Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/August 2024

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 August 2024 [1].

2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the strongest tornado to occur during 2022. Injuries, a death, and $17 million in damages were left in the aftermath of this deadly and violent tornado.

This article passed a GA review back in late-June 2024, with only a small amount of sentence/grammatical changes and no changes or issues with the content. This is my second ever FAC, with my first one (for a different article) failing surprsingly due to a split support/oppose consensus. Hopefully this one holds up to FA standards and we don’t end up with another split support/oppose consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Photo_of_the_2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for situations where the image itself, rather than what is pictured, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. The hidden comment on the image is also confusing, since AFAIK this is a perennially rejected proposal and not a NFC requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "A photograph of the tornado by Jason Manchester<!--Name should be kept due to it being non-free image.-->" That comment was just associated with "Jason Manchester" being kept in the caption, given it is a non-free image. WP:Weather has very few non-free images and as far as I think, that is the standard practice for them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Quick question Nikkimaria, what part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals are you referencing? From what I can tell, the only image-related item on the list is in regards to non-commercial images (i.e. Created Commons By-NC) licensed images. The image in question isn't a CC-related license, so I'm not sure what part of WP:PEREN you are referencing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image-related issue discussed above by Nikkimaria has been fixed, with the complete removal of the NFC. I do not agree with this change. Nikkimaria, given this issue has been fixed, would you feel comfortable supporting this for FA? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dylan620

[edit]

Always glad to see weather-related topics up for consideration at featured processes; if you're at all interested, I have a tropical cyclone FLC that could use some feedback. I've done a read-through of this article and I have the following comments regarding prose:

  • a large and violent EF4 tornado struck – The rating can probably be removed from this sentence, as the very next one states that the tornado was rated EF4 on account of the severest damage it caused.
  • with dew points in the mid-60s – Missing a unit.
  • The second half of §Meteorological_synopsis implies that the tornadic supercell was the only one to blow up in intensity, whereas the cited source states a few discrete supercell thunderstorms became exceptionally strong. I'm also not sure if "eventually" needs to be used in two consecutive sentences. The final decision is yours, obviously, but I'd like to suggest the following as a potential way of rephrasing this portion:
    • As the QLCS was moving across Georgia, a few discrete supercells formed and became particularly robust, owing to strong wind shear and storm relative helicity values exceeding 300 m2/s2. One of these supercells eventually produced the Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.
  • evidence to support a rating above EF4 – considering there is only one higher, I wonder if "a rating above EF4" should be replaced with "an EF5 rating".
  • Around the golf course, the tornado reportedly changed the landscape – This feels pretty vague. The relevant anecdote from the cited source describes a hole being put in the ground by the tornado, so I'd maybe say something about that instead. As it is, this sentence feels redundant to the earlier mention of significant tree damage at the golf course.
  • which prohibited people from traveling around the area to prevent trespassing in the tornado disaster area – The two parts of this clause seem to mean the same thing, and I'd recommend removing one of them. It reads a little clunky as is.

That's it, methinks. The article is a short but great read overall, and I will probably support once the above items are addressed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes suggested above. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article! Is there anything else you would like to comment about, or would you feel good about supporting this for FA? Courtesy ping: @Dylan620:. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: One last bit: upon double-checking the source, I suggest replacing "traveling and trespassing around" with "trespassing on", since the source doesn't explicitly mention travel, and traveling through the area would categorically be trespassing. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "which prohibited people from trespassing around the tornado disaster area". I did not add the "on" since "around" was already there. Courtesy ping: Dylan620. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me now. Great work, WeatherWriter! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this seems dumb to ask, but why would it fail? Right now, there is no opposition and another editor who supports it. Why wouldn't WP:SILENCE apply? No one seems to be in opposition to it becoming an FA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: ... consensus for promotion has not been reached". By hallowed tradition the three-week mark is when this is first reviewed - hence the division in the list of FACs at this point. The further towards a consensus to promote a nomination is considered to be, the more leeway the coordinator's are likely to give. As the article had a support I gave it a few more days, then a further "three or four days".
This is not a case of this article being picked on, but of the normal procedure being applied. If you were to browse through the nominations archived this month you would find that many of them have timed out in this fashion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Technical terms in specialized articles are an area where reviewers can differ; I tend not to mind them, so long as they are not so dense as to make the article unreadable, and so long as they are linked to explanations. Here I think the "synopsis" section is unreadable unless you are a weather geek. I have a background in physics and maths, so I'm not a particularly hostile lay reader, but this is just too much for me. Some specifics:
    • I'd never heard of a QLCS; the link is helpful, as is "commonly known as a squall line". Would it be OK to just use the term "squall line" and link it to the QLCS article?
    • "shortwave": never heard this term -- linked, which is good, and by itself this probably would be no problem, but "as high as 1,500–2,000 J/kg" doesn't convey anything to me. Is this higher than usual for a storm? And I do know what the dew point is but I don't know why it's relevant here.
    • "helicity" -- no link, and no sense of whether 300 is a high value, or why it matters. I once took a class in differential geometry and I spent a few seconds trying to figure out from the unit dimensions what helicity might be, but got nowhere.
  • More fundamentally, why is this a separate article from the main article, Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022? That article is 2300 words; this one is 1200 words. Even if no words were cut at all in combining the two (unlikely) the result would be a short to medium length article. What benefit does the reader get from breaking this out to a mini-article? I think it should be merged back in.

Oppose, based on the above points, but I did skim through the article and spotted a couple of things that indicate a copyedit would be beneficial, whether you merge the articles or not:

  • "rapidly strengthened to EF3 intensity as it into George D. Hendrix Park"
  • What is a "wedge tornado"?
  • "a curfew between was established"
  • "prohibited people from trespassing around the tornado disaster area": "trespassing around" doesn't mean anything to me -- do you just mean "trespassing on"? And I think "trespassing" is redundant anyway; just "from entering the tornado disaster area" would be enough.
  • "to aid in sweeping the area for injuries and aiding victims": repetition of "aid"; and there's another use of it in the next sentence.
  • "largest insurance claim in the history of Bryan County, with insurance claims reaching": repetition of "insurance claim" could probably be avoided.
  • Several repetitions of "Bryan County Board" and "Bryan County Commissioners" in the last paragraph; some could probably be replaced with "the board" and "the commissioners".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is clearly not a consensus to promote forming, and so I am archiving this for improvements to be made off-FAC. I suggest that the comments above, especially the more critical ones, be taken on board before any renomination. In any case, the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 August 2024 [2].

Cerro Panizos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a not-quite shield volcano in Argentina. It is not a particularly remarkable volcano, other than the fact that it was discovered from space imagery and that it is a large volcano in the wider Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Replaced link, although I don't remember which options I chose on the webpage to find the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
  • In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox checked and no concerns.

Lede check:

  • "Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
    Put "South America" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
    Implemented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

[edit]
  • Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason the coords of the highest point aren't showing for me- it's just blank next to "Coordinates"
    Mm, they do show for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird then- guess my viewer is just being odd MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
    There is more than one elevation estimate - these mountains aren't frequently mapped and measured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
    • Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
    That makes it more difficult to source a specific part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Efn c doesn't really make sense to me- clarify with some geology knowledge perhaps?
    Changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They run mostly to the east - I'd avoid using "they" since multiple objects are mentioned in the previous sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quebrada Cienago[d], - put efn outside of comma
    That makes it look like a citation, which this efn isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
    Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like a lot of the first three paras of "Geology" are about the CVZ, not specifically about the Cerro Panizos- how is Panizos relevant here?
    Aye, that's contextual information as Panizos is part of the APVC and CVZ so a lot of this is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
    I got the opposite impression - older date first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
    Fone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's all I got- I also split the sources list into two columns so it doesn't take up as much space (feel free to revert if you oppose). Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense then- happy to support! Also, I need a source review on an FAC nom of my own, and would appreciate one if you get any time. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

[edit]
Introduction
  • "it produced the large volcanic calderas Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and Uturuncu". The Uturuncu article claims the latter as a stratovolcano rather than a caldera.
  • "Panizos is the source of two major ignimbrites, the older Cienago Ignimbrite and the more recent Panizos Ignimbrite." Shouldn't the comma be a colon?
    No, I don't think so? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
  • "The volcano is a 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide" → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2 mi).
  • "surrounding a 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) wide lava dome semicircle" → 10–15-kilometre-wide (6.2–9.3 mi).
  • "Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle." → "5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft)
  • "The other domes are the 5,480 metres (17,980 ft), 5,490 metres (18,010 ft) or 5,228 metres (17,152 ft) high Cerro Cuevas, 5,504 metres (18,058 ft) high Cerro Crucesnioc/Crucesnioj/El Volcán, 5,390 metres (17,680 ft) high Cerro Vicunahuasi west and 5,540 metres (18,180 ft) high Cerro La Ramada/Cerro Ramada north of Cerro Panizos." Same as above.
  • "The 5,158 metres (16,923 ft) high Limitayoc". Same as above.
Hydrology and human geography & history
  • "Panizos can be accessed through these valleys." Since no valleys are mentioned before this sentence it would probably be better if were reworded as "Panizos can be accessed through the valleys of these streams."
Climate, flora and fauna
  • "The region is a desert, with the only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs." It has already been stated at the beginning of this section that the region is a desert.
Geology
  • "reaching 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) height". I think you mean 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) in height.
    Used a different formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neogene-Quaternary volcanic rocks". I'm not sure but I think the hyphen should be an en dash here.
    Not sure myself, so leaving this for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lascar is the most active of them". Maybe swap "is" with "being"?
  • "The largest assembly of volcanoes in the CVZ is the 70,000 square kilometres". 70,000-square-kilometre (27,000 sq mi).
  • "Within the crust under the APVC is the Altiplano-Puna Magmat Body". Magmat → Magma.
  • "At 9–31 kilometres (5.6–19.3 mi) depth". 9–31-kilometre (5.6–19.3 mi).
  • "One northeast-southwest trending line". En dash.
  • "Smaller scale structures at Panizos may reflect north-south and eastsoutheast-westnorthwest trending lineaments". En dashes and "eastsoutheast" and "westnorthwest" should be "east-southeast" and "west-northwest".
Geochronology
  • "Volcanic activity began during the Jurassic". Volcanic activity of what? The Central Volcanic Zone?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the late Miocene, subduction under the Puna". It's not clear what "Puna" is referring to here. Is it the Altiplano-Puna high plateau or the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex?
  • "Volcanic activity shifted east into the Puna". Same as above.
    The Puna region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the bulk dating to the late Miocene to Pliocene". I think the first "to" should be changed to "from".
  • "Tara and Puripicar Ignimbrites". I'm not sure if "ignimbrites" should be capitalized here.
    I think in these cases we do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Bolivia, about 8-5 million years ago Kari-Kari was active, 8.4-6.4 million years ago Morococala, 8-5 million years ago Los Frailes". En dashes.
  • "Volcanism declined during the past 4 million years". Declined where?
Composition
  • "And orthopyroxene rare". I think you mean are rare.
  • "Gold and silver deposits are found on the volcano, and an occurrence of antimony-copper-uranium has been described at Paicone." Has mineral exploration been done at the volcano?
    Probably, but the sources don't specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
  • "12.4 million years old Cusi Cusi ignimbrite". 12.4-million-year-old.
  • "It is the source of two major ignimbrites: The first". I'm not sure if there should be a capital letter after the colon.
    I think it should. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a total volume >300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi)". A total volume of more than 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi).
  • "The >650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite". The more than 650-square-kilometre (250 sq mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite.
  • "The Panizos ignimbrite consists of crystal-rich". Should ignimbrite be capitalized here since Panizos Ignimbrite appears to be the name of an ignimbrite deposit?
  • "The Panizos ignimbrite is one of several "super-eruptions" in the Central Andes". See above and may be "is" should be replaced with "represents" since ignimbrite deposits are not eruptions on their own.
  • "Both units of the Panizos ignimbrite". See above.

That's all I've got. Volcanoguy 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done save as commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to note here for @FAC coordinators: that I'll be spottily present in the next few weeks, so they can't count on me for source reviews during this time frame. I'll try to keep up with this FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. By the way,

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex is still in need of a source review. Volcanoguy 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gorustovich 2011: incomplete bibliographic data (editor, publisher, location?) From this book?
    Seems like, so added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guzman 2017 needs a language tag.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jujuy: this is a bit muddled, |trans-title= translates the wrong thing?
    Hrm. This is a series, of which I am using the Jujuy member. I don't think there is a trans-series parameter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could fake it: |series=Zona de seguridad de fronteras y áreas de desarrollo de frontera [Border security zone and development areas]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which URLs have |url-access= parameters?
    None; I've left only the webpage URLs which are public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some have |hdl-access= though, so Guzman 2020, Kern 2016, Perkins 2016 and some others have little green open locks. Other URLs (DOIs mostly) do not have anything explaining access.
    This is another bot thing. I confess that in many cases I am not sure what the right parameter is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mazzoni 1989: This seems a better link than "via ResearchGate".
    It is however not the page I used; probably because of Ctrl+F problems. ~~
    Then link the page you used.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ort 1989 does not have a ResearchGate link, do you mean [6]?
  • Ort 1993 is not "via ResearchGate", and neither is Salisbury 2011.
    Yeah, I don't usually link to the ResearchGate page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how |via= is supposed to be used.
    Added links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino 1996: there seems to be duplicated information in the citation, "(pdf) (Report) (in Spanish)" looks a bit odd, and the link does not go to a PDF. Add publisher location (Buenos Aires)? I understand which file you mean by "Map_PLV" but strictly speaking none of the files has this name.
    Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could get rid of |format=pdf to make it less visually jarring. I can't seem to access the page at the moment, so I don't have a good suggestion what to do about the file name.

Sources are either scientific journals / books / very few conferences or government map services, all fine in terms of reliability. For formatting issues see above. Happy to do spot checks on request. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

Look for comments tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My overarching concern is with accessibility to the average reader getting into the article. At the minimum our articles should be basically comprehensible to someone without linking away, and I don't think this article manages that right now. For example, the article starts with <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano consisting of ignimbrites, two calderas (a depression formed by the collapse of a volcano) and a group of lava domes in the Potosi Department of Bolivia and the Jujuy Province of Argentina.</green> This is a really long, hard-to-parse sentence where you explain what calderas are, but not what ignimbrites are (which I would wager far fewer people would have any idea about.) Why not restructure to the shorter <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano spanning parts of Bolivia and Argentina.</green> or similar and then start giving a more detailed explanation of what it encompasses? (Also at first blush I'm not sure why the ignimbrites are the most important thing to mention, anyhow, as part of a volcanic feature.)
    • Once you're in the body, taking a few more words to explain stuff like ignimbrite (even just "ignimbrite, or volcanic rock") would do wonders.
  • Did that small rewrite, but I'll caution that I am not that great at spotting terms that need to be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Geography/Geomorphology section is a pain to read with the referencing as it stands. Readers shouldn't have to wade through as many as six references or explanatory notes on top of the dense list of units of measurement to try and read things. Sticking all these in a REFBUNDLE would be a much cleaner and clearer option.
    • Did a bit of refbundling, but more can be done if we remove the elevation estimates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's still a readability issue, especially with the time periods added as notes instead of put inline in prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I get your overall point, but I don't agree that spelling out the numbers - even in rounded form - would make the page more readable. I've instead shuffled the citations around in that section so that they are limited to end of sentence, and split one lengthy sentence. Is it better now? If so, I can apply the same treatment to other sections too. In my experience, some people don't approve of lists of names being in bullet point format in FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Ah, I tend to subsume this particular "accessibility" concern under "readability" since it concerns how people read the article. Still, I think even so the price to pay is too high. This probably needs a third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the precise height of each dome really important, or can they be summarized as "<listing of domes> ranging from X to Y tall"?
  • "Cerro San Matias borders Panizos to the north" — I assume these are other volcanos or at least mountains, but it's never clarified.
  • "The only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs. " consists, surely?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic activity in the region began during the Jurassic in the Cordillera de la Costa and has migrated eastward since then" Would be nice to clarify for people when the Jurassic Period was. Ditto for other time periods where the text isn't specifying a general time frame. At the very least, since the Miocene is getting constantly referenced, the time period should be clarified.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 21st century, ongoing uplift was discovered at Uturuncu" - what does this mean? Is it indicative of something?
    It probably signals the entry of new magma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both rocks define a peraluminous potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." - don't know what rocks "define".
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, any further comments to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. Jo-Jo and I disagree on the crit1 stuff and outside additional feedback on that point I don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

Some comments from a brief non-expert pass through this.

  • a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano - But not a shield volcano, I assume? It trips me up a little bit. I'm sure there are only so many ways to describe a broad and sloping volcanic complex, though.
  • Incapillo is one of several ignimbrite or caldera systems that, along with 44 active stratovolcanoes, are part of the CVZ. - When I read this I struggled to understand the relevance. Is "Incapillo" supposed to be "Cerro Panizos"? Or is Incapillo related to Cerro Panizos beyond them both being part of the CVZ? If so, that could use more explanation + a link to Incapillo.
  • Throughout the article Panizos ignimbrite and Panizos Ignimbrite are used interchangeably. I would pick one version of the capitalization and run with it if I'm not misinterpreting those as referring to the same thing.

— Penitentes (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a shield volcano as these are defined as flat volcanoes formed by lava flows. Incapillo seems like a copypaste error. Standardized the spelling, save for the image as it's more descriptive there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: is it OK if I ping some participants in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1? This is rather slow-moving, and I think we need outside views on the disagreement between me and David above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why not. FrB.TG (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC Coming here because I was pinged. Just looking at the discussion above first, my opinion is below, but I'll come back for a more complete review shortly.

