Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2020

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2020 [1].

Laborintus II (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is actually the second nomination for this article; the title has been moved around a few times over the years (and I wouldn't be surprised if another move is suggested here again). The previous nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laborintus II (2012 recording)/archive1. The main concern, aside from questions of titling and an odd interlude on whether this article constitutes commercial prejudicing, seemed to be whether I had accurately mirrored the sources used--between that review and a few subsequent re-readings of everything used I am confident that there should be no misunderstandings of the source material now; however a source review would be a good way to start this off. I'm also well out of the loop as regards FAC and haven't nominated an article here in a number of years, but hopefully it's like eating a bicycle. Bear with me if I'm rusty. Thanks in advance to anyone who participates in this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am uncertain about the placement of the "which..." dependent clauses in these two parts, (Luciano Berio, which featured lyrics taken from) and (Members of the Dutch choir Nederlands Kamerkoor, which performed in the recording,), since they are directly after a person and not an object. I think the second example should be "who" instead of "which". I could be overthinking it, but it was something that caught my attention while reading through the article.
    I've amended the latter but would be unsure of what would be right for the former. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence could be right in its current wording. I honestly need to dust up on certain parts of grammar. It was just something that I noticed while during through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I was wondering if there is a set structure for the "Release and reception" section? I was just curious because the last two paragraphs seem a little random in terms of critics and quotes. I am not saying there is anything wrong, but I would like to know more about the organization.
    The intended structure was one paragraph on release (dates, charting, etc), then the remainder on critical commentary; the second and third paragraphs are largely ordered based on when I found the sources and so there's no reason why they couldn't be reworked if necessary, although I would still lead off with Metacritic as it does the job of summarising things. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. When I read this part, it seems like the second paragraph is more about positive reviews for the album and the third paragraph is about the mixed-to-negative critiques. Because of this perspective, I was somewhat confused while reading the last two sentences. The Q sentence seems quite negative, but then I am honestly uncertain of what to make of the Spin quote. Is "orchestra/tape collision crisper" a negative response/description to the album? The Spin source is extremely short, but I think the "narrated by a rock star prone to screaming" part may be more applicable here so it is a clearer critique of the album that fits within the paragraph's preexisting structure. Let me know if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-written the Spin review accordingly; on re-reading it I think I misread the sense of the (admittedly quite terse and fragmentary) original words. Let me know how that looks now, and whether you would want the paragraphs involved to be re-ordered. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is understandable as I had to re-read the Spin review a few times to make sure I really understood their opinion. I would honestly be interested to read one-sentence reviews for other albums; it certainly an interesting approach lol.
    From my understanding of Mike Christie's comments (and feel free to correct me) is that he was suggesting just having the publication name in the prose so it would be something like (The A.V. Club called the album "challenging, uncompromising, and bordering on inaccessible") without the "review" part explicitly put in the prose.
    After re-reading this section again, I have noticed that the sentence structure is pretty uniform throughout so it may be helpful to change it up to keep a reader more engaged in the content. I get this note quite often during my own GAN / FAC reviews. Apologies for the amount of comments in this part. Once these changes have been made to the reception section, I will re-read the article again and most likely support it for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoba47 Your opinion on either the current version of the section in the article, or the alternate version presented on the article's talk page, would be greatly appreciated. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping, and apologies for not being as active on here. I just wanted to step back to allow Mike Christie's suggestions to be addressed without distraction. I think the alternate version on the article's talk page is the better of the two (at least in my opinion). I think that version provides a stronger narrative and helps me, as a reader who never heard of this album and is generally not familiar with this genre of music, have a clearer understanding of its reception. Great work. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've replaced the existing section with this version now. Mike Christie, do you feel that this version meets what you were looking for too? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 21:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I hope I've addressed everything for you suitably. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one last question about the "Release and reception" section, and then I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Comments. So far I've just looked at the release and reception section, and I agree with Aoba47 that it's not quite there yet. I'd suggest eliminating the rating numbers from the prose; they're in the table at right, and they make the prose much more difficult to read. Personally I'd cut the names of the reviewers themselves if they're not notable in any way; their names are available via the footnotes, and most readers won't care that it was e.g. Thom Jurek who wrote AllMusic's review. I think the thematic division between the paragraphs works well, but I'd like to see more integration of the opinions in each paragraph into an explanatory narrative that gives the reader a sense of the paragraph. WP:RECEPTION talks about an "A said B" problem; you don't quite have that here, but particularly in the first paragraph the opinions and quotes are conveyed in a rather listy way, rather than being used to illustrate a point made by a narrative sentence in the article's voice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can make a start on reworking this section, but I just want to be clear before I do--is the best practice to ascribe any quotes directly to the publication in this case (ie to AllMusic rather than the named reviewer, for example)? If so I can start on this now. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:53, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's my personal preference; I don't know that I can claim it's best practice. If you decide to keep the names, I won't be opposing on that basis. The reason I like to cut them where possible is that it makes it much easier to write sentences that flow naturally; interjecting both name and source publication into every sentence with a quote or opinion makes it jerky. If you can make the prose flow more smoothly while leaving the names in, then that's fine. And of course any reviewer who is notable as a reviewer should probably be named, regardless; I don't know if any of these are in that category. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an initial pass at this approach here but am open to further amending it. I may have leant quite heavily on the word "review" as it now seems to have lost all meaning, and am happy to hear any objections or suggestions. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have some further comments, but I'll put them on the article talk page, and we can work on it there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll just say that as a prolific editor in music articles, I’ve never had anyone say that reviewer names need to be omitted. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a high-quality article for an album, film, song, or video game that just doesn’t name reviewers. Attributing directly to a publication seems unwise. My most recent FA, Almost There (album), names all reviewers. Toa Nidhiki05 18:24, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not common practice, but why do you think it's unwise? What does the reader lose if the reviewer names are not included, at least when the reviewer is not a name that anyone will know? It's in the citation, after all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The revised reception section is much improved. (Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, by the way.) I have one minor point below, which does not affect my support.

  • Berio described the main structure of Laborintus II as a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" (exemplified by the Etymologies of Isidore of Seville): the reference to the Etymologies is not going to be very helpful to most readers. You might consider a footnote as well, explaining what Berio meant.
  • You have "focussing", which is a British English spelling; wouldn't it be more natural to have this in American English, since Patton is American?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hadn't really considered the subject American but it's a minor fix to use AmEng anyway. As for the footnote, anything I could add would probably fall into OR territory so I've reworded the aside to gloss what Isidore's book is a little more readily. Thank you again for your help in improving this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're welcome; it was an interesting read, though I have to say the sound sample decided me not to listen to the whole thing! Both points above now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05

[edit]

Gonna give this some input as well to get a fresh face here. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • One thing I'll note here is that, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, this article should only have a maximum of two paragraphs as it is under 15,000 characters. This should be pretty easy to do, though.
  • One minor change I'd make is move the mention of its release date from the third paragraph to the first; see Almost There for how an example of that might look. It might be worth mentioning the record label that distributed the album as well.
  • Citations in the lead are generally frowned upon; it's not a dealbreaker, but generally speaking if it's cited in the lead it should be in the article, so there's usually no need for this. I believe this information is already cited, so the citation could simply be removed.
    I've removed the citation (it was there due to a direct quote) and have tried two different re-orderings of the lead's content here and here. Which would you say is the better summation in two paragraphs? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current version looks quite good. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • One general inconsistency I've noted is that some sentences have the period outside the quotation marks while others have it within them. This should be modified to where they are all consistent - either all have them outside or inside. I believe the rest of the article uses them outside the quotations so it might be easier to just fix the outliers.
    Amended. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • I would attribute the Allmusic review to the author, Thom Jurek.
  • There is a semicolon between the reviews for Spin and Q. This should be a comma.
    Fixed the second point; as to the latter, I had planned to redraft this section a little based on the above review and discussion at the talk page, which has leant towards omitting reviewer names. I have no strong preference either way on this if you wish to disagree with that discussion. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s interesting, I’ve never seen any sort of consensus anywhere to not name reviewers. I disagree with that idea. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing

These are the issues I've found on a first read. Overall a short but seemingly comprehensive work - I'd support on prose if these issues are corrected, Grapple X. Toa Nidhiki05 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed much of your points and sought some further input on a few. Thank you for having a look at this one. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! I’ll jump in on the reviewer comments above but I’d be willing to support on prose grounds, presently. Also, no pressure but if you have any time, would love any input at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)/archive1. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ceoil

[edit]

I enjoyed reading the article, and looking up on youtube; wow. However it does need a good head to toe on prose; to take an example that stood out from my last skim: "From a whisper to a shout, the words carry a variety of emotional tones as the work progresses" - this seems as if lifted from a press release, certainly not encyclopedic language, and very different in tone for the preceding and later sentences. This disjoint occurs through out the page, and on that basis oppose for now. Grapple, in my best 90s leaving cert irish - cur i gcoinne :). ps, what is meant by "the main structure"? Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take another comb through the prose today but FA-level formal prose has never been my forte. Would it be advisable to list it with the GOCE in the mean time? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also in relation to your last question; I had meant "the bulk of the composition", as in, the majority of it as opposed to specific passages or moments. How would you prefer that to be phrased? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would canvas for copyeditors. Re phrasing, "From a whisper to a shout" is a bit poetic/sounds like an advert, and frankly suspect wrt copying sources. Certainly raises a red flag. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can take the point re: tone but compared to the source it's derived from (AllMusic), I don't really see the red flag as to copying (That sentence is based on "...alternately authoritative and declarative, reflective, romantic", "He shouts, whispers, declares, and intones", "They chant in unison, they argue; they accent the dramatic tension in the music"). Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 17:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in this anymore. None of the alts are any good, maybe even worse, the oppose stands. Ceoil (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested a copy-edit of the article to hopefully smooth out the prose. If you have any other actionable concerns I would be happy to address them, otherwise I would at least ask that you retract the baseless "copying" remark as it understandably rankles to be accused in the wrong. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More for the attention of any coordinators assessing this, the article has since received a copy-edit and I have specifically gone over the passage highlighted above to redraft it as well. Net changes can be seen here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 22:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose stands. "Berio described the main structure as a "catalogue, in its medieval meaning" (exemplified by Isidore of Seville's seventh century encyclopaedia Etymologiae), using Dante's themes of "memory, death and usury".[3] " is incoherent, to take a random sentence. What is a "catalogue" in this context (an example is not a definition), and then why say 'also' in the next claim - "have also cited usury". Are these connected? Ceoil (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The music incorporates elements of jazz[2][9] and 20th-century avant-garde - avant-garde what. That's a very broad term applicable to almost every musical type. Why two cites for "Jazz". Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    These are from glances. I really dont think this is ready for FAC, and suggest withdrawal and a rewrite. Ceoil (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To save yourself time and edits, I shall not be engaging with you or your suggestions further until the above insinuation is retracted; there shall be no withdrawal as other users have proven perfectly helpful without personal attacks and I would prefer to keep the candidacy open to allow for more input from good-faith editors. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 18:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For archaeological record, the PA mentioned came about from questioning the origins and encyclopedic value of the phrase ""From a whisper to a shout, the words carry a variety of emotional tones as the work progresses". To say nothing about the poetic flourish, why "as the work progresses". My overall impression us that the nominator doesn't understand the material, least of all the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [2].

Stockport County F.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wna247 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Stockport County F.C 's history from the beginning to present day Wna247 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kosack

[edit]

Hi Wna247, I would say this article would be better off undergoing a peer review before coming to FAC. There are a number of major issues that I can see from a brief glance.

  • The article changes from referring to the club as singular or plural throughout. For example, at the start of one paragraph, you have "Stockport remained in Division 2 of the Football League for seven years until 1912–13 when they again had to seek re-election. Stockport gained 22 votes and was therefore reelected". The first sentence uses they (plural), while the second uses was (singular).
  • The references are formatted rather inconsistently, some are missing required information like publishers and accessdates. Quite a few fall foul of WP:ALLCAPS and there are two or three that may not be classed as reliable sources.
  • Naming consistency is a little off at times, for example, the article switches between using Second Division and Division 2 regularly.
Tired to address this with a quick edit, will go through and check again with further amendments - changed naming consistency e.g (2nd Division changed to Second Division etc.) throughout. Changed "County" to "Stockport" throughout. Wna247 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Youth competitions are not typically included in honours sections.
Removed Wna247 (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text needs a good copyedit I would say as well. There are obvious punctuation and grammar typos throughout.

I think this is a little way off from being considered an FA in its current form, but a good peer review would go a long way towards fixing that. If you do start a pr, drop me a line and I'd be happy to help out. Kosack (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Article is being Peer reviewed. The FAC can be closed and I will bring it back once peer review has been completed. Wna247 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Squirrel Conspiracy

[edit]

I have removed File:Stockport County win National League North - Commentary.ogg from the article and nominated it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation on Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [3].

Virat Kohli

[edit]
Nominator(s):  User:Princepratap1234 |push to talk  11:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Virat Kohli an Indian cricketer who currently captains the India national team. A right-handed top-order batsman, Kohli is regarded as one of the best batsmen in the world.He plays for Royal Challengers Bangalore in the Indian Premier League (IPL), and has been the team's captain since 2013. Since October 2017, he has been the top-ranked ODI batsman in the world and is currently 1st in Test rankings with 928 points. He was honoured with multiple awards as padma sri, khel ratna and cricketer of the year. User:Princepratap1234 |push to talk  21:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias
  • Nominator has made two edits to the article, and there is no evidence that they have consulted with other regular editors of the page prior to nomination, per the nomination instructions.
  • Generally the article is in okay shape, but there are a number of unreferenced claims that need citations, while the tail-end of the Indian Premier League section declines into short, often single-sentence, paragraphs.
  • The Awards section is in bullet form, without any context provided for most of the awards.
  • One of the references is a bare URL.
  • The article has a number of quotes that are not attributed inline.

I may provide a more detailed review if these points are sufficiently addressed. Harrias talk 08:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Fowler&fowler

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [4].

Leeds Town Hall

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. This is the first time I have entered the FAC process, so please be compassionate with your review. I’ve been working for a while on this article for Leeds Town Hall, one of the largest in the UK and a major heritage building in the city. I’ve expanded it considerably from the state I found it in to start with, just adding information from sources (mostly print books) as and when I have had time. It turns out that doing this is incredibly educational and interesting, at least for me, and so with those sources I eventually plan to create a featured topic named “Architecture of Leeds”, encompassing that article, the Town Hall, and local buildings and architects. The only start I have on that was taking Elinor Lupton Centre to GA last year.

Anyway, I’m fairly pleased with the article as it stands today. One thing I probably want to change is the title of the “Appraisal” section, to a word which means “things people said to demonstrate how important it is”, but the right word hasn’t occurred to me yet. Suggestions on general formatting, sentence structures, refs etc are welcomed. Rcsprinter123 (sermonise) 03:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very interesting and, though Neo-Classical, it is indeed a fine Victorian building. I shall certainly come back to review. Two immediate thoughts: would Appreciation do as a replacement for Appraisal; and, in my experience of FAs about buildings, reviewers prefer the History to come first, followed by the Description and Appraisal. I originally had Chartwell in exactly the order you have here, but two very experienced reviewers preferred it flipped, and I think they were right. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two other things struck me on first read-through. James Rhodes, On this Day in Leeds - Lulu publishing is a bit of a red flag, and I can’t make the ISBN work. Nor can I find it on Worldcat. Is it self-published? If it is, that may cause a Wikipedia:Reliable sources concern. Do you actually use it? I’m not seeing it in the refs. But I may have missed it. Second; while you’ve used Wrathmell’s Leeds PAG, I suspect the Leach/Pevsner revised Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and The North, will have some additional material. I can go through it to see what it has or, alternatively, I can email you photos of the relevant pages. Let me know. KJP1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick response, KJP1. I'll give you a few replies now. On the section naming, Appreciation might sound like it's only about positivity rather than significance and influence too. But what I can't understand so well is the History/Description order. Surely the reader (who we should assume knows next to nothing about the topic when beginning to read) would like to know what the building looks like and consists of before getting into the detailed whats and whys of how it came to be. I don't want to disagree with architectural FA precedent, but it seems illogical to me. Then on the Rhodes source, it's true that the self-published book isn't a very strong one and shouldn't really be allowed to stay, but it was the only thing I could find about the lions being modelled at London Zoo which I seem to remember was always in there unsourced and apparently true. I guess we can just remove the statement and leave only the Topham source to ref the lions moving (20th C section). Finally on Pevsner, I must say that it wasn't very useful in finding things that weren't already said in other sources, and that's including in the original 1967 Pevsner West Riding copy I found at the library. However, if you think there's possibly more to be got, there's no harm in taking a look if you have the book. Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 15:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose from John M Wolfson

[edit]

Welcome to the FAC process! I'll be looking around this article, and intend to take WikiCup points for this review.

  • a design by architect Cuthbert Brodrick I have absolutely no issue with false titles, but I thought they weren't as common in British English.
  • It was planned to include law courts, ... This seems a bit clunky, IMO. Perhaps "designed" could be used in its place?
  • "to a design by... It was designed" possibly overuses the word. R
  • The hatnote in the "Description" section should perhaps be replaced with {{Commons cat}} in the External Links section.
  • I know this is unconventional, but I really feel that readers should get an extra push to see all the fine detail on Commons when they could miss the link in the External links section. R
  • Until 1813, the Moot Hall, on Briggate was the seat of the Leeds Corporation and was used for judicial purposes from 1615. Should be reworded.
  • Perhaps inflation figures could be included for historical figures with {{Inflation}}, but this is hardly fatal to the FAC.
  • Had a go with this with a few key figures. R
  • ending the potential situation where a public concert may happen simultaneously while prisoners are being held. That this would be brought up seems a bit like original research to me, a reliable source that explicitly says this should be cited.
  • The "Present usage" section should be renamed "Present use".
  • There are many articles that are linked multiple times within the article, such as Woodhouse Moor, Potts of Leeds, etc. This is not best practice on Wikipedia, and this tool helps you remove them.

Overall this looks rather nice, and I'll look more into it later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey, sorry about my great delay. Per the coordinator note below, and taking another look at this, I'm afraid I am unable to support promotion at this time. Just running through it a bit, there are still prose issues such as Until 1813, the seat of Leeds Corporation was the Moot Hall of 1618, on Briggate, which was also used for judicial purposes. and A council committee (What's that?). Please do not take this personally (I've myself failed quite a few FACs, including my first), and I might very well be willing to support this once it gets passed through stuff such as a Good Article review or a peer review (though peer reviews currently have a backlog IIRC). I hope you've received this experience well, and you are keen on submitting more FACs in the future! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Welcome to FAC! I've no particular interest in municipal architecture, but I'm local (York) and have visited the building for a vegan fayre, so there's a (minimal) personal connection! Only a few minutes, but I'll start reading through. (I am participating in the WikiCup, but I'll only claim points if I "finish" the review.)

  • I wonder if you jump in with the history a little too quick? Maybe say what it is before jumping in to when it was built. See WP:FIRSTSENTENCE.
  • You mention the Grade I listing in the lead, infobox, and categories, but not in the article proper.
  • I'm surprised to see the see also to Wikimedia Commons. I thought external links like that were discouraged... Is there something in the MOS supporting this use?
  • Paragraph 1 of the "description" section feels too rhetorical/superlative. It doesn't really read as Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Third paragraph too, to a lesser extent. And paragraph 1 of the sculpture subsection.
  • What does "pilaster" mean? Wikilink? rosso antico? capitals? tympanum? Beware jargon!
  • "originally the 'Great Hall'" Why single quotes? Also "or 'central charge office',"
  • False titles are non-standard in British English, and beware MOS:LQ; I've fixed them when I've seen them.
  • Slightly tricky writing in the sculpture section: "Catherine Mawer who lived in Oxford Place close by", "were being worked on by her husband Robert Mawer,[1] between 1853 and 1854, when he died".
  • "It was a new status symbol, and ever wishing to compete with Bradford, calls grew within Leeds for a new town hall." Grammar; "calls" are were not "ever wishing". "...ever wishing to compete with Bradford, the people of Leeds..." or something may be better.
  • "in the midle of their hitherto" Typo? Or [sic]? I'm not sure if this passage meets the expectations of MOS:LQ. Is the "if" at the start of the quote the start of a sentence in the original source?
  • I can confirm that "if" is part of the quote. "midle" was a typo! R
  • Do we have a picture of Moot Hall? That'd add some nice visual interest to the "background" section. This would be great, if it's the right thing!
  • No image of it on Commons as yet, but certainly an idea. I think that artwork would be OK for upload, being c.1825? R

Ok, stopping there. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This site was on the edge of the town centre of the time, but required a large parcel of land that was unavailable in the congested central streets" I'm struggling - in what way did "this site" require a large parcel of land.
  • ""unwise and expedient to proceed with the Hall"" Is that the correct quote? Surely they meant inexpedient?
  • "'Instructions to Architects'", "'crowning glory'"; Again, why the single quotes?
  • These are to indicate that these are descriptions bestowed by others, not the article. Changed to normal quote marks. R
  • "However, only sixteen entries were received, which were fewer than expected" was?
  • "No public building had so huge had been erected in the town before." ?
  • Second paragraph of the "Building works" section: Again, I'm wondering about MOS:LQ.
  • That's a quote within a quote. Not good? R
  • "(now considered part of its picturesque character but which caused alarm when they started to sprout)" Again, this doesn't feel like Wikipedia's neutral voice. There are other issues in that paragraph.
  • Removed "picturesque" and made less brochurey. R
  • I think the paragraph beginning "Whatever doubts the council" needs revisiting (sorry). Again, the language is a little flowery.
  • Tweaked. Finding it hard to remove rhetorical language without affecting factuality. R
  • "and the Council had to find extra funding at a time when there was great poverty among Leeds's working classes." Reference?

