastating floods, especially from North Carolina to New York. Hurricane Lenny, a late season major hurricane took an unusual west-to-east path across the Caribbean Sea, before leaving severe damage in the Lesser Antilles. I've covered these facts and much more information in the article. Especially during the past few days, I've been working hard on this article in order to ensure that it includes FA standard grammar and format. I would also like to say that this is a WikiCup nomination.12george1 (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Quick comment. Ten sections start with "A tropical wave". Could you change that up a bit? Also, I can't help but wonder if we should have a little note in the Katrina section. It's a famous name, and some people might be a little bit confused if they don't know when the main Katrina was. The writing is generally good. I'll do some copyediting today if I see any clunky prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Only four sections start with that now. As for Katrina, that's kind of an unusual request, given that we've never really done anything like that. Let me see what I can do.--12george1 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- three weeks without any further comment, I think this one's been lost in the list; feel free to re-nom without waiting the usual two weeks and perhaps it will get noticed at the top of the queue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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) 12:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2016 [2].

---

2006 Bank of America 500

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 Bank of America 500, a NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race held in Concord, North Carolina at Lowe's Motor Speedway on October 14, 2006. It was the 31st race of the 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series and marked the midway points in the season-ending Chase for the Nextel Cup. It was won by Evernham Motorsports driver Kasey Kahne, his sixth victory of the season. This is my second nomination; the first failed because of a lack of response from other reviewers. All comments are welcome. MWright96 (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry I seem like a broken record but it looks the same as last time; perhaps third time lucky if we again pull it from here and get it to the top of the queue (again don't need to wait the usual two weeks). Feel free to leave neutrally worded requests for comments with those who have already reviewed the article at some time, or indeed those who have reviewed any of your articles in the past, as well as relevant project talk pages, and also don't be shy about reviewing other FAC noms even if outside your comfort zone, which can have the long-term effect of getting you better known and hence can lead to editors stopping by your noms when they mightn't have otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 11:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2016 [3].

---

Ridge Racer (video game)

Nominator(s): Adam9007 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I nominated this several weeks ago, but had an incident. I believe I've fixed the issues raised at the first FAC and I'm ready to give this another shot. Adam9007 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Can't promise a full review, but I'll jot what I see.

• The first paragraph is a little choppy. Try to vary sentence length. Read aloud!
• "Ridge Racer got a highly positive reception" Informal.
  • Is "received" better? Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "the Namco Game Sound Express Vol. 11 album" I'm not keen on imbedded interwiki links like this. Isn't there something against them in the MOS?
• "In the PlayStation version, a mini-game of Galaxian can be played as the game loads. If won, eight additional cars become available. The cars vary in their specifications: some have a high top speed, others excel at acceleration or turning, and others present a balance. Certain cars are named after other Namco games such as Solvalou, Mappy, Bosconian, Nebulasray, and Xevious.[2][3] Once the game has loaded, the CD is needed only to play six music tracks. The disc can be replaced at any time during gameplay, although the game does not update; regardless of what disc is inserted, there will always be six tracks, corresponding to the starting points of the tracks on the game disc.[4][3]" Really? Open the gameplay section with information about cars going around tracks, not about minigames and music options!
• "(the latter two are extended)" What does this mean?
  • The latter 2 tracks are extended. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "reversed ones become available" What does this mean?
  • Reversed race tracks become available. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "13th Racing "Devil"" I don't follow
  • It's also known as the "Devil" car. Made that clearer. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "complete it before their rivals" Before their rivals completed it? This needs explaining.
  • I need to check, but I think it means they wanted to complete it before their rivals completed their competing game. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "radical differences" ?
  • Removed "radical". Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• Third paragraph of development has a lot of repetition.
  • Not entirely sure what you mean, but I think I've fixed what I think you're referring to. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• If you're writing in British English (though there is some disagreement about this among the FAC community) you may want to think about eliminating false titles, such as those used in "designer Fumihiro Tanaka" and "Visual director Yozo Sakagami".
• "more analogue feel" Can one use analogue like that?
  • I need to check, but I think that's what the source says. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "didn't have enough time to produce them" First, avoid contractions. Second, them is ambiguous.
• "but ended up producing techno, which Tanaka believed helped players to enjoy a fun feeling while playing" This needs to be reworked.
• "Commenting on the realism, Game Informer remarked" First, I'm not keen on the personification (but I know that a lot of people don't share my view). Second, why no italics?
• "Coming Soon Magazine praised" As above.
  • I'm not sure it's a print magazine; I've only seen it online. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• You could have a think about the reception section; organising it thematically rather than by reviewer may be preferable. Mike Christie has written some hints about this, which may be helpful: User:Mike Christie/Copyediting reception sections.
• "Ridge Racer is mentioned in the song My Console (1999) from the Italian electronic dance group Eiffel 65.[63]" So what?
  • Deleted. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "A similar game is included in Ridge Racer Revolution using the same cars under the name Pretty Racer (also known as buggy mode), the inspiration for this game." I don't understand.
  • Pretty Racer was the inspiration for Pocket Racer, or at least I think that's what the source says (I need to double check). Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
• "under the name Ridge Racer 3D" Italics?
  • Done. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I've not looked at the sources and haven't looked closely at the images, but the amount of non-free content is bothering me a little. I'm left wondering precisely what the subject of this article is; is it about the PlayStation game, or both the PlayStation game and the arcade game? If the latter, it's a little light on the arcade game. (I made some edits; please double-check.) Josh Milburn (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I haven't done everything yet, but the article is about both. I'm not sure there's a lot to say about the arcade version, and the PlayStation version is based on the arcade version (the actual gameplay is the same in both versions). Do I need to get rid of any images? Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'm sorry but this seems to have stalled without attracting sufficient commentary to judge consensus to promote so I'll be archiving it shortly. Adam, as it appears you haven't taken an article all the way to FA yet, you'd be eligible to try the new FAC mentoring scheme if you'd like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 11:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2016 [4].

---

Jessica Chastain

Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to a less stressful and more constructive review of Miz Chastain's biography. Happy reading. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Drive by comments I've had a read of the "Media image" section, and have the following comments:

• If the article has to discuss Chastain being good looking, please do this concisely. The current material on this topic is spread across the section, and somewhat repetitive. Please also consider what sources are and aren't worth quoting as there seem to be too many.

The third paragraph has a couple of lines that talk about her physical features and looks, and each of them are attributed to different sources.

• ""timeless elegance ... almost incongruous for the current times"" - what this means is unclear.

Removed.

• "Chastain specializes in portraying emotionally grueling roles and is drawn towards parts of strong but flawed women" - why does she have this preference?

Every performer is drawn towards certain roles, and these seem to be Chastain's preference according to the cited source. The only explanation for the preference is that she likes seeing flawed women represented on screen.

• "Chastain is unique in being a Hollywood actress who overcame ageism to become a leading lady in her 30s" - is she really the only one ever?

Seems like one of the very, very few, per the cited reference.

• "Harper's Bazaar opines" - other quotes are attributed to the authors of articles, and it seems a bit odd that this one is attributed to the magazine

Tweaked.

• "Time magazine named Chastain one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2012" - why? This seems a pretty significant honour, and is out of place in a para which mainly discusses her looks.

Due to her achievements of the year, which has been described in detail in her career section.

• "and was named the celebrity endorser for a Yves Saint Laurent fragrance called Manifesto" - was she not "hired" or similar for this role? Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Tweaked.

Thanks for the comments, Nick-D. Krimuk|90 (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Can we have a pic of Bryce Dallas side-by-side to clarify the viewers the differences between the two? Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha, good one. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

[5] Also, the lead image is weird to say the least. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Why is it "weird"? She looks fresh as if issued to children on a beach. Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

At a glance: impressive. Just minor issues:

Lead

• Juliet, even with a link, is probably not known to all our readers, - perhaps specify as Shakespeare's Juliet?
• For the same reason, I suggest to add the authors' last names to the Cherry Garden and Salome, especially since Salome (opera) may be better known. If she performed the part of Salome, that might come out. Consider the same for plays throughout the article, without me mentioning it each time. I don't know if something similar should be done about films, or if they are known by their title only.
• I feel a bit of duplication in awards. The Golden Globe certainly doesn't two links within the lead, perhaps not even two mentionings.
• I would separate her producer work from work for social issues, - two sentences.

