Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/April 2022

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [1].

---

Blue Hill Meteorological Observatory

Nominator(s): Will y theweatherguy473737 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Blue Hill Observatory in Milton, Massachusetts. I think it deserves a feature because of its historical significance. Founded in 1885, the observatory is one of the oldest continuously operated weather stations in the world. The highest wind speed ever recorded in a hurricane was measured here during the Great New England Hurricane of 1938, at 186 mph. Many meteorological firsts were made here, including the first weather balloon and kite launches. In 1896, a record of 8,740 feet was achieved for a weather kite. Will y theweatherguy473737 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose largely unsourced and not close to the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 14:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hog Farm's comment above and suggest withdrawal. Will, I see you're a new editor; you may want to try to get this to good article status first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 29 April 2022 [2].

---

William Utermohlen

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about William Utermohlen, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995. Over the next five/six years, his self-portraits would become more distorted until around 2001, where he could not draw anymore.

I started work on this article in late-July 2021, and in that time, it has gone through two unsuccessful FACs (shown above), and two peer reviews (one unsuccessful). After around two and a half months of gradual changes after the second FAC, I think this article is (actually, maybe?) ready for FA-status. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil

This may have failed in last noms due to lack of feedback. It needs a copyedit, wider (ie book) sourcing, and expansion in areas, all of which are do-able.

• Merged and re-giged the lead, feel free to reverse.
• Utermohlen's self-portraits gained attention after they were published in a 2001 paper from the medical journal The Lancet - paintings are not "published"; should this be reproduced, or detailed/examined ?

• changed it to "after they were analysed" Realmaxxver (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• By 2002, he could no longer draw, and was sent to the Princess Louise nursing home in 2004 - is "sent" right here; entered is better, unless he was committed.

• Yeah, I think that's better; though I think that your edit is better. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• In 1994 Utermohlen was commissioned to make a portrait of a client's family is completely under explained and begs the question too the point of, do you not know, or (less likely) was it a secret?

• Reworded. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Head I" (2000) consists of a head with eyes, a mouth and a smudge on the left that appears to be an ear.[55] In the centre of the head itself, a crack is shown - keep as one sentence so we know not talking about the other heads...also as Head I is titled...how many were they, and did the follow the same titlinig format? - would be great to expand this section, which seems in part at least, influenced by Francis Bacons' Head series.
• Merged into one sentence. Also, In some Wikipedia Library sources, it is just called "Head". Realmaxxver (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• We may have to consult somebody like SandyGeorgia for this, but do any of the source mention that the "masks" may relate to "Facial Masking" prevalent in late stage Parkinson's disease
• The rest of the portraits are of a blank head, one of them erased - do you mean they consist of just the outline of a head, part of one which is scrubbed by an eraser. Now I'm seeing more and more how they are influenced by Francis Bacon which we need to expand on...re obliterated heads, which is what I think the source means, see Three Studies for a Self-Portrait, (Bacon, 1979), and Study for a Self-Portrait—Triptych, 1985–86 . I would really like you to mine sources in this area.
• Patricia explained that his later work such as the Masks series shows similarities to movements such as German Expressionism. - and? This is highly relevant so please don't leave us hanging by only mentioning Expressionism.

• Added. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• To note, this needs an extensive source review (which I can do) as 1 first time nom, 2 veers towards WP:MED
• More later. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• Lead: Utermohlen's self-portraits have been displayed in several exhibitions, including in Chicago and London. This maybe misleading in establishing notability, as both cities have tiny art galleries that show works by friends. Say which galleries, which will hopefully be blue linked. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• specified in lead

• Presumably the lithographs came before the Conversation series. This was muddled and not clear, but have reordered the two sections given (your) descriptions of his condition during the respective periods. Please check. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
• Stopping here for now as Wetrorave's ask for expansion on the paintings below is similar to mine above. Ceoil (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

As an update, am happy with the actions/responses so far, although they are little slow in happening, that's fine (afaic). I do think the article will someday be FA, but it does need structural tweaking, and is in bad need of expansion in describing his style. Although it might seem like this has stalled, would appreciate if this could be left open for another week or two; I might get an energy burst and start adding the sources have been reading for the last month. I think its clear from those commenting so far (and their usual topics of interest) that the article would strike a deep cord with a lot of people and that there is goodwill towards the effort, and have the feeling it would be heavily read if on main page. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

DMT Biscuit

More comments TBA

• "He moved to London in 1962 and married the art historian Patricia Redmond in 1965." - how relevant towards the lede is this?

• "before returning to London in 1975." - see above.

• I agree with Ceoil, publication seems like a misnomer. Maybe explain the relationship between Utermohlen and the journal.

• "He experienced memory loss beginning in 1991" → "He experienced memory loss, which began in 1991.

• "which included two years in the Caribbean" - relevance?

• wikilink Margaret Lock

• Done. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Italicize The Times and provide Tulle's credentials in prose; is she an art historian, anthropologist or physician?

• "Illness" → "Alzheimers", just as we say death rather than pass away

• Done. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Chris Boicos, Utermohlen's art dealer, said that the subject matter of the lithographs were a metaphor for the forthcoming Alzheimer's disease diagnosis a year later" - admittedly, I am somewhat lost with this. Is it implying that Utermohlen was aware/surmised that he was in falling into the thralls of dementia? If he was aware/foresaw and the metaphor is intentional then that should be reflected by the prose.

• "took him to the doctor" - informal; either mention the practitioner's field (physician, psychiatrist, neurologist) or just explain that they sought medical care.

• Already done by Ceoil. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Wetrorave

Since you gave such a thorough review on Everywhere at the End of Time, it's only fair that I do the same. Will add comments soon enough. Reviewing per WP:FACR of course.Wetrorave please don't 4 April 2022 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• 1a is reasonably met after my copyedits. You may want to read Wikipedia:Writing better articles. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1b is one I'm not too certain of. I think the sections Early life and Death could be more comprehensive; the Find sources template at the Talk page should help with this. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• The Death section was initially a paragraph in the "Alzheimer's disease and death" section, but was moved into a separate section during the second FAC. I've merged that section into that bigger section. With the Early life section, The Studio 360 source and the Philadelphia Inquirer source could expand it. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• 1c is met; all sources seem high-quality and the vast majority of sentences are referenced. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1d is met, not much to say here. The article presents a neutral POV. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1e is met. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• 1f is met per earwig's copyvio detector. All copied sentences are quoted and simple sentences such as "Utermohlen was born in December" are fine to include without quotes. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 2a, 2b, and 2c are all met, though the lead may need to be changed per 1b. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 3 is not met. This article could definitely include more of Utermohlen's paintings, especially from his earlier cycles (most per pd 1927-1977 criteria). Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• 4 is met. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the biggest problems of this article is that it needs some expanding and addition of more of Utermohlen's paintings. I'd love to see both this and EATEOT featured though. Wetrorave please don't 5 April 2022 16:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it shows signs of a consensus starting to form over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. You may wish to ping the reviewers who have commented so far for further opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 14:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2022 [3].

---

BTS

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the music group BTS. Article was promoted several months ago for GAN and appears to be stable for the past months. GAN was conominated with User:BTSpurplegalaxy who is one of the top editors of the page and conominator here for FAC. Article currently receives a daily page count of nearly 20K hits per day which varies somewhat based on their performing schedule. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're only the author of 1.7 percent of this article's content (combined with BTSpurplegalaxy that would be a bit over 10 percent), how can you know whether there are failed verification issues, for example? (t · c) buidhe 15:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Following the GAN review which I submitted last year, the article gives a comprehensive view of this contemporary music group with nearly 350 citations. There are also a large number of sibling articles which have been written for the group which were developed independently and some of which were split from the article during GAN. The combined list of citations and references from the BTS article and all of its sibling articles appears to go over a thousand citations, and can be added back into the article as needed and consulted when updating the BTS article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't affect potential failed verification issues. If you didn't write most of the content yourself, how do you know the refs support the content? Did you check them? (t · c) buidhe 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It might be useful to you to glance at the fairly thorough GAN where a point was made to examine each and every reference. Since I have edited in all of the sections of the article and been asked to change out multiple refs which were inadequate, then I believe that the refs were verified at GAN. If any of the refs you find at GAN need replacement, then they can be changed over to an appropriate one from the several hundred formatted refs which were deleted during the GAN for article size issues which were addressed at that time. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Im not really sure about the source reliability, but it seems to be missing citing scholarly sources to be well-researched, and does'nt cover some aspects such as fandom that are discussed in scholarly sources. There are lots of Google Scholar results such as: Kim, Youna (2021). The Soft Power of the Korean Wave: Parasite, BTS and Drama. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-43752-2., Kim, Ju Oak (2021). "BTS as method: a counter-hegemonic culture in the network society". Media, Culture & Society. 43 (6): 1061–1077. doi:10.1177/0163443720986029., Ju, Hyunshik (2020). "Premediating a Narrative of Growth: BTS, Digital Media, and Fan Culture". Popular Entertainment Studies. 10 (1–2): 19., etc. On this basis I'm going to oppose. (t · c) buidhe 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Would those be better suited for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS? Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 16:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, prominent aspects such as fandom should at least be summarized in the main article, ideally using the best quality sources available. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That article being cited for Cultural impact and legacy of BTS is being maintained by several separate editors and is fairly comprehensive. It covers so many aspects of their interaction with fans and audiences that are still of interest as a special topic. If there are special topics which you would like brought back to the main article then this could be done, though at the time of the GAN it was seen to be better to split them off into a new special topic article dealing with various aspects of their cultural impact. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

Similar to Buidhe, I have concerns about the article's comprehensiveness.

• A book published by Triumph Books in 2018 details BTS' rise to fame. At more than 110 pages, surely there's at least some information worth using. For example, there are a lot of useful information available how the band was formed.
• There are some questionable sources used. For example, what makes myx.abs-cbn.com a high-quality reliable source? Given the popularity of the band, there shouldn't really be a dearth of high-quality sources that we would need to resort to such sources.
• I would like to see a section covering the band's general public reception. Like other previous successful boy bands, they are seen as teen idols and especially popular among teenage girls. Other aspects of their image (how does the media perceive them? What does the media think of their appearance, personality..?) need to be discussed in one such section. See Lady Gaga#Public image as an example.
• There are a lot of good scholarly sources available. The ones suggested above are good starting points. I found one on JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library which is free for us Wikipedians if you meet certain requirements.

Unfortunately, I am going to have to oppose (based on 1b and 1c criteria) and suggest withdrawal as this kind of work is best undertaken away from the pressure of FAC. FrB.TG (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The GAN assessment page is likely the best place to start in answering your questions which I think were all addressed there. When GAN took place there were over 600-700 citations in the article which was much too large and excessive for Wikipedia articles. Many of these were deleted in order to make the article more tenable to Wikipedia page size requirements and suggestions for article length. For example, the page split for the article on Cultural impact and legacy of BTS, seems to cover the various issues you raise for the Lady Gaga article regarding the band's general public reception. That material could be brought back into the main article to expand this coverage, as it was previously in its long format prior to GAN, although GAN assessed this criterion and found that nearly 350 citations with high quality sources in the current article were sufficient for peer review at the time of GAN. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand the concern for the sub-article, but I'm afraid it's not as easy as simply moving a chunk of content there and sticking a {{main}} article at the top of the section. The most important aspects still need to be summarized with best-available sources. While the legacy section in the parent article seems to be covering some important aspects, there are still other things that need to be discussed. And none of the scholarly sources above suggested are used in either of the articles. Aside from the book I suggested at the beginning of my comments, there are many others by renowned publishers. Have you looked through them? The news sources can't possibly be all better than these books and peer-reviewed journals. Given the vast variety of such sources, you would probably need to be selective, choosing the ones that were possibly critically acclaimed or assessing them yourself by reading through them and judging them by their writing. This is a lot of work and can't possibly be done all the while this FAC is open. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Action on this nomination may be opportune (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I was waiting to see if you were going to oppose and/or recommend withdrawal. I am taking your ping as your doing both. Sorry ErnestKrause but it is clear that this article has a fair way to go to get to FAC standards, rather more than is going to be sorted out during a FAC. So I am archiving this nomination. I recommend that you take the comments made fully on board, and I look forward to seeing this article back here in the future. The usual two-week pause before a further FAC nomination will apply.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 April 2022 [4].

---

Late Registration

Nominator(s): K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about American rapper Kanye West's second studio album, Late Registration (2005). The album marked a distinctive change in style from West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have kept on eye on it these past few years. I have consistently added edits whenever I saw the need over this timeframe and recently, around two weeks have been spent by me preparing the article for FAC! K. Peake 14:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Realmaxxver

Placeholder. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Late Registration has frequently appeared on professional lists of top albums" Think it would be easier to just say "top albums lists".

• Done --K. Peake 17:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• "West spent more than a year and US$2 million to produce Late Registration.[6]" Would "West spent US$2 million to produce Late Registration, recording it over the course of a year.[6]" work better?

• Done, but I wrote "recording it in over a year" after the comma because that accurately reflects the timespan. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "and Brion was able to translate the composition and another Levine vocal track in a few hours.[3]" What does this really mean?

• Clarified by writing "effectively work with", as the source is discussing the composition and the vocal track being "meshed". --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Wall appears alongside West and his GOOD Music labelmate GLC on "Drive Slow", which was recorded in Los Angeles after the two had formed a friendship while posing for a photo shoot for an August 2005 issue of King in a spread titled "Coming Kings".[14]" → "Wall appears alongside West and his GOOD Music labelmate GLC on "Drive Slow". It was recorded in Los Angeles after the two had formed a friendship while posing for a photo shoot for an August 2005 issue of King, in a spread titled "Coming Kings".[14]"
• " ' "My Way Home" is performed solely by West's GOOD Music associate and fellow rapper Common, whose sixth studio album Be was being produced and recorded by West simultaneously with Late Registration.[7][17]" replace "simultaneously with" with "alongside"

• Done, for the above --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Certain tracks originally produced by West for the album turned into beats for Late Registration.[17]" "the album" could also be "the former"; "Certain tracks originally produced by West for the former turned into beats for Late Registration.[17]"

• Done, but wrote "his own work" instead of the title to avoid closing two consecutive sentences in the same way and because this is the work mentioned alongside Be previously. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• When Jon Brion is already linked in the image caption (In the Recording section) I don't think it needs to be linked in the quote box in the next section.

• Done --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating," → "Kim noticed a clear difference between Late Registration and West's previous work, stating,"

• I have not done this as not only is Late Registration the most recent album mentioned here, but the last occasion uses its title. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield concurred with this sentiment, analyzing that West "claims the whole world of music as hip-hop turf" and also takes on a "mad quest to explode every cliché about hip-hop identity".[2]" → "Rolling Stone writer Rob Sheffield concurred with this sentiment, analyzing that West "claims the whole world of music as hip-hop turf", taking on a "mad quest to explode every cliché about hip-hop identity".[2]"
• "As the song progresses, its structure gradually morphs and experiences growth musicality." → "As the song progresses, its structure gradually morphs and experiences growing musicality."

• Done, for the above. --K. Peake 16:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• The image caption in the "Themes and lyrics" section (the Kanye image) is pretty useless, considering that this is already cited in the prose text.
• "West's lyrics contemplate "being honest with yourself in a world that is not", according to rap scholar and author Mickey Hess.[47]" → "According to rap scholar and author Mickey Hess, West's lyrics contemplate "being honest with yourself in a world that is not"."
• "West speaks about women that drain men of the money in their pockets on "Gold Digger", accompanied by Jamie Foxx ad libbing.[49]" → "West speaks about women that drain men of the money in their pockets on "Gold Digger", accompanied by Jamie Foxx's ad libbing.[49]"
• "The album features critiques of institutions such as historically black colleges" simplify it to "The album critiques institutions such as historically black colleges"
• "West performed tracks from Late Registration at Abbey Road Studios in London for a live album entitled Late Orchestration," link to Late Orchestration here (remember to remove from See also).
• The paragraph from the Legacy section about the Concert for Hurricane Relief could be moved to Release and promotion.

Image review

• File:Late_registration_cd_cover.jpg needs a more extensive FUR. Ditto File:Heymamakanye.ogg

• Done for both --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Former needs more for purpose of use - suggest looking at some recent FAs that include cover images. Later includes "n.a" fields that should be filled in, and purpose of use currently is almost the same as not replaceable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done now, I think? --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Jon_Brion.jpg is missing evidence of permission

• Nikkimaria Replaced with a different image, please tell me if this alright because I'm not exactly an expert on them to be honest? --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Dropout_Bear_Late.png needs a stronger justification since the character also appears in the lead image

• Done by adding more info --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why is it important for this image to be included in addition to the cover image? That is unclear, and keep in mind that the more non-free images included the stronger the justification for each needs to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Both images may feature Dropout Bear, but this one shows the inner artwork of the album rather than the cover and the bear is written about in detail within this context here. --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• I realize this one shows the inner artwork rather than the cover. What remains unclear is why this is sufficient to justify including both, and why one would not sufficiently illustrate the character. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The context of the images are totally different because the cover shows Dropout Bear merely stood afront the university's doors, while the inner artwork shows him inside a classroom and reading books. Therefore, the justification is valid especially when significant amount of content is included about the inner appearance. --K. Peake 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• The context is not so significantly different to justify both IMO, but let's ping another image reviewer for a second opinion. buidhe? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Nikkimaria, it's hard to see how both images separately satisfy the requirement that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Should I replace with an actual image of the university or just have no image in this section whatsoever? --K. Peake 17:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• We're not short of images for this article, so it comes down to, do you think such an image would contribute to reader understanding, or would it just be there for decorative purposes? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I believe that adding an image of the university would contribute to understanding since this will show the reader what the original building looks like, as they've already seen a photo of West's bear depicted inside it. --K. Peake 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Kanye_West_Air_Canada_Centre_2005_(61886360).jpg is of poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done, I added a replacement image. --K. Peake 07:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Also not great quality - is there a reason we need to include so many images of West performing? Could just leave it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• There is no article for the Touch the Sky Tour that supported the album, meaning this is the main article for the tour, thus making an image very appropriate. --K. Peake 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• Then we'll need a better image. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have found one of a better quality but when you are assessing this aspect, remember images can't be as clear as the originals because then they would be violating copyright rules. --K. Peake 07:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Are you saying these are derived from better-quality originals? That would still be a copyright problem no matter how bad the derived quality is. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, the image is sourced from Flickr and I'm not an expert on Wikimedia but I thought that having celeb images was considered copyright when the quality was high? --K. Peake 17:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, neither quality nor fame impacts copyright - it's just how the photographer licenses the work. A professional could release a high-quality portrait photo of West under a free license; I could take a terrible blurry photo of my cousin and reserve all rights to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Is photo quality really a problem here? To me, this photo looks to be decent. --K. Peake 07:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it moves towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

With nothing having happened after 4 days, archiving per the above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 13:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 April 2022 [5].