Stopping again - sorry this is so bitty. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for combing through, John M Wolfson and Josh Milburn. I've made amendments to the article and crossed out the items above that are dealt with, and replied individually to some. Rcsprinter123 (message) 00:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The design was revised many times during the construction, such as the inclusion of an organ" The grammar is off here. The inclusion of an organ is an example of a revision, but you don't use that word, you use revised. "There were many revisions, such as" would work. Alternatively, you want something like "The design was revised, for example, an organ was included".
  • Amended. R
  • "they started to sprout" Too informal
  • Tried "first appeared". R
  • "Leeds considered the" Who does Leeds refer to, here?
  • I've put that as the council because they arranged the subsequent celebrations. R
  • "who successfully managed to express Leeds's increasing wealth and importance" On what grounds are you saying they were "successful"? Is this a neutral claim?
  • Removed unnecessary word. R
  • "often a symbol of Leeds" Used as? Presented as?
  • Changed to "used". R
  • "earliest of its time" How can something be earliest of its time? I don't understand this claim.
  • Just "earliest" now. R
  • I was interested to see what part of Peaky Blinders was filmed at the Town Hall - as best as I can see, your source does not support the claim that Peaky Blinders (or, indeed, the other programmes listed) was filmed at the Hall. I think this underlines the need for a close source review.
  • I believe the source backs this up. Although it renders a bit strangely in the archive, close to the bottom, it clearly states "Productions filmed here: [the four programmes mentioned in article]". I don't think you could find exactly which scenes from each were filmed there without watching the shows through, but that could be OR. R
  • "Another significant appropriation of its form – the square plan with a neoclassical design and tower – is Parliament House, Melbourne (1856),[85][86] as are other colonial examples such as Parliament House, Adelaide (1880s), and in South Africa, Cape Town City Hall (1893) and Durban City Hall (1885)." "As are"? I'm struggling with this sentence.
  • Another appropriation is Parliament House, as are other examples, XYZ. I think this is the correct plural form. Are the subclauses getting in the way of it making clear sense? R
  • "On the tower, he was more hesitant to praise," Again, struggling.
  • Reworded. R
  • Rhodes is in your bibliography but not cited.
  • Must have neglected to remove from bibliography when non-RS cites replaced. Gone now. R

I'm sorry this has been so bitty - and I'm sorry to say that I don't think I can support right now. I think there were some writing issues, some neutrality issues, and problems with the one source I checked. Certainly not enough to oppose, but I do suspect there will be room for further improvement as other reviewers contribute - and I do think that a close source check will be a necessity. (Please double-check my edits.) Josh Milburn (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to extra points above. Josh, I'm grateful for all the feedback and for your copyedits. I shall remember for future times that there are extra steps to take regarding getting reviews of the writing and sourcing before nominating FAC. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1

[edit]

Starting properly, but it'll take more than a day.

General
  • History or Description first? - I see your point, and it is , of course, your call. You have precedent, but I can see the strength of the opposing view.
  • Revised Pevsner - You're right, the text in the 2009 Yorkshire: West Riding - Leeds, Bradford and The North, seems an, almost exact?, lift from the Derek Linstrum text in the 2008 Leeds PAG. I'll go through, but doubt it will throw up much.
  • Peer review - for an article that's not previously been GA, from a first-time nominator, you may have found Peer review helpful. But it's not a deal-breaker for FAC. And one other suggestion - sorry, not meaning to be preachy - I got very firmly told off on one of my early FAs when I struck through reviewers’ comments. I think the convention is to have the reviewer strike through when they’re satisfied with the response.
  • Thanks, KJP1. I won't strike any more points from now. R
Infobox
  • Updated. R
Lead
  • A little short for the body? Perhaps something more on the building history/style
  • "With the building of the Civic Hall in 1933 some of these functions moved away" - not of their own accord, I think. Perhaps, "were relocated"?
  • Updated. R
  • "the Town Hall now functions" - perhaps, "operates", to avoid the close proximity to the previous "functions"?
  • Changed to "serves". R
  • "It became a Grade I listed building in 1951" - again, not of its own accord. "It was designated"?
  • Updated. R
  • "as the civic leaders sought to make an even grander statement despite the poverty in the city at the time" - I don't get the suggested connection. The civic leaders' desire to make an ever-grander statement doesn't seem to me to have existed despite the undoubted poverty. The only linked reference I can see in the main body almost suggests that the city's poverty was a spur: "if a noble municipal palace that might fairly view with some of the best Town Halls of the Continent were to be erected in the middle of their hitherto squalid and unbeautiful town, it would become a practical admonition". Is this a bit POV?
  • Split the sentences to remove the connection.
Description
  • Media link - I also (see above) find this a bit jarring. Would it not sit better at the end with the other media link?
  • I share JM's concern re. the adjectival/subjective language. In the first para. we have "commanding", "deeply", "huge", "immense", "unique". Are these all from Cite 2? If they are, would they be better as quotes, so we know whose views they are? And is the first sentence also a quote? N.B. the language issue isn't confined to this para. And are there really no other domed clock towers? Anywhere? I suspect there are. [File:0011Tarrant County Courthouse Clock Tower E Fort Worth Texas.jpg], [File:London Greenwich.JPG], [File:Council-House-Nottingham.jpg]. Both Pevsner and PAG suggest this as the inspiration, St Philip's Cathedral, Birmingham.
  • I couldn't find anywhere that the first sentence is a quote from. As for the adjectives, I'm fairly sure they're not quoted either, but I would not say they are overly problematic, they are just ways to describe those elements. Cite 2 (Webster) is only for the tower not being in first design, so PAG added for earlier description. Points taken about not being so unique. R
  • "This striking internal decoration to the design of the London decorator John Crace, cut-glass chandelier and the then-largest organ in Europe led one writer to say that it was "the best place in Britain to see what it looked like on the inside of a wedding cake"." This sentence is packing a lot in, and doesn't quite flow for me. Perhaps something like: "The decoration (remove 'striking') was by the decorator John Crace and, combined with the cut-glass chandeliers (plural as there were 10, now three - maybe with a footnote) and the then-largest organ in Europe, led one writer...."
  • Amended, but not complicated futher with 3->10 detail. R
  • "The frescoes adorning the domed ceiling of the vestibule was the first attempt..." Doesn't quite work.
  • Changed. R
  • "as the gift of Sir Peter Fairbairn" - perhaps introduced him as the then-mayor?
  • Changed. R
  • "The Town Hall provided accommodation..." is this para. not covered in History?
  • No, but seems an OK place for it here. R
Sculpture
  • "It has a heavily rusticated base" - I know you mean the Town Hall, but it's not quite clear.
  • Changed. R
  • "giant Corinthian order of columns" - "orders of giant Corinthian columns"?
  • Changed. R
  • Linked in previous section, don't want to duplink. R
  • Prose - as per JM, I do think this section needs a bit of work. There are some odd, dangling endings, "close by", "when he died", "he was not a sculptor".
  • I'll be returning to look at this section. R
History - Background
  • "Until 1813, the seat of Leeds Corporation was the moot hall of 1618" - link moot hall and I'm not sure it needs caps.
  • Linked, but it is a proper noun like "the Town Hall". R
  • "The neighbouring "wool capital of the world", Bradford, took the lead..." - I'm assuming the whole of this para. is supported by Linstrum's p.17? It's slightly puzzling that neither the Pevsner nor Linstrum's Leeds PAG entry mentions Leeds v Bradford rivalry as a spur? The PAG mentions Leeds v Sheffield/Wakefield over which should be the county assize town. Hunt does mention it (p=184).
  • Briggs makes a big deal out of the Bradford rivalry as well as Linstrum. I've put that in as another source for the paragraph. R
  • "In July 1851, it presented a report, with consultees including Joseph Paxton, the designer of The Crystal Palace, and delegations to other large towns including Manchester and Liverpool to investigate their plans for building public halls" - not quite getting where the delegations fit in to the report? Is it something like; "In July 1851, it presented a report, with consultees including Joseph Paxton, the designer of The Crystal Palace, and submissions/contributions from delegations that had been sent to other large towns including Manchester and Liverpool to investigate their plans for building public halls"?
  • Moved it around. R
  • "The report's recommendations also identified a site for the hall" - not sure what the 'also' is doing? You've not listed other recommendations.
  • Removed. R
  • "However, the scheme did not secure universal backing immediately" - perhaps, "The scheme did not immediately secure universal backing", removing the "However" at the beginning, which some reviewers are likely not to like, and the 'hanging' immediately at the end?
  • Removed "however", but I think the "immediately" indicates that the council later did later show full support. R
  • "This and other motions to limit its cost were defeated by a small majority, but this demonstrates that financial prudence was a strong desire among some Victorian local politicians, who disliked spending without proof of genuine advantages" - the "this"/"this" doesn't quite work for me, and the plural motions probably need to be defeated by "small majorities". Perhaps something like; "This, and other motions to limit its costs, were defeated by small majorities, but they demonstrated that financial prudence was a strong compulsion for some Victorian local politicians, who disliked incurring civic expense without genuine proof of public advantage"?
  • Updated. R
  • "malcontent ratepayers" - a rather obscure word which won't help the wider readership. "Dissatisfied"?
  • Changed. R
  • "to discard its image of being a backwater with no architectural heft.[23]" - And "heft" is another oddity. Perhaps, "an architectural backwater with no/few buildings of merit"? Or some such. And we've no page number in the cite. It's p=185.
  • Thank you. Google Books doesn't show any page numbers for Hunt for some reason. R
History - Design
  • General - there are a number of short para.s here that could usefully be combined, e.g. the 2nd/3rd/4th and 5th.
  • Combined 2nd and 3rd. R
  • "an open competition, a common method of selecting architects for important buildings in the 19th century" - if you want a cite for this, you could use, Victorian Architectural Competitions - An Index to British and Irish Architectural Competitions in The Builder, 1843-1900, Roger H. Harper, 1983, Mansell Publishing, isbn=0-7201-1685-6, loc=Introduction.
  • Added. R
  • "Even the monumental edifice of St George's Hall, Liverpool, only contained a public hall and assize courts" - St. George's Hall actually has a public hall, courts, and a "small concert hall".{Wrathmell (Linstrum)|2008|p=64}.
  • Updated per source. R
  • "though it is likely there was no thought it would be anything but classical" - perhaps, "the use of the, then prevalent, Neoclassical style being the unwritten assumption"?
  • Changed. R
  • "However, only sixteen entries were received" - redundant "However".
  • Done. R
  • "...the Council's non-commitment to employing a winning design. This did not mean toleration of a lower standard" - sorry, not getting the meaning of this. Does the last part of the first sentence mean the council did not commit to employing the winning designer, or to using the winning design? Neither is unknown, but it needs clarifying. And the last sentence I cannot work out at all.
  • Changed to "winning architect". Does this clarify? R
Sorry - still not getting the last sentence. Small number of entries but still high quality? Says who? KJP1 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brodrick's design was in the Roman Corinthian style of architecture" - not sure the "of architecture" in necessary. More crucially, who uses the term "Roman Corinthian"? Brodrick? Webster? Not Linstrum, as far as I can see. Given we're already called it Classical/Neoclasscial/Baroque and Linstrum calls it French Neoclassical, I think we need to know who's calling it RC.
  • DK where that came from. Updated to be more specific about what's Roman. R
  • "The Town Hall Committee initially had reservations after selecting Brodrick, asking Charles Barry for an affirmation in Brodrick's abilities in the construction of such a large building, mostly relating to him being so young;" - perhaps, "asking Barry for confirmation of Brodrick's abilities"? And the "mostly relating" clause belongs after the first clause, i.e. "The Town Hall Committee initially had reservations after selecting Brodrick, mostly related to his youth, and asked Barry for confirmation of Broderick's abilities...… Barry responded with high praise..."
  • Updated. R
  • "a clause in Brodrick's contract stating that he would receive no payment beyond that of the accepted estimate of £39,000 if the work costs exceeded it." - this isn't clear to me. I'm assuming he's being paid a %, not the initial £39K which is the budget. Thus, is the clause stating he'll only get a percentage of costs up to £35K, and nothing for any costs over and above this? And was it enforced? If it was, CB must have ended up hugely out of pocket, given the final cost was 4 times the estimate.
  • The source (Briggs) reveals there was a qualification to this clause that it wouldn't apply if costs increased outside of Brodrick's control, which is evidently what happened. But you're right, it only makes sense if you know this, so added. R
  • "No public building so huge had been erected in the town before" - another instance of slightly hyperbolic language. Would "large" not meet the need?
  • Changed. R
Construction - Building works
  • "the building contract was awarded to Samuel Atack, a Leeds builder and bricklayer, and Benjamin Musgrave, a dyer" - do any of the sources tell us what construction experience a dyer had? I don't have the Briggs.
  • Briggs literally just says Atack in association with Musgrave, a dyer. I don't know why dyeing has anything to do with it, but he was apparently joint contractor and considered notable enough in the book. P 166 is his only mention. R
  • "both elements eventually turned out to have been forlornly underestimated" - "forlornly" is rather odd. "sadly", "greatly"?
  • Yes, "greatly" works better. R
  • "Rawdon Hill stone was favoured for those parts of the building on which there would be carving" - The Sculpture section links here, Rawdon, West Yorkshire, for Rawdon Hill millstone grit but now we're taken here, Rawdon Billing. Which is better?
  • Standardised to Rawdon Billing. R
  • "Brodrick never shied from asking for additional sums to make his perfec his building, so was fortunate there to be a council majority for building - something awry here.
  • Fixed. R
  • 1st Tower para. - two things. Might be worth mentioning that Barry suggested one (Pevsner/p=411). And the concluding phrase, "would provide the building with beauty beyond mere utilitarianism", doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Is it Briggs? If so, you should say so.
  • Barry included. Heaton said those last two words; now quoted. R
  • "However, it is likely that Brodrick designed a tower before building even started" - is the "however" needed?
  • Removed. R
  • "Whatever doubts the council might have had in the early days" - there's quite a lot of POV/peacock language here; "unprecedented lavish", "participated actively", "delicately painted", "creatively devised". And I can't get my head round; "Though Brodrick's red Morocco upholstered furnishings and the original gallery were removed in the 1930s, there is a characteristic example of a form of decoration within the Classical framework which evidently appealed to Brodrick". What's the "there is" referring to? And what is a "classical framework"?
  • Some words changed, sentence clarified. R
  • "Leeds Town Hall was subject to much criticism during its construction" - this opening suggests the criticism will then be detailed - but it isn't. What's given are details of cost escalations. That's fine, but the opening needs revision to reflect what follows.
  • Made clear that criticism is about cost. R
Construction - Later changes
  • "then with the placing of the four sculpted lions along the south front, also in 1867" - the "also in 1867" hangs rather. Perhaps, "beginning with Brodrick suggesting in 1867 that a larger skylight be put in each of the courts,[1] and then, later in the same year, the placing of the four sculpted lions along the south front."
  • Changed. R
  • "Brodrick's final touches to the Town Hall, they were" - this isn't clear to me. "the lions were"?
  • Changed. R
  • "they were the work of William Day Keyworth Jr of Hull and each is made from two pieces of Portland stone with zig-zag joints" - we flip from past to present tense, and what is a zig-zag joint?
  • Now present tense. There's no article on a zig-zag joint, but it's in the source. Surely the reader can work out that the two pieces of stone fit into each other in a zig-zag pattern. R
  • "Evidence of Brodrick's early interest in lion sculptures is documented in travel sketches from Brodrick's European tour" - replace the 2nd Brodrick with "his"?
  • Changed. R
  • "while windows on the Calverley Street and Victoria Square corner were altered from three to five" - perhaps, "while the number of windows on the Calverley Street and Victoria Square corner was increased from three to five"?
  • Changed. R
  • "In 1907, a new grand stair was built down to the crypt" - what is the crypt, not, I think, previously mentioned, and what on earth did they do down there? I don't think town halls generally have crypts. Vaults / basements / cellars?
  • Changed to basement, as mentioned elsewhere in article. R
  • "At the same time the curved entrance steps were changed back to a straight set" - when were they previously changed to curved? Have I missed that?
  • Yes, they were but that was omitted. Updated. R
Opening
  • "Despite the wild cost overruns Leeds considered it a great investment and celebrated its new " - "wild"'s a little baroque in tone, and I think the "it" should be "Town Hall".
  • Changed. R
  • "was officially opened by Queen Victoria and Albert" - Prince Albert?
  • Changed. R
  • "the British Association for the Advancement of Science held its annual meeting in Leeds" - "there", or "at the Town Hall"?
  • I think this is OK. It was held in Leeds, which they had long wanted and now the TH made it possible, i.e. they held it at the TH. R
20th century
  • "In 1993, Leeds Crown Court opened on Westgate, ending the Town Hall's role as a courthouse, as did the Town Hall's police station and cells (Bridewell)" - the end of this sentence doesn't quite work. Does it mean the TH's role as a police station also ended? In which case, perhaps, "In 1993, Leeds Crown Court opened on Westgate, ending the Town Hall's role as a courthouse. Its police station and cells (Bridewell) were closed at the same time"?
  • Changed. R
  • "This was not before a heated debate" - the "heated" debate sounds a bit Mrs Merton. "This was strongly opposed by the Leeds Civic Trust which preferred that its blackness..."?
  • Changed. R
  • "The four lions on plinths across the Town Hall entrance have entered local folklore" - I'm afraid I dislike this bit of urban folklore, rather as I loathe mentions of ghosts in building articles! Both sources are weak, and I'd lose it unless you can find better.
  • It is weak sourcing, so removed. I wouldn't be surprised if a local resident doesn't add it back again before too long though; it's very common within reminicences about the building. R
21st century
  • "The planned three-year works encompass new seating and soundproofing.." - as per my comment on the infobox. And would "will provide/include" be clearer than "encompass"? You'd then need to tweak "updating two chandeliers" to something like "modifications to.."
  • I believe the works have already started, so mixing up future and present doesn't seem right. "Encompass" and "updating" changed. R
  • "curated with a group of young people" - "curated with" reads oddly to me. "assembled by"?
  • Changed. R
Present usage
  • "Leeds Town Hall has been used for filming several films" - rather than "filming films" perhaps, "Leeds Town Hall has been used as a location for several films..."?
  • Changed. R
Appraisal
  • As discussed above, I'd personally prefer Appreciation, which doesn't, in this sense, imply only positive comment. But no deal breaker.
  • The first two sentences read like personal opinion. Are they supported by the cites?
  • I don't think the first sentence can be cited as such. Isn't the length of the bibliography evidence of the fact? Removed final part of second sentence and added cite. R
  • "as are other colonial examples such as Parliament House, Adelaide (1880s), and in South Africa, Cape Town City Hall (1893) and Durban City Hall (1885)" - I think these claims need specific citing.
  • Added. R
  • "Additionally, many Americans reportedly travelled to Leeds especially to see the Town Hall, which some venerated as highly as medieval cathedrals" - this sounds a very 'Victorian' observation. I cannot believe modern American visitors do so. Can this be clarified and a cite provided.
  • Added "after its opening" to date the statement. It's covered by Linstrum 1978 at the end of the para. R
  • Despite it being called Appraisal, rather than Appreciation!, it still contains only positive comments. I think Pevsner's observation on the tower warrants an appearance; "The architect has not quite made up his mind whether he wanted a dome (like those of the Greenwich Hospital) or a tower".{sfn|Pevsner|Radcliffe|1967|p=314}. It would also be interesting to know what George Gilbert Scott's criticism was.{sfn|Wrathmell|2008|p=17} Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of Scott's book but will try to find out.
  • Pevsner tower quote added, but decided to change two Wrathmell PAG cites straight to the Pevsner 1959 original as everything is from what he said originally anyway. I don't know which book Scott wrote. R
References
  • Cite 6 - p number?
  • Cite 13 - self-published by Lulu. Doubt it meets RS.
  • Cite 14 - p number?
  • Cite 23 - p number?
  • Cite 51 - p number?
  • Cite 62 - not RS.
  • Cite 75 - better source?
  • Cite 79 - Paid subscription required tag needed.
  • Need to find copies and check cites 6/14/51. 23 & 79 sorted. 62 removed. Added Linstrum to strengthen 75. R
  • Page numbers added for the books. R
Bibliography
  • ISBNs - you've a mix of 10 and 13-digits. I think the convention is one or t'other.
  • All ISBNs standardised to 13-digits and hyphenated per WP:ISBN. R
  • I probably would use the Pevsners, just to show that it's comprehensive.

Summary You've done a great job of covering the relevant material and it is an impressive first FAC. I wouldn't be able support currently, as there are too many issues. They are all fixable and if you're able to do that here, great! As mentioned at the outset, I do think Peer review is really helpful for FACs. It can be a bit slow, but when it works you get the benefit of multiple eyes/opinions, without the spotlight of FAC. Let me know if any of the comments need clarification. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed almost everything you've pointed out here with replies for each. Hope it's satisfactory! Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 01:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt, and comprehensive, responses. Can’t pick them up today, but will tomorrow. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - Life is intervening. I will get back but it won't be before next week. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, really sorry for the time this has taken. Second, many thanks for your full responses. As I said above, it's a fantastic effort, especially since it's your first FA. But I'm afraid I still can't currently support as, for me, there are too many instances of remaining, mainly prose/colourful language, issues. I appreciate we may well disagree on this, and it may be that other reviewers also won't agree with me. I wish you all the best with this, and with your future FAs. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning and have learned lots. I just don't seem to have the capacity to alter the language sufficiently to more neutral prose without losing intended meaning and nuance - other, more experienced and skilled writers/copyeditors will be able to look at it with fresh eyes and make the kinds of changes needed, and I will make sure this is carried out before any future FAC on this article if it doesn't pass this time. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry

[edit]

Welcome to FAC. Nice to see you here, RC, and lovely to see some more English architecture here. I've only read the lead and skimmed the rest so far. I'm not seeing any major spanners in the works but I have few nits to pick:

  • The Headrow (formerly Park Lane), Leeds, West Yorkshire, England: I like to make location descriptions slightly more prosaic than just a list of locations and administrative entities. I'd go with something like "in Leeds, northern England" or "in Leeds, West Yorkshire, in the north of England". It's a bit more wordy, but much nicer to read in my opinion.
  • Citations in the lead are generally unnecessary because the lead should be a summary of what follows.
  • The Town Hall held the title longer than any other building, 108 years just for flow, I would merge this into the previous sentences. Short sentences like this can be jarring for the reader.
  • As of 2017 it is the thirteenth-tallest building in Leeds Is 2017 the last time this was updated or when the most recent taller building was erected?
  • I agree with Kevin above that I would put the design before the history, but it's up to you to consider.

