Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2016

Comments from Sainsf

I would indeed be honored to be the first to give my comments on the 5,000,000th article. I think some improvement and copyediting is needed here, though the article is fine overall. Here we go!

Comments by FunkMonk

• "Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed P. terminalis as part of Persoonia oxycoccoides" If they referred to it as a subspecies, shouldn't it be referred to in an other way here? Perhaps say "as P. o. terminalis" in parenthesis after Persoonia oxycoccoides? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • they didn't formally describe it at al, so can't call it anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• "He viewed it as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans" Likewise, (as P. n. terminalis)?
  • It was called Persoonia nutans subsp. D and is mentioned in the footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Seems remarkable it was named so late, any word on why it was overlooked? Confused for already described species?
  • This happens – Persoonia nutans was a bit of a wastebasket taxon. Also where it grows is quite remote... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• "though persoonias as a genus" Is it common practice to refer to genus names like this?
  • It is more common in plants than other critters. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support – not much more else to add, so will contribute with an image review as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Image review – all images CC licensed, either photos from Flickr or selfmade maps, all with appropriate sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • thanks x 2! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Koavf

Ready for promotion? No one has commented here for over a week and it seems like all objections have been met. Is there anything else that should be done for this article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Justin, someone (uninvolved) has to do a source check. There are a few more older than us at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests so might take a little time.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

All sources are fine, and since images have been done for a while, I'd recommend tagging. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• 96.237.18.103 has expanded the abbreviations under Taxonomy. Though a good faith edit, I guess it has to be reverted as it does not suit the style here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  • what he's done is expanded those binomials where it is the first mention of a species. I could see a case for keeping these expanded, just as I could abbreviating them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Support from me on prose, with light c/es made. Accessible and understandable to the fabled reader that we pitch for; ie an intelligent lay teenager, while not compromising the interest of the specialist audience that will be the majority reading this page. A difficult balance with botany; well done here, again, by Cas Liber. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Spotchecked inlines 3, 17 & 19. No issues. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments from Techtri

It's certainly in better shape than last time it came up for FAC, but I've still got some concerns. On a quick read through I noticed the following.

Lead:

• "Jumping Flash! has been described as synonymous with Sony's debut gaming hardware" - By who? There's no reference here, and this doesn't get mentioned again later in the article as far as I can tell.

• Rephrased to "Jumping Flash! has been described as an ancestor as well as an early showcase for 3D graphics in console gaming", as it's mentioned in the article as well as in numerous sources. JAGUAR  14:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Under Development and release:

• I think I'm right in saying "PreScreen - Jumping Flash! (April 1995)". Edge (Future plc) (19): 41. April 1995.", "Edge - Pre Screen". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." and ""Staff. PreScreen - Jumping Flash!". Edge (Future plc) (19): 42. April 1995." reference different pages of the same article, so why do they use different titles? Also the date appears twice in the first one for some reason.

• Fixed both JAGUAR  14:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I took the liberty of combining the two refs that pointed to the same page of the same article . Techtri (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks! JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology, vastly differing from other contemporaneous platform games such as Donkey Kong Country and Yoshi's Island." - Sourced to Edge's July 1995 review, but I can't see any comparison in the source between JF! and either of the games mentioned?

• I've removed the comparisons as it wasn't mentioned in the sources given. However, there are a couple of comparisons with Super Mario 64, but I chose not to mention it here as it doesn't seem relevant. JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand what is meant by 3D technology in the sentence "Jumping Flash! was considered the first game of the platform genre to be developed with full 3D technology.".

• 3D technology sounds a bit vague, but I think 3D computer graphics would sound more accurate. I've changed it to that JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• The Geograph Seal image caption states that JF! "features identical gameplay from Geograph Seal". The IGN source states they shared "virtually identical gameplay", which I'd say was a important distinction.

• Good catch, upon this reflection I've rephrased it to "similar gameplay traits", as the lead also mentions "Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal". JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Under Reception and Legacy:

• "...in 2000 they ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time." - two references here, both with concerns. "Famitsu Top 120 PlayStation games". Culdcept Central. OmiyaSoft. 27 July 2009. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - is this a reliable source? and "Famitsu Weekly PlayStation Top 100". IGN. 21 November 2000. Retrieved 28 May 2014. - I can't see any mention of Jumping Flash in this source?

• This always bothered me. I asked somebody if Culdcept Central was a reliable source, and he wasn't too keen on it. I was going to bring this up at WP:VG/RS but unfortunately I didn't have time to do it prior to this FAC. Even though it's the only source I can find that mentions a legitimate Famitsu Top 120 list, I myself don't think it's reliable and I can't find any such list anywhere else, so I've had no choice but to remove the entire sentence. Unless somebody has the original Famitsu issue and could translate into English, I'm left with no other choice than to leave as "Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review". If you want, I could remove that sentence entirely and leave it as a score in the infobox? JAGUAR  14:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• You just have to know which issue of Famitsu those excerpts are from. Reference the magazine itself. ... cite news |title= |journal= |publisher= |date= |language= |author=Famitsu staff}}</ref>--SexyKick 17:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't find the definite issue or when it was published. Culdcept Central mentions that the list was published "recently" as of 2009, whereas I've searched for "120 PlayStation games of all time" and sometimes it comes back as being a November 2000 issue. I don't think is worth it, so I'm open to removing it entirely or should I leave this be? JAGUAR  19:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Andrew Yoon's Engadget review is a contemporary one right? If so, personally I would move it to after the 2007 IGN review along with the rest of the retrospective reviews, or at the very least mention it was a 2007 review so it doesn't appear to be a review from the time calling it antiquated.

• Moved this to the end of the paragraph JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Much clearer now. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• "1UP cited its first-person platforming as a precursor to Mirror's Edge, despite suggesting that the jumping has remained "woefully out of place"." - Is the source referring to jumping being "woefully out of place" in JF! or in the genre as a whole?

• In the genre as a whole, as the article is focused on the history of the jump. Reworded to reflect this JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• In which case, it it relevant to include it in this article? Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• I feel that it's relevant because it's a retrospective on Jumping Flash's legacy participation on the evolution of the jump. It also criticises the game's jumps, which in part is both relevant with reception and legacy. I wouldn't mind removing it from the section but I'd hate to lose out on a good source. JAGUAR  16:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Speaking in 2007, Fahey asserted that Jumping Flash! would always have a "slice" in videogaming history" - This is a very clunky sentence and needs rewriting.

• I agree. I've merged this with the previous sentence to smooth it out a little JAGUAR  12:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still finding a "slice" in videogaming history. awkward to read. A "slice in" something just doesn't sound right to me. Techtri (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, I find "slice" a bit awkward. Reworded to "a part in videogaming history" JAGUAR  16:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try and find time to give it a more thorough look over later. Techtri (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@Techtri: ping, sorry to bother. Just anxious about FAC inactivity. JAGUAR  19:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain1999

I apologise if any of my concerns have been discussed in a previous discussion, but I noticed a few things:

Lead

• In the lead, shouldn't 'Robbit' be in double quotation marks ("), rather than single (')? I'm not entirely sure.

• Changed to double for consistency. I find it hard to remember using American quotation marks on Wikipedia JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• In my experience, I've regularly seen references placed after direct quotes (see the second paragraph of Fez), so it should be considered for the third paragraph of the lead here, with the term "ancestor".

• Agreed, I've added a citation after "ancestor"

• Jumping Flash! spawned two sequels; Jumping Flash! 2.... I'd replace the semicolon with a colon.

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Link IGN.

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Body

• Link Egypt in "Gameplay".

• Done JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• There are a lot of quotes in "Reception and legacy". I don't quite think it's pushing the limit, so it should be okay, but that second paragraph stands out a bit.

• I've done some minor copyediting and have tried to cut the quotes a bit. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Link Greg Miller (Internet celebrity).

• Linked JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's necessary to have two paragraphs in "Sequels".

• Yeah, the first paragraph seems rather short. I've merged the two together JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• I found a number of issues with the references, but it was difficult for me to explain them all, so I went through and made some changes myself. Please feel free to adjust my changes where you feel necessary.

• Thank you for the changes! JAGUAR  17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

There might be more, but I'll let other editors point those out; I couldn't find anything else. This is a really well-written article, and I'll be happy to support the FAC when these issues are addressed. Good luck! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Rhain! I've addressed all of your concerns. I hope I didn't miss anything. JAGUAR  19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything so quickly! The only thing that really bothers me now is the length of the third "Gameplay" paragraph and second "Plot" paragraph, but these are minor personal nitpicks, and should only be changed if you see an appropriate way to do so. Since that's minor, I'm very happy to Support this FAC. Well done on all your hard work; good luck with the rest of the candidacy! – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Much appreciated. I'll see what I can do about the two shorter paragraphs, but I can't think of any more to put in from the top of my head. JAGUAR  22:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo

Lead

• The game follows a robotic rabbit named "Robbit" as he searches for missing Jet Pods that have been scattered by the game's astrophysicist antagonist character Baron Aloha. Why are Jet Pods capitalized? I don't believe they're proper nouns.