---

Leonardo DiCaprio

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I had intended to bring this article to a quality level back in 2015 or so when it was in really a bad shape. I could achieve this four years later. I thought to give it a go at FAC as well where it received five full supports and no oppose. However, I withdrew the nomination as it was taking too long to conclude (and because a review towards the end showed some MoS and prose issues). After almost two years of inactivity, I have recently returned to editing and thought to give it another try. Whether or not this fantastic actor's article gets the shiny star, I hope you learn some things about him and watch some of his films in the process. FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Realmaxxver

Resolved comments

Been a while since I've reviewed an article here at FAC. Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Lead "As of 2019, his films have grossed over $7.2 billion worldwide" Any update on this? Unfortunately, Box Office Mojo now requires IMDb Pro membership, which I don't have but given the fact that the only major release DiCaprio has had since 2019 was Don't Look Up in 2021, a Netflix film, I doubt the figure has changed drastically. "He achieved international stardom with the romance Titanic (1997), the highest-grossing film to that point," Instead of "to that point", I would suggest "at the time" Done. Early life and acting background "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]" Although some FAs like Jennifer Lawrence work with this sentencing format excellently, for this example; I feel like this is more claustrophobic that what is used on FAs like Philip Seymour Hoffman; and would support seperating the sentence like what is used on Philip Seymour Hoffman (like "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken) and George DiCaprio. DiCaprio's mother is a legal secretary, and his father is an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]"). Also, not only does source 2 not even mention DiCaprio's mother; you should use url-status=dead for that source. Good catch on the source being dead; the status is now updated. I have divided the sentence in two parts now. As for the WP:OR point, source 10 does mention DiCaprio's mother's name but I get that it should've also been placed where she is named. Anyway, I have added a source for that now. FrB.TG (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC) "His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]" I feel like it is weird to mention where his parents met after explaining DiCaprio's family's entire ancestral background; when this could be explained earlier on (such as "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California.[1] He is the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2][3] His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]" Good point, now rearranged. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC) "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously; the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]" (This sentence does not need a semicolon) → "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously, and the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]" I actually prefer the semi-colon as I like to avoid the repetitive usage of “and” wherever possible, especially when they’re placed in such a close proximity. FrB.TG (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Acting career 1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough "In 1992, DiCaprio played a supporting role in the first installment of the Poison Ivy film series,[41] and was handpicked by Robert De Niro out of 400 young actors to star in This Boy's Life, a coming-of-age drama about the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro).[22][42]" I feel like this sentence is a little bit long; and should be seperated into two sentences. Split into two. FrB.TG (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC) "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead. Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]" → "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead, but Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]" 1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition "With a production budget of more than $200 million, the film was the most expensive ever made" This record has been beaten by films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011), so adding "at the time" to this would be better. "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the same-titled 1939 film." → "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the 1939 film of the same name." All revised. "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but left the project soon after when he failed to agree with Oliver Stone on the film's direction and took the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]" → "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but when he disagreed with Oliver Stone on the film's direction, DiCaprio left the project soon after; taking the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]" 2002–2009: Venture into film production Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio is linked here as a "see also" link; but is also linked in the "See also" section. Removed from the 'See also' section. "The film received critical acclaim and with a worldwide gross of $351 million, it became his highest-grossing release since Titanic.[82]" The way this sentence is worded makes it sound like Catch Me If You Can made more money than Titanic, when that is obviously not true (given note b); so I think this should be reworded. "Director Scorsese initially struggled selling his idea of realizing the film" given the popularity of Scorsese, I am not sure that the "Director" title is needed. "In 2004, DiCaprio founded the production company Appian Way Productions, a namesake of the Italian road.[30]" I would suggest changing the Appian Way link to be extended to the Italian road. Done. FrB.TG (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC) In this paragraph, there is "The Aviator (2004)" and "The Insider (1999)", but on "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" the year of release is not specified. I thought it’d be made clear with its premier at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival but I can mention it explicitly. "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck.[91] It was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.[92]" → "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck,[91] which was screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival.[92]" Mind linking to Rhodesia at "In Blood Diamond, DiCaprio starred as a diamond smuggler from Rhodesia who is involved in the Sierra Leone Civil War." The above two done. FrB.TG (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC) "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film" and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[107][108]" This sentence is not cited properly. I would suggest "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film",[107] and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[108]" Done Hi Realmaxxver, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC) I was actually going to think about going back to adding comments on this review soon, but no vote yet. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC) "DiCaprio was also a creator and an executive producer for Planet Green's Greensburg (2008–2010), a show that takes place in Greensburg, Kansas and is about rebuilding the town in a sustainable way after being hit by the May 2007 EF5 tornado; it ran for three seasons.[113]" suggest changing it to "DiCaprio was also a creator and an executive producer for Planet Green's Greensburg (2008–2010). It ran for three seasons, and took place in Greensburg, Kansas. It was about rebuilding the town in a sustainable way after being hit by the May 2007 EF5 tornado.[113]" Revised. "Also in 2008, DiCaprio starred in Body of Lies, a spy film based on the novel of the same name. He played one of three agents battling a terrorist organization in the Middle East.[114]" → "Also in 2008, DiCaprio starred in Body of Lies, a spy film based on the novel of the same name; where he played one of three agents battling a terrorist organization in the Middle East.[114]" I prefer the former here because the last mention before saying "he played" is the novel, and it might make one think he "played" the role in the novel. Being split into two sentences removes that ambiguity. Also, I am not sure about that semi-colon after "where". FrB.TG (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "it was Winslet who suggested that both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates" missing word; " it was Winslet who suggested that they both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates" Added Hi Realmaxxver, would it possible for you to speed up your review a little if you have time? It has been almost a month now since you started your review, and I would like things to go a little faster, if possible. Thank you for your review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Yea. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC) "As both actors had been reluctant to make romantic films similar to Titanic, it was Winslet who suggested that they both work with her on a film adaptation of the 1961 novel of the same name by Richard Yates after reading the script by Justin Haythe, knowing that the plot had little in common with the 1997 blockbuster.[117]" run on sentence. Revised. "Peter Travers found DiCaprio's pairing with Winslet exceptional and was impressed with his multi-layered portrayal of an overwhelmed character, while Marshall Sella of GQ called it the "most mature and memorable performance of his lifetime".[121][119]" same WP:OR issue I mentioned earlier. Changed "exception" to "impressed with" (the source describes their pairing as "could not be better"). This should be closer to what the author means, I think. FrB.TG (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC) FrB.TG I was specifically referring to this previous example: "Claudia Puig of the USA Today called it "the first time the boyish actor has truly seemed like a man on film" and Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post positively noted his growth as an actor since The Departed.[107][108]" (so the sentence above would be "Peter Travers found DiCaprio's pairing with Winslet exceptional and was impressed with his multi-layered portrayal of an overwhelmed character,[121] while Marshall Sella of GQ called it the "most mature and memorable performance of his lifetime".[119]") good change though. Realmaxxver (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Ah, okay. I have now placed each reference right next to the end of the individual statements; it should make it easier for the reader now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC) 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors "Because of the film's plot involving disturbing scenes," maybe this could be simplified to "Because of the film's disturbing scenes," "Also in 2010, DiCaprio starred in Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed ensemble science-fiction film Inception.[130]" This starts the same way as a paragraph in the previous section ("Also in 2002, DiCaprio starred in Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York,") so maybe change the wording, like "The same year, DiCaprio starred in Christopher Nolan's critically acclaimed ensemble science-fiction film Inception.[130]" Both done. "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a small break from acting to have some time for himself.[136] He returned to film the following November in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (2011), a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover. The film focuses on the career of the FBI director from the Palmer Raids onward, including an examination of his private life as an alleged closeted homosexual.[137]" → "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a small break from acting to have some time for himself,[136] returning to film the following November in Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar (2011). The film is a biopic about J. Edgar Hoover, and focuses on the career of the FBI director from the Palmer Raids onward, including an examination of his private life as an alleged closeted homosexual.[137]" Revised. "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as a plantation owner, Calvin Candie, in Quentin Tarantino's Spaghetti Western, Django Unchained." I think it would be better to word this more passively, like "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarantino's Spaghetti Western, Django Unchained." Done "His first was in the role of millionaire Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby," remove the first "in"; "His first was the role of millionaire Jay Gatsby in Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby," I think the "in" is correct because "his first film was the role of.." doesn’t sound right. FrB.TG (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC) "In his review for The Hollywood Reporter, Todd McCarthy lauded DiCaprio for fully realizing his character's potential with a carefree performance.[162]" → "In Todd McCarthy's review for The Hollywood Reporter, he lauded DiCaprio for fully realizing his character's potential with a carefree performance.[162]" Revised. "The film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2014. DiCaprio received nomination for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[166]" The source does not mention that the film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival → "The film premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival in April 2014, and was nominated for the 2015 Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Documentary or Nonfiction Special.[166]" Source added. I have retained the part that says DiCaprio was nominated, as it would not directly be clear that he was also a nominee since he was "just" an executive producer. FrB.TG (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC) "Mark Kermode of The Guardian wrote DiCaprio shone with a performance that prioritizes physicality over speech,[173]" I think there is a missing word; "Mark Kermode of The Guardian wrote that DiCaprio shone with a performance that prioritizes physicality over speech,[173] " Added. "In 2016, he was an executive producer for The Ivory Game and Catching the Sun;[179][180] produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change;[181] and produced the crime drama Live by Night. The lattermost received largely unenthusiastic reviews and failed to recoup its $65 million production budget.[182]" → "In 2016, he was an executive producer for The Ivory Game and Catching the Sun;[179][180] and also produced, hosted, and narrated the documentary Before the Flood about climate change.[181] He also produced the crime drama Live by Night, which received largely unenthusiastic reviews and failed to recoup its $65 million production budget.[182]" Done. "In 2020, DiCaprio served as an executive producer for The Right Stuff, a television series adaption of the 1973 namesake book. The series had been in development at National Geographic for three years but was moved to Disney+ for a release in October.[194]" → "In 2020, DiCaprio served as an executive producer for The Right Stuff. A television series adaption of the 1973 namesake book, the series had been in development at National Geographic for three years but was moved to Disney+ for a release in October.[194]" That would introduce a repetitive usage of "series" within a close proximity but I’ve simplified the sentence. FrB.TG (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC) "a risk that has led to failed films like The Beach (2000),[49] but also to his several successful collaborations with Martin Scorsese.[218][219]" already linked De-linked.

FrB.TG I am done with the review now. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support by Aoba47

Resolved comments

I am leaving this as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. To be fully transparent, I did participate in the first FAC and support that nomination. Since the article is on the longer side (which is understandable given DiCaprio's career), I want to make sure I have the time to read everything thoroughly. Since DiCaprio is still very active, I'd encourage you to be mindful of the length in the future (though I believe this is a standard note for any FACs/FAs about living individuals with active careers). Apologies for not being able to post a review today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC) I look forward to it. As for the article's size, I don't think we need to worry much considering how selective DiCaprio is in his choices of roles but I see your point. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC) That is a good point. I do not think it is anything to worry about right now. It was just something that came to my mind while briefly looking through the article again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC) I have a suggestion about this sentence: Disillusioned at this, he initially decided to quit acting, but his father encouraged him to further explore his creative side, introducing him to underground art and art in general. Since the following sentence uses two citations, I'd put a citation for this one to be very clear about what is used to support this information. I am guessing it is citation 28, but I think further clarity would be beneficial. I have some clarification questions about Growing Pains. To be clear, I have not seen this show. Could DiCaprio just quit a show like this as I would have thought there would have been some sort of contractual obligations? Also, the Wikipedia article about the show says DiCaprio was a part of the final season, so is this more the case that the show got canceled and DiCaprio was able to leave because of that? Well, he quit toward the ending of the show, citing "bad writing" as the reason to quit. Had he stayed, he would've appeared in three more episodes. I have tried clarifying it in the article now. I see your point now. I would have thought there would have been some sort of contract requiring him to appear in a certain amount of episodes, but your explanation makes sense. I did a slight copy-edit to the sentence if that is alright with you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) It definitely looks better after the copy-edit. Thank you. For this sentence, The film was a commercial success, grossing $294 million worldwide, I would include the budget so the reader could have a better understanding of how it was a commercial success. I believe this part, DiCaprio liked the experience of working with Pitt, could be shortened to just DiCaprio liked working with Pitt. I have a question about The Crowded Room. Is DiCaprio producing the series starring Tom Holland? I could not find any mention of him or his production company in the source, but I could have overlooked it by accident. Good point. I did some research and nowhere does it mention in any source that he or his production company has any kind of involvement in the film-turned-show. Thank you for further looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I would revise this part, In 2017, Paramount announced that, to Paramount announced in 2017, that. The previous sentence uses "In X year" so I would do something similar to my suggested edit to avoid repetition. Was there any criticism towards DiCaprio's environmental activism, such as him being potential hypocritical with his activism and actual actions and lifestyle? There is one citation used in the article that mentions this in the title. The third paragraph does actually mention that. "However, his use of private jets and large yachts has prompted criticism due to their large carbon footprints." Apologies for missing that. That was the information that I had in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I have a question about this part, but he has been the subject of several articles detailing his involvement with women aged 25 or younger. The note only mentions the jokes made about his dating habits, but have there been more serious criticism of DiCaprio dating younger women? Added further sources that criticize him as a misogynist and commitment-phobic person. Thank you for including this information in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC) I hope these comments are helpful. I will look through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, Aoba47, they have been most helpful. Where I haven't stated otherwise, I have done as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there is any more to be done and if I can return the favor by reviewing one of your works here. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading this article again and you have a very good job with writing a solid article about a very famous individual with a long career. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed reading his article again. I’ll definitely review your FAC in a day or two. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Of course, and thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Just chiming in as this FAC review features a few things I was involved in some way or another. Anyway, around the time he was dating a Danish woman named Nina Agdal, which I initially added, we kind of implicitly decided to stop updating his personal life section because it was becoming so-called gossip-y down there. I removed many of his significant relationships and only kept 3. This was before anyone really cared per se that the women he publicly dates are "25" or younger. Personally, I truly think it should only be briefly mentioned and further detail can be made into a "Personal relationships of Leonardo DiCaprio" article. Calling him a misogynist by the media for consensual relationships or even having a type teters on the wrong side of BLP to me. Especially when those sources aren't so reliable or high quality. Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the message and ping. I can understand and agree that the misogynist criticism is rather extreme, but I do think it is odd for a man in his 40s to be consistently dating women in their early 20s (particularly given the power dynamic and parasocial aspects) but that is just my personal opinion. I only asked about it in my review as it was something that I thought about while reading the article. I agree that the sources for these claims are not the best, and I would be okay with losing them if other editors disagree with their inclusion. I would highly doubt that DiCaprio's personal life is notable enough for a separate article, when compared to others like Lindsay Lohan.
• I have not worked on a lot of BLPs so I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to really say what relationships are notable enough for inclusion. I would just hope that there is a clear cut reason and rationale for why certain relationships are covered over others (i.e. the significance in his life, the coverage in reliable and third-party sources, etc.). Apologies for the long response. My main point is I will defer to more experienced editors/reviewers and this should not change my support of this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't watch movies so this guy's habit of dating much younger women is pretty much the only thing I know about him. Like Aoba, I believe it merits a mention in the article—not using any labels necessarily but just stating the publicly known facts. (t · c) buidhe 08:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14

Resolved comments

Placeholder. Going to review soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC) In 1979, DiCaprio was removed, at age five, from the set of – Perhaps it would be better if "In 1979, at age five, DiCaprdio was removed from the set of" The teenage DiCaprio was cast by the producers to appeal to the teenage female audiences – one would assume as this is 1991 that DiCaprio was a teenager, we can probably drop the first mention of teenage to avoid repetition. The film is a coming-of-age drama on the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro). -- I think “and” before “his mother” should be removed and replaced with comma I think the 'and' is well justified there since the film explores DiCaprio's relationship with his parents, and not the relationship between the three. Its director Michael Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio -- has said that DiCaprio.. played a self-mocking role in a small appearance in Woody Allen's -- I think “brief appearance” is much suited DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) in 1998 -- Perhaps you can restructure, the release year in brackets close to 1998 may be confusing for some. Maybe begin with "Also in 1998, DiCaprio was cast" comedy drama Gardener of Eden, which, according to The Hollywood Reporter's – I think there should be no comma after which Brad Pitt/Paramount Pictures -- maybe split with "and" First pass, have reviewed down to the end of upcoming projects. Hope these comments are helpful. Will review the remainder. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC) I took care of these except where I have stated otherwise. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Satisfied with the replies. Relatively minor point in the "Philanthropy" section is how three consecutive sentences start with month/year, beginning with "In 2010, In April 2013, and In 2016", could use some minor tweaks so it doesn't come across as listing dates/events. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I have tried to vary the sentences. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA

• There are MOS:SANDWICH issues in both the 2010–2013: Films with high-profile directors and the Environmental activism sections. Please remove these issues. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini!

Resolved comments

Lead Could you link Biographical film here? You should also link Los Angeles while you're at it. Much like some small city in West Virginia, it helps for a user to have a reference (even though it's popular) It borders on WP:OVERLINKING, which frowns upon linking popular locations. Since Romeo + Juliet and Titanic are next to each other, and the next portion of the sentence specifies a "highest-grossing film", I'd specify it's the latter. Do you think it'd be better to list Titanic as "the highest-grossing film at the time" or "the third highest-grossing film of all time" (where it currently stands)? I prefer writing its highest achievement in the lede. I'm not 100 percent certain if you are correct or not, but should there be an "organization" after "nonprofit"? You are right. "Nonprofit" is an adjective and should be followed by a noun. I hate to leave you with a measly lead glance-over, but yyyyyyyyyikes am I low on time! I'll be back in the future, sometime this following week, hopefully. 18:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC) No worries. Take your time. Thank you for the review so far. FrB.TG (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Alright, I'm back. I have the free time right now to finish but I'm working on other things in the background so the review will be a little slow, but I'll be posting after reviewing each section so you can work in between pauses. Early life and acting background I'm jealous of this man's name. And to think that an agent wanted to Americanize this man's beautiful name. Thank Goodness he did not agree to it. If you're gonna link German, you might as well link it's first appearance, which is a couple words before it. Well, the first instance of "German" refers to his heritage, while the second one is linked to the language. De-linked anyway, per WP:OVERLINKING. "When his stepbrother earned $50,000 for a television commercial, DiCaprio, fascinated with this, decided to become an actor" -> "His stepbrother earned $50,000 for a television commercial, which fascinated DiCaprio and helped him decide to become an actor." (less commas) "At the beginning of his career, DiCaprio had difficulty finding an agent and when he did find one, he suggested DiCaprio change his name to Lenny Williams to appeal to American audiences, which he declined to do." This sentence drags on a bit, so I'd suggest a full stop after "finding an agent". Maybe a comma after "a year and a half"? 1991–1996 Early work and breakthrough "what not to repeat" is pretty vague; as in, a role not to play again or a movie not to make sequels out of? "...mischievous on set." In what ways? Now I'm curious... I'd specify that This Boy's Life is a biopic, considering these are what the actor is known for. This movie is a biopic, right? "...Streep's character's troubled son" -> "the troubled son of Streep's character" (less of a mouthful) Wow, this was a fun section to read! Good Job! I'm glad you had fun. :D 1997–2001 Titanic and worldwide recognition "...at the time; and was shot..." - a semicolon with an "and" is gramatically incorrect, so one of them has to be cut. Oooh, choices! Jack Dawson (character) is a redirect and therefore isn't necessary. Bilge Ebiri is mentioned twice within two paragraphs, so the second instance can be shortened to Ebiri since they don't need another full introduction. Speaking of which, is there another reviewer that can be called upon here? These instances are too close in my opinion. "but became a box office success, grossing $180 million internationally." Against what budget? Yeah, says who? Can anything else be said about DiCaprio's roles in The Man in the Iron Mask? There's a critic that praises him, but then the article goes on to say he was the Worst Screen Couple I have added another praising review but added a contradicting conjunction before the part with the Razzi. I found mostly praise for his performance: "DiCaprio ... acquits himself well alongside his more seasoned co-stars and has immense fun with his dual roles, especially the villainous monarch." "Leonardo DiCaprio, delivers a wonderful double star turn in 'The Man in the Iron Mask.' ... DiCaprio’s presence assures a strong opening" "he rivets attention in practically every scene. With captivating ingenuousness, and with a physical beauty that reduces the camera to one more worshipful fan, he fares well in one of his most ill-advised film projects." Despite zero sleep last night and two cups of weak coffee, I'm going to plow through the rest of this review. Sorry for the large gaps in between comments, I've been having a rough week... 2002–2009 Venture into film production Although I don't remember any other instances of this, try to stick with either "biopic" or "biographical". Also mention the budget for Catch Me If You Can, since you seem to hop between the two and I feel mentioning it is better than not. This is more of a general comment, but a lot of these prose mentions of reviewers seem to follow too similar of a format: a thought he was good, and said "[direct quote, usually about how talented and sexy he is]". Some cases are small little blurbs of fancy words, and it breaks up the prose in those cases and should rather be paraphrased. Here's some examples: "breezy and charming" - This is a reviewers description of his departure from dark and troubled characters, and I honestly think it's super vague and doesn't give much context. "perfectly watchable" "conspicuously excellent performance" - These are fun words, but are also super vague ones. What did he do that was "conspicuously excellent"? I had to look up "blown-out budgets" to see if it was just "going over budget". This query of mine might just be from my severe sleep deprivation, but it could also appear jargony to other viewers and could be more generalized. "DiCaprio's performance, although well-received, was overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis according to many critics." This is a good example of what I'd prefer to see over the quotes above. Good sentence, A+. What does obsessive refer to in "obsessive American film director and aviation pioneer Howard Hughes"? Were DiCarpio and Scorsese obsessed with him? "The Aviator became a critical and financial success" - Do the math: there's no math. Against what budget and how much did it make? The 11th Hour? What a nerd. Reuniting with Kate Winslet for another romance drama sounds as if it were a big deal, but it's kind of glanced over. Could you expand this section with budget and box office details, as well as other critical mentions (preferably if they ever compared the two movies together)? 2010–2013 Films with high-profile directors General comment, is there other ways we can spice up this article image-wise? It's great to see all these photos of him, but at the end of the day, they're too similar in my opinion. This man does not age. "After playing demanding roles in Shutter Island and Inception, DiCaprio took a break from acting to have some time for himself." I'd specify just how long this break was because the article immediately jumps back into other acting ventures. "Although it was poorly received by critics—Mary Pols of Time magazine named it one of the ten worst films of 2011" - But why didn't they like it? "largest and best screen performance, one in which he lets loose as he never has before, is not protective of vanity or a sense of cool and, one feels, gets completely to the bottom of his character" - this is a really choppy quote and was hard to follow along with. Could it be paraphrased or fiddled with to fix this? 2014–present Focus on environmental documentaries and awards success Once again: what a nerd. "DiCaprio received nomination for a" - "DiCaprio received a nomination for the" I'd link fur trapper (it's a section in the mountain man article) "the eponymous retelling of the legend Robin Hood." The "eponymous retelling" link went under my radar and I couldn't tell what movie it was referring to; maybe do something here that's similar formatting to the Romeo + Juliet instance above it? Aaaaand see you tomorrow. I know I said I'd finish but something came up just now and I must skeddadle. Tomorrow, I promise! Panini!🥪 15:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the comments, Panini, especially the ones regarding the unnecessary quotes. I admit I tend to get a little carried away with the number of quotes I use. I have paraphrased a good number of them now. Do let me know if there are others that stick out. FrB.TG (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Okay, nine hours of sleep and an additional 3 hour nap and I'm ready to rumble. Reception and acting style "That year, he sued Playgirl magazine over plans to publish a fully nude picture of him." This sentence is mushed between critical opinions, so I'd move it below or after. Moved to the paragraph mentioning his sex appeal. "doing some trick which is pretty mysterious to everyone watching" - Quite confused about this quote, does the reviewer give an interpretation of what it is? Or is this just saying, "He's doing something, I just can't quite put my finger on it..." It's a direct quote from the director but I agree it does not add much. Left that part out. But that's it, really. Again, Good Job! Environmental activism + Misc Please delete this entire section, because global warming is not real and therefore a WP:HOAX. If global warming is real, why is there ice in my drink? "I see people wearing trenchcoats lecturing us on global warming. Irony much? This whole thing is totally made up by the government to scare us." "According to him, he was eager..." The "according to him" here makes it sound like this is his "alleged" story, and other evidence proves otherwise. I think that can be cut down to "He was eager to learn about ecology from an early age..." "and that he is agnostic" - This could be mentioned in the Personal life section. Alternatively, you can leave it, but I would link Agnosticism. Thing is he makes an odd comparison between environmentalism and spirituality, which is why I placed it in that context. "DiCaprio gave a charity donation and spoke about environmental issues" - What did he donate to, and who did he speak to? Whom? To the pope. Donated to what? Unknown. "DiCaprio's foundation..." - Isn't this the DiCaprio Foundation? Why is it referred to as just "the foundation owned by DiCaprio"? "...DiCaprio joined Titanic and Revolutionary Road costar..." - Despite the "costar" here, the way this is formatted makes it sound like he wasn't in these movies. Maybe just "costar" here? I'd link review aggregator That should be it from me! This has probably been my favorite FAC to review; even though it's a very long article it kept my attention and made the timeline fun to follow along with due to how you've organized information. I've apologized a lot already, but once again, I apologize for taking a week to finish this! Please let me know when you have fulfilled all these queries/suggestions; anything you disagree with please say so, because normally I'll drop it. I don't make it an absolute requirement that all of my ideas need to be satisfied to gain my support, and as long as you have a reason to justify against one of them I won't argue back. Panini!🥪 17:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC) I am glad you enjoyed reading it. No apologies needed whatsoever. One week to complete a review is not much compared to how long some take (not complaining as I understand that people are busy). Unless I have claimed otherwise under your points, I have taken on board your suggestions. Thank you again for your review; it really helped the article improve. FrB.TG (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Everything looks clear, so I leave my Support. Great work! Panini!^🥪 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch driving by