I'll be back. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back, Harry. Just to clarify your last bullet - if you're agreeing with me, you want History followed by Description. If you want it the other way round, you're with RC. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, always nice to see you; wish real life allowed more time for Wikipedia stuff! Apologies for the confusion; yes, I'm agreeing with you—I'd put the history (or at least the pre-opening history) before the description. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome. Sorry, I think I will go with the convention of keeping the location slightly listy, because making the changes you suggest because I can't make a sentence which keeps all the elements of Leeds, West Yorkshire, England (WY is important) but doesn't get too long and weird. I took out the cite in the lead and merged the sentence. I've updated the tallest year to 2020 since according to this source a taller building is here this year. Would it be worth putting the height info somewhere in the body so it can be cited? Finally, on the section ordering, I will hold it as it is (the more logical way in my opinion) unless it becomes a dealbreaker on the FAC. Rcsprinter123 (pronounce) 20:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • presented to the Council as the gift of the then-Mayor Sir Peter Fairbairn "then" is unnecessary (it goes without saying that political offices change hands), and when was it presented? Contemporary to the town hall being built or at some later date?
  • Removed "then"; and it was presented at time of opening as the source date indicates. Added a few words to reflect this. R
  • Although many departments have been relocated might be worth elaborating here. I'm sure, as with most cities, the council now occupy a more modern building with greater capacity. Perhaps we could mention that building(s), especially if it's interesting or notable and give an idea of how much of the council is left in the town hall? It helps give a picture of the changing use of the building.
  • Agree that info should be included. Other buildings now mentioned but can't find which particular departments are located where. R
  • Is the building still used for meetings of the full council, or do those take place elsewhere now?
  • CH noted as meeting place. R
  • "famous old cities whose Town Halls are the permanent glory of the inhabitants and the standing wonder and delight of visitors from a distance You need a reference straight after a direct quote. I know there's a reference after the next sentence but you need one straight after the quote (there's a policy shortcut for it but I can't locate it at the moment; apparently I've forgotten some things during my break!).
  • Likewise "unwise and inexpedient to proceed with the Hall" and several other examples throughout.
  • Extra citations added where needed. R
  • the relatively modest budget at this time attracted ridicule "at this time" is redundant and can just be trimmed; attracted ridicule from where?
  • The derision's origins are not mentioned in the source. R
  • Cubitt's King's Cross train shed should be full name on first mention.
  • Done. R
  • it now appeared determined that nothing was too good for their Town Hall That's a bold statement to make in Wikipedia's voice. Is that from the source?
  • It is adapted from the source, but "appeared" is added to weaken the assertion. Change, remove? R
  • "splendidly furnished" needs to be attributed to the person you're quoting.
8Done. R
  • I would suggest breaking up the "building works" subsection into two subsections, just for readability. It's quite a long section and looks quite daunting.
  • I've thought of this previously but not decided on an appropriate place to split it. I've put all the bits that are about changes to the design in their own subsection. R
  • 'a practical engineer' Generally it should be double quote marks ("") per the MoS, and the quote needs attributing; it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader that the engineer was practical.
  • Done. R
  • Nowhere in the body do you mention its listed status or what that means.
  • This is mentioned in the 20th century section. R
  • You should cite the NHLE entry to satisfy 1c. From a quick skim it sadly doesn't contain much appreciation but it can be used as an extra reference for some of the architectural details. It also mentions a fire in 1991 that isn't mentioned in the article.
  • It's already used multiple times, ref [2], but I put a couple more in for some details, and mentioned the fire. R
  • Have you looked at the more recent editions of the Pevsners to see if they have a more detailed appraisal? Kevin might be able to help you with that.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcsprinter123: just in case you hadn't seen this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delays in responding this week. I’ll be getting to this soon. Real life, etc. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) 15:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - changes and replies have been made now. Rcsprinter123 (report) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. The only quibbles I have outstanding are in-text attribution for "splendidly furnished" and "a practical engineer" (see MOS:QUOTE, § Attribution). Also, you now need a ref at the end of the "description" section above "sculpture". And my mistake on not spotting the mention of listing; I still think it needs a little more detail (also Historic England didn't exist in 1951) so I was bold. If it was up to me, I might move it into the appraisal section but that's not based on the FA criteria. Is there any more info on the fire? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any mention online of the fire so all we have is that small amount of info from HE. On the end of the description section, I have added a Civic Hall council chamber source. Those two quotes are referenced directly after. I think the listing would fit well in either 20th C or Appraisal, but I may leave it where it is. Rcsprinter123 (notify) 16:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The references for the quotes are perfectly in order, it's the attribution that's needed—those two quotes are opinions, so we need to state in the text who they belong to (see the MOS subsection I linked to). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry Harry, I overlooked that you indeed put "in-text attribution" in your comment. I have added a name for the "splendidly furnished" quote, but elected to remove "practical engineer" as a quote as I think introducing it as an opinion would be to make things needlessly complex. Rcsprinter123 (articulate) 20:43, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. It's second nature if you spend a lot of time at FAC but I wouldn't expect a first-time nominator to know the MoS inside out and back to front (there are 21st-time nominators who don't). I agree with Kevin and Josh that some of the prose is a bit too ... flowery. Some of it is just stylistic preference but some of it is bordering on editorialising. Since this is preventing them from supporting, I'll take another pass through the article with a finer comb over the next few days to see if I can make it more readable and less flowery. Feel free to revert any of my edits if they introduce problems and we can discuss here or on the talk page if need be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does baroque in imaginative power and drama mean? And that's a prime example of the sort of language Kevin and Josh are talking about; if it's a quote from the source, we need to attribute it and cite it, but I'm not entirely sure what it means in the first place. Will list other concerns below.
  • Be consistent in whether you use the Oxford comma or not (my preference is for, and the article mostly uses it, but I think I spotted a few inconsistencies).
  • has been described as "a remarkably assured and individualistic design Quote attribution again.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. No problem with any of your copyedits apart from the {{who}} tag, which I did check in the source but offers no more clue, it's just an anonymous quote. On the "baroque..." sentence, I think it's just one of those parts from earlier revisions which I've not been very good at cutting, it's not a quote as far as I can find. When you point out that it doesn't really mean much it's easier to see the general point about language. Rcsprinter123 (proclaim) 15:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Parklanemap1847.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Parkhousemap1852.jpg, File:Leeds_town_hall_first_drawing.jpg, File:Design_for_Leeds_Town_Hall,_1854_-_Cuthbert_Brodrick.jpg, File:City_Hall_Philadelphia.jpg, File:Engraving_of_Bolton_Town_Hall_1873.jpg, File:Portsmouth_prewar_guildhall.jpg
  • File:Official_Order_of_Procession,_page_1_-_Leeds_Town_Hall_foundation_stone.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Leeds_Town_Hall,_General_Election_results.jpg needs a US PD tag, and I don't understand the note on authorship?
  • File:Leeds_Town_Hall_cleaning.png: the current copyright tag does not explain why the photo itself would be PD
  • File:Parliament_House_Melbourne,_1890_Mitchell_Library_ref_PXE_800_photo_33b.jpg: for the purposes of Wikipedia, faithful reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright. What's the copyright status of the original print? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can know where the images were first published, due to their age. Is this a requirement in the image information? What's the Commons parameter for it? Added US-PD tags. Not sure why tag doesn't cover cleaning photo adequately? I have no idea on the Melbourne picture. Rcsprinter123 (interview) 14:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the cleaning photo, the tag explains that "photographs of buildings are normally allowed if the building is old enough to be public domain" - freedom of panorama, which allows us to ignore the possible copyright protection of the building. However, the photo of the building is still potentially copyrighted, so we'd need a tag explaining why it's free.
  • Many of the images have a tag claiming the image is free because "it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1925." That tag can only be used if we can confirm that publication in that timeframe actually happened. There's not a separate parameter for it but it's needed to confirm the validity of the tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we know they were created before 1925, but like I said, their original place of publication is unknown (having come off websites), so how can I give any dates? Rcsprinter123 (interview) 17:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Gerbis

[edit]

This is just an aside as I don't see any reference to it in the article. Jonathan Meades has made a film documentary on Cuthbert Brodrick in which he talks about Leeds Town Hall at length in his inimitable idiosyncratic way: The Case Of The Disappearing Architect first broadcast in 2007. Just thought you might be interested. Gerbis (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerbis - I'll give this a watch and see if anything useful is within. Rcsprinter123 (report) 00:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Johnbod

[edit]

On first skim:

  • The article is fairly long, & the lead far too short at 2 paras, neither long. You should use the full 4 paras suggested by WP:LEAD to summarize parts of the article not yet covered. Remember this is all many (most?) readers will read.
  • I think you are right to have the relatively short description above the very long "history".
  • Generally seems nearly there.
  • A bit of spice from Jonathan Meades would be helpful indeed.

Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, with extensive commentary but only one declaration of support for promotion after around seven weeks, this is looking more like a Peer Review than a FAC, so I'm inclined to archive it and recommend further work take place away from the FAC process. That said, can I just get a quick sense from KJP1, John M Wolfson, J Milburn, Nikkimaria and Johnbod as to how things look to you at this point? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with John's comment. The article has definitely much improved through this process; I'd recommend getting a few people to work through the prose without the time pressure of a FAC and then bring it back in a couple of months. I spotted some issues with a quick (5 minute) glance through (though I do think the issue of rhetoric has been mostly resolved) so I can't really support promotion. The things I'm seeing are very tiny (I made some quick fixes, but I do think the use of the Oxford comma remains inconsistent) but are enough to say that doesn't have the level of polish we'd be looking for. In case I haven't said it already, I'm taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll try to get to it in the next 48 hrs, & can't rule out supporting, probably after some quibbly points. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I am open to revisiting, but can't promise that I'll find a few hours to sit down with it any time soon. I want to stress that I am not opposing. (Sorry if I'm giving mixed messages - I think it's a great article, I'm just not confident that it's there yet.) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve re-read it twice today and I’m still of the view that, while a great first FAC, it’s not quite at the FA standard. To give a single example - “The town hall is classical in style but suggestive of power and drama”. Is Neoclassical architecture not capable of exhibiting “power and drama”? And says who? If this were a quote, I’d be absolutely fine, subject to attribution, but it’s not given as such. I am certain this will be an FA, and I look forward to supporting, but I’m not there yet. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the way the way consensus is leaning on this, even though Johnbod has not come back to us yet, and that is not for promotion at this point. I was optimistic about the article’s chances at nomination but the issues regarding language were larger than I was able to see. I still intend for it to be improved and promoted though, and will submit it for peer review and seek suggestions from the local wikiproject before any further FAC (or GA) nomination. Rcsprinter123 (rap) 01:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2020 [5].

Morpeth, Northumberland

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic market town in Northumberland. I brought it up to good article status around a year ago and recently requested a peer review (which had no participation). The town is a crossing point over the River Wansbeck, has a castle (and had several now destroyed ones) and is the location of Emily Davison's grave. The town in the past was prone to flooding and there was a notable flood in 2008 (2008 Morpeth flood), but flood defences were built in 2017 to mitigate this. This is my first FAC. All comments, suggestions, thoughts etc. are welcome. Thanks for reviewing! Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 15:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Noswall59

I'm sorry to have oppose this Dreamy Jazz – I see that this is your first attempt at FA and it can be a daunting process, especially when you've put a lot of work into an article (as you have here). However, there are a number of structural and research issues with this article which mean that I am not sure it meets our criteria for research quality or comprehensiveness (1b and 1c). I will enumerate the reasons below

  • History
    • Comprehensiveness: The history seems to be rather "potted" from the medieval period onward; there is no mention of the town's economy except for the market; there is almost nothing on the 19th and 20th centuries. What about industry, housing and planning – it looks like there have been considerable housing developments around the town over the last century: when did this happen? Why? It's important to remember that recent history is still history.
    • Sourcing: There is an over-dependence on newspaper sources for historical facts, e.g. (but not limited to) footnotes 8, 9 and 12. You should only really be citing works of historical scholarship, reliable history books, articles in scholarly/antiquarian journals, PhD theses, etc. These will often not be available online, so you may have to visit libraries.
    • Sourcing advice: I have never visited or studied Morpeth before, but I was surprised to see so few books cited in this article. A search in the British Library's catalogue revealed a large number of sources which you could use to expand this article:
      • Alan Davison and Brian Harle, Morpeth, Northumberland: A Social History (Morpeth: Friends of Carlisle Park, 2018)
      • John Hodgson, A History of Morpeth (1832)
      • James Fergusson, Morpeth Mechanics' Institute: Its History from 1825 to 1875 (Morpeth: D. F. Wilson, c. 1875)
      • Ralph Crawford, History of Morpeth Gas Light Company (Newcastle upon Tyne: Andrew Reid & Co., 1933)
      • T. H. Rowland, Bygone Morpeth (Chichester: Phillimore, 1989)
      • Janet Brown (ed.), Morpeth's Market: A Study of the Market and Fair from the Earliest Days until the Present Time (Morpeth: Morpeth Antiquarian Society, 1999)
      • Roland Bibby, The Medieval Guilds of Morpeth (Morpeth: Morpeth Antiquarian Society, 1998)
      • Peter R. Carling, Morpeth and the Railways (Morpeth: Morpeth Antiquarian Society, 2013)
      • R. M. Hodnett, Politics and the Northumberland miners: Liberals and Labour in Morpeth and Wansbeck, 1890-1922 (Cleveland: University of Teesside, c. 1994)
      • Bridget Gubbins, De Merlay Dynasty: The Family Who Ruled Morpeth 1085-1265 (Morpeth: Greater Morpeth Development Trust, 2018)
      • Craig Armstrong, Morpeth in the Great War (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Military, 2016)
      • Roger Hawkins also produced a series of short pamphlets called Morpathia, some of which are in the local library; these included histories of the common lands of Morpeth and the founding of the public library.
      • A number of these books have been produced by the Morpeth Antiquarian Society, so you might want to see if they have anything else of use.
This list is not exhaustive and I have no idea how reliable/useful these sources are, but I would expect most of them to be used or at least mentioned in a further reading section. Have you consulted them?
  • Other advice:
    • You should have sections on the town's economy and demography; you may wish to include a section on public services, and subsections in religion on demographics past and present and ecclesiastical (parish) history.
    • You may want to consider prosifying the lists under landmarks and notable people.
    • You could add very brief notes about the history of Morpeth's educational establishments other than the grammar school. Historical directories can be useful (many old ones are scanned here); you might need to do some further research for later primary schools, especially in local newspapers; contacting the local archives or checking the British Newspaper Archive may help.
    • Overall, I haven't been assessing on prose standard; you may want to enlist the help of a copyeditor at the Guild of Copyeditors (WP:GOCE) to take a fine comb over the article after you've finished working on it; Peer Review (WP:PR) can be helpful too, though it depends on the willingness of others to review your work (but then, so does FAC). There are several unofficial user-written guides to writing the crisp prose that FAC demands; for instance User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing; Giano's A fool's guide to writing a featured article is getting on a bit, but still has some good advice. As I say, they may not apply to you, but I found these sorts of guides really useful.
    • Finally, while it's not perfect (and probably too long), I expanded Sleaford some time ago and you might want to check it out. I never took it to FA because I was never convinced it was up to scratch, but it's probably not far off.

In short, I think it will take quite a bit of extra work to bring Morpeth up to scratch, which might be difficult under the lockdown. However, my intention is not to discourage you and I am confident that this could be made much more comprehensive with the right changes. Look for as many reliable sources as you can find about the town; make its history into a comprehensive summary which brings the reader down to the present day; then cover as many aspects of the town's current state as you can—economy, population, government, transport, culture, architecture and built environment, schooling. If you do pursue it, good luck! Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall59 thanks for these comments. I'll try to address these the best I can in the lockdown. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 10:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: based on the comment above I have a lot of work to do with this article before it is up to standard. I'm not sure what the process is for closing FACs when the nominator wants the review closed, but if it is allowed, could this be archived. If this is kept open I will try to address issues, but with the lockdown in place (for the foreseeable future), I won't be able to properly deal with them, so objections probably won't be addressed for a while. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dreamy Jazz, thanks for that, I think withdrawing is probably the right thing given what you've said, and pinging the coords is exactly how you go about it -- I'll take care of things from here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 April 2020 [6].

1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a substantial peer review, and having already brought the article to GA, I'm looking to nominate this page to FA. The article is about an association football friendly match in 1940 between the Lebanon national team, and the Mandatory Palestine national team (the precursor to today's Israel national team). With the 80th anniversary of the match shortly approaching (27 April), I thought it was a good idea to push for a FA nomination. I'm open to any comments and improvements, so just let me know if anything needs to be changed! Nehme1499 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've already got one FAC open for Lebanon national football team. Only one nomination is really allowed per user at a time. Kosack (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah true, forgot about that. This nomination can be closed for the time being then. Nehme1499 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A moot point now but, FTR, an open Peer Review for the article should be closed before nominating at FAC as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2020 [7].

Samuel May Williams

[edit]
Nominator(s): Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been in development for several years, and I have written most of the copy based on multiple sources, including one book-length biography. Despite the fairly rich selection of sources on Williams, he is largely forgotten in Texas, even in his adopted hometown of Galveston. I believe the article presents a complete and balanced view of this very complex person, including some reasons offered by reliable sources explaining the indifference to his memory among Texans. The article has benefited from proofreading and criticism by experienced editors, both inside and outside of peer review.

This article is about Samuel May Williams, a tri-lingual merchant from Providence and Baltimore. He did business in Argentina and New Orleans before his arrival to Texas, where he served as secretary to Stephen F. Austin. He and a business partner were financiers of the Texas Revolution.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of your images are missing alt text
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • File:Wreck_of_the_Invincible.jpg is tagged as lacking author info
  • Added author to Commons documentation. I do not know why the US Navy publication gives attribution to Humble Oil Company.
  • File:Plan_of_the_City_of_Galveston,_Texas.jpg: why is the library believed to have held copyright?
  • The map was printed in 1845 and the file says that it's in the public domain. I don't understand how the library claims rights. It's clear that I need to understand image issues better. Does this image need to be removed?
  • No, but the tagging needs to be changed. The current tag would be appropriate for a case where the work's copyright holder released it into the public domain. If you can confirm that the map was published (not simply created) in 1845, then you can substitute a tag noting that the copyright is expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another copy of this map at Baylor University, which lists the imprint as "New York: Lith. of G. & W. Endicott, 1845." Is this evidence of printing or evidence of publication? Second, when you say "tag" does that refer to image caption, or something we attach to the file in the Commons?
  • I removed the image until the free-use rationale can be resolved.
  • File:Commercial_and_Agricultural_Bank_of_Texas_$1.00_(one_dollar)_private_scrip_(8519862080).jpg: as per the Flickr tag, is more specific copyright information available? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's reflected in the current Flickr tag. But if you take a look at the tag's wording, "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". So if the note was never circulated, when is the first confirmed publication?

Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This note is part of the Rowe-Barr Collection of Texas Currency, donated to the SMU Archives in 2003. I cannot find any information that would indicate an early publication date. I cannot find any information about rights in addition to what is contained in the documentation in the Commons file. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not able to determine the publication date, though it seems likely that it's in 2003 or later. A bot performed an image license review in 2016, and Commons policy reserves the authority to conduct Flickr image reviews for administrators and other trusted editors COM:LR. I removed the image from the article until the free-use rationale can be resolved. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias

[edit]

I'll note that I had previously reviewed the article for GA, and made comments at the Peer Review. Things I've noted there have been addressed, and I feel the article is good at this point. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruby2010

Just adding some thoughts below on the lead for now:

  • I wonder how important it is to the subject to mention in the first sentence that he was a "close associate of Stephen F. Austin."? I did not know who that was before reading the article, so I did not understand the importance of it. I would suggest either removing that part from the sentence, or adding additional text clarifying who Austin was. If you opt to leave him listed there, then I'd suggest shortening the later mention of Austin later in the same paragraph.
  • Williams's association with Austin is an important one, so I am retaining it, but adding a bit of context.
  • ... clerking and later adding - is there an article you can link "clerking" to?
  • Fixed.
  • ... then formalized a partnership of with Thomas F. McKinney. - extra word in there
  • Fixed.
  • Definitely needs a link to Texians and Galveston, also recommend you find target articles for Brazos District, Texas independence, Texas Attorneys General, and Panic of 1857.
  • Provided links to all except the Brazos District. I removed this phrase as a non-essential detail.
  • Williams then returned focus to introducing the first bank in Texas, succeeding in 1848. Seems to be missing a word.
  • Fixed.
  • Many of Williams' friends and allies distanced themselves from the bank and encourage him...' Tense issue.

So far (having just read the lead), my main critique would be to consider that your readers, including me, may not know much about Texas history. Wikilinks and other minor clarifying text would help. Ruby2010 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, clerking and later adding the title of secretary...: suggest "Stephen F. Austin hired Williams for his colony in 1824, as a clerk and later as secretary..."; as written it's too easy to read Austin as the subject of "clerking".
    Edited to removed confusion about the subject of "clerking."
  • However, by 1836, Williams and his partner, Thomas F. McKinney, sided with the Texians against Mexico. Suggest making it clear to readers unfamiliar with the history that this was the Texas Revolution.
    Changed the reference to the Texas revolution and added internal link.
  • Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs. I think this would be better reorganized to put the general statement about their business first: "The Williams family conducted a robust trade with Argentina, shipping food in exchange for cash or hides. Williams left Baltimore to oversee freight bound for Buenos Aires, where he stayed to conduct further business in South America. There Williams learned the Spanish and French languages, and his business dealings gave him experience in navigating Spanish business and political customs." I didn't make the change myself because I want to be sure the sources put the "robust trade" prior to Williams' departure from Baltimore.
    Yes, this improves the narrative. I adjusted inline citations to make the edit work.
  • Suggest saying that Frantz, Nichols and Henson are historians, or biographers, or whatever. I'd also suggest putting the discussion of the uncertainty about the date in a footnote -- it's not a key point and it interrupts the narrative. If you don't, I'd at least move it to the end of that paragraph -- right now the hedging about the date comes before we even mention New Orleans.
    Moved the discussion of the timeline to the end of the paragraph.
  • I know why the section title is "Gone to Texas", but most readers won't know it and it will seem odd to them without an explanation. A link to Gone to Texas would work, but we're not supposed to link section titles. I don't see an easy way to make it clear; it might be best just to make the section title "Texas" if you can't work the phrase into the paragraph text.
    This is a pretty important aspect of Texas history and it explains that Williams was one of many Americans who moved to Mexican Texas in order to escape debts. Fortunately Henson provides a brief explanation, so I have echoed this in this recent edit. I hope the point becomes clear to the reader. If not I can revise again. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Williams first arrived in Texas, Stephen F. Austin, the son of the deceased empresario, traveled to Mexico City in order to reinstate and implement the Austin Colony. Using "empresario" isn't helpful; it's already clear what Moses Austin did, so most readers who have to follow the link will find that it doesn't add anything to their understanding of the sentence. I'd just make it "Moses' son, Stephen F. Austin". And why "reinstate"? The colony did not already exist so it could not be reinstated. Do you mean the contract needed to be reinstated?
    Made changes. This was not a seamless transition. The politics of the early Mexican Republic was very fluid. Moses Austin's original negotiations were with New Spain, but Stephen was negotiating with the Republic of Mexico Mexican Empire. This article should not address this in detail, but I just wanted the reader to be aware of the instability of the colonization contract.
  • This is around the time that Williams reverted to his birth name and earlier identity: any reason this can't be just "to his birth name"?
    I agree. Thanks for your comments. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • One of the changes just made has removed the link to "empresario". There's now only one instance of the word left in the article, so I'm not sure how much value it has, but if you keep it I would link it again.
  • Austin appointed Williams as a recording secretary: just checking that "a" is correct; there could have been more than one?
  • Austin later claimed that Williams had been underpaid for his service: given that it appears from the previous paragraph that Williams did not receive his full salary, can we drop "claimed"? Or is Austin referring more generally to Williams having been worth more than he had received?
  • Early in 1834 Williams co-founded the partnership of McKinney and Williams: Thomas McKinney is mentioned in the lead but has not yet been introduced in the body; I think a sentence would be helpful, even if almost nothing is known about Thomas. Perhaps "Early in 1834, Williams cofounded a business partnership with Thomas McKinney, setting up a warehouse... The firm, named McKinney and Williams..." And if any context is known about Thomas that would be worth adding. And was it the firm, the warehouse, or Williams that relocated to Quintana?
  • caused the state of Coahuila and Texas to split into two capitals: needs rephrasing; the state didn't split into two capitals. And can we put a date on this?
  • During meetings at the state capital, Williams bought 100 leagues of land in northeast Texas from the Monclova government at an eighty percent discount. Given that we've just said there are two state capitals it's a bit confusing to start the sentence by referring to "the state capital". Can we just cut that clause and start with "Williams bought..."? We could start the next sentence with "While in Monclovia" instead of "During the trip".
  • I think a parenthetical explanation of "the Consultation" is necessary for readers unfamiliar with Texas history.
  • Why did the Texians regard the 1835 land sale as corrupt? I'm not expert on the revolution but I know that by mid-1835 public opinion was moving strongly towards independence, so perhaps that's what you mean. I think a couple more words about this would help. And if the offer of land for sale can be dated more precisely than just 1835 that would be good -- even "mid-1835" or "early 1835" would help set context, since the revolution started in October.
  • His participation in the Monclova government aroused the resentment of such persons, many of whom were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony. I think this could be simplified to "They resented his participation in the Monclova government, and many of them were already suspicious of Williams because of his former position of power in granting land in the Austin Colony."
  • He pivoted toward Texas independence while relying on financial assistance from his brother, Henry Howell Williams. He borrowed against his brother's credit to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force. Suggest shortening these: perhaps "He pivoted toward Texas independence, borrowing against the credit of his brother, Henry Howell Williams, to obtain the 125-ton schooner Invincible in support of a Texian naval force." But looking at the rest of the paragraph I see that we essentially repeat this information in "These loans to the Texas cause...", and then it's summarized again in "Thus the Republic..." This doesn't seem very concise.