• True, I thought they were referring to a specific item but I checked the manual and it seems they're not capitalised in there, so fixed JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jumping Flash! uses much of the game engine used in Geograph Seal, an earlier game by Exact for the Sharp X68000 home computer. Change uses to utilizes.

• Done JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jumping Flash! has been described as an "ancestor"[1]... Why include the ref when it's already referenced in the legacy section?

• I can't remember, but it was either in this FAC or the peer review where I got told that a citation was required after a direct quote in the lead. But it's not a big deal, and I prefer no citations in the lead anyway. Removed both the ref and quote. JAGUAR  20:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The game was generally well received by critics, who praised its graphics and its unique 3D platforming gameplay, but it was eventually overshadowed by later 3D platformers of the fifth console generation. The compound sentence here is a bit awkward, as the two independent clauses don't work well in relation to one another. I'd remove the but, and change it to a period, followed by a however,...

• Good catch, rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The game was described as the third-most underrated video game of all time by Matt Casamassina of IGN in 2007. Remove the Matt Casamassina link, as it just redirects to IGN, which is already linked two words later in the same sentence.

• I could've sworn he had his own article, but I've removed all links JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a general note, five sentences in the lead begin with "the game". While this shouldn't be an issue, I feel a bit uneasy about the repetition. You may want to rephrase some of those sentences to alleviate the repetition.

• Removed some repetition. It does sound better this way JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Gameplay

• Jumping chains can be performed using enemies and some projectiles. Elaborate on this a bit more, because while I'm assuming you mean jump on enemies head like in Super Mario Bros, but a casual reader may have no idea what that means.

• I've elaborated on this a bit more. Jumping chains are initiated by jumping on enemies or their projectiles in succession, just like in Super Mario platforms. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Power-ups scattered across each world are picture frames representing carrots to extend Robbit's health, extra lives, time-outs that stop the clock and freeze the level's dynamics for a few seconds, hourglasses that extend the player's time... Their should be mention of the time limit for each level before this sentence, as this was the first time I read about said timed levels.

• Not exactly a time limit, but every level is 10 minutes long and will end once that time runs out. But you're right, it's a worthy mention so I've included it. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Coins that are worth points can also be picked up by destroying enemies that are often anthropomorphic versions of creatures such as kiwis and penguins, but also include robots and plants. Link kiwis and penguins.

• Done. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot

• All good here, though I'm going to assume limbered is the British-English equivalent of legged. Either way, it works.

• Limbs refer to both arms and legs; I thought it would be more accurate to describe the creatures. I don't know if it's anything to do with English variants JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Development and release

• Sony's director of entertainment in Japan, Koji Tada, paired Exact with Ultra to develop a technology demonstration for the upcoming PlayStation console. The last part regarding the technology demonstration is unnecessary, is it was already stated in almost the exact same way it's mentioned in the second sentence.

• Good catch; removed. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Ultra designed the story, characters and 3D cutscenes, and was responsible for creating the mechanical rabbit protagonist, Robbit. Shouldn't Robbit be lumped in with characters? Ultra designed the characters.

• I think so. Rephrased JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The characters were designed by the Japanese studio Ultra who renamed themselves "Muu Muu" after the creatures in the game. You already stated that Ultra designed the characters. Plus, shouldn't the part about the MuuMuu's go in the legacy section, since the game had an impact on the outside world after it was released?

• Removed the repetition of character-creation and moved the company renaming to the Legacy section. JAGUAR  13:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Reception and legacy

• Japanese magazine Famitsu gave the game a positive review at the time of release. Can you get any more in depth about the review? Also, Famitsu PS seems a little unnecessary, since it's not mentioned in the reception section, and is more or less an off shoot of Famitsu.

• Unfortunately I don't have access to the review as it's not online. I can't remember who added it. The only extracts I can find are from unreliable sites so I can't use them. Should I remove the review from the section? JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• I found a scan. But I can't read Japanese! Anyway, since I can't elaborate the review, I've removed the prose. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• In 2007, Matt Casamassina of IGN ranked Jumping Flash! as the third-most underrated video game of all time. I don't think it's important to link Matt Casamassina, as it just redirects to IGN, and doing a quick glance through IGN's article, Casamassina doesn't appear.

• Removed JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Robbit Mon Dieu was released exclusively in Japan for the PlayStation in 1999, and was the final instalment in the series. It was met with mixed reviews... You should mention how Jumping Flash 2 was received, to keep in line with the mention of Robbit Mon Dieu.

• I've added a little about its reception, but I chose not to dwell on about it because it would have seemed irrelevant to this article. JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

References

• All mentions of 1UP.com have IGN linked as it's publisher. I don't really know the exact publisher, but according to WP:VG/S, the publisher is UGO Networks. Change it if you wish. Since most FA articles I've seen referencing 1UP always use IGN as the publisher, it's not that big of a deal.

• I don't know what is correct, but I'm going to trust WP:VG/S and go with UGO Networks. Fixed all JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

All done. With the exception of maybe one or two issues of explaining in more detail, most issues are just minor complaints that can easily be dealt with. Overall, very nice article on a very influential yet completely forgotten game. Fix the issues, and you've got yourself a support. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: thanks for the review! I think I've addressed everything. This is truly a forgotten game, you're right. It was one of the first PlayStation games developed (arguably the first, if you take into account that it was a technology demonstration). This is why the artwork has different dimensions, as apparently PlayStation cases were DVD-shaped in very early North American releases. Writing this article has been a rewarding and interesting experience. Anyway, it seems I owe you one for reviewing this! JAGUAR  13:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar:, it always amazes me how your able to find those magazine scans. I might have to ask you to find a specific magazine in the future. Anyway, I do feel it's somewhat necessary to include Japanese reviews for games first released in Japan, but as that almost impossible for anyone outside of Japan, I understand. Though I find it weird having just Famitsu listed twice, with different scores, because this will almost certainly confuse the reader. Also, I think I incorrectly phrased my earlier issue with Famitsu PS. What I meant to say was just remove it. It bears no real importance to the article, and it's just an offshoot of the much more distinguished Famitsu. Once that's cleared up, you have my Support. Really, I'm giving you a support right now though. Congrats! Famous Hobo (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I've dealt with the Famitsu issues you mentioned. Although cited correctly, they shouldn't be in the article as I can't read Japanese for the review. Yeah, I'm not sure if some of the sites the scans are on are considered unreliable, but I'm used to all this digging as I only write retro games. I suppose I can return the favour by helping you searching for information at some point. Anyway, thanks for the support! JAGUAR  17:50, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I officially Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support – I had my say at Peer review where my comments with Referencing were dealt with. The article is in better shape than it was in its previous FAC. Z105space (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! JAGUAR  13:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs

• Oppose for now, due to sourcing issues.
• Prose:
  • The user interface resembles the view through Robbit's eyes.—The lead is an introduction to the article but content should not be in the lead and not in the body. You need to explain who Robbit is here as well.
    • I've removed this sentence altogether, as evidently a view through "eyes" is what a first-person perspective game is. I've elaborated that players control Robbit. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Images:
  • There's no real strong justification to use File:Geograph Seal gameplay 001.gif in the article. It's not essential to understanding the game, it's about a different one entirely.
    • I thought that since both games share the same interface and engine, it would be relevant but I removed it anyway. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just in terms of better illustrating the article, it'd probably be best if there was a better-quality image for File:JumpingFlash003.jpg. It's been triply-compressed and is clearly from a lossy video source as opposed to a solid screencap. That's not a FA issue, but just an overall quality one.
    • Agreed. I'll upload a new one. JAGUAR  15:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I've uploaded a new image and updated the FAR. JAGUAR  16:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• References:
  • I spotchecked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 7, 8, 13, 20, and 25.
    • Robbit can jump up to three times—once off of a surface and twice in mid-air—the cited Joystiq source doesn't mention the surface and mid-air distinctions when discussing the double and triple jumps; while they can be inferred, especially the latter bit, from the text, I'd hew a bit closer to what they actually say.
      • The Joystiq source says "you can jump up to three times consecutively mid-air", so I've rephrased the prose to Robbit can jump up to three times in mid-air, which allows him to reach extreme heights, which sounds like it's following the source more accurately. JAGUAR  16:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The game is composed of six worlds with three levels each, totalling 18 main levels[7][8] consisting of seven boss levels and six bonus stages.—There's no citation for the "seven boss levels and six bonus stages" bit, and the first part of the clause is misleadingly cited—there's only evidence for the 18 main levels, not the composition of worlds and levels, which need a source. Likewise uncited: Landing on the "EXIT Pad" completes the level. The third level in each world is a boss fight.
      • I've removed the "consisting of seven boss levels and six bonus stages" bit. Just as I was giving up hope, I found the GameRevolution source which says "The game consists of 5 worlds each with three levels one of which includes a final boss". In such, I went with the source and rephrased this to The game is composed of five worlds with three levels each. JAGUAR  16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Furthermore, I've sourced the "The third level in each world is a boss fight" with the GameRevolution source and removed "EXIT Pad" bit. "Exits" are used some sources, but they lack the description of "exit pads". JAGUAR  16:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I think you need to go through the gameplay section with a fine-tooth comb and make sure the sourcing here is clear and solid.
      • I've done some rephrasing and rearranging here and there in the gameplay section. JAGUAR  16:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The GameInformer ref 26's archive appears to be broken for me:
      • Strange, it was working a couple of weeks ago. Now fixed. You mean Eurogamer? There is no GameInformer ref in the article? JAGUAR  16:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I would strongly recommend archiving every web source in this article (some are already); you can use archive.org (for those already existing) or webcitation.org (to make on-demand archives of pages that might not have been scraped.) Link rot sucks and I've had a lot of my early FAs get hit with it; it's nice to be proactive and make sure the references will stand up for any challenged bits later on.
    • Archived all of the web links, with the exception of 1UP, which can't be archived due to its robot.txt (that's what it says whenever I try to archive it). At any rate, they're all working and should be safe from linkrot. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I've addressed all of your concerns. Thanks for the review! To summarise, I've rephrased parts of the gameplay section so it more accurately follows the sources, uploaded a new image, archived all web sources and rearranged some sources that caused confusion in the gameplay section. I hope that covers everything. JAGUAR  17:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I've made some further alterations to the gameplay section. I took your advice and fine-combed it, so I removed and rephrased a couple of sentences. I also added some missing citations, so I hope it's clearer now. What do you think? JAGUAR  15:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll go through it again this evening or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Doing another check I'm still seeing issues. Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles, and others will directly attack Robbit is sourced to . The only bit from both I see as tangentially supporting the statement is While most enemies do not bother you (you can just jump or run on by 'em), others will stand in your way. You have rollercoaster-filled carnivals when the source doesn't mention rollercoasters. I can't check the original manual to see what lines up there but I'm concerned there might be similar elaboration in the prose that doesn't line up with what the source precisely says. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I got the physical manual. You can download a PDF file of it but to do that you have to join a member of a forum to access it. The manual is surprisingly comprehensive and is probably the best resource to use for gameplay, I would try to send you a link to line up the writing but I don't know if it will work. Does this work? JAGUAR  16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: addressed both those points. I removed the "Most enemies have simple actions; they wander around aimlessly or randomly shoot and throw projectiles" sentence entirely because I can't make out how to rephrase that, as the online source is unclear. I've added a couple more points which I extracted from the manual, such as earning an extra life for every 1 million points and a continue option. I hope you can access that manual, because it's by the far the most useful source for gameplay. The scan is 95 megabytes, so I won't be able to put a link in the article (which I know should be fine). JAGUAR  16:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You could upload it to Replacement Docs (they only have the sequel there.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded it (spent 40 minutes waiting) but I don't think it worked because the file exceeded the 65 megabyte limit. JAGUAR  20:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Given the previous issues I don't really feel comfortable supporting on that issue, but as I have not found any new issues using sources I can access I'm striking my oppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see if I can upload the manual by cutting some pages. I can't promise anything because the only file I could get is unusually large at 95mb, but the download link is still there if all else fails. JAGUAR  21:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I hate to disappoint but I can't upload the manual, it's impossible to do so. The only thing I can think of is emailing it. JAGUAR  21:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

(ident) I've looked through the manual citations and they really need to be made page specific—the manual cites pages 4, 5, and 17, when it's citing for other pages as well (the gameplay information on what's on the screen, for instance, is on page 7.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Voilà, just added harvrefs for the manual along with its individual page numbers. JAGUAR  16:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Anything major outstanding? If not then I'd like to close this. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing outstanding at this point. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Masem left some minor comments yesterday and I've took care of them, although he already left a support. I believe I have everything covered in this FAC. Just noticed that this is the oldest nomination, it doesn't feel that long! JAGUAR  22:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, with the caveat that so much is wrong with the prose in the second paragraph of the Reception and legacy section that I hardly know where to start. It might be best to rewrite that paragraph from scratch. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: thanks for the copyedits! I've done some copyediting to the second paragraph of the reception, and I've corrected some minor adjectives so that they are now based on their sources more accurately. Other than that, I couldn't find any misunderstandings with that paragraph. What sort of issues do you see with it? JAGUAR  18:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. That paragraph is better now. I guess I'll let my support stand, but only per my standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. If there's anything else I can do, I'll be happy to get to it. JAGUAR  19:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Support for promotion. Hope you have your first FA with this. I hope I have mine too. -- Frankie _talk 07:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Frankie! I really hope so. This is got to be my most successful nomination yet. I'm confident you'll get yours. JAGUAR  16:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. IMO it's close to promotion; the only thing needed is source review, which, I think, you should request here. Also, could you take a look at mine which is lacking participation? -- Frankie _talk 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Frankie! Which one did you want me to take a look at? Is it a featured list nomination? I'll be happy to leave comments. To be fair most of the comments above have been orientated around sources and spotchecking, but I see what you mean. It wouldn't hurt to have an official lookover just so I can get this FAC out of the way. I think every source has already been scrutinised (not sure on the manual, but it's linked in this FAC for anyone to download). I'll request one now. JAGUAR  20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

you had also left comments in its PR. :) -- Frankie _talk 20:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Looking over it now....

• I made these changes to smoothe prose.
• You need to mention what Robbit is in sentence 2 of gameplay

• Thanks! Addressed. JAGUAR  14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Hey, were you going to leave any more comments? I think this is nearing completion. Although comments regarding the sources have been made above, I think a final check over would finally finish this FAC, which has been open since November. I could always leave some comments on one of your FACs in return? JAGUAR  19:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• sorry, been busy. I was going to look at sources but saw the discussion with @David Fuchs: above and not sure if that was resolved. I would like to hear from David how he feels things are at present. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, no rush. I think all of the source issues have been more or less addressed in this FAC, however I wasn't able to upload the game's manual to a sharing site. I left the download link above, but it's a large 95 mb pdf file, which exceeds the limit for uploads (and it was the only one I could get hold of). If anything, I think that's the only thing left to check over. JAGUAR  21:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I managed to reduce the file size to under 4 MB, which can be downloaded here. – Rhain ☔ 22:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing that! I tried installing freeware to reduce the size or at least cut a few pages, but I never could get it to work. With that done, the manual can now be analysed, and I think that's the only source left to check. Naturally, I'll do a final double-check myself. JAGUAR  22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Next steps

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else that would need to be done here? I feel that the sources were all spotchecked above, and there are no other issues outstanding. This has been open for a while and I'm eager to do whatever else is needed. JAGUAR  17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Masem

• I found a few awkward wording pieces that I fixed, and there was an issue with the harvard citation that I fixed too.
• Image check - Both images are non-free, but reasonable with rational for inclusion. I would suggest that on the cover image you link to where you got the cover art. On the screenshot, it is a bit larger ; can you reduce it to 300px wide (50% of the size) and still be okay? Also, a link to the original Engadget article would be good.
• Otherwise, given the time period of this game, I would not expect to see much more on its development or reception, and thus otherwise seems to cover the game in a coherent manner so outside of the small image issues, support this as FA. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you for the fixes! I've updated the cover art's rational, as it seemed outdated. I've reduced the screenshot's size to 425 x 300 pixels, and added the original Engadget article to its file. The reduced size of the screenshot looks fine. Yeah, finding any information on this article was a challenge, but it's received a small amount of publicity in retrospective reviews, as it can arguably be considered the first PlayStation game (though it depends on how you look at it). JAGUAR  20:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments by Lingzhi

• "His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm..." Snakelike sentence. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ling, I broke it into three sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• Consider the use of alt text for any images used, so they can be interpreted by screenreaders.

  Added ALT text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• The costs table could be better formatted for the same reason; use !scope="col" and !scope="row" in to define where columns and rows begin. Here is a diff of an example of how to do so.

  Not sure what the benefit it is - it looks the same as before - but done anyway. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  The benefit is, again, for screenreaders, as the definitions allow them to read the table coherently. It means visually-impaired visitors can still benefit from the information in it. GRAPPLE ^X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is there a particular reason why we have inch-to-millimetre conversions? It just seems unusual to see thousands of millimetres given for measurements.

  For some reason, millimetres is the default conversion. It seemed appropriate where we were talking about fractions of an inch, so retained there. Switched to cm for the 184-inch (470 cm) cyclotron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Overall this is a very high-quality piece, would be happy to support given the above is addressed. GRAPPLE ^X 10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! All points have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case I'm happy to support this one. GRAPPLE ^X 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.

A beautiful article, I have no major complaints, so I had to resort to lots of very minor prose nitpicks:

• Too many California's in this sentence: "Its name was derived from California University Cyclotron, in tribute to Lawrence's institution, the University of California in Berkeley, California, where it was invented." Couldn't the reader infer that the University of California in Berkeley is in fact in California?

  Removed. Just had to make sure there was one mention that it was in Berkeley before referring to it that way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Should this be in American English since it's mainly about California and Tennessee? "6 August 1945", "25 June 1942", etc. If not, should the measurements use metric first with inches or whatever in parentheses?