You cite Sandler & Studlar 1999 but Sandler and Studlar are only the editors of the book. Rather, the relevant chapter and its author should be cited. JBchrch talk 04:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

They are ones listed in the place where you normally mention the author(s) so I think they really are the authors and not just the editors. In any case, I do not see any mention of someone else; I would think authors would be listed before editors. FrB.TG (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at p. 6-7 of the archive file? Also, it's standard practice for the editors to be listed on the front cover (which says "edited by"). JBchrch talk 14:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Taking a closer look: you are citing the chapter written by Melanie Nash and Marti Lahti. JBchrch talk 14:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

As I was not the one having added this source, I do not have access to the book to be able to see the chapter's name (not in the archive file either). Replaced with other sources. FrB.TG (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That's fine. It was the page linked from the book's title. Just so you know, if you create an account at archive.org, you can read and "borrow" digital books like this one. JBchrch talk 15:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

However, it's unfortunate that you replaced Rutgers University Press with news sources. It would be preferable if you accessed the book from the URL and did the proper formatting. JBchrch talk 15:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that invaluable information. Despite being a frequent archive.org user, I did not know you could borrow books like that. I have now restored the Rutgers source with the proper formatting. FrB.TG (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! JBchrch talk 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Harrias, hi you did the source review on its first nomination. Since not a lot of major things have changed (except for some updates) in terms of sources, would you be able to also do it this time around? I understand if you don’t have the time or inclination. Have a good day. FrB.TG (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Resolved comments

I'll take a crack at this. I see Harrias, pinged above re the source review hasn't edited for a few days; Harrias, if you want to chip in, please do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC) First a couple of things I can spot with scripts. It looks like you're inconsistent about including publisher locations in cite book; none of the books in the sources section include locations, but you do have a location for Marani's Leonardo da Vinci. Any reason why that book is embedded in a ref when all the other books cited are in the sources section? I tend to avoid using sfn when I use the book source only once. But here are many others which I also have only used once (and they are under sources) so done as the rest. As for publishers' locations, I’ve added those wherever available. Can we get a page range for the chapter by Nash & Lahti in Sandler & Studlar (1999)? Other points, added as I find them. I'm working my way down the list, checking that URLs are working; I'm not doing spotchecks, but I did see something I want to ask about. Your note [a] says the da Vinci mentioned "must have been one of" the three in the Uffizi, but why couldn't it have been one of the paintings in Milan? Considering his mother was in the Uffizi at the time, it is not possible for one of the paintings she looked at to have been in Milan. Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I was asking. I meant that the E! source doesn't mention the Uffizi, or Florence, unless I'm missing something. It says "DiCaprio got his first name by kicking in the womb while his parents viewed a da Vinci painting at a museum in Italy". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Oh, I have replaced it with a better source. It says, "Visiting Florence, they stopped by the Uffizi Gallery ... As Irmelin paused to admire a painting by Leonardo da Vinci she felt a strong kick inside her ... She'd name him after the Italian genius." FrB.TG (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC) The archive link for FN42, [6], isn't working for me. For FN67, your title is "Was Leonardo Robbed?", but both the current and archived link are titled "Leonardo DiCaprio: Robbed of a Titanic Nomination?" FN82: archive link [7] is not working. FN 87: For Ebert's review you cite the Chicago Sun-Times as the source; I know he reviewed for them but I don't know for sure that everything on his website appeared in the paper, or that the date on the website is the date of publication in the paper if it did appear. I think it would be better to cite to the website itself. FN 112: archive link [8] is not working. FN 135: is no web link available? Unfortunately not. I'm curious to know why you're citing The Hindu for his awards? Seems like there must be more natural sources. The Hindu is a reliable source per WP:RSP but replaced with one from The Guardian. Link validation done through FN180 (this version); will continue probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Thank you, I addressed your concerns in these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC) More: FN 197: the archive link [9] doesn't work. FN 228: the archive link [10] isn't working. FN 233: the article [11] doesn't seem to mention DiCaprio -- I assume this is intended to cite that he was on the list of highest paid actors for 2013? You would need to click on the gallery to see the complete list and slide through. It now directly links to DiCaprio's earnings that year. FN 253: the archive link [12] works, but I don't see any mention of DiCaprio there. Unfortunately, I could not find any reliable source listing the nods that year, so I have removed it. Considering the number of many high-profile awards DiCaprio has won, it should not affect the article's comprehensiveness. FN 257: the archive link [13] isn't working. FN 276: the Twitter link [14] isn't working. The archive link is working, so not necessarily a problem, but since I am under the impression that tweets stay linkable unless someone deletes them, can you confirm there's no error in the link here? It's not working for me but the Instagram source should be okay to cite that claim. FN 307: the archive link [15] is not working. That's it for the link checking. I'll take a look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC) What makes Cowspiracy] a reliable source? And unless I'm missing something the linked page doesn't support everything it is used to cite; perhaps other pages on that site should be cited, if it's reliable? It's the official website for the film and it is only used to cite information about the film itself so it should be fine IMO. There are a few sources that aren't the most reliable -- Hello and E! for example -- but they seem fine for what they're used for. Exactly, they aren't used to make any contentious claim. That's everything I can spot. There are some cases where links have not been archived, but though it's recommended it's not a requirement. I can't see any formatting errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your review. All of your concerns should be addressed now. FrB.TG (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passes; all the above fixes have been verified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, do you have some time to conduct an image review again considering you also did it the last time? FrB.TG (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't duplicate captions in alt text; if there's nothing different to say, the alt can be simply 'refer to caption'. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Two questions. May I nominate another article? What's the status update on this nom? FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Yes.

2. Waiting for further comments from Amakuru as mentioned below, and, possibly, your response to them.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by review by Amakuru

• "His father is of Italian and German descent; DiCaprio is conversant in Italian and German" - not keen on the semicolon in the middle of this sentence, a simple "and" would be better. Also not sure if the sources support the assertion exactly. The Italian one simply says that he spoke to the Pope in Italian, which doesn't prove he's "conversant" in it... (perhaps the Daily Mirror source says more, but I can't access that); and the German one says he learned and practised German with his grandmother, but again not really giving his level. Business Insider is also a source whose reliability is often questioned.

I agree on the Italian bit but a fan keeps insisting on its re-addition. I've removed it until we find a better source that explicitly confirms that he speaks the language. As for German, the Douglas Wight biography explicitly denies this: "Leonardo never really got to grips with the German language" (p. 22) but somehow I missed it in my early research. Business Insider is reliable according to WP:RSP when reporting on culture.

• "In an interview in Russia" - when was this?
• "DiCaprio was named Leonardo because his mother, then pregnant with him, first felt him kick" - feel like this could do with tightening. The "then" seems to refer to a point in time we haven't mentioned yet. Maybe something like "his parents chose the name Leonardo because his pregnant mother felt his first kick while she was looking at..."
• Also not sure note (a) about the paintings should be there. It looks like original research or WP:SYNTH, unless there is a source which says this in connection with DiCaprio specifically.
• The two sentences beginning "his parents separated..." and "For a while though" seem a bit stilted to me... The second almost seems to contradict the first, and leaves the reader wondering when this "while" was that he lived with his father. "to not deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence" and "For a while though" could also be improved for encyclopedic tone IMHO.

Looking into his biography, it says they lived next door to each other though the newspaper source insists he lived with his father. I trust the biography more as when they lived in the same neighborhood, he lived with his mother. After that, he moved to other LA districts with his mother. So there is no time in between where he lived with George.

• "moved around to multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods" - could be just "lived in multiple..."
• "He went to the Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies" - maybe "He studied at..."?
• "moving onto" - informal tone
• "asked his mother to take him to auditions instead to improve their financial situation" - which kind of auditions, did his mother actually agree to take him to them, and how does this relate to school? Would it be that if he got an acting role he'd drop out of school? Or instead go to acting school?

Revised. The source does not say whether his mother agreed to it, but considering the next sentence says he dropped out after his third year in high school, I would think he got what he wanted.

• "as he was fond of" - informal tone

Sourcing points

• If "Refinery29" is a website, should its name be in italics? (I know the article title isn't in italics, but this may be an error)

Per below.

• This is probably a style I don't know about, but what does "(2003) [2000]" mean?

In the parameters, 2003 refers to the year the book was published whereas 2000 means the origin year. However, it's a moot point considering the source has been removed.

• Young Artist Award has an article, so could link

It is already linked in ref. 30. I do it only on the first instance to avoid overlinking.

• Roger Ebert's name is mentioned twice

That's because he's the author and the publisher.

• Also curious about "Rotten Tomatoes" not being italicized. Maybe websites aren't routinely, but the website= parameter at {{cite web}} would imply they should be.

I usually go with how the Wikipedia article does it. As per MoS, we should italicize newspapers, magazines etc. so unless that is changed in the website parameter, I'll use publisher instead.

That's all for now, from just looking at the first paragraph... I will have a closer look later hopefully, but (and sorry to have to say this) I am a little concerned that overall the prose is not polished enough to satisfy criterion 1a (which I still think of as "brilliant, refreshing prose" even if the label has changed!) I see SandyGeorgia raised prose as an issue at the last FAC in 2019 so not sure if major copyediting has been done since then? If not, I think this might benefit from a thorough comb through and perhaps a peer review to get it up to the requisite standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I was mostly inactive in the next two years but I do remember the article going through at least some copy-edit. I asked SandyGeorgia for feedback a few months ago but she did not respond. Thank you for your review. Do let me know if your current comments have been properly addressed and if you find more (major) issues after you look more closely. FrB.TG (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

So sorry, I have not been able to keep up, and can't promise to look in here-- depends on progress on other articles. Amakuru, you have me giggling for the second time this year over your use of "brilliant, refreshing prose"; I will explain on your talk :) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: thanks for your response here. Given that you seem amenable to discussion on this point, do you mind if I do some copyediting on the article to attempt to improve on some of the prose? I've made a start just now. Obviously feel free to dispute anything I've amended, and we can discuss. This may be more fruitful than my going through raising issues here line by line. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t mind at all. I would be most grateful for any kind of help. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG and Amakuru: How is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: urggh, forgot about it again! You might have to withdraw your note of appreciation at this rate... I'll try to have another look over the weekend  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru, hi sorry to bother you but any update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Back for some more points

Sorry for the long delay. I'm finding it very hard to fit much editing time in at present, so you'll have to bear with me if I'm absent again. Just for the record I would probably oppose promotion as things stand unfortunately, just because I think the prose needs work - it is fixable though. Obviously given my potential inability to commit to combing the whole article, and the support !votes above, it's up to the coords what to do if I end up absent for a long time again!

• "At the beginning of his career, DiCaprio had difficulty finding an agent" - why was this?

No idea. The source does not provide any info beyond this.

• Can we name who the agent was that he eventually found, and how long did he remain with him?

No source for it, unfortunately.

• "introducing him to underground art and art in general" - a bit unclear to me how this is relevant to his screen career, and why being into art might help with that

My guess would be because he probably wanted to pass on his knowledge to him and hoped that he'd apply some of it to acting after all acting is art. But it's just that, a guess, and I have no source to provide a reason for why he did what he did.

• "Motivated by his father and the need to financially support his mother, he began acting regularly on television by the early 1990s" - this doesn't seem to fit with the narrative two sentences earlier, in which he did 100 auditions without success. Presumably something else must have changed to enable him to land a role, other than just the "motivation" of his father and the need to support his mother... I think a bit more detail around what was going on here, why he didn't get the 100 roles and what changed, would be useful.

I have some details on it and will add it later today.

• "who was later convicted of transporting child pornography and sexually abusing a minor" - not sure that this detail is particularly relevant to DiCaprio?

I'll remove it.

• "Around this time, he was a celebrity contestant..." - slightly surprised by this... was he already a celebrity based on his appearance in Parenthood?
• "In 1991, DiCaprio played an un-credited role in one episode of Roseanne" - I think this would belong better in the previous paragraph, even if that means a section break halfway through 1991. It just looks kind of odd sitting as a standalone sentence and would be more natural for this section to start with his big screen debut.
• "a role he described as" - was this his description at the time, or later?
• "taken in by the Seaver family" - is the name of the family needed?

Cheers for now  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. While all of your concerns are perfectly valid, some of these are due to lack of information from sources so there is nothing I can do about them. Your return will be appreciated but no pressure on you. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh

Placeholder; comments soon Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• "That October, DiCaprio joined Mark Ruffalo in North Dakota in support of the Standing Rock tribe's opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline" — The source ([16]) does not mention "North Dakota". What they mention is "Standing Rock", which our article calls " border between North and South Dakota".

Removed the location altogether since I saw one source say it's in ND and the loc is in the title anyway.

• "In April 2017, he protested against President Trump's inaction on climate change by attending the People's Climate March." — At first instances, we should be mentioning full name of Donald Trump. Rest, source verifies the content. OK
• "While reviews for the film were mixed, critics were unanimous in their praise for DiCaprio's and Lawrence's performances;" — The source ([17]) states "Most applaud the great work the cast led by Jennifer Lawrence and Leonardo DiCaprio deliver across all scenes." I don't think "most" applauding should be considered same as unanimous.

While that statement is true, these kinds of sources are very hard to find so it's normally taken in good faith that the claim is okay since the editor usually checks the prominent sources. It's best to stick to what the source says though.

• "He is drawn to roles based on real-life people and stories told in specific periods." — (#1) The URL in the reference is to /3 page, which does not verify the content. this link does. (#2) As to verify the part, the source does not say that he is "drawn to roles based on real-life people". The best I could find in the source is "You frequently star in films based on real people and events in history, such as ... Why?", which is not DiCaprio's statement, but a question. His frequently being in films based on real people should not be assumed to that he is "drawn" to those roles. Is there something I am missing?

I'm sure I could find something if I dug deep that says he loves playing these roles but I have adjusted it as per the source for now.

• "DiCaprio endorsed Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential election." — Well, this one is bit too nitpicky, but, the source says " “Please vote this Tuesday,” he said. “Vote for people who believe in the science of climate change.” ". We are indirectly assuming that 'people who believe in the science of climate change' = 'Hillary Clinton'. As the things stand, WP:V is failed for this part, but I'm confident better sources available which explicitly make that endorsement claim.

Replaced with this one. It says, "Here are some of the other filmmakers who have publicly bashed Trump, endorsed Clinton, or both." and then goes on to list DiCaprio.

• "DiCaprio's first producing task was as an executive producer in The Assassination of Richard Nixon, starring Sean Penn as Samuel Byck" — I cannot find "first producing task" in the source.
• "Revolutionary Road grossed $76 million against its budget of $35 million" — Per the source ([18]), "Worldwide Box Office: $79,604,820", "Production Budget: $45,000,000 (worldwide box office is 1.8 times production budget)" ??

Ah, I must've intended to cite this one since the it says $35 million and ~$76 million ($75.9 million).

• "After narrating the 2019 global warming documentary Ice on Fire," — The source ([19]) "In the trailer, the actor narrates: '[...]'". This just establishes the fact that DiCaprio narrated the trailer (to be more precise, maybe just a part of it). I an not saying the statement is wrong, but WP:V is not established.

Replaced.

• "It broke the record for the most views (153 million hours) in a single week in Netflix history." — The source ([20]) states that it was "152,290,000 hours", much less than 153 million hours.

Ah, apologies for this one. I think I saw this as 152.92 million instead of 152.29 million and I probably rounded

Just to mention, I randomly selected these sentences, scrolling up and down the article. Not entirely convinced by the spot-checks, so this one needs further spot-checks to ensure that sources exactly verify what article conveys. Thansk! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I apologize for these. Most of them are true statements but I probably should've found better sources for these. FrB.TG (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

JBchrch — further spot checks

Coming up. JBchrch talk 22:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Focusing the problematic spot checks:

• ”DiCaprio's parents named him Leonardo because his pregnant mother first felt him kick while she was looking at a Leonardo da Vinci painting in the Uffizi museum in Florence, Italy.” [21] The source is p. 4, not p. 15

Funny, for me it shows p. 15.

Are you reading an ebook such as an epub or an epub-to-pdf? They generally don't map out the print pages, which is why pages have to be controlled with a print version (or a ebook version with the print pages mapped out). JBchrch talk 15:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I see, the file starts counting pages from the beginning (cover). FrB.TG (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the ebook pages are substantially shorter than the print pages. For instance, I see that "Wight 2012, 322" is cited, while the print version ends at p. 277. So the discrepancy cannot be reduced to a set number of pages to be added up to the ebook pages. JBchrch talk 21:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This happens. It can even happen between editions of print books - eg an expanded introduction is added. So long as the version cited is clear and the referencing to it is accurate it is not an FAC issue - although it can be tricky for reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The version cited is Wight, Douglas (2012). Leonardo DiCaprio – The Biography. London: John Blake Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85782-672-2., which can be accessed at the archive link above ([22]). The referencing to it is unfortunately not accurate, which I think is caused by a print/ebook mismatch. In my understanding, either the pages need to be corrected or the {cite book} needs to be modified. JBchrch talk 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• ”DiCaprio has said his career choice as a child was to become a marine biologist or an actor but he eventually favored the latter, as he liked impersonating characters and imitating people.” [23] In the interview, LDC places the emphasis on getting people’s reactions to his acting.

Added that part too.

• “Later in 1996, DiCaprio starred in Marvin's Room, a family drama revolving around two sisters, played by Meryl Streep and Diane Keaton, who are reunited through tragedy after 17 years of estrangement. DiCaprio portrayed Hank—the troubled son of Streep's character—who has been committed to a mental asylum." [24] Not seeing the 17 years or the asylum part in the source.

Usually not all plot points are available in sources so I go for this part of WP:FILMPLOT, "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary". I know it mainly applies to plot summary section but like I said, info about roles (which are also part of a film's synopsis) are not always entirely available as one wants them to be.

I have cited a book source now.

• “DiCaprio initially had doubts about it, but was eventually encouraged to pursue the part by Cameron, who strongly believed in his acting ability.” [25] Can you give me a quote?

For some reason, the live link does not show the entire article, which consists of 7 pages. The archived one does though: "Cameron was sold on DiCaprio, but DiCaprio wasn't sold on the part ... Finally DiCaprio signed on and received his first million-plus paycheck."

• “Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret was another documentary film that year for which he was an executive producer—he took part in the new cut released exclusively on Netflix that September. It explores the impact of animal agriculture on the environment. [26] Is the last sentence in the source?

Not directly, but see my response about the plot summary.

Added the Netflix link to the film.

• “and suffered hypothermia” [27] In the interview LDC says “possible hypothermia”.

Removed the hypothermia part.

• “In August 2015, it was announced that Martin Scorsese will direct an adaptation of Erik Larson's The Devil in the White City starring DiCaprio.” [28] The source says that LDC will produce, and that there was plans in the past that he wanted to star in it. However, the source doesn’t state this outright, and additional sources [29][30] confirms that we don’t know whether he will act in it or only produce it.

Updated the info and source.

• “Although the film failed commercially”[31] I’m seeing an interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source here?

Replaced with a book source.

• “Budgeted at $90 million, the film grossed $291 million and became DiCaprio and Scorsese's highest-grossing collaboration to that point” [32]. I’m not seeing either the $291M figure or the “highest-grossing” in the source?

Replaced with two Box Office Mojo sources, one to support the budget and gross and the other for the "highest-grossing" part. It does not explicitly state that but The Departed is listed above DiCaprio's previous collabs with Scorcese (Gangs of New York and The Aviator) in terms of worldwide gross and has the highest figure of the three.