-- More later, probably tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • McKinney and Williams were investors and co-founders of the Galveston City Company with Michel B. Menard. Menard hatched the development scheme in 1833, coordinating to acquire a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island from Juan Seguin. How about something like "In 1833, McKinney and Williams partnered with Michel B. Menard to found the Galveston City Company, purchasing, from Juan Seguin, a Mexican title to bayside land at the east end of Galveston Island". If we say the company purchased the land we don't need to say they were investors, and I think it helps to have the date up front. Also I see our article on Juan Seguin puts the accent in: "Juan Seguín"; perhaps we should do the same.
  • Galveston City Company purchased from Seguin a league and a labor, or about 4,605 acres: both these terms were introduced earlier, but not linked till now; I'd move the links up, and I think we should be consistent about using italics (or not) for these terms.
  • Both Williams and McKinney joined the company's board of directors: this makes it sound as though they did not join the board till 1838 -- is that correct? I'd have thought they'd have been on the board from the start if they were equal investors with Menard.
  • Not sure what to do about this but in the "Mercantile business" section you have two consecutive paragraphs starting "McKinney and Williams"; one refers to the individuals and so the verb is "were", with a plural subject; the other refers to the company which is singular so you have "its", not "their". When I saw the second paragraph it stopped me dead for a second. I think it would best to either find a way to distinguish the two usages, or rephrase so that only one of the two usages shows up in the article. You also have "Their principal developments" which ought to refer to the individuals, since in American English companies are singular, but I think it's meant to refer to the company.
  • establishing direct trade between England and the Republic of Texas: was this the first instance of direct trade between the two? If so I'd make that clear; if not I'm not sure it's worth mentioning, or at least say "an early instance of" or something along those lines.
  • In 1839, Williams represented Galveston County in the lower house of the Congress of the Republic of Texas. McKinney and Williams used their commission house to support the Williams campaign. They offered to buy Texas Treasury notes (redbacks) for 50 cents on the dollar just as rival commission houses offered only 37.5 cents on the dollar. Substantively, he campaigned based on a conservative monetary policy in response to the Republic's devaluing currency. Several things here. I think the sequence is wrong; why start by saying he was a representative and then go back in time to talk about the campaign? Does "redback" help the reader here? Is there a link? And if they were being bought at a discount does that mean the new Republic was under financial stress, and that connects to the conservative monetary policy? I think this could all be tied together a little more than it is. And what does "substantively" add?
    Later: I now see you use "redbacks" later in the article, so that's a good reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a red link for Timothy Pillsbury, but we have an article on him, with only one L: Timothy Pilsbury. Not sure which is correct so just letting you know.

Stopping there for tonight. Generally it looks to me as if all the right material is here, but it needs a comb run through the prose -- not for copyediting in the sense of ironing out grammar glitches and poorly constructed sentences, but to assemble this information into more of a narrative. I know that can be difficult when the material comes from different sources. So far I would not vote to support, but I think it's within reach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • Why was it in the interests of the Galveston City Company to oppose Allen's election as mayor? And why are "conservatives" and "liberal" in quotes?
  • What does it mean to say that Williams' recommendations were "Hamiltonian"?
  • The paragraph starting "President Sam Houston" raised several questions for me. We say "As late as 1843, Mexico did not recognize the sovereignty of Texas", but Texas did not become a state until 1846. So did Mexico recognize Texas prior to statehood? I didn't think it did. And if the conversations didn't even start till December 1843, it seems odd to mention 1843 in that introductory sentence. I think it would be better to give more context. And does "a proposal which was unpopular in Texas" refer to "a cease fire and peace talks"?
  • Texans would benefit from the passage of such legislation; however, Williams and his former business partner had not been repaid by the Republic of Texas for its war debt: I think the point here is that Williams was campaigning on a platform that would benefit him personally; I'd make that clearer.

Oppose. I've now reached the end of the "Mercantile business" section and am going to stop and oppose on prose grounds. As I said above, it's not simple copyediting that's needed; there are just too many places where the information is not presented to the reader fluently. I've tried to suggest rephrasings where possible but it really requires familiarity with the sources to get this right, so I'm hesitant to jump in and edit. If this FAC is archived I'd like to try to help with the fixes, working on the article talk page, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

The extent of the concerns Mike raises at this stage of a long review indicates it's time to archive this and work on it outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2020 [9].

Roar (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filmways...er...Drafthouse films presents: Roar!

This is one of those films that has a backstory more entertaining to listen to than actually watching it: actress Tippi Hedren and her husband Noel Marshall set out to make a film about lions, what follows is 11 years of "beastly terror". Around 70 (100 if you ask Noel's son) members of cast and crew were injured while acting/working in the proximity of animals. Then, a flood destroys their set and surrounding compound, further delaying production. On top of all that, it doesn't get released in the U.S. and only makes back $2 million.

I've been working on this article for well over a year; it was reviewed and listed as a good article, peer-reviewed by a FA mentor, and copy-edited two times. And even though this is my first Featured Article submission, I'll do my best to fix any issues spotted. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 20:37, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fowler&fowler

[edit]

Reserving a slot here. As inveterate animal lovers, my family and I are big fans of Tippi Hedren. I have my plate full right now, but I've put you on my user page to-do list, and will make some initial comments here in a day or two. That's a promise.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Roar's story follows Hank, a wildlife preservationist who lives with lions, tigers, and other big cats in Africa." (I understand this is a movie, but as there are no wild tigers in Africa, Hank must have some kind of preserve or sanctuary for tame big cats. The "preservationist" part throws me off, as the term is more commonly applied to wildlife. Is this made clear in the sources? The Plot says, "American doctor and wildlife preservationist Hank (Noel Marshall) lives in Tanzania with big cats, to study their behavior." That doesn't clarify either.) I did see the movie but am blanking out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really hard part to clarify, and is a big part that critics griped about in the reviews: Hank's occupation was never made very clear in the film. The dialogue only tells us he's studying big cats (according to Mativo, in their natural habitat or otherwise, which is an attempt to explain tigers in Africa). Drafthouse Films, the company who re-released Roar, states in an article that he is a preservationist...HOWEVER, on the back of the Blu-ray release, he is referred to as a doctor and "outspoken naturalist". The cats aren't tamed at all I should mention, and I don't think his ranch is much of a "sanctuary", so I'll add mention that his ranch is a preserve as well. Also, going off just information given to us in the beginning of the film, Hank is also seen bandaging wounds and helping a native tribe (while wearing a medical coat of sorts), but that's the only time it's introduced and or used in the film. This is why I included the 'doctor' part, so should it be removed then? -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 14:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: You need to think about presenting the story in a way that doesn't presuppose any knowledge of the story. So you had, "His family attempts to visit him." That is too much information, as I have no idea of the confusion at the airport. Y has wisely taken it out. But at the same time, the information has to be enough and consistent. So, when you say, "are accidentally left with a number of animals they fear," which Y. has again fixed, there is both too much information (accidentally) and not enough or vague (left), or redundant (they fear). You can simply say, "they find themselves unattended with some of these animals." At this point, I'm expecting something more, how the plot takes off from there, not in great detail, but some clue, so I'm thrown off by the naming the names. You should go through the article looking for such issues. The grammar I can fix easily; the coherence I have to work harder. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does this sound then? Roar's story follows Hank, a wildlife conservationist who lives on a nature preserve in Africa with lions, tigers, and other big cats. When his family visits him, they are instead confronted by the group of animals. Please tell me if this is better?
Nice. Much better. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you need to clarify (which again Y has flagged in his edit summary) whether he is a conservationist (preservationist does mean the same, but is less commonly used) or a behaviourist. (He can be both.) I mean lions and tigers are apex predators; even in India, the only place where they both exist in the wild, their habitats don't intersect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's all over the place and was the subject of criticism from critics. Does "naturalist" sound better according to the DVD synopsis? (see above)
On balance "naturalist" is better. No source says, "animal behaviorist?" Are we bound literally by the sources? Can't make a common-sense interpretation? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at Tippi Hedren's memoir, and she states that he's a zoologist "studying a collection of big cats under one roof"! My god people, make a decision!! XD. How does zoologist sound?
Naturalist is probably better; zoologist is too preciose. Let's not worry about the speciality for now, but please file away, "studying a collection of big cats under one roof." That is potentially useful info. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 00:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I think I've fixed all of the issues, along with other prose problems. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 22:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I just took at a look at the lead. There are still some coherence and organization issues. Let me go ahead and make an edit. Will post here when done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:02, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Let me know of other issues so I can address them. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 23:11, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've left two versions there. The second is more precise. I'm strapped for time right now but will take another look tomorrow. Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Filming actually started in 1976, not '74. Otherwise, everything looks pretty good; I wasn't sure before if mention of the attacks should have been put in the last paragraph or not. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 00:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Nick-D

[edit]

I don't think that this article's prose meets FA standards at present. As some examples:

  • The first sentence of the lead is rather complex and doesn't really leave readers wanting to continue with the article
I've tried to fix this by looking at another recently featured article, The Thing, which moves the cast to the end of the paragraph, allowing the film's story some leeway.
  • "When his family attempts to visit him, they are accidentally left alone with a number of animals that they fear." - is the word "alone" needed here?
Removed
  • "Hedren and Marshall learned about endangered wildlife in Africa while Hedren was filming Satan's Harvest in Mozambique, and they decided to make a film in response" - in response to what? I presume that they became aware of a need for more action to protect endangered wildlife or similar?
Added context: poaching was what they wanted to respond to.
  • "Hedren, Marshall, and their family lived with a number of big cats in their California homes." - the context here is unclear
I hope this is what you mean: By suggestion from animal experts, Hedren, Marshall, and their family lived with a number of big cats in their California homes. It was a professional trainer who suggested they get to know the animals. Let me know if I need more info or if this is okay?
  • "Although Roar's message (to protect African wildlife) and animal interactions were praised, its plot, story, inconsistent tone, dialogue, and editing were criticized." - passive voice (who was making these comments? Professional critics?)
Yes, it was critics who made these remarks.
  • The formatting in the Cast section is a bit odd. Why is most of this content in horizontal dot points?
Fixed
  • "As the script developed with frequent changes, some of the lions were later credited as writers." - Which lions are being referred to here, and why were they credited? Was this a joke, or an acknowledgement of how they influenced the plot?
No joke, the animals did what they wanted to on set so they were credited as both writers and actors. It doesn't state the lions by name, but it lists some "incidents". I tried adding more context, hope it doesn't sound loopy: The script developed with frequent changes but allowed the animals to improvise moments, such as playing with the family's boat or riding a skateboard. This led some of the lions to be credited as writers.
  • The sentence starting with "Marshall and Hedren began illegally housing," is rather complex
Do you mean it has no explanation? I've tried to fix it up here: Marshall and Hedren began illegally keeping young lions that they had acquired from zoos and circuses, as they did not have permission from authorities beforehand to house them.
  • What's an "African-style house"? There's a considerable diversity of architecture styles in Africa.
This is referring to inspiration or the main idea behind the blueprint. How does [...] a two-storey house inspired by African architecture. sound?
What's "African architecture"? It's a big and diverse continent with very different styles of architecture. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the big cats also became plagued with airborne, feline-related illnesses, which resulted in the death of 14 lions and tigers." - did this lead to animal welfare authorities responding?
I checked the book again. No mention of authorities, just that they called in UCLA and UC Davis experts who determined it was airborne and unpreventable (due to no vaccine against it) if it happened again.
  • "Due to the large number of untrained animals on set, there were a reported 48 injuries within the two years since filming started" - the "since" here is confusing
Re-worded: [...] there were a reported 48 injuries within the two years of filming.
Fixed by another user
  • Page numbers are needed for each of the references in current refs 7, 11 and 15 (all books) - you can't just point readers at the entire book and hope they find the right page, and this fails WP:V Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the format to include page numbers, instead of using the "rp" format included outside of the citation. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 01:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, "doesn't really leave readers wanting to continue with the article?" Are you a spokesman for readers or are you speaking for yourself? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What are you hoping to achieve here? Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That you speak logically. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:58, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm Now I see why people were recently complaining about you trolling FACs. Give it up. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Nick is just giving out an example on how lengthy and bloated the sentence was and how it needed trimming...it's not an insult to my work on the article, it was meant to be taken as a critique.
Apologies @Nick-D: and @NowIsntItTime:, I stayed up too late. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed a few of your issues here Nick. I aim to fix the rest tomorrow as I need sleep. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 05:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have tackled the issues you've pointed out so far. Please look over them and tell me if I've addressed them adequately. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 03:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From scanning the sections of the article I didn't cover, they're full of the same problems around prose and there are also issues with gaps and duplication of material (for instance, the coverage of how the film was released is confusing and some material is repeated). I'm afraid I'm still an oppose. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your review anyway; it really helps with the state of the article. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review - Shearonink

[edit]
  • The 4 images lack meaningful alt-text.
  • The Jan de Bont image lacks a caption at Commons. Also, the picture seems to be from 1973...there isn't anything available that's more recent? Shearonink (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt text. Replaced image and added description from a 1975 picture (sorry, that's the latest picture on Wikimedia Commons). -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 18:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the images pass muster. Inclined to support but will wait for word on the other FA criteria. Shearonink (talk) 06:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, I was looking forward to recusing coord duties and reviewing this myself but the coord stuff has to take precedence now. As it is I can't see consensus to promote being achieved anytime soon, and the review has been open well over six weeks, so I'm going to archive. If you can seek out an editor experienced in film articles at FA level it would be good to get their input prior to another nomination in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2020 [10].

Pekarangan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a type of tropical home garden developed in Indonesia. Currently a GA, there is no significant additional edit/information to the article since. I think it's enough for FA standards, and it's probably good to go for nomination. Dhio-270599 10:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

This looks pretty comprehensive to someone who knows nothing about the topic. I'm interested that you wrote in AE, given that BE is standard in all the former British colonies in South and Southeast Asia, but of course Indonesia wasn't one of those. Some comments.

@Jimfbleak: Thank you for the review! I'll try my best to improve the article. (a note: Indonesians are more familiar with AE, given that Indonesia wasn't a British colony, as you said.... and perhaps thanks to a sizable number of Indonesian scholars in the past who sought after graduate/doctoral degrees in the US and returned to Indonesia, acquiring influence in various public and private institutions back home.) Dhio-270599 14:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • no problem with duplinks, but the User:Headbomb/unreliable script flagged up Asian Social Science as a predatory publisher, so perhaps you should comment on that. It doesn't mean that the "Effects of Sustainable Home-Yard Food Garden (KRPL) Program: A Case of Banten in Indonesia" can't be used if you are happy with that, the paper itself looks OK. Has it been published elsewhere?
Thanks for the info! I'll use the predatory publishers' script from User:Headbomb in the future. I'll try to find another article to substitute it.
an update: I've changed the Amrullah ref and the RPL description/history sentence to a reference by Nawir et al. about a 1951 program on Indonesian home gardens.
  • wild animals— I'd suggest "(including farmed fish, poultry and ruminants and wild animals)". You also have "animal" three times in that sentence.
Made a minor edit to that. However, I'm not sure if I edited it right - is it okay for you to re-check it?
  • Looks underlinked to me, I'd suggest linking at least ecosystem, langua, lemongrass, eggplant, water buffalo, fauna, amphibian, edge effect, precipitation, genetic, insectivorous, carbon capture, fallow land, carbohydrates, proteins and vitamin A at first occurrence
All done; vitamin A is linked as vitamins [[vitamin A|A]] and [[vitamin C|C]].
  • yard in the plants section is worked to death. Vary it a bit with garden, plot, area or similar.
Done.
  • Any reason why scholars aren't given first names?
If you mean the ones from the Ashari-referenced paragraph from the "Name" section, the original writers of the referred article (Ashari et al.) only put the scholars' last names in the journals. However, I've come to realize that the last names actually refer to names in the bibliography within the Ashari article that the Pekarangan WP article lacked.
An observation: "Sajogyo" is a single name; the first name of Hartono is unknown in the Ashari article; Simatupang and Suryana are only referred as "P. Simatupang" and "A. Suryana" in the article.
  • waste dumping in garbage pits instead of using them for compost—I think you mean dumping waste in garbage pits instead of using it for compost
Done.
I'll have another read when I get time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • melinjo (Gnetum gnemon) produce leaves consistently perhaps insert "edible"?
Done.
  • similar gardens in other Indonesian islands tend to have a big size. perhaps tend to be larger
Done.
  • used for liturgical purposes — I'd guess Hindu on Bali; can you clarify?
It is. Is "used for Balinese Hinduism liturgical purposes" good?
I'm happy with all the responses above, but I have a couple of queries about the accuracy of the long quotation. I'd be astonished if a 19th century British diplomat wrote AE "labored" rather than BE "laboured", and I suspect that "verdant grove" is more plausible than "verdant glove"! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks for pointing those out - both corrections are right, with the latter was, perhaps, a typo. Dhio-270599 08:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No further concerns, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dhio-270599 04:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HaEr48 (support)

[edit]

Will review shortly. 05:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Very informative and well researched article. I enjoyed reading it, the explanations are clear, and it seems to cover all major facts and details about the topic. I feel it could benefit from some copyediting, but there is nothing very terrible. Thank you very much for your work here.