Looking at it from the point of an ignorant reader (which I really am with these things), I do find some of the notes/bits of blue a little distracting. Partly it's because of where they are placed. Having them after Cerro Panizos and Cerro Panizos is part of the issue – maybe moving them to the end of the sentence may be more helpful. If you combine the refs using the {{sfnm}} template to slim down the number of blue digits at the end of the sentence to leave one number and the note, it would make it a bit more manageable. Thus:

Caption text
Header text Header text Header text
Cerro Panizos[a] lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[2][3] becomes Cerro Panizos lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[4][b]
Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[6][7][8] becomes Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[9][d]
Using a range conversion would also work, so the above becomes Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-to-5,494-metre (17,152–18,025 ft)-high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle. [9][e]
Extended content
Sources

  1. ^ a b Salisbury et al. 2011, p. 15.
  2. ^ Vaquer, Eguia & Carreras 2018, p. 56.
  3. ^ Ort et al. 1989, p. 291.
  4. ^ Vaquer, Eguia & Carreras 2018, p. 56; Ort et al. 1989, p. 291.
  5. ^ a b c Ahumada, Ibáñez Palacios & Páez 2010, Figura 1.
  6. ^ Ort 1993, p. 224.
  7. ^ Coira et al. 2004, p. 110.
  8. ^ Echevarría 1963, p. 442.
  9. ^ a b c Ort 1993, p. 224; Coira et al. 2004, p. 110; Echevarría, p. 442; 3y-1963.
  1. ^ Sometimes the name is incorrectly applied to Laguna Colorada, which is a different volcano west of Panizos.[1]
  2. ^ Sometimes the name is incorrectly applied to Laguna Colorada, which is a different volcano west of Panizos.[1]
  3. ^ A second 5,259 metres (17,254 ft) high mountain named Cerro Panizos is located south of the volcanic complex.[5]
  4. ^ A second 5,259 metres (17,254 ft) high mountain named Cerro Panizos is located south of the volcanic complex.[5]
  5. ^ The heights are given variously as 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft). [9] A second 5,259 metres (17,254 ft) high mountain named Cerro Panizos is located south of the volcanic complex.[5]

It just makes the whole sentence easier to scan through without tripping over the note at the beginning and without losing any references. Having several sentences with big clusters of numbers at the end of them does stand out a lot - there are three with three citations in that section that stand out a bit. Just my opinion and others may see it all differently. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed some of these footnotes and also applied sfnm to the multiple cites; how does it look? Kind of a shame that sfnm needs the entire 1a1 thing, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RoySmith

[edit]

Just a few random ideas to improve readability:

  • Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) ... Can you just say "approximately 5300-meter (xxx ft)" and then have a footnote which details the various values given by the three sources?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (often ephemeral[20]) I think the style guide prefers the citation after the paren.
    Bit concerned that then people will assume the reference applies to the content before the parenthese too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I feel your pain on that one. RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • most days of the year have frosts I'd drop "of the year", and it probably makes more sense to say "most nights" rather than "most days".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Animals include ... Birds include Birds are animals. Also, I find the long multi-level list ("the large guanacos, llamas, tarucas and vicuñas,[33] the smaller chinchillas, vizcachas and numerous mice genera, and the carnivorous Andean mountain cats, cougars, culpeos, Pampas cats and South American gray foxes") difficult to read. It's partly that it's long and partly that some of the "and"s go with different levels. You've got a similar problem in the next sentence. One "and" joins "Andean fmaingos", "Chilean flamingos", with "James's flamingos. The other "and" joins "flamingos", "geese", "rheas", and "ducks". You have to read with care to parse it properly.
    Did a recast, but I am not sure it solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a giant pile of rock-magma mush is "mush" a technical word?
    Yes, but it means pretty much the same as colloquial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9–31-kilometre I suppose this is technically correct, but the juxtaposition of the en-dash and the hyphen looks funny.
    Probably, but I confess that endash/hyphen are among the things I am less familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to a billion years old,[59] but it reached its present-day thickness only during the late Cenozoic for those of us who are not geologists, it would help to give some context to "late Cenozoic". Is that not quite a billion years ago, or half a billion, or a tiny fraction of a billion?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one northeast-–southwest trending line you've got a double-hyphen; I think you want some flavor of longer dash.
    Is this where one uses an en dash? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with several recognizable "flare-ups" why the scare quotes?
    Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it; just a few things I spotted on a quick read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

Closing comment: Unfortunately, this has been open for more than three months and hasn't made any progress for the past two weeks. I'm archiving this nomination, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply.

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) 25 August 2024 [7].

Joe Johnson (snooker player)

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the unlikely winner of the 1986 World Snooker Championship, who was known for his carefree attacking play and his shoes. After a largely unsuccessful year as champion, he reached the final again in 1987. He did win further, lesser, titles as a professional and retired in 2005. A survivor of seven heart attacks, he is still playing on the seniors snooker circuit. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of participation so far, I'm pinging HurricaneHiggins, Rodney Baggins, Amakuru, Sammi Brie and SchroCat (as contributors to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Pulman/archive1) to see if they would like to comments here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: the article is further from meeting the FA criteria than I had expected. I'd like to withdraw the nomination - what do I need to do, please? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Rodney Baggins

[edit]

I've just started looking at this article and will carry out a thorough review over next few days. For now, I'd just like to point out the following:

  • I've added a [fv] tag in the Other activities section which needs attention.
  • I notice that three of the section headings have {{anchor}} templates against them. Is that intentional and what's the reason? Surely incoming links should just point directly at the section heading and no invisible anchors are required.
  • The citations all look good, apart from the duplicated ESPN source (refs. 1 & 33, "Joe Johnson: The man who stunned the Crucible"). I understand this is probably unavoidable because ref.1 is inside the nickname file, BUT the link is dead so it needs tagging with url-status=dead in said file.
  • I don't think it's necessary to link ALL the work params, e.g. every Snooker Scene citation has its magazine param linked (magazine=Snooker Scene), which looks a bit odd considering that the articles themselves are not linked – maybe just link the first one?

More later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2024 [8].

Buangkok MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So this is another MRT article! But what's more interesting here is that the station was closed for a while even when the line was opened (20 June 2003). The announcement to close the station was rather last minute and hence led to some discontentment among the few residents living in the area. There was some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts when a minister visited the area. While the station was projected to open only in 2008 in tandem with housing developments, the government eventually relented and the station opened in January 2006. A curious little drama for the "white elephant" station. ZKang123 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limited comments by Nick-D

[edit]

The material on the protests stands out for me, as it seems a bit under-developed. I have some comments:

  • The police response seems absurdly heavy handed. Google Scholar returns some references which seem to discuss this, including as an example of the limited opportunities Singaporeans have to protest
  • This scholarly book has some good discussion of the incident, noting that it was an example of the problems the Singapore government was experiencing at the time in terms of building the train line and (more significantly) responding to public concerns.
  • This academic article is also worth consulting and discusses the over-reaction to the protest. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Though the PAP book essentially covers what I managed to find (given it's published by SPH Holdings, which definitely would have access to the news articles I've cited about the incident). I try not to detract too much focus from the station subject, and commentary of the protests in nature is something that can be explored in another potential article (White Elephant saga, perhaps, as the PAP book calls it.) There's actually further context from another source (p56) on how the slump in housing development of the Singapore northeast was due to the 1997 financial crisis.
Just keeping an archive of a cited source from the 2nd journal page here. Not sure how to incorporate it, given the editor isn't really an authority on what determines a national political issue or not. I added a citation of what Chua Beng Huat remarked about the paranoia.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. 750h+ 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • Located underneath Sengkang Central near the junction add a comma before "near"
  • The station will also serve Sengkang Grand Residencies – an upcoming integrated development, and a future bus interchange. remove the comma
    • I've used a slightly different rewording.
  • Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter, and the two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets.. Id split these two sentences, like something like "Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter. The two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets."
    • Done. Though the problem is that the lead seems a little choppy here.
history
  • The North East Line (NEL) project, which was first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996. ==> "The North East Line (NEL) project, first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996."
    • I think I prefer to retain "which was"
  • for redevelopment into an important new town. ==> "for redevelopment into a new town."
    • Done.
  • Just days before the opening of the NEL, on 17 June 2003, operator ==> "On 17 June 2003, just days before the opening of the NEL, operator"
    • I've used a slightly different rewording.
  • along with the other stations, due to the lack remove the comma
    • Done.
  • open the following January, after SBS Transit remove the comma
    • Done.
  • required for them to sell the shirts, while also warning the organisers remove the comma
    • I think a comma here is necessary given the clauses are rather long.
  • still traveled to the adjacent change "traveled" to "travelled", as in Singaporean English (i think)
    • Fixed.
details
  • The station is designed by Altoon + Porter Architects and 3HP Architects. change "is" to "was"; unless they're still designing the station
    • Fixed.
artwork
  • Leow drew parallels to the little dots and pixels of TV and computer images which blur out certain images add a comma before "which"
    • Fixed.

That's all I got, nice work. 750h+ 13:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the fixes.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have an FAC open if you'd like to take a look (don't feel obliged though)! 750h+ 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments by CMD

[edit]
  • "Dissatisfaction with the station's continued closure had increased after the announcement of transport fare hikes." I don't fully understand the link, the source implies it is due to having to pay more and not getting a better service?
    • Yeah something like that.
  • The dates on White elephant incidents and station opening are slightly unclear, after mentioning "27 July 2005". After that no years are mentioned until "pushed to 2008".
    • They are all in the same year. I clarified it was Yeo who said in September that the opening date was pushed further.
  • No history after the opening? Did ridership eventually increase?

Best, CMD (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave comments here. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "in the Singapore notheast area" → "in the northeastern Singapore area".
  • "of 5,000 for the station to be" → "of 5,000 for it to be"
  • "commented by" → "commented on by"
  • I actually do not really have anything to add besides these minor changes. The article is well-written and researched and I do not see any issues with referencing. Support from me. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did some of the above changes. Thanks for the review!--ZKang123 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Will look within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The lead feels a little skinny for an FA, even a relatively short one
    • Expanded the lead.
  • Agree with Mike's comments re Sengkang Central, which I also took to be a neighborhood rather than a road
    • Added "road of"
  • Is Buangkok a town, or a neighborhood? Our article says neighbourhood
    • Neighbourhood. Well, there's a bit of ambiguity between these distinctions, but I think it's still part of Sengkang town.
  • "will also serve as a future bus interchange" - future is redundant, as "will serve" tells us this will happen in the future
    • Fixed.
  • "The station will also serve as...Sengkang Grand Residencies, an upcoming integrated development." The station is going to be a residential building? Please clarify
    • Typo. Removed "as"
      • The phrasing in this sentence is still awkward. "It is also planned to serve a future bus interchange and Sengkang Grand Residencies..." As I said further down, the lead implies that serving Sengkang Grand is a future plan, but the body says that it already serves this complex. The phrasing in the body is better and would work fine in the lead.
  • "First announced in March 1996 and beginning construction in April 1997," - tenses are wonky here. The station didn't begin construction, construction began on the station
    • Fixed.
      • No, you didn't. "Buangkok station began construction". Again, the station didn't begin anything, it's a metro station. Construction began on the station, or construction of the station began.
  • "including a white elephant protest incident in 2005" this is definitely unclear without context
    • Lead has been expanded with context.
  • grassroots in the sense of "grassroots movement" or "grassroots leader" is always plural, not singular
History first half
  • "The station was constructed in a forested area that was proposed for redevelopment into a new town." - one of New towns of Singapore these?
    • I suppose
  • Do we know why the land was given to the NEL project instead of being made into a town?
    • Well, in Singapore, we have to build transport access to a new town. So from my understanding, this station will serve this future new town.
      • That's not necessarily clear from context. The text currently says that the forest area was supposed to be a new town, and then it was used for a transit station. On the face of things, that reads as a change of plans. If you want to say that the station was meant to serve the town, say that.
  • "the vacated warehouses demolished" what warehouses? This was a forested area, you said
    • The source didn't state very clearly where were these warehouses. Well, they said "Around the site of Buangkok station".
      • This is still awkward. What are warehouses doing in a forested area? "Undeveloped" might be a better word, as it doesn't imply a literal dense covering of trees.
      • Apologies for not spelling this out explicitly earlier, but in English, when you say "the X", it implies that there's a specific instance of X that you're talking about. So when you say "the warehouses" here without any further context, it implies that the reader should be aware of them. Except this is the first time they're mentioned, so this is confusing - the reader goes "what warehouses?" This writing guide from Yale helps explain it.
  • " the station was constructed using the "open-cut" and "bottom-up" methods." is redundant to "The site was excavated to a depth of up to 20 m...work on the station then proceeded from the bottom up."
    • Fixed.
  • " Following the station's construction, roads were built to connect the station with existing roads." This sentence awkwardly uses "the station" and "roads" twice. How about something like "Once construction was complete, new roadwork connected the station to the road system"?
    • Fixed.
  • "two stations on the line – Woodleigh and Buangkok – would not open " - but they were completed?
    • Well, mothball stations. So like the abandoned stations on the London Underground and the New York City Subway.
      • This is still not clear from the context.
  • "sudden decision to close Buangkok station" can you close something that never opened?
    • Reword to "keep Buangkok station closed"
  • "grassroots leaders" this is a bit wooly. Who?
    • Basically community leaders
      • Maybe you should link to something like People's_Association#Grassroots organisations to make it clear that "grassroots organisation" and "grassroots leader" is a specific term of art in Singapore, because in other countries it's usually an informal label that's applied to something from the outside
  • Charles Chong - I assume his constituency area covers Buangkok, but this isn't clear from its name or general context
    • Yes, it covers Buangkok
      • This is still not clear from the context.
  • Agree with Mike's comments re: distance stuff.
  • Suggest linking Sengkang and Hougang stations in the text, yes they're in the infobox but the infobox isn't the body
    • Ah yes. Wikilinked Sengkang station in earlier instance and also for Hougang.
  • "announcement of the station's closure" again, can you close something you never opened?
    • Fixed.
  • "In response to residents' plans to gift a white elephant statue to the operator" it's the first time any such plan has been mentioned. in fact, it's the first in-body reference to the station as a white elephant. going straight into a response to a plan and nickname we didn't know existed two seconds ago feels odd. back up and explain the white elephant thing first (and actually, if his comments happened in august, which the date on the source seems to indicate, why are they being placed chronologically here?)
    • I did a bit more research that it was first mentioned by the transport minister in July.
      • This is still awkward. The first time the station is referred to in the article as a white elephant is at the end of a sentence about someone denying it. The source gives more context to his denial, which I would include. I would suggest revising this to something like "Residents of Buangkok began to refer to the station as a "white elephant"; in July 2003 transport minister Yeo Cheow Tong said it was not, as it would open when the area had further development".
  • please, here or elsewhere, briefly explain the idiomatic meaning of "white elephant" for those not familiar (I am, but that doesn't mean every reader will be, and they will lose out on a huge amount of the context without this)
    • Added hatnote.
White elephant incidents
  • I didn't catch this before, but I would probably move the first paragraph of this section ("To address SBS Transit's doubts...") into the previous section, as it concerns a poll, not the white elephant incident
  • I might split this whole section into "white elephant protests" and "station opening", it's quite large
    • Done.
  • "Chong and other grassroots leaders" in what way is an MP a grassroots leader? what other types of leaders were involved?
    • As said, grassroots leaders are community leaders.
  • " near Punggol station" is this station nearby or otherwise comparable to Buangkok? ie, why Punggol specifically?
    • I'm not so sure why they did the survey for Punggol. And truthfully the two cases aren't comparable, since Punggol is relatively developed and have their LRT system.
      • So there's no indication in the sourcing why they picked that?
  • "visited Punggol South " what's Punggol South
    • I guess the south side of Punggol. The article seems to imply he was on the way to Punggol South when he saw the cardboard cutouts
      • This is FA, we shouldn't be guessing nor should we be leaving the reader to guess. If it's the south side of Punggol, say that, but "Punggol South" with the capital implies that it's a proper noun
  • Do we know who put the cutouts up? Like any specific activist group?
    • It's some PAP cadre/grassroot leader. But per WP:BLPCRIME, I didn't name who he is.
      • What is PAP, for those of us who don't live in Singapore? Could we name his organization, perhaps, even if not him?
  • "the construction of the 2,000 residential units" what 2,000 residential units?
    • Like, individual residential units? Like apartments?
      • Again, I apologise for not spelling this out with greater clarity. This is the same "the X" thing from earlier. Here, when you say, "following the construction of the 2,000 residential units", it implies that there was a previous mention of some plan to build 2,000 residential units, and that the reader should know about this and go "ah, yes, the 2,000 residential units". But there was no previous mention of any plan to do this, so the reader does not go "ah, yes," they go "what".
  • "the elephant cut-outs were removed" by the public as in "good job, we made our point" or by the government as in "nice try, citizens"
    • Sources never stated clearly who took them down. Most likely whoever put them up in the first place.
      • The source says the police were looking for them, so that makes sense. We could say this in the article and let the reader draw their own conclusions. (Speaking of, that article mentions some government dudes wearing elephant print ties, presumably to support the protest - that's interesting, why is it not in the article?)
  • "closed station", "station's continued closure" still gonna complain, pedantically, that it's not closed, it's unopened
    • "Unopened" it is.
      • Then this should be consistently applied - earlier we still have "keeping the station closed"
  • "The investigation was commented on by sociologist Chua Beng Huat" -> simplify to "In a letter to The Straits Times, sociologist Chua Beng Huat commented that the investigation was "paranoid". He criticized the press for treating what he saw as a municipal-level issue as a "national issue" due to Singapore's single-tier government"
    • In this version I've removed "forum" as it would require clarifying that the Forum (capitalised) of the Straits Times is not just an internet forum where people can comment on anything, it's basically the letters to the editor section. "in a letter to" captures that without needing clarifying
    • Also added the municipal-level thing to clarify his criticism
    • Maybe also link Government of Singapore?
      • Done all of the above.
  • "Chua had also called to distinguish between the varying degrees of importance of community matters in Singapore as he believed those who put up the cut-outs did not intend to challenge the government." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It feels redundant to the first sentence about Chua's opinion.
    • Removed then.
  • "sternly warned one veteran grassroots leader" do we know who, or what for?
    • As said earlier, I didn't name him (it's actually in the PAP book Nick-D linked). And from the official statement: "The Police after consulting with the Attorney-General's Chamber, has issued a stern warning to the offender concerned in lieu of prosecution." From CNA, the police said there was an infraction. So I added "for an infringement of the Act".
  • "For the carnival..." this is similar to my second to last comment in the History section, where you're introducing something as though the reader should already know it. I would suggest moving the part about the creation of the youth group and their shirts earlier, into the thick of the white elephant section. then here, you can return to them and be like "that group from earlier did some stuff..."
    • Done
  • "Punggol South grassroots" again, who? grassroots what
    • Leaders
  • "the youth" can just be "youth" I think
    • Ok
  • "walk-a-jog" a what
    • Walk and jog event, I think
      • Okay, but that's not clear from the context, and this isn't a common phrase anywhere as far as I can tell
  • I revised a couple sentences here for clarity
    • Ok
  • "due to their amenities" such as?
    • Retail and commercial. Clarified
  • Has nothing else happened to or about this station since 2008?
    • Nothing of significant note, unfortunately. Unless (touch wood) some terrorist attack.
Details & artwork
  • "Being part of the NEL, the station is operated by SBS Transit." this could probably be condensed into the first sentence somewhere.
  • HDB needs to be spelled out as Housing & Development Board; I had to google it. My initial assumption was "high-density buildings"
  • Lead implies that the Sengkang Grand Residencies is a future thing. Is this already in place? When was it built? When is the bus interchange supposed to happen?
    • It's currently under construction. I can't find when constructed began. Wait, a quick search showed that the mall itself has opened in March 2023, but not yet the residences above it, which has an expected completion date of 2026. So I suppose, yes the station currently serves the development because the retail side has opened. There's not yet an announced date for the opening of the bus interchange.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so the lead should reflect that, because right now it still reads as a future thing with the "will also" phrasing
  • What is an "integrated development"? Is it a specific designation?
  • Agree with Mike that "envelop" is not the correct word here
    • Wrote covered.
  • Slightly reorganized the paragraphs here so that design & accessibility are one paragraph, and CD operations is its own paragraph
    • Noted.
  • Artwork feels like it should be a subsection of details - is the art not logically a detail of the station?
    • Done.
  • The whole artwork section feels somewhat disorganized, and I think it could be reduced in size
    • Summarised a bit during the reorganisation.
  • "The images incorporate dots, graphic motifs, and bands to reflect the "vitality of Buangkok New Town"" - in what way do dots and bands reflect this? Who said it? We should always attribute subjective quotes in-text
    • Well, it's in the official LTA commentary. I'm unsure if the artist wrote it or it was by some LTA intern, because the original extensive commentary from the book didn't have the phrase. Attributed to LTA in general.
      • The way it's used in the source, it's basically meaningless marketing fluff. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the piece if we don't know what it means.
  • "allowing him to express himself" this is redundant to the rest of the sentence
    • Removed.
  • "The vibrant embellishments contrasted with the backdrop of black-and-white photographs" it's not clear what this clause has to do with the rest of the sentence
    • Well, the juxtapositions of colourful stuff against the black and white backdrop would catch your attention, wouldn't it? I thought that would be clear enough.
  • We're all over the place here - why are we describing what's in the art in three separate paragraphs?
    • Reorganised based on details. Artist's background and intention, then the images selected before the embellishments.
      • With apologies, I still think this section does not work. You still have to read three whole paragraphs before you understand what the art even looks like. The artist's intention and the meaning of individual bits is less important than just describing the thing.