JBchrch talk 23:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your spot-checks. FrB.TG (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: How do you advise this should proceed? JBchrch talk 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this, it is appreciated. You have checked nine citations, from a total of 311, for an article which has already attracted attention to its source to text fidelity with Kavyansh.Singh's comments above. It looks to me as if you had at least minor issues with each of them. Please do correct me if yuo feel that I have misinterpreted any of this. What you need to do now is decide whether or not, based on your sampling, you have faith in the source to text integrity of the 302 cites you didn't check and post that decision here. Sorry, I realise that this is a tough ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your input, @Gog the Mild. In all fairness, I have performed more spot checks than what I have listed above, and about half of them, perhaps slightly more, had no issues. However, I still feel like it was too easy to find problems in the sourcing (the above took me about an hour), so I cannot consider this as passed, even after factoring in the FILMPLOT rationale. I think that citing ebooks pages as print pages is a big problem in and of itself, and something that would need to be corrected before passing this as FAC. I'm also inclined to be strict here, because this is a BLP, and one that gets a lot of pageviews. In my view, however, it's not unsalvageable: if the book pages are fixed and if the sources are given a good check to make sure that all of the article's content is strictly verified (excluding the FILMPLOT) parts, this article could get to FAC status at some point. JBchrch talk 21:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to do this, JBchrch. It is really appreciated and I’m glad this issue was brought to light before this FAC was considered for promotion. I’m not entirely sure what happened here though, usually the articles I write have little to absolutely no issues of verifiability among reviewers. So I am going to make sure all the info are accurately represented and easily verifiable. Except for the book sources (which I recently checked myself), I will verify each of the news sources. This shouldn’t take more than a few hours. And after that has happened, I would like to request you to take another look, although that is totally up to you to decide and not obligatory in any way. PS the e-Book has a different ISBN so changing to that should fix the issue here. FrB.TG (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG Thanks for being open to my comments and for agreeing to check the citations. I cannot commit to revisiting the article when you will be done because I'm in the midst of a somewhat unpredictable period, but by all means ping me and if I can then I'll do it. JBchrch talk 04:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Some spot checks from another editor:

• "These included the Best Actor Oscar trophy that Marlon Brando won for his role in 1954's On the Waterfront, a $3.2 million Pablo Picasso painting and a $9 million Jean-Michel Basquiat collage" - source does not mention 1954 or On the Waterfront, only stating that it was an Oscar won by Brando
• "and in 2014, he purchased the original Dinah Shore residence designed by mid-century modern architect Donald Wexler" - source calls it Modernist, not mid-century modern, and our article on Mid-century modern suggests that the two are related but not identical
• "DiCaprio owns a home in Los Angeles and an apartment in Battery Park City" - source says that he "inhabits" it, which doesn't indicate ownership, as it could be a renting situation. Also, this source appears to be from May 2012; likely too dated for this really

These were three of the five random cites I checked. The other two were fine, but I'm not comfortable with the source-text integrity here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I haven’t gotten to that section yet, as I’m extensively checking all sources now. The problem here was that before I expanded it, I didn’t check all the existing sources as I thought being at a GA level, it wouldn’t have these problems. I’ll ping once I’ve skimmed through every one of them - it shouldn’t be any later than max. two days. FrB.TG (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Such checks should be done before taking the article to FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I realize that but sadly I didn’t know that an article at a supposedly quality level would have such issues to begin with. It’s a little naive on my part considering I have written many other FAs before but I’ve never had such issues before. I guess you learn something new every day. FrB.TG (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of our GA's aren't really GA-quality. Hog Farm _Talk 03:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Support by Moisejp

Hi FrB.TG, hope you've been well! I meant to jump in and review this in January but have been off the grid the last few months. :D Since this hasn't been promoted yet, it gives me a chance to review now. I supported in the first FAC in 2019 and am happy to support again now on prose and comprehensiveness. I have read through it twice and made several small suggested edits. My only remaining minor suggestion is in the last two sentences in Philanthropy, "According to the news agency Associated Press, this amount was inaccurate" feels a bit awkward linked with the rest of the content in the second sentence; I suggest tying it to what's in the first sentence instead. Also ref 285 supporting this bit seems superfluous as it just repeats word-for-word part of what is in ref 284. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for your edits and support again, Moisejp. I've merged the two sentences per your suggestion. Hopefully, it reads better now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Looks good, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• A little reluctantly I am going to archive this. There is not a consensus to promote after three months and there seems to be agreement that the article was not ready for FAC when it was nominated and possibly still isn't. I would encourage the nominator to work through the citations to ensure that they are all up to scratch and look forward to seeing this back at FAC. There will be the usual two week hiatus re further nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 10:37, April 12, 2022 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 11 April 2022 [33].

---

St Mark's Basilica

Nominator(s): Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

For the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus, St Mark's Basilica is "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art"; for John Ruskin it’s a "confusion of delight"; for Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, it’s "a giant crab" ("einen kolossalen Taschenkrebs"). Regardless of the differing opinions, St Mark's Basilica is undeniably unique, the single-most important monument in one of the world's most visited and admired cities. As a topic on Wikipedia, the basilica is of High importance for three WikiProjects and a level-5 vital article in Art.

Thank you to No Great Shaker for the GA review and the encouragement to go further.Venicescapes (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

buidhe

• Oppose and recommend withdrawal. There are a lot of good qualities in this nomination, but it will require considerable work to get it to FA status. At 80 kB (13008 words) with 50 (!) notes, the article length is clearly excessive and will require substantial cutting (by 1/3 to 1/2 the current prose length), probably by splitting the article into subtopics and using WP:Summary style. Why are citations being used in the lead, they aren't necessary? (t · c) buidhe 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at the article; I'm glad you see some good qualities. St Mark's is a complex building with a complex and extensive history, and I have tried to cover all of the pertinent topics in a succinct manner. None of the individual sections appears to be excessively long. With regard to the overall length, please consider that Cleopatra (indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article) has 210,999 bytes, 13,470 words, and 87 notes. All of these parameters exceed those of St Mark's Basilica. As mentioned on the Article Size page: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". As to the lead, some citations could be eliminated since the information is covered in the article. However, there is information included to give an immediate sense of the building's importance, which is consistent with MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." I have provided references for the quotations and examples.Venicescapes (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Just because you are able to find one FA that is overly long and detailed does not mean that it should be accepted at FAC, (and no, it is not "indicated by Wikipedia as a model for a Featured Article"—there is no official hierarchy of featured articles). There are many counterexamples such as Armenian genocide, a recent promotion that is covered in just over 7,000 words or Huey Long which was split and trimmed to an appropriate length in order to get through FAC.

You are correct that the 'article quality grading scheme' lists Cleopatra as an "example" of a FA, rather than a "model". My mistake. However, I tend to interpret the two terms as synonymous. I'm sure that examples and counterexamples of long or short articles can easily be found, which seems to validate the MOS statement: "Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage". I believe the needs of the article and the reader are of primary importance since FA should be "a definitive source for encyclopedic information". Again, in the case of St Mark's, there is a considerable amount of ground to cover to make sense of it all. I have nevertheless limited the scope. For example, in the longest section on the decorative programme I certainly did not cover every mosaic and every inscription, but only those needed to explain the overall meaning. Perhaps in the spirit of constructive criticism, you could let me know what you specifically see as superfluous.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say that the article goes into too much detail everywhere and could use trimming across the board, but one place to start would be the notes. Generally, content should be either important enough to include in the body, or not important enough to include in the article at all. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to explanatory notes?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes that are strictly for clarification are the only case of notes I accept as a reasonable use, but in this case they go way overboard. (t · c) buidhe 11:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, if I understand correctly you do not 'accept' that explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read." as per explanatory notes. Is this correct?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If it's just being used to add additional information, it belongs in sub-articles, not the main article. WP:Summary style is not being used here and that's concerning because it's required by the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Summary style is not a unique criterion to FA but is a guideline for all Wiki articles. The converse is also true; all other guidelines are applicable to FA. In this case, the use of explanatory notes does not change based on the quality scale. By definition, they exist to provide additional and/or clarificatory information. This is Wiki policy. None of the notes in the article is substantial enough in its own right to justify a separate article. Some readers will be interested and can read them; others will not and can read just the article. There are already numerous internet articles on the basilica with information, largely cursory, that is more-or-less accurate. Creating yet another is senseless. As a self-proclaimed encyclopedia, Wikipedia should and can be more.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

All facts in the lead should also be in the body, making all citations redundant (barring a few exceptions that don't seem to be relevant). If there is info in the lead that is not in the body, that is a more serious issue.

I have removed the citations for information that is also covered in the body. As mentioned, I provided a quotation and examples in the lead which are meant to convey the relevance of the basilica. These are not repeated in the body and are consequently cited in the lead. Please let me know how you interpret the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." Also, please let me know what information doesn’t seem to be relevant.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What about refs 2-7? Is the information under these refs not covered in the body? If so, that would need to be fixed. There are also parts of the body that do not comply with FA criteria's inline citation requirements. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the four citations you requested in the body. For refs 2–7, they are for quotations and examples in the lead. You write "that would need to be fixed". In what sense? Again, how are you intrepeting the MOS: "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles."? Please let me know which parts of the body do not comply with "FA criteria's inline citation requirements". Are you referring to the four requests for citations for which you placed a template?Venicescapes (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

What specific facts in the lead are not in the body, and why aren't they included there? (t · c) buidhe 11:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The facts are those that have the citations and are meant to give an idea of the centrality of the church in the life of the city. To include them in the body would require an additional and extensive section on historical events that took place in the church over centuries and on civic ceremonies.Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give a straight answer to the question, specifically quoting the exact things in the lead that aren't in the body? (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead, the information that is not repeated in the body is specifically: (1) As the state sanctuary, it was the site of official religious and civic ceremonies, including … the consignment to the capitano generale da mar of the banner of Saint Mark, symbol of the supreme authority to defend the republic on the sea in wartime. Here, peace treaties and alliances were also solemnized and victories celebrated. The church additionally served as the meeting hall of the Concio until the popular assembly's dissolution in 1423. (These are examples to give a sense of the importance of the building, which is consistent with Wiki guidelines.) (2) The interior of the domes, the vaults, and the upper walls were slowly covered with roughly 8,500 square metres (91,000 sq ft) of gold-ground mosaics …. (Again, this is to give a sense of the extent of the mosaics. The mosaic section in the article covers the mosaics purely from an artistic perspective.) (3) For its singular importance, St Mark's Basilica was defined by the art historian and Byzantinist Otto Demus as "the key to the understanding of all of Venice, of its history, and of its art." (The quotation by Demus is again to give a sense of the importance of the building. Again, this is consistent with Wiki guidelines.)Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Another serious issue I just noticed is that the article cites several sources from the 19th century. How can these be considered "high-quality reliable sources" per the FA criteria especially since as you indicate this is an important topic on which many recent sources are available? (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the various essays from The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history. My understanding from your user page is that you, too, are an historian. So I’m sure you appreciate that historical research is a process as new interpretations, discoveries, and conclusions come along. Some topics, however, remain dormant for decades in the absence of new archival or archaeological discoveries. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history remains of fundamental importance for the documentary research.

You will have noted that I reverted your edit to the page which deleted the map of Saint Mark's Square. As I explained in the edit summary, the map is needed to show readers the physical relationship between the church and the other buildings. The map is used on multiple Wiki pages in seven different languages precisely for the buildings in the square and not for the square itself.Venicescapes (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this 19th century source is a high-quality RS according to the FA criteria, if any of its claims are sufficiently important to include, these claims would be repeated in more recent sources. (t · c) buidhe 11:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the criteria again, but did not see anything of pertinence. Perhaps I missed it. Can you please let me know under which FA criteria this would not be considered a reliable source?Venicescapes (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The featured article criteria requires "high-quality reliable sources", it's up to the nominator to show that all sources cited meet this requirement. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

In the second period of Austrian rule (1814–1866), the documents coming from the various offices, councils, and magistracies of the former Venetian Republic were consolidated. This piqued interest, favoured research, and led to the publication of several important works that remain fundamental for consultation. The Basilica of S. Mark in Venice: illustrated from the points of view of art and history is one of these works. Some essays in the book deal with architecture and art and have been superseded by more recent scholarship. The essays consulted for this article concern the organizations and functions of offices within the Venetian government. That information has not changed since the nineteenth century, since the Republic no longer exists. Generally speaking, publications in the past, in many instances financed by the government or academies, were more scholarly as opposed to more recent works that are often conditioned by commercial and marketability considerations. Hence the Lorenzetti guidebook (used in this article), despite its age, provides far more information since it was conceived for a tourist that at the time likely had a liberal-arts education and sojourned for longer periods in the city. Modern guidebooks, conceived for the mass-tourist market, tend to have more glossy pictures and little information. With all due respect, to any historian or research scholar, your claim that information not included in recent publications is not “sufficiently important” is patently absurd.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Leaning support Having reviewed the nominator's previous FA (on the building opposite) I can see on a quick look this is another excellently researched piece. As before, some paragraphs are too long and should be split. It is certainly long, but I don't see how it can easily be broken up - the architecture, history and mosaics are the building's main attractions, & should not be shunted away. The length is currently 173,802 bytes; there are currently 153 FAs longer than that, leading up to the longest, Taylor Swift, which is over twice as long! The 153 include such mega-topics as 2007 USC Trojans football team, The Thing (1982 film), 2003–04 Arsenal F.C. season and El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie! Most of the sourcing is very high quality and admirably recent; on a subject like this there is often nothing wrong with the odd older source. I agree with User:Venicescapes's comments re this above. There is absolutely no backing in policy for User:Buidhe's objection to refs in the lead; this is purely a personal taste. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  The length criterion for articles is based on readable prose length, not total length which may include a lot of space for references. The articles you cite have substantially lower readable prose length than this one. (t · c) buidhe 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

  All 153 of them? I very much doubt that. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I will try to take a more detailed look at the entire article later, but the first thing that caught my attention: why does this use Template:Infobox and lots of HTML instead of Template:Infobox church? Also, I don't believe that length per se is a problem. This article doesn't seem unreasonably long (especially considering a huge portion of the article is footnotes, citations, and references), but it could use some streamlining and judicious trimming. Ergo Sum 23:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your willingness to read through the article and for any suggestions as to how it could be streamlined with judicious trimming. Admittedly, my technical skills with infoboxes are limited; a more experienced user might be able to obtain the same effect, beginning with the Church infobox. Basically, I needed to logically organize the information and clearly distinguish the two periods of the basilica’s history, grouping together all of the information about the church’s status as a cathedral and a ducal chapel. The Church infobox places the status information (cathedral) in one section and the episcopal-see information (patriarchate of Venice) in another, interrupted by the architectural information. Also, the Church infobox uses a terminology (archdiocese) that is not completely accurate for the patriarchate. Before the section on status, I placed all of the information that is shared between the basilica as the present cathedral and as the historical chapel of the doge (location, consecration, relics, etc.) All of the architectural information is organized after, using the second image as a clear divider. This also immediately shows the reader both the exterior and the interior, both of which are mentioned in the lead. It is the same solution used for the Biblioteca Marciana where the information about the library as an institution is clearly separated from the architectural information. For overall appearance, I utilized the same colour-scheme that the Church infobox uses for Roman-Catholic churches. Again, a more technically skilled user might be able to achieve the same result beginning with the Church infobox. But I think the key information about the basilica, as is organized, is comprehensible at a glance.Venicescapes (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, Greetings from Venice. I hope you are well. I was wondering if you had any further guidance, corrections, or suggestions.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I thought, before my GA withdrawal, that this was, on the whole, an excellent article. I do remember thinking, however, that some sections/notes were apt to get a bit too detailed or technical; that some phrasing was awkward; and that the background section especially needed some work. It is a long article, yes, (if approved, I believe it would be the largest FA architecture article by a full 5000 readable words, over Millennium Park) but apart from some parts of the background, I don't believe any sections can reasonably be spun off into a new article. Some trimming is definitely needed, but I certainly believe it's a fair FA candidate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank your for your input. I'm glad you're feeling better. I've done some limited streamlining. If you can let me know which areas appeared too technical or awkward, I can reword those specifically.Venicescapes (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Ceoil

Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC) Have read it all in last 4 days, and to say wow; the breath and depth is deeply admirable. Two things to start off:

• I don't have a problem with the length, although it did seem that the background veered off topic a few times, and frankly at times was wondering what page I was reading and how it would resolve. Against that, the architecture sections are a joy, and it took four days to read because I keep following links and veering outwards.

Thank you for your time and edits. I'm glad you enjoyed the architecture sections. On the background, let me know how it might be further condensed or its relevance made clearer to the reader. Demus uses 13 pages for the Aquileian background, and in some form it needs to be covered since (1) many of the mosaics in the chancel and choir chapels illustrate the transfer of apostolic authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice (2) it explains why Mark and 'his' church become so central to Venice's self identity.Venicescapes (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Have no problem with 19th c sources being used for things like description and basic matters of fact. I can identify with the nominators statement above that some areas remain understudied, and that he is citing back to the source rather than summary overviews etc that quote that source. Otherwise it would be "in 2002 X noted how Y in 1893 noted how". I do this all the time; when a more recent scholar cites an earlier scholar but doesn't develop the observation or theme, I dig out the earlier work, because attribution and respect.

I look forward to supporting this article. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Re the first point re length, I suspect it will be shortened not by spinning out sections, but by reducing words. eg why do we have even at claiming historical precedence over the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt, believed to have been nfounded by Mark.[9]

[para break and then]

No historical evidence exists to support the claim. for example. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did some more streamlining.Venicescapes (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to soften re summary style, given that the article is already 11856 words, and can we say that (reflecting my own interests) that the "Chancel and choir chapels" and especially the mosaics sections are fully complete and cannot be further developed, work that might be hampered if the length issue is at back of mind. I can speak and vouch for one objector (Gog) as usually fair "and" detail orientated, but in this case a fear might be the impossibility of reviewing an extremely long tract. Have only been involved in generating one comparable FAC (Early Netherlandish painting, 12775 words) but was blessed by reviewers I had already built relationships with that were willing to spend days and weeks trawling through. Luckily we weren't asked to spin out there (and the article anyways wasnt suited to that approach), but the last time I saw a satisfactory resolution on this issue was Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1. Still thinking, but posting son the review doesn't go stale. Ceoil (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Also to say, I'm deeply frustrated/conflicted on this nom...haven't we always being saying the weakness of the process is tat it favours micro topics, and now we have a vital article and are scratching our heads? What got me at the objects so far is that they seemed from a quick scroll up and down and didn't offer suggestions as to what sections were over extended. Having read the page a few times now, I certainly don't see padding, but I do see sections (mentioned above) that deserve stand alone articles, that could (happy days) be further expanded in the future. Ceoil (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Under ordinary circumstances, and being familiar with Venicescapes 's ability and form I would be a support already. Holding off for now as do see room for some sections having separate articles...and thus more leg room for expansion. To say again, this indecision is more our ie FACs (and include myself here as I've been around a long time) problem rather than Venicescapes, and really hope he perceivers and does not get discouraged as this is very much first rate content of which the project should be proud. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Laying my cards on the table, the above was an attempt at bridging, which did not work, which I have mixed feelings about. Venice is going for article integritry vs two co-ords, and have left a note here. Never the less, no reader is forced to read all of this consistently high quality article; As a reader I mostly mostly hop from here to there depending on how I landed via a blue link or goole search query. Have read this page several times and beyond a few light ce's here and there, its obviously FAC quality and then some - its breath of research, prose, setting in historical context and on and on are bars we should be holding up for future nominations, not quick failing by c0-ords within 7 minutes of the nom (hows that for a cabal approach for you). If this is failed on length, then it totally reinforces the reason why fac cookie cutter micro-topics are what FAC is institutionally geared towards, apart from over detailed mil hist recounting of medieval battles. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

So anyway, Support on 1.a to 1.f, 2.a to 2.c, 3, 4. Ceoil (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to reinforce a further disappointment at the way this was handled, the 2nd sentance rational in the oppose by Gog - "you have to be kidding me", if ever indicates total lack of perspective, circling of wagons, no mention of the achievement in getting the article to such a state; trimming needed or not, and gives the impression of a closed shop, with an direct insult to boot. Not good for editor rention, or front facing why more should engage with the fac process, and basically violates AGF (for old hands, imagine if you were new to this and told by Raul or Sandy "you have to be kidding me"). Ceoil (talk)

Comments by AirshipJungleman29

• Background section needs work. I would suggest that the Aquileia section be spun off into a different article — although reference to the dispute can and must be made in the article, it should not be as exhaustive as it is here. If you are determined on keeping it, I would suggest a heavier focus on Venice's role and situation in the dispute; to a casual reader this is not immediately clear.

• There is already a dedicated article section for St Mark's relics - the story of the translatio does not need to be narrated in this article. A summary will do. Would probably suggest, in addition, that most of the section contents be moved there, leaving only a summary here.

• Note 24 ("Michael Jacoff's proposed interpretation...") is too technical.
• Notes 30/31 (on order of apostles and nations) are unneccessary and uncited - a deadly combination.

More later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC).

I deleted the notes. The background section is going to take some thought, and any further suggestions are most welcome. As Otto Demus wrote: "the story of San Marco begins with these relics." The various stories (translatio, praedestinatio, and inventio) are subjects of mosaics explained further along and also show up again in the liturgy section. So I'm not sure how we can not explain them or expect readers to go to another page to find out. Again, suggestions are welcome. I'll try to trim the Aquileia section further.Venicescapes (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting not explaining the translatio, praedestinatio and inventio (TPI, for short), I'm simply suggesting we follow WP:SS with regard to it; that is, the whole smuggling shenanigans, which are, let's be honest, not immediately relevant to St Mark's Basilica, should be moved to Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark, as a starting point. Their contents can be easily summarised in one or two sentences — the priest and monk, the pork subterfuge, the shipwreck salvation aren't needed here at all, since they are never really referred back to — and we can move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Relics moved into new article (St Mark's relics) along with Mark the Evangelist#Relics of Saint Mark to avoid overweighting on the Mark the Evangelist page. I need to o back and do some clean-up.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• The assessment section is awkward throughout:

• Long German/Italian quotations not needed in main text.

I can move these into notes if you prefer

Deleted

• "magnificent grottesque" — grottesque isn't a word, and I'm not sure what you're going for.

One too many 'T's: grotesque

• "Harsher is Mark Twain who, albeit fascinated by the basilica, sees it as "nobly" and "augustly ugly". Judging St Mark's to uniformly lack beauty, he considers it to be perfect" - I am confused.

He means perfect, but not in a positive sense. Rather perfect in the sense that it's all ugly with no beautiful intrusions.

I added "perfect in the sense of perfectly ugly".Venicescapes (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• In describing the basilica, Francesco Sansovino mentions primarily individual artefacts. Who? Why? Explain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There really is no explanation. Francesco Sansovino in his guide (1581) talks about the importance of individual artefacts but doesn't really describe the building per se.Venicescapes (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Deleted

AirshipJungleman29, I've made some more corrections/deletions. Please let me know if they help.Venicescapes (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Venicescapes:, coming back to this article, I find myself overwhelmed by the notes, which I do feel are too inclined to verbosity and minutiae. Yes, explanatory notes "are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read", but quite a few notes are too long or awkward to read in and of themselves; take note two, for example, which I think we can agree is less an explanatory note and more an expository paragraph (could be incorporated into main text, or other articles, but probably shouldn't remain as a note). My feelings are thus (and yes, this will be confusing):

Note 1 - fine, does its job without being awkward. 2 - discussed above. 3 - could easily be incorporated into main text (it wouldn't make the previous sentence too long or awkward) or cut. 4 - unneccessary. 5 - awkward, too technical. 6 - you've just given the exact same reference as provided in the note; you don't need to repeat what Demus says at the page you've already cited. 7 - fine. 8 - see note 3. 9, 10 & 11 - see note 6. 12 - bit verbose, content reasonable. 13 - fine. 14 - unnecessary, given that nearly all the citations on the subject in the article already link to that book (which we could have a translated title of, now that I think about it).