Done, except for the second point. I'm not sure if we need to mention the author's name at each instance - we never do that in any actor's biography. I guess if readers want to know more about the play, they can easily click on the wikilink. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Plays and operas seem to work differently. In a recent death biography, I helped by adding all these composers' names, it was wanted. Some titles of operas (and plays?) are less well-known, composers are more familiar. We (project opera) just have the last name without a link, such as Verdi's Falstaff, also to differentiate from the character by Shakespeare and possible use in film etc. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, makes sense. Added them. Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Early life ...

• "but following years of drug abuse", - it remains first unclear if Monasterio or Juliet are meant.
• I read first the quote about "not paying rent", then that she developed interest in acting at age 7, - the quote somehow seems to belong later.
• The image of the Juillard School should come where studying is mentioned.

Done.

Early roles

• "Despite written as a 16-year old", - you could say more clearly that Salome in the play is described as 16.

Done.

Need a break, will be back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time out to review this, Gerda Arendt. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to read, but it may take me until next week, - busy singing, need to improve Der 100. Psalm first, want to make that GA while it is on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, cool. No hurry. :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

2011: Breakthrough

• "After struggling for a breakthrough in film for a number of years, in 2011 Chastain had six film releases", - say "..., Chastain had six film releases in 2011", there's no rush to the time because it's in the header.
• "a drama about a troubled father (Michael Shannon) who tries to protect his family (Chastain played his wife) from an impending storm", - too many brackets holding up the flow. Perhaps 2 sentences, on plot, one actors?
• Perhaps my lack of language, but "backs up with luminous concern" is nothing I would understand, - do we need this detail?
• I'm confused about "her next role" and then read 2008, after the 2011s.
• "She was drawn to her character's anti-racist stand" - we have to guess who "she" is, after the two characters were mentioned last.
• "as good as [the cast] can be [...] they just can't quite pull it off" is another not too informative critic's line that doesn't help my understanding.

2014–15

• I think that after you said she's the protagonist of Julie, you don't need "(Chastain)".

So much for the prose. Please add alt texts for the images, as the lead image has already. I prefer to have refs in a separate section, but no need to change it for me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

All done. Thank you for the review, Gerda! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

• "During the film's opening weekend in North America, Chastain became one of the few performances to have leading roles in the top two films (Mama and Zero Dark Thirty) at the box office." I don't know what that means. Also: if the meaning is "ever", that's not right; think about films from the 20s through the 50s.
• "which is expected to partner with Maven Pictures to develop the film adaptations of two books.": Say what has happened (such as: someone was hired, a contract was signed, or early production work has started) rather than saying what someone thinks might happen. If nothing relevant has happened so far, then delete this.
• "and in 2013 she was placed in Maxim's listing of the 100 hottest women in the world." Delete. Maxim is widely perceived as soft porn. Sure, if no one else was saying anything nice about her, this wouldn't be a problem, but in the paragraph it appears in, it makes her look pretty shabby.
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very enjoyable; this makes me want to rent her films. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm so glad you liked it! She's an excellent actress and I'm sure you'll enjoy her work. Thank you for the review and the copy-edits, and I've addressed the three remaining concerns as well. Cheers! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Your edits addressing these points are great, thanks. I'm getting Interstellar from Netflix. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Marvelous film. Enjoy! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Haven't seen any of her films, but I find her to be an amazing actress from reading the text (and to state the obvious, she is gorgeous). Anyway, I've read down to the Early roles section; very well-written so far. Once you have replied to the comments, I will continue my review.

• I see you are a bit choosy as to when you put a comma after "In [the year]". This is not a big deal, but you should be consistent.
• "She said, "I used to cut..." To use the simple past, you need an explicit or implicit time marker (last month, yesterday, in 1999... or in this case, 2012). It needs to answer the question, "When did it happen?" If it doesn't answer the question, then the timeframe is vague, and the present simple or present perfect is more appropriate.
• "She relocated to California, taking up residence in Venice Beach" - why not just Los Angeles, California? I mean do you need to be so specific?
• "In 2004, Chastain took on the role of Anya" - Anya isn't a part of any literature nor a character of historic significance so I think you need to describe the role.
• "Her performance was not well received by the critic Ben Brantley of The New York Times" - the newspaper also needs to be linked.
• In the last para of the Early roles section, we are using "Chastain" a lot—some variety with "she" or other rephrasing might help this. And I notice that this is repeated throughout the article: do a Ctr-F search for Chastain and see how many come up. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, FrB.TG. I've addressed these concerns. Do let me know if I've missed out on something. Krimuk|90 (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Moving on...

• "After struggling for a breakthrough in film, Chastain had six film releases in 2011" - "film" in close proximity.
• "came with the comedy-drama The Help" - I haven't seen the film, but is it a comedy-drama? From what I have seen on the internet, it seems to be a period drama or something.
• "The ensemble of The Help won the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Cast and Chastain received her first Oscar nomination" - I think that her nominations should be mentioned first since the latter is of more relevance to her, no?

The sentence works better this way IMO. Mention the win first, then the nominations. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• "...and SAG nomination in the same category, all of which she lost to Spencer" - ref 8 does not mention the losing part.
• "including the New York Film Critics Circle, the National Society of Film Critics and the Los Angeles Film Critics Association" - I think an indefinite article here is more appropriate since you are not specific about the award. ignore this comment
• "in the drama The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (2013), in which she also served as producer" - or you could simply say "...which she also produced".
• "critic A. O. Scott" -freelance or for a newspaper?

A. O. Scott is one of the most distinguished film critics. He writes for NYT now, but since the wikilink to him is present, I didn't add the newspaper to avoid repetition. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• "had three releases" makes her sound like a producer or studio.

Quite common to say that an actor had "three film releases" in a year, isn't it? Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It is and as a matter of fact, I myself used it in my articles but a reviewer for Emma Stone complained about it. A better way of saying it might be that she appeared in three films. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• It might help linking Brooklyn.
• " She was drawn to the idea of playing a female warrior" - I'm seeing this phrasing (drawn to) a lot in the career section. I have read until the end of it.

I've only used the phrase twice. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I will perhaps post more comments when I read further. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking forward to the rest of your comments, FrB.TG :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Further comments

• Overlinking in the media section with The Guardian.
• The word "describe" (or its derivatives) is used eight times throughout the article.
• Either use The Daily Telegraph or The Telegraph unless I'm wrong in assuming that they are published by the same newspaper.
• Accessdate for ref 13 is missing.
• In references, link USA Today in ref 14 and do the opposite in ref 118. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

All done, FrB.TG. Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Here's an end to my review; providing a source review so that WT:FAC shouldn't be bothered. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Formatting: had a few issues above that are now resolved. I have another query though: Indiewire needs to be linked in ref 19.
• Accessdate missing for ref 29.
• The Huffington Post needs to be in italics - ref 47.
• Reliability: I don't personally have any issues, but watch out for a possible future tedious discussion about Women's Wear Daily - ref 140.
• Spot-checked a few sources (had an issue above which is again resolved): no issues. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, FrB.TG! :) Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work expanding the article. – FrB.TG (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Victoria

I have a few questions and comments:

Lead

• Name and place of birth - The New Biographical Dictionary of Film gives the name as Jessica Michelle Chastain and place of birth as Sacramento, [6]. It's probably best to stick with that. In the interview with the Independent, [7] she's very clear about wanting to maintain her privacy in terms of where her family lives. Regardless, it's best to use the higher quality source imo.
• We say the role for Juliet was her professional debut - do we know whether she was paid or whether it was a community theater performance? If not paid, then "professional" might not be correct.
• "Chastain's accolades" > not in love with the phrasing. Her awards?
  • Quick comment here ... "awards" would be inaccurate since we're including nominations there. "Accolades" is at least accurate; do you have another word in mind? - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree having looked at List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain. I think it can be reworked without "accolades" (but that's a personal preference and not necessarily actionable) to something along the lines of "Chastain has been nominated for two Academy Awards, two BAFTAs and received numerous awards for her work." It's a fairly extensive (and nicely presented) list. The link could be worked in somehow. But this is an extremely minor point. The more important issues are sorting out some of the Early life points I mentioned. I've read the rest of the article, generally agree with John's comments below, but the issue of her early life, her desire for privacy, her desire not to divulge the town where her siblings reside - all that should be respected and the section recast in summary style with fewer quotations and stronger sourcing. Victoria (tk) 23:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Early life