  Per WP:STRONGNAT, articles about the 20th century US military use this format. It happens to be thje one the Manhattan Project used consistently. Measurements are in United States customary units. Note however that the US customary unit for fissile materials is metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...the heavier isotopes are bent less by the magnetic field..." not the isotopes themselves, but their paths? Beams? Streams? Or not bent but deflected?

  Used "deflected", which is probably the term used in the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...he theorized that it was the uranium-235 isotope and not the more abundant uranium-238 that was primarily responsible for fission with thermal neutrons." Does 'primarily' mean that some 238 is also responsible? Or other isotopes too?

  Yes. Natural uranium is 99.275% uranium-238, 0.72% uranium-235 and 0.005% uranium-234. According to the Wikipedia, the thermal neutron cross section for fission of uranium-238 is around 0.00002 barns, while that of uranium-235 is 583 barns. So in layman's terms, you get some, but not a lot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "This made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated..." Why does it follow from the finding that U-235 is responsible that a chain reaction could happen? This seems stilted without more of an explanation. I understand not wanting to get into the nitty gritty so early, but is there a way this could flow better?

  Changed to: Leo Szilard and Walter Zinn soon confirmed that more than one neutron was released per fission, which made it almost certain that a nuclear chain reaction could be initiated Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Brilliant. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Uranium-235 makes up only about 0.72% of natural uranium,[14] so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 1250 to produce 90% uranium-235 from natural uranium." These numbers don't mean anything to a lay reader, do we need the specific numbers? The words 'separation factor' make sense in context, but I don't actually know what they mean. If it were like "Uranium-235 makes up only about 1% of natural uranium, and they need it to be 90%, so the separation factor of any uranium enrichment process needs to be higher than 900", I could kind of see where the numbers are coming from and the specificity would make sense. But as is the math makes no sense so it's kind of distracting.

  Yes, but think of the kids who are trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. By giving exact dates and numbers, we give them plenty of room to maneuver. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...which results in the beam scattering." I prefer the active voice to this noun + -ing construction: "which causes the beam to scatter." Same with "resulting in reasonably good beams being produced in September 1942."

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "In December Lawrence received a $400,000 grant from the S-1 Uranium Committee." Is this a military or government committee? Might it help to give a link or a parenthetical about what this group is?

  There is a link to its article, up above when it first appeals. It was a committee of the NDRC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Replace one instance of 'work' here to reduce repetitiveness: "the process had been demonstrated to work, considerable work was still required"

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I know the template does this, but "about 3 feet (0.91 m)" would be more sensible as "about 3 feet (0.9 m)" or "about 3 feet (1 m)" given that the 3 ft is an estimate in the first place, so you don't want to be too exact with the conversion.

  It sure does. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Lawrence's leadership style. His audacity, optimism and enthusiasm were contagious." Hmm, that's one way of putting it, I heard he was a tyrant!

  That too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Transition wording needed to switch from talking about TN to CA: "...training of workers to operate the production facilities at the Clinton Engineer Works in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. By the middle of 1944, there were nearly 1,200 people working at the Radiation Laboratory."

  We're not talking about Tennessee. The Radiation Laboratory remained in Berkeley. It's still there today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  Ohhh, they were being trained in Berkeley to work in Oak Ridge later. I misunderstood. It seems perfectly clear now that I reread it. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Typo? " a second stage on enrichment."

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "special procedures were instituted for handling the silver. Holes were drilled into the silver over paper so that the filings could be collected." This is confusing, I think it means "when they wanted to drill holes, they did it over paper", rather than what it kind of sounds like, that they went out of their way to drill holes.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• "handfuls of rust were found inside. Moisture was also a problem" Maybe "also a problem in its own right" or something? It's just that the 'also' sounds redundant because moisture causes rust.

  This is true. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's all I got for now! More in a few days. Sorry to be a total brat about the minutiae. Very nice work! delldot ∇. 04:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review ∇! Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, everything's addressed! Back with more in a couple days. delldot ∇. 00:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a couple more for right now:

• This sentence switched to hyphens from n dashes: "Alpha process buildings, 9201-4 and 9201-5, another Beta, 9204-2". Same with "The two Alpha I buildings, 9201-1 and 9201-2".

  Got rid of the ndashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Don't you think the paras beginning "Groves authorized Alpha II in September 1943" should be a table instead? It's TMI to integrate as prose, too hard to follow all the numbers, and repetitive. Anything that's not building, start date, or finish date could be kept as prose.

  It is prose in both the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

  Sure, but they've got a whole book to fill up, right? I don't know that that means we should follow suit. It's up to you, I'm not going to make a big deal of it, but the prose does feel kind of word salady: a jumble of building numbers and dates. I think a table would be a lot more readable. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• That noun -ing construction again (also I have a personal vendetta against 'with' as a conjunction with the present participle): "with S-50 product being fed into K-25 instead."

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Back with more soon! delldot ∇. 07:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Last set:

• Too much 'used in': "Enriched uranium from the calutrons would be used in the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August 1945." you could say 'went into the Little Boy atomic bomb' or something.

  Re-worded to Enriched uranium from the calutrons provided the fissile component of the Little Boy atomic bomb used in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• "By May 1946, studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without accidentally creating a critical mass" This is the first mention that there was a danger of this during production. You might just change it to something like "unlike the racetracks, which had a danger of accidentally creating a critical mass [that could explode?], May 1946 studies suggested that the gaseous diffusion plants could fully enrich the uranium by themselves without this danger" Or something much better written than that.

  No, the racetracks had very little danger of creating a critical mass, because you can just flick the switch on them if too much uranium-235 starts to build up. The gaseous diffusion plants were rather more complex. Care had to be taken with product though. A bad incident occurred at Oak Ridge on June 16, 1958. Product did not explode, because it didn't come together fast enough, but it irradiated the vicinity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• For the table "Manhattan Project – Electromagnetic project costs", I think all the figures should be carried out to the same number of significant figures, and either millions or billions should be used, not both. (e.g. 3.69 billion changed to 3690 million) Currently it uses $19.6 million and $6.63 million, I think it would be better either rounding up or using 0's to carry it to the same number of decimals.

  The magic is all in the FormatPrice template. I assume it conforms to the MOS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dangling modifier: "In 1945, the British atomic bomb project built a 180° calutron similar in design to an American Beta calutron at the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire." Could just put the phrase 'similar in design to an American Beta calutron' in parentheses.

  Added commas. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Is there anywhere else in the article that the single sentence under Calutron patents could be integrated? It would seem more logical to end the article with the discussion of the more modern-day applications, and this single-sentence section brings us back in time.

  Moved to the Research section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I expected more info on how a calutron works. The one diagram is small so you can't really see the separate parts or read the labels, maybe it could be cropped or enlarged in the article? (although I know some people don't like the latter).

  I tried to describe it as best I could. I have enlarged the diagram. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, that's it from me! Excellent work overall. delldot ∇. 01:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh shoot, did I forget to say support after all that? Sorry! Support. delldot ∇. 03:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Closing comment -- FTR I've checked the relevant MilHist ACR image and source reviews and note that no new images or refs have been added since then, so prepared to close this without further inspection here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Sources review

• ref 94: pp. should be p.
• For the two Kindle books (Dean and Taliaferro) you give the publisher location for the latter but not the former.
• The OCLC for the Walters book is 477641
• I'm no expert on state abbreviations, but "Kan" doesn't seem consistent with the earlier "NE", "TX", "OH" etc
• I don't want to be over-fussy, but footnote "d" deems to contain a little more than simple clarification details, and as such probably ought to be supported by a citation.

Subject to the above, all sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability, and are formatted consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Those things are fixed. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I missed the peer review for some reason, but reading through the article now with critical eye I find nothing to quibble about, and am happy to add my support for the FA candidacy. The article meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 10:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. I will be sure to notify you of the next one!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments from Corinne

• In the second paragraph of the section Baron Munchausen#Historical figure is the following sentence:

• However, Münchhausen was considered an honest man, rather than a liar.

I recommend reversing the order of the parts of this sentence:

• However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man.

Putting "rather than being considered a liar" first creates a link to the previous sentence, and putting "was seen as an honest man" second creates a link to the next sentence. If you feel that the phrase is too long, then it could be shortened to:

• However, rather than a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. (or)

• However, instead of a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man. Corinne (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I like your first suggestion. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment By trying to be "about [both] the literary character and his historical namesake", this article becomes confusing. It's as if the Jerry Seinfeld (character) article had all the Jerry Seinfeld stuff as well. As I see it this article is basically the character article; but unlike in the Seinfeld case the real person's article doesn't need to exist as he isn't notable.