  • I have done some light copyedits/tweaks - please check history hopefully I didn't do anything wrong
The edits are superb. Thank you!
  • I think the first paragraph can be improved by adding the the types and purposes of plants being grown.
Added some - I'm not sure if the added description is sufficient. Don't mind revising :)
  • Suggest renaming "Name" section as "definition" to match the scope of the section. Suggest changing the order of paragraph 1 and 2 because the definition is more important than the etymology
Done.
  • "while annual plants dominate in their counterparts": "counterparts" doesn't mean "the opposite", if that's what you mean. I suggest changing to something like "while annual plants dominate in other areas"
Done.
  • "Individual pekarangans are believed to store only small amounts of carbon. Despite that, the gardens are argued to hold an amount of carbon per area that is similar to primary or secondary forests, and greatly surpassing Imperata grasslands and fallow lands" I don't know how to reconcile the first sentence and the second. Given the second sentence, why do we say it only stores small amounts of carbon in the first place? Can you clarify?
The referred line from Roshetko et al. is: "Individual smallholder agroforestry systems are of limited size and by themselves store small amounts of C. However, on a per area basis, homegardens and other smallholder agroforestry systems accumulate significant amounts of C, equaling the amount of C stored in other tree-based systems—including primary or secondary forests—over similar time periods." There's a distinction between "per individual" (of varying size but mostly small) and "per area".
Thank you forr the explanation. I changed it to "While on per individual basis pekarangans store only small amounts of carbon due to their size, on per area basis they hold an amount of carbon that is similar to primary or secondary forests, and greatly surpassing Imperata grasslands and fallow lands." to make the distinction clearer.. is that accurate? HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like the emphasis of per individual/area difference in the renewed sentence. Looks great! :D Thank you for the good idea.
  • "This considers that trees higher than 10 meters (33 ft), spice plants, and industrial crops hit a low point of species diversity in the gardens whose size is equal or slightly lower than 100 square meters (1,100 sq ft)": Long sentence and a bit hard to follow. Can you consider rewording? What does "hit a low point of species diversity" mean in this context?
The total amount of species within those types is either zero or nearly zero when it comes to gardens of such size (100m2 or less). Will rewording to "This considers that the amount of species within some plant types is zero, or nearly zero, in the gardens with maximum size of 100 square meters (1,100 sq ft). The affected types are trees higher than 10 meters (33 ft), spice plants, and industrial crops." be good?
  • Hmm I'm still not sure what it means. What do you mean "This considers ... "? Can we say, "Some plant types, such as trees higher than 10 meters (33 ft), spice plants, and industrial crops are almost not present in gardens of 100m2 or less"? HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea - I'll adapt yours. :D (I thought "this considers" might be similar to "this is because". Is that a better alternative?)
  • What does this mean "Such gardens in Java tend to be smaller; the majority of them are smaller than 200 square meters"? By saying "such gardens" it implies you're talking about gardens mentioned in the previous passage (<100 m2), isn't it redundant to say they're also smaller than 200 m2? HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "such gardens" to "home gardens" - thanks for pointing it out!
  • Leaf litter also helps soil sustainability: How about: Leaf litter also helps protecting the soil against erosion? Because it seems the focus of this paragraph. "Sustainability" is a broad concept.
Done.
  • Housing extension caused by population growth: Suggest: "Expansion of settlements to new lands, caused by population growth, .. " in order to make "housing extension" more specific
Done.
  • Plant species brought by internal migrants should adapt well: Can we replace "should" with a more appropriate word? e.g. "needs to"?
Done - I prefer "need to", assuming that "species" is plural in this case.
  • In general, I suggest removing words like "is considered to", "is believed to", "argued to", etc. … per WP:AWW. If it is important to attribute the statement to a specific opinion, then say whose opinion it is. Otherwise, we can just remove it because it usually just makes the sentence longer without any benefit. E.g. "Commercialization, fragmentation, and urbanization are considered to be major hazards to pekarangans' plant diversity"
Done - They are either deleted or attributed to a specific reference in the text.
  • Because rice is mentioned a lot in the article, I think it will be useful to add context that it is the dominant staple in Java (or Indonesia). Maybe in one of the first places where rice is mentioned we can insert something like … rice—the dominant staple of Indonesia—…
Done - see "Human Impact" section.
  • Integrated with local customs and philosophies such as rukun and tri-hita-karana: suggest adding translation of the non-English terms.
Explained in the "Culture" section.
  • In Madura, however, such home gardens are described as the domain of men: remove "such"?
Done.
  • Nevertheless, a pekarangan is considered a responsibility of the entire family, including their offspring and their own families: Are we still talking about Madura, or in general. Also what does "their own families' mean here?
Reworded to "Nevertheless, a pekarangan in general, regardless of the culture, is considered a responsibility of the entire family, including their offspring and the offspring's families." However, I'm not sure - please tell me if there's a better alternative.
  • Associations of plants in Javanese pekarangans tend to be more complex: Can you clarify what "Associations" mean here?
I linked "associations of plants" to plant community.
  • During the Dutch colonial era, pekarangans were referred to as erfcultuur: Suggest inserting it to the previous paragraph (in the right chronological order) rather than having this one-sentence paragraph.
Done.
  • Despite that, as of 2001, "the government [had not] paid attention" to recommendations to include them in national strategies: I think we need to attribute the source of this particular opinion/assertion. Also, I don't think the use of despite that is correct here. Suggest removing or replacing with a different conjunction.
It actually came from a working group report from a proceeding book, and is attributed to "Group C" (w/o describing who are the members of the group). Is it good to say "However/nevertheless, a statement/an account said that as of 2001...."?
@HaEr48: Forgot about this - sorry for that. About the attribution, I feel the more accurate attribution should be "in the words of a Second International Home Gardens Workshop working group report" but I feel that the words are exhaustively long. Besides, after I re-looked the report, there is no backing evidence supporting the stance of "government's inattention to include..." -- It's a mere statement standing on its own. I'm considering deleting the sentence instead. What do you think? Dhio (talk?) 14:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhiosk: I'm fine with deleting it, that seems a good option given the circumstances. HaEr48 (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Deleted. :) Dhio (talk?) 01:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest replacing "Pekarangan programs" with "Government progam" because "Pekarangan" is redundant, and the programs described in the section all have to do with the government
Done.
  • Regional distribution. It seems that it dominant in Java but also present in other islands like Sumatra and Sulawesi. Is it possible to add a paragraph or a section discussing the regional distribution of pekarangan in Indonesia? If it can be found in reliable sources of course.
I haven't found a source discussing about the matter in a comprehensive way, so I'm not able to do that for now.
Also, note: I am planning to use this review to claim points for WikiCup.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48:Thanks for the superb review - I'll try to respond more tomorrow. Best of luck for your WikiCup! Dhio (talk?) 13:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhiosk: Thanks for the response, I posted some follow ups above, and I'm waiting for the unresponded bullet points as well. HaEr48 (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: All responded :D Dhio (talk?) 00:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your responses. Looking very good now. Happy to support this nomination. HaEr48 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Dhio (talk?) 06:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Pleased to see this here - looking on track to pass. I will have another look a bit later..

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I see some stilted prose. Examples:

  • Pekarangans typically contain plants, while some possess animals (including farmed fish, ruminants, poultry, and wild animals) and structures such as pens and bird cages. The reader is going to expect a garden to contain plants, so the first clause doesn't need to be so declarative. "While" is being used oppositionally here, but the two things (plants and animals) are not really in opposition. The structures are listed as if they're independent of the animals that are kept in them, which isn't the case. More natural would be something like "In addition to plants, pekarangans may [or "often", if appropriate] contain fish, poultry, or other domestic or wild animals, along with their pens, ponds, or cages."
  • Yields of the gardens offer various uses: an odd use of "offer". Again I think this can be said more straightforwardly: "The gardens yield food for subsistence and income, and plants for ornamental use."
  • Some pekarangans are made, maintained, and spatially arranged according to local values. Too vague; I know we're summarizing here because it's the lead, but I really don't know what "spatially arranged according to local values" might mean.
  • Fragmentation is mentioned twice in two sentences in the second lead paragraph; the second use seems redundant.
  • Not really bad writing, but I think Problems such as pest outbreaks and a rise in household debts have appeared due to the degraded sustainability of the gardens would be easier on the reader if you reversed the order of the thought -- it's written as "A has been caused by B", but "B caused A" is a lot simpler -- "The reduced sustainability of the gardens has caused pest outbreaks and a rise in household debts". Though I should also comment that the degraded sustainability can't have directly caused a rise in household debts; it must be indirect, via reduced yields because of the pests, or something like that.

At this point I was thinking of opposing on prose grounds, so I decided to skip to the middle of the article and start reading there. The prose quality does seem a little better, but there are still some issues. Starting in the "Plants" section:

  • "intentional human intervention" -- I think you could safely cut "intentional".
  • ...usually in a household pen. These are usually ...: needs rephrasing to avoid the repetition (and there's another instance in the next sentence).
  • Villagers avoid the domestic use of fish pond water: I think you mean they don't use water piped to their houses to replenish the fish ponds, but as written it means they don't use the water that is in the ponds.
  • Otto Soemarwoto and Gordon Conway accounted that the gardens...: odd use of "accounted".
  • There are different findings in relation to wild birds. This is throat-clearing; it can go -- if you want a topic sentence, then it should make a statement, which this doesn't.

Jumping further down, to the "Human impact" section:

  • Harvesting of rice—the dominant staple of Indonesia—influence the use of pekarangans in some ways. Should be "influences", since harvesting is a singular subject, but as above this is too vague to be useful as a topic sentence.
  • Despite urbanization's negative effect in reducing their plant diversity, it increases that of the ornamental plants: I don't understand what this sentence is trying to say.

Oppose. I'm finding the article very interesting, but I think the prose is just not there yet. If this doesn't get promoted I'd be willing to work with you to improve the prose before another nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, I'm afraid that a list of issues such as the above coming after the nom has been open this long means we're still a good way from consensus to promote, so I'm going to archive this and suggest that you take up Mike's generous offer to work on the article outside the pressures of FAC, after which you could bring it back for another go. Cehers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 April 2020 [11].

Akira Kurosawa

[edit]
Nominator(s): JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the well-known film director Akira Kurosawa. The article was previously nominated 2 years ago with requests to review it with further editors and update the images which was done. Grapple X has agreed to act as mentor since I have only done GA articles and not a completed FA. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A great article about one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Overdue for appreciation. Article reads well and greatly improved imagery...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this is a great article. Any possibility of a picture of Kurosawa from the latter half of his life? (Sorry if this is not an appropriate question to ask at a FAC; I don't have a lot of experience in this area of assessment.) Dekimasuよ! 05:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice to hear your comment about this biography article. The images for the article went through 3-4 cycles of selection and it seemed a good idea to include the image of the Hollywood director Sidney Lumet defending Kurosawa toward the end of Kurosawa's career since Lumet was a well-known director contemporaneous to Kurosawa. The image selection process took place here [12]. If you have any alternate images from commons which look good to you then it would be nice to hear about any alternate images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some of your captions need editing for grammar and clarity
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Akirakurosawa-onthesetof7samurai-1953-page88.jpg: where was this first published? Same with File:Kajiro_Yamamoto.jpg
  • For the 7samurai image, this was scanned from a public domain 1953 issue of 映画の友 (Eiga no tomo) an old Japanese film magazine. For Yamamoto, this was a publicity still from Toho studio when he was an established director. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we add this to the Yamamoto image's page on Commons? At present it assumes PD on the grounds of either being taken before 1947 or published before 1957 but doesn't prove either so this should be cleared up. As for the two images below, can the translations be added to their Commons descriptions as well? Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Yukiko_Todoroki.1937.2.2.jpg: please translate source and description, and also provide the original date
  • File:Shimura_Takashi.JPG: please translate source and description

Also noting in passing that your references include multiple harv errors which should be fixed before a full source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the Harv errors, I am not sure which tool you may be running on them which gives you multiple errors. I will be happy to run whichever tool you have to replicate your errors. Currently, the citations are printing out cleanly in the References section of the article on my screen, and let me know how to run your tool with an example of a problem cite if possible. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a glance, some of them are formatted as "Author, page range" and some as "Author year, page range" (eg Galbraith, pp. 127–138 vs Kurosawa 1983, pp. 180–187). Years are fine if there are two or more texts with the same author(s) that need to be differentiated but this is not the case with all of the texts (Bock is given with a year but only has one source). There are also AV sources which should ideally be timestamped (see Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)#Footnotes for an example of this in a featured article). I'm only interpolating here and these may not be what was meant. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 16:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Nikkimaria could confirm that the year should consistently appear and always be applied or not applied. The article should be consistent especially for authors with more than one article being used by a single author and I'll change over to the preference which you indicate. Regarding the AV sources and website sources I have already started to remove some of the deadlink archive links which were showing up. I have updated Commons for the images requested above. At present, all of the items in the Sources section in the article now have the year associated with each entry. Thanks for the comments. JohnWickTwo (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Yamamoto image appears to be between 1941 and 1946. For Ucucha errors reported for the Sources section, these are cleaned up now with currently unused citations moved to Further reading section. All of the residual uncited harv ref notices are now in Further reading, and are residual from previous over-edits. They can be retained or deleted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info added to Commons. The original image editor has not been active since 2009 and I could not ping him. The birth year for Yamamoto is 1902 and the image is consistent with a man in early middle age, about 1941 or 1942. Otherwise, I might suggest to drop the image if this is the only image which is holding things up. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fowler&fowler

[edit]
  • Reserving some space here for my comments. May I say, I'm delighted to see an article on one of the greats from that now-vanished world of Renoir, Bunuel, Bergman, Fellini, Tati, Hitchcock, Ray, Goddard, Truffaut, Mizoguchi, Wilder, Ford, Cukor, Sturges, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler: From your list of top directors, I previously added some material regarding Kurosawa's high respect for Bergman in the closing sections of this biography article. It is of interest that from the top directors which you name that many of them respected each others work and commented on this in public statements. JohnWickTwo (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there! I will start a review soon. There is something that is puzzling me though. It is the pictures. First, I'm surprised that for a cinematic giant such Kurosawa there aren't more pictures: of his childhood, his youth, his family. Second, the pictures there are in the article seem too Western-centric. Why are we seeing pictures of Dostoyevski, Ed McCain, Lumet, and of all people Speilberg? Why not Akutagawa, a master of the Japanese short story and author of K's major hit, instead of Dostoyevsky. Or Mifune, Mizoguchi, ... instead of L and S. I'm giving you a heads up because others will likely ask these questions. When people read a biography, they're looking to understand what made him tick, especially at the crucial stages before ticking became easy.  :)
  • That sounds like you may have some images in mind, the Akutagawa biography article has a nice portrait of him, there is a movie still from the early film Uma which Yamamoto directed with Kurosawa, and there is an informal picture of Yamamoto as Kurosawa's mentor on Japanese Wikipedia, possibly you have your own preferred suggestions for new images from Commons? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing, and again, others will bring this up so might as well blurt it out: the article seems too long. There is some sort of emerging consensus at FAC that no article should be > 10K words and biographies even < 8K, unless the biographed is Shakespeare. Well, maybe it's not a consensus, but I've heard it enough times that I fear other reviewers will bring this up. I will think about how best to reduce the article judiciously, i.e. without removing anything essential. Please give me another day, and please think about these two issues. Looking forward! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look forward to your comments whenever you are ready. This article is listed as a level 4 vital article and if some sections might need to be shortened or condensed then let me hear your thoughts on the best places you have in mind for it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand it is a vital article; otherwise, most likely, I wouldn't have appeared here. :) I've given an example here of how a section can be made tighter without reducing comprehension (IMHO). It saves 200 words in this example. I have self-reverted. You can tell me where I went wrong, by re-editing my version in the article and self-reverting. That way, we won't clog up this review. I can do this for each section, and, with your feedback, your text will become much tighter. I hope you don't mind; I know you have worked hard on this, but some reduction is needed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all looks correct and proper. That first paragraph there was meant more as a summary of the linked article which has many cites. Regarding your edits, they appear directed to keeping the existing links and the existing citations while shortening some of the text and making it tighter, which all looks good. It seems successful and it would be nice to see more. When you are ready you can install the new text and continue. There is no need to self-revert and just let me know when the next section(s) are ready. Let me know if there are questions along the way. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That image you added looks good. Here is a movie still on Commons from a film directed by Yamamoto where Kurosawa was the assistant director in 1941 here [13]. Let me know which section you plan to do next and I can look for more images. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very sorry, @JohnWickTwo:, I became distracted by other things. Well, let me make a time table, so we can get through this in a timely fashion: I will (i) do the first two subsections of the Legacy section (3.1 and 3.2) today, leaving the other minor subsections for later, or I might leave them as is; I will then work backwards through the biography section doing on each successive day (ii) 1.3.4 and 1.3.3 (iii) 1.3.2 and 1.3.1 (iv) 1.2.3 (v) 1.2.2 (vi) 1.2.1 and 1.1.3 (vii) 1.1.2 and 1.1.1 (viii) Lead. So, it will take a little over a week, which some people might think is a lot of time, but I believe a vital article such as this deserves no less attention, and I hope it will be the better for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two pics of Mizoguchi and Rivette are well chosen, with the Rivette image having the advantage of Wikipedia being given authorization for use from the photographer himself. Something to consider if you are going with one image only in that section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm having a hard time with the "Reputation among filmmakers" section. It is too much of a repetitive hagiography. I'll try to chop it down, but I'm afraid I'll have to remove some directors. We can't have director after director say the same thing, director after director get on the bandwagon, claim him for his own. The praise becomes meaningless and tiresome. The way I see it, there are three great directors there: Bergman, Fellini, and Ray. (One way to check is to look at their biographies in Britannica for comparison.) They have spoken about Kurosawa's work, so they should be included. Then there is a second list: Polanski, Bertolucci, Herzog, and Altman. They should be included. Kubric is a great director, but it is not clear he thought Kurosawa was as great as his assistant is making him sound. Kurosawa was not on Kubric's only two known lists of the best movies. Herzog, who is an admirer to be sure, says something more complex, and we can't reduce the quotation. Anyway, I'll try to do something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edits. That section includes the sentence, "Stanley Kubrick, in the reminiscence of an assistant, would have very likely included The Battle of Algiers, Danton, Rashomon, Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood...", which mentions 5 films that might optionally be shortened to mention only the 3 Kurosawa films among those 5 films. One such wording option might be "...would have very likely included the three Kurosawa films Rashomon, Seven Samurai and Throne of Blood...". I have asked that @Grapple X: offer some comments and to be available for added review participation. JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The desert island books (or in this instance movies) are always listed fully. Orwell had six, one of which was Gulliver's Travels. I mean if your list has 200, and Akira makes an appearance three times, then it is not a big deal. But if there are five, and three are Akira's, then it sure is. I have made several desert island lists both of books and movies, always six after Orwell. They may come in handy in Shipwreck in the Time of Coronavirus. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Didn't realize I had "included." Have corrected. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the section seeming too repetitive or hagiographic, I would err on the side of including material based on what has been said rather than purely who said it. Something that directly address Kurosawa would be more useful than anything that primarily discusses the field of Japanese cinema or just one of his films in isolation for example. I don't feel that the Herzog quote adds much as it is really about DW Griffith with Kurosawa mentioned in passing, and the material from Altman onwards could stand to be trimmed. Keeping the Ray quote, that would let us trim down to two paragraphs and a block quote, keeping things that are more directly impactful. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 09:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I agree entirely with your first sentence. I don't agree with everything in the second. Desert island lists are not entirely about their compilers, in this instance Kubric or Herzog, but a commentary on Kurosawa as well, as they place him in a group that another director considers the defining ideal of the medium. Herzog reflects purely on Kurosawa as well in that book; perhaps I can combine those. As for the others, not so much Altman, for he does say something, but Speilberg, Coppola, ... I was holding back because I did not want to remove too many of John's citations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John, I've made Herzog a little more meaningful. The Rashomon bit has a different page number, which on my digital edition I can't figure out. Could you please locate it, and add. Also, I don't know the conventions of filmmaker pages, but could the remaining subsections could be reduced? Could the two immediately after be put in external links and the last be reduced to honors and awards? In any case, I will now move to the proper biography sections, working backwards from the last. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to defer to @Grapple X: on this and he is more experienced at peer reviewed articles than myself. The quote (made by a previous Wikipedia editor) from Herzog which you refer to is from the unpaginated book on him in digital format and seems to be for a combined quote from Ch4 and Ch5 of that book by Cronin. It is available on Google books here [14] to verify precise quotes. The other sections you mention can be optionally merged into some of the sibling Kurosawa articles mentioned as "See also" and "Main article" links already listed in various sections in this Kurosawa biography article. Grapple X should be able to pick up on questions like this. Grapple X can answer with further comments here and for subsequent section trims and development. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused John. I see now that he is a mentor. Why is he weighing in at so late a stage in the game? He should have told you these things long before you made the nomination. I mean did he not read the article? I would rather deal with you, not with an absconding mentor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I deal with the nominator, not a ghost mentor. If your heart is not in this, I'm happy to withdraw without prejudice. I like Kurosawa, and I'm happy to help you. It's your call. I'm in no hurry. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JohnWick and I had been discussing this on my user talk page before and during the nomination; I've pinged you there if you want to look at anything we've talk about. I agreed to help John with any difficulties that may come up but as I hadn't actually written the article I felt it would be wrong to be listed as a nominator. In terms of "weighing in late", it's not that I think any of this material should go, but if you feel that the section should be trimmed, they would just be my choices as the cuts to make--it's all worthwhile material but when space is tight (and I did feel this was borderline in terms of length but felt it was better to cut it down in the face of critique than lose too much pre-emptively) then some of it could go. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 13:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Grapple X: for so nicely, and precisely, explaining the content and the motivation. I will be working again on this review later today. Look forward to more from you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now (loved his films..) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another major childhood influence was Heigo Kurosawa, Akira's older brother by four years. - this comes across weirdly. Why not say, "Another major childhood influence was his older brother Heigo." - more natural and fewer words...
(Kurosawa had just turned 33.) - why in parentheses and why is his age important..?

Overall, the article is comprehensive and has an engaging tone (which is great), however as I read on, the prose does get a bit wordy and veers into essay-like territory in the postwar period material. Am trying to get an idea of how extensive it is. I have tightened up some prose and am continuing reading Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but despite this being open more than seven weeks we simply haven't had enough commentary to form a consensus to promote, and even with Cas' input we'd still take time to get there, so I'm going to archive this and suggest that perhaps he (and F&F) could work with you outside the FAC process to improve the article before another try here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [15].