• Again the issue of where she was born. If we don't know for certain, it would be better say Northern California imo
• The Independent tells us the father's mother (her grandmother) was the vegan chef, [8], (which makes sense because there are lots of restaurants in that area) but we say her mother is the chef; the Guardian says the stepfather is the firefighter and her mother the chef, [9]. It's all very confusing. Does anything need to be fixed?
• I think the issue of her parents' age and marital status should be trimmed out. It's not really necessary and the article tells us she's reluctant to speak of it, yet we do. Also, having the mother's name on the birth certificate isn't out of the norm, so again I don't see a reason to mention it, and there's some close paraphrasing to the Guardian article in that section anyway.
• I'm also tempted to suggest that the circumstances around her younger sister's death be trimmed back or maybe shoved into a note; instead maybe simply explain that she had x number of siblings (half and full) and one died in 2003
• "adult diploma" > do you mean GED? Do we know what year she was supposed to graduate or do we even need to mention that? Would it be better to say she got a GED and went to Community College? This is not atypical for actors.
• Blockquotes don't use quotation marks so those can safely be removed.
• The role as Juliet was staged in Mountain View, in Silicon Valley, so it's probably ok to mention the specific area instead of the San Fran Bay Area, but that's a nitpick
• Probably best to clarify that Robin Williams didn't personally decide to fund her but that instead she received the scholarship from Juilliard that he endowed - again, these endowed scholarships are typical and Juillard accepts such a small number of students (only 24 if I remember correctly) that it's not atypical to receive one

That's as far as I've read, but generally suggest trying to lean on the stronger sources, i.,e the Independent, Guardian, NYT, etc. Will try to get back. Victoria (tk) 20:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from John

First read through shows a really good article, almost ready for promotion.

Images Images should normally be left as default size, unless there is a special reason to emphasise them.

Tone The tone is generally ok but it generally needs a look over for instances of "fan-speak"; there are too many items like "gaining widespread acclaim and recognition for her roles" and, for example, "Writing for Variety, the critic Steven Oxman criticized her portrayal .." which jangle and can be rewritten.

Quotes WP:QUOTATION tells us "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both." I think there are slightly too many quotes at present. Some of these quotes can be paraphrased, for example "She suffered from depression while working and said, '[one day] I excused myself, walked off set and burst into tears'." would look just as good as "She suffered from depression while working."

Specific queries "Mama eventually earned $146 worldwide." That seems a paltry sum for a film on world release; is $146M intended?

Yes, it's $146 million. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing here that can't be quite easily fixed. --John (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Note from nominator: Wanted to avoid this, but am posting here to avoid some more judgmental commentary on my personality. I am not going to edit here anymore. I previously wanted to wait till this FAC had closed before calling it quits, but I'm not in a state of mind to address concerns from a certain editor who can downgrade a well-written FA-class article without consequence. Keeping that in mind, I will not be returning to this FAC (and more importantly, to an encyclopedia that allows that to happen) after this. If any of my peers want to keep this FAC going, please feel free to replace me as the nominator. If not, the FAC can be withdrawn. Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- as there are still comments to be actioned, and there have been no volunteers after a week to take over the nomination, I'll be archiving this shortly; perhaps someone can consider picking it up and putting it through FAC at a later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 11:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 [10].

---

Make Me Like You

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the second single from Gwen Stefani's third studio album This Is What the Truth Feels Like. I have spent a lot of my time expanding this article to its fullest potential and believe it would make for an excellent FA candidate, hence why I'm here now. I am willing to do anything for to achieve the FA status. It underwent a copyedit and I have tried to model it after other FA songs by similar artists. Any comments would be extremely appreciated. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from AJona1992

Comments from AJona1992 Too many instances with the word "song" needs variation It would flow better if you mentioned that "Make Me Like You" explored themes on renewability, etc, instead of saying "the single is about" "Many reviewers" - who? In this case, just saying that the vast majority or the track garnered a critical consensus that it was inspired by part or whole to her relationship with Blake would suffice "some critics" - same as above, was there a repetitive theme on some reviewers who said it was musically different to her previous single? When was "Used to Love You" released? Year? You link studio album but not digital download? "like television shows" - really? You could just say including on... You tell us who Gavin is but not who Blake is (first subsection; first para) Is it a pop-disco, disco-pop, or as you currently have it pop and disco? (second subsection; first para) → Disco and pop per the sources included The link says E! so why E! Online, and E! is not a publication (second subsection; first para) Avoid overlinking (Idolator, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, No Doubt) The critics comparison of previous recordings by other artists could be better said in your own words (second subsection; first para) "the happy parts" - needs to be rephrased (second subsection; second para) Inflects...inflecting - avoid repetition (second subsection; second para) The link is music journalism not contemporary music journalism (third subsection; first para) "highly positive" - also needs to be rephrased into better prose (third subsection; first para) " In addition, Kennedy stated" - source? (third subsection; first para) If FN#24 is cited for both Idolator critics, why add one in the middle of the sentence? (third subsection; first para) It would read better if you just say album or recording (third subsection; second para) And when were those songs recorded or released? (third subsection; second para) I see a recurring stance on adding a source at the first mention but ignoring it if a critic "adds" more commentary in the following sentence. (third subsection; various) I thought Slant magazine was not considered a physical publication? Way too many instances with the word "track" and "song" - needs variation Who is No Doubt? You didn't provide any information from uninformed readers and completely ignored her involvement in the band. "Its radio adds prompted" - its what? (fourth subsection; first para) Avoid repetition (fourth subsection; second para) "chart" vs "charts", in many cases it should be "chart" if you only had mentioned a single list How did it feared well if it fell off the chart a week later? (fourth subsection; second para) You say Billboard's Japan Hot 100, but previously you said Canada's Adult Contemporary Why do we need to know what she was wearing? Did critics say anything about her choice of clothing? Was it memorable or mentioned outside of the video? Why is turtleneck even linked? (sixth subsection; first para) → Since four critics in the "Reception" section mention the various costume changes, I believe it should remain in the article; I linked turtleneck since it is really only called that in the United States, and may confused readers outside of the country. Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC) "also black and white" - what value does this provide to any reader? "lip-synchs" - misspelled word Why is high-heels linked? and "take"? ""Reaction towards the music video for "Make Me Like You" was highly positive." - who said that? (seventh subsection; first para) "Besides from concert tours" - change to "Aside from concert tours" "when on" - is the "when" necessary? (eight subsection; second para) Source is needed for her performance on Saturday Night Live. – jona ✉ 15:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC) @AJona1992: I believe I accomplished everything from your very thorough and detailed review. Thanks so much! Carbrera (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: User is on vacation until early October and may not respond here until then. Carbrera (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak

Comments from Cartoon network freak from her third solo → for her third solo Set comma after "studio album" link "digitally" to music download It is a pop and disco song, with influences of light rock, with its instrumentation consisting of chiming guitars, "digi-harps" and a "beachy" drum progression. → "Make Me Like You" is a pop and disco song, incorporating influences of light rock into its sound. Its instrumentation... It explored themes on → Lyrically, the recording delves on themes of remixes → remixes of the song was released on April 22 as a digital download. → was made available for digital download on April 22 Unlink "digital download" You use the word "video" twice in a row; try to alternate with "visual" and "clip" newfound → separate ended in → ended with resulted in → remove "in" Set comma after "third studio album" the song as a → the song for try to somehow improve the last sentences of this section; it's like "It was released. It was released..." You may rename the section into "Composition and lyrical interpretation" → Instead I kept "lyrics" since it doesn't solely focus on the interpretation aspect remove comma after "disco song" described its music as a "bubblegum song" → you can't describe the music as a song of "Phoenix's 'Too Young,' → something with the syntax is wrong here (""; ) well received → well-received → This is actually incorrect per WP:AWB of Exclaim! was positive → of Exclaim" was positive towards "Make Me Like You" Gwen to churn out", while Bianca Gracie and Mike Wass → Make two sentences here You may rename this section into "Commercial performance" and dropped off the week after that → and left the chart in its third week in the US → never shorten out United States to "US" it was shopped → "shopped" is kinda wrong here; choose another word Stefani's lowest charting → Stefani's lowest-charting single following previous single → two times "single" Unlink album here For peak in Slovakia, you must add a date → There is a date, but because of the template, the reader/user must manual enter it upon arriving at the webpage (it also gives the directions at the bottom of the article for Ref. #114 if you want to take a look :) @Carbrera: Everything else looks OK. Apart from potential weird comma issues, there's nothing more. A VERY GOOD article. I wish you all the success with it. You may fix my issues and I will support this. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC) @Cartoon network freak: I believe I took care of everything? THANKS SO MUCH! Carbrera (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Carbrera: With my issues being resolved, I now support this nomination. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47 The final line of the third paragraph in the “Critical reception” section needs a reference. I would recommend restructuring the paragraphs in the “Critical reception” section around a clear topic/idea. Right now, this section seems all over the place in terms of ideas. Maybe you could focus one paragraph on the reception of the production, and the other on the reception of the lyrics, and then a final one on mixed/negative reviews. This is just a suggestion, but it would be good if you could make this section a little more like a narrative for your reader; currently it does little more than list several opinions, one after the other. @Aoba47: I really like what your suggesting but I'm afraid I don't really know how to tackle it since some of the reviews jump around so much. I tried heading from positive to mixed initially and I don't know what to do from then on... Carbrera (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC) @Carbrera: I would suggest attempting to organize the "Critical reception" around topic then if possible, such as a paragraph on the "Production", the "Lyrics/Vocal Performance". This is just one idea (it may not work), but I think this section does need to be revised. As it currently stands, this section is pretty disjointed, especially with the short third paragraph at the end. I would recommend looking at other FA on songs to see how they organize their reception sections. I would also recommend this resource here as a tool to help you out. It does not deal directly with music-related articles, but it gives some times on how to better approach "Reception" sections. Let me know if this helps. Once the comments is addressed, I will be happy to support this article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC) @Carbrera: Any progress on this front? I also added a comment at the end. An audio sample should be placed in the article. Mymis' comments are also very good so I would highly recommend looking at them below. Once my two comments (the reception and audio sample) are addressed, I would support this article for promotion. Also, please make the changes requested by Mymis. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC) In the first sentence of the second paragraph of the “Chart performance” section, I would replace “Elsewhere” with “Internationally”. “Elsewhere” sounds odd and too vague to me, so I would recommend “Internationally” to be a little more specific. Revise the following phrase (“The singer’s final televised performance occurred on …) as saying this is Stefani’s final televised performance makes it sound like she either died or retired from music (and obviously both of those are incorrect). I would recommend finding a stronger source to support your sentence on Stefani’s performance of the single in the MasterCard and This is What the Truth Feels Like Tour. Beacon Street Online appears to be a fan site to me, and not entirely appropriate for an FA. I would recommend moving the sentence (“Credits adapted from the liner notes of…) in front of the “Recording” and “Personnel” subsections. See how it is done on the page for the Rihanna song S&M. Please add an audio sample of the song to the page. @Carbrera: Once you address all of my comments, I will provide my final comments about this. Great work! Aoba47 (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks so much! I just switched it up majorly! Feel free to take a look! Regards, Carbrera (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC).

@Carbrera: Great job with this article! I am very impressed with the work put into this. I can now support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mymis

Comments by Mymis "A remix EP featuring three" in intro -> maybe link "EP" In refs, Vevo -> Vevo ref 15 -> longer dash is needed, and the page is radiodate.it, not radioairplay.fm ref 14, 4 February 2016 -> February 4, 2016, same with ref 117 ref 117 date is missing The Ellen DeGeneres Show -> The Ellen DeGeneres Show in refs ref 71 unlink Billboard ref 4 link Music times → This article was recently deleted ref 74 unlink LA times ref 23 E! Online -> E! "she couldn't believe the" -> could not "It was sung during the MasterCard Pric.." -> maybe add that the mentioned tours are Stefani's headlining tours because it's not very clear from reading "only, alongside performances of "Dan..." -> what do you mean by "alongside"? was it like a mash-up or medley of three songs? "Stefani sung", "she sang" in Live perm sec -> which one is correct? Also: and maybe one more picture? maybe a pic of Shelton in "Composition and lyrics" section? would it be possible to upload a song's sample? Mymis (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC) @Mymis: I completed your comments. Thanks so much!!!! Carbrera (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You do have my support; good luck! Mymis (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tintor2

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 23 25, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Avoid quotes in the lead if you aren't referencing it. Instead paraphrase it. Production and release: There also some quotes but referenced. I've often been criticized for relying too much on quotes so the same issue. → I paraphrased one of three quotes in this section; thanks for the tip! Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) In charts, Billboard is quite overlinked. → I wish I could fix that but it's all apart of a preloaded template recommended per Template:Single chart. :( Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Reference 114 lacks info "SNS IFPI" (in Slovak). Hitparáda – Radio Top 100 Oficiálna. IFPI Czech Republic. Note: insert {{{year}}}{{{week}}} into search. Retrieved March 12, 2016. → This was taken care of above, it's just a note for the reader of the article stating that they must manually insert a bit of information in order to see the chart. Carbrera (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Critical response and commercial performance have some big paragraphs. I would recommend to split some and decide what is each paragraph about (kinda like a formal letter). After that I don't have no more issues. I will support the article if you solve them. Also I've nominated an article, Allen Walker, for FA here and I would appreciate feedback. Anyway, good luck with this article. @Tintor2: Do you have any suggestions on where to shorten the paragraphs? Aoba47, a previous reviewer, recommended a very similar thing and I fixed it per his suggestion. However, I don't think it would be possible to split up the "Commercial performance" section since the first paragraph focuses on US information and the second focuses elsewhere. 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I see then I'm leaving my support.Tintor2 (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SomeoneNamedDerek