You should therefore treat this article as a straightforward fictional biography, with the real guy's info there only to provide background to the character. In effect though, none of the content will drastically change, just remove the WP:MOSBIO elements: the real guy's infobox, the bolding of his name in the lead, and his birth/death dates (move them to Historical figure). And start the article with "Baron Munchausen is a fictional German nobleman in literature and film, created by the writer Rudolf Erich Raspe in 1785". That'll make it crystal clear what this is article is about.—indopug (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I, too, am sympathetic to this approach, and was thinking about it as I read through the article. On the other hand, I suspect that the real-world Munchausen is notable. Perhaps the shift in focus suggested by Indopug along with the creation of a short article (there's easily enough here for a good start class, and that'd give you somewhere to put the infobox/categories, which don't really belong here) would be the best way forward. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the namesake is notable by WP standards; since inspiring the fictional character is the reason he's remembered and written about, he strikes me as a pretty clear case of WP:BIO1E. On the other hand, that's exactly what makes this article's focus a bit tricky to pin down: in order to explain the fictional character sufficiently, the historical storyteller has to be given good coverage as well. The fiction/reality overlap seems unavoidable. As one of the writers quoted in the article says, "These two barons are the same and they are not the same…"

I'd be glad to hear others' opinions on how to handle this. If removing the second infobox and unbolding Hieronymus's name will make this article less confusing, I'm happy to oblige.--Lemuellio (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Almost all barons are "notable by WP standrds", certainly this one. But I think the existing approach is correct, though a little clarification at the start of lead would help. I too was briefly unsure of the subject here, but it did not last long. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose, for the purposes of this review, that we needn't decide whether the real-world baron is notable. That said, a slight shift in focus to make sure that we're clear that this is an article about the character (so, debold the real name in the lead, remove the infobox but keep the image, remove the categories added for the person) is likely appropriate either way. If someone chooses to create an article on the baron, it can be linked as appropriate (or taken to AfD if we/someone is of the view that he is not notable, though I remain fairly sure that he is). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and shift the focus, and see what happens. Thanks.--Lemuellio (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is an improvement; I am leaning towards supporting, and will take another look through in the coming days. (Shout at me if I haven't said anything in a week...) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Leaning support. I think the article is very good, but there may be elements I have missed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Struck due to the reintroduction of the topic ambiguity. This needs to be sorted before this can be promoted to FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I think I've successfully undone the ambiguity; please do let me know what you think of the article as it now stands. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed- I'm happy to support on the condition it stays as-is in that regard. Sorry for running you around a little. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Dore-munchausen-illustration.jpg: source link is dead, and should use original rather than upload date
  • Thank you for this image review! I've done my best to remove the problem on the Commons page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Rudolf_Erich_Raspe.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:G_a_buerger_sw.jpeg, File:Gottfried_Franz_-_Munchhausen_Underwater.jpg
  • Same as above.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Stamps_of_Germany_(BRD)_1970,_MiNr_623.jpg is tagged as being non-free
  • Thank you for catching this. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:Muenchhausen-1lats.jpg: the given tag states that Latvian coins no longer circulating by 2004 are PD, but this coin is dated 2005
  • According to the tag: "Per 2004 amendments of Latvian copyright law … reproductions are allowed … [if] criteria for reproduction set by issuing national bank or country are met. … [T]he criteria limit reproduction of coins as actual objects (i.e. tokens, medals etc.), which could be mistaken for genuine coins, but have no requirements for images that are flat (i.e. drawings, paintings, photographs, etc)." So, unless I'm misreading the tag, it would appear that any photograph of any Latvian coin is free for use as long the photograph itself is freely licensed.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
• File:BaronM.jpg: freedom of panorama in Russia does not extend to sculpture, so we need a licensing tag for the statue itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The sculpture is by Andrey Orlov (b. 1961) and was unveiled in 2004, so it most likely cannot be used here. I'll remove the image from the page.--Lemuellio (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Never do an FAC too close to Christmmas though! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

• "However, rather than being considered a liar, Münchhausen was seen as an honest man." What does the "however" relate to? The preceding sentence does not seem to indicate anyone considered him a liar. FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning "However" is to clarify that despite the unusual nature of Münchhausen's performances (he told long outlandish stories about things he claimed happened to himself, and told them as casually as if they had really happened and were not at all astonishing), his contemporaries were able to recognize that what he was doing was storytelling rather than lying.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I think "rather" would be enough to make that point (seems a bit like a pleonasm now), but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• There seems to be a bit of a potentially confusing issue, in that the original German books use the exact same name for the fictional character as the real person, while only the English translations use a slightly different name. I've listed some resulting issues below.
  • On the contrary, "Munchausen" is the original name of the fictional character (see the Fictionalization section). It was only in translation into other languages, including German, that the spelling shifted to "Münchhausen" to match the real-life man's name.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the issue was that the German version is identical to that of the real life person, unlike the English version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "Raspe, probably for fear of a libel suit from the real-life Baron von Münchhausen" But was the real person actually a Baron? It seems "Baron" is considered a type of "Freiherr" in Germany, according to the German Wikipedia. Yet it seems the real life person was never referred to specifically as a Baron there? If "Baron" simply substituted "Freiherr" in English translations, this should probably be stated somewhere, and the real life person should perhaps not be referred to as one.
  • The German WP says that the honorific "Baron" can be applied to a Freiherr (bisweilen mit der Höflichkeitsformel „Baron“ angesprochen). So, to the best of my knowledge, the real-life person can accurately be called "Baron von Münchhausen". Raspe, at the very least, seems to have considered "Freiherr" and "Baron" equivalent.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Is "von" used in the name of the fictional character as well? If only in translations, this could be noted, as the lack of umlaut is noted too.
  • I've never seen the "von" used in versions of the English original; only in German translations.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Perhaps the full name (or the words "real life") should be added to the caption of the image that shows the real life person ("Münchhausen circa 1740 as a Cuirassier in Riga, by G. Bruckner"), to differentiate the two.
  • Fixed. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Could dates be mentioned in relation to the various reviews under "Critical and popular reception"? Now it is unclear whether commentary is contemporary or from much later.
  • I'm not sure how necessary that is, since the commentators are all wikilinked and so their time periods can be easily checked. (There's a year given for the one unlinked exception, Sarah Tindal Kareem.) I can definitely add a few words to clarify that the review in The English Review is contemporary, though.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure what others think about this, but I think it would be helpful to add date after the name of the artists in the captions of the illustrations.
  • I'm not sure either, but I'd be happy to do so if there's a consensus in that direction. So I'd value a second/third/fourth opinion on this.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
• "Pearl's popularity gradually declined between 1933 and 1937, though he staged several comebacks before ending his last radio series in 1951.[9]" I'm not sure if this is really relevant to the subject of the article?
  • It seems like a good way of establishing how long the Baron-as-radio-phenomenon lasted, so I would recommend keeping it in.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but as is, the reader wouldn't know that the two issues (Baron's/Pearl's popularity) are connected, since you don't mention whether Pearl used the Baron as a character until the end. If he didn't, there isn't much relevance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point; I'll fix it. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Since a lot of text is devoted to von Münchhausen's telling his stories, an image like this that is used on the German Wikipedia might be fitting to illustrate that.
  • For a while, that very image was indeed used to illustrate this article. However, it's unclear when exactly that image was made—and, therefore, whether or not it's fallen into public domain—so it was eventually removed.--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, since the artist died in 1934 (more than 70 years ago), and the images were published before then, those images are definitely in the public domain. Where was this concern raised? FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Herrfurth images are definitely PD in their country of origin, but WP has to follow USA copyright laws, which (alas!) are considerably weirder; see WP:PD. In brief, for these images to be in PD in the USA, there needs to be proof they were published before 1923. I can't track down the publication date, so the copyright status remains a mystery to me.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

In that case, the images would also need to be nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I'll do that, and the resulting discussion will decide what will happen. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The image was kept by an administrator, so it should be safe to include. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in. Thanks so much for looking into this!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The character is loosely based on a real baron, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen" Perhaps bold this name in the intro, as it is also a subject of the article?
  • For a long time, Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen was in bold on this page; then, during this FAC discussion, there was some conversation about whether or not the real-life man really counted as a subject of the article, and eventually the name was unbolded. I could go either way on it; please don't be afraid to reopen the conversation above. And thank you for all your comments!--Lemuellio (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the real life person doesn't have an article, and has a substantial amount of text devoted to him here, I'd say he's a subject, but well, I guess it's a matter of taste. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree - me, I'd re-bold. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

At the moment there's a 2-2 tie, so I'll take a stand myself now. I'll be bold and re-bold (pardon the rhyme).--Lemuellio (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, makes sense, also since the article has categories about the real life person as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted per LEAD. One of the burdens of FAC (for better and worse) is MOS compliance. Bolding is for synonyms of the title. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back, Dank! I think the "To bold or not to bold" problem stems from the ambiguity, already raised on this page, about what the article's subject is. If the subject is the fictional Baron, full stop, then clearly Hieronymus's name should not be in bold. But if the subject is both Barons—in other words, if the article is for all intents and purposes a joint biography—then both names should be in bold, as is done on all the rest of Wikipedia's many joint biography articles.