Honestly, I hate to say it, but I'm leaning a bit towards oppose in the state the article is in right now. It feels like this could have used a copyedit before coming to FAC. There are lots of small prose things that aren't quite up to snuff, and there's a few larger things that stand out to me (organization, clarity of certain aspects). I'll stick around and see what comes of more work though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough comments. I will need some time to look over your thoughts. I have also expanded the lead more to try explain more about the incidents. I admit perhaps my writing style may not be up to scratch, but I will try my best to address the other comments. I'm not feeling that great at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping an offsite link of p150 here. p151.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ZKang123, I've replied to a few things above. Take your time, there's no rush responding to anything, I just didn't want to forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ZKang123 what's the status of this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Sorry I've been a bit busy with university lately but will get back on this soon.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Addressed the rest of your comments to the best of my abilities. I will understand however if you still don't think this article is up to shape.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PMC Your thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry, haven't had a chance to actually sit down and get into things for a few days. Having had a look now, I'm inclined to oppose at this time, unfortunately. Despite a lot of suggestions from multiple reviewers, there are still numerous areas where the writing makes the article confusing, and things are often disorganized. The prose is just not up to FA standards in my opinion. I think the bones are there, but it needs a copyedit for clarity, and FAC isn't the place for that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Located underneath Sengkang Central": I thought this was a place but eventually figured out it was a road. A link to an article about the road would work if we had one, but in lieu of that, could we say "underneath Sengkang Central, a north-south thoroughfare in Sengkang" or even " ... in Sengkang in northeastern Singapore"? Or anything that makes it clear to non-locals that it's a road?
    • Added "the road of"
      I don't think that works. How about reversing the sequence of the sentence so that it can be introduced more naturally as part of the description of the neighbourhood? E.g. "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok and is located near the intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow"? I think "intersection" makes it clear we're talking about roads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including a white elephant protest incident": this isn't comprehensible without the additional information later in the article. Maybe "including a protest that used cardboard cutouts to describe the closed station as a white elephant"? And I would definitely link white elephant.
  • "White Teflon sheets envelop the two entrances": I don't think "envelop" is the right word -- it implies the entrances are invisible under a completely enfolding layer of Teflon. If the image in the infobox is a guide, how about "White Teflon sheets roof the two entrances"? And the same comment applies to the same sentence in the body.
    • I used "covered".
  • "After the forest was cleared and the vacated warehouses demolished, the station was constructed using the "open-cut" and "bottom-up" methods. The site was excavated to ...". Suggest "After the forest was cleared and the vacated warehouses demolished, the site was excavated to ...". The names "open-cut" and "bottom-up" may be the usual names for those methods, but given the next sentence explains exactly what they are, the reader gets no more information from the names, so we might as well cut them.
    • Fixed.
  • "Member of Parliament (MP)": suggest dropping the abbreviation as you don't use it in the rest of the article.
    • Fixed.
  • "willing to walk the long distance to the station": suggest just "willing to walk to the station"; the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that SBS Transit must have considered it a long distance, and we don't need to tell readers that since for many (I would think most) readers this is going to seem a pretty short distance.
    • Fixed.
  • "willing to make daily trips to a station 400 meters away": I think this is the wrong way to introduce the 2005 poll. SBS Transit believed that too few people would ride from the station -- the 400 m distance is just a dividing line they used to split residents into two groups for their initial poll. If enough people who lived within 100 m had said they'd ride the station would have been opened; the distance wasn't relevant to the decision. That figure presumably influenced the wording of Chong's poll that July, but we don't need to draw that connection for the reader -- they'll get it when the numbers are quoted.
    • Alright deleted that part.
  • "walk the long distance to": again I would cut this to "walk to".
    • Fixed.
  • What does "Singapore's single-tier government" refer to? I had a look at Government of Singapore but couldn't find anything that seemed like it would be the intended meaning.
    • I think it's also due to how we are a city-state and there's no subdivisions like national-state-city etc.
      Rereading the whole sentence I'm not actually sure what Chua Beng Huat means. "The investigation was commented on by sociologist Chua Beng Huat on The Straits Times forum as "paranoid", pointing out how the incident was treated by the press as a "national issue" due to Singapore's single-tier government." Why does the fact that the incident was treated as a national incident by the press mean that the investigation was paranoid? What connection are they drawing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got into this a little with my suggested fix to that sentence. In the source, basically, Chua is saying that the station opening is nothing more than a municipal-level issue. But because Singapore is a city-state where the municipality is the nation, everything gets jacked up into a national-level issue because there's no lower-level government to take care of it. So this doofy little local protest of cardboard elephants winds up getting national attention from the press. The national government doesn't want to be seen to be doing nothing, so they investigate it as a criminal matter, which to Chua is a paranoid response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No year is given for any of the dates in the "White elephant" section after the surgery named in the first sentence, except for the mention of 2008 as a possible opening date. I would give the year again at the next date mentioned after that, just so the reader is aware the mention of 2008 is not moving the narrative three years forward.
    • Added dates.
  • "taken an interest in current affairs": this is apparently a typo for "taking", but I would cut the whole phrase anyway as it's evident from the rest of the sentence.
    • Alright cut away. I suppose it was missing "having"
  • Is there any information about how long it took for ridership to grow from 1,386/day? No problem if the sources don't say, but there was so much fuss about the ridership numbers I think you could justify including whatever data there is.
    • Not really, except I just pulled the latest numbers that the daily ridership is now 19,000 (recorded in June 2024), and added that in the infobox
  • What is an HDB flat?
    • Public flats. I mentioned HDB earlier in the body.
  • "allowing him to express himself": vague and I think could just be cut.
    • Done.
  • "vibrant embellishments" is a bit WP:PEACOCK.
    • Cut vibrant and explained which are the embellishments.
  • "which blur out certain images while creating a new image": I don't know what this means. Pixels on TVs and computer images don't blur out images; if you get close to them the image is not discernible anymore, but that doesn't seem to be what's intended here -- and in any case that's mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of the section.
    • Well, I'm also not following what the artist said either. The relevant page p151. He said (near the end of the second column): "I relate to dots. TV and computer images are made of little dots or pixels. Dots blur out certain images while creating a new image altogether. They allow you to play with layers of images."
      I don't think we should be including material we don't understand. I agree his comments aren't clear; I think it would be best to just cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were familiar to many Singaporeans": surely "are", not "were"?
    • Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did the above changes, @Mike Christie:.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied or struck everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went over your other suggestions. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck two of the points. When I read PMC's comments I found she'd spotted quite a few things I had missed, so rather than waste your time by repeating those points here I'm going to wait for you to finish working with her and then read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

More than six weeks into this nom and I don't think consensus to promote is close so I'm going to archive and ask that prose improvements be undertaken outside FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 August 2024 [9].

Virtual Self (EP)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the last nomination's participants (LunaEclipse and Heartfox) to participate in this nomination if they wish. Skyshiftertalk 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse

[edit]

I still believe my source review stands up. Support. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Dylan620

[edit]

Prose review forthcoming, most likely in the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Skyshifter, but while I have great respect for your work, I feel like this article currently falls short of meeting criterion 1a. I share some of Heartfox's concerns from the previous FAC, which I don't think have been fully addressed quite yet. There is still some clunky/unprofessional prose in the mix here, plus a number of quotations that I think should be paraphrased as a means of better incorporating the information into the article. That having been said, this is still a strong article, and I can be swayed to support if some of the quotes are reworded/truncated and the messier bits of prose are cleaned up. I have some comments below, including suggested ways of cutting down on the excessive quotation:
  • had a notable impact on... – Per WP:WTW, I think "notable" should be avoided.
  • Removed
  • produced a hundred demos for what would be a follow-up to Worlds, which he described as... – The structure of this sentence makes it unclear whether the quote that follows refers to Worlds or the demos.
  • Fixed
  • a collaboration with Madeon; Robinson said that it was successful and, considering that Madeon "was making all of his new music that is unbelievably good", he decided to do something similar, while going "in this complete other direction". → a collaboration with Madeon that Robinson believed to be successful. He admired Madeon's output of the period and drew inspiration from it, while also seeking to distort that influence into something unrecognizable.
  • Done
  • The sentence containing the "peak obsessiveness" quote doesn't read professionally as is, and additionally seems to closely paraphrase a quote from Robinson in one of the sources. A suggested rewording:
    • Robinson felt reinvigorated from working on Virtual Self. He became highly fixated on the EP and devoted large quantities of time to making it; his passion supplanted his feeling that he should focus on projects with commercial potential, which he believed Virtual Self did not have.
  • I am having a difficult time parsing the unwieldy sentence that begins with Robinson wanted to combine the idea of...
  • Tried something
  • separate Porter Robinson music from Virtual Self music → separate music made under his own name from that which was made under the Virtual Self alias
  • Done
  • he listened to "every song" from 1998 to 2003 tagged as ... he stated he "must have listened to snippets of 100,000 songs" over two years → he listened to "every" song from 1998 to 2003—a number he claimed to approach 100,000—tagged as...
  • Done
  • While he recognized many of them were "pretty uninspired and forgettable", he identified "trends of sound design and structure" that he could incorporate. → While he found many of them to be generic and unimpressive, he identified common sonic and structural traits that he could incorporate.
  • Done
  • he tried to include "twists" so that it would be a "somehow distorted" homage → he tried to include compositional turns that would not be expected in the genres and time period to which he was paying homage
  • Done
  • The phrase visuals-wise looks very strange to me and I suggest finding a better way to word it.
  • Removed
  • A.i.ngel (Become God) and A.I.ngel (Become God) are used interchangeably; which capitalization is correct?
  • Fixed
  • In the first sentence of §Composition_and_songs, "trance or neotrance" would read more smoothly than neotrance or just trance IMO; I'm also not sure if trance needs to be in that long list of influences when it is already mentioned upfront as a main genre.
  • Fixed 1st point; for the second point, I think it's okay to differentiate sources saying that Virtual Self is trance and sources that say it is just inspired by the genre.
  • Not a prose comment, but File:Virtual Self - Eon Break.ogg should be a teensy bit shorter. The full song is 3:40 in length, while the sample is 22 or 23 seconds, just barely outside of the less-than-10-percent guideline.
  • 0:23 count in the article seems wrong, it should be 0:22, meeting the 10%.
  • How is Technic-Angel a harbinger?
  • I mean, these descriptions are just lore.
  • — such as Dance Dance Revolution music[3][19] — Per MOS:DASH, em dashes should not be spaced. If you wish to keep the spaces, then you should use en dashes instead.
  • Wrote it differently
  • I think you should clarify that Robinson created separate Twitter/social media accounts for Pathselector and Technic-Angel as a means of establishing them as characters. The way the sentence is currently worded, it looks extraneous and had me questioning how relevant it was to the subject.
  • Done
  • There are instances of passive voice that should be converted to active voice (e.g. Pathselector's songs were described by Robinson as... → Robinson described Pathselector's songs as...)
  • Done
  • In the same sentence as the above example, being mid-tempo, having less hardcore influences and instead a strictly trance style → mid-tempo, and adhering stylistically to trance
  • Done
  • The phrase Philip Sherburne of Pitchfork reappears in full later in the same paragraph where it first appears; the repeat should be truncated to "Sherburne".
  • Done
  • peaking at 8 on Dance/Electronic Album Sales and 21 on Heatseekers Albums – The word "number" needs to appear before each chart position in the prose, ideally with non-breaking spaces (the integer 8 should probably be spelled out, as well).
  • Done
  • The first paragraph of §Reception_and_legacy contains a lot of quotes that could be paraphrased without losing their meaning. There are some that I think work better in the article than others—"beneath a billion-watt gleam" and "nostalgia will rehabilitate..." are quite evocative—but the "headlong plunge" quote could easily be reworded as something along the lines of "evoke the aesthetics of the turn of the millennium", and the "boundaries of taste" quote is one that I'm finding hard to parse.
  • Done for the "headlong plunge" one, not sure how to paraphrase others.
  • said that it was unfortunate → lamented
  • Done
  • For what it's worth, in response to a comment you made at the previous FAC, a recently-promoted FA made use of Sputnikmusic staff reviews as sources in multiple instances, and I suggest incorporating something from the Sputnikmusic staff review of Virtual Self into this article.
  • Still unsure on this, will think about it.
  • The tidbit about "Ghost Voices" "restor[ing] [Harris's] love of dance music" misattributes that quote to Harris himself when it comes from the title of the news article. At least, that's the most I can see on my end; the cited source purports to link to an interview with Harris near the bottom (where I'm guessing the news article could have gotten the quote), but I'm seeing an error message where the interview should be.
  • Reworded
  • consideration. He said he felt like he won "the moment it got nominated" → consideration; being nominated made him feel like he won
  • Done
  • Robinson reported an "overall push for hardstyle and hardcore" after the Virtual Self alias. → Robinson perceived that hardstyle and hardcore surged in popularity after the EP was released.
  • Done
I know this is probably a lot of comments, but I sincerely hope they help – even if I don't think it's ready quite yet, I do think the article is in great shape and that FA status is within its reach, and I look forward to revisiting. Please ping me either when you have addressed the above feedback, or if you have any questions. Regards, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will respond very soon. Skyshiftertalk 01:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: done! Skyshiftertalk 12:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three weeks in and the only general review is an oppose. As this is some way from achieving a consensus to promote I am archiving it, hopefully for improvement work to continue off FC. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog, speaking as the opposer, is there any way you would be willing to leave this open a bit longer? I have great respect for you, but I am dismayed that this would be archived so soon after Skyshifter responded to my comments; I just logged in to check whether she had done so. While there are a couple small things I wanted to follow up with her on, I am pleased with the progress she has made so far and would like for her to be allowed a little more time. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also surprised. Another unecessary sudden archival just like the last FAC. Skyshiftertalk 23:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 August 2024 [10].

Rutherford scattering experiments

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Rutherford scattering experiments. We have fixed the citation issues. Kurzon (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend withdrawal. You’re supposed to bring this back after two weeks. It’s been one week. 750h+ 14:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also with this number of failed FACs i’d recommend taking this to GAN and PR before nominating for FAC. But if you’re confident that the next FAC will be successful, no-one’s stopping you 750h+ 16:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- I seem to recall mentioning the 2-week hiatus between noms when I closed the last one. Usually I'd simply remove this as out-of-process but I'm going to archive it as 750h+ has given some useful advice, particularly re. PR, that I'd recommend acting upon before returning to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 August 2024 [11].

Norman Hunter (footballer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PearlyGigs (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an English international footballer of the 1960s and 1970s. During his career, Norman Hunter was one of the most famous players in England, largely because of his persona as one of the game's "hard men". The article discusses his playing and management career but places emphasis on his style, technique, and personality which combined to make him exceptional in footballing terms. He was an early victim of COVID-19 and it is fair to say that his death shocked the nation. Norman's stature in British sport is immense and I believe he would fully merit the honour of a featured article. PearlyGigs (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing to improve clarity and flow
  • Multiple source links are dead, eg FNs 37 and 55
  • Citation style needs editing for consistency. For example, FN33 is the same work that is otherwise cited using short citations
Hi, Nikkimaria, and thanks for the feedback. I think I will be able to address points 2 to 5, but I wonder if you could enlarge on your doubt about flow by giving me an example of, say, one paragraph which you had to re-read? The article assumes that readers have some knowledge of football, so perhaps there are parts of it where I need to provide additional explanation; I know the game's terminology can be somewhat enigmatic. PearlyGigs (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I’m going to have to agree with the oppose here. There’s some POV statements written in WP’s voice that need to be either taken out or rephrased to say whose opinion they are. (“Hunter was usually perceived as a physical player only, but he was actually a very skilful player” - and “he was actually a very skilful player” is poorly done too. “Arsenal where, predictably enough, they were beaten” is another example). There are also several times where the phrasing needs a lot of tightening to bring it into line with an encyclopaedic tone, and away from WP:IDIOM-filled phrasing. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, SchroCat. That's useful. I can work on that sort of phraseology. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- based on the above this nom does seem underprepared; sourcing issues, and copyediting for tone, should be dealt with outside FAC so I'm going to archive this shortly and suggest peer review and/or mentoring before any future nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks, Ian. PearlyGigs (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2024 [12].