Comments from SomeoneNamedDerek Infobox: Stockholm, Sweden should link to Stockholm Lead: Where was the song serviced to contemporary hit radio "on February 16"? Ref 14 is a United States radio based website -> specify that it was serviced to United States contemporary hit radio (unless a diff. source is found) "incorporating influences of light rock into its sound" -> explain and cite this in the body ""beachy" drum progression" isn't mentioned anywhere other than in the lead, unsourced "but was tied for Stefani's lowest charting solo single" -> is it necessary to include this? Body does not talk about this unsourced fact (I looked at ref 44) "The video garnered a positive reaction from critics, for being "colorful" and "entertaining"." -> "entertaining" isn't mentioned in the Music video section Production and release: This Is What the Truth Feels Like was mentioned twice, but one time it had the year 2016 and the other time didn't -> be consistent or remove year "On February 16, 2016, it was released to mainstream radio stations." -> United States radio stations? "On April 22 of the same year, Interscope issued a digital EP titled "(The Remixes)"" -> digital remix EP, remove "titled "(The Remixes)" since the cover art of the EP (on ref 16) doesn't show parentheses around The Remixes Composition and lyrics: Song sample description: period needed, ref 5 should come before ref 17 ref 17 comes before ref 20 Critical reception: "its sounds is" -> its sounds are "Ryan Middleton of the same publication agreed and acclaimed it "solid production" for causing" -> You left out what you wanted me to change here, but I figured it out! (it --> its) "which worked well with the its "well-oiled production"" -> remove the "pop candy" was mentioned twice in this section, but in different paragraphs (by Kelly Lawler and Gregory Robinson). Maybe put Robinson's opinion on the end of the first paragraph, since ref 43 also shows that Robinson found that the track was "reminiscent of Gwen’s 2006 single ‘The Sweet Escape’ and ‘Lovefool’ by The Cardigans"" Commercial performance: "alongside its debut on the Hot 100, it also peaked at number 12" -> it also debuted and peaked (unless it didn't debut that week on Digital Songs) "the song dropped to number 68 on the Hot 100, and left the chart in its third week" -> remove comma (simple sentence with two verbs) ""Make Me Like You" re-entered in the United States chart at number 97." -> which United States chart? " it peaked in May 2016 at number 27, and spent a total of 18 weeks on the chart." -> remove comma Music video: "Grant Jue of Jesse Dylan's Wondros Collective produced the video" -> change to Grant Jue of Wondros, link Wondros to section in Jesse Dylan#Wondros "Stefani expressed how she could not believe the performance happened, also claiming that "she had personally worked on it continuously for about six days". Stefani estimated that she worked on the video for six continuous days, lasting from "7 in the morning 'til 3 in the morning"." -> remove repetitive statement about working for six continuous days "it was revealed that an estimate of $12 million" -> an estimated $12 million "before being greeted by four women, all wearing full-bodysuits. " -> all wearing bodysuits "promoted the video afters its release" -> after its release "the event was also sponsored by the Target Corporation. At the 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, " -> Allow a new paragraph in the section beginning with "At the 2016 Cannes Lions...", and place this paragraph before the paragraph starting with "Although Stefani was the first artist..." (the reason for this is because "the video" in "At the 2016 Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, held in June 2016, the video received"... is ambiguous and doesn't directly refer to Stefani's music video; placing this paragraph before the paragraph talking about other live music video broadcasts allows readers to understand the award was given to "Make Me Like You" Live performances: "including the MasterCard Priceless Surprises Presents Tour and This Is What the Truth Feels Like Tour (2016)" -> be consistent with years (remove it or add "(2015–16)" after MasterCard Priceless Surprises Presents Tour) Credits and personnel: Stockholm, Sweden should link to Stockholm —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 05:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Awesome work! The quality of the article allows for my support for the nomination. Best of luck! —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose on prose (nothing else checked once I saw the state of the prose) Worryingly, I see five supports above but a quick read reveals that the article contains prose such as "The song lasts for a duration of three minutes and thirty-six seconds" [spot the redundant words], "According to Daniel Kreps, writing for Rolling Stone, its sounds are 'refreshing' and favorably referred to the lyrics as "all about renewal" [the sentence makes no sense], and "Grant Jue of Wondros produced the video, to which Muller is partnered with." [err...] This nomination really needs some close attention from experienced eyes, because the prose cannot be said to be "engaging and of a professional standard". These are examples only, so please don't fix these three sentences alone and then think that the problem is solved. I suggest that you read every sentence out loud, asking yourself as you do so whether what you have written makes sense, whether it sounds polished, whether you're repeating yourself, whether you can say the same thing in fewer words, etc. As examples of these last two points:
• in the "production and release" section, you twice mention the album and that the single is from, but only tell us on the second occasion that it's her third album, so you could combine this point with the album's first mention and then call it "the album" the next time;
• you say words to the effect of "This song was the second single from the album; something else was going to be the single to follow the first single, but then this song was chosen instead." Even assuming we need to know that it wasn't the original choice as second single, the whole idea can be expressed in fewer words
• Your list of dates of release can be trimmed (combine sentences so that you don't have "mainstream radio" twice in successive sentences; in any event, avoid constructions like "Five weeks later, the single was released in Italy to mainstream radio on March 25, 2016", where we don't need both the date and the period of time elapsed since the previous date).

FA is a big step up from GA, I'm afraid, but with more work I hope you can improve this article so that it becomes more interesting to read. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bencherlite, @Bencherheavy: Yes, I took care of your above comments. Yes, I realize that won't exactly fix this problem, but I'm currently going over every sentence in the article to search for cohesiveness. I agree that doing this should help solve the issue, but to be honest, I think it would be hard for each sentence structure in this article to satisfy everyone's needs and liking. Perhaps one statement that I worded sounds brilliant to myself but confusing to another user. Like I previously stated, I am willing to do anything to bring this article to FA status, and if this will do the trick then sign me up. What I'm asking is that when I conclude making my changes, would you be willing to perform another spot-check on this article? You seem highly experienced in the 'featured' side of articles so your knowledge would be welcomed. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Carbrera, do not strike through my comments again. That's for me to do, if and when I want to do so, not you. Bencherlite^Talk 14:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• Bencherlite I didn't mean any disrespect; I was trying to mark my progress in your suggestions. Since it's frowned upon to leave the "done" symbol, a strikethrough seemed most appropriate. I apologize and didn't mean to offend you. Carbrera (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• I believe I have fixed several issues regarding the prose. You are free to look at the article again if you so choose. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC).

• It's still not an example of Wikipedia's finest prose. Just from the opening section:

• “she pushed herself” – why this opinionated phrase? What’s wrong with “she then wrote” or something along those lines?
• “newfound relationship” – we have “new... newfound”, but more importantly “begin new ones” is redundant (she could hardly begin old ones) and “newfound” feels like the wrong word
• I’m left unclear as to whether the divorce songs were part of the third album or not - we're not given any indications about when the divorce was, when the new relationship started
• Why do we need a sentence, with two quotations, about a Jimmy Kimmel interview just to confirm that the song is about Shelton, which was established in the previous sentence? If the point is that it was speculated that Shelton was the subject but only confirmed by Stefani at some later point, then make this point more clearly and in fewer words (we don't need "about that guy" for instance).
• Why do we need to know that Idolator and Warner/Chappell Music both said on the same day that she was working with Mattman and Robin for the single, let alone that Warner confirmed this via a particular outlet? Why can’t we just say that she worked with M&R on the single?
• Does working with M&R on the single precede or follow working with Tranter and Michaels on the writing? I would assume that you write it first, in which case the sentences need to be moved around.
• However, the lead says that M&R co-wrote the single, which is not what this paragraph says, and so this needs to be sorted too
• Then we get Mattman and Robin mentioned again, complete with our second and third links to the same article (“Mattman and Robin”, hiding as Easter egg links under “Larsson” and “Frediksson”). The repetition is capable of elimination
• I’m unhappy with “channelling” left as an unattributed quotation because it is an opinion rather than a fact.

• My oppose stands. This needs too much work and I'm not going to conduct a line-by-line rewrite of the article. I suggest you withdraw and go to peer review, seeking an experienced FA level copyeditor. Pinging Tony1 who may have some other thoughts as to whether I'm way off line here, given the current majority view that this article is of FA-standard. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 11:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Carbrera: I do have to agree with the comments from @Bencherlite:/@Bencherheavy:. I apologize for reading over a lot of the problems that were identified above, as I should have done a more comprehensive review. I agree with the recommendation to re-read through this article for prose errors. I would suggest looking at how S&M (song) to see how the song's length could be more seamlessly incorporated into the section or remove it all together as I have found that it is not a necessary component for a FA on a song. I think you need to be careful with the use of quotes, as shown the Kreps' sentence quoted above, as you sometimes rely on the quotes to convey information without spelling it out fully. I would recommend avoid using one word quotes, and instead convey the information through your own words. Remember that everything that can be paraphrased should. Direct quoting is primarily for when something would be lost if the quote were not used directly. A lot of the prose problems stem from the overuse of quotes (for instance, the "Critical reception" section has a lot of unnecessary quotes). And the "Grant Jue of Wondros produced the video, to which Muller is partnered with" definitely needs to be completely revised. Another example of an awkwardly constructed sentence is "At the 57th Annual Grammy Awards in 2015, Imagine Dragons did a similar concept to Stefani, performing live during a commercial break". I will leave my support vote up for now, but I may strike it in the future as I agree with Bencherlite's assessment. The article is definitely on the right track, but the prose needs to be polished. I apologize again for reading over and missing this in my initial comments. Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: I addressed everything you brought up above. I'm currently going through the article sentence-by-sentence. Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Carbrera: Thank you for the update. I am happy with the changes you made as I do believe that they made the article stronger. I will keep my support vote that I left above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Stefani co-wrote the recording with Justin Tranter, Julia Michaels, and its producers Mattman & Robin. - why "its" producers?

it garnered a critical consensus that it was inspired - why not, "thought to have been inspired..." (not controversial as Stefani later confirmed it)

upbeat environment and its radio-friendly vibe. - why not just " upbeat and radio-friendly vibe."