Me, I'd argue that the joint-biography approach makes a whole lot of sense; it would be ridiculous for (to take a random example) Maud and Miska Petersham each to have their own biography, since they're notable specifically for the work they did together. The same logic seems to be applicable here; without the fictional character Hieronymus comes dangerously close to being a WP:1E, and without the historical personage the fictional Baron has no context whatsoever.

Of course, I don't own the article, so I'm happy to go whatever way a strong consensus leans.--Lemuellio (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with this, once again. Johnbod (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The categories for the real life person were also removed at one point; perhaps they've been added back now. I think the best solution would be to create an article for the real baron; given the amount of information about him in this one, it probably wouldn't be too difficult. The worst solution, I think, is this ambiguous "two subject" article. I note that this isn't really a joint biography at all, but an article about a real person and a fictional version of that real person, and we have plenty of precedent for separating them. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against separation. But I think as long as the real life person redirects here, he is certainly a subject of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The redirect guidelines allow that a redirect can be appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article"- this case seems to be an example of that. If we're not having a separate article, this should be treated as a subtopic rather than as a second main subject. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I guess the main problem here is that we don't seem to have a clear precedent, so that it becomes a matter of taste/opinion. I'd go with a split (with a summary about the real person, of course). The real life person seems to be notable enough. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A split is fine by me, as long as the real-life Münchhausen really is notable on his own; that's the point that seems unclear at the moment. That he was adapted against his will into a pop-culture icon is remarkable, but it's only one event. It's true that he was born into a noble family, but to the best of my knowledge, nobility doesn't automatically imply notability.

This is where the article differs from, say, Jerry Seinfeld (character); the real Jerry Seinfeld has a public life separate from his fictional persona. Münchhausen was so much more private an individual that it seems difficult to pad his biography out any further without steering dangerously close to WP:PSEUDO.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think more info about him could be found in German sources, if one really wanted to be comprehensive. And considering that we have articles about the spouses and parents of various US presidents, who aren't notable past being just that, I think this case is notable enough as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your position, but please note WP:INVALIDBIO: "relationships do not confer notability". (See also the essays "Other stuff exists" and "Inclusion is not an indicator of notability".) That more info could be found in German sources is probably true, but seems to fall under the category of arguments described in the essay "But there must be sources!".

Again, I have no personal reasons to oppose a split, but since several reviewers have indicated support of the article as it stands, it looks to me as we need a strong policy-based reason to leap the one-event hurdle and split the article.--Lemuellio (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 1E applies. If tomorrow J. K. Rowling was to reveal that Harry Potter was based on Harold Lotter, a schoolfriend who is now an assistant manager in a shoe shop, the creation of an article on Lotter could be opposed on those grounds. The real Baron has significance as the source of the fictional character, but also as a member of the nobility, a minor celebrity of days gone by, a military man with connections to other notable people, a part of a somewhat-notable family and perhaps for other reasons. I suspect there would be sources available, and I'd be inclined to say that there's easily enough material in the current article/its history to create a decent enough start- or C-class article. If, on the other hand, you're of the view that he's not notable, surely that's all more the reason to clarify that the current article is very much not about him. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty close to supporting, but I'd like to see this issue resolved somehow... As Josh points out, the Baron seems to be historically notable in his own right. You could argue that he has of course been overshadowed by the fictional character, but that does not take away from his own achievements and significance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like the best compromise, at least for the moment, is simply to make it unambiguous that our focus in this article is the fictional character. I've re-removed "and his historical namesake" from the hatnote, as well as the categories describing the historical figure.--Lemuellio (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The new image layout looks good. I'll just go ahead and support this, as the remaining issues don't hold it back for me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from delldot ∇.

This is an excellent article, I have no major complaints. I do prefer it with the real baron covered in this article, it is an important part of the story with their similarities and differences, and his feelings on the coverage. I think it would lose a lot if he were split out. A few nitpicks:

• "with each of the three trying to outdo one other" one another?

Good catch! Fixed.--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• "some of his most well-known stories" best-known?

Very good. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In the para beginning, "In the first published illustrations, which may have been drawn by Raspe himself..." wouldn't it be great to have examples of each type of illustration accompanying the para?

One of the images attributed to Raspe appears under "Fictionalization"; illustrations by the 1792 artist, Cruikshank, and Doré can all be found in the gallery "Illustrations for the stories".--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to arrange these next to the paragraph that discusses them to illustrate the changes that take place? This is a minor thing and up to you, but it does seem like the perfect time for images. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Good thought. I've moved the Raspe image into the gallery, which appears just above the two paragraphs discussing illustrations; now the whole evolutionary process can be seen together. Thanks!--Lemuellio (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is a complex one." Would it change the meaning if we cut out wording just to say, "The relationship between the real and fictional Barons is complex"?

Good idea!--Lemuellio (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Really great work! delldot ∇. 01:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, everything looks great. delldot ∇. 17:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, although I should disclose that I have made a number of prose edits, both to improve article clarity and to ensure that all sections of the article are properly summarised within the lede as per WP: Lede. Well done to the primary authors of this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Coordinator note - Lemuellio, this will need a source review and, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, a source audit for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Laser_brain. I've made the request.--Lemuellio (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Marvellous article. Coming in late but seeing none of the confusion between real-life and fictional baron. All is clearly signposted. Some comments regarding the sources:

Thank you! I've tried to address your concerns below. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• A few books lack an ISBN.
  • Since quite a few of the books are older, they won't have an ISBN to begin with … so really, for sake of consistency, I'm not so sure that any of the books should have an ISBN listed. What do other editors advise? Consistency for books with ISBNs, or consistency across the whole bibliography? I'm completely open to suggestions. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• There are some characters not rendering well in Balina, Marina; Goscilo, Helena; Lipovet︠s︡kiĭ, M. N. (2005)
  • I'm guessing those are the t︠, s︡, and/or ĭ characters. I'm sorry to hear you're having problems with them, but since they're part of the spelling of a person's name I'm not certain they can be replaced with plain old ASCII "t", "s", and "i". Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• At my first FAC I learned that placenames for publishers need the country or state, unless they are really obvious. Bayreuth for example needs Germany added
  • Thanks! I've added where it seemed appropriate, though of course "obvious" is a bit subjective (e.g. I've left Geneva, Edinburgh, and Boston as they are). If there's a specific policy in place to determine how detailed placenames should be, please do point me toward it. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Foreign language references need English translations as well. And also state the language they are in (I can spot only one "in German")
  • I've added language tags. Could you please clarify what you mean by "English translations"? I can't remember seeing anything in the MOS about this. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• the Mitchel reference links to page 100 on Google books, but actually starts on page 98
  • Good catch. Thanks! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• the Nietzsche book seems to be from 2009 and by Random House according to the link to Google Books. And Kaufmann was also editor.
  • Added "ed." for Kaufmann; thanks. Random House owns Modern Library, which would explain the Google Books attribution. As for 2009, I think that's an error. The usually reliable WorldCat lists the edition as 2000. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Inconsistency: Orly's first reference has only the initial R but the second one has first name
  • I think the usual practice is to give the author's name as it's printed in the source, even if that introduces an inconsistency. If there's something in the MOS to discourage that, please let me know. Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• Inconsistency: Raspe only has initials, whereas virtually everybody else gets full name
  • Same as immediately above. Again, thanks very much! Lemuellio (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

• Earwig's copyvio check clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• references - some use 2 digits for page range (e.g. "Investigating the Barons: narrative and nomenclature in Munchausen syndrome"), others use all digits. align them
• Willis, Donald C. (1984) and Schwartz, Alvin (1990), have no ISBNs
• ...references otherwise look in order.

Spot checking..

• Seccombe (1895) used multiple times - checks out ok.
• Apel source (used once) - all in order.
• Nagle (used once) - all in order.

i.e.very minor tweak above and good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges and missing ISBNs fixed. Thanks so much! Lemuellio (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Source review from Cas Liber

I'll take a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ref formatting all in order.
• Earwigs' copyvio check all clear
• Filipovitch-Robinson 2005 used once. material faithful to source.
• Judah 2000 - p.2 used twice. material faithful to source. I can't see pp. 14-15 here in Oz.
• Judah 1999- pp.30-31 used once. material faithful to source.
• online ref 28 - used once. material faithful to source.

Spot check all in order. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments by delldot

Everything's dealt with now. I hope you'll keep adding info as further studies become available, as we discussed. But it looks like this is comprehensive for what exists. Great work! support. delldot ∇. 21:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

Taking a look now. Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

"'although despite BASL is mutually intelligible with other dialects of ASL. - remove the "despite"?

Are there examples of same signs that have different meanings in ASL and BASL?