15 - I'll be honest, it's late and my eyes glazed over looking at that paragraph, so, probably fine I guess? 16 - fine. 17 - probably unneccessary in this article. 18 - fine. 19 - see 2. 20 - unneccessary, a simple citation would do. 21 - see 3. 22 & 23 - see note 6. 24 - see 5. 25 - see 3. 26 - am I confused or is this just referring to note 2? 27 - see 4. 28, 29 & 30 - see 6. 31 - see 4. 32 - see 5 & 6 (the latter with reference to citation 191). 33 - see 6. 34 - see 20.

35 & 36 - fine. 37 - see 3 & 4. 38 - fine. 39 - see 3. 40 - see 2. 41 - see 3, 4, and 6. 42 and 43 - see 2 (on another note, this section incorporates rather a lot on "the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events", as you put to Tim riley — shouldn't be too hard to list the consignment of the capitano generale among them, surely?). 44 overlaps with 47 and 48; is also very technical, and could be shortened significantly and incorporated into main text. 45 & 46 - see 2 & 4.

Just my thoughts on what I feel is probably the main failing point of an excellent article. Hope you can make sense of my confused word-vomit — I've probably misinterpreted or oversimplified many many things.. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

image review

• Why is there an external link in a caption? Suggest moving to a footnote or a {{external media}}

  I didn't know about this option. Thank you. I wanted to give readers unfamiliar with the polychoral style the opportunity to hear it so that they can understand better what is being discussed.Venicescapes (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• The current layout presents some sandwiching between images

  I saw two areas with sandwiching and corrected them (at least on my screen). In the first case, I moved the floorplan to what, in reality, is a more appropriate section. To avoid creating a new problem with sandwiching there, I placed it in a table between paragraphs, integrating with some graphics.

• "The territory of Venetia circa 600 AD (Aquileia, Grado, and Venice (Rivoalto) are shown as underlined)" - underlining is not visible at that size

  reworded

I'd also suggest scaling up this map. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. I can also redo the image to mark Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently if this would help further.Venicescapes (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

As per request of Gerda (below), I increased the size of the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Venice.

• Don't use fixed px size

  I may have to trouble you for some further guidance. I have 'upright' on all of the images that use the thumb parameter. Px size was used for the Infobox, Multiple image boxes, Wiki table, Gallery, and Wide image. But these don't seem to accept anything else. I tried 'upright', without success.

  I've just tested |upright= for the infobox and table images and it seems to work fine. On my screen if you remove the fixed size in the gallery nothing changes - what happens on your screen? As for the image templates, that is a known restriction on the use of these templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Here's what happens.

  Gallery: I can remove the px parameter, but the images become tiny, almost postage-stamp size. I tried to add |upright= (followed by various numbers) both to the gallery and/or to the individual images. But they remain tiny.

  I still can't get the gallery to work with anything other than pixels.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hm. I can't replicate the behaviour you're describing. Do you have default image size set tiny for some reason? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  I checked the preferences. They're set for 220px (thumbnail size), 800x600px (image size limit on file description pages). Could you indicate an article that has the coding for the packed gallery as it should be without px? I can take a look to see what happens on my screen and copy as appropriate.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wide image: When I remove the px parameter, the image becomes very large, about 8 cm in height on my screen. If I add |upright= (followed by various numbers) to the Wide image code and/or the image itself, it remains very large.

  I changed to the panorama template. It still asked for px, only in height instead of width.Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Table: I can remove the px parameter from the table, and it just gets wider. No problem. But if I also remove the px parameter from the images (or substitute it with |upright= (+ some number), the images become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it).

  I redid the table with a combination of |frameless= and |upright= for the images and width in em for the table. On my screen it looks identical to the previous table with pixels. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Infobox: I can remove the px parameter from the two images, but they become huge (I have to scroll both vertically and horizontally to see it). The same is true if I substitute the px parameter with |upright=.

  I used a combination of |frameless= and |upright= for the images in the infobox. On my screen it looks right. The info box is still the same width as the map of Saint Mark's Square below. Could you please confirm that it looks right?Venicescapes (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for checking and for helping me through this.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  I just looked at the Great Fire of London which underwent FAR. Instead of the wide image template, it uses the panorama template. Is this a better solution? Venicescapes (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  That can work. MOS:IMGSIZE allows for fixed px size when there is a very good reason, but in some of these cases we do have other options - for example using |upright= in combination with |frameless=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text, where it is absent

  Added

• Some of the details in captions warrant citation - for example dating

  Done

• File:Maritime_Venetia_c_600_AD.jpg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Ditto File:Pianta_san_marco.jpg

  I have the sourcing for the map and the floorplan. How/where would you like that added? To the image or as a footnote?

  I added the information to the image files

  That's fine for the moment, but be aware there is a current discussion which may change practice on this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:San_Marko_(reconstruction).JPG needs a US tag and author date of death

  tag added. I'll need to research the author's date of death

  Antonio Pellanda died 13 November 1890

  I added the information to the image file

  When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Published as early as 1888 in Cattaneo, Raffaele, L'architettura in Italia dal secolo VI al Mille circa (Venezia: Ongania, 1888). I added the information to the image file as a note. There may be a slightly earlier version.

• 'Spoils from the Fourth Crusade' - is there sourcing supporting that that's the provenance of the tetrachs?

  sourced

• File:Thomas_Stuart_Smith-Interior_of_San_Marco.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Canaletto-sketch-the-choir-singing-in-st-mark's-basilica.jpg

  I wrote to the museum to ask if they have any record. I'll also continue to look.

  I was not able to find information on the first publication, and neither museum responded. So I deleted the images.Venicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Portal_of_Santo_Stefano_(Venice).jpg needs tagging for the original work. Ditto File:Venezia_Chiesa_di_Santo_Stefano_Innen_Langhaus_Süd_2.jpg, File:Madonna_dell'Orto_Portail.jpg, File:Santa_Maria_dei_Miracoli_facciata_sud_Venezia_notte.jpg, File:Arc_Foscari,_pati_del_Palau_Ducal_de_Venècia.JPG, File:Scuola_Grande_di_San_Marco_Ospedale_di_Venezia_facciata.jpg.

  tags added

  I added the tags, specifying in the edit summary that the PD tags concerned the original work and that the addition of the tags was per FAC review. However, the photographer deleted them. See, for example.

  I contacted the photographer and am awaiting a reply.

  The photographer did not reply and apparently will not accept PD tags on his photos. So I deleted the imageVenicescapes (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough image review. Some items will require a few days of research.Venicescapes (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for a piece of love, - I'll read slowly, having many other things on my mind, and skipping the lead until last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and input. I hope that you enjoy reading the rest, and I look forward to your further observations/suggestions/corrections.Venicescapes (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Name

I wonder why the name of this place is St Mark's B., the English way, while in the rest of the world, it would be St. Mark's B., with a dot. I know it simply as San Marco, btw.

The article already had the English abbreviation. To change it would also require changing the spelling throughout the article (Oxford English) plus, for consistency, the other pages: St Mark's Clocktower and St Mark's Campanile. As I understand it, a contracted form of a word that ends with the same letter as the full form should not have the dot. So Saint = St, Doctor = Dr, BUT Professor = Prof..

I understand, and for the same reasons we have St Matthew Passion, and everytime I see it it looks wrong ;) - because iit's a German piece, and the German abbr. would be "St.". But I'm too lazy to initiate a change, and when someone else did it found no consensus. - This is an Italian building, not an English one. --GA

Infobox

• I miss an Italian name, and would place Basilica di San Marco at the very top, followed by the English short name - a derived name - the following line.
• I miss many links, beginning with Venice.

  I added the Venice link. Are there others specifically?

  Yes, because for many, the infobox is where they will look first. Roman Catholic (why Roman, btw, when our article is Catholic Church?) - Mark the Evangelist - Mark, Peter, John, Matthew, Luke, Bartholomew, Isidore of Chios - minor basilica - Patriarchate of Venice - Doge of Venice - Byzantine, Romanesque, Gothic --GA

  I personally see 'Catholic Church' as ambiguous. Both the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed refer to the 'Catholic Church' in the sense of universal church and are recited by many different Christian denominations. 'Roman Catholic' is clearly the specific church with the pope as its head. For the rest, I suppose it depends on how one sees an Infobox. My personal opinion is that an infobox should give all of the pertinent information at a glance and shouldn't function as a navigation bar to leave the article. But I bow to whatever is the prevailing vision.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  (you didn't repeat the bullet) - You are right that Catholic Church would be ambiguous, but not Catholic Church. Same for some other links missing. Which Peter? I never heard of Isidore of Chios, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I can put in the links, but bear in mind that this is going to make infobox almost solid blue.

  (please repeat the bullet when replying to a bullet) Are the relics - besides Mark's - really crucial enough to be mentioned (while artists and composers are not)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Point taken. What if we simply delete the relics or say Mark the Evangelist and others? Did I get the repeat bullet right this time?Venicescapes (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

TOC

• "St Mark's relics" - I see that it is the name of our article but think that this article would profit from consistently distinguishing the evangelist from the building. I'd say "Mark the Evangelist" vs. "St. Mark's", but "Saint Mark" vs. "St Mark's" would also work.

  They're venerated as the relics of 'Saint Mark'. Whether they are the remains of 'Mark, the Evangelist' is another matter. So I moved the page from St Mark's relics to Saint Mark's relics to avoid nitpickers. Good suggestion.

• Why are the Mosaics not under Interior?

  As is, the interior is under the broader heading of "Architecture". So the mosaics are treated separately.

• Why three numbers for the references, instead of one with two subsections?

  Excellent idea! I grouped them together. I'll do the same on the other pages for the buildings around the square for consistency.

Aquileia

• I confess that it tired me a bit, and that the map is too small for me to help. How about merging most of it to the "Schism" article, and leave only a summary, as for the relics?

  I increased the size of the map. If needed, I could also redo the image and write Aquileia, Grado, and Venice more prominently. Let me know.

  yes, please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Redid the map and enlarged the names of Aquileia, Grado, and Rialto (Venice).Venicescapes (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Others have made similar observations. So I'm clearly going to have to explain this better. The Aquileia/Grado conflict explains why Saint Mark is adopted as patron and why his church becomes so political. Its the reason why many of the mosaics in the chancel illustrate the transfer of metropolitan authority from Aquileia, through Grado, to Venice. Demus spends 13 pages at the beginning of his book on the subject. While I don't think that I can cut it down any further without losing coherency, perhaps I could add an introductory paragraph for 'Background', letting the reader know upfront why this is being discussed. Would this help?

  The Schism of the Three Chapters concerns several churches in northern Italy (not just Aquileia) and is largely a prelude. It is the theological dispute that leads to the creation of two bishops (Aquileia and Grado). But that aspect is resolved at the Synod of Aquileia in 698–700, after which it becomes a purely political question of jurisdiction. Only this second aspect is the background for the relics and St Mark's Basilica.

  Think about it, - I remember this wish to trim the article, and see a way here. Like we made Messiah structure when Messiah got too long. - How many readers of this article do you expect to care about the fine details presented here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes, I shall have to give this some more thought. On the Messiah page, the Background section seems to have the same function of setting the stage. I don't think you could break that off from the rest of the article.Venicescapes (talk) 11:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    I would probably have had more music, and referred to the composer's bio more, but I was only a helper at the time, invited by masters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    I added a few sentences at the beginning of the section to explain why it is so important to understanding the importance of St Mark's for Venetian self-identity. Does this help?Venicescapes (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Read up to title Architecture, with no problems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Please keep a bullet when replying to a bulleted list, per the essay on top of User talk:Drmies. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Western façade

• I try to avoid images right below a header, especially if that header is short.

  I noticed that you moved the interior photo right (I believe for the same reason). What about if we slid the heading to the side? If possible, I'd like to use the photos on the left to prevent the stacking up on the right, but also to help signal major shifts in topic.

  In former times, we even had guideline to prohibit a pic directly under the header. It makes sense to me: it's irritating for the reader to have to move right in the next line. In 'my" articles, I have left images only when a person looks right, and then only if enough space abelow to now displace the next header. Displays on different devices differ. This is not a point I'll not support over but perhaps think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I moved the image of the western facade around, but nothing worked. Moving it down, it sandwiched with others. Moving it to the right, it stacked up and pushed others further down. For the interior image, I tried moving the heading to the side.

• "Gentile Bellini's Procession in Piazza San Marco" - I'm used from Classical to not link a creator when the work has an article, to avoid too much blue.

  fixed

• why Virgin (capital) but evangelists (lc)?

  this will create a problem with apostles as well. Looking at MOS:Titles of people, I think that if it's plural it should be lower case, unless Four Evangelists (group) and Twelve Apostles (group). Single Evangelist and Apostle (in substitution of name) should probably be capitalized.

  You are right about apostles as well, but I was too tired to mention that. I read the guideline different: if these specific four, then Evangelists (not any evangelists), and if these specific 12, then Apostles (not any apostles), such as Reformation vs. reformation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I capitalized all Apostles and Evangelists

Entry hall

• "his gospel" - why lc when his specific Gospel?

• Fixed

Narthex

• "The story of Joseph, also a type of Christ" - how that?

  The explanation I'm familiar with is that Joseph is sold into bondage. Yet through that bondage he becomes the savior (from famine in Canaan) of his people. Similarly, Christ is sold into bondage and saves humanity.

  Not enough that you are familiar with something ;) - if it's needed (which I doubt) please supply a link or a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I thought you were asking because you were curious. Sorry. It's in the reference, but you're right in that I can simply delete it.

Decorative programme

• Why is Last Judgment linked in the last para?

• Removed

Chancel ...

• "Saint Pope Clement I" - I thought it's Saint or Pope.

  Italian usage would be with both since Clement is his name as pope. I did a search for 'Saint Pope John Paul II' and found both 'Saint John Paul II' and 'Saint Pope John Paul II'. However, I noticed that the Catholic sites generally use 'Saint Pope Paul II' as, for example, here and here. The Vatican also retains Pope in the Latin title as saint, here.

  What matters is what Wikipedia says, not Italian, not the Vatican: Pope Clement I. I recently wrote about St. Sylvester, - I don't think a church would be named St. Pope Sylvester. Keep simple, if in doubt? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  I stripped him of his earthly title.

Read until the title Mosaics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm pleased with all replies, and the indenting now ;) - You decide wether to keep more relics (but then linked please), and the analogy Joseph-Jesus (but then with explanation) - Only open point from above open is that I'd really like to see an Italian name on top of the image in the ibox. I prefer first line, but second line is better than nothing. I'll see if I get to reading further today: rehearsal! Until then, I want to write an article in English, and one in German, women of course ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the native name to the Infobox and deleted the relics (simpler, plus they're mentioned in the text). I'll reword the part on Joseph.Venicescapes (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

any other than "Saint" which - in this article - means the saint, not the place --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I read the article now.

Music

• "the procurators of Saint Mark" - not sure that is about the Saint. Will turn to the lead hopefully tomorrow. --

  The title is variously translated. In English sources, of Saint Mark (or of St Mark) tends to prevail, but the more accurate title, given the full original Latin, would probably be of St Mark's. What would you prefer?Venicescapes (talk) 10:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead The lead is mostly fine, but I think should cover more aspects, such as importance of the relics, history of building and music (Monteverdi and the Gabrielis are recognised names).

I have the relics. Yes, I do have to do something about music.

• episcopal in 1807 - can we have a bit more about before, such as the Doge there already? that late year comes as a complete surprise ;)

  I have 'what it is' in the first paragraph and 'what it was' in the second.

• Concio - yes there's a link but how about adding "assembly"?

  It's a little further along.

• limited Islamic? - "some" or something else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  'some' (unnumberable) created a problem with influences (numberable). So, I simply deleted 'limited'.

  All fine by me now, support. A treasure of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Gerda, thank you for taking the time to read through the article and for judging it on its merits. I’m grateful to you for your suggestions and corrections and, ultimately, for your support. Best wishes.Venicescapes (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by No Great Shaker

• Tentative support. As the recent GA reviewer, I'd be happy to answer any questions about that aspect although I realise FA is a much more searching process than GA. Please note, though, that I'm very busy offsite at present.

I agree entirely with the comments by Johnbod and I'll be interested to read the whole of Gerda's comments when she has had chance to finish.

I sincerely hope the opposition to 19th century sources is rejected because it simply doesn't follow that a modern source necessarily has more to say than the older one, or can somehow improve upon the information it presents. That seems to be a case of WP:RECENTISM, in my opinion.

AirshipJungleman29, I'm glad to read that you are well again and hope you are making a full recovery. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild

• 15,000+ words. You have to be kidding. Oppose on WP:CANYOUREADTHIS and WP:SUMMARY. A clear candidate for WP:SPLITTING. It would seem to me appropriate to have a separate article for each [most?] of the separate buildings at about the level of detail given here, and for this article to be a much shorter and punchier summary of these "child articles". Currently fails the FAC criterion "without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" horribly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  The article is actually about a single building. So please let me know what gives the impression that it concerns "separate buildings" so that I can at least make the necessary clarification.Venicescapes (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I see the prose as 12,349 words, roughly 18% less than 15000+. What does the 15000+ refer to?Venicescapes (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  The oppose seems blanket, rigid, with no suggestions, and thus not actionable. I can't understand why anybody in 2022 couldn't imagine that any fabled reader is looking to read the article from top to bottom, rather than be lead here via a search query and will then digest as much of the coverage of that area as they can, and then blue link out. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The oppose is eminently actionable. Read WP:SPLITTING and act accordingly. I am sure the coordinators are capable of deciding whether so splitting is possible and therefore actionable.

There were 12,349 words of "readable prose" as defined in WP:LENGTH (12,026) as of now). There are a further 3,003 words of footnotes. This does not include captions.

If it is not felt that the article could sensibly be split by building/structure/component/facade/whatever (and apologies if I confused and/or continue to confuse with my poor nomenclature) then both history and architecture could be spun off as separate articles. Or it could conceivably be split some other way, as the nominator or a consensus of interested editors preferred. I am not persuaded that this is one of those very rare exceptions which could not be split.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course one could split off the history or architecture of one of the most famous churches in the world for just these things, but it would be madness to do so, and I'm sure the nominator has far too much sense to do it. If the article cannot pass in a high-quality and well-balanced state, which inevitably means a long article, it would be better just to withdraw it, & just leave FAC to the pop-songs and other microtopics. Johnbod (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Not true at all that a "high-quality and well balanced" article requires excessive length; that is what summary style is for. It is possible to write concise overviews of broad topics and get these to FA status. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We all want "high-quality and well-balanced" articles, especially FACs, and, Johnbod, I find it offensive that you suggest that I don't. What we are doing here is discussing just what that means, in the context of the FAC criteria - which ("It follows the style guidelines") includes the MoS and criterion 4. It would be helpful if everyone took a deep breath and WP:AGF. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it is necessary to assume good faith. On my part, I have continued to streamline the article, eliminating roughly 1000 words (circa 8 %) since it was first nominated. I also believe that it is necessary to carefully consider the needs of the subject and particularly of the reader and to put those needs in the forefront. In this case, the average reader is most likely someone who is actually in Saint Mark's Square and wants to understand the building. Some will have probably chosen to consult Wikipedia, rather than a guidebook, simply for convenience and cost. But others (I hope the majority) look to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information that isn’t included in the standard guidebook.

What constitutes 'too long' or 'overly detailed' is of course subjective, varying on the basis of the individual's personal likes and interests. Notably, the actual reviewers (coordinators aside) have all remarked that the length is not necessarily a problem and, more importantly, that the various aspects of the building cannot be "spun off" or "shunted away". I should note that both the relics and the treasury have already been broken off and that some aspects that could stand on their own, such as preservation, were not even included so as to not excessively lengthen the article.

With regard to breaking apart the article further, I advise caution. If St Mark's had been designed and built as we see it, it might be possible (although in my opinion still not advisable) to separate history and architecture. But St Mark's is the result of an evolution: knowing that there are remnants of earlier constructions and that the structure has been radically altered over time (its history) is necessary to understanding how it looks (its architecture). The two cannot be disentwined. The background section, already concise, is also necessary to understanding why St Mark's was built in the first place and why it was so central to Venice's national identity. I also doubt that the section could stand on its own.

Simply put, St Mark's is complex, and many aspects need to be covered. If each section of the article is considered singularly, none is excessively long or overly detailed.

Summary style has been repeatedly invoked in this conversation. But this too is subjective. I agree that topics that can be reasonably developed into articles can be summarized. Yet FA, as defined in the quality scale, remains: "thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." I do not interpret summary style as reducing the article to a mere directory to other pages or a "concise overview". It should not be necessary for a reader to go to other pages to get basic information (again subjective), but only to delve deeper into certain aspects, such as the mosaics. In considering what summary style means, the fifth pillar comes to mind: "policies and guidelines are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions".