During the song's bridge, - can we link bridge?

Stefani joked that she could barely believe the performed occurred. - umm, something wrong with the grammar here...

I trimmed some words during my copyedits. Make sure no meaning is lost.

• @Casliber: I have fixed the things you mentioned in your review. Thank you very much. Carbrera (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok stricken. Let me take another look...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, in general, only keep stuff in quotes if it is memorable or distinctive - in the second para of the Composition and lyrics section, both "the gloom lifts" and "inflecting emotion in her voice" should be able to be rewritten without resorting to quotes.

Responding to Bencherlite's ping.

• First, that reviewer's comment: " 'she pushed herself' – why this opinionated phrase? What’s wrong with 'she then wrote' or something along those lines?" I couldn't find anything to support the "pushing" in ref. 1, a half-opinion half-whatever journalistic piece for Pitchfork. So unless the nominator can provide reasoning or evidence in RSs, I'd say replace as suggested (or better, "she wrote", since "after" has already conveyed the sequential meaning).
• Bencherlite's other comments seem actionable too.

I looked through just the opening paragraph of just five sentences:

• Start: ""Make Me Like You" is a song recorded by American singer Gwen Stefani for her third solo studio album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like (2016). Issued as the album's second single, it was released digitally on February 12, 2016, while being serviced to contemporary hit radio on February 16 in the United States."—There's tension between "issued" and "released". "recorded by" makes it sound momentarily as though it was trashed and not released; it's superseded by the subsequent sentence anyway. Or is the contrast between non-digital first, then "released digitally"? I know I'm a pop-culture dunderhead; maybe I'm missing assumed knowledge in a targeted readership, but this seems to need recasting. Perhaps we need "2016" twice ... hard for me to tell. What does "serviced to" mean? Maybe that's assumed knowledge, but surely there's a more standard way to put it.
• "the latter two"—I think it should be "the last two"; and we have "serving" soon after the problematic "serviced", so why not ", of whom Larsson and Fredksson were also the producers"?
• "Described as a pop and disco song,"—as soon as you ascribe agency (even suppressed by passive voice), we need to know who was doing the describing. There's no ref. Maybe you wanted to draw back in certainty by ascribing those epithets out into the fog rather than simply stating them in Wikipedia's narrative voice? If not, why not: "In genre a pop and disco song", or something like that? Agency problem without ref. again in "it was though to have been". Who thought?
• ""Make Me Like You" incorporates influences of light rock into its sound, that consists of chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody."—Do we need "into its sound"? There's redundancy-tension between "incorporates" and "influences". The join of comma+that is ungainly. Why not: ""Make Me Like You" shows the influence of light rock, in chiming guitars and digital harps over a beach-like melody." (I presume your readers will associate beach-like with rock.)
• "themes on"? "themes of" would be standard.

Maybe the rest is a little better (the opening is usually difficult because thematically more intensive); but I have to agree that this needs too much work to be considered for promotion this time around. I encourage you to keep writing and editing, but developing a razor-critical stance in your reading of others' and your own text will take a while. (Try my "Advanced editing exercises", in my user space, although I hesitate to recommend them because it's been so long since I revised them. Perhaps you could give feedback on that talkpage on any mistakes you detect or suggestions you might have for improvements.) Tony (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- In light of recent comments, which have highlighted fundamental prose concerns, I'm going to archive this nom and recommend that after actioning outstanding points (and combing the article for similar issues to those identified) you try a Peer Review before looking at a renomination at FAC. As an alternative to PR, I encourage you to consider the new FAC mentoring scheme that's aimed at nominators who have yet to achieve their first FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 14:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 [11].

---

Glen Canyon Dam

Nominator(s): Shannon 21:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocking the Colorado River near the head of the Grand Canyon, this dam fired up an environmental movement (as fictionalized in Edward Abbey's cult classic, The Monkey Wrench Gang) and rewrote American perspectives on the value of wild places. Yet millions depend on the water and clean energy Glen Canyon Dam supplies. I've been working on this article since 2011, though the newest version was only published recently. It would make a nice little set with Colorado River and Hoover Dam (both FAs), and did I mention the 50th anniversary of Glen Canyon Dam is on September 22? Shannon 21:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

• All visual files in this article should receive alts per WP:ALT; I only see the first one having an alt
• Should File:Glen Canyon Music Temple.jpg instead say "Near Music Temple in Glen Canyon during the 1870's."?
• For the first two bulletpoints in "In popular culture", I see no mention of a year or date to explain its particular placement in the list
• In the "See also", may I suggest adding "an" before "activist against the dam"?
• No dead links, great work!

A great article with just some minor comments over a run-through. Great work. Carbrera (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article to address all these, except for the alt text, which already exists for all the images. But for some reason none of them are displaying except for the one in the infobox. Could you help take a look? Thanks! Shannon 17:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

• IMDB is not a reliable source. Lulu is a self-publisher, so reliability of that source is questionable

Y Replaced these with secondary sources. Shannon 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Reference formatting is generally quite inconsistent, with a number of formatting errors
• 'In popular culture' entries should have reliable secondary sourcing

Y Done. Shannon 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• MOS editing needed - repeated links, SEAOFBLUE issues, dablinks, etc

Y Checked for dab links and got rid of a lot of repeated links Shannon 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Neutrality issues. Categorical statements like "one of the best rainbow trout fisheries in North America" shouldn't be cited solely to promotional websites. Editorializing like "to no surprise" or "ironically" should be avoided

Y Scanned the article for editorializing/weasel words, and changed this statement to "excellent rainbow trout fishery". Shannon 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

See Hchc's comments below. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Some of the material does not appear to be supported by its cited sources. Consider for example "The base of the dam can also be reached via boat from Lee's Ferry, 16 miles (26 km) downstream. Because of the cold, clear water released from Lake Powell, the stretch of the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lee's Ferry has become one of the best rainbow trout fisheries in North America.[159]" The only part of that I see in the source is "Fishermen enjoy world-class trout fishing upstream to Glen Canyon Dam". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Y Added necessary references, and fixed wording to match sources. Shannon 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Still other examples of this type of problem. "About 300,000 people per year travel via boat to Rainbow Bridge in Utah, a large natural arch once very hard to access, but now easily reachable because one of the arms of the reservoir extends near it.[156]" - footnote 156 says "85,000 people from around the world who visit it each year." Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Shannon 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the date formats to be consistent with WP:DATES. However, I cannot address the reference/MOS issues if you don't point them out specifically. As far as I know, all web references use the correct templates, and all books are cited using the same format. In addition, I recently scanned and fixed all the dead links. There is some strong wording in this article because it is a controversial topic, but I've done my best to cover both sides. Thanks, Shannon 01:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to provide examples of inconsistencies and problems, though we don't want this to turn into a point-by-point peer review and I don't want to give the impression that a single example is the only instance of a particular issue.

On the point of reference formatting, one example of the problems is found by comparing footnotes 97 and 99: why is the LA Times a work in one instance and a publisher in the other?