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article failed its first FAC, despite overwhelming support, because I was not able to address the co-ord's closing comments during a brief period of block. Now that I have, and the article has gone through great copyediting, I feel it is more than ready. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Laser brain

[edit]

I don't think this is ready, sorry. It's evident from the article history that someone went through it, but I still see lots of awkward writing and what looks to be clumsy paraphrasing from sources. Examples:

  • "Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935." The word "launched" isn't standard English for when a film is released. Did someone choose that word to paraphrase "released"?
Yes, it was Baffle. It was filming that began in 1935 and is implied to have ended in the same year, yet the release was delayed due to the lawsuit. So can I write, "Principal photography began in 1935"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I've written "Principal photography for Sathi Leelavathi began in 1935". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the film was made primarily at Vel Pictures Studio" Meaning principal photography was done at that studio? Or it was edited there?
I guess everything; filming and post-production. So should I say shot or filmed? It seems post also happened at the studio as Dungan said, "the Vel Pictures studio manager, Mr. Ramamurthi, used to clean all the exposed negatives by hand – inch by inch, frame by frame" and narrated another incident involving him and the editor, happening at the same studio. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I've written "the film was shot primarily at Vel Pictures Studio, Madras". Hope it is good because that's fact. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 1994 interview with Ananda Vikatan, Dungan said during the first few days of filming" Not even grammatically correct.
  • "Dungan corrected this and advised Ramachandran to deliver his lines naturally" This section constructs a narrative suggesting that a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days?
I got the translation from a book I won't use: "During the first few days of the shooting, MGR did not understand the nuances of film acting and was delivering the dialogues aggressively even his acting appeared to be overacting. I corrected and advised him to deliver dialogues with natural acting. He changed his way of acting after that." What do I do? But I do believe "a stage actor was able to be coached in "understanding the nuances of film acting" in the span of a few days" simply by dropping exaggeration and overacting, and acting naturally like he would in real life. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dungan wrote in A Guide to Adventure, his 2001 autobiography, most of the cast were theatre actors..." Not grammatically correct, again.
Blame it on Baffle, don't blame it on me. My original writing before Miniapolis' c/e was, Dungan wrote in his 2001 autobiography A Guide to Adventure that, since the majority of cast members were theatre actors, he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions". The source reads, "As was the case with Sathi Leelavathi, the cast came from the stage. So again I had to take on the task of subduing the actors’ voices and facial expressions." Can I restore this writing? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are just pot-shots from one section. I'd reject this for GA status. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite surprising to see the co-ord making comments when the FAC just opened, and not when it is about to close. Anyway, please don't swiftly archive this. I agree with your comments and will try resolving them, provided you give more. And I expected better from Baffle gab 1978, who did the c/e. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting here as a reviewer, not a coordinator. I'm recusing. I'm making comments now because I was surprised to see the nomination appear so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time. The article needs a complete overhaul from someone who has access to the sources and can create a more cohesive and well-written narrative. This is not best done during an open FAC nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Laser, sorry for the misassumption. In the previous FAC, you gave comments only about "Music" and I solved them. You also said the whole article needed rewriting, but not how some sentences needed to be rephrased. That is why I listed it at the GOCE. But if you have issues with the rewritten prose, please don't blame me but Baffle, for it is his edits that you find appalling. And the second FAC did not appear "so soon after I commented on the poor quality of writing last time", but almost a month later, and that too only after the GOCE editing was complete, and when I believed Baffle solved the issues raised by you. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly ease up on the hyperbole? It makes working with you fairly unpleasant. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and apologies Laser, I will no longer make hyperboles as the comments are easily solvable and I have enough time to do so. I do not want us to be enemies, so you please take your own time to reply to my questions above. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. To the matter at hand: It is not GOCE or a copyeditor's job to understand your sources and create a cohesive narrative, nor to recognize awkward paraphrasing. They will go through a polish the text and correct obvious grammatical errors (maybe). I've given examples only, but I believe this article should be withdrawn as it requires a substantial revision from someone working from the sources. You may have to partner with a stronger writer. Fixing my examples does not address my opposition. --Laser brain (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To emphasize a point, I am very disappointed that you continue to drag a good-faith editor's name through the mud (Baffle gab) during this process. Very poor form. --Laser brain (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I participated in the previous FAC, and I will do a thorough read-through of the article to hopefully help as much as possible. I can understand Laser brain's comments, and I agree with the parts that they have pointed out above. Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved comments
Lead
  • For this sentence (It is based on S. S. Vasan's eponymous novel that was serialised in 1934 in the magazine Ananda Vikatan), I would link "serialised" to the Serial (literature) article as some readers may be unfamiliar with the concept. I would also flip the last part to have the magazine title first and the year last.
  • I do not think the phrase "eponymous novel" is used correctly because the novel is not named S. S. Vasan after the author. I would just say "novel" instead to avoid this.
Right now it reads, "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which had been serialised in 1934". Outriggr did some c/e. And serial is linked to what you said. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the lead's first paragraph, would it be beneficial to put the plot summary before the listing of the ensemble cast? Since the list is quite dense with information, it may be helpful to inform the reader about the plot first before identifying each actor. I do not believe there is a policy or standard for this as I have seen some FAs on films put the plot summary first and others put the actors first so it is up to you. Just thought it was worth asking.
Your suggestion is good and worth discussing at WP:FILMLEAD, but I'm following the example used in most MCU articles: "Para 1: introduce the film, its cast and premise"; "Para 2: Behind the scenes"; "Para 3: The film's premiere/release and reception". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. There is not a set standard/policy so it is really up to you. Either way would work for me so the current wording is good. Aoba47 (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the first sentence in the lead's plot summary. The "man named" is a little clunky to me. I would instead go with something like: (Sathi Leelavathi focuses on Krishnamurthy, a wealthy Madras-based man who is lured into drinking alcohol by his friend Ramanthan.). Also, is "friend' the best descriptive phrase for this character?
The current phrasing is, "In the film, the wealthy Krishnamurthy, a man from Madras, is lured into drinking alcohol by his acquaintance. Believing he murdered his friend in a drunken stupor, Krishnamurthy flees to Ceylon while his daughter and wife, Leelavathi, are reduced to poverty." Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second sentence in the lead's plot summary, I would just say "his friend Parasuraman" as "other" seems rather unnecessary to me as it is common for people to have more than one friend. Also, based on my understanding of the story, this is his real friend as opposed to Ramanthan.
Ramanathan is now written as "an acquaintance". Still accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion for this sentence (Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the theatrical play Pathi Bhakthi but an adaptation was already being made). I think putting a verb like "realized" before the "an adaption" part would pull the sentence together more.
Done: Since this is an Indian film (despite being directed by an American), I've gone with "realised". To avoid ambiguity, can I write, "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar initially wanted to produce a film version of the Madurai Original Boys Company (MOBC) play Pathi Bhakthi but realised an adaptation was already being made". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, who wrote the play, later told Chettiar about Vasan's novel, which had the same storyline), I am wondering if the "who wrote the play" part could be removed as it is somewhat cumbersome. Maybe something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar...). Also, it may be better remove the comma phrases altogether to say something like (The playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar suggested Vasan's novel to Chettiar since it had the same story.) instead.
Technically, the play was written by Pavalar, but Mudaliar simply rewrote it. So I've gone with you phrasing. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel and Mudaliar began writing a screenplay.), I would add a comma between "novel" and "and". I believe the rule for commas is that if there are two independent clauses joined by "and", then a comma should go before "and". Another example of this is (D. T. Telang and V. J. Shave were the cinematographers and the film was co-edited by Dungan and Sircar.). I am quite bad with commas and punctuation in general so I would encourage you to research this further.
Done: It was originally like that, but changed by Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would reduce this part (the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu) to something like the following (the film debut of K. A. Thangavelu and stage actors Radha, Balaiah and Ramachandran) to be more concise.
All of them were stage actors. Even Thangavelu was, but with another theatre troupe: Rajambal Company. So can I simply say, "the film-acting debuts of Radha, Balaiah, Ramachandran—both of whom were stage actors—and K. A. Thangavelu"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was honestly trying to avoid the dashes so I think it awkwardly cuts off the sentence. But I would be alright with the current wording, but you would need to change "both of whom were stage actors" to "all of whom are stage actors" since you are referencing more than two people. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a little confused by this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi was the first film on which Krishnan worked and his second release.) when I read it at first. Maybe a revision to the following (Although Sathi Leelavath was Krishnan's first film, it was his second release after Menaka in 1935.) would make the meaning clearer.
The current phrasing is "It was Krishnan's first film appearance and his second release". Accurate? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Sathi Leelavathi explores temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers), I would link "temperance" to the Temperance movement in India article to give readers a greater context to the word.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few comments for this part (It was one of the earliest Tamil films to become the subject of a court case involving copyright violation; the plaintiffs accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play Pathi Bhakthi.):
    • I would link "copyright violation" to help any reader unfamiliar with the concept.
As I said before, "copyright violation" is the writing of Sodabottle, who seems to have retired. I would prefer to say, "It was one of the earliest Tamil films to involved in a plagiarism controversy" (matching Category:Films involved in plagiarism controversies), what saith thou? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it seems more like a plagiarism suit so I would go with that wording. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would clarify what is meant by "the plaintiffs" as it is not immediately clear in the sentence who is suing the filmmakers.
According to Wiktionary, a plaintiff is "a party bringing a suit in civil law against a defendant; accusers". So it's clear MOBC are the plaintiffs. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of what the word plaintiff means. Both of my parents work in criminal law. It is not clear that MOBC are the plaintiffs because the MOBC is not even introduced in the lead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am uncertain who is being referenced by the phrase "the filmmakers". Is it the director, producers, screenwriter, some combination? I would clarify this point.
Can I write, "MOBC accused the filmmakers of plagiarising the play"? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The MOBC need to be properly introduced in the lead first to provide an explanation for the acronym. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include the title of the Ellen Wood novel in the lead as you have done in the body of the article.
Done: It's Danesbury House, dunno why it was removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are my suggestions for the lead. I will review the article section-by-section so I can read through each sentence thoroughly and help as much as possible. I am certainly not a great reviewer, but I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plot
  • I am a little confused by this sentence (Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu, a corrupt police inspector.). It is not made immediately clear (at least at this point in the story) what Rangiah Naidu is doing to help Ramanthan, and without this clear connection, this sentence seems rather random. Is Rangiah Naidu present at the tea party and helping to persuade Krishnamurthy to drink alcohol? I think a better transition or strong connection with the rest of the paragraph would be helpful here.
It seems so. The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthy, a rich man of Madras is taught drinking by his friend Ramanathan. He is lured into bad ways... made to indulge in harmful pursuits. A mock tea party is arranged to achieve this end and Ramanathan's collaborator in this is Rangiah, a base individual who disgraced the power entrusted to him." Rangiah is not mentioned again until the end. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I was curious about this part because Rangiah Naidu seems to come out of nowhere here, but if there is not further information about this part, then this should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would condense this part (Krishnamurthy is captivated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman with whom he becomes infatuated,) down to (Krishnamurthy becomes infatuated by Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman,).
  • I have a clarification question about this part (and promises to pay her ₹50,000 (about US$18,700 in 1936). Is he just giving her money or is he paying for her to do something in particularly (i.e. sex)? I would clarify this in the prose if the information is available.
The plot in English reads, "Krishnamurthi [sic] is made to fall by the wiles of a loose woman named Mohanangi... Infatuated he promises to pay her a sum of Rs 50,000." After this Mohanangi is never mentioned again. But from the looks of it she is indeed a prostitute. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. I was curious if they did anything together or if there was a clearer reason for the payment, but since the source leaves it rather vague, then it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence (Parasuraman, Krishnamurthy's true friend, tries but fails to reform him.). I am assuming that Parasuraman is trying to stop Krishnamurthy from drinking alcohol? The later parts of this paragraph make it clear that alcohol has become a habitual behavior for Krishnamurthy, but I am uncertain if that is clear at this point so it may be worthwhile to clarify in this sentence exactly what Parasuraman is trying to help his friend with to avoid any confusion.
Yes, the pressbook says, "Parasuram [sic], a family friend of Krishnamurthy tries to reform him. His methods prove to be useless." I think it's already clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is clear that Krishnamurthy has become alcoholic, then I would be more direct and state that in the sentence as I initially misread the mock tea party as being a one time thing until later realizing in the second paragraph that Krishnamurthy had other experiences with alcohol and developed this problem. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Krishnamurthy comes home drunk, sees Parasuraman's umbrella, assaults Leelavathi and goes out to shoot Parasuraman.), I would replace the second instance of "Parasuraman" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the rest of the sentence.
To avoid repetition of Parasuraman's name, how about I write, sees the umbrella? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done exactly as suggested. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this part (a shot is heard and a man lies dead) as it is very dramatic. I think it may be better to be clearer and say something like (a shot is heard, and the servant is killed) or something along those lines. Something about the tone of the original wording does not really fit with a Wikipedia/encyclopedia article.
  • Just wanted to point out that this has not be addressed. You do not need to use my wording, but the "and a man lies dead" part seems inappropriate for a Wikipedia plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (When Krishnamurthy comes to his senses, thinks he has murdered Parasuraman and decides to escape, leaving Leelavathi and Lakshmi in the custody of his servant Govindan.), I would revise the start to (After coming to his sense, Krishnamurth thinks...). The current phrasing is not grammatically correct, specifically the "sense, thinks he has" part.
  • Link Ceylon here to be consistent with the lead. Also a link to tea estate may be helpful.
Already linked. And doesn't tea estate fall under MOS:COMMONWORDS? --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's strange. It was not linked last time I looked at it, but maybe I missed the link somehow. The tea estate link is up to you. I would not consider it a super common word/phrase but I can also understand why the other side of the coin so it does not have to be linked. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've even linked tea estate to tea processing as the former redirects to it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and replaced it in Krishnamurthy's hand), I would use "placed" instead of "replaced". The word "replaced" does not really work in this context.
Yeah, done. Blame it on Baffle. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to pile on this, but I have to agree with Laser that it is not a good idea to criticize another editor who was only trying to help. We are all just volunteers and trying our best to contribute and improve the website. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Aoba47, my bad. Now that I have addressed your comments (please check if I really have), what next? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cast
  • Is there a reason why Rangiah Naidu's full name is not used here?
Because of WP:FILMCAST, which says to use the character's name as seen in the credits ("All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source"). And in the pressbook, he is referred to as "Inspector Rangiah".
  • Since Rangiah is identified as an inspector, I would identify Sreenivasan as a detective.
Again, WP:FILMCAST. But am I allowed to avoid the "Master" and "Miss" prefixes that appear in the pressbook?
The current phrasing should be fine. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand since this is a partially lost film, you may not have the answer for this, but is there any information on Balu and Sesha Iyengar's roles in the film? Later in the article, it is mentioned that there is a "comic subplot", but I do not see it represented in the plot summary. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot even remotely identify what the comedy subplot may have been about. And I would not say the film is partially lost, but predominantly. Those scenes that you see here appear to be behind-the-scenes footage, although the opening credits are also part of it. So how do I solve this dilemma?

Apologies for the amount of comments as a lot of good work has been put into the article. A lot of these points are minor and more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, your comments are not as disturbing as Laser brain's (hereafter Laser); I fully agree with them as well as Laser's. I only fear the FAC will be swiftly archived because of his comments. Since Laser was not detailed during the last FAC, I could not identify what to rewrite. Hence I submitted it to the GOCE. Seeing how Baffle gab 1978's edits appear to have worsened the article, I'm baffled (pun intended) since he is among the most experienced editors of the GOCE (no offense, but Miniapolis often does a far better job than him). But if you are going to give further comments, they should be in line with Laser's existing comments and not contradict them. I still haven't lost hope, and believe I can please Laser brain without sacrificing quality. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once my above comments are addressed, I will collapse them and move onto the rest of the article. I do not think I am contradicting any of Laser's points though? Aoba47 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will wait to add further comments until the lead suggestions are resolved. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Production
  • The first two sentences of the "Development" subsection are in passive voice. It may be helpful to rewrite the second sentence (Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and was staged over 150 times.) in a more active voice to keep the reader engaged. Something like the following could be helpful: (Playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar rewrote Pavalar's play for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe, and this production was staged over 150 times.)
Now the para goes, "Pathi Bhakthi, a Tamil play dealing with alcohol abuse and its effects on family life, was written by Te. Po. Krishnaswamy Pavalar during the early 1930s[2] and was successful throughout the Madras Presidency. Pavalar's play was rewritten for the Madurai Original Boy's Company (MOBC) theatre troupe by playwright Madras Kandaswamy Mudaliar, and this production was staged over 150 times". However, I'm beginning to doubt the accuracy of this article as it says, "Balaiah joined Rajambal Company, where he met the famous M. Kandaswamy Mudaliar, father of M.K. Radha. They staged Pathi Bhakthi over 150 times and Balaiah’s performance was greatly acclaimed. Sadly, this company too folded up but Kandaswamy Mudaliar roped him in for a film he was writing and where his son was the hero. This was Sathi Leelavathi". Do you think the source is best removed? Because Rajambal Company was evidently not involved, and MOBC did not dissolve as they sued the makers of the Sathi Leelavathi film. Also, I think the "150 times" applies to how many times the play was staged in its lifetime, even before it was rewritten by Mudaliar. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Mudaliar told him a novel titled Sathi Leelavathi,), I would just say "the novel Sathi Leelavathi" to avoid the "titled" part.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last sentence in the first paragraph of the "Development" subsection, I would move Reference 10 to the end of the sentence before Reference 11. The current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence and hinders readability.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this sentence (Tandon introduced Chettiar to his American friend Ellis R. Dungan and suggested Dungan direct it instead.) could be cut down to be more concise. Something like the following could be helpful: (Tandon suggested that his American friend Ellis R. Dungan could direct it instead.)
Done. Is this a better alternative to show coherence? Chettiar wanted Manik Lal Tandon to direct the film but he declined;[c] Tandon instead suggested his American friend Ellis R. Dungan Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (but Chettiar was persuaded to hire Dungan because he had worked in Hollywood), I would replace "Dungan" with "him" as it is clear from the context of the sentence who is being referenced here.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If directorial debut is linked here, then I would do the same for the lead for consistency.
Delinked, because it should never have been linked in the first place; Baffle linked it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current phrasing reads, "Sathi Leelavathi was one of the earliest Tamil films to be involved in a plagiarism controversy", matching the lead.
  • I wonder if there is a way to revise this sentence (Balaiah, who is credited as Baliah, played the antagonist Ramanathan while Krishnan played the comic character Balu) to avoid repeating "played" twice.
Now I've written "appeared as the antagonist Ramanathan". --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by this part "because of production delays caused by the lawsuit, Menaka (1935)" since "the lawsuit" part could be read as a descriptive phrase to describe Menaka and it seems rather abrupt. I think the wording is off here.
  • Could you provide a little more detail on the Menaka lawsuit? I think this sentence as a whole could use a little more work for readability and to help inform an unfamiliar reader like myself of the full background with this situation.
I think you got it wrong; Sathi Leelavathi was to have been NSK's debut film. Because the Pathi Bhakthi v Sathi Leelavathi lawsuit caused production delays (the trouble with casting Leelavathi happened after the lawsuit), Menaka became NSK's first release. It's common in South Indian cinema that an actor's first film project is not always their first release; Mohanlal, Sathya and Arya are victims like NSK here. So what phrasing do you suggest? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe "detective" in this part (Chettiar gave the role of the detective Sreenivasan) should be capitalized as it is done that way in the "Plot" section.
How is this what I have written? Chettiar gave the role of Sreenivasan to M. V. Mani without Mudaliar's knowledge. I have amended an earlier sentence to According to Ramachandran, he was told he would play Detective Sreenivasan and later Krishnamurthy's friend Parasuraman. It appears Detective with a capital D is indeed a formal prefix (as mentioned in Criminal investigation department), similar to Justice, Doctor and Inspector. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking about capitalizing detective in detective Sreenivasan, which you have now done. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Gnanambal, who had retired from acting after her marriage to Radha,), I would remove "to Radha" as it was already clarified in the previous sentence that she is Radha's wife.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Other comic actors were M. S. Murugesan as a Marvadi moneylender), unlink "Marvadi" since it was already linked in the "Plot" section.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move References 20 and 21 in this part (K. A. Thangavelu, a theatre artist associated with the Rajambal Company troupe, also made his film-acting debut) to the end of the sentence alongside Reference 22 as the current placement awkwardly cuts off the sentence into a long and a small part.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the placement of "uncredited" in this sentence (J. Susheela Devi played an uncredited cabaret dancer.) as the role not the dancer is uncredited.
Is this a better sentence? J. Susheela Devi appeared uncredited as a cabaret dancer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Followed the same type of phrasing in "Cast". --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this sentence (however, he watched the filming and absorbed "the new art form that was cinema"). It seems a little too close to the source's phrasing (But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema). I think it may also be better to somehow incorporate information from this part of the source's sentence (which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931) as it adds more context to why he considered cinema a new art form.
The source reads, "While MGR took his bow in it, Chakrapani did not because of lack of a proper role. But he hung around watching the shooting in Madras and absorbing the new art form that was cinema, which had begun to talk Tamil in 1931." That's referencing the first Tamil sound film Kalidas. Since it does not seem to add much (or may be bordering on WP:COATRACK), can I remove the "new art form" sentence and write, "...but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming"? This is to avoid WP:COPYVIO, a charge I do not want to be blocked again for. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in my response. I would remove the "new art form" part. It does not really add much to that part so I agree with your suggestion. Once this is addressed, I will read through the article again to see if I missed anything. Thank you for your patience with this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (Sathi Leelavathi was launched in 1935.), I would say "released" instead of "launched". I will not repeat other parts of Laser's comments, but I do agree that the parts that were pointed out need further work.
The current phrasing says that "principal photography" began in 1935. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (According to film historian Film News Anandan in the book Saadhanaigal Padaitha Thamizh Thiraipada Varalaru, filming was also done in Ceylon), I am uncertain if the book title is necessary since the film historian seems notable enough (since he has a Wikipedia article) to stand on his own.
Done, removed. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this part (the Gandhian concept of selfless service) since you clarify what is meant by "selfless service". I think adding the "the Gandhian concept" part to the lead could be helpful.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Music
  • For the first paragraph, I would put Reference 63 at the end of the sentence with Reference 64 to avoid cutting off the sentence awkwardly.
  • I am uncertain about the "with new lyrics" part and I would suggest removing it. A poem really does not have lyrics so it is an odd comparison to make, and since the sentence emphasizes that the melody was based on the poem, I do not think this part adds anything to the sentence.
The source says, "It modified a song of Bharati’s! The poet had composed ‘Karumbu Thottathile’ which was on the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji. This was changed to ‘Theyilai Thottatile,’ depicting the problems of the tea plantation workers in Ceylon." So I've removed the "with new lyrics" part since it is understood that he retained the melody and added new lyrics. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The original poem is about the plight), I would just say "The poem" since you are not referencing multiple poems here.
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (the plight of bonded Indian labourers in Fiji and the song explores the problems of tea-plantation workers in Ceylon), I would use "while" instead of "and" to emphasize the contrast in subject matters and add a comma after "Fiji".
Done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (The song, which is set in the Carnatic raga known as Chenchurutt), I would remove "known as".
Done. Though many Carnatic ragas have Wiki articles, Chenchurutti does not. If it did, at least a section redirect, would this sentence do? {{set in Chenchurutti, a Carnatic raga}}? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • Is it possible to add a link to "independence-era" in this part (and support by independence-era politicians) to help unfamiliar readers like myself?
I guess the author actually means "pre-independence era" since India got independence only in 1947. Would it be better to link to British Raj? Because that's the era he's referring to. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful to somehow incorporate the link into the sentence, but if you are having too much trouble with it, then I would not worry about it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the repetition of "film's" in this sentence (In its January 1937 issue, the art magazine Aadal Paadal praised the film's social setting and acting.) as it was done in a similar way in the previous sentence. I think you can drop "film's" and just say "the social setting and acting" without losing any meaning.
Done that way. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (, a critic of cinema in general,), I do not think "in general" is necessary.
Done as suggested. I do not want there to be a mix-up; belief that he was a film critic, but that he did not generally like films. But "a critic of cinema" gives the same impression doesn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and in another he indicated his fear by depicting his twitching fingers and feet. ), I would add a comma between "another" and "his".
Done, the comma removal was Baffle's doing. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the word "unsophisticated" in this sentence (however, an unsophisticated audience thought the lighting in the first scene was poor and that the film was stuck in the second) as it seems too much judgmental toward the audience. Since these filmmaking techniques were new, it makes sense that an audience may not understand it so I think a better word choice could be used here.
Previously, it had been two separate sentence (Sundararajan claimed these techniques not only helped the actors to emote their characters better but also showcased Dungan's talent, yet the audience believed that the lighting was not clear in the first case and the film was stuck in the second. He opined that this reflected the ignorance of the audience), before Miniapolis made them into what you see now. Do I restore this last sentence? --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the previous wording was much better as it clearly defines the "ignorance" part as Sundararajan's opinion rather than an objective fact. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • For this part (It was the first Tamil film the be successful in overseas markets), I think you mean "to be successful".
Yep. Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, removed and kept the paragraph in balance. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. I have responded to your questions and pointed out a few areas that appear to be missed. I will do a full read-through of the article again sometime tomorrow. Thank you for your patience with this review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience and for addressing all of my comments. I support this for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Aoba47, I'll read your article today and post comments tomorrow (please remind me on 27 February US time if I forget). Your support is significant progress in my FAC. My next objective: please Laser brain. Otherwise it will end up like Mullum Malarum's fourth FAC: failing based on a single user's unsolved comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Yashthepunisher

[edit]
Thank you Yash. If you can lure more reviewers, including those who can help with copyediting (in a manner that will please Laser brain), I'll be grateful. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mr. Smart LION

[edit]

Support from zmbro

[edit]

A note to all co-ordinators: I feel the FAC is going good, and it should not be archived simply because I haven't yet solved one user's (Laser's) comments. I am expecting comments from two more users, and hopefully they will help me solve Laser's comments in the process. --Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant

[edit]

Hey, Kailash. I just restructured the Reception section to make it flow better. See if you like it, and feel free to go back to the earlier version if this does not read as well.