Overall an engaging and fascinating topic - the prose is such that I just fell into reading it without necessarily noting anything to fix. I'll take another look but think this looks on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read through the article! I revised the one sentence in my last edit. Your second comment is more complicated. I haven't come across any sources that explicitly say these two identical signs have different meanings in each dialect, but there is an example of Trip which means 'to fall' in ASL but the same sign done in a different location in BASL means 'imagining things' (while in the idiom 'Stop tripping'). It's the last sentence in the article. Wugapodes (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, missed that one - interesting topic. Okay then, my personal preference is inclusiveness so reading the article leaves me curious to read more examples on how the languages differ, yet I suspect these are not systemic or essential, so it's a support from me on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Coordinator note - Has this had a source review? Wugapodes, as this seems to be your first time at FAC, we will also need an audit of sources for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Unless I have missed them somewhere, please request at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested. It is largely offline sources which might make some wary, so I would be willing to provide scans of various pages to anyone willing to take on that audit to make their life easier. Wugapodes (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: It's been a while with no source review. Would it be okay if I posted a request on the talk pages of WikiProjects Deaf and Linguistics to see if anyone would be willing to do the source audit? Wugapodes (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Source review by Cas Liber

• most but not all titles seem to be in title case. Recommend fixing at least one (The intersection of African American English and Black American Sign Language} to align with others

• books (e.g. A Loss for Words: The Story of Deafness in a Family) lack isbns. should be added.

• One book (The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture) lacks a publisher location.

Spot check by Cas Liber

Using this version as reference:

• FN 7 checks out - faithful to text, no copyvio (also, I can see it supporting material in preceding sentences)
• FN 12 checks out - faithful to text, no copyvio.
• FN 38 & 39 check out - faithful to text, no copyvio.
• I read fulltext of Lucas et al 2015 via my university library - supports FN 37, 40 and 41 nicely.

In sum, am happy with sourcing. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thanks for the source review and spot check! I think I have addressed all of the formatting issues and included ISBN-13 codes for the books. If there's anything more you think needs to be done, let me know! Wugapodes (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments by Edwininlondon

Good article. A few comments though:

• Maybe it's just me but I feel on occasion that the loss of lives comes across as not as important as economic damage. The lead ends with the afterthought "and there were 12 deaths." And the Impact section's first paragraph has total financial damage and total injuries but no death toll.

• Sadly, with such large storms, deaths are relatively common. A nor'easter a few weeks ago killed 40 people, but the focus was more on the widespread disruptions and the flooding. I wanted to balance the effects with the narrative I found in newspapers following the storm, which focused on the hugely disruptive flooding, as well as the unpredictable nature of the storm. In addition, nine of them occurred in the same small area through similar circumstances, so I didn't want to talk about them too much and give undue detail. I hope this doesn't come across as heartless or cruel, just that it's a delicate balance, and if you still feel it needs more emphasis on the human loss, I would be open to adding more on that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to see Impact section's opening paragraph mention the death toll. It really strikes me as odd to mention injuries but not death toll.Edwininlondon (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• No problem. I moved some info around so the deaths come first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble with the maths. I guess the $1.4 billion damage in the Virginias doesn't count, but this is not actually stated. Even so, the total damage is given as $1.5 billion and there's $1 billion in Louisiana. Where does the remaining $500 million come from, as the highest non-Louisiana damage I can see is $1 million in Florida?

• With regards to the Virginias, I added "This excludes the effects from the subsequent flooding in the Mid-Atlantic. " Sadly, I never found a great state-by-state damage total, which is a problem with older storms (and even some newer ones). I'm guessing the total was higher in Louisiana, even though I could never confirm a higher damage total for Louisiana. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think the article should deal with this in some way. Having the totals not add up does not help overall credibility. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, with rounding and lack of exact government reports, it's tough to get exact totals. The $1.5 billion is well-cited, and this source backs up that "most of it related to flooding in southern Louisiana", but most sources I've read that deal specifically with Louisiana only say $1 billion, which is a nice, round number that is very easy to round to. Worse, the source that does give some minor semblance to state-by-state damage breakdown has some very broad categories for damage estimates (so that Juan in Louisiana is listed as $100 million to $1 billion), but that's even preliminary. I'm not sure how to deal with it other than how I've dealt with it so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• The use of "Then-governor" is a bit odd because it makes me think Edwards still is governor, which doesn't seem to be the case

• I added "then" for governor Edwards. I wasn't sure how that part would be received, whether it was obvious it was about the governor back in 1985, so I'm happy to add the "then" and make it consistent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I tried dropping "then" for both and like that better. Other people mentioned are probably also no longer in that job, and we would end up with lots of "then"s. What do you think? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Sounds great! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• "peak winds of 92 mph (148 km/h) and gusts to 110 mph (176 km/h)" just being a layman here, but what is the difference?

• I made a mistake, I should've clarified "peak sustained winds". Sustained wind means that the wind value is sustained over one minute, while a gust can last as short as 3 seconds. I added "sustained" to this example. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• These 2 statements seem to contradict each other: "Juan also produced 36–49 ft (11–15 m) waves" and "Juan produced waves approaching 70 ft (21 m)."

• I didn't notice that at all, good catch! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Should it not simply be "a boat named Miss Agnes"?

• Sounds good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Because the hurricane looped twice near the coastline, Hurricane Juan" could probably be a bit more elegant with the word hurricane mentioned only once

• Horray for pronouns! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I don't get the "although" in the sentence "Tides peaked at around 3.3 ft (1 m) in the other coastal states, although offshore winds caused below-normal tides"

• It's a contrast. In some areas, the storm produced really high tides, while in other areas, the circulation caused below normal tides. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• The sentence "Hurricane Juan was one of the latest storms on record to affect Texas." puzzled me. Firstly that "latest storm on record" seemed superfluous. Secondly because Texas' rainfall was already discussed in detail, it seemed to state the obvious. May I suggest to ditch the sentence and simply state "In Texas, the heavy rainfall from the storm.."?

• Oh, it means in the calendar year. Texas very rarely gets storms in late October and early November, so I think it's worth including, but perhaps I need to spiffy up the language. I changed it to "Hurricane Juan was one of the latest tropical cyclones in the year to affect Texas." Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Something is not right here: "In Violet, a man drowned he fell from his boat "

• Added a missing "when". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• And this sentence doesn't flow for me either: "After a year of hurricanes Elena and Gloria and flooding in Puerto Rico, the effects of Juan and the mid-Atlantic flooding caused the American Red Cross ran out of funds while responding to the flood disaster, prompting an emergency fundraising appeal."

• Changed to - The American Red Cross ran out of funds while responding to the effects of Juan and the mid-Atlantic flooding, following the previous responses to hurricanes Elena and Gloria, as well as flooding in Puerto Rico; this prompted an emergency fundraising appeal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Source review. I was going to do one, but I'm not keen on this style of referencing. It's just too hard without the actual page numbers given for each sentence. I see that FA article Hurricane Kate (1985) also uses this style of referencing, so I guess it is acceptable. Nevertheless, Ref 2: Robert A. Case (1986): the page number given is 1390, but most of the a b .. n are on other pages, so should the reference not be "1390-1405"? Edwininlondon (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Minor mistake there. I meant to put the page number for the Juan section, which is 1401-1403. The rest of the document barely talks about Juan. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• What about Ref 15? That's a 33 page article, but no page number given :(
• Ref 22 pdf link does not seem to work any more Edwininlondon (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Fixed both :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review! It has definitely helped, and if any of my comments are cause for concern, I'll gladly address any further issues. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Coord note

Did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: doesn't look like there was one but it's easy enough to do myself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Juan 28 oct 1985 2034Z N9.jpg – Public domain work (PD-USGov) by NOAA

File:Juan 1985 track.png – Public domain work by yours truly (originally uploaded by Jdorje) with base map from NASA's Blue Marble

File:Hurricane Juan (1985).JPG – Public domain work (PD-USGov) by NOAA

File:Juan 1985 rainfall.gif – Public domain work (PD-USGov) by NOAA; could use some format cleaning on the commons-end, but source is provided

File:Juan 1985 track enlarged.png – Public domain work by yours truly with base map from NASA's Blue Marble

Tks CB; @Hurricanehink: you have several duplinks so pls review using the checker (ping me if you haven't installed it) as I doubt the article is long enough to warrant them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Comments from FunkMonk

Thanks for your comments. I've integrated some of your suggestions; will think about the others over the next days when I have some more time... Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "but Linnaeus had already used the name Triton for a genus of sea snails." You could mention when.

Done and original Linnaeus ref added. Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "differences between subspecies were however noted and eventually led to their recognition as true species." Does the source really say "true"? "Full" might be more conventional.

Agree. Replaced with "full" Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tylototriton: Should be "were, however, noted". When "however" is used without a comma, it has a different, though today uncommon, meaning ("in whatever manner", i.e. "were somehow noted" or "were, in whatever way, noted"). Is the "however" even needed here?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• "In the southern marbled newt, adults mainly breed" In? Sounds a bit odd.

Reworded to "Southern marbled newts mainly breed..." Tylototriton (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Paedomophic adults, retaining their gills and staying aquatic" Are these able to reproduce or breath air?