Poverty in ancient Rome

[edit]
Nominator(s): Graearms (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Poverty in ancient Rome. It mostly focuses on defining Roman poverty, philanthropic efforts to help the poor, the social stigma regarding poverty, and Christian perspectives on the Roman poor. Although, there is still information on the lives and material conditions of poor people in ancient Rome. I recently had the article reviewed for GA and the reviewer said they hoped to see the article at FA. Perhaps I am overconfident regarding the quality of this article, but I figured I might as well nominate it. Graearms (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text

UC

[edit]

It's good to see this one here. I should say at the outset that many editors, myself included, consider large-scale survey articles like this to be the hardest to bring through FAC, so my admiration for doing so.

Iazyges rightly focused tightly on the GA criteria at GAN, which largely concern sourcing and ensuring that the article jumps through the basic formatting and structural hoops. For FAC, there is a much greater focus on the article's content -- on my read so far, I think it would benefit from some more attention, perhaps at Peer Review, before it is passed as an FA.

I will try to keep these points general, rather than getting bogged down in minutiae, so please understand the examples as representative rather than as a checklist:

  • Probably my biggest concern at the moment is the level of chronological "flattening" -- we present events, categories and people from very different periods as if they are all fundamentally part of the same picture, creating a composite picture of an ancient Rome that never existed. A few examples:
    • the patricians held greater political influence due to their claimed descent from the first 100 senators of ancient Rome while the plebeians were the common citizens with less political significance: this may have been true in the very early Republic, but the distinction was pretty meaningless by the first century BCE, if not earlier: Marius, Cicero and Pompey were all plebeians, for example. It's a fair point that wealthy citizens had more political influence, but whether someone was patrician or plebeian quickly ceased to be a good way of knowing how wealthy they were.
    • The distinction between honestiores and humiliores, on the other hand, is quintessentially late antique: we first see the term used in law in the 2nd century. However, it doesn't quite mean what we say it does, at least in practice for most of the period -- humiliores are simply the poor (which, by the fifth century, can include slaves, waged workers and free peasants), with nothing to do with whether they have held high office. I'd also note that our definition given here isn't quite what the source we've cited says.
    • Sallust, a 1st-century BCE Roman politician and historian ... Tacitus, another 1st-century Roman writer: Tacitus was 1st century CE, not BCE.
    • The "legal status" section is almost entirely late antique, while the "social status" discussion caps out at the end of the 1st century. This might be a reflection of the sources (though I'm not sure it's entirely so), but we need to be much clearer about that situation if it is. The Rome in which Sallust lived and the "Rome" of Constantine and Marcian were very different places.
  • We spend a lot of time in the weeds of exactly how many people were in which social class, or exactly what the Gini coefficient of Roman Egypt was, but I don't think either discussion is really effective without greater contextualisation -- we don't really give any sense, for example, of what it would mean to have a Gini coefficient of 0.42. In a bird's-eye survey article, I'm not sure the weight given to these quite intricate discussions (Bagnall's paper on Egypt gets most of a large paragraph) really fits their importance at the level the article should be pitched.
  • The framing on patronage and euergetism doesn't really chime with current work on the topic, where what we call "philanthropy" is seen much more through a political lens -- one thing that really needs to be emphasised is how almost all of these programmes, particularly the grain dole, are targeted at citizens only, and therefore serve more as badges of honour and community than as handouts for the destitute.
  • There are a few points where a good copyedit and close read would be beneficial: for example:
    • a poor man who is forced to relinquish his ancestral tombs and household gods, indicating that this individual had sufficient wealth to afford such luxuries: our phrasing here has missed the point -- he has inherited these things, and wouldn't have bought them -- he's giving up what was passed down to him for safekeeping.
    • We are inconsistent on the capitalisation of Latin: in general, Latin words are not capitalised, apart from proper nouns (so it's the cura Annoniae).
    • There are minor mistakes of spelling, punctuation, or MoS throughout the article. By themselves, these are easily enough fixed, but I include them here as an illustration that further close attention would be beneficial.
    • Sourcing: the formatting of references is inconsistent -- some have full bibliographic detail, others don't.
      • In the Osborne and Atkins edited volume, we should cite individual contributors directly, rather than lumping them all under the editors' names.
      • However, there is little archaeological evidence that can pinpoint who belonged to these classes: this isn't what Scheidel is saying (in fact, it's almost the direct opposite) -- he writes the apparent lack of non-economic indicators of membership in this 'middle class' tends to obscure its size and significance. His point is that we do have the tools to see a Roman "middle class", but we need to focus on the strictly material (like, as he goes on to say, the demand for luxury goods and specialist crafts in provincial areas, or the wealth profiles of houses), rather than inscriptions and other documents which promote an artificial two-class binary. I haven't spot-checked other sources, but this might be a wider concern.
      • For a huge scholarly field, the bibliography is quite small, and we make heavy use of only a few sources:
        • The prominence of Osborne and Atkins chapters I can understand, though I'm not sure we can really surrender editorial control of so much of the article to only two people.
        • We have a lot of weight on Hands and Duncan-Jones, both from the 1960s.
        • I think you may have used the Oxford bibliography on Roman poverty already, but I see little of the work there looking at poverty through bioarchaeology (particularly diseases of deprivation) -- see Garnsey x2 and Graham listed there, and, for a more positive view, Jongman and Kron. There's a lot of other good material on that list: I'd include Storey 2013 here.
        • Other notable omissions would seem to be The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, De Ste Croix's Class Struggle (despite the name, not just about Greece) and its successors, and the extensive bibliography on the impoverishment (or not) of the Italian countryside. Here the debate starts with Hopkins's Conquerors and Slaves, but again the Oxford biblio is very useful here.

I know there's a lot of different areas in these comments, but I hope I have managed to make them thorough and actionable without making them disheartening. FAC may not be the best place to work on them, but I'm very happy to help here or elsewhere if you do want to discuss any of these areas. Again, thank you for bringing the article and for your good work on it thus far. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make it formal, I would oppose promotion at this time. Credit to the nominator for making edits on the points of detail identified here and below, but at the same time, these have been spot-fixes on matters that are ultimately tangential to the major concerns -- in brief, the anachronistic "flattening" of developments and changes over time, the mingling of Roman customs with those from elsewhere in the empire, and the weaknesses in the handling of ancient and modern sources. As Choliamb said below, I have a great deal of sympathy for the nominator, as it wouldn't be unreasonable to boil this criticism down to "this article needs to be written by a different person", and that is neither easy to hear nor within their power to address. However, I hope they will not be disheartened -- this is simply a mismatch between content and creator, rather than any deficiency in them as a writer or Wikipedian -- and that we will see them back here with another article in due course. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Choliamb

[edit]

In addition to the chronological "flattening" pointed out by User:UndercoverClassicist above, which I agree is a problem, I also see here an analogous geographical flattening. Many of the sources cited in the article refer to the Greek cities of the eastern Roman empire, where social and economic conditions differed markedly from those in Italy. The cultural traditions and civic institutions of these cities remained strongly Greek even after they fell under Roman political control, and it is dangerous to characterize them as "Roman" without much more careful contextualization than is offered here.

UndercoverClassicist also mentions that the number of works cited is quite small considering the size of the topic, and this seems to me to be one of biggest weaknesses of the article. The general bibliography on Roman social and economic history is enormous, and in the past half century or so there has been a growing interest in the lower strata of Roman society in particular. Relatively little of this work is mentioned in the article, which gives disproportionate weight to the essays collected in Osborne and Atkins 2006. Most of those are good, useful essays, but they are the very small tip of a very large iceberg. In this respect the article is undermined by its own ambition: an article that cast its net more narrowly and focused specifically on, say, tenant farmers in late Republican Rome, or the urban poor of the city of Rome at the height of the Empire, would have been more manageable in terms of bibliography, and might also have avoided some of the problems of chronological and geographical compression mentioned above.

The rest of my comments focus on problems with the presentation, translation, and general appropriateness of the ancient literary and epigraphical sources cited in the article. It is a credit to the editors that they usually provide references and links to the specific passages of the ancient authors cited, side by side with the references to the modern secondary sources where they found the quotations. This is an excellent practice and one that should be encouraged, even if some of the citations given here are incorrect. It is pretty clear, however, that most of the contributors to the article are not very familiar with the ancient authors and works that they cite, and this has led to confusion and misrepresentation in a number of instances. Here are a couple of examples:

Example 1: The first paragraph of the section entitled "Social status and stigma" refers to the author Seneca, without any recognition that there are two different Roman authors by that name. The wikilink in the first sentence of the paragraph links to the article about Seneca the younger, but the quotations in the following three sentences come from the Controversiae, which were written by his father, Seneca the elder. The sentence after that contains a quotation from a different work, the essay De vita beata, which was written by Seneca the younger. The structure of the paragraph is set up to suggest that there is a contrast or conflict between the views expressed by Seneca in different works ("Seneca argued X ... However, Seneca also believed Y"), but in fact there is no such contrast, because the quotations are drawn from the works of two different people, not one.
This paragraph also reveals a serious misunderstanding about the kind of work the elder Seneca was writing when he composed the Controversiae. In his Controversiae, Seneca asks "What is there that riches have not corrupted?" Seneca argued that unmitigated greed caused damage to the world, writing that "to meet the whims of crazy luxury every stone is quarried, forests are felled throughout the world." He continues, exclaiming "Poverty, how little known a good are you!" These sentences imply that the views expressed here are Seneca's own views, but that is not the case. The ten books of Controversiae are school books; they consist of a series of debate topics designed to teach students the rhetorical and declamatory skills necessary for a Roman legal and political career. Each chapter states a proposition based on some aspect of Roman law, and is followed by examples of arguments both pro and con, the purpose of which is to show students how to be effective advocates for their clients. Many of the propositions are rather silly ("A woman is tortured by a tyrant who thinks that her husband is plotting to assassinate him. Later the husband divorces the women. Can she sue him for ingratitude?" or "A Vestal Virgin writes a poem in praise of marriage. Should she be prosecuted for breaking her vow of chastity?"), and quite a few involve pirates and kidnappings, the better to engage the interests of Roman teenagers. But the main point here is that these propositions, and the arguments advanced both for and against them, are rhetorical exercises for students; they do not necessarily represent the views of the elder Seneca on any of the underlying legal issues. To say that "Seneca argued that unmitigated greed caused damage to the world" is therefore seriously misleading.
Example 2: The final paragraph in the section entitled "Private philanthropy" contains this sentence: Plutarch believed that charity could prolong the suffering of the poor by encouraging laziness, describing a Spartan telling a beggar "But if I gave to you, you would proceed to beg all the more; it was the man who gave to you in the first place who made you idle and so is responsible for your disgraceful state." The problem here is similar. In fact, we have no idea whether Plutarch himself believed that charity prolonged the suffering of the poor. The original source of this quotation is not cited in the article, but if you turn to the secondary source (Hands 1968, p. 65), it will lead you to p. 159, note 67, where you will find a reference to Plutarch's Moralia 235A. That citation is incorrect (it should be 235E), but persevering readers who turn to section 235A and keep going will eventually discover the correct passage. It comes from a work entitled Ἀποφθέγματα Λακωνικά (Sayings of the Spartans), a collection of quotations attributed to various ancient Spartans, from the legendary kings of the 8th and 7th centuries to genuine historical figures of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Most of the quotations exemplify the famous Spartan qualities of severity and austerity, and this one is no exception. Plutarch's interest in collecting them was to illustrate the character of the Spartans, not to express his own views on beggars and charity, and to say that he himself believed that "charity could prolong the suffering of the poor" is to serious misrepresent the nature of the work. Imagine if this same collection of Spartan quotations had been compiled by St. Augustine, or by Winston Churchill. Would we then claim, in wikivoice, that Augustine or Churchill believed that by helping beggars you only make them lazy? And leaving Plutarch aside, what do the words of an anonymous Spartan who was already ancient in Plutarch's time have to do with the subject of poverty in ancient Rome?

These are just two examples, but there are many other passages in the article that reveal a similar lack of familiarity with the ancient sources. To be fair, most Wikipedia articles on Greek and Roman topics suffer from similar problems, to a greater or lesser extent; this one is no worse than most, and better than many. To avoid them, such articles really need the participation of editors who can read Latin and Greek, are broadly familiar with ancient Greek and Roman authors and their works, and have at least a little academic training in ancient history. There aren't a whole lot of people like that who are active on Wikipedia, but there are some. It is probably inadvisable to nominate an article on classical topic for FA without the active participation of at least one such editor, since problems that are obvious to people with experience in the field are liable to pass unrecognized by those whose interest is more casual.

Here are a few more passages in which the treatment of the ancient sources seems problematic to me, in one way or another. They are grouped by the sections in which they appear:

Private philanthropy

  • First paragraph. The 1st-century BCE Greek geographer Strabo described supplies to the poor in Rhodes being funded by wealthy philanthropists. Rhodes =/= Rome. Although the island was firmly within the Roman orbit in Strabo's time, under Roman rule the cities of the Greek east were generally allowed to govern their internal affairs as they saw fit, and it is difficult to extrapolate from Greek cultural institutions to Roman ones. (See the remarks about geographical flattening above.)
  • Same paragraph. An ancient inscription from Acmonia recounts a legislative proposal by an individual named Titus Flavius Praxias to, in 85 CE, to allocate the funds earned from select pieces of property for an annual banquet. This is true, but it is not a very convincing example of "private philanthropy", at least if that phrase is understood to mean assistance for the poor. Hands 1968 is cited here, but he is principally interested in the inscription for the light it casts on the legal mechanisms by which private wealth could be transferred to the state, and he does not imply that it describes any kind of charity in the modern sense of the word. From the inscription it is clear that the funds were to be used for a banquet celebrating Praxias's memory and a ceremony (an imitation of the Roman rosalia) in which roses were purchased to decorate his tomb, as well as for the ongoing protection of his tomb against vandalism and other damage. Praxias, although a Greek living in Asia Minor, had become a Roman citizen, and Simon Price (Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, p. 89) sees his bequest as an example of the imitation of Roman practices by upper-class Greeks in order to enhance their standing among the local elites. Aristocratic jockeying for status doesn't rule out the possibility of also helping the poor, of course, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that helping the poor was any part of Praxias's purpose. The SEG reference given for this inscription in the footnote (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 15, 330) is incorrect; the correct reference is IGRR (= Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes) IV 661 (with corrections in SEG 13, 542). The Greek text is here; an English translation can be found in Barbara Levick, The High Tide of Empire: Emperors and Empire AD 14–117 pp. 83-84, no. 161.
  • Same paragraph. The same reference to SEG 15, 330 is also given for the inscription from Ephesos concerning the bequest of C. Vibius Salutaris, mentioned a few sentences later. It is incorrect there too. This long text (actually several related documents) is inscribed on the wall of the theater at Ephesos; it has generated a much discussion and a large bibliography, none of which is mentioned here. It was published as no. 27 in Die Inschriften von Ephesos, but the Greek text and an English translation can be more conveniently consulted in J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (Hesperia suppl. 6, 1961), pp. 55-85 (JSTOR 1353868).

Legal status

  • Tryphoninus, a jurist recorded in the Digests, recounts the story of a supposedly poor man who authored his will without the knowledge of the mass of wealth through his slaves. The odd phrase "mass of wealth through his slaves" presumably means "wealth [amassed] through [the work of] his slaves". But Tryphoninus doesn't actually recount the story of anyone in this passage. The "supposedly poor man" is not a real person but an imaginary, hypothetical example invoked to illustrate a legal point about the laws governing Roman inheritance. Look again at Humfress's more careful wording ("envisions a situation" =/= "recounts the story of") in the essay cited in the next sentence. The name Tryphoninus should not be italicized (but good for you for not following Humfress into error and misspelling it Tryphonius, as she does).

Living conditions

  • First paragraph. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, the Roman poor lived in tabernae, or the awnings of theaters. The phrase sub velabris umbraculorum theatralium is here translated as "awnings of theaters", following Rolfe's translation in the Loeb edition, which is what the link in the footnote points to. But if you look again at Osborne's essay in Osborne and Atkins, p. 9, which is the other source cited in this sentence of the article, you will see that Osborne favors a different interpretation: he quotes Nicholas Purcell, who understands the words as a reference to the vaulted stone substructures that supported the seating of theaters and amphitheaters and formed the conspicuous rows of arched openings still visible today on buildings like the Colosseum and the Theater of Marcellus. These dark archways were notorious in antiquity as the haunts of thieves, prostitutes, and other persons of dubious character. There's no certainty here, but I would encourage you to follow Purcell and Osborne rather than Rolfe.
  • Second paragraph. Galen claimed the rural impoverished townsfolk consumed flat-cakes as part of their diets. The phrase "rural impoverished townsfolk" is an oxymoron: rural people do not live in town, and townsfolk are not rural. Galen's text actually mentions two different groups here: οἵ τε κατ' ἀγρὸν ἄνθρωποι καὶ τῶν κατὰ πόλιν οἱ πενέστατοι (literally "the people in the country and the poorest of those in the city"). The links to both Galen citations in the footnotes are broken, but it looks as if they were intended to point to Powell's translation, published by Cambridge Univ Press (and behind the Cambridge paywall). Powell translates the phrase in question here as "country folk and very poor town-dwellers".
  • Fourth paragraph. Poor Romans were especially vulnerable during crises, being susceptible to food shortages or being the victims of crime. According to the 2nd-3rd century Roman historian Herodian, during a time of plague in the city of Rome in which many common people suffered greatly, the Emperor Commodus (r. 177–192) left Rome for Laurentum. I don't understand the sequence of thought here. What does Herodian's comment about Commodus's decision to leave the city have to do with the susceptibility of poor Romans to health problems and crime? As an analogy, earlier this year the governor of Texas was traveling abroad and chose not to return home when the city of Houston was devasted by hurricane Beryl. This may tell us something about the governor of Texas, but it does nothing to help us understand why the people of Houston are especially vulnerable to hurricanes.

Christianity

  • First paragraph. The epistulae of Paulinus, a 4th-century Christian Bishop describes possibly fictitious Christians organizing mass events designed to provide alms and gifts for the poor. This is a puzzling statement. What is meant by "possibly fictitious Christians"? On its face the sentence seems to say that certain charitable activities were organized (where? when?) by people who claimed to be Christians but who in reality were not, but is that really what Paulinus wrote? I couldn't check because no citation (ancient or modern) is provided here.
  • I should have fixed this issue; Paulinus was describing a banquet for the poor and it was possibly fictious as it may have been exaggerated. Also, he wasn't present for the event he is describing. Graearms (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second paragraph. Ambrosiaster, an unidentified author of a 4th-century commentary on St Jerome. The commentary attributed to the so-called Ambrosiaster deals with the epistles of Saint Paul, not with Jerome, most of whose works are later than the period when the Ambrosiaster is thought to have been writing. (Incidentally, it's a little surprising to see Jerome, who along with Augustine was the most formidable scholar and theologian of his age, and whose Latin translation of the bible remained the standard text for European Christians for over a thousand years, identified simply as "a 4th and 5th century priest".)