I am not sure if I'll be able to go through the entire article as such, but I strongly recommend doing away with the Themes section. At this point, it just doesn't carry any weight as such and has a few repetitive points as well. Let me know how you feel about that. VedantTalk 21:19, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vedant for your recent edits. I agree the Themes section isn't large enough, but is there any way we can transfer its content to other sections of the article? Besides, why did you remove the sentence about the revenue donation to C. Rajagopalachari? I hope you had access to the pressbook while editing the reception section. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes! I'm sorry I forgot to mention that Kailash. The bit about the proceeds going to Rajagopalachari was really breaking the flow of the sentences in the reception section. Let's see how we can incorporate that into the first paragraph of the section that talks about the box office numbers.
As for the Themes, I see Gandhian ideals in the reception section. Let's see what we can do about the temperance and chastity bits. VedantTalk 07:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here's my thoughts on the Production section:

  • "A. N. Marudachalam Chettiar of Manorama Films wanted to produce Pathi Bhakthi as a film but to his dismay, a film version was " - "to his dismay" doesn't sound very encyclopediac.
Removed "to his dismay", but the sentence is otherwise the same. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To please Chettiar, Mudaliar told him the novel Sathi Leelavathi" - "told him that"? Ideally I would say "told him about Sathi...", but that wouldn't work with the rest of the sentence. See, that's what happens with long sentences. We tend to lose track of what was being said and the grammar just goes for a spin. Let me know how you want to restructure this.
Done: added, "Mudaliar told him the novel Sathi Leelavathi". Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mudaliar soon began developing the screenplay." - See now here, we don't really have much context as to why Mudaliar began developing a screenplay. Wasn't her the author of the play that already had a film adaptation in the works? When and why was he hired for this project then? The reader might have all these questions.
I don't know why, but we should not overlook the fact that Mudaliar is the screenwriter of Sathi Leelavathi. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've somewhat reworded this section to make it read more smoothly. Hope it helps. VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vasan was credited in Sathi Leelavathi's opening titles for the original story in his film debut." - a film debut?
As in, his first tryst with film. What should I write? This source reads, "When Vasan sold the film rights of the novel, it was his first involvement with filmdom." Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "Vasan, who had never previously been involved with a film project, was credited..." VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dungan was new to India and did not know Tamil or much about Indian culture, but was persuaded to hire him because he had worked in Hollywood.[14] The film was Dungan's directorial debut." - Now see this is problematic again. The "worked in Hollywood" bit might lead the reader into believing that he had directed films in Hollywood before, so just to clarify you should add what sort of work de he do in Hollywood?
Most likely cinematography. In this source at page 35, Tandon described him as a "Hollywood-trained technician". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kailash29792 (talk • contribs)
  • The Linda Book Records bit could also be better incorporated into the text to avoid feeling like a stray.
It's Limca Book of Records. But see what I've written now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S. Panju, who became half of the Krishnan–Panju directorial duo,", who would later go on to become a part of the..."?
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the novel Sathi Leelavathi were based on Ellen Wood's 1860 novel Danesbury House, therefore neither party could claim originality." - "were in turn based on Ellen Wood's 1860..."
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prose might be lacking in a few places, but the more pressing issue should be the flow of the text and if that improves just a tad bit, the article will start reading a lot better. More to follow VedantTalk 07:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you need access to the offline sources, I'll give it to you. And please do something that will help solve Laser brain's comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should ask them to revisit the nomination at some point and see if his concerns still stand. Maybe after me and Veera and through with out comments. VedantTalk 12:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • "Mudaliar wanted to launch a film career for his son M. K. Radha, a theatre actor, with Pathi Bhakthi but could not because another thespian, K. P. Kesavan, had been selected for the lead role." - very long and unnecessarily complicated. The grammar falters so maybe split into two and maybe start with the third sentence.
Written, "Radha, an MOBC actor". Can you do the rest of the honours? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't gone through the source ms, but would the star vehicle bit be fair assesment of ye situation? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other MOBC actors who also made their film debuts" - It's not clear that Radha was a part of MOBC so the "others" here makes little sense.
Now that I have described Radha as an MOBC actor, this should not be complicated. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Sathi Leelavathi was his second" - redundant. Although if you ask me, the entire bit should be a footnote as the article is not about Krishnan.
I've gone through with this. Really improves the flow.
  • The problem with the opening of the second paragraph: "Ramachandran appeared in Pathi Bhakthi as the antagonist's henchman Veeramuthu, but MOBC owner Sachidanandam Pillai did not offer him a role in the film adaptation" is that we as readers didn't know that MOBC had ownership of the film? Is that so?
It is not clear who produced the Pathi Bhakthi film. This source says Chidambaram Chettiar of National Movietone acquired the film rights for the play, but this one says it was the MOBC themselves. One thing is clear though: the MOBC had some level of involvement in the film based on their play. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we leave out names and simply say that he didn't get a part in the film. VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a better role in Sathi Leelavathi" - I thought he didn't have a role.
How about removing better? --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The repeated use of Pathi Bhakthi to refer to both the film and the play just complicates all of this. We need to find a way two separate these two.
That's why it's better to say "the Pathi Bhakthi film" and "the Pathi Bhakthi play". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but maybe the others can pitch in here. VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again, why does the paragraph become a rather long anecdote about Ramachandran?
I don't know; possibly because he was the only actor from the cast to later attain stardom and matinée idol status (akin to Rajinikanth)? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really seems like the article digresses. If I may, I believe that Ramachandran's humble beginnings (The "Ramachandran was paid an advance of ₹100 (about $37.50 in 1936); it was the first time he had seen a 100-rupee note." bit especially) will fit nicely into the Legacy section. Don't you think? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then a stray about another actor and then back to Ramachandran?
Should I put it at the end of the para? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be a start. Also, put the "Despite Ramachandran's reluctance to play Rangiah, his mother was happy he got a "respectable" role and advised him to perform it responsibly." but right after "a role he disliked". VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how is it now? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the script required her to be physically abused and mistreated by her inebriated husband" - now there's definitely better ways to write this bit.
  • "In desperation, the producer asked" - does the source say desperation?
It says, "In sheer despair the exhausted producer had to request Kandaswami Mudaliar and M.K. Radha to cast Gnanambal (Mrs. M.K. Radha in real life) as Leelavathi." What do you suggest? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not great with writing plot lines and that's why I will not be much help here. The problem with the odd phrasing about requiring to be physically abused bit, and if you can find a better way to phrase it, the rest should follow. VedantTalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the role and came out of" - but. Also, the "came out of retirement" and "because no other actress would do so" bits are obvious and repetitive.
  • "N. Lakshmana Rao as the family servant Govindan, and P. N. Ramakrishnan as a devotee of the Hindu god Shiva. Dhanalakshmi played Bama; Santhakumari played Mohanangi, a promiscuous woman; and M. Chandra Bai played Shanbagavalli." - the names and descriptions mean nothing here. You can simply say: "A, B, C, and D were cast in supporting roles" and avoid cluttering. If needed, these descriptions can be added to the Cast section.
  • "Parasuraman's son Chandrakanthan, Ramanathan's servant and Krishnamurthy's master in Ceylon were played by actors who are not credited in the film's opening titles or its official pressbook." - an odd detail to mention.
Someone will ask, "Who played this role?" and I will have to answer them in some way. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ramachandran's brother, M. G. Chakrapani (also an MOBC actor), approached Mudaliar for a role[46] but was not cast because there was no proper role available. However, he watched the filming." - Same. Did he contribute to the film in any way because otherwise I don't see how this adds anything to the article.
It doesn't add anything, but I guess this somehow helped him later be cast in Iru Sahodarargal (also directed by Dungan). I've removed "However, he watched the filming". --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thangavelu and Susheela can be one sentence. The debut bit isn't all that significant since he was uncredited right?
Can Susheela be removed from "casting" altogether? I've transferred her source to "cast". Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entire paragraph feels unnecessary. There's a lot of irrelevant content and back and forth. Consider this: Why are we suddenly back on Krishnan and his comedic role. Shouldn't it move up at the first mention of Krishnan. The other comidic actors can be merged with "A, B, C, and D were cast in supporting roles" bit itself, followed by the two uncredited actors. Let me know how feel about that.

More to follow. VedantTalk 15:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with your comments, it will take some time to solve them. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time Kailash, I've left replies for your queries and taken some liberties. Please take a look and let me know what you plan on doing with the bit about Gnanambal.
Also, Why not have M.K. Radha's photograph in the Casting section? There's a nice free photograph on his wikipage? VedantTalk 12:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Numerounovedant, there are a bunch of PD-India photographs related to the film here, but are they completely copyright free? And this page says, "Wealthy enough to have his way, and bent upon producing Pathi Bhakthi, Marudachalam Chettiar went after Kandaswamy Mudaliar. The smart playwright had a plan to please Chettiar." See what I wrote under "development". --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly:

  • The Filming section could also use some restructuring and a few copyedits.
  • "Dungan wrote in his autobiography A Guide to Adventure (2001) that most of the cast were theatre actors and he was tasked with "subduing [their] voices and facial expressions"," is followed up with a statement that says that the actors froze in front of the camera. You can say that they were overdoing and blacking out in such close proximity and expect it to make too much sense for an unfamiliar reader.
  • The subduing bit would fit better with the Ramachandran's lack of nuance and you should find a way to restructure here.

And this whole section just continues to go back and forth in the next two paragraphs as well. I really suggest that you read through the sentences and take out the bits that add little to the article. This could be easily condensed into two paragraphs of three crisp ones at the most. I suggest you address all the comments that me and tye others have left and then invite Laserbrain to reassess his oppose, which was fair IMO as this did (and probably still does with the few unresolved comments) require considerable work. Let me know if you have any queries Kailash VedantTalk 16:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that many Vedant. Please read my earlier queries (including what to do about the difficulty with casting Leelavathi episode) and tell me how I can solve them or solve them yourself (I will put thank anyway). --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tick tock Vedant, I think the FAC may fail if the comments are not addressed within two months since its opening. And I repeat, please read my earlier queries. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash I'm not sure how I can be of any more assistance. That's mostly because the problems that I see in the article after all of this are mostly just related to translation of the sources or the incorporation on the information into the text. The Filming bit will read so much better if you could find someone who can rephrase (or give it a shot yourself) the direct quotes from the sources and better present some of the information. Especially in the first paragraph. The rest is mostly just rearranging so the text does not feel too disconnected (I'll try and make a few edits to help with the flow once there's some copyedits here). I'm sure if you invite Laserbrain to take a second, they will be more than happy to give another quick readthrough.
I think you can use the photographs and if I haven't replied to any of the comments, I'm probably satisfied with the changes or am not sure on how to help with the same. Let me know if you still have any queries.VedantTalk 22:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vedant, I've re-added the photographs of MGR and MR Radha (should the captions be ammended?), and seem to have addressed most of your comments. Please strike them out if they have been addressed, or put them within a template like Aoba did. Don't forget to revise the article once more. Also, I don't think "star vehicle" is the right word here since it was MK Radha's film debut and he was not yet a star. Wiktionary defines star vehicle as "A movie, play, TV series, or other production that enhances an actor's career", so suggest a better phrasing. Or can I simply say Mudaliar intended to launch his son in film? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kailash, I have struck the comments that have resolved. I do believe that the Filming section can use some restructuring and copyedits. Let's ask Laser brain to revisit? I insist on doing so because at the end of the day, you will need to address his concerns and the FAC has been open for a good 7-8 weeks. The sooner you ask for a reassessment, the easier it will be for all the parties. VedantTalk 08:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vedant, if you believe you need just access to the offline sources to restructure the filming section, here they are: Starlight Starbright by Randor Guy (1997) and Memories of Madras also by Guy (2016). Laser brain, would you please see if the article has improved? Further comments may be in your section. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Krish

[edit]
  • Support: A well-written solid article that meets all the criteria for FA. Kudos to Kailash29792 for tirelessly working on old Indian cinema film articles and making them FA-worthy. I know how hard it is to work on these old articles. Keep it up.Krish | Talk To Me 07:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Veera Narayana

[edit]

I didn't find anything much problematic, but the Themes section is somewhat unnecessary. What all you tried to communicate through that section, can actually be part of the writing process. That the writers incorporated the following themes into the script. I made some edits to the Filming section and shall return tomorrow for further review. Veera Narayana 05:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Veera. Numerounovedant and I are already trying to find ways to transfer the "Themes" content to other sections. You are welcome to make suggestions. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everything is fine there Veera. Now I have incorporated "Themes" into the "development" section (mirroring Spider-Man 3's comments on Eddie Brock's journalism style). Owwizit? Also pinging Vedant, and hope everything is fine for him too. --Kailash29792 (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the delay. I read the article again, found it better now. I support the candidate's promotion. Veera Narayana 12:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Reading through now -- I decided to take a look because of the high number of supports along with an unstruck oppose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Given that Laser brain only looked at one section, and there have been multiple other reviewers since, I took a look at the edits since Laser brain's review. Quite a bit has been smoothed out since that point, but I do still see problems. Just jumping around randomly:

  • In the legacy section, four short paragraphs, three of which start with the film's title; this is clumsy.
  • Plot section: Ramanathan's collaborator is Rangiah Naidu: "collaborator" is not the right word.
  • Cast section: "Additionally" is unnecessary at the start of the last paragraph.
  • Casting: "thespian" is an odd word to choose; it has connotations of pomposity which I think is not what you intend. And "initially" can be cut in that same sentence.
  • Filming: One scene required Ramachandran to ride a bicycle but he did not know how to ride one. Unnecessarily verbose.
  • Music: The music composer of Sathi Leelavathi...: what other kinds of composers are there?

-- This is not a complete list of the problems I saw, it's just some examples. About half the sentences I read could be improved (I didn't read the whole article). I saw nothing ungrammatical, but finding this many problems so quickly is a bad sign. I see the review has been running a long time, so I'm sorry to oppose, but I don't think the prose is ready. It needs work from someone who can do more than simply make each individual sentence grammatically correct; it needs a run-through by a good writer who understands the material. And looking back at Laser brain's oppose, I see he made exactly the same point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Okay it's time to close this and ask that we pls act on the above recommendation re. another writer versed in such articles, after which I'd suggest a formal or informal PR prior to a new FAC nom. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [16].

Open Here

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 19:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 album by the English rock band Field Music. It is currently a good article. I had previously nominated it for FA, and some changes/improvements were made to the article as part of that review, but it ultimately did not pass in part due to a lack of reviewers in the FAC process itself. I was given little actionable feedback on ways to improve upon the article in the future, except for general remarks that the prose could use some improvement, so I sought out a peer review and a copy edit request with the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, which was conducted by Thatoneweirdwikier. I'm hopeful that the article is ready for the FAC process this time around. — Hunter Kahn 19:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Thatoneweirdwikier

[edit]

I felt that this was an interesting read during my copyedit, so I'll add suggestions over the next few days. (Note: This is the first time I've ever been involved in FAC.) Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 15:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
[edit]
Background
[edit]
Musical style and composition
[edit]
Lyrics and themes
[edit]
Brexit and social privilege
[edit]
Parenthood and gender roles
[edit]

No problems that I could find.

Joy and optimism
[edit]
Recording and production
[edit]
  • "Liz Corney of The Cornshed Sisters, a band with Memphis Industries, the same label as Field Music." After "The Cornshed Sisters", the wording feels awkward. Removing it entirely may be better.
Release
[edit]
  • "they had considered shooting in parts of Sunderland either especially affluent or poor..." Change to "they had considered shooting in parts of Sunderland that were affluent or poor..." (or any other better versions of that).
  • "Sarah Hayes and saxophonist Pete Fraser..." Pete Fraser has already been introduced. The word "saxophonist" can be removed.
Critical reception
[edit]
  • "John Freeman of The Quietus called the Open House Field Music's most expansive..." Why "Open House"? I'm assuming it's meant to be "Open Here" (without the extra "the").
That's everything I could find. Once it's all sorted I'll change my vote. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 03:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​Nice. Changing my vote to a Support. Well done! Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Weak Oppose. The "Critical reception" section suffers from the "A said B" problem; see WP:RECEPTION for an explanation and suggestions on how to fix it. As written it's just a list of opinions quoted one after another with little attempt to form a readable narrative from it. It looks as though you've collected the negative comments into a single paragraph, which is a start, but more needs to be done to avoid this reading like a list of quotes. I haven't yet read the whole article but will do so once this is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike Christie I'm prepared to make more changes if you think it necessary, but for starters I restructured the section a bit, organizing each paragraph to represent a thematic element, per WP:RECEPTION. As it stands now, the section includes the introductory paragraph, then includes five distinct sections based upon the reviews: 1) among the best album of the year, 2) fresh new direction for the band, 3) well-crafted, stylistically diverse album, 4) commented on the political themes, 5) too challenging or over-stuffed. And then the section ends with the year-end lists and comparisons to other bands, as before. Thoughts on this? — Hunter Kahn 12:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At a quick glance that looks like a real improvement; the topic sentences for each paragraph seem like a minor point but they really help the reader. I will have a longer look when I have a chance; possibly in the morning but it might be the weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through again, and though the topic sentences certainly help, there's still too much "A said B" -- or to put it another way, the topic sentences give the reader a narrative at the section level, but within each paragraph I think more should be done. For example, the third paragraph is structured as follows:

Topic sentence. A of B called Open Here "X", praising Y and lamenting Z. C of D praised X, writing "Y". E of D said Open Here was X, calling it "Y". F called Open Here X, and said Y and Z. G of H called a song X.

There's a little variation in rhythm, but a reader still feels like the topic sentence is just the heading for a bullet list. The examples in WP:RECEPTION try to show ways to assemble a narrative inside each paragraph by pulling together fragments of each review to support the points made. Including full names and publications for every reviewer makes it a lot harder to get the sentences to flow, so I would consider cutting them unless they're notable in some way -- e.g. a notable journalist, or a very high profile publication, might be worth mentioning; and sometimes it's useful to mention a publication or reviewer just to tie together particular comments.

I've changed to weak oppose as this is definitely more readable now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike Christie I've made some additional edits based upon your feedback, so please let me know if this is a step in the right direction. I tried to follow some of the advice in WP:RECEPTION, so in addition to organizing the section by thematic element as I did before, I tried to vary the sentence rhythms slightly, cut the names of reviewers on occasion (which was difficult for me because I usually default to including such attribution), cut back on direct quotations, and tried to consolidate details. The paragraphs do still weave thoughts from various reviews, but I think the flow and readability has improved... — Hunter Kahn 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's moving in the right direction. Looking at the first two paragraphs, here's what I see:

  • Album of the year, best pop music, intelligent, recommended -- Record Collector, AllMusic, Junkee, Drowned in Sound
  • Praise for mixing and compositions -- Record Collector
  • Expansive and bright, positive, exciting -- The Quietus, Pitchfork
  • Fresh, different, new direction, milestone -- Drowned in Sound, Pitchfork, Sentireascoltare, AllMusic

What would you think of moving the Record Collector comments ("apposite openness of sound" not just in the mixing of the songs, but in the original compositions themselves) to the third paragraph, about specific compliments? Then I think the remaining material could be combined into a single paragraph. Perhaps something like this would work:

The album was praised by several reviewers, with Record Collector suggesting it might be the album of the year, and AllMusic arguing that it stood with Field Music's best work. The album was included on Junkee's list of "2018 Albums That Deserved More Love", where it was described as the band's most ambitious effort to date due to its art-rock compositions and new-wave grooves. Drowned in Sound writer Paul Brown singled out "Count It Up" as one of the best songs released in recent years, and complimented the Brewis brothers for constantly creating fresh material. Other reviews agreed that it was a milestone for the band, with intelligent songs that went in unexpected directions, and Pitchfork suggested that it was the influence of David and Peter Brewis' children that gave the album a new sense of earnest direction. The Quietus was also positive, calling it Field Music's most expansive and brightest album to date, adding: "Amongst the carnage, Field Music have created a magical musical bubble. Anger has rarely sounded so positive."

I don't mean this is better than what you have, or that you have to drop the reviewer names as I've done (in some cases I've dropped the publication name too); I'm just trying to indicate the direction I think the writing needs to go in. This version starts with a topic sentence, or half a sentence, and gives two immediate examples, followed by the Junkee listing. Paul Brown's mention of "Count It Up' is for a single song, so that has to come after the comments about the overall album, and that allows a segue to Brown's other comment which in turn lets us introduce the "freshness" theme. Then a couple more illustrations, finishing with "expansive and bright". I probably cut a bit more than necessary, but that's the basic approach I'm suggesting. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike Christie I think I begin to more clearly see where you're coming from here. I've made another effort to condense this section a bit, cutting a bit more than my instincts would tell me to otherwise, but I think this gets closer to the kind of direction you are suggesting, without eliminating any major themes or overarching points that the section had been conveying before. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn 20:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better. Thank you! I do still have some comments on this section, below, but I've struck the oppose. I hope you agree that this is an improvement -- and if you don't, please say why; I'd like WP:RECEPTION to reflect consensus, not just the viewpoint of a couple of editors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points:

  • Can you confirm that the citations are all still in the right place? When you move fragments of sentences around, it's easy for them to get disconnected. The particular fragment that caught my eye was "intelligent", which in this version was cited to AllMusic, but is now cited to Pitchfork.
  • Some reviewers noted the complexity of particular songs; Uproxx called the song "Time in Joy" a "six minute explosion of unbridled pop perfection".. A couple of things here. First, "noted" tends to imply that something is not an opinion, so it's worth avoiding it except for factual statements. Second, does the quote really represent an example of complexity? It's straightforward praise. Or is there more to the source than this quote?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mike Christie I agree with you about the use of the word "noted" and I've changed it to "highlighted". As for your other question, if you look at the full paragraph in that review, the writer talks about the various complex elements that go into that song, and I felt the statement that I quoted spoke to those complexities, and so was appropriate to quote in the context of the sentence as I used it. That being said, if you'd like me to cut that bit altogether and just leave in the general part about reviewing highlighting the complexity of particular songs, I'm OK with that. — Hunter Kahn 03:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've struck both points; I'm not sure I fully agree with you on the second one but I think different readers could read it in different ways so I'm striking it. If I get a chance I'll read the whole article and comment, but that may not happen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, I appreciate you've tried to drum up some interest in this review, and of could it's not a great time for that anyway, but there's been no interest after almost three weeks and I don't know that that's going to change soon. Let's put this to bed for now and try again some time later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [17].