St Mark's is a level-5 vital article in Art, meaning that it should eventually reach FA, and as a world-renowned monument, it would certainly be included as a subject in a printed encyclopedia. It would be a sad commentary on the Wiki community if it were not able to come together to produce a high-quality article that meets the needs of all its readers.Venicescapes (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• The closing coordinator (@FAC coordinators: ) and/or the nominator may, or may not, find some of the points I make in this edit helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

There's bags of good stuff in this article, but I think the lead needs a good deal of work to get it up to an acceptable standard. The MoS guide to leads lays down that they must summarise the main text, and that there shouldn't be anything in a lead that isn't in the body of the article. Here we have mentions in the lead of, inter alia, the capitano generale da mar, the solemnising of peace treaties and alliances and celebration of victories, the dissolution of the Concio in 1423, 8,500 square metres of gold-ground mosaics, and a quotation about "the key to the understanding of all of Venice" none of which are covered in the main text as far as I can see, though perhaps I have missed some or all of them in this enormously long text. Tim riley talk 11:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm glad that you found the article's content interesting. It is a fascinating building with a long and rich history. Thank you for taking the time to read through it. For the information in the lead that is not included in the body, the MOS/Lead Section-relative emphasis section specifies "... not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text. Exceptions include specific facts such as quotations, examples, birth dates, taxonomic names, case numbers, and titles." The quotation and the examples you mention were included simply to give a sense of the importance of the building and its central role in Venetian history. To include them in the body would require adding a whole new section to the article where it would be necessary to cover the many historical events that took place in the church and the various civic events, such as the consignment of the banner of Saint Mark. The Concio is mentioned, albeit briefly, in the section on the Orseolo Church. Please let me know if there are other aspects that could be further improved.Venicescapes (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

From the lead of MOS:LEAD "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not consider the reference to the capitano generale da mar to be 'significant information' but rather an example of the church's central role. At any rate, it's gone.Venicescapes (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Gone are also the quotation by Demus and the brief reference to peace treaties and alliances, in case they, too, are considered 'significant information'.Venicescapes (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Although the article is, in general, well-written and very comprehensive, I tend to agree with Gog that it's just too long and could be split, perhaps with detailed articles on its history and architecture, and the main article on the church containing that information in a more summary style.

Some specific prose comments:

• "to alternatively convene" perhaps "to convene instead"

"Within two years, the church was repaired and at the sole expense of the Orseolo family, indications that the actual damage was relatively limited." The prose could perhaps be improved.

• "Thessalonica" perhaps spell and link Thessaloniki
• Is it "revetments" or "revetmets"? You use both

I'll be happy to revisit and spend more time on it if it gets near promotion. Feel free to ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Harry

Beautiful article on a beautiful place. It's obvious that a lot of hard work has gone into it but I think it needs some work before it's ready for its star.

• It could do with a copy edit in places to improve the flow
• parts of the background section seem to veer off topic and much of it could be trimmed or distilled (which would help address other reviewers' concerns about length at the same time)
• the number of footnotes is massively excessive and much of the content seems not to be directly related to the church. You could probably justify a whole background article if you wanted or find a home for this information in another article but much of it doesn't belong here.
• there are uncommon terms like "dodge" and "relic" (just for examples) that need explaining.

This isn't a formal oppose but given his long this has been at FAC, I’d suggest working on it away from the review process and then renominating. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose. Sorry to be harsh, but it would be more productive if the article being fixed before being on FAC. Clearly, the article does not met criterion 2b and 4 as pointed out by other editors. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @FAC coordinators: for closure, this nomination has gone way too long and definitely will never pass. For the nominator, I suggest to take some time before nominating for FA again as there are deep issues at the article's foundation. It won't be easy to fix. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look like this is going to be gaining a consensus to promote right now. This is an excellent effort; I hope you can work with the reviewers outside of FAC and bring this one back here again. Hog Farm _Talk 13:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2022 [34].

---

Typhoon Mujigae

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Rapidly strengthening tropical cyclones heading straight into populated areas seem to have been a recurring theme of the past decade. This one's from 2015 and had its name retired after hitting coastal South China, even managing to spawn tornadoes in Guangdong. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

I'm having trouble verifying the source of some of the images. The first two satellite photographs in the article link to sources that don't display the image. The third one File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg has a dead link and the fourth one File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg links to a generic page. I think it's highly likely that these are NASA images but it should be able to verify with the source links.

Other comments

• The lead looks disproportionately long compared to the length of the article. I would try trimming some detail, making sure it covers only the main points per MOS:LEAD.
• The article cites sina.com, marked unreliable by Headbomb's script. It also cites The Economic Times (I think this is related to Times of India)? What make these high quality reliable sources according to the FA criteria?

Note, this is not a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The first image has data only going back to 2017 for some reason, not sure if Meow knows where an archive is? The link for the second image, File:Mujigae 2015-10-02 0525Z.jpg, works for me, it's just very zoomed out. AFAICT the source for File:2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg is likely a snapshot taken from approximately this, though I can swap it to File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0305Z.jpg instead which has a working link that goes directly to the image. For File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg, the link should probably be pointing to https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ but I can't locate the full pass, need Nino Marakot to help me out here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not responsible for images that I did not upload.  🐱💬 11:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Meow: I'm referring to commons:File:Mujigae 2015-10-04 0620Z.jpg. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For sourcing, Sina republishes content from various news agencies/newspapers, which is why it's marked as unreliable since the source's reliability is equivalent to that of the original source. I'll go modify the citations in a bit to show where said news originated from, to be more transparent. The bit cited to The Economic Times isn't crucial and I've gone ahead and removed it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ditto with the gov.cn refs – they republish stuff from Xinhua or other ministries and I've used those where I can't track down the original links. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe, any come back on the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not supporting or opposing. Still needs a proper source review. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Reading through and not finding much to complain about. I've copyedited a bit; please revert anything you disagree with.

• "Mujigae came ashore during a week-long holiday (known as a "Golden Week") in lieu of China's National Day,": what does "in lieu of" mean here? Normally it means "in the place of", but that would make no sense here.
  • Replaced with "following" - I've always assumed it had a similar meaning to "off-in-lieu" but it appears I've been mistaken all this while. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• "less than 100 were recorded over the past 50 years": we need a date for this observation; perhaps "as of 2016, less than 100 had been recorded...".
  • Reworded this quite a bit since I somehow?? did not see "average annual" twice?? which now makes a lot more sense given EF3+ tornadoes are much rarer than 1 in 5. The paper that this statistic is attributed to was dated to 2015 (can't find it online, unfortunately). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• "By the evening of October 3, 39,103 people in Wenchang had been resettled in 57 shelters": can you rephrase to avoid "...3, 39, 103..."?
  • Added "a total of". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Final repairs to the power supply—mostly in Guangdong, where Zhanjiang suffered the most from power outages—were expected to complete in a week.": if nearly seven years later we don't have a source saying when power outages were resolved, I think we should drop this -- saying what the prediction was at that time isn't much help to the reader.
  • Removed accordingly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall this seems solid enough. It's hard to make lists of statistics engaging, and I don't expect sparkling prose for those paragraphs; I think this just about gets over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• I would believe this to be relevant:

• https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020JG006031?casa_token=akl9FvilkcgAAAAA:mQuryyNBV8-bzJ633q5f6lWczRApKmd4d2UpTw_M_NLAYDUnyj8Cpj26Qrp6b-EyGOmlk7JPyATynN6zgA

• Name formatting in sources should be consistent
  • @Hurricane Noah: added the tidbit, and removed commas from the Chinese names. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support on criteria 1C Noah^Talk 16:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "earlier in its existence it impacted the Philippines as a developing tropical cyclone, and later on it brought heavy rain to parts of Mainland Southeast Asia." I doubt whether you need this as it is covered below and the main impact was in China. It is also ambiguous whether "later on" means later than China or the Philippines. I found the frequent jumping around in the lead confusing and would prefer a chronological treatment.
  • Tried rewording this. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• You give details of effects in the Philippines - including strangely someone killed by a snake bite - but you should also give total dead.
  • I included a total in the lead – I can add another in the body if that's what you're looking for; the absolute minimum is 4 but that's ignoring the "partial and unofficial" report which has another 3 dead (though whether that includes 1 of the other 4 is impossible to tell). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "warnings for storm surge and large waves that same day" surges?
  • I've rarely if ever seen "storm surges" used in such a context – I suspect it's because the whole surge is technically one event tethered to one storm. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale". What speed?
• "from Force 11 to 14 on the extended Beaufort scale" Ditto.
  • Replaced both. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article seems to me unbalanced. The vast bulk of the effects were in China, where $3.7 billion losses occurred in Guangdon out of a total of $4.3 billion, yet the section on Guangdon is only slightly longer than the ones on other areas, where you report very minor effects such as slight injuries and minor transport delays. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'll get to this next weekend - been taking a bit of a break recently due to IRL stuff. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Make that next weekend, life is coming at me fast and I am woefully unprepared. It may take me some time to look for more RSes that give specific details on Guangdong impacts but I should be done by the end of the month, at worst first week of April. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

• Be sure to link Guangdong in its first usage in the lead.
  • Done ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Brief power outages were reported and ports and schools were closed." - I'm not a fan of the passive voice, and all of this in the same sentence implies that the schools and ports were closed because of the power outages. If the power outages were brief and not that significant, then I don't think that's needed for the lead.
  • Removed that and combined what's left with previous sentence. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "223 injured" - be sure to use non-breaking spaces for all units that aren't converted.
  • Should be done with this. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• The met history might be able to be expanded using journals such as this, this, and this
• Several incidents of flash flooding were reported, with 50 barangays inundated with up to 3 ft (0.91 m) of water - I'd specify what a "barangay" is. Also, make sure metric units go first, both here and throughout the article.
  • Done ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "while another from Bongabon municipality was killed by a snake bite" - what does this have to do with Mujigae? I could see if it was a snake on a plane full of evacuating people.
  • Honestly no idea – the news sources say it was related to Mujigae, so I've listed it as such. Couple of scenarios I can think of are that the snake was rattled by the cold, wet weather and bit the unfortunate person, or bad weather or landslides prevented the person from seeking timely medical assistance at a hospital. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "making Mujigae the strongest typhoon to make landfall in China in the month of October since 1949." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "since 1949" bit is just when accurate records start, and not when there was a stronger October typhoon.
  • That seems likely but I'm loath to remove it without a source – China has other records that go back as far as 1893, though I suppose only 1949 and later are "reliable" in the sense that CMA has reanalysed those seasons. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• I notice you using m/s in the China section, but nowhere else in the article. Most TC articles don't use m/s, because it's not widely used by the public, and instead we just use km/h and mph. If you want to keep the m/s, then the entire article should have that as well.
  • China likes using m/s for some reason... just went and hid it so it only shows km/h and mph. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "tripped an electrical substation" - is tripped the right term? I'm not sure
  • I just got rid of that – I can't remember which source I found that in, there's some chance it was in a source for elsewhere and I remembered wrongly or I mistranslated something. If I find it in one of the sources further below I'll add it back in where appropriate. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• " The strongest winds were recorded in Bobai County, where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale" - how strong?
  • Replaced with actual values. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Ahead of the storm, train services between the island and the mainland were suspended from October 2 to 5" - there's no train service connecting Hainan to the mainland, but there are ferries. Double-check this.
  • There actually are train services between Hainan and the mainland, albeit the train cars are carried across the Qiongzhou Strait by ferries. (Personally I thought they used undersea tunnels – this is far more interesting.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Good stuff! I knew China was planning on building a tunnel or a bridge, but I didn't think train ferry was an option! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Typhoon Signal No. 3 was raised from the evening of October 3 till morning on October 5" - "till" doesn't seem appropriate
  • Reworded, was missing a "the" too. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The combination of Mujigae and a cold front brought up to 100 mm (3.9 in) of rain to mountainous regions in the provinces of Quảng Ninh, Lạng Sơn, and Cao Bằng." - this should be specified it's Vietnam
  • Done ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• No impacts in Cambodia or Laos?
  • As far as I can find it was typical heavy rain. Their Typhoon Committee member reports don't pay any special attention to Mujigae, and local news is limited to pre-event forecasts of heavy rain – no mention of landslides, flash floods, crop damage, or anything like that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

In all, it's a pretty good article! The coverage in China was thorough and well-written, which is important since that's where impacts were greatest. I don't think any of the comments should be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

• The damage figure in the infobox doesn't match the text
  • The US$4.3 billion total does...? China alone has US$4.3 billion while the Philippines has only US$1.03 million, and I don't want to simply sum them to get US$4.301 billion for fear of false precision. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • But what you have presented currently as the figure is known to be not correct, since it represents only China. Why not address this as was done with fatalities? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "disturbed weather that formed just east of the Philippines on September 29" - text says Sept 30
  • Fixed. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• "fallen trees, landslides, and collapsing buildings accounted for most of the fatalities" - source?
• Some of the claims in See also warrant citing
• There appear to be a number of scholarly works on this topic not currently cited, eg [35][36][37]. How was it decided what sources to include?
• FN1: the link provided returns "no data available"
  • Forgot to select country, should be fixed now. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• In what cases are you include publication location?
  • IIRC I only include location when using {{cite conference}} to show where said conference was held. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Why spell out BBC and not CNN?
  • Spelled out CNN. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• FN38 is missing agency
  • Added. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• FNs 39 and 40 have different website formatting. Ditto FNs 41 and 46, check throughout
  • Fixed 39 and 40. For 41 and 46, the difference arises because 41 is an article from Xinhua republished by gov.cn (original article can't be found on xinhuanet.com anymore), while 46 is published directly on xinhuanet.com. Do I change |work=Xinhua to |agency=Xinhua here or something? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I would suggest treating Xinhua as a work throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• How have you verified that the state-run agency reports are accurate? See WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

KN2731 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: sorry for the long delay; I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw the FAC at this time since I don't see myself having the time nor energy to continue working on this for at least the next month or so, and I don't want this to drag on any further. My deepest apologies to all the reviewers who went out of their way to look over the article; your feedback is still very much appreciated and I'll still try to implement all suggested changes despite this no longer being at FAC. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a very great shame, as it seemed to be coming along nicely. But these things happen, and RL does throw up its slings and arrows. I shall archive it, but I hope to see it back here sooner rather than later.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 April 2022 [38].

---

Léon Degrelle

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a traitor to his nation, a turncoat to his people, and an apostate before God – a Nazi. Léon Degrelle, Belgium's own home-grown Quisling, began his public life as a student journalist associated with a political Roman Catholic youth group. By the end of it, he was a idol of the international pantheon of far right politics, forbidden from ever returning to his homeland. I began work on this article with some wiki-comrades last September and am quite pleased to now present it to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Previously: GAN, A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

It has also slipped my mind until to mention that this is a Vital Article (level 5). – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review &Charleroi image is missing alt text

• File:Degrelle,_Leon.jpg: why is this work believed to be in the public domain?
  • According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/France, a published image enters the public domain 70 years after the date of publishing; the newspaper scan that image was clipped from is from 1937. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If the copyright expired in 2007, it would probably still be copyrighted under US law (see the Hirtle chart). (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

      i hate image copyright i hate image copyright – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Léon_Degrelle_à_Charleroi_-_02.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I do not know. Should I remove the image? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think it has to be removed unless we can show it's public domain for some reason. Currently the licensing claims publication at least 70 years ago. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

      Axed. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review and comments by Buidhe

I'll do another read-through. FYI I have a review open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First homosexual movement/archive1—another interesting topic in German history. (t · c) buidhe 11:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• The article currently relies heavily on the 1993 Conway book. I wonder why the book in further reading isn't cited? Other sources that may be worth considering:
• Explains Degrelle's antisemitic views. Oddly antisemitism is never mentioned in the text of the article, which seems like an oversight. This may also help.
• Another biography, which seems like a RS
• This source might be helpful expanding a bit on his adoption by post-1945 Nazis

(t · c) buidhe 12:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of how to access these, though thanks to TWL I do have a means of looking for more Francophone sources. On my quest to find the de la Croix biography, though, I discovered that Martin Conway thoroughly rinsed de la Croix's book in 2017. At this point if there's anyone I trust to know Degrelle, and I know from the bibliograhies of other works discussing Degrelle that I'm not alone here, it's Martin Conway. I'll look for some more stuff to break up the wall of Conway and see if this time I can fit in the evolution of Degrelle's antisemitism (I previously didn't discuss because the sources thus far used, Trimbur 2015 excluded, didn't dwell on it either and Degrelle played with his cards very close to his chest anyway). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

The degruyter source linked above is in TWL. The last one mentioned is on academia.edu, not linked because I don't know if it's a copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/ielapa.121105496812907 another possible source (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Have read the paper; I'm going to rule it out. It's a comparison of mostly pre-1943 writings by pro-German Francophone Belgians. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Re the personal life section, I disagree with splitting it out to make it more prominent and I think it makes more sense in something resembling chronological order. Currently you have the section under "Exile in Spain, 1945–1994" even though everything in the section occurred before 1945. (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  This has now been (re)affected. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Definitely an improvement, but now I'm curious what happened to his five children after the war. Did they stay in Belgium? Also, did Degrelle get divorced after being permanently separated from his wife? (t · c) buidhe 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Tempting as it is to do a "where are they now" on the Degrelle brood, I must confess some ignorance - I have not gone looking. One of his children died in a car accident, I forget when. Another is the daughter whose marriage Degrelle attended in '69 in SS uniform. I know nothing else about his other children. As for Marie and Jeanne, the two women Degrelle was married to: I forget when Degrelle and Marie were divorced or when he married Jeanne. I do know though that she was also a divorcee, having been married to a French Nazi exile. Marie remained in Belgium and was sent to prison for a while (covered in Conway 19993 iirc). I could include this in a footnote. – ♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Shouldn't the second wife get a mention in the postwar exile section? How did he reconcile remarriage with traditional Catholic beliefs? (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have, with the aid of the French Wikipedia article, found and included details on Jeanne and dates for the... "divorce" with Marie Lemay. As it turns out, she died a few months before Degrelle married Jeanne. As for reconciling marrying a divorced woman... it's Degrelle. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  What about Degrelle's children? I see it claimed in various questionable sources that they were separated from their family and later reunited in Spain, is this true? (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, but I recall nothing about where I read that except that it's none of the sources I used for this article (edit: and was able to read; it's been a nightmare to track down French-language works). At least three of his children joined him in Spain; one, a son, died in a car accident, and two of his daughters got married in Spain. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Note: I am still planning to do a full source review, but I don't feel that all my comments above about sourcing/comprehensiveness are addressed, specifically with regard to antisemitism (this source, again is on TWL) and legacy with neo-Nazis (covered in this source, which would be more difficult to access, but you could try WP:RX). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've thankfully found a PDF of the second source on Academia. I'll re-read the De Gruyter source and see what more I can add to the article with it; at the moment I'm seeing a "Beliefs" section under #Personal life. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have sprinkled some observations of Degrelle's antisemitism throughout the article, thanks to Trimbur. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have finally read all but the last two pages of Brüll; his article was indeed valuable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I'm now mostly happy with the referencing. One issue: Political Catholicism in Europe 1918-1945 is an edited collection. Should cite the particular chapter and author you are citing, presumably this one (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Good catch! The author and chapter name have been added, and the citations corrected. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by review by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I think that there are some images that can be included to the article, such as File:Léon Degrelle à Charleroi - 01.jpg. Other than that, well done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of prior discussion about image copyright. As far as I know, since this picture was taken in 1 April 1944, it should be in the public domain. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works... (t · c) buidhe 09:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I hate copyright... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

me too comrade –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Some smaller things: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• prior to -> before
• with a view to studying -> to study
• 1904, and -> 1904 and
• Lengthy sentence: "That year, Degrelle joined the Catholic Action for the Belgian Youth (Action catholique de la jeunesse belge, ACJB), a militant clerical youth organization dedicated to Catholic Action founded by the priest Louis Picard, whom Degrelle had met while studying in Namur."
• time period -> time OR period
• On 26 September 1936 he met -> On 26 September 1936, he met
• apparently demonstrating
• Another lengthy sentence: "Degrelle returned to Brussels on 30 July, and found that Belgium had been placed under a military administration and that Rex had in his absence been revitalized, reorganized, and formed a militia known as the Combat Formations (Formations de Combat)."
• weaken local government -> weaken the local government
• a pact, though only so as to not alienate Abetz, -> a pact, though to not alienate Abetz,
• be an inferior people -> be inferior
• 6 July, -> 6 July
• Province of Málaga -> province of Málaga
• following his death Belgium forbade the repatriation of his remains. -> Belgium forbade repatriation of his remains.
• place at Auschwitz, and -> place at Auschwitz and
• with regard to -> about
• then ambassador -> then-ambassador
• had standing to -> had the standing to
• Franch-language -> French-language

I have now worked these in. ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A bunch more technical stuff: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Check Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout to change the order of templates
  • Can I have specific examples? ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  See "Order of article elements" section. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this nomination has timed out.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 April 2022 [39].