And few other miscellaneous quibbles:

  • the Cataline conspiracy: The name is Catiline (Catilina in Latin), not Cataline. The event is referred to as the "Catilinarian conspiracy" in most English-language sources, and that is the name of the WP article. Why anyone would take a perfectly good wikilink to Catilinarian conspiracy and pipe it so that it reads "Cataline conspiracy" instead (not once but twice!) baffles me.
    I have heard people use the term Catiline conspiracy before which is why I wrote it that way. After doing a quick google-search to see if others had used this term before, I found a few sources which did indeed write it this way: National geographic, History skills, History collection, and the Ancient History Encyclopedia. Graearms (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin terms such as obligatus, nexus, and damnatus all were used to describe debtors. Not quite true. Obligatus and damnatus are adjectives that describe debtors, but nexus is a noun that describes the debt itself. Hands (cited in the footnote) writes that these words "came to be used in the context of penalties for debt"; note the careful wording, which does not say that they were all used "to describe debtors". The paraphrase in the WP article has transformed the accurate statement in Hands into an inaccurate one.
    I have edited the statement to better reflect what Hands has said. Graearms (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gytheio. Gytheio is the modern Greek name. When referring to the ancient city, better to use the ancient name Gytheion (or the latinized form Gytheum). And although the link to the Greek text is helpful for those who read Greek, most WP readers will benefit more from an English translation. Since Hands is already cited in this sentence, why not also cite his translation of the inscription (p. 189, no. D31)?
    I Latinized Gytheio to Gytheum and have added the citation to p.189 of Hands. Graearms (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be a pleasant experience to have your hard work picked apart in this way, and because many of these comments essentially boil down to "the person who wrote this does not appear to have an adequate knowledge of the subject", it is probably hard not to take them personally. But in spite of the problems I have noted (and those noted by UC above), there is still a lot of value in this article, which brings together much interesting information that is not otherwise easily available in one place. It may not be among "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", but FA status matters much more to Wikipedia editors than it does to ordinary readers.

Best wishes, Choliamb (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Very interesting article!

  • These factors may have prevented the development of a uniquely poor social class. – I can't follow here, does this mean the class did not develop because the poor simply died?
  • during the Roman Republic, only a small fraction of the massive population was truly capable of partaking in or influencing the political process. – I assume the rest of the paragraph is all about the Roman Republic? What, then, was the situation in the Roman Empire?
  • Another uncertainty is the presence of a Roman middle class. Their society – Is "their society" really referring to the Roman middle class here, or does this need reformulation?
  • Other scholars, such as the classicist Dr. William Harris – needs a comma after Harris
  • single estate in Magnesia, owned – remove comma
  • the text by Dr. John Rolfe – the use of titles (Dr.) is discouraged in Wikipedia. You could write "the historian" or similar to make clear that he is a scholar.
  • Although, in another translation of the text by Dr. John Rolfe the "vaults" are the awnings of the theaters. – What is the significance of vaults vs awnings? Why does it matter if it was either of them? When this has no implications, you could combine to a single sentence and say "vaults or awnings".
  • Products of horticulture, such as eggs or cheese – are eggs and cheese really the objective of horticulture? The linked article only talks about plants.
  • the poor Roman diet – ambiguous wording. Presumably you mean "the diet of the Roman poor", not the "poor diet"?
  • following the introduction of free pork by Aurelian – when? Any details about this?
  • Constantine issued a decree – when was this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Three weeks into the nom, I think the concerns raised are serious enough to archive so that improvements can take place away from the pressure of the FAC process. You can re-nominate after two weeks but I would strongly suggest peer review beforehand; you could also try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2024 [13].

Carlos Yulo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Royiswariii (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Yulo is a 2 times Olympic Gold Medalist in Gymnastics in 2024 Olympic Games. He's competed in men’s floor exercise final and placed first with a score of 15.000 points. He became the first Filipino man to "rewrite" the Philippine History of Olympic Games after Hidilyn Diaz victory in women's 55 kg weightlifting event in Tokyo.

Also, This article graded "GA" See:Talk: Carlos Yulo Royiswariii (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royiswariii, as is stated in the guidance for nominators, it is strongly recommended that editors only nominate articles that they have made significant contributions to. You've made exactly one minor addition to this article—so I can say with certainly that this nomination should be withdrawn, and that you should focus instead on getting more experience editing, with a mind towards learning how to improve articles so that they may meet the FA criteria. Remsense ‥ 诉 07:57, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would be best to withdraw. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riley1012, Relayed, and Arconning: as the top contributors to this article, your feedback on whether this is ready for FAC or should be archived would be appreciated. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the ping. Though I wouldn't consider myself a major contributor to this article (all I did was archive every reference using IABot), there's still aspects of the article that needs attention before being considered for FA. I have concerns regarding the length of the lead section (which I believe to be too short to summarize the whole article), the references section having formatting inconsistencies (like how Manila Standard is written as The Manila Standard and others as Manila Standard), some questionable sources (such as www.journal.com.ph), and accessibility issues on tables (WP:DTAB). Using the GA nom as the rationale for sending this to FAC is unreasonable since GA and FA have two different criteria. I agree with others; please consult with the major contributors of the article before nominating such, and review the FA criteria. – Relayed (t • c) 13:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the lead introduces him to be "the most successful Filipino gymnast in history", with no proper citation, questioning the article's verifiability and neutrality. – Relayed (t • c) 13:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs Honestly, defo not ready for an FAC... I'd request to archive it, thanks. Arconning (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs I agree with the comments above. I've never had a FA, but I know meeting the GA standards certainly does not mean an article is ready for FA. I appreciate the suggested improvements from Relayed. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 August 2024 [14].

Ada Wong

[edit]
Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress. This was originally written by Niemti before I and HopalongCasualty rewrote it. The article was further copyedited by JokEobard, which I feel like I should push through.

The article is currently GA and has received peer reviews by reviewers like Aoba47 UndercoverClassicist Damien Linnane, PanagiotisZois, Tintor2, Fritzmann2002 after inviting some of them. I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria and would appreciate more feedback. Thanks 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Ada_Wong_in_Resident_Evil_2_remake.png needs a complete FUR
Hi Nikkimaria. I think I already resolved it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UC

I set out at peer review that I don't think the treatment of this character's sexuality/sexualisation is where it needs to be -- we have a lot of comments at the start of "Reception" as to her being a sex symbol, a feminist icon, a "bitch" and so on -- but nothing really set out to say where this comes from, other than that she's a woman and wears a (fairly unremarkable-looking, at least in the lead image) dress. There are also quite a few remaining grammar and prose errors. PR is advice rather than commandments, but it seems odd to bring the article here having left a lot of that feedback unactioned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I already removed and replaced it about their relationship with Leon since I found another source. I felt like the peer review was stagnant already. But I already attempted to resolve everyone's concerns at the peer review and got no reply back. Can you be specific what are the other few prose errors so we can figure it where is it? Thanks. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did make some small scale changes at PR, mostly to remove individual examples of e.g. "revealing" or "sexualised", but I didn't see a real response to the broader point about how the issue of sexualisation is framed across the article. It's more than a matter of taking out a few words: it's about the overall structure and flow of information, and making sure that we actually have good evidence for one of the article's most prominent arguments.
A few examples of the prose issues, but not an exhaustive list:
  • Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular and best female video game.
  • Magazines also praised her as one of the best female villain
  • Although digital media scholar Esther MacCallum-Stewart said that Resident Evil's female characters possess unique qualities making them viable choices for players to select over their male counterparts, and said their combat attire helped them avoid criticism of adhering to the male gaze.
  • Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in retrospective from the events of Resident Evil 2
  • correspond to the submissive woman–femme fatale character couple
In themselves, these are fairly easy to fix, but the reason for bringing them up is that I think they illustrate that the article really needs a bit more looking-over, including but not only for the matters brought up at PR, before it comes here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I was a bit rushed. But yeah, I can admit that writing in the reception section can be hard. Anyway, I made some changes to the prose issues you mentioned [15], though I couldn't change/remove the last part "submissive" since it's part of the author's quote. But I reworded the next sentence after that. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I apologise for repeating myself, but I don't think this is a matter of tweaking a few sentences: I think the evidence base of the article needs a good look, and then the article itself needs to be reworked so that either a) the commentary about sexualisation, feminism and so on has some evidence from the games to support it, or b) the article is reworked to ensure that what it says is proportioned according to what it can demonstrate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion was continued to the user's talk page. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave some comments here. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How is "biohazardcg2.com" reliable?
Done and replaced into Behind the voice actor (the only source that confirms every voice actors)
  • Ref 61 and 62 are missing pages.
I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot. There are a lot of Ada mentions because she appeared in that RE novelization, which just retells the story of Resident Evil: Retribution. Meanwhile, I already replaced the 2nd novel source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add ISSN to ref 76.
Done
  • If there are any, unsourced categories should be removed. I'll have a look at them when I finish the review.
Done I have removed some of them that don't fit the character.
  • I did not find any issues in the first two sections of the article. To me, it reads well and explains those parts well.
  • I will go through the Reception later and do a source spotcheck considering that the GA review took place in 2023 and the article has been slightly revamped since then.
Vacant0. Thanks for your review. I think I already resolved your minor concerns above. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing.

  • "Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular female video game characters." – in the following sentences you should list the reasons and opinions about this claim. This also goes for "Magazines also praised her as one of the best female video game villains, with capabilities to star in her own video game."
    I'm not sure if its needed because if I did added their long quotes/reasons then the reception might turn out to be listicles, which the WikiProject:Video games community hates it. I copied this format to the FA article Jill Valentine's reception section. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, 20, 28, 31, 38, 40, 43, 56, 64, 65.
    • "The game allows players to select between four scenarios with interwoven storylines, and Ada's campaign becomes available upon completion of those of Leon, Chris Redfield, and Jake Muller's scenarios" I only see the beginning mentioned in Ref 40
      I ended up removing that content for being like a game guide content by reviewer below. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    • No mention of the Russian Far North in Ref 43.
      Removed and commented/resolved each of your concerns Vacant0. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Support Looks good to me. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful review! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Andrzejbanas

[edit]

Some brisk points from my reading through the article.

  • In the lead (and in the Concept and design section), the game genre survival horror is mentioned. While I agree, Ada shows in more than just the games and as this is an article on a character and game mechanics don't seem typically important in the prose, I'd drop the "survival horror" and maybe even say she's from the Resident Evil media franchise.
    Removed at the concept and design section only since in the lead it needs to be really specific. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
I've noticed you've kept in the genre in the lead. I know Wikipedians (myself included) can get obsessed with genre. I feel like in game articles it is important. Most people don't know what "survival horror" is and if we discuss Ada as a character in games and films, a game genre does not seem to relevant. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it, hopefully my conom will agree this time. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Lead and first section mention Ada, but sort of suggest she was an anti-hero in the first game as well. The citation mentioning the name maybe clarifies that the name as just sort of tossed in without much reflection of what kind of character Ada was or would be at the time. Might be good to add that or clarify it.
    Unfortunately, we can't. Pls see this argument by my conom here [16]. It also reads to me that her name being mentioned at the first game doesn't mean she was an antiheroine already. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
Sure, not going to argue this. She is more developed in the later games and hey, this might be a "different" Ada for all we know. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I see this all over video game articles lately, WP:VG's cousin WP:FILMS and MOS:FILMCAST suggest "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided. The plot summary should convey such roles." Not to mention we have material like "playable protagonist" linking to "playable character", which should probably be changed via WP:EGG.
    Replaced others except the word "protagonist" from lead and concept section and "antagonists" at lead. See this [17]. I am following Jill Valentine FA format, but I also agree that "saves the main character Leon" or other stuff reads awkward if I am gonna replace the word "protagonists". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
Honestly, probably don't even need to say he's the protagonist either. Again, per the plot description ideology a good summary of who she is and what she does would clarify her role in a not really complicated story. If she's working for Umbrella or terrorists or whoever, this will establish her to a general audience. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is if we also removed the word "protagonist", the reviewers would be asking like "who is Leon?" like in the peer review, 2 person asked me about this. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
There are other ways to address Leon that will help the user. if its in terms of character, you can surely find sources that he's a police officer stuck in raccoon city or looking for the president's daughter. If it's more vague, you can surely find a source for him as the main playable character. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrzejbanas Great idea you got there. Ive changed it into a "police officer" since I do have IGN source for that claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • A lot of the concept and design refers to plot points I wouldn't understand unless I played the games or knew a basic narrative. It jumps around between the character/personality/job of Ada and changes in her overall design.
    Unfortunately, Concept and design section isn't the place for the readers to know the character well and I can't do really much here unless more sources can be found for her dev info but I already went deep and found nothing more. Especially Ada's backstory is unknown and Capcom didn't introduced it yet. I already arranged it in order into RE2- Re2remake- RE4- RE4remake- RE6/RE Village. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    I think you managed to make this easier of a read. Good job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leon and Ada develop a relationship. Is it like, romantic or sexual or strictly business? Might want to elaborate on that here.
    Their relationship is not specified by the source [18]. Their relationship is kind of complicated since in RE2, they have more of a romantic relationship in the middle of the game, but she actually only used Leon to steal a sample of the virus by betraying (the same with RE4). They can be assumed by fans or people who are familiar with RE as if they are having a romantic relationship, but it is not. It can't be specified or do you have any suggestions? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    Yeah see this is the problem here. A lot of the article assumes we are familiar with Resident Evil while we have to assume someone could stumble upon this article via a "Random Article" button or see her on the front page potentially. If we could find a source that somehow explains even that their relationship is vague or maybe re-phrase this that Ada casually helps Leon or steals from him or whatever she may do to showcase her anti-hero nature. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added content [19]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Resident Evil 6 takes place in 2012 in the fictional Chinese city of Lanshiang. The game allows players to select between four scenarios with interwoven storylines, and Ada's campaign becomes available upon completion of those of Leon, Chris Redfield, and Jake Muller's scenarios." probably don't need to know when you can play as Ada, feels a bit video game guide-y.
    Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Honestly, going back and forth between the development and the plot, I feel like a lot of it could be moved around to make it easier to understand. I feel like stuff like "Ada is a Chinese-American spy and mercenary who recurs as an antiheroine in the Resident Evil series." and "Ada Wong was introduced as a supporting character in Capcom's 1998 survival horror video game Resident Evil 2." and "She meets protagonist Leon S. Kennedy, and the two develop a relationship as they save each other's lives throughout the game." can be covered in the plot. I'm assuming a lot of this article is based on the format of the Jill Valentine FA. I wonder if it would be better for video game characters to follow more wikipedia film article formats. Possibly a section called "narrative" or something that introduces key facts about the character "she's a chinese-american spy who works for the baddies" (but you know, written better) and then going into specifics about how her character relates to the plot and other major characters like Leon and Wesker etc.
    Discussion moved below. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Same with other elements. Her clothes she wears in the game feel a bit more related to the reception of how she looks and is perceived, as in the development section it just seems tossed in mid-sentence. Might be good to try to format how she looks in the critical reception. Something like "Ada has repeatedly been brought into broader analyses of the male gaze in video games [...] In the video games Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 4, Ada's outfit wears a red dress and high heels" follow up with the criticism, then maybe explain how the characters look changed in later games after.
    Removed her signature RE2 outfit info. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

I feel like i've addressed a good amount here, but that's just my comments for now, but I feel like this would greatly enhance the focus on the aspects of the character in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrzejbanas I definitely feel the right way is to copy Jill's article format or VG format rather than WP film article formats (I'm really sorry, but this would confuse everybody, including the peer reviewers). Moving her info about being Chinese and saving each other's lives kind of nowhere can be fit since the plot/appearances section only talks about in-game each Resident Evil game. Her outfits can also be part of the concept and design, especially its changes to the remakes. I don't see how it fits at reception since it doesn't contain positive or negative feedback. Also, all of the male gaze discussions (3rd paragraph) at the scholar and books mostly mentiona only her outfit at Re4 (No mentions at Re2). I will work on your first 6 lists tomorrow. Again, I'm really sorry If I couldn't do your last 2 concerns, but I can think what I can possibly improve to it for people who are not that too familiar with Resident Evil or video games format. Thank you for the review though! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hey. Sorry I think i'm being a bit misunderstood. I'm not suggesting to do WP:FILM standards (my main point there was to possibly slow down on the the protagonist/antagonist stuff as a clear plot summary will make it clear their roles. Having to name them as a protagonist/antagonist honestly feels a bit "high school essay".) I'm generally speaking in terms of her costume and look are brought up in terms of what seems trivial in appearance and honestly, stuff that I feel I could learn from the picture in the infobox (she's indeed wearing a red-dress.) But it comes off as "so what?" in that section and even potentially trivial. I feel it has better context within the reception section where they seem to be more thematically related. Also, nothing is really set in stone with how you write the article. I think you are doing a bang-up job, these are just basically my suggestions and you've brought forth valid points back. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I understand what you mean now hehe. I already removed [20] what you mentioned and will work on your other concerns much much later. Thanks for the detailed review! Will mention you back once I feel like I'm done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrzejbanas Hi. Feel free to read each of my comments. I attempted everything what I can. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you did a really good job of handling the issues presented. Some other quick ones:
"She uses a grappling gun for combat and traversal in the downloadable content (DLC) "Separate Ways"" Indeed she does and its pretty neat, but I don't know why its essential to know this. Doesn't really seem to come up again and comes off a bit trivial unless this is some major plot point I'm missing out on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
I wonder if the whole "Voice-over and live-action actresses" section is better represented by a table or something as it feels a bit odd to just read. I know video game fans tend to really go big on voice acting, but is there any context we can have? Do any of the actors have anything to say about the role or the character that might add? That might add some meat to this section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the voice actors, I'm not quite sure since I cannot find a reliable source other than Li bingbing info at movie about her wig and minor details, but it was removed because it is the only one that can be provided a bit and its kinda redundant. The same happens at Jill FACs. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
Andrzejbanas just gonna poke just in case :D 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your patience @Boneless Pizza:.