Saving Light

[edit]
Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 Uplifting Trance song "Saving Light". After numerous featured article nominations, two peer reviews, and help from PresN as a mentor, I am certain that this article is finally ready to become a featured article. The article was also significantly improved and expanded upon compared to its last FAN, including a composition section, more photos, an audio sample and even an entire section on live performances. All in all, the article should be ready to become a featured article. Micro (Talk) 23:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed. Is there anything I can replace them with or are they fine as they are now?
You can use |upright= to set a size that respects the user's preference settings. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added one to the photo in "Writing and production", it seems to be a good size now.
  • Is there a reason to use FilePath for images here?
  • Not entirely sure myself, I think they were put in during a peer review or I just copied them over from a FA. I've removed them.
  • File:HALIENE_performing_at_EDC_2017_live_(cropped).jpg: source should include a link to the source file
  • I can't seem to find the source image, not from the authors or singer's website or social media. To avoid any problems, I've simply replaced it.
Done, borrowed from two FA articles so it should be good now. Micro (Talk) 00:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you copied a piece that doesn't apply here for File:Saving_Light_music_video_screenshot.jpg - I don't see any mention of copyright infringement in the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can't believe I missed that. Fixed. Micro (Talk) 01:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by David Fuchs: I'll try to give this a full review this weekend (I'm going to read through the old FACs too which will take some time.) In the meantime, a quick hit:
    • Sources:
      • What makes The Nocturnal Times, Your EDM, We Rave You, EDM Identity, Dance Music NW, Dancing Astronaut, DJ Times, EDM Sauce, DJ Mag high-quality reliable sources?

-Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:33, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources used have been previously reviewed in the articles good article nomination. I've determined that all sites used as a source on this article were good and reliable enough to be used on a featured article. This meant to prove and show that each site had staff and editorial oversite to show that the articles weren't just some kind of blogs. Most sites listed their CEO, Editor-in-chief, staff reviewers/writers, etc on their "about" or "staff" pages on their sites. Most sites, such as Dancing Astronaut, Your EDM, and DJ Mag had been determined to be reliable sources by the Electronic Music WikiProject, though the list is far from being completed. Listing the staff of the listed sites:
Founder & CEO - Mark Mancino, Social Media Coordinator - Mason Siegel, Editor-at-Large & Ad Sales - Kris Kallenbach, Senior Editor - Caroline O'Keefe, Writer - Ariana O'Keefe, Writer - Charlie McMillan, Writer - Maria Marcano, Writer - Rebecca Sirota
CEO - Elliot Sachs, CFO - Nick Ward, Editor-in-Chief - Matthew Meadow, Label Director - Greg Sills, Chief Content & Social Media Manager - Lucas, Content Curator - Ben Jacobs, 15 other staff.
CEO & Founder - Yotam Dov, CO-Manager - Tim Olsson, Editor - Shantanu Singh, Instagram Manager - Antonio Di Giorgio, Writer - Abhinav Manmohan, Editor - Florito Maniego, Spotify Manager - Tomas Zboril, Youtube Manager - Petar Lazarevic, Writer - Raymond Murphy, Brand Manager - Branka Maxim, Twitter Manager - Henry Wallis, Editor - Amy Martine Shaw, Writer - Alexander Costello, Writer - Sean Wolfe, Writer - Keith Warren, Writer - James Todoroski, Editor - Jake Gable, Video Manager / Writer - Johan de Kock
Co-Founder / Editor-In-Chief - Grant Gilmore, Managing Editor - Erin Cropper, Content Strategist - Matt Schaitel, Senior editors - Abisola Oseni, Cassey Varvel, Maria Clinton, Editor - Jayce Ullah-Blocks, Webmasters - Connor Taylor, Tim Goth, 8 Correspondents
Founder - Joshua Schweigert, Public Relations Liaison - Valerie White, Reviews Editor - Pete Zachara, Music Journalist - Vanessa Crestejo, Staff Writer - Ashley Kiah Beehler, 19 other employees.
Chief Executive Officer - Senthil Chidambaram, Editor-in-Chief - David Klemow, Managing Editors - Christina Hernandez, Robyn Dexter, Bella Bagshaw, Editor-at-Large - Will McCarthy, Senior Editors - achel Narozniak, Farrell Sweeney, Staff Writers - Chris Stack, Jessica Mao, Harry Levin, Josh Stewart, Mitchell Rose, Rugby Scruggs
Editor - Jim Tremayne, Editor-at-Large - Brian O’Connor, Assistant Editor & Digital Content Editor - Brian Bonavoglia, Chart Coordinator - Dan Miller, Around 20 article Contributors, Art Director - Janice Pupelis, Digital Art Director - Fred Gumm, Production Manager - Steve Thorakos, Director of Integrated Advertising - Paul Bozikis, Advertising Assistant - Rickey Pimentel, Operations Manager - Robin Hazan,President/Publisher - Vincent P. Testa
Founder & CEO - Steven Jacobs, Editor in Chief - Erik Mahal, VP of Events - Kris Novak, Director of Photography - Joseph D'Oria, VP of HR Operations - Bruce Genovese
Managing Director - Martin Carvell, Editor-In-Chief - Carl Loben, Deputy Editor - Ben Hindle, Tech Editor - Mick Wilson, Production Coordinator - Becca Antoon, Commercial Director - Heath Holmes, Deputy Digital Editor - Rob McCallum, Digital Staff Writer - Amy Fielding

Micro (Talk) 23:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While it's good they have staff and aren't just blogs, Featured article criteria requires a higher threshold than just that sources meet WP:RS; specifically, "high-quality" reliable sources. Essentially, what makes these publications the best available in the field? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of what WP:FACS indicates what a high-quality source is:
  • Do the sources represent the best available for this particular subject?
Yes. Other sources that say the same information exist do exist, but are considerably less-reliable. These sources most notably included EDMTunes, which writes and is generally similar to to the other sources used, but was determined to be of worse quality. Sources currently used, including Your EDM, DJ Mag, DJ Times, Dancing Astronaut, and EDM Sauce are the best sources within the list and all have been operating for years (DJ Mag has been since the 90s). More notably high-quality sources, such as MixMag, Triple J, Complex, and Stereogum do exist and would have been used, but they never wrote about this song.
  • Is the source that supports each point the most appropriate for that point?
Yes. In a lot of cases, text is supported by multiple citations when needed, usually in bundles of two to four to make sure the information is absolutely 100% reliable and verifiable. For example, the text that’s says that Saving Light was the highest-selling trance song of 2017 on Beatport has two sources on it, while the text that says that the lyrics are about standing up to bullying and prejudice, suicide, and being a victim's "saving light" has three sources on it.
  • Are the main sources reasonably up-to-date, and therefore likely to represent the most recent scholarship? Older sources, particularly contemporaneous primary sources, are often appropriate, but the nominator may need to explain why they've been chosen.
Definitely. Most sources were written usually a couple days to a few weeks after the song, it’s remixes, the acoustic version, etc, were released. A few articles though were not written in conjunction, though are still relatively new and up-to-date for the subject, usually no more than 2 years old.
  • In the case of anything contentious, are primary sources being used in accordance with the secondary literature?
Yes. A few Primary sources exist, but are always accompanied by a third-party source. An example of this is the part that’s says the dog marked the first time a non-trance label (Monstercat) has won the award. A State of Trance (primary source) was used alongside Your EDM (secondary source).
  • Do the sources appear collectively to provide a comprehensive account of the subject, or is there over-reliance on a particular source or group of like-minded sources? Reviewers should be aware that even the highest-quality sources can be used selectively in a way that affects the neutrality of the article.
A lot of sources are used multiple times and some standalone articles are used two or three times. The most used single reference is the only Billboard one, with it having used 11 times throughout he entire Wiki article (it is used alongside various other sources/reference as a verified/extra source many of those times) and the most used single source is Your EDM, which has 7 articles used throughout.
This should be good enough to prove that they are good enough to be used in a featured article.Micro (Talk) 21:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I'm sorry to see articles languishing at the bottom of the list - I fear this is not a topic that catches the imagination of a lot of FAC regulars!

  • I assume this is meant to be written in British English, but I'm seeing lots of false titles and some Americanisms
  • "to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and get it to the top of the Beatport charts. The song achieved this on 16 February 2017." This could be smoother
  • "critics praised Haliene's vocal performance and its sound and composition" Could also be smoother - both this quote and the one in the bullet above have unclear its. What is being referred to?
  • "on van Buuren's mix album, A State of Trance 2017." van Buuren has multiple mix albums - you need to remove the comma.
  • I'm seeing a lot of names (producers, performers, albums, etc.) with no links. Are they notable? Don't be scared of redlinks - if they're notable, you should have a link.
  • "and depicted a schoolgirl" Plots of music videos should be written about in the present tense. It depicts, rather than depicted, surely?
  • "The video received positive reviews and praised for its depiction of bullying" was praised?
  • "The official remixes of "Saving Light" featured Notaker and Nwyr, and was released in August 2017." were released?
  • "Transcendence and Emery included it on his Laserface setlists. " Why italics? Two names but his?
  • "Gareth Emery arranged songwriters Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra to conduct" to conduct? Clumsy
  • "Roxanne Emery suggested that they write a song about suicide and the four composed the lyrics in under an hour and Haliene provided vocals" Which four? In the lead, you credit five songwriters. And do we need to have discussion of vocals in the same sentence?
  • " They later showcased the project to Gareth Emery, where he immediately approved of it" This does not strike me as brilliant writing
  • "and thirty-six seconds; Its extended" Caps
  • "Writers for Earmilk and EDM Identity described the song as emotional; the former wrote" This doesn't work, grammatically. To say the former, you need two things, but you've only got one - "writers for Earmilk and EDM Identify". At best, you've got "writers for Earmilk" and "EDM Identify", but I take it you want your two things to be "writers for Earmilk" and "writers for EDM Identify" - or, more precisely, a single writer from each. This may sound like nitpicking, but I think it's a nice example of where the writing just isn't quite where it should be.
  • "production speak to "each level of talent involved."[7][8" See MOS:LQ - there are other LQ issues further down, I think
  • "Saving Light" debuted at the Electric Daisy Carnival music festival in June 2016" This is probably just me not understanding, but you said in the previous paragraph that the song appeared on DJ sets?
  • Both statements are from the same interview and re-reading it, it seems Gareth Emery tested them in DJ Sets in general(including home and private mixes), not referring to live sets (at a club, venue, or stage). I've slightly re-written the previous paragraph to be more general.
  • "were to comprise his mix album, A State of Trance 2017." As before
  • "to help create a storyline on the subject to make sure the depiction of bullying was as authentic as possible" Wordy
  • The music video section feels repetitive
  • "The Saving Light tour, alongside North American dates" What does this mean?

I've not looked into the sources, but I suspect there are a few that would raise eyebrows among experienced FAC source reviewers. I see this is talked about above, so I'll say nothing more right now.

Oppose. Sorry to be a voice of doom, but I feel that the quality of writing is below what we are typically looking for at FAC. I recommend you look into fixing the issues I've identified, and then seek out an experienced copyeditor before renomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC) Note: I am taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've touched on some things you've mentioned, but most seem to be out of my understanding. I have no idea how to fix Americanisms, the proper uses for titles/false titles, how to smooth out sentences, etc. I tried my best to fix your concerns, but for the most part, I rely on actual copyeditors (which I've already had 2 or 3 go over the article, alongside 2 peer reviews) to help me and fix those issues. Micro (Talk) 02:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
False titles are things like "music producer John Smith" or "Wikipedia editor MicroPowerpoint". They aren't real titles like "King John" or "Mr MicroPowerpoint". You can remove them by simple adding the: "the music producer John Smith". When I talk about smoothing out sentences, I just mean editing them to be more readable. For example, "They later showcased the project to Gareth Emery, where he immediately approved of it" could be "They later showcased the project to Gareth Emery, where he immediately approved of it" - why approved of it? That's a strange way to say that he liked it - and I assume that's all you were trying to say. And "later" is vague. Are we talking that same day or months later? And why "showcased the project"? I assume you simply mean "played the song". This all feels needlessly complicated. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see. I've changed that particular bit to be better, I think. I'm not too good at identifying these kinds of problems though. I'll definitely read up on that Spade essay to help though. Micro (Talk) 07:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify (sorry): the spade essay is more about editor-to-editor interactions, but it does hit upon something important about writing. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Based on the above I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements be undertaken outside the FAC process; you can renominate after that (and a minimum of two weeks has passed, per FAC instructions) but I would suggest conferring with Josh and David beforehand to get a feel for how it's looking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 April 2020 [18].

I Can Only Imagine (MercyMe song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it's finally ready for review. I've been working on this on-and-off for years and was content with it at GA status, but a movie about the song was released in 2018 and that helped flesh out a lot of elements that had been unclear before, and the promotion of Almost There to FA helped give it a push. For those unfamiliar, this is the best-selling and most-played contemporary Christian song of all time and the signature song of the band MercyMe, one of the most successful Christian bands of all time. Oddly enough, it's had three distinct chart runs since its release in 2001: in 2001-02 it was on Christian radio, peaking at #1 on the Christian charts, then it crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003-04, becoming a big hit on AC stations, and finally, in 2018, it re-entered again, peaking at #1 on the Billboard Christian Songs chart and #10 on the Digital Songs chart. Along the way it has briefly charted in France, been adapted into a film that was the highest-grossing independent movie of 2018, and has been covered by other artists, with several versions charting on their own. It's an unusually long-lasting song and I think it would be a really excellent and unique addition to our FAs. Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I must mention that I intend to claim WikiCup points for this review. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Independent dates, such as October 12, 2001, are followed by a comma per the MOS (unless followed by other punctuation) even when one is not otherwise warranted.
    This should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be more citations in the second paragraph of the "Background and recording" section; while it's not a dealbreaker as it currently is, it'd be better to have such citations.
    I added an additional citation in one of the more lengthy sections. To my recollection, longer sections drawn from the same source don’t require multiple citations unless there’s a direct quote, however. Toa Nidhiki05 14:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is standard practice in FAs, although by no means mandatory, for a citation to follow every sentence.

That's all I can think of, otherwise I'd be inclined to support. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • I would avoid repeating "written" twice in this part: (Written and composed by lead singer Bart Millard, the song was originally written for the band's 1999 independent album The Worship Project).
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph because they both have a similar structure with "the song...". It may be helpful to change it up to keep the reader engaged in the prose.
    Changed one of them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with John M Wolfson's comment about that chart positions should be written out in full rather than "No. 71". I also agree with their comments that "just" in this part "it opens with just a piano before building to include guitar and drums." is unnecessary.
    This was fixed but got reverted. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this sentence: ("I Can Only Imagine" received positive reviews from critics, with some calling it the best song on Almost There). I have often see the sentence structure, "with X verb-ing", discouraged in FACs so it may be beneficial to revise this. I personally do not have a strong opinion either way, but just something worth noting.
    I've modified this; let me know if you like it. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (and as of April 2018 it has sold over 2.5 million copies.), I would add a comma between "2018" and "it".
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link MercyMe the first time they are mentioned in the body of the article.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In the last phases of the album's production, MercyMe needed one more song to include on the album.), I would avoid repeating "the album" twice in the same sentence.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Millard began to write a song, basing it off on his personal feelings about his father Arthur's death.), I think you can replace "Millard" with "He" since it is clear from the context of the previous sentence.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (but after several failed attempts Millard talked with), I would add a comma between "attempts" and "Millard".
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are instances where heaven is capitalized (In the song, the narrator wonders what it would be like to stand before God in Heaven.) and not capitalized (Lyrically, it imagines what it would be like to be before God in heaven). I honestly do not know which way is "correct", but I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    I’ve changed the first usage; all other usages are now in lowercase with one exception, which was part of a quote so we probably don’t want to modify that one. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part ("I Can Only Imagine" was named the official inspirational song for the state of Oklahoma in 2018), I am uncertain if state needs to be linked.
    Unlinked for now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part (the movie was released to theaters on March 16, 2018) is missing a period.
    Corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (It received mixed to positive reviews from critics), I would add a comma after "critics".
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are instances where the Oxford/serial comma is used (behind only The Passion of the Christ, Son of God, and Heaven Is for Real) and is not used (behind Bohemian Rhapsody, Straight Outta Compton and Walk the Line) so I would make sure to consistent with one way or the other.
    Corrected to use the serial comma consistently here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (And was also the highest-grossing independent film of 2018), I do not believe "and" should be capitalized.
    Good catch, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation used for this sentence "It ranks as the fourth-highest grossing music biopic of all-time in the United States (behind Bohemian Rhapsody, Straight Outta Compton and Walk the Line)." redirects to the Box Office Mojo homepage so I would mark the reference as dead so the citation defaults to the archived version.
    Good catch, corrected it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the Box Office Mojo ranking. For instance, the archive version used in the article (here) places I Can Only Imagine as the fifth-highest grossing after Coal Miner's Daughter, but later versions of the list (like this one) place it as the fifth-highest grossing after Rocketman. I am not sure how to address this though.
    I’m not sure about this either. It’s also hard to get clarity since Box Office Mojo redesigned and nerfed the site. I’ve gone ahead and updated to the most current version. Toa Nidhiki05 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add something like "As of (insert date of the archived version of the website)" as this ranking is liable to change in the future as more and more music biopics are released in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (After consulting with his pastor, who felt Millard should accept the opportunity, Millard began to reconsider), I would replace the second instance of "Millard" with "he" to avoid repetition.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think "finally" is necessary in this part (and finally agreed to let her cover it after talking with Grant over the phone).
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part (Grant had planned to release her version of the song as the first single from her upcoming album). Do we know what this upcoming album was? Considering the timing, I am assuming it is Legacy... Hymns and Faith, but it would be nice to get clarification in the prose.
    I would assume so but I don’t think it’s explicitly stated in the book. I can go back and check. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is not explicitly stated either in the book or in other sources, then it would be better to keep the current wording. Aoba47 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Grant had planned to release her version of the song as the first single from her upcoming album and MercyMe would release a different song as their first single, hoping to capitalize on having written what would presumably become a major hit for Grant.), is there a way to avoid repeating "first single"?
    Changed one use to “lead single”. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would there be a way to avoid repeating "second single" in this sentence (Grant gave MercyMe her blessing to release the song as their second single and signed the rights back to the band; "I Can Only Imagine" was released on October 12, 2001 as the album's second single.)?
    Modified slightly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the link to the movie from this part (In March 2018, following the release of the film I Can Only Imagine,) to here (The story behind "I Can Only Imagine" was adapted into a film.) since it is the first time the film is mentioned in the article.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will leave this up to whoever does the image review, but I am uncertain of the necessity of the music video screenshot. I have also been told to keep non-free media usage to a minimal unless it illustrates a point that cannot be conveyed with text alone or is something that was the subject of critical commentary. The screenshot does not fit either to me. I am not saying you have to remove it as again, I will leave that up to the image review, but it is something to think about it.
    The main function of this image is to demonstrate what it means by picture frames. The picture clearly shows a person holding a picture frame, one of the main motifs of the video. I can understand if it needs to go, however. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. That makes more sense to me then. Since the picture frame concept was an important part of not only the music video, but also of the concert performances, then I can see a stronger reason for inclusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Other versions" section, the first paragraph includes several instances of "version"/"versions", particularly in the first paragraph. Would there be a way to avoid this?
    I've changed several usages to "recording" to try and vary things. Does this work? Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would simplify this (in promotion of the upcoming film release) to (to promote the film).
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this part (Millard was also interviewed after the performance) necessary as it does not really add any information about the song?
    This is a good point; I've removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my comments are helpful. Apologies for the length of the review, as I am just trying to be thorough and help as much as possible. You have done an excellent job with the article. Let me know if you need any clarification about anything. Hope you have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I appreciate it! I'll try and dig through this shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'd like to see the first paragraph of the "Critical reception" section improved per the advice at WP:RECEPTION. Currently it's just a list of opinions -- see the "A said B" problem discussion in WP:RECEPTION, which makes for dull reading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor adjustments here, Mike Christie to make it more interesting. Let me know what you think of it now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a slight improvement, but the first paragraph still reads like a list of opinions, rather than a natural overall description of the reviews. For example, three separate comments specifically praise the lyrics; wouldn't it be more natural to put those together, quoting or citing them? Similarly, two comments say the song was the highlight of the album; you simply repeat that point in different parts of the paragraph as if they were unrelated points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Hi, this review has attracted no commentary for over a month; I've deliberately left it alone for longer than I normally would realising that many of us have other things on our minds at this time but it can't stay open indefinitely. Also it sounds like more work on the Reception section should take place before further review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2020 [19].

Candy (Foxy Brown song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 song by American rapper Foxy Brown for her third studio album Broken Silence. It is a dance-pop, pop, and R&B with lyrics about cunnilingus. American singer Kelis performs the hook while Brown raps the verses. The song was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews; critics have compared it to music by other artists, such as Lil' Kim. Academic scholars have analyzed its depiction of black female sexuality. Although "Candy" was often featured on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, and peaked at number 24 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Billboard chart.

This article was promoted to a GA a little over two years ago, and I further expanded and copy-edited the article last year. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this FAC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. This nomination has been up for a little over two weeks now without any commentary, so it is probably the best time to archive this. I doubt this will get attention in the near future since it is getting buried under other nominations. I am glad that the FAC space is being quite active now. I would like to withdraw the nomination. I can always try again in the future. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 April 2020 [20].

Toni Collette

[edit]
Nominator(s): MuchAdoA (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the well-known film actor Toni Collette. I feel that this article is of featured article status because describes her life and artistry in detail. I am completely open to any criticism regarding the article and I will fix any errors found. MuchAdoA (talk) 06:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but this nom is premature and out-of-process so I'm going to archive it. The FAC instructions state that an article should not be here and at Peer Review simultaneously. While that would not necessarily present major difficulties (the PR could be quickly closed) the review for this article has raised several significant issues, none of which have been acknowledged. I suggest that you continue with the PR and address all the points raised before considering another nom here. Thank/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/April_2020&oldid=954158454"