---

Sargon II

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most successful ancient Assyrian kings. Sargon II was an imperialist conqueror under whom the Assyrian war machine tightened its grasp on the Middle East but he was also unusually progressive, especially for his time. He worked to maintain justice in his empire, increased the status of women and minority groups, and fostered good relations with both foreign rulers and the peoples he conquered. His primary goal was to initiate a new world order and be remembered for eternity, a dream which was trashed when the theologically problematic manner of his death made his son conduct an extensive damnatio memoriae campaign. Sargon's dream of reverance and remembrance among future generations was not fulfilled until his capital city Dur-Sharrukin was rediscovered by modern archaeologists in the 19th century and he was remembered once again. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Sargon II proclaimed king.png, File:Capture of Carchemish.png — need to state author's date of death to use {{PD-old-70}}. Not old enough for {{PD-old-unknown}}

I will see if I can track down the name and date of death of the artist. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Added the artist's name and date of death. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Personally I am not convinced that all of the images help the reader understand the subject better, and think the article would be better off with somewhat fewer of them. I would remove some of the reliefs. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed two images; I don't want the article to feel too barren of images at any point either - are there any particular images of the ones left that you feel should be removed? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Other comments

• I am not really sure what is meant exactly by "new world order" here, since Sargon only controlled a relatively small part of the world. This phrase has virtually no usage in English before the twentieth century, so I guess it seems a bit out of place in an article about ancient history. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Elayi (2017) p. 207 states The inscriptions relating to Khorsabad evoke a kind of new golden age initiated by Sargon, the foundation of a new world order and a new Assyrian Empire so use of the term in relation to Sargon is not something I made up. I would argue that Sargon's actual area of control has no bearing on his wishes or aspirations to inaugurate a new world order – the Assyrians also believed that the Neo-Assyrian Empire did cover the majority of the world. He expanded the Assyrian Empire by quite a lot (in his mind getting closer to completing the world conquest), instituted various quite sudden changes in policy and founded a new enormous capital named after himself. I think "new world order" describes all this pretty well and can't come up with an alternative term that carries the same effect. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

All the sources look acceptable to me. There is a heavy reliance on Elayi 2017, but I cannot find other sources to cite. Spot checks tbd (t · c) buidhe 23:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Only one page from Melville 2016 is cited. Why is this book being ignored compared to Elayi?
• This book by Grant Frame could also be used to diversify referencing. I have access to it and could send chapters as desired.
• I'm concerned that these omissions affect the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the article. For example, Frame has a different theory on Sargon's lineage than is presented in the article; he argues that there's no evidence of illegitimacy. (t · c) buidhe 01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the article heavily relies on Elayi is that Elayi's book is the only one I can access in its entirety. I'm not sure neutrality is greatly affected; the article does say that Most historians cautiously accept that he was Tiglath-Pileser's son and it is true that most regard him to have been a usurper (which does not imply that no one regards him to have been legitimate). I agree that adding in these different viewpoints would be good from a comprehensiveness perspective. As for Frame's book, is it not largely a collection of translations or is there a large amount of relevant historical content as well (you're welcome to send if there is and I can incorporate it into the article)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I can send you the introduction, which does give an overview of Sargon's life. Wikimail me and I'll attach the pdf. (t · c) buidhe 12:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have sent a wikimail :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied (t · c) buidhe 18:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Melville 2019: this is a book review, which is not really ideal, but acceptable imo if you can't access the original source.

I also have access to the original source; it is a book review but it also contains some of Melville's own research and analysis. Svärd and Melville in a few cases slightly different views on the influence and power of Assyrian women so it felt good to source both since they agree on the statements made here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• • "which grew in size and diversity under Sargon's successors. These units were part of the military might of the empire and participated in campaigns." don't think this supported

It is supported by the sources cited: Svärd (which is also cited here) writes extensively on the growing size and the extra units being added to the queen's forces over the course of the reigns of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal on pages 163–166. On page 166 she writes ...seems plausible that these units were more than just an honor guard of the queen — they were part of the military might of Assyria. Melville, referencing Svärd, writes on page 691: As an example, let us consider the queen and queen mother’s association with military units. Svärd has pointed out that the Sargonid period saw a progressive increase in the number and types of troops attached to royal women, and further, that these were active combat units, not just bodyguards. As an example of partaking in military campaigns, Svärd on page 164 mentions the chariot driver Marduk-sarru-usur, part of the queen's forces, who partook in defeating Ashurbanipal's brother Shamash-shum-ukin. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Bagg 2016, pp. 59, 71.
  • I don't see how page 71 has any bearing on the content. Page 59 does have a table, but it seems synthy to derive this statement from a table rather than prose. Also, a statement like this should probably be dated since it is always possible that more inscriptions may be discovered in the future, right?
  • "In terms of the variety of acts enacted against enemies, Sargon's inscriptions make him out to be significantly less brutal than many other Assyrian kings" I don't accept that this is supported since the cited source just has a table of recorded acts; it does not say that Sargon is less brutal than others.

You're right - page 71 does not seem relevant here. I agree that the writing of the passage in question is somewhat synthy based on the source. I've replaced it as follows: Atrocities enacted by Assyrian kings were in most known cases directed only towards soldiers and elites; as of 2016 none of the known inscriptions or reliefs of Sargon mention or show harm being done to civilians - the first part is supported by the prose and the second is supported partly by the prose and by the table (no longer says less brutal or makes a comparison of its own, just that neither medium records damage to civilians). I've also added a more proper mention of this to the lead. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As a sidenote I've tracked down one source that explicitly calls Sargon "more lenient and less oppressive" but it's a weird fringe historical revisionist book so that can't really be used to cite anything. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is out of 7 refs checked. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a general support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this nomination has timed out.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 April 2022 [40].

---

Jews in Hong Kong

Nominator(s): — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The Jewish community of Hong Kong, although small, has played a great role in the development and history of the city. Taking root from two wealthy Baghdadi trader families of Sassoon and Kadoorie, the Jewish community experienced several waves of growth. As of 2019, there are about 5,000 Jews of different denominations living in Hong Kong.

I rewrote this article a month and a half ago. It was reviewed and passed as a Good Article two weeks ago and also as a Did You Know a month ago. Since then, the article has also been copyedited and I believe it may now meet the FA criteria. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 12:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• The following works are cited in the "Literature" section, but never used in the prose:
  • Chasin, Stephanie (2008). Citizens of empire: Jews in the service of the British Empire, 1906–1940. University of California Press.
  • Pluss, Caroline B. (1999). The social history of the Jews of Hong Kong: a resource guide. The Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong. ISBN 978-9-6285-3391-6.
• Following are p./pp. errors:
  • "Ehrlich 2008, pp. 1186." : should be p.
  • "Carroll 2009, p. 74, 79." : should be pp.
  • "Ehrlich 2008, p. 1172, 1187" : should be pp.
  • "Tigay 1994, p. 209, 211." : should be pp.
  • "Gilman 2014, p. 99, 111." : should be pp.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Moved the unused books to a "Further reading" section.
• Fixed! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Sir_Matthew_Nathan.jpg needs a US tag and information on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Done.
• Done. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• When and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• State Library of Queensland doesn't give any information about the author. Here they state that the original version is a photographic print from 1920, so I believe that's the first publication date. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 07:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately 1920 appears to have been the creation date rather than confirmed as a publication date. Also if the author is unknown we can't claim life+70 - a photo from 1920 could easily have been created by someone who died after 1952. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've replaced the image of Matthew Nathan with a picture of Nathan road as State Library of Queensland doesn't give the required information about the picture. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 14:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from a455bcd9

• Jews are one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong: what's the source for the opening sentence?
• A permanent Jewish community formed in Hong Kong in the 1850s.: do we know how many Jews were in HK at that time?
• The social life of the community revolved around the homes of the wealthy Sephardic families of Sassoon and Kadoorie: first time the Kadoorie family is mentioned in the article (outside the lede), shouldn't we describe who they are?
• which encouraged the influx of new Baghdadi and Mumbai Jews to Hong Kong: any numbers available?
• Wealthy Sephardim distanced themselves from the predominantly poor Ashkenazi.: first time the word "Sephardim" is used, should probably linked and/or explain that early Jewish migrants were Sephardic.
• Under his governance [...] the main street of Kowloon was named Nathan Road in his honour.: Could link to Nathan Road. The street was renamed in 1909, so not "under his governance"
• In 1911, the Jewish population of Hong Kong reached 230 people. From the early 1920s to the mid-1930s, the number of the Jewish community did not exceed 100 people.: This is weird, what explains the decline?
• In the first half of the 20th century: Shouldn't this paragraph be moved before the one about WWII to follow a chronological order?
• Another family of Baghdad Jews, the Kadoorie, successfully competed with the Sassoon family.: this sentence should be moved at the beginning when the Kadoorie family is first mentioned
• There were 250 Jews in Hong Kong (half Sephardi, half Ashkenazi) in 1954. The number dropped to 230 in 1959 and further to 200 in 1968 (130 Ashkenazi and 70 Sephardi). In 1974, according to the lists of the Ohel Leah Synagogue and the Jewish Club, there were about 450 local Jews living in Hong Kong.: do we have an explanation for these variations? Where did the ones who left go? Where did the ones who arrived come from?
• About 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010 [...] some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015.: why such a difference in 5 years?
• Unlike other parts of China, where the Jewish community is prohibited from holding religious festivals: I'm surprised, because I can find other sources about the Jewish life in Mainland China or Chabad Beijing.
• The population of the colony was very fluid, and therefore the 16 oldest graves do not bear the names of those buried there, only identification numbers.: I don't understand this sentence
• during the reign of the Jewish governor Matthew Nathan: should we say "reign" or "rule" for a governor?
• the English-language press in Hong Kong has always been somewhat anti-Israel, which is explained by the general mood of the European press: this implies that the European press is anti-Israel, is that true and sourced?
• This source isn't cited, why?
• May be good to add a table with the evolution of the Jewish population

A455bcd9 (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: Thank you for taking your time to review the article:

• 1. Goldstein, Jonathan; Schwartz, Benjamin I. (2015). The Jews of China: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. p.171. Quote: "Jews in Hong Kong followed a similar evolution. Jews were among the first settlers in the 1840s.."

Per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.". So you should add this information in the article and correctly source it. Also, according to History of Hong Kong: "The region of Hong Kong has been inhabited since the Old Stone Age" so Jews were definitely not "one of the oldest communities in Hong Kong". May be better to follow the source and say that Jews were among the first settlers after Hong Kong became a British colony in 1841.. A455bcd9 (talk)

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 2. Unfortunately none of the sources present a number for the 1850s. Goldstein and Schwartz only generally mentions that the "Jewish community began to develop from the mid-1850s", while Tigay writes that "the community was organized in 1857.."
• 3. Done!

You wrote "another family of Baghdad Jews", but I think you should say that the Sassoon were from Baghdad. Otherwise it's weird. A455bcd9 (talk)

I'm sorry I don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean that I should inform the readers that both of the families are Baghdad Jews rather than only writing it for the Kadoorie? — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 4. Neither Gilman nor Tigay (two sources used for the sentence) give a number.
• 5. The first paragraph of the History section already indicates that the first settlers (the Sassoon family) were Sephardic. It's also made clear that the first Jewish residents were Sephardic with the sentence before the Ashkenazi Jews are mentioned: "In 1882, there were about 60 Sephardic Jews living in Hong Kong."

Indeed, thanks. By the way, are Baghdadi Jews Sephardic or Mizrahi? (Wikipedia says: "The term "Sephardim", from Hebrew Sefarad (“Spain”), also sometimes refers to Mizrahi Jews (Eastern Jewish communities) of Western Asia and North Africa. Although the millennia-long established latter groups did not originally have ancestry from the Jewish communities of Iberia") A455bcd9 (talk)

Both. They are a diverse group and include Mizrahi and Sephardim Jews. Here is a quote from the Baghdadi Jews article: Within these Baghdadi communities, the majority were of Iraqi Jewish origin, but families from Syria, [...] and a handful of Sephardic Jews [...] joined and assimilated into the Baghdadi community. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 6. Fixed!
• 7. The explanation is provided right after those sentences: "During this period, there was an outflow of Jewish businessmen to the rapidly developing Shanghai". I've moved the sentence's place to make it easier to understand.

I would make things even clearer, for instance: In 1911, the Jewish population of Hong Kong reached 230 people. From the early 1920s to the mid-1930s, there was an outflow of Jewish businessmen to the rapidly developing Shanghai and the number of the Jewish community dropped below 100 people.

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 8. Done!
• 9. Done!
• 10. The source for the numbers, Encyclopaedia Judaica, doesn't give any explanation for the fluctuation of the number.
• 11. Unfortunately no explanation for the decline in the sources.

So most likely one source is wrong. I would merge the two sentences and add the source for the first figure: "According to X, about 5,000 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2010; while According to the World Jewish Congress, some 2,500 Jews lived in Hong Kong in 2015." A455bcd9 (talk)

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 12. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency source you provided is from 2003, while the source in the article is from 2016. I imagine the Jewish life in mainland China must have changed during this period.

Here are more recent sources: [41], [42], [43]. So there's a problem with the 2016 source I think. A455bcd9 (talk)

Thanks for the sources. I've removed the "Unlike other parts of China.." part of the sentence. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 13. The source for that sentence on Jewish Historical Society of Hong Kong website was hard for me to understand as well: "The Community was mostly without an official functionary and witness to the fact that the population was a transient one even then, sixteen of the oldest graves bear only a small, numbered marker, with no name". I've deleted the first half of the sentence now to only include the part about the sixteen graves.
• 14. Changed to "rule" since "reign" doesn't sound quite right.
• 15. The source describes the anti-Israeli mood of European press as follows: "[...] the local English-language press maintains a low-grade anti-Israeli stance. However, this may not be conscious editorial policy because most of their published stories relating to Israel are taken from the wire services [...] Thus, the biases in reporting seem to stem from the writers for the Western wire services." I've changed the sentence to better represent its source.
• 16. That source is used several times in the article. You can find it as reference #49 under the References section.

In that case the author is incorrect, it should be "Miriam Herschlag", and the publisher (or editor) should be "American Jewish Committee": Herschlag, Miriam. “Hong Kong.” The American Jewish Year Book, vol. 98, American Jewish Committee, 1998, pp. 375–85, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23605409. A455bcd9 (talk)

Fixed! — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

• 17. I did initially want to add a table, but in several cases the numbers are given for a general time period rather than a specific year (e.g. "By the beginning of the 20th century, 165 Jews officially lived in Hong Kong..") and almost all known numbers are estimates. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I still think a table could be useful. A455bcd9 (talk)

Added to the 21st century section. — Golden ^{call me maybe?}

Thanks a lot! I'm happy your changes have addressed my concerns. I'm glad to support the article. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Some additional sources on the number of Jews in HK:

• Our Community: "The Jewish community’s population, as of 2015, is estimated to be approximately 5,000 and is comprised of mainly expatriates originating from countries that include the UK, US, France, Australia, South Africa, Israel and Canada who worship in five congregations." (2015)
• Religion and Custom: "The site adjoining the Ohel Leah Synagogue, now containing a residential complex, also houses the Jewish Community Centre which serves all three congregations. The centre offers its 400 member families supervised kosher dining and banqueting, cultural and recreational facilities and operates a fully kosher supermarket, a wide range of activities and classes, as well as a specialist library covering all aspects of Judaica." (2016, three congregations)
• Why most Jews in Hong Kong are not involved with the protests: "Hong Kong, a one-time British colony now controlled by China and given limited autonomy, is home to some 5,000 Jews and a number of Jewish institutions." (2019)
• Hong Kong and the Jews: 6 Facts: "Today, over 5,000 Jews call Hong Kong home." (2019)
• Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour: "The Hong Kong Jewish community experienced rapid growth as Hong Kong prospered, and the population now numbers between three and four thousand" (2020?)
• SYNAGOGUE HISTORY: "Kehilat Zion currently boasts more than 900 members." (2020, one community only) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources! I've added about the conflicting reports for 2015 and added the 5,000 number for 2019. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As you already cite in the article the "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" it may be worth adding their estimate as well ("3,000-4,000"). They cite "Jonathan Kaufman, “A Jewish Dynasty in a Changing China,” Wall Street Journal, (May 28, 2020)." So I assume the page is up-to-date as of 2020. (even though it was showing the same estimate in Feb 2017, but we can assume the # didn't change much between 2017 and 2020). A455bcd9 (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The Jonathan Kaufman source makes no mention of the "3,000-4,000" number. The actual source seems to be Encyclopaedia Judaica, p.518: By the mid-1990s the Hong Kong community was substantial in size. Its population was estimated at 3,000–4,000 in the mid-1990s and at about 3,000 in 2004. I added the 2004 number to the table. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

So I would add "3,000–4,000" in "~1995" then (based on Encyclopaedia Judaica). But I think "3,000–4,000" can be added based on "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" for "today". And my point was that we can use "2020" for "today" as "Hong Kong Virtual Jewish History Tour" cites a source from 2020 (I didn't mean that the Kaufman source made mention of the 3k-4k figure). A455bcd9 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Done! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly four weeks and has picked up just the single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from Kavyansh

Oppose on WP:FA?#1c and WP:FA?#2c, due to the following issues:

• Source formatting and reliability:
  • Ref#17: Lacks publisher/website
  • Ref#42: Lacks publisher/website
  • Ref#57: "www.timesofisrael.com" should be just "The Times of Israel"
  • Ref#75: Lacks publisher/website
  • Ref#79: "The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com" Why two publishing media outlets?
  • Multiple sources require en-dash instead of just hyphen. Example: "1550-1950", "Youtai - Presence and Perception", etc.
  • What makes https://web.archive.org/web/20160822055907/http://www.clement-jones.com/ps02/ps02_340.htm even a reliable source? For FAs, we require sources to be "high quality reliable sources".
  • Same with https://gwulo.com/charles-henri-maurice-bosman. Why is it a WP:HQRS?
  • Same with Ref#66 https://www.kehilat-zion.org/index.php?dir=site&page=content&cs=5015. Why is it a WP:HQRS?
• Spot-checking:
  • "Among other members of the Jewish community in Hong Kong, the Dutch Jew Charles Henry Bosman (1839–1892) stood out. He was the head of the Bosman and Co. trading house, co-owner of the city's first luxury hotel, and director of the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock, which was founded in 1863 by Scottish businessman Thomas Sutherland. By 1869, Charles Bosman was the Dutch consul in Hong Kong and ran his own marine insurance company, whose clients included the colony's largest group, Jardine Matheson & Co. Later, Charles Bosman moved to Great Britain and received British citizenship in 1888. He died in London in 1892.":
    • Focusing just on verifiability, of the two sources cited, one names him "Charles Henri Maurice BOSMAN". Even the other one names him "Charles Henri Maurice BOSMAN", but a comment (by a reader) states that "the gravestone inscription reads Henry rather than Henri" ([44]). Why do we write him as "Henry"?
    • Where is it mentioned that he "stood out" among other members of the Jew community?
    • Where is it mentioned that Hongkong Hotel was "city's first luxury hotel"? All the source mentions is that "He was part owner of the Hongkong Hotel in 1968 when it opened".
    • To be precise, "director of the Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock" should be "a director". Both the sources mention "a director", implying one of many directors.
    • Where is it mentioned that Hong Kong and Whampoa Dock was founded in 1863 by Scottish businessman Thomas Sutherland?? I find no mention of Sutherland or 1863 in any source.
    • Where is it mentioned that company's "clients included the colony's largest group" ? All the source mentions is that "one of whose important clients was Jardines". Isn't it WP:OR to assume that they were "colony's largest group"?
    • Source says "He later left for England, then became naturalised British citizen in 1888/89." If I am right, writing England as Great Britain is right (vice-versa is wrong), but we mention the year as 1888, while the source writes "1888/89".
• "In 1951, Lawrence and Horace Kadoorie founded an association to help local Chinese farmers in the New Territories, and in 1956 established an experimental farm and botanical garden, which eventually developed into Hong Kong's leading research organisation in the field of ecology and agriculture." — I honestly don't find any of this supported by the source ([45]). Where in the source is 1951, Lawrence, them founding an association, and that becoming leading research organisation?
• "James Meyer Sassoon: executive director of the Jardine Matheson Group, Director of Hongkong Land, Dairy Farm International Holdings, Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group and Jardine Lloyd Thompson, Chairman of the China-British Business Council"
  • Source ([46]) writes "Jardine Matheson Group Companies, Executive Director, 2013 - 2020". This is 2022, I'll assume he is no longer the "former" Executive director. Rest, most of this again is not mentioned in the source
• Note: the above is not a full source review.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

I am afraid that the lack of indications of a consensus to promote mean that I am archiving this nomination.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2022 [47].

---

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. While the speech itself isn't particularly well-remembered given the legislation the speaker was trying to prevent passing, there are some entertaining antics (i.e. a "urological mystery") that spice it up. Many thanks to Kavyansh.Singh for his help at PR! AviationFreak💬 22:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review

• File:1963_US_Senate_Chamber.jpg — if you're claiming publication without a copyright notice, the image description needs to list such a publication (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Added the name of the work, per [48] and [49]. Is this enough, or is there a more formal way of listing the publication on Commons? AviationFreak💬 14:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    No, because as far as I can tell these sources don't say whether there was a copyright notice, registration, and/or renewal. (t · c) buidhe 18:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Gotcha. I looked through these copyright renewal logs and didn't see anything before uploading, but it's entirely possible I missed it or was looking in the wrong place. These are the only sources I'm aware of that reference the work. AviationFreak💬 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Whoops, forgot to ping buidhe - I'm not great with the ins and outs of copyright protection, so please let me know if this won't fly. :) AviationFreak💬 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    The photograph was likely originally published as part of a larger work, so it would be covered by that copyright. You would probably need to see the original publication to know for sure. See File:Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier near Da Nang.jpeg for an example of how to know that copyright does not apply. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    I don't plan to be getting ahold of that publication anytime soon, and from what I can tell there's no information on the publication's or image's copyright available online. I've removed the image and nominated it for deletion due to copyright uncertainty at Commons. AviationFreak💬 01:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink - support

I was aware of this filibuster before reading it, so I wanted to review the article.