  • In the lead with the "for antagonists" phrase... This is still a bit odd phrasing for me. everything else feels very narrative in-universe in this explanation, but in the way this is phrased, it sounds like antagonists is some evil group within the narrative of the game. Probably can just drop "antagonists" here as the sentence will still make sense as she's a spy, she's betrayed by her employers, I think everyone would understand that.
Maybe this rationale can explain properly to you [21]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "more background is given to Ada and Leon's romance," what does "more background" mean? The source says " In the original game, it felt like Leon and Ada fell in love too quickly, so [the development team] spent more time building it up in the remake." Perhaps something like "The development team behind the 2019 remake of Resident Evil 2 to establishing the romance between and Ada and Leon."
I don't think it might be a good read to me, but I did reword it to be more understandable a bit. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Kamiya said he believed that it works out" what works out? The romance? or the narrative change/choice?
The kiss thing from the sentence above it "Executive producer Jun Takeuchi suggested that the kiss between Ada and Leon occur earlier in the remake", to which Kamiya agreed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Despite assisting Leon, she steals a sample of a biological weapon from him for her employer, Albert Wesker."
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Ada's campaign was designed to be "a very classic Resident Evil-style" experience." This sentence only makes sense if we are familiar with the gameplay changes from the first three to the fourth game, which is not referenced here.
Removed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Maybe include a picture of Li Bingbing or Lily Gao or both in the actress section. They are free images so it couldn't hurt?
Added. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • That's an extensive list of side-games! I would suggest dropping the genres from them again, as its not really intregal to her appearance in them.
Dropping all of it could lead to a lack of consistency per other RE characters and Jill Valentine FACs.
  • "Several comic books based on the games were released," probably should mention Ada is in them if she is.
This could result some conflict with other reviewers, but if I mentioned her name "About Ada", it feels like the comics is entirely about her or you got any suggestions about wordings? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "with capabilities to star in her own video game." is a bit of a weird sentence. Either expand on this or maybe remove it. Being in your own video game isn't really a merit of honour, if so, we'd say Bubsy the Bobcat is infinitely superior as he stars in his own game series.
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Several publications have also praised Ada's relationship with Leon; Harri Chan of Polygon has described it as a hallmark of a sexpionage trope. Chan criticized it..." first part of the sentence makes it sounds like Chan was in approval of this, but then the second sentence makes it sound like he's contradicting himself.
The first sentence was just a little commentary. I ended up removing it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "According to Bernard Perron", maybe say who Perron is so we know it's not just some guy. Kind of like " Digital media scholar Esther MacCallum-Stewart" etc.
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Also, this is a bit of a weird statement "according to Perron" sounds like we're going to get an opinion, but if the camera is focused on the skirt on the lead, does this happen or not?
It did (some parts), the cutscene during in-game. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Critic Courtney Stanton". Per this, she appears to be a professor, not a critic. maybe say "academic" or something.
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • There's a lot of reading into Ada Wong as a character in the game and that one about the voice acting. I know you said there wasn't a lot of specific details about the films, but any critical response to Li Bingbing or Lily Gao's portrayal?
Only this source [22], but it is mostly about the film rather than the actor as it seems. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

I'm still going through prose and haven't gone into checking sources for confirmation too much or what is there, but I think this gives you plenty to do regardless. Reach out or ping me if you have any questions. Good work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrzejbanas. I think I already resolved most of your concerns. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by David Fuchs

[edit]

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concept and design:
    • It seems odd to me that the first sentence of the second paragraph, "Ada is a Chinese-American spy and mercenary who recurs as an antiheroine in the Resident Evil series." Isn't the opening line of the body, since that's the top-level relevant detail. It makes more sense to say who the character is at a broad level before explaining when she was introduced.
      Her backstory is not yet known if thats what you're thinking. But, I've rearranged it a bit and added a content for its introduction. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    • "The name "Ada" was conceived by designer Kazunori Kadoi and first mentioned in the original Resident Evil (1996).[15] Resident Evil 2 director Hideki Kamiya changed Linda's name to Ada to provide a link to the first game, and writer Noboru Sugimura came up with her characterization as a corporate spy." This feels like a weird mashup of facts and unclear through line. "Ada" was just a throwaway name in the first game and they picked it as a bid towards continuity? Or was Ada an actual character? (The source used doesn't really clarify that as someone who has never played either game.) Either way, I'd make the detail about the name(change) as a single sentence or two sentences, rather then "and Sugimura came up with her characterization" since that's not really linked to the name.
      Yes, the name "Ada" at first game is just an idea and more like a "throwaway". I made the changes you may wanted [23]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    • I think the concept section needs some rethinking more broadly. You go from development info to broad overview of the character role, to development info from the 2019 remake without introduction, then back to a 2005 game, then a 2012 game, etc. I know a lot of video game character articles try and stick all the development info before appearances, but there's no context for a lot of this development info if you tell it to us and then restate a lot of it when you get to appearances.
      I think I already juggled it now. It is arranged into RE2 - remake - Re4 - remake then Re6/Village. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    • "Voice actress Sally Cahill played Ada Wong in her initial appearance in Resident Evil 2" — I get you might not want to repeat "voice" in the same sentence, but if the VA is not actually performing motion capture, etc. it seems weird to say Cahill "played" the character versus "voiced" her.
      Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    • "The developers of the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4 replaced Ada's red dress in order to distance her from the derogatory Dragon Lady trope, which portrays Asian female characters as "deceitful, mysterious, villainous, and domineering" according to Harri Chan of Polygon." Given that this is one critics' opinion that a) Ada is a dragon lady stereotype, and b) they changed her outfit specifically to avoid that, this really shouldn't be in the development section.
      Fair enough, I moved it into reception. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Appearances:
    • I think it would be better to rewrite the appearances a bit so each paragraph isn't telling us when and where each game is set, given that the chronology doesn't seem super important and the germane details are what Ada is doing in each game, rather than telling us where and when each one is set.
      The chronology only contains a minor detail because it is the introduction to each appearance in what place it happens and what year (the same with FA Jill Valentine article). Its really hard what to come up at intro if I'm gonna remove it or you got any suggestion? Anyways I expanded a bit. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Reception:
    • "Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular female video game characters." There's some weird tense choices in this section, where stuff like this is described in strict past tense, but something like "The Guardian journalists" are in present perfect tense when that seems like an example where you'd want past tense.
      I did reworded it now [24] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
    • I think a little more collating of critic opinions is warranted, as right now there's certain stuff that is getting redundant (like if the common critical consensus is that RE4's outfit was impractical and ridiculous, that could get summed up rather than giving a laundry list of critics saying the same thing.
      Added 2 opinions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • Media:
    • An infobox image needs to primarily be about identification if that's its purpose; to that end, I'm not entirely sold on File:Ada Wong in Resident Evil 2 remake.png as the image here? A remake with a (consciously different) design doesn't seem like it's the best image for that.
      • Hey David fuchs, I think I already resolved your concerns but what do you think her appearance would be more suitable for her infobox image? I used her RE2remake design is because, it has been also used by Capcom or RE portal at her profile at the website. Her render at Dead by daylight has the exact pose like this one too. Much like Jill Valentine' s infobox image I supposed? since that appearance has been used by Capcom as like promoting the character. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • References:
    • Forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs just gonna poke just in case :D 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure most of my issues above have been addressed. The tense issues in the reception section remain, the point that Ada was just a random name thrown into RE1 that was repurposed is still unclear, and the article as a whole repeats itself heavily, with the Concept and design section mostly being an in-universe description of the character in its appearances, before those appearances are elaborated on further afterwards in the Appearances section; the changes to this section just make it more confusing since it spends its time talking about the games in a non-chronological sense, and it's missing a lot of context ("Ada's red side-split dress, choker, and high heels from the original version of the game were replaced for the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4" for instance, tells us what her revised design was not, rather than what it was.) I think there's an overuse of quotes that obfuscate the meaning rather than clarify. I'm not sold the layout of the article is the best way to present the information to a casual audience. I'm regretfully going to oppose since I don't think this is something to be addressed in the scope of FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. JokEobard and I have made several changes already to address each of your concerns. "I don't think this is something to be addressed in the scope of FAC" Well you're kinda wrong about that. Thoughts? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boneless Pizza, As Dave Fuchs is one of the FAC co-ordinators (albeit recused as far as this review goes), I think he probably has a slightly better handle on on what is and isn't within the scope of FAC. Reading these comments, and with a read of the article, I actually think he's kinda right about it. Part of what he's said is reflected in what UndercoverClassicist has said too (and they are one of the best reviewers we have active at the moment). You may want to think about withdrawing this nomination now and working on it a little more before returning - there's nothing wrong with that course, and many of our strongest articles have been down that route. - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not disagreed Fuchs concern that much but other reviewer (I think) [25]. I assumed that this FAC attracted your attention from UC's talk page, but yeah. I know he is a FAC Coordinator, but it doesn't mean that once a user opposed the nomination then the article should ended (We did a lot of changes within a span of 2 days already). According to the FAC's policy Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. Withdrawing it feels like you're giving up. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If there have been "a lot of changes", then it's a sign it shouldn't really be at FAC in the first place; articles that come here should be more or less ready to promote, with FAC for final polishing and tweaking, not a root-and-branch reworking with a lot of changes. Withdrawing isn't giving up by any stretch of the imagination: it's an acknowledgement that the article needs more work to become one of the best pieces WP has to offer. Many people who have written multiple articles (including me) have withdrawn articles to work on them and reintroduce at a later date and see them pass - it's just an acknowledgement that a little more needs to be done, without asking FA reviewers to do all the work for you. - SchroCat (talk)

:::::::Maybe I was exaggerating it I think, I should have worded it "several times". But, yeah we already addressed his main concerns and for now its a waiting game for his respond. Withdrawing it doesn't help that much, especially to other reviewers here who is still tend to continue. I do appreciate your concern though. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose from Shooterwalker

[edit]

Reserving this space for later. I'll have more comments in time. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some review of the prose that would address a few minor issues, mostly for clarity and flow:
  • " Ada is a spy and mercenary who is often hired to steal biological weapons for antagonists, " -> " Ada is a mercenary who often steals biological weapons for antagonists," (it's implied that mercenaries are hired)
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "characterized her" ->

"described her" (simpler)

Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The design feels like it covers the appearances in a way that pre-empts them. I'd consider swapping the order so that appearances start first (here's what she looks like in the game), and then the design comes after (this is how and why they came up with it). I realize you might get conflicting advice on this, but I think this will make a lot more sense. I leave it up to you.
Done Moved some part of sentences from the first paragraph and third paragraph as suggested. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Game publications described" -> " Game publications have described" (slight verb tense change that summarizes what sources have done over time)
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the reception refer to the timeline and events, and being unflattering to the character. It feels like something is missing here, because the issue is unclear or confusing. Try to rephrase or re-order, if you can.
  • " that their combat attire helped avoid criticism of pandering to the male gaze" -> this is unclear. Is the reviewer saying that the red dress is appropriate combat attire, or are they saying that having an alternate "combat appropriate" outfit helped address the criticism?
Done, just added "alternate" just in case. Her outfit in Re4 despite being red dress can be considered a conbat attire cause she has a blacj thing on the sides of her legs. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to the last sentence, since this sentence is the outlier, maybe it makes more sense to put it at the end of the paragraph. In WP:PYRAMID style, it's better to lead with the general statements, and put the exceptional statements later in the prose.
Done moving it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " who she assumed were viewers or players" -> this is an odd statement. Like, doesn't everyone assume that some men played the game? It feels easy enough to remove without losing anything.
Done removing it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholar Andrei Nae wrote that Ada and Ashley Graham are a "submissive woman–femme fatale character couple" in Resident Evil 4." -> "Scholar Andrei Nae contrasts Ada's role in Resident Evil 4 with the character Ashley Graham." (the quote is unclear and begs for more explanation. It's clearer to remove the quote and explain it in plain language.)
I'll admit this part is the hardest to rephrase or rewrite. I attempted to add, but I'll shows you what was written in the book just in case it can be improved. It was written like this "The not-yet hypermasculinity of Leon S. Kennedy is also reflected in the game’s scripted narrative whose approach to gender is indebted to noir cinema. The game’s two main female characters, Ashley Graham and Ada Wong correspond to the submissive woman-femme fatale character couple. While Leon’s authority over Ashley is never contested as she obeys him throughout the entire game, Ada Wong is the femme fatale whose disobedience of patriarchy demands regulation. However, contrary to the conventions of noir cinema and in synch with Leon S. Kennedy’s incomplete hypermasculinity, Ada remains outside the ambit of the male protagonist’s authority." Any thoughts or the added content is fine? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Gao deleted her Instagram posts after she was harassed online, later saying: "My Ada is a survivor. She is unpredictable, resilient, and absolutely not a stereotype." -> It makes more sense to place this after the criticism. Right now, it breaks up the flow of the paragraph.
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is otherwise excellent. This is very close to FA quality, a few issues aside. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has all helped a lot. The biggest issues are still some of the more complex, confusing ideas in the reception:
  • Mike Wehner of The Escapist said, "Capcom's manipulation of the Resident Evil timeline hasn't exactly been kind to this particular theory surrounding Ada Wong's fate" when Ada returned in Resident Evil 4 after her supposed death in Resident Evil 2. According to Wehner, Capcom buried Ada's death in series lore to the extent that "you're not supposed to acknowledge that it even exists".
I'm having trouble understanding it, and it should be clear in the article without having to dive into the sources. It could use a rephrase, or at least a reorder. We can always talk it out if you're looking for further input.
Also,
  • Scholar Andrei Nae wrote that Leon S. Kennedy's not-yet hypermasculine personality is also represented in the game's scripted plot, which takes a noir film-inspired approach to gender. He stated that Ada and Ashley Graham are a "submissive woman–femme fatale character couple" in Resident Evil 4. He further says that while Ashley always follows the protagonist Leon's commands in-game, Ada stays outside the scope of the male protagonist's control, defying patriarchal convention.
Done attempting to rephrase this one. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know academic sources touch on some complex ideas, but for the sake of an encyclopedia article, it starts to feel off topic at this level detail. The phrasing I suggested in my first round of feedback ("Scholar Andrei Nae contrasts Ada's role in Resident Evil 4 with the character Ashley Graham") would be shorter and clearer. If "contrast" feels too specific, the word "compare" would work too. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done and replaced. I think I should be done to your concerns? Shooterwalker 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support the prose on this article. I wanted to note the objections from David Fuchs and I actually sympathize. I would return to my earlier comment: The design feels like it covers the appearances in a way that pre-empts them. I'd consider swapping the order so that appearances start first (here's what she looks like in the game), and then the design comes after (this is how and why they came up with it). It's going to make a lot more sense to say "this is how Ada appeared in the fiction, and this is how she was designed" instead of the other way around. (That's indeed the template I used on my other FAs.) It will likely allow you to simplify some of the verb tense issues, as you could write the design section without having to jump back and forth with how she appeared in game. I would still support in spite of that, but I think it's the type of thing that would improve the article substantially. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review/support! I'm not sure if Fuchs would be fine now, but we already tried and made the changes at the design and appearances section. I did not made the changes that much earlier from his concern becauae I was having trouble until my coworker had enough time and do the changes. Hooefully he respond to it (he hasn't yet). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2

[edit]

I Will be doing some revisions.I think I'm qualified to oversee this article. Tintor2 (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2024

  • Behind the Voice Actors has been approved by the game project but only the green mark is available. I recommend adding that to the citation.
  • I've talked with the nominator and other members about the quality of Siliconera, but I'm pretty sure the game project has also approved it. It tends to mention the original material like Famitsu and translates most of it in order to be a more accessible source for the general public.
  • Citation 16 is kinda weak. Access to such part of the game though is possible in modern console thanks to ports becoming playable digitally.
  • I read all the sources and found everything reliable as approved by the project. The only website I had no knowledge involved writing by the famous Sarkeesian.
  • The formatting of citations is consistent and formating of dates is also consistent. I might easily pass this once @Boneless Pizza!: added the note to Behind the Voice Actors.Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I apologize for this, but no ref 16 is not weak or something, it is the only one of the two primary sources being used to verify the artists at the article. Anita Sarkeesian or Feminist Frequency is indeed reliable and it went through Jill Valentine's FAC several times. Also, I don't think we need notes at Behind the Voice, its unnecessary. Any more concerns? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving my support then. I was wondering if there was a more commentary to add for 16 though.Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The commentary for that source is also unnecessary after reading through Jill Valentine FACs, it has no commentary for the source about its artist. Thanks for reviewing. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 19:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

What makes http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com, https://www.star-ch.jp, https://www.fukikaeru.com, Micro Design Publishing Inc., Biohazard 4 Kaitai Shinsho - Report about Ada and BradyGames Publishing reliable sources? Should Twitter be titled X now? #80 has a notably different format from the others. Is Perry 2012 used anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus Done replacing everything. However, I don't know how to change the name "Twitter" into "X", because the name "Twitter" is not stated in the title and I don't think it's replaceable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's a thing with {{cite tweet}}. Note that sometimes you don't need to remove a source; explaining how it is a "high-quality reliable source" sometimes suffices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! About the source, most of it was irrelevant anyway that's why I ended up removing it, including the "Kaitai Shinsho" source despite it being the only reliable source you've mentioned. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk Hey, I wanted to know is this a source review pass or there's more? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, Andrzejbanas Thank you for your detailed reviews, but unfortunately I have to withdraw my nomination due to 2 opposses here in FaC and I feel like I've been burned out here just because of these issues (I'll work on it slowly). Hopefully I can renominate it in the future and I could able to let User:Aoba47 check if they are satisfied with the prose already before renominating it next year or not. Also, thanks to UndercoverClassicist and Fuchs for weighing in to make sure that the article still contain significant issues. Because of that, I wanted to withdraw my first FAC nom. Thank you. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to hear it but I encourage you to try again when you're ready. There is a lot of great work here, and it can one day be a featured article. I'm here if you need any support. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.:Shooterwalker I got an email and someone said I shouldn't abort yet cause of single oppose so Ill try to resolve these issues as much as I can now and gather more feedbacks 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the spirit. Keep going. As far as the prose is concerned, I only have two notes that can be resolved with a bit of work. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figure I should review an article, so why not a video game character?