They are not able to breathe air but they should be able to reproduce, such as axolotls do, but the source has no info on whether they have actually been observed to do so. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

They can breed, and they can breathe air a little, by gulping (not enough to survive out of water for long). This should be sourceable from anything that covers salamander or general amphibian neoteny broader than a focus on axolotls. A decade ago, I'd have something handy for you, but I don't have those materials any longer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand the structure of the lifecycle sections. What is meant by "phases"? To me, it would mean that there are distinct phases in its life where it is solely aquatic or solely terrestrial as an adult, but that does not seem to be the case? To sum up, it is aquatic as larva, but terrestrial as adult, apart from when it breeds, or how? If so, it is unclear, and I think it might need some restructuring to make more chronological sense.

Well, what characterises these animals is that they are aquatic as well as terrestrial as adults. They have recurrent phases, if you like. What might have caused confusion was the "Lifecycle" title of the section. I've renamed it "Behaviour and Ecology" and made the Reproduction part a separate section. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• "They secrete the poison tetrodotoxin from their skin," Doesn't seem to be very effective, with so many predators. What animals are deterred by it?

The study cited only showed that the newts secrete the poison, it didn't test its effectiveness. But even if it's very toxic this doesn't mean it gives 100% protection – even the highly toxic Taricha newts have natural enemies! Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Mostly it makes them taste bad; it's not "meant" (to engage in Dawkinsian gene anthropomorphism) to be fatal or seriously injurious. So, there probably aren't any studies about how toxic they are, to what.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• It might make sense to have the evolution section closer to the Taxonomy and systematics section (or the other way around), as in virtually all other animal articles. I can see why you have placed it near distribution, but it seems rather disjointed now, as if the information stops arbitrarily and starts again by the end of the article.

I moved the phylogeny part to "Evolution". Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Now I'm here, I have a confession to make: as a kid, I caught some crested newts and brought them home, where they soon died. I now realise it was a criminal act... When did it become prohibited in the EU?

The Berne Convention, where the crested and marbled newts are listed, is quite old but was ratified at different dates by its member countries. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Some rather late, I suppose. I was able to obtain some in the US from someone returning from Europe, ca. 2001-ish.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Size and colouration (only mentioned for marbled) could be mentioned in the intro.

I only wanted to mention the distinguishing and namesake features – the crest for crested newts and the colour pattern for marbled newts. Tylototriton (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But isn't the colour of the crested newts distinguishing as well, as you say "Crested newts are dark brown, with black spots on the sides"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's certainly less conspicuous than that of the marbled newts. I've added their colour though in the same phrase. Tylototriton (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I'd move the entire Taxonomy and systematics next to the rest of the evolution stuff, but my comments have been addressed, looks nice. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM

It's really great to see this article here. I must note that the article strikes me as rather cluttered at some text sizes; try zooming in and out and you may see what I mean. Lots of tables, pictures, call-out boxes and so forth; I wonder if some selective rearranging or, dare I say, trimming could help with this. Generally, I wonder if the prose could be a bit cleaner (taxonomy and description in particular- the text further down the article flows well). A few specific comments:

• "This crest gave their English name to the crested newts, in which it can be up to 1.5 cm high (in the northern crested newt) and very jagged." This is a bit clumsy; most obviously, "their English name" cannot be "up to 1.5 cm high".

Reworded this part. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Are you attached to the lack of capital letters in the table? Is there something in the MOS about this?

Did not find anything in the MoS, but everything in the table is in capitals now - does look better. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Overall, the newts usually attain an age of seven to nine years" I think not- that may be the "natural" lifespan, but given the number of eggs, surely most individuals die before reaching maturity.

I've rephrased to make it clear that this is the usual age for adults once the larval and juvenile stages passed. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• "presumably to mimic a prey and lure the female" Can "prey" be used like that? Do you perhaps mean "a prey animal" or something similar?

Changed "prey" to "prey animal". Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"To mimic prey" would be more concise and equally idiomatic (in the positive sense).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• What does "resorb" mean? This strikes me as jargon

I'm not sure how I could say this in more plain language. "Resorb" is also used in the article on metamorphosis, and it has the specific meaning that the tissues are degraded and absorbed - the gills are not simply lost or fall off. Unfortunately, Resorption is a disambiguation page, so a link would not really be helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Two possibilities are defining it in this article (dashes, "ie", brackets- something like that) or linking to an appropriate entry on Wiktionary. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've linked to Wiktionary. Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if we have no article on that, that's the solution, but I would challenge the notion that it's jargon, anyway. It's just a word, and its meaning is obvious to any native English speaker, even if their dialect might have it as "reabsorb".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• The first sentence of "Evolutionary history" has two colons; this is to be avoided. (Also, are you committed to keeping the information on evolutionary history with the distribution? I can see the logic of it, but perhaps it fits more neatly with taxonomic information?)

Fixed the two colons. I've now split off Distribution as a separate section but I prefer to have the taxonomy separated from the evolutionary history (which is not only phylogeny). Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Is "distribution modelling" the same as environmental niche modelling? The lead of our article suggests that it might be- if so, a link would be great.

Yes, it's the same. Wasn't aware that there's an article, I've linked and reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Is a redirect in order, or does "distribution model[l]ing have multiple meanings/  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting; I don't think that this is far off. Your citation style strikes me as odd, but I've no doubt that you know what you're doing! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've removed some pictures not really necessary and rearranged the remaining ones, should be less cluttered now. Also tried to achieve better flow in the taxonomy and description sections but I think that's about as well as I can do as a non-native speaker - I'm thankful for other suggestions! For the citation style, I just think it's more efficient to give the page numbers directly - I don't need separate "References" and "Cited works" sections this way. Tylototriton (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Tylototriton. This fixation in certain camps with making the citations as complicated as possible with multiple sections for them is, well, "user-hateful", both for readers and for other editors. It's only familiar to and appreciated by professionals in certain academic fields (who had it drilled into them as undergraduates and forced on them professionally in those fields); they're not more than a tiny fraction of our target audience. Template:Rp is a WP:NOT#PAPER innovation that saves us from having piles and piles of redundant citations, or having to use two separate sections for sourcing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think your fixes have really improved the article. I wonder if there is perhaps more taxonomic history than you expand upon? There are a dozen synonyms listed in the taxobox which aren't mentioned in the article proper. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is much to expand upon regarding the synonyms, it would simply mean listing them - and since we already have that in the taxobox, I don't think we need to duplicate? Tylototriton (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it would just clutter the prose.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cautious support; a very readable, well-sourced article. I know/knew very little about newts, so I can't promise I will have caught any errors/omissions. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

From delldot ∇.

Beautifully done. I just have a few very nitpicky comments, because I couldn't find anything else to complain about:

• Would this sound better reworded? "white stippling on flanks mostly lacking" to "white stippling on flanks mostly absent" or "mostly lacking white stippling on flanks"

"Absent" is good, reworded. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• "...use structures such as logs..." 'structures' is an odd word. How about "the newts hide in logs..." or "use hiding places such as logs..."

Agree, replaced with "hiding places". Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Awkward wording: "Dispersal to new breeding sites occurs mainly through juveniles..." Maybe "Juveniles are the main reason for dispersal to new breeding sites..."

I'm not quite happy with "juveniles are the reason"; they're not the reason, they're the ones that disperse. Rephrased to "Juveniles often disperse...", hope that sounds better? Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• "In such a posture, the newts typically roll up and secrete a milky substance" - are we to assume that this substance contains the aforementioned toxin?

That's all the source says unfortunately, see also the comment at Peer Review. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I believe "A 24 million year old fossil" should be hyphenated thus: "A 24-million-year-old fossil".

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think this long sentence should be split: "This concerns especially breeding sites, which are lost through the upscaling and intensification of agriculture, drainage, urban sprawl, artificial flooding regimes (affecting in particular the Danube crested newt), and, mainly in the southern ranges, exploitation of groundwater and decreasing spring rain, possibly caused by global warming."

Agree, sentence split. Tylototriton (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Overall, really excellent work. delldot ∇. 23:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Tylototriton just in case you didn't see this. delldot ∇. 23:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, saw your comments, thanks. Not much time atm; I'll try to be back on the weekend... Tylototriton (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah, ok, no rush at all, take your time. delldot ∇. 16:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. Everything above is addressed. This is FA material. delldot ∇. 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Source review and spot check - in progress. Using this revision for navigation. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference formatting - most refs have et al after three authors, yet FNs 23, 27 and 29 list more. Also some locations are listed with country after city, some aren't. Just choose on or other. Other than that, refs look in order.

Earwig's Copyvio Detector is looking clear

more to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Still going, Cas? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, knew I'd forgotten something. Will get back to it today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, using this revision to avoid migration of refs in editing....

• FN 3 - used 5 times - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.
• FN 29 - used for a slab of interesting text - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source, though the conclusion they have in their abstract is "~4%" for hybrids rather than as a range. Reading the article I can see "3-7%" is also valid. Can see pros and cons and satisfied that this interpretation is valid.
• FN 33 - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.
• FN 19 - used twice - material faithful to and does not plagiarise source.

Spot check all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

References now all have three authors + et al. if there are more than five authors in total. Ref Martel et al. 2014, Science, was the only exception, fixed that. Country removed from location parameter in the refs concerned. Tylototriton (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

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