• I'd explain more about what the law was in the lead. The lead would ideally be two paragraphs, so maybe also go into more detail about Thurmond, like what age he was, how long he had been a senator.
  • Done.
• " It began at 8:54 p.m. and lasted until 9:12 p.m." - local time is implied, but I suggest adding a note, saying that all dates are in Eastern Daylight Time.
  • Added a note stating all times are in the Eastern Time Zone, not DST. From what I can tell, DST was not federally standardized until 1966. I've never been great with keeping Standard Time and DST straight, so please let me know if you think this is incorrect.
• "This made the filibuster the longest single-person filibuster in United States Senate history" - you mentioned that Thurmond yielded his time, so perhaps explain more what you mean by "single-person filibuster"? And perhaps also explain a bit what a filibuster is, both in the lead and in the article? Perhaps explain why Thurmond was allowed to filibuster, and what that meant, versus cloture. Like, why did everything stop while he talked, and how come it was able to pass two hours after he stopped?
  • Done - Will expand lede a bit further down the road
• "The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was designed to federally secure and protect the right of African-Americans to vote." - Maybe expand on this a bit, that Eisenhower's AG proposed the bill alongside the NAACP
  • Added that it was supported by NAACP and Eisenhower administration
• "among other things" - that language is a bit weasel-y.
  • Removed weaseliness
• "Thurmond saw the bill as a direct attack on states' rights." - this feels like it could be the start of a new paragraph. The first paragraph of the background could explain the bill, then have the next one be about Thurmond himself, as well as the bit about the S.C. governor.
  • Done; moved a bit about the specific provision in the bill up to that paragraph as well since it fit better there IMO.
• "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Georgia Senator Richard Russell's office four days prior to Thurmond's speech." - maybe give the date
  • Done
• Thurmond claimed that the civil rights bill constituted a "cruel and unusual punishment" - if this part is a quote, then "claimed" isn't the right word. Perhaps remarked would be better? See MOS:CLAIM. You also use "claim later with - "and longtime Capitol Hill staffer Bertie Bowman claimed in his memoir that Thurmond had been fitter with a catheter."
  • Done
• "He was primarily focused on a provision in the bill that would allow minor voting rights contempt cases to be tried by a judge without a jury present, but that allowed a second trial by jury for penalties in the first trial greater than 45 days' imprisonment or a $300 fine." - by "minor", I immediately thought "underage", so perhaps there's a better word than "minor". This part is a bit lengthy and confusing, and yet it's the nature of why Thurmond was intent on speaking for more than 24 hours. I'd expand on this a bit, if you don't mind.
  • Done. Very much agree that making this understandable to the reader is important, so let me know if this can be improved further.
• "Thurmond and other Southern senators saw this as a violation of the defendant's right to a trial by jury" - but the same Southern senators had an agreement not to filibuster? So, they didn't like it, but they didn't want to hold it up?
  • This is explained at the end of the third paragraph in "Outcome and reception". Essentially, a filibuster would be ineffective because cloture would be reached easily and it would only serve to damage the South's reputation. Is there a good way to state this concisely in the paragraph you're referencing?
    • I think that works well where you have it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• " On the morning of the 29th, Thurmond's voice dropped to a mumble and his tone became increasingly monotonous." - minor question, but did he have a microphone?
  • Not sure - It appears that microphones had been used in the past for specific events, but (at least from that source) we can't be sure of Senate events being mic'd before 1971. I feel that adding anything about this without a solid ref would be getting near OR territory.
    • Makes sense, no worries. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• When did Thurmond continue his filibuster after Senator Proxmire was sworn in?
  • I don't believe any sources note this - The closest I can find is the first "Editor's note" in the (unfortunately, untimestamped) full transcript, which I believe indicates that Proxmire was sworn in.
    • That's fine. Maybe indicate that the filibuster continued after the swearing in (which would lead to the bit about other senators questioning him). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Consuming 96 pages in the Congressional Record, Thurmond's filibuster cost taxpayers over $7,000 in printing costs ($65,000 in 2020 dollars)." - so I love this bit, but I think it could be expanded a bit. Maybe say something like Thurmond's words were dictated (ideally the congressional typists who dictated it, but that might not be known), or the total number of words, to explain how it would take up 96 pages and cost $7,000?
  • Unfortunately can't find info on the individual typists or total word count (would just using an off-the-shelf word processor to calculate this be OR?), but I did add a bit about "teams of stenographers" from one of the book sources.
    • Love that! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• "According to Joseph Crespino, the filibuster, as well as his partial authorship of the Southern Manifesto the preceding year" - that could imply that Crespino wrote part of the Southern Manifesto. This sentence is a bit odd because of the extended quote, along with the first part.
  • Pushed some words around so it's hopefully more readable now. The second part of the quote could be cut as well if still not very readable.
    • It's better, but the mixture of the quote and regular language is a bit odd. Maybe note something like "In his biography [titled X], Crespino noted the historical nature of Thurmond's filibuster and partial authorship of the Southern Manifesto the previous year. He described these events as "[sealing] Thurmond's reputation as one of the South's last Confederates, a champion of white southerners' campaign of 'massive resistance'" to civil rights. Ideally you'd get the last bit of the quote in there, which I think is a pretty powerful statement. Also, a minor note - don't link Crespino the second time in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• "In 1964, Thurmond (who would switch his affiliation to the Republican Party later that year) participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964." - the part in parenthesis should be written out fully. I suggest moving it to the end of the sentence, like - "In 1964, Thurmond participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Later that year, he switched his affiliation to the Republican Party."
  • Done; Referenced party switch more concretely.

In all, the article is pretty good. I feel like some parts should be expanded on a bit, so the legislative nuance makes sense to all readers (and not just political junkies). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I haven't made some of the more involved changes just yet in the name of sleep, but I'm eager to get on those when I get a chance. AviationFreak💬 04:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Finished these changes; let me know if you see anything else that could use some work! AviationFreak💬 04:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

This looks much better! Just two minor quibbles left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Done! AviationFreak💬 21:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm happy to support, but I wonder why the bit about the SC governor was removed. I would say, yes, the Quint source appears reliable - he has his PhD in history. As for the book by Washington-Williams, I'd think that the senator's daughter would know about the senator's mindset, supporting the claim that Thurmond saw the bill as a direct attack on states' rights. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • These are good points. The sources didn't support many claims (few, if any, were particularly important claims in my opinion), and I think Kavyansh.Singh is right in that a contemporaneous source and a possible NPOV-problem source aren't as reliable as possible. With that said, the claims weren't particularly contentious (with the exception of the Timmerman quote) and I'd be happy to reinstate them if we can come to an agreement on the sources' reliabilities. AviationFreak💬 22:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

AryKun

• Ah, the wonderful idiosyncrasies of American politics. Will do soon. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd still like perhaps a footnote giving a more extended definition for filibuster in the lead; extended speech doesn't really cover it.
  • Added a bit more in the lede's second sentence. There's already a footnote in that sentence so I worry another might look crammed, plus a more detailed definition of a filibuster is given in the second paragraph of the body.
• "through a compromise" → Is the link for compromise needed? Very common word.
  • Removed
• Filibuster is linked at second mention instead of first: the first mention is at "not stage an organized filibuster".
  • Article's paragraphs have been rearranged since this review; filibuster is linked at first mention in lede and body.
• "but a staffer quickly put it out of his reach after Thurmond had drunk a glass" → Any reason why?
  • Added "to reduce the likelihood of him needing to leave for a restroom".
• "authorship of the Southern Manifesto" → Link Southern Manifesto.
  • Done
• "South's last Confederates" → Link Confederate.
  • Done; Fairly certain both this and the previous change fall within the bounds of MOS:LWQ.
• Overall an excellent article. AryKun (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @AryKun: Thank you! Changes have been made, let me know if anything else catches your eye. AviationFreak💬 03:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support pending confirmation of the spot-checks. AryKun (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh — support

I reviewed the article at peer-review. Pinging @Extraordinary Writ as they did the GA review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• "intended to stop the passage of" — shouldn't that be "intended to prevent the passage of"; you can't technically stop a bill's passage, you can delay or prevent it.
  • Done
• "from a number of historical and legal documents" — how about "from various historical and legal documents"
  • Done
• "prior to the marathon speech" — marathon?
  • Wiktionary gives "Any extended or sustained activity" as a definition - Let me know if this doesn't work for some other reason
    • That I know, but isn't that informal term? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Removed
• "He was 54 when he" — "He was aged 54 when he"
  • Done
• "Thurmond was focused on a" — remove 'was'
  • Done
• "While the filibuster was supported by" — would it be better to replace 'while' with 'although'?
  • Done
• "of other southern states" — the article needs to be consistent whether 'southern' needs to be capitalized or not.
  • All references to "South/Southern" capitalized per MOS:COMPASS, with the exception of the Crespino quote (which is lowercase in the source).
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• "within the Department of Justice" — better link target would be United States Department of Justice
  • Done, thank you for catching this!
• "Thurmond's filibuster" — "His filibuster"
  • Where? This phrase is used 4 times in prose and it works fine where it is in my opinion, particularly at the beginnings of paragraphs.
    • Can't remember where. I searches again, but now I think that looks fine, so leave this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• "since most judges would opt not to try a case without a jury if doing so made a second trial more likely" — who speculates this?
  • Crespino is cited at the end of the sentence; Does this need to be in-text attributed?
    • Maybe yes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Done
• "Six years later in 1954" — Either just mention 'six years later', or just '1954'. Both together are not really required.
  • Done
• "Thurmond ran as a Democrat and was elected to the Senate in a write-in campaign" — perhaps worth clarifying for readers who don't know that Thurmond ran as a Democrat, but not on the Democratic ticket. Edgar Brown was the official Democratic nominee.
  • Done; linked Ticket (election) and 1954 United States Senate election in South Carolina.
• Dwight D. Eisenhower is never linked in the prose (except image caption and lead)
  • Done
• "Book Sources" subheading should really be "Book sources"
  • Done
• Entirely optional, but worth mentioning that Thurmond was, well, a senator even at age of "100". Period.
  • Done

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Got these all taken care of except where otherwise noted. AviationFreak💬 23:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I support the promotion of this article as a featured article. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review — pass

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The Quint source is of 1958, merely months after the filibuster. Why do you think it is a "high-quality reliable source", as required by the FA criteria 1c? Same with Washington-Williams one; should we treat memoir by the Daughter of Strom Thurmond as a reliable secondary source?
  • Both sources (and the claims they supported that I couldn't find a different source for) removed. (See discussion above)
• Same question for Politico. Although, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Politico, it is generally reliable even for politics, what makes it a "high-quality reliable source" is unclear to me. Do you have anything to add?
  • The comments at this RfC indicate that Politico's reliability is perhaps questionable in WP:PIA-related topics, but the consensus appears to be "generally reliable" in other areas. The AmPol Politico article referenced in the Thurmond article is pretty matter-of-fact and unopinionated in my opinion - The only bit of info it sources is that southern Democrats opposed the bill (which is pretty uncontroversial when you look at book sources, the Politico article just states it far more concisely).
    • I accept that the particular piece you cite is reliable, but FAs requires the sources which are of highest quality in reliability. I am not asking you to remove that source, but can that same content be cited to any other better academic source? If so, suggesting to do so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Not as far as I can tell - Larger academic sources present a more nuanced view and readers are assumed to already have the understanding that Southern Democrats generally opposed racial integration and civil rights. The Politico article is more bite-sized and doesn't assume prior knowledge, so I think we'd have a hard time finding an academic source that states it so clearly.
        • Okay, that is fine. I feel that Politico as a whole is not the highest quality reliable source, but due the the above stated reasons, combined by fact that it is used just once to cite an uncontroversial fact makes be believe that this particular piece is fine in this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
• The Fox News sources appears to be initially from Associated Press, so it appears fine.
• What is your approach for italicizing the news agency/media outlet? I feel that media agencies and outlets should be italicized only if our Wikipedia page title also does the same. So, I think that United States House of Representatives, National Archives, Eisenhower Library, United States Senate, Library of Congress, and BBC News should not be italicized in references. Shift them to the |publisher= parameter. Also note that National Public Radio is in italics in Ref#28, and not in italics in Ref#10.
  • Done
    • Actually, same with Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs and Fox News. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Done
• Eisenhower Library should by Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library, Museum and Boyhood Home. National Archives should be National Archives and Records Administration.
  • Done
• Page ranges take en-dashes instead of regular hyphen. So, "pp. 175-176" should be "pp. 175–176". Check it for all page ranges in References and sources.
  • Done
• The Senate, 1789-1989 should have en-dash instead of regular hyphen in year range.
  • Done
• Suggesting to keep the title of all "book sources" in Title case.
  • Done
• Entirely optional, but I think "New York, New York" should be "New York City, New York".
  • Done
• "Regan Books" should be "ReganBooks" (without space)
  • Source removed
• "Crespino (2012), pp. 117" — should be 'p.'
  • Done

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking much better, almost done. Just clarification needed at few more places. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Should all be covered now; let me know if anything else sticks out AviationFreak💬 17:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Addendum (13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)): Above comment striked. Pass for source (1) reliability, and (2) formatting. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from HF

• "The 1964 filibuster was carried out by a group of Southern senators over 60 days and was only ended by a cloture vote" - where does the source specify southern senators or 60 days?
  • This is my bad - I believe this was cited to this source at some point which states that the measure occupied the Senate for 60 days (our article on the bill says the filibuster itself was only 54 - my bad again) and was later moved to the wrong reference. Revised the sentence to remove length of time, and recited to this source which explicitly mentions the Southern bloc.
• "In 1964, Thurmond participated in a second anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964" - source mentions a filibuster by civil rights opponents and later quotes Thurmond, but never explicitly states that Thurmond was part of the filibuster
  • I would argue that the source does state that Thurmond participated. While it's perhaps not as explicit as it could be (I can re-ref if needed), the source states that "Thurmond argued that the bill took away the rights of white southerners..." when discussing the Senate debate - I don't see how this doesn't show Thurmond's participation in the filibuster against the bill.
• "Thurmond was repeatedly elected and served in the Senate for 48 years, retiring at age 100 as the oldest and longest-serving U.S. senator ever" - Thurmond was still technically in the Senate when this source was published. I would feel a lot more comfortable if this was supported by a post-January 2003 source.
  • Done; re-refed to the Senate bio of him and removed quote about longest-serving senator because while it was true at the time of his retirement, it isn't anymore and the Senate bio doesn't mention it.
• "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater spoke" - this implies that Goldwater was up there for speaking purposes, but the source implies that Goldwater was going to use the time to add something to the Congressional Record?
  • My understanding was that an insertion into the Congressional Record was essentially another way to say "he spoke about something and it was added to the Record", but that doesn't seem to be the case. Revised article accordingly.
• "Thurmond was allowed to leave the stand only once," - why the word allowed? I don't think there was a prohibition against that, and surely he wasn't still at the stand when Proxmire was being admitted and such
  • Removed the bit about "the stand" - Senators cannot leave the chamber during a speech, which is my bad. Clarified that "Thurmond was allowed to leave for the restroom one time."
• "Thurmond claimed to have taken daily steam baths leading up to the filibuster in" - why "Thurmond claimed"? In neither of the sources is it stated that this was a claim he made - Fox presents it as a statement of fact, and NPR attributes it to a book, not Thurmond.
  • Stated as fact, and cited directly to the book as opposed to NPR.
• " who spoke against the Submerged Lands Act for 22 hours and 26 minutes in 1953." - what's the relevant quote from Byrd here? The other source states that he was filibustering the Tidelands Oil legislation
  • Byrd is there to reinforce the exact time of 22:26, but it can be removed if it's unnecessary. Added WaPo source stating the specific legislation (I believe the term "tidelands oil legislation" is a more generic term for the specific bill - as far as I can tell that's not the name of any one bill).
• "Thurmond concluded his filibuster after 24 hours and 18 minutes at 9:12 p.m. on August 29," - source doesn't give the date or time
  • Cited to Cohodas source, though I thought given a start time and length WP:CALC allows for this.

I haven't checked all of the sources available to me, but it's obvious just from this that serious source-text integrity issues are present. I am opposing and will recommend that this nomination is not promoted until the book sources have been able to be thoroughly spot-checked. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and pointing out these issues. I've responded to all of them, and if you have any concerns about my responses please let me know. :) AviationFreak💬 04:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• African-Americans is linked in the lead but not in the body. Also, our article has no hyphen.
• Filibuster is also not linked in the body
• Storm Thurmond is not linked or named in full in the body. The body should essentially "start from scratch" rather than essentially continuing from the lead, so he should be named in full and linked on first mention.
• I think filibuster could do with a little more definition in the body. In the lead you say "....or extended speech" but don't restate that in the body, plus it's actually a bit more complex than that. It's an artificially long speech with the specific purpose of blocking a law and I think you need to make that explicit.
• I stand corrected on point 2 above, filibuster is actually linked on about its fifth usage in the body - should be on the first
• Ah, and at this point you also define it - that should be earlier
• "The rules at the time of Thurmond's filibuster prevented senators from leaving the chamber" - pedantic maybe, but specify that they cannot leave the chamber *during a speech* as opposed to ever :-)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • These are all done, thank you! :) AviationFreak💬 12:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I completely forgot about this one. I will take another look before the weekend is out...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

--Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)==== Detailed spot checks by Kavyansh ==== Moved to FAC talk page (on 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC))

@Buidhe and @Hog Farm: I did a detailed spot-check above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Got through a good chunk of the table. Taking a break for now, will hopefully be able to finish it off tonight. Major thanks to Kavyansh for taking the time to put this together! :) AviationFreak💬 21:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Kavyansh.Singh. I've filled in replies for all s and s, so feel free to check my work and let me know if there's anything you'd like changed. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 00:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Replies are in; I think maybe we're misunderstanding each other on Ref#9? I don't see what would govern what causes a speech to end except the Senate rules. Thanks! Also, congrats on TFA!! AviationFreak💬 03:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting to see a video with the blurb! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so the spot-checks are almost finished. Just requiring other editors advise for the following points:

• "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of cooked hamburger." — Can "ground sirloin steak" be interpreted as a "hamburger"?
• "Thurmond's departure from the senators' agreement was later criticized by party leaders including Russell and Herman Talmadge." — The source does not mention Talmadge's first name. Is that fine?
• "The rules at the time of Thurmond's filibuster prevented senators from leaving the chamber or sitting down while speaking, as doing so would end their speech." — The source does not explicitly say these were rules.

Apart from these, I feel rest all source-to-text integrity check is done and verified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm and @Buidhe: Can you please advise regarding the above mentioned three points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

1) I'd say no on this one. (it's been so long since my one year in junior high FFA where we talked about beef cuts), but a sirloin steak is not equivalent to what hamburger meat usually is. 2) I would be generally okay, provided that there's only relevant Talmadge being discussed in the source 3) needs a source actually stating that these were rules. Hog Farm _Talk 20:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: and @Buidhe: - The above two changes have been made here and here. AviationFreak💬 03:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: if you need an uninvolved coordinator, ping me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think the colored icons are necessary per main page instructions. SN54129 14:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Moved to FAC talk page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi AviationFreak, any responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I was under the impression that the ball was in the reviewers' court, so to speak. I haven't seen any response to the final couple changes since I made them in mid-March (see above thread). AviationFreak💬 16:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't readily see a response to Kavyansh.Singh's comments of 23 March on the talk page, but no doubt they can enlighten us. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all that happened on 23 March was the moving of the source review table from this page to the talk page due to the FAC guidelines on templates. My understanding is that no reviewing or other discussion about the article has taken place since 14 March. AviationFreak💬 16:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild: Oh sure. I did a spot check for this article (now on this FAC talk page). There were few issues which I was able to find. After set of replies and discussion, we were left with three particular issues where there was slight disagreement. I mentioned those three issues here for a third opinion, Hog Farm helped and their concerns were addressed by the nominator (here and here). I think we should ask Hog Farm whether they feel their concerns adequately addressed and do they still oppose the nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm still at oppose. There were just too many issues I found doing spot-checks, and it turned out a few of them were content errors even. I don't trust the sourcing enough to support without every single statement being checked, and I think we can all agree that that sort of thing is not appropriate to do at an FAC. So no, I do not intend to support. Hog Farm _Talk 04:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Hi! "... without every single statement being checked": I do think every single statement is checked here. I agree many of them were indeed content errors, and your oppose was well reasoned, but do these issues still exist in this version of the article? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

How about this - I work as an auditor. There's a certain point with an audit where after I have found enough issues, I'm not going to sign off on something. This article has reached that point for me. @FAC coordinators: can determine if this is valid or not, but I am not supporting the promotion of this one and am unlikely to strike the oppose. Hog Farm _Talk 13:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the questions that I think the FAC guidelines and policy leave unanswered. Hog Farm has a valid point here, and from my relatively brief time working at FAC it appears that most opposes are based on reaching a certain threshold of errors. Each reviewer has their own threshold for error and some may choose to allow the nominator several revisions before deciding to oppose, but ultimately it's up to each reviewer how much they "let slide". Anyway, I think the big question is this: What's the difference if a nominator whose article fails can just re-nom in two weeks? In most cases, I think the article's fail at FAC is done before all issues are properly addressed (or even pointed out, in some cases). In this case, however, I think that most (won't say all) of the sourcing issues, at least, have been taken care of. Assuming most issues currently are taken care of and this nom fails, is there any reason why the article could not just be re-nomed after two weeks of dormancy? AviationFreak💬 16:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Ah, this is one of the tough ones. Sorry AviationFreak, but I am going to archive this as, like Hog Farm, I have lost faith in the source to text integrity of its citing. It may well be that it is now fine, but I just don't feel confident enough in that to sign off on it. You raise a good point. What I would expect, and I imagine my fellow coordinators would agree (@FAC coordinators: ), is that the nominator would reassure themselves that every cite is squeaky clean - yes, I know, potentially a pig of a job - before renominating. At its next appearance there would be close to a zero tolerance approach - if much more than trivial or debatable citation issues were identified it would be immediately archived. It is common in these situations for a nominator to ask an experienced reviewer to thoroughly spot check prior to renomination. Perhaps as part of a PR, perhaps not. Their certification of citation soundness - as it were - near the head of the renomination causes everyone to relax and treat the rest as a normal nom. (This is merely a point, not a requirement.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2022 [50].

---

Fidel Castro

Nominator(s): Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Castro is a major figure of the 20th century, and the article meets all criteria. Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 13:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose - @Hcoder3104: Have you contacted Midnightblueowl who brought the article to GA and is still active about this? As the instructions at the top of WP:FAC say "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Hog Farm _Talk 13:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @FAC coordinators: Hog Farm _Talk 14:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose — I agree with everything said above. Also, at 119,342 characters (18,515 words), the article is extremely long, even above what WP:SIZERULE suggests. It currently fails WP:FA?#4, which says, "[Article] stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I do not mean to pile on this, but I agree with the above comments. Since there does not appear to be any evidence that the nominator contacted the article's primary contributor, I think it would be best for this FAC to be closed. It could be a case where the nominator was just unaware of this prior to posting this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the editor who brought this to GAN some time ago, I do not think that the article meets Featured Article criteria. As has already been mentioned here, the article is too long, and there has been some inevitable entropy since the article became a GA anyway. It will need a lot of work before it could be taken to FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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