  • "The name "Ada" was conceived by designer Kazunori Kadoi and first mentioned in the original Resident Evil (1996)" - feels like this could be two separate sentences. I'm left wondering more about how she is mentioned in Resident Evil.
I reworded it a bit by reolacing the word "mentioned" to avoid confusion. Kadoi randomly thought about her name during the development of the first RE game but didn't added her at the game but in second game. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • " Lily Gao played the role in the 2021 reboot film Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City" - you mention this twice, since it's already mentioned in the previous paragraph with the voice actor. I suggest merging those last two short paragraphs
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • " Later ports of Resident Evil 4 include a new scenario featuring Ada as the playable character. " - how much later? This seems kinda significant for an update.
Replaced "later" to "other", maybe this works out for you? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "After helping Leon, Chris Redfield, and Jake Muller defeat Simmons and Carla, Ada destroys the lab where her clone was created before accepting a new assignment." - too much for one sentence
Trimmed and reworded. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • What kind of game is "Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City (2012)"?
Added 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • She also appears in games from other franchises, including the browser-based social game Onimusha Soul (2013),[44] as a non-player character in the tactical role-playing game Project X Zone 2 (2015),[45] Dead by Daylight (2016) as a playable character,[46] Street Fighter V (2016) as an alternate skin for Kolin,[47] as a costume in Knives Out (2017),[48] as a fighter in Puzzle Fighter (2017),[49] and in the digital collectible card game Teppen (2019).[50] In 2023, she also appeared in the two crossover events of mobile games.[51][52]
  • I figured I'd quote all of this since a few things stood out.
  • "Onimusha Soul" seems much more than a social game, it's an action-adventure or hack and slash. That makes so much more sense why Ada would appear there, and I had to look up what social game even meant.
Added and Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • I had to look up what Dead by Daylight was, so I suggest adding what kind of game that was (like the other ones do). Similar for Knives Out (which is what type of game?)
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • I don't know what "the two crossover events of mobile games." - could you elaborate?
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Ada features in novelization of the films and games" - is the plural of novelization not "novelizations"?
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Capcom screenwriters created two Resident Evil 2 radio dramas, such as Ikiteita Onna Spy Ada (The Female Spy Ada Lives)." - "such as"? What's the other one? Or was only one aired?
Added missing content. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Several comic books based on the games about Ada were released" - were the comic books about Ada, or did she happen to appear in them?
She indeed appear in those comics. I ended up removing "about ada". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Magazines also described her as one of the best female video game villains." - maybe I'm missing something, but when was Ada a villain? She's described as "antiheroine" and "mercenary"
Since shes antihero, she can be also called Villain by some journalost, but I ended up removing it to avoid the confusion. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • "Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in a retrospective of the events of Resident Evil 2." - I keep reading this sentence. Was the criticism for her portrayal in RE4 or 2?
The criticism was in Re4. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Ada Wong reappeared in Resident Evil 4 following her alleged death in Resident Evil 2" - when did she allegedly die in RE2? The way it says earlier in the article seems to contradict this:
  • "Despite being severely wounded, Ada survives and helps Leon destroy the T-103 Tyrant by tossing him a missile launcher.[19][30] Ada escapes Raccoon City before its destruction by a nuclear strike as part of a U.S. government cover-up."
Because the journalist only said "alleged." When you play RE2, Ada got shot by the scientist and fell at the bridge, and in another scene, she was severely injured by the Tyrant (a monster) before dying/passing out in Leon's hands, but in the RE2 remake, she only fell at the bridge, which is why we didn't specify it due to the remake. After falling to the bridge, her fate is now unknown, but it was later revealed that she indeed survived the falls and threw a rocket launcher at the protagonist, Leon S. Kennedy, to destroy the Tyrant. Sorry for spoiling the game. :D 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
  • OK I'm definitely confused. When did Ada die in the games? Nothing in "Appearances" section suggests that
Explained above. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

In all, a good read. Just some few points I wanted some clarity on. Let me know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricanehink. I think I resolved all of your concerns. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Boneless Pizza!, as per the FAC instructions, avoid using graphics like {{done}} as they slow down the page load time. FrB.TG (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG I decided to withdraw per UC's talk page here [26]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [27].

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about volcanic activity at a group of volcanoes in northwestern British Columbia, Canada, that has existed for the last 7.5 million years or more. Volcanoguy 14:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth (Eewilson), if you are able to carry out a source review, that would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild I am beginning it today. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding concerns about 1c of WP:FACR the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he was the only volcanologist who studied the MEVC in detail. As a result, his publications are significantly more detailed than others published since 1992. I've searched Google Scholar and elsewhere thoroughly for information about volcanism of the MEVC and added the relevant sources. I'd dare anyone to prove me wrong. Volcanoguy 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:MEVC map.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:EdzizaTopo.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Raspberry Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Little Iskut Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Armadillo Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Nido Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Spectrum Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Pyramid Formation cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Ice Peak Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Pillow Ridge Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Edziza042909-- 113-16.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Edziza Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Outcast Hill cross section.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Tahltan River mouth.png - Public Domain
  • File:Kakiddi Formation.png - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Tennena Cone.jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:Nahta cone from east june 2006 (Spectrum Range).JPG - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Mess Lake Lava Field.jpg - Public Domain
  • File:Edziza obsidian.jpg - Public Domain
  • All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
  • Images have proper licenses, images with links to their sources are live.

Support on image review. I admire the your work ethic into making majority of the images used in the article! Good luck! Arconning (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arconning: Thanks! I've made some changes since this image review, not sure if that means the swapped images should be reviewed as well. Volcanoguy 19:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I will note here that this seems a very long article given the topic, and I will be watching to see if an appropriate summary style approach has been adopted.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why are "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" and "British Columbia" linked in the lead but not the first sentence of the main article?
    I think it's optional to relink things in the main article, no? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that in one of the guidelines unless something has changed. Volcanoguy 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule used to be that links should appear at first mention in both the lead and the article. This changed relatively recently to allow subsequent repeat links in the article "where readers might want to use them".
I've added the links inside the main article. Volcanoguy 17:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly for "stratovolcanoes, shield volcanoes, subglacial volcanoes, lava domes and cinder cones".
    See above. If the volcano types are relinked than why not also relink the rock types? Volcanoguy 15:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This volcanic complex of Miocene-to-Holocene age". Give what this is in mya in brackets.
    I just removed it since the precise date of when volcanic activity started isn't known. Volcanoguy 14:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "816 metres". Really? That seems sillily precise.
    That's what is given in one of the sources. Volcanoguy 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking lava flows.
    Separate from lava? Volcanoguy 15:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched in silicon, oxygen, aluminum, sodium and potassium." Grammar: you can have 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are rich in ...' (as in note b) or 'Felsic pertains to magmatic rocks that are enriched with ...'
    Done. Volcanoguy 15:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MEVC covers 1,000 square kilometres". Exactly? Or approximately/about?
    About. Volcanoguy 15:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it the second largest eruptive centre in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province". This seems a slightly clumsy way of introducing the MEVC as part of the NCVP.
    How is it slightly clumsy? Volcanoguy 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded it, not sure if it's better. Volcanoguy 22:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "North America" really need linking.
    No, delinked. Volcanoguy 14:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is thought to result from rifting of the North American Cordillera driven by changes in relative plate motion between the North American and Pacific plates." Only likely to be understood by aficionados. Either simplify or unpack.
    I don't see what's so hard to understand in this sentence. Rift even outside of geology means to break/crack and from my experience people usually know what a plate is. I would also like to note that other reviewers in previous FACs didn't find this sentence a problem (I used it other articles). Please explain what is so technical about it. Volcanoguy 16:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am hitting a surprisingly high number of issues given that I am only four paragraphs in. I note that the article has not been through either PR or GoCER, both of which would have been of benefit. I shall take a break, then pick a couple of random sections to sample, to see if it is just a rocky (pun intended) start. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether some of the things you brought up are actual issues rather than just nitpicking. See my comments above. Volcanoguy 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the responses and rereading my own comments I am leaning oppose, but will see what things are like elsewhere.
What's wrong with my responses? I don't have a problem with changing the text I just think maybe you're going a bit overboard on that one sentence about rifting and the plates. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second magmatic cycle and Nido eruptive period
  • "such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields at each end of the volcanic complex." Do you mean that, four lava fields in total, or should it be 'such that the lava flows formed two separate lava fields, one at each end of the volcanic complex'?
    Added "one"; seems to have been a missing word. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both are separated by the Armadillo Highlands". "both" → 'they'.
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three major volcanoes of the Tenchen Member were active during the Nido eruptive period, all of which have since been reduced to eroded remnants. Alpha Peak was the oldest of the three major volcanoes ..." I don't think it is necessary to repeat "three major volcanoes" in consecutive sentences; perhaps 'them' in the second?
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "365 metres (1,198 feet)". Seems a bit false precision, perhaps insert a "|sigfig=2"? There seem to be other conversions in the article where a false degree of precision has been introduced. A "sigfig sweep" should catch them
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An eroded remnant of this volcano comprises a prominent rock pinnacle". Can one use "comprises" here? Several things need to be involved to be comprised. Perhaps 'forms'?
    Yes changed to 'forms'. Volcanoguy 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A feature which puzzles me is the summary of each eruptive period in "Second magmatic cycle". I would suggest ending this section at "... into three distinct eruptive periods". The subsequent text immediately describes them.
    The eruptive periods of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex are represented by the geological formations making up the complex that's why they're mentioned. Not all of the subsequent text is mentioned in the eruptive period sections. For example, the "Nido eruptive period" does not mention the fact that the Nido Formation is exposed along the Mess Creek Escarpment, nor does it mention the fact that the Nido Formation lava flows appear to have originated from several separate eruptive centres along the eastern margin of the MEVC. The "Spectrum eruptive period" doesn't mention the fact that the Spectrum Formation is almost entirely underlain by the Nido Formation and consists mostly of trachyte and rhyolite. The "Pyramid eruptive period" also doesn't mention the fact that the Pyramid Formation overlies the Nido Formation. Volcanoguy 15:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fifth magmatic cycle
  • "passive basaltic lava flows". What is a passive lava flow?
    Removed passive. Volcanoguy 22:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, the MEVC has been demonstrated as a potential source for these two tephra layers along with Hoodoo Mountain, Heart Peaks and Level Mountain." I am struggling a bit with this sentence. I think it is "demonstrated". Is it being used in the sense of 'suggested'?
    Yes, changed to 'suggested'. Volcanoguy 18:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Desolation and Mess Lake lava fields
  • Citation 165 leads this page. The cite is used to support:
"Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice" which I cannot see mentioned.
It is stated earlier in the article that only one eruption is known to have produced pumice during the fifth magmatic cycle and that was the Sheep Track eruption from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period. In the "Eruptive history" tab being linked it clearly says that the eruption that occurred 0950 ± 6000 years ago produced pumice and came from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak. Click the date to see the details. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A small but violent VEI-3 eruption burst from the southwestern flank of Ice Peak near the end of the Big Raven eruptive period" which I cannot see supported.
Supported in the "Eruptive History" tab being linked and Souther 1992 which is already cited. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Willow twigs preserved in ejecta from Williams Cone have yielded a radiocarbon date of 610 CE ± 150 years." The source goives the date of the last eruption as 950 CE and does not mention willow twigs, carbon dating nor an error bar.
See above. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 110 leads to this page which is used to support:
"Eruptions during Big Raven time continued within the last 2,000 years, but the precise age of the latest one is unknown." The source states both "Last Known Eruption 950 CE" and "ending with felsic and basaltic eruptions as late about 1,000 years ago."
That's for the last known eruption of Mount Edziza, not the volcanic complex as a whole. The latest eruption of the complex may have came from The Ash Pit near the Spectrum Range since it may be the youngest feature. The source for the Spectrum Range gives unknown for the last known eruption. Volcanoguy 19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page claims some eruptions are younger than about 1,300 years before present but this page claims The Ash Pit may be the youngest volcanic feature of the volcanic complex. Volcanoguy 23:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"These cones are of Holocene age and occur on Mount Edziza, in the Snowshoe and Desolation lava fields and adjacent to the Spectrum Range." Cones in the Desolation lava fields is not supported.
Supported by Souther 1992. Volcanoguy 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to collapse, the summit of Mount Edziza was at least 610 metres (2,000 feet) higher than its current elevation of 2,786 metres (9,140 feet)." Only the current elevation is supported. Possibly the missing support is in Souther p 21, is it possible to make that available to me?
Supported by Souther 1992. There's no link to Souther's document you have to download it from the Canadian government website; see the doi provided for the source. Volcanoguy 19:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: well written, reasonably graspable by a non-expert IMO, and if a little lengthy, within the bounds of summary style (bar the seeming redundancy noted in "Second magmatic cycle"). The source to text discrepancies need to be explained. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Response? Volcanoguy 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, but have run out of time to get on with this review; I shall be away from the internet for the next week. If the nomination is still open when I get back I shall carry on. If it is considered for closure before then could the closing coordinator note that while I have not reviewed enough of the article to be able to support, I have seen nothing which would cause me to object to it being promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson

[edit]
  • Comparing article source/citation list to original sources. Listed only if question or problem found.
Sources:
  • Lakeman, Thomas R.; Clague, John J.; et. al. (2008) – publisher in Wikipedia article given as "NRC Research Press" which Wikilinks to a redirect to Canadian Science Publishing. Canadian Science Publishing seems to be the modern-day name (since 2010 according to its Wikipedia article) of the publisher, and is the name of the publisher used on the website where the article is located. Are you using NRC Research Press because it was the name of the publisher in 2008? If so, this is consistent with the instructions for the publisher parameter in template cite journal, which reads, "If the name of the publisher changed over time, use the name as stated in the publication or used at the time of the source's publication." Since I don't have the original journal article in front of me, just want to make sure it states the publisher as NRC Research Press.
Yes, the journal uses NRC Research Press instead of Canadian Science Publishing. Volcanoguy 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Souther 1992 – It doesn't appear that Geological Survey of Canada is the publisher. It appears to be the first part of the work, which is Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir, 420. I think using cite report template is a better choice, report (using title param) is The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. With parameters I have set in this example, you get something that I think better reflects the publication.
{{Cite report |last1=Souther|first1=J. G.|author-link1=Jack Souther|title=The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia| work=Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir |series=420| year=1992|isbn=0-660-14407-7|doi=10.4095/133497}}
This gives us
Souther, J. G. (1992). The Late Cenozoic Mount Edziza Volcanic Complex, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir (Report). 420. doi:10.4095/133497. ISBN 0-660-14407-7.
If there is a publisher, you could/should add that parameter as well. The detailed metadata page doesn't actually show a publisher. Perhaps it is Natural Resources Canada? If you can figure that out, add a publisher, too.
Done. Volcanoguy 22:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Volcanoguy 21:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saving to pick up in a bit. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Souther, J. G. & Symons, D. T. A. (1974). Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper, 73-32. https://doi.org/10.4095/102538
So in the cite report template, I think you want work to be Geological Survey of Canada, Paper and series to be 73-32. Publisher possibly Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
It gives Paper 73-32 on the cover of the report. Volcanoguy 18:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as the publisher. Volcanoguy 21:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A 502 is actually the name of the map; the series is 104 G. They're both provided in the top right corner of the map. Volcanoguy 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. I looked it over several times and didn't see it. I do now. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: It appears they have it the other way around on this map. On the Dease Lake topographic map they give 104 J for the map and A 502 as the series; you can see this here. I'm not sure if the Telegraph Creek map details in this article should have 104 G for the map and A 502 as the series despite the map claiming otherwise. Volcanoguy 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just use whatever is on the map. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|work=Geological Survey of Canada, Open File
|series=1732
Done except I put Geological Survey of Canada in |work= and Open File in |series= since Open File and 1732 are together separately from Geological Survey of Canada in the report. Volcanoguy 19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 20:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 20: Imam, Naiyar (2003) – Which edition? When I pulled the ISBN on Amazon, I got 2nd edition.
Done. Volcanoguy 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 95: "Ice Peak Formation" – Could reference an archive? Make one and use in citation.
Done. Volcanoguy 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 103: Lloyd, A.; Edwards, B.; Edwards, C.; Skilling, I.; Lamoreaux, K. (2006) – Page number(s) of a write-up/abstract of the conference?
No page numbers it's a webpage. The webpage is provided via the bibcode in source. Volcanoguy 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your information in the article is coming from the abstract of the conference which is on this web page? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Volcanoguy 21:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 105: "Types of volcanoes" – work seems to be called Volcanoes of Canada instead of repeating "Types of volcanoes"
Fixed. Volcanoguy 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 113: Skilling, I.; Edwards, B.; Hungerford, J.; Lamoreaux, K.; Endress, C.; Lloyd, A. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conference (103). What is used as the source?
See above. Volcanoguy 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 129: Logan, J. M.; Drobe, J. R. (1993) – work = Geological Fieldwork 1992
Done. Volcanoguy 19:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 145: Hungerford, Jefferson D. G. (2013) – go to the link and the date shows as 2014?
Replaced with 2014. Volcanoguy 20:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 148: Hickson, C. J. (2005) – Is this a book chapter? If so, need book editors. Does the chapter happen to be available online? If so, link.
Done. Volcanoguy 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 175: Reiner, Rudy (2015) – Check last name; web page spells it "Reimer". Should journal be Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports?
Fixed. Volcanoguy 17:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 176: "Archaeological Overview Assessment of the Cassiar-Iskut-Stikine LRMP" – Shouldn't Millennia Research Ltd. be the author?
I don't see where it says Millennia Research Ltd. as the author. Maybe Kleanza Consulting? Volcanoguy 20:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the report and on the cover page, it has that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind it appears I was looking at the wrong source (oops). Done. Volcanoguy 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 182: Lamoreaux, K. A.; Skilling, I. P.; Endress, C.; Edwards, B.; Lloyd, A.; Hungerford, J. (2006) – same question about page number(s) as with other conferences (103 and 113). What is used as the source?
See above. Volcanoguy 17:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 184: Duk-Rodkin, Alejandra; Barendregt, René W. (2011) – Needs book editors.
Done. Volcanoguy 22:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 20:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 187: Edwards, B. R. (2010) – same question about page number(s) as with other conferences (103, 113, 182). What is used as the source?
See above. Volcanoguy 17:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for first run. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I think I got all of them. Volcanoguy 22:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll look at it after supper. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few more to look at. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "five cycles of magmatic activity which were characterized by 13 periods of eruptive activity". "which were characterized by" does not make sense here. Maybe "in"?
    I removed it since it wasn't necessary; the second paragraph in the introduction mentions them. Volcanoguy 03:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1,000-square-kilometre (390-square-mile) plateau". Is it almost exactly 1,000? If it is approximate then I suggest {{Convert|1000|km2|mi2|-2|adj=mid|abbr=off}} to round to 400.
    Added "approximately". Volcanoguy 00:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the first cycle ended 5.3 mya and the second started 6 mya. The overlap needs explanation.
    Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe say in lead that each cycle has been less productive than the previous one.
    Done and also did some rewording. Volcanoguy 03:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This volcanic complex comprises a broad, steep-sided, intermontane plateau that rises from a base elevation of 760 or 816 metres (2,500 or 2,675 feet).[5][9][10] A northerly-trending, elliptical, composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau. Four central volcanoes of felsic[a] composition overlie the plateau" This is confusing. You appear to say first that the whole complex is in one plateau, then that the plateau is one volcano, then that other volcanoes overlie the plateau.
    That's right the plateau is overlain by other volcanoes. Volcanoguy 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province" You are describing here the start of the volcanism, so what does it mean to say that it increased?
    "Volcanism at the MEVC about 7 million years ago increased the rate of magmatism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province from 100,000 cubic metres (3,500,000 cubic feet) per year to 300,000 cubic metres (11,000,000 cubic feet) per year". In other words, volcanism in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province occurred at a lower rate until the MEVC started erupting about 7 million years ago; the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province was already an area of volcanic activity before the MEVC existed. Volcanoguy 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An eruption recurrence interval of 379 years has been calculated for the MEVC by dividing 11,000 years by the number of demonstrable Holocene eruptions". Presumably you mean the Holocene MEVC, but you imply the whole of it.
    Reworded. Volcanoguy 15:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magmatic cycles section. You do not need to keep repeating "second most productive", "third most productive" etc, just say that each cycle was less productive than the previous one.
    Did some rewording. Volcanoguy 02:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that the first cycle occurred in three successive periods, the first from 12 to 5.4 mya, the second 7.2 mya, the third between 7 and 6 mya. Successive periods at the same time does not make sense.
    It's a complex rather than a single volcano. Multiple volcanoes of the complex were active at different times, some longer than others. Volcanoguy 00:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have several different dates for the start of the MEVC, in the lead 7.4 mya,in the 'Eruption rate and composition' section 7 mya, and 12 mya in 'Magmatic cycles'. In the lead you have 7.4 and 6.1 mya for the first cycle, in First magmatic cycle, you say "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago". This is ambiguous whether you are giving the period of the first cycle or the Late Miocene, but in any case it is the cycle which is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Changed "restricted to the Late Miocene between 12 and 5.3 million years ago" to "restricted to the Late Miocene between 7.5 and 6 million years ago", same in the lead. Note that in the "Eruption rate and composition" section it gives about 7 million years ago, which is an approximate date provided by the cited source rather than an exact one. In the "Raspberry eruptive period" section it says the "minimum age for the timing of Raspberry volcanism is 7.4–6.2 million years"; 7 million years would fall in that range. Volcanoguy 19:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed "about 7 million years ago" to "at least 7.4 million years ago". Volcanoguy 21:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "12 to 5.4 mya" to "7.4 mya". Volcanoguy 01:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanism of the Nido eruptive period was limited to the northern and southern ends of the MEVC". So the periods were not in specific areas or at successive times, so what does distinguish them? This is not explained.
    Most of the periods occurred at successive times it's just that some of the older dates are not accurate. I've changed some of the dates around so please check to see if it's better. A few of the other periods like Arctic Lake, Klastline and Kakiddi occurred in specific areas. Volcanoguy 01:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first age comes from basal basalt of the Kounugu Member overlying basement rocks and, if correct, implies that the Nido eruptions may have initiated during the Raspberry eruptive period." According to your dating the whole second cycle occurred during the Raspberry eruptive period.
    No, the Raspberry period took place around 7.4 million years ago. Volcanoguy 01:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done to end of second cycle. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: ? Volcanoguy 17:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The next eruptive period, the Pillow Ridge period, occurred when the MEVC was still overlain by an ice sheet." You say above that the ice retreated during the previous Ice Peak period.
    It says it was receding but the ice sheet could have advanced later on. Volcanoguy 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lava fountaining at the extreme northern end of the Arctic Lake Plateau created the Outcast Hill cinder cone which blocked westerly flowing streams to create a temporary lake against its eastern side." You do not need to say that a lava lake was temporary. Maybe change "temporary" to "lava" for clarity.
    It was a water lake, not a lava lake. Removing "temporary" would make it unclear whether or not the lake still exists. Volcanoguy 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both tephra layers may have been deposited shortly after the last glacial period". "after the last glacial period" is another way of saying the Holocene. I think it is better to stick to that term for clarity.
    Removed "after the last glacial period". Volcanoguy 14:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during the height of the neoglaciation". Neoglaciation is a term I have not come across before. According to the article on it the height was the Little Ice Age, and if that is what you mean I think it would be much better to use the more familiar term.
    Replaced with "or during a more recent glacial advance". Volcanoguy 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are very few dates in the Fifth cycle section, and unless I have missed it you do not make clear whether the eruptions in different fields were in different periods or approximately contemporary.
    Most of the volcanic rocks produced during the fifth magmatic cycle have not been dated that's why there aren't many dates. Volcanic activity in the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields occurred more or less simultaneously but I'm not sure about the Mess Lake Lava Field. Volcanoguy 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentioned that volcanic activity in the Desolation and Snowshoe lava fields most likely overlapped in time. Volcanoguy 17:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention the Last Glacial Maximum and Last Glacial Period. It would be helpful to add dates in brackets at first mention. I am not familar with the terms for North American glacial periods, but it would also be helpful to link to earlier ones when mentioning earlier eruptions through glacial deposits. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the timing of the Last Glacial Maximum, not sure about the Last Glacial Period since there doesn't seem to be an agreement on when it began and ended. Volcanoguy 15:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see that Eewilson has already commented on some of the sourcing, but adding here for completeness. #1 seems to be a reasonably well cited thesis, so it probably passes muster. "The Mechanics of Subglacial Basaltic Lava Flow Emplacement: Inferring Paleo-Ice Conditions" and " The Late Holocene White River Ash East Eruption and Pre-contact Culture Change in Northwest North America" are a bit more iffy, though, as I don't see many cites. Regarding the completeness criteria, perhaps there are sources here that can be used. Why is "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia" not used as a source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are PhD theses which are generally considered reliable. Masters theses on the other hand are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. As for "Stratigraphy and paleomagnetism of Mount Edziza volcanic complex, northwest British Columbia", it's an an outdated source. It seems the MEVC hadn't been subdivided into geological formations until the 1980s so I'm not sure where that source can be used in the article. Volcanoguy 16:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already checked Google Scholar for sources, not much left to use in the article. The featured article criteria claims featured articles should be comprehensive rather than complete. Volcanoguy 17:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the article already has 9,000+ words of readable prose. The more information the article has the more likely it will need to be cut down. Volcanoguy 18:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been open for almost two months now and has stalled, with no activity for two weeks. As we don't have a consensus for promotion, I am archiving this nomination. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [29].