On the point of MOS, one example of the problems is found in the |country= parameter of the infobox: three links are chained together when a single specific link would be most appropriate. (Also, why are county and state being presented under "country"?). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll give the references another thorough look-over. I did many of them back in 2011 so there might be some things I missed. Thanks, Shannon 02:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I checked all the formatting again, did another run through for dead links and a spot check. I'm 99% sure now all issues have been addressed. Shannon 17:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

MOS issues and reference inconsistencies persist. The specific MOS problem identified above is still present, as does a reference mismatch very similar to the one identified - NYT is a publisher in FN168 but a work in FN107. A broader revision for MOS and reference formatting is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking again. Any tips on how to properly do this? I'm really sorry I keep missing things. Shannon 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

For reference formatting, first you want to make sure you have a handle on general rules - distinction between work and publisher, for example. Then you check that similar references are formatted similarly, and correct any variations according to those rules. That approach will catch 90+% of inconsistencies/errors. As for MOS... unfortunately I don't know of any shortcuts. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage I've run through the article, and I'm seeing a number of issues:

• "$135 million ($985 million in 2016 dollars)" - this appears to be using the inflation template, which notes that "this template is only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers' rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets). This template is incapable of inflating capital expenses, government expenses, or the personal wealth and expenditure of the rich. Incorrect use of this template would constitute original research." - the CPI can't reliably be applied to the cost of the Glen Canyon Dam.
• "a colorful series of gorges now flooded by the reservoir" - not sure what "colorful" means in this context
• "the Bureau of Reclamation deemed necessary the construction of additional reservoirs" - the phrasing here feels awkward
• "However, USBR faced opposition" - "the USBR"?
• "was one of the last mega-dams " - what's a mega-dam? If this is a mega-dam, which sounds pretty impressive, is it worth mentioning in the first paragraph?
• I'd be a lot happier if the inline quotes were typically attributed to someone; e.g. "Many of these projects had dubious economic justifications and hidden environmental costs, but the government agencies that built them – namely the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – were more interested in maintaining their size and influence: "In the West, it is said, water flows uphill towards money."" - I can't tell from this who said the line in the quote.
• Some of the sources don't look reliable for the claims they're supporting; e.g. fn 143 - this is used to support a sequence of statements presented as facts; the source, though, is an advocate group arguing on one side of the issue about the dam. Whether they're right or wrong, this definitely isn't a neutral source.
• Similar concerns come out in how statements such as "Below the Glen Canyon Dam, the Colorado River has turned into a "death zone for native fish"" is presented; looking at the citation it is a claim made by an advocate, but presented here as a statement of fact.
• "The flow appeared to have scoured clean numerous pockets of encroaching vegetation, carried away rockslides that had become dangerous to boaters, and rearranged sand and gravel bars along the river, and was considered an environmental success." - the Minard article, cited in support of this sentence, doesn't quite align with the text though; it says that "Steve Gloss, a scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey's Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), who helped author the new flood plan, concedes that the 1996 flood came up short..." and appears critical of the 1996 work.

I haven't gone through the references one by one, but the sample I've looked at are giving me concerns. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, I'm working through the comments now. I'm a bit lost, though, on how to figure out which references aren't supporting the text. (That might sound dumb since I'm the primary author, but some of the research was done years ago.) Short of an exhaustive check of every citation, do you have any advice? Thanks, Shannon 23:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any easy answer... Faced with similar problems, I've had to resort to going through citation by citation, checking each one for being a reliable source, and ensuring it supports the claims being made by the current version of the text. That's a painful process, but it would deliver you assurance that (minus the odd inevitable human error) you've got a high-quality baseplate. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: It seems this was nominated prematurely and could benefit from a thorough review of sourcing and prose before making a reappearance. I suggest contacting authors of other similar FAs (NortyNort, interested?) as well for a pre-nomination peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 15:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2016 [12].

---

Sci-Hub

Nominator(s): Distrait cognizance (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is about Sci-Hub, a controversial repository of academic articles that allows anyone to download journal papers without paying for access. Distrait cognizance (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Some thoughts that came to me while reading the article:

• "Elbakyan has been compared to both Aaron Swartz and Edward Snowden." Does this belong in the lead?

Possibly not, I've removed it and at the same time clarified in which capacity she has been compared to them.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "sprang up" Informal

 FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "lower profile initiatives" That's a compound adjective

 FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Repetition/possible contradiction: "Her stated goal was to increase the spread of knowledge by allowing more people to access what would otherwise be paywalled content." then, later, "Elbakyan's express goal in creating the site has been to provide research access to the less-privileged"

 FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "She claims she would not have been able to pursue her research at a Kazakh university had she not similarly shared papers without permission, given the need to skim hundreds of papers." Source?

 FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Claims hold that" Can claims hold anything?

 Fixed —  "A number of estimates suggest Sci-Hub has already downloaded between 50–51 million different articles, which are stored in its database."Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The site gets papers" Informal and personification

 FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "at JSTOR, Springer, Sage, and Elsevier" Links? There's also a bit of a puzzle in that some of these are publishers, some are distribution platforms. (Springer is the publisher, JSTOR is the platform; SpringerLink would be one of Springer's platforms.)

 Fixed Pretty sure JSTOR is an entity, changed to "owned by". Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Some question Elsevier's motives behind its simultaneous attempt to partner with Wikipedia to disseminate their paywalled papers" Weaselly. More details required.

 Fixed Changed and moved down, hopefully more neutral. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Despite seizure of the "sci-hub.org" domain name as ordered by a New York district court on October 28, 2015, the site is still accessible through alternative domains as of December 2015 and also accessible through the Tor network.[17]" This has been said many times.

 Fixed, removed. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 FixedDistrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "In her defense Alexandra Elbakyan has cited Article 27 (1.) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights "to share in scientific advancement and its benefits".[30] [31]" This needs attention

 Fixed — " In her defense Alexandra Elbakyan has cited Article 27 (1.) of the UN Declaration of Human Rights "to share in scientific advancement and its benefits", which she claims is hindered by publishers demanding payment despite putting in minimal effort in creation of the scientific papers" Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The lawsuit has prompted widespread criticism of Elsevier." Is that in the source cited?

 Fixed — This source was originally used for a statement tying together the crackdown on Sci-Hub with Elsevier's donation of accounts to Wikipedians.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "while a number of publishers have been very critical so far as to claim that Sci-Hub is undermining more widely accepted open access initiatives" This needs attention

See now, Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Harvard and Cornell" Links? That sentence comes across as a little non-neutral.

 Not done — How is it non-neutral? I've changed it a bit, but I still don't see how it could be written differently. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not keen on the weaselly "claims have been made", while "even prominent western institutions" and "ever increasing subscription costs" indicate an "academic publishing is broken" perspective, I fear. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Some citations seem to be incomplete, a number seem to be blogs; not ideal for FA purposes.

Are there any citations in particular you find of lower quality? Some may be redundant, but I think most are there to support specifically what is in each statement, and the article would fall without them. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot of citations, as a source reviewer will tell you, are incomplete, and the formatting is pretty inconsistent. This definitely needs sorting, and is the kind of thing that often sinks FAC nominations. As for reliability... While I can't guarantee that these are the only problems, from glancing down the list, I'm pretty nervous about a reliance on TorrentFreak; I don't know about the reliability of ScienceAlert, "custodians.online", Big Think and Coinfox; A Wordpress site sets off alarm bells; and Stephen McLaughlin's website is far from ideal. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• I think there are at least two things which could expand this article. First, there is no mention of the fact that, despite its focus, Sci-Hub has plenty of non-scientific papers archived, and is used to access plenty of non-scientific papers. Second, I think there could be a bit more about the way the website works.

I take to heart that a section of how the website works may be needed — but I don't know of any sources which explain how the site can access non-scientific sources. It doesn't bypass most newspaper paywalls. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

By "non-scientific papers", I mean academic works in non-science disciplines; history, theology, philosophy, etc. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Can I ask why you brought this article straight to FAC, rather than going through GAC first? That would be more typical, especially for users who are not particularly experienced with the FAC process. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The reason I chose FAC instead of GAN is that the coverage of Sci-Hub in this article far exceeds what is necessary for GAN. The prose and the disposition perhaps do not — but since I've already been through the GAN process a number of times, those are things that I would try to learn by doing.

I have no reason to rush this process, and rest assured I will go through each and every one of your suggestions in time. Thanks, J Milburn. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ping J Milburn, pending some more additions on how the website works. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, great, thanks. As I stand now, I neither support nor oppose. I'll aim to be back for another look soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

(←) Ok, looking again, here are some bits which spring to mind. I confess that I'm not sure if I will be comfortable supporting any time soon, but I do hope any further comments here will be useful for future improvement nonetheless.

• I find the article a little cluttered with images. You could consider moving the screenshot to the infobox, making the logo image smaller, and perhaps moving the map images in-line. (A gallery wouldn't be appropriate, but some kind of table might be.) I think you're going to need to provide more information about how to read the maps, was well.
• Have you read this paper? It's from a great source! Might be a useful citation. How about this one (also available here)? This is from a blog, but the blog of a scholarly journal, by the editor of that journal, who is an academic. This is an article in a highly-regarded medical journal. This is a peer reviewed article exploring Sci-Hub in the context of European studies. I got some other hits, too; really, I think this article needs to be moved from citing tech blogs to citing peer-reviewed research. The number of conference papers I also found (and remember that only a portion of conference papers are available online!) suggests that there may be a lot of material under review at this time.

Again- this article is certainly not terrible, but I don't think it's where it needs to be for FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the points Josh raised above. I'd also add a broader concern; the article currently doesn't place this website and the legal and ethical arguments concerning it in the context of the major debate which is going on about the business practices of the publishers of academic papers. This means that it's scope is rather narrow, and the narrative seems rather one-sided - it reads mainly like advocacy for this website, with the "reception" paragraph wrongly implying that this website alone is leading to a move towards open access publishing of research. I also have the following more specific comments:

• "The site has seen widespread popularity in developing countries ... data released by Elbakyan shows usage in developed countries is high" - please quantify this. Is this site really widely used as this text says (eg, like YouTube), or is it popular among a narrower audience (which seems more likely)

 Not done I don't agree with the idea that widespread popularity needs to be in the magnitude of billions of views a day. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "She claims she would not have been able to pursue her research at a Kazakh university had she not similarly shared papers without permission, given the need to skim hundreds of papers." - no reference.

 Fixed Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

*This comment is a repeat of a previous comment, but actually this is from a source that was lost in editing, I will dig it up in the history and restore it. Rest assured I will respond to both those comments and these. Distrait cognizance (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Sci-Hub is the first known website to provide automatic and free access to paywalled academic papers" - this needs much stronger reference than that given. Websites with bootleg academic papers have been around for a long time. Also, what's meant by "automatic" here?

 Fixed Its clarified in the preceding sentence now.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Court documents relating to the case are in the public domain" - isn't this normal?

 Fixed, "Court documents which discuss technical details of how the site functions are available to the public."

• The "Reception" section is totally biased in that it only quotes people praising the website. The fact that it's the subject of multiple legal actions obviously indicates that it hasn't only received a positive reaction - the grounds for this legal action are never really properly explained in the article. Moreover, given that some experts defend the practices of academic paper publishers (to varying extents), it seems unlikely that all commentary has been in support of the website.

 Fixed Looking to see whether there are some more critical views. However, the reception has been pretty positive overall apart from the publishing community.Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Added some concerns surrounding interlibrary loans. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• The article is rather brief, and doesn't seem to fully exploit its sources - the Science article (clearly a high quality RS), for instance, has lots of useful detail not included in the article. Nick-D (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I entirely disagree that it is brief, and do not consider your oppose neutral if the only cause for it is that the website has a narrow scope. The article is certainly not short seeing as it includes nearly all of the highest quality RS sources that exist, so it is rather the subject that is limited, not normally a problem when it comes to FAC. The article should not cover all aspects of scholarly reform — but I will nonetheless look through your comments and hope that you will retract the oppose, since this article is being prepared in response to comments already.

The article in Science is actually not all that good a source seeing as it is an opinion blog. What contents would you consider lacking from that article? Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

• Is it possible to pause this FAC until I have responded to the above comments? Distrait cognizance (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
• Ping Nick-D. Distrait cognizance (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You have not addressed my comments. The article still does not put this website in its broader context, or properly cover the views of its critics. It's also much too short. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that it has received far more accolades than criticism, I will try to address any imbalance — but I don't want to get into WP:UNDUE territory by overstating the criticism either. Distrait cognizance (talk) 09:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: It looks like a fair amount of work is needed here that is best accomplished outside of FAC. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 02:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2016 [13].

---

2015 NBL Canada Finals brawl

Nominator(s): TempleM (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for FA review because I have been working on making it as comprehensive and useful as possible to readers. I believe it can reach FA status because it is already well-sourced and easily passed the good article review a few months ago. The article is about a fairly controversial event at a sports event, so reviewers may want to see if there is any sort of bias existing. It may also need some expansion, but I am not sure where to start. Please leave your comments or post whether or not you feel like it qualifies as a featured article. TempleM (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

Leaning oppose. Some notes below; generally I think the prose is a bit muddy, and in a couple of cases looking at the sources I think the article represents the source a little imprecisely -- two or three times I had to go to the source to get a clearer understanding of what actually happened.

• "with the Windsor Express being named the champions in the prior season by topping the Island Storm in seven games": you can be named champions after winning, or become champions by winning, but it's not usually phrased as "named champions by winning". I think changing it from "by topping" to "after they defeated" is the simplest fix.
  • Fixed.
• "In the 2015 NBL Canada Playoffs, the Rainmen were coming off wins": I think this is a little imprecise, because the Rainmen were coming off wins when they reached the final; they weren't coming off wins when they were in the playoffs. Also, I don't like "Windsor, on the other hand, had beaten the Mississauga Power 3–1 and the Brampton A's 4–3": it's not really "on the other hand". How about something like "The Rainmen reached the 2015 finals via wins over the Moncton Miracles and Island Storm, 3–1 and 4–1 respectively; Windsor's route was through victories over Mississauga Power, by 3–1, and the Brampton A's, by 4–3"?
  • Fixed.
• Why so much detail about the six prior games of the finals? There's a separate article about them; surely all we need is the fact that they were tied 3-3, and details of anything that led to bad feeling between the teams.
  • I mainly just included the scores of the games, plus information about fouls and injuries. I went in-depth into the foul and injury information because it shows the physicality of the games. There were far more fouls than you would usually see in a basketball game. Poor officiating was also a big part of the six games in the series.
• "But midway, they crossed paths with Vito Frijia, London Lightning owner and a member of the NBL Canada executive committee, who stopped the bus in the middle of the highway": I think "midway" is more than can really be gleaned from the source; just say "part way there" (and drop the "But"). I also think "stopped the bus in the middle of the highway" isn't right: Frijia persuaded Levingston to have the bus pulled over -- he couldn't "stop" it by himself; and it was the side of the highway.
  • Fixed.
• "but the incident would be ignored by owner Andre Levingston": what's the source for this? The quote in the source given doesn't clearly say that, and it's a player's opinion in any case so should be cited if you keep it in.
  • I deleted those words.
• <The incident with Fisher's bags being packed doesn't make it clear that per the source Fisher claimed the team instigated this, not the landlord.
• "the players had supposedly been "forced" by team owner Andre Levingston to partake in the game": you mean "participate", not "partake"; and this needs rephrasing, since you can't say they were forced to do something they didn't do.
  • I added information about how team management was held accountable for this incident.
• "Vito Frijia would be named league spokesman during the investigation": I think "was" would be better than "would be", but why do we need this information in the article at all?

Frijia was a key figure and had a lot of authority during the investigation, so this would be worth mentioning. I made the fix you suggested.

• "The coach had a salary of only about $1,500 per month during the eight months he spent with the Rainmen. Despite this, he was unable to contact team owner Andre Levingston..." -- "despite this" seems to be a non sequitur; why would having a low salary mean he would expect to be able to contact Levingston?
  • I removed the statement that was causing an issue.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: I have made changes where you suggested them, so hopefully you can take another look to see if this is ready for featured article consideration. To any FA coordinators, please don't close this thread yet. TempleM (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  I'm working on some other reviews, and would like to see what other reviewers think, so I'm going to hold off on a re-read for a bit. If I get time this weekend I'll come back and strike the points you've addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: Hello, just making sure that you haven't forgotten about this. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  Hi -- thanks for the ping. I struck the points you've fixed; I am not sure about leaving in the details of the games, so I'll leave that unstruck for another reviewer to see. It takes several reviews to promote an article, so I'm going to hold off re-reading this until we get another review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: What specific things in the games section do you think is unnecessary? TempleM (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note: There is some good commentary here but unfortunately there is no support for promotion after several weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. You are welcome to try again after the customary two-week waiting period. —Laser brain (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 02:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

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