List of generation IX Pokémon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the fictional Pokémon species that have been introduced in the ninth generation of the Pokémon media franchise, specifically Pokémon from the video games Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. I've gone through the list and included what information I could about each species using high quality sources in order to create as comprehensive a list as possible with what sources exist, with a summary of the franchise and the ninth generation's setting included in the article's lead. I believe this meets FL criteria due to its expansive scope of coverage and verifiability in reliable publications. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every other Pokemon list has a "design and development" section - is there any reason this doesn't? I feel like this improves the page a lot and it is lacking without it. surely something has been said about the development
  • "The designs of many of the Pokemon have received criticism since Scarlet and Violet's release. Prior to the games' release, the designs of many of the games' Pokemon leaked, which drew much negativity from fans, who criticized several of the designs." this feels repetitive
  • "found that many species" this seems subjective, when "found" i feel implies this is objective and truthful
  • "In a discussion among Nintendo Life staff, the group discussed" repetitive
  • "Writer Kate Gray described the number of "weirder" designs present in the generation" described feels odd here but that may just be me, what is she describing about them? is she just listing weird ones?
  • "noting their popularity as gay icons with fans while the game itself had an imperfect representation of LGBTQ+" any elaboration on what was imperfect about it? was it the pokemon themself, or something else?
PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this nomination is in the wrong place right now but I feel I may as well address this while I'm here.
I've addressed the various prose concerns in the areas suggested, but in terms of development information of species, Pokémon is notoriously tight-lipped when it comes to a lot of it. A lot of Pokémon Red and Blue's dev info wasn't even released until the mid 2010s, for example. For generation IX specifically, there is, quite literally, nothing on the overall development of these species, barring confirmations of individual character designers. This is why I've covered all the in-universe information in the lead instead of in a development information paragraph, as there's nothing to populate a development section right now. I don't believe this should impact this list specifically, as I have covered what information I could find and the list is relatively comprehensive as it is, but as it stands right now, yes, there is literally nothing more I could add to that section. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if it doesn't, just wanted to know. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: As this is a list, it should be nominated at featured list candidates and not here. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [30].

Rutherford scattering experiments

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the experiments by which Ernest Rutherford discovered that the atom has a nucleus.Kurzon (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous (unsuccessful) FAC was under a different title: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geiger–Marsden experiments/archive1. RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • There are multiple Figure 1s
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Geiger-Marsden_apparatus_photo.jpg is tagged as if the replica is non-free - commons:COM:UA suggests the replica itself would be free, but the photo may be copyrighted. But is there a reason a non-free image is needed at all given the existence of File:Geiger-Marsden_apparatus_CGI_mock-up.png?
  • File:Ernest_Rutherford2.jpg: what is the original source? The tagging seems unlikely to be correct
  • File:Hans_geiger.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
  • File:Ernest_Marsden_1921.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in its country of origin?
  • File:GM-1909-1.gif: source link is dead. Ditto File:GM-1909-3.gif, File:Geiger-Marsden_diagram.gif

Oppose from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing.

  • There are many uncited statements, which regrettably means that I have to oppose. The same flaw was pointed out at the last nomination, and I am at a loss to understand why it has not been corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm obviously not going to suggest that this can be promoted with the sourcing deficiencies described above. But I do want to point out that in general it is a well written treatment of an important bit of physics history. The style of writing (at least the early parts before you get to all the math) makes this highly technical topic approachable to people without a strong technical background; an important aspect of our mission as a general-purpose encyclopedia per WP:TECHNICAL. At the same time, the treatment of hyperbolic trajectories is new to me and thus offers something for the more advanced reader. I'm familiar with this series of experiments, but the presentations I've seen only covered them as a stepping-stone to the more modern theories and glossed over these details. So you've got something of value to multiple audiences, which in itself is an accomplishment. All of this is just a roundabout way of encouraging you to fix the sourcing problems. Once that's taken care of, I'll be happy to come back and do a more detailed review. RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- on Roy's encouraging note re. prose, I'm going to archive this so that sourcing issues can be dealt with outside the pressure of the FAC process; per FAC instructions, a two-week wait applies before re-nominating this or any other article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2024 [31].

Starship Troopers (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1997 science fiction film Starship Troopers, one of director Paul Verhoeven's last works in the western studio system and the unofficial third and final installment in his anti-authority trilogy including RoboCop and Total Recall. The film was widely derided on its release as a pro-fascist film despite its intention to satirize fascism, which was blamed both on poor marketing and contemporary cultural leanings. It's reputation has grown over time once the satire became evident and is now considered a cult classic. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • 10,000+ words!! Really?
  • "In December 1991 ... Davison realized it bore many similarities to the 1959 science fiction novel, Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein. The novel had ... remained an enduringly popular work for over four decades." Do the math. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's 9700 words, most of my comprehensive articles on older films range around this as comprehensiveness is part of the requirement, but as I say on each review, the Thematic Analysis section is something I have to include, not want to, and I have to provide an acceptable level of coverage for it. That section is 1300 words in this case and, plus the 400 words in the lead, text relating to a big and influential science fiction film adapted from a controversial book, with an arduous production, and which generated controversy itself is actually about 8000, though, per WP:SIZE, I can go up to 15,000 words if the scope of the subject warrants it. I have gone through prior to this and copy edited it and removed some information which I found interesting but I took an objective approach towards so I do believe I've reached a fair equilibrium.
    • I think by 1991 it would've been in 4 separate decades, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, but I've removed it anyway as I don't think the specificty is important. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would have just said something like "whose popularity spanned four decades" RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify this has been addressed, Gog the Mild, you may be using a different tool to me but the "page size" link said that, before your comment, it was 9700 words. I have gone back through it and reduced it to 9500, and I did spend all of June reducing it from 11500 so I have tackled this to the best of my ability. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I probably won't be doing a full review, but I am happy with what I have seen. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come support this people, it's Starship Troopers! No more apt a film for our time! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but after more than four weeks this has made no progress towards a consensus to support and so I am timing it out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Bneu2013

[edit]

I just watched this movie recently, and just happened to notice it was an FAC. As such, I should be able to review this article relatively efficiency. I skimmed over the article, and am already leaning support. However I need to thoroughly read over the article first before I post my first comments, which will most likely be by the end of tomorrow. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2024 [32].

Growing Up (The Linda Lindas album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 15:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an album by an Asian-american, all girl punk band that I think is pretty awesome. I have been working on the article for quite some time, achieved GA status and DYK, and just closed a peer review. I think it is ready now. I hope y'all agree! – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 15:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

In the composition section, only half of the songs have any commentary or information about them. I feel like this does not meet WP:FACR criteria 1b "it neglects no major facts or details". There doesn't have to be a paragraph for each song, but no information for 5/11 of the songs seems like either the article cannot meet FA due to lack of commentary or source material has been overlooked. Based on this alone I would have to oppose at the moment. I would accept 1 or 2 words, (ie 'this song is a ballad', 'this one is uptempo') but to have zero information for so many songs unfortunately doesn't meet the criteria in my opinion. Heartfox (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This nomination has been open for three weeks and hasn't garnered significant comment or support to promote, and indeed has an oppose on 1b concerns. Unless there's significant movement in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still no movement towards consensus to promote, so I am archiving this. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 August 2024 [33].

Narwhal

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the narwhal. As can be seen by this diff, I've done some extensive work since the article's last appearance. Nothing much to say, so I hope you enjoy it. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are planning on doing a spot check, please let me know, so I can assist you. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what happened to "this article won't be nominated again for ten years"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Listen man, don't take what I say seriously. I'm a just a kid <25, so I might say some irrational stuff from time to time. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I left extensive comments at the last FAC, mostly around sourcing. I have read the provided diff in full and cannot see that they have been addressed: in truth, most of the edits in it appear to consist of nothing more than moving text around. On trying to verify one of the earliest citations (notes 6 to 8), I see one vanity-press publication that does not pass WP:HQRS, one primary source that can't verify most of the cited material (and which is mislabelled), and one good source that doesn't verify the material. Frankly, if the nominator is unwilling to do the work of ensuring the article's basic academic integrity, I am at a loss as to why FAC reviewers should be expected to do so at the fifth time of asking. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: Citation 8 verifies the statement, citation 6 is to verify the name "Monocerote" and citation 7 to show its connection to unicorns. Can we discuss as to why citation 8 is not reliable? Wolverine XI (talk to me) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UndercoverClassicist: Pinging again, since you have such a problem with that sentence, I removed it. Please reconsider your vote, and examine more sources if you will. Just because it seems like I only moved text, doesn't mean that's the case. I don't know why you're not giving this article any chance at all. Please do a full review, then vote. Your point about "most of the edits in it appear to consist of nothing more than moving text around" is false. I'm trying my best here, so I would appreciate more kindness and consideration from you. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 19:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very much not trying your best. Your solution to continual complaints about source-text integrity was to wait for someone else to do the work and to complain when no-one bothered. Now here you are demanding more consideration from the reviewers of a process you have shown none to. UC has typed over 85,000 bytes of commentary on your five FACs for this article—and you have the guts to accuse them of not giving this article a chance? As someone who is also younger than 25—grow up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to this particular nominee, not the other four. In case you weren't able to tell, I did a thorough source to text check. Furthermore, if you are not going to comment on the article rather than the user, I see no need for having you here. To be honest, you are simply loitering and taking up unnecessary space. I just want UC to come back and double-check on this, since their issue above (unreliable citation) has been eliminated. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wolverine XI, I came here as a possible reviewer, but having read the above I'm not going to review the article and I doubt anyone else will want to either. Reviewer time is a scarce resource and failing to respond to detailed comments is one of the worst things you can do in the eyes of other reviewers. Why would I put in a couple of hours to try to help you if it appears you're unwilling to engage with reviews? I suggest you withdraw this, or the coords archive it, and if you're truly interested in article improvement stick to GA for a while. And if you do that, take GA reviewing seriously too -- both as a reviewer and a nominator. Don't undervalue the work others do in trying to collaborate with you from either side of the process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Mike Christie, but what do you mean I don't engage in reviews? I tried communicating with UC but it seems like they don't want to. If I did something wrong I'm sorry, I'm just bamboozled by their oppose vote which doesn't quite make sense to me, considering I have removed the sentence they have a problem with. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 21:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UC's comments above are pretty clear. UC is one of the best reviewers on Wikipedia: if they say you haven't addressed their comments, I believe them. If you think you have addressed them, go back and take another look and try to understand what they can have meant that you're not getting. If you can't figure out why they are saying that I don't think you're ready for FAC; that's why I suggested you should work at GAN for a while. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

It is clear that the nomination is unprepared for FAC. Still, or perhaps again. So I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. More in hope than expectation I urge the nominator to read and take on board the vast amount of advice offered on this article over the past nine months. They could do worse that start with [34]. Followed by the very much to the point comments of the three editors above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need a chat with this user. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 22:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2024 [35].

Narragansett Pier Railroad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an 8-mile-long railroad in Rhode Island with a surprisingly long and storied history. It ran from 1876 to 1981 and exists today as the William C. O'Neill Bike Path. The article recently passed GA, and with the help of a book on the railroad I've been able to expand it to the point I believe it is ready for FAC. It's been over a year since my last nomination, so forgive me if I am a little rusty. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Nn_Narragansett_Pier_Railroad._Steam_locomotive_on_steel_bridge.jpg: when and where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Ditto File:NPRR_No_1_'Narragansett'_built_by_Mason_in_1876_and_used_until_about_1891.jpg
    These were uploaded by an editor who is, to put it bluntly, not competent (I removed a swath of text they added to the article which was basically copied from online). They've uploaded all sorts of photos like this that they found online and just assumed were public domain without any investigation. The photo of locomotive 1 is also found in the Edward J. Ozog collection: [36]. The other image can be replaced with a variety of alternatives. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have replaced the first photo with a new one from the Ozog collection, and replaced the other photo with the properly licensed version. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I mentioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Narragansett Pier Railroad, I suspect that the CC-BY-SA tags on the Ozog photos are bogus. For example, https://provlibdigital.org/islandora/object/VM021_231. For sure, the original photo wasn't released under that license since CC didn't exist then. If the photo was taken in 1934, it's unlikely to meet any of the PD criteria. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the long delay in response - I've gone through a difficult move, started a new job, and had my car die on me in the past week. I'm not really sure how to respond to that - the end result of what you're proposing is to delete half the photos from the article (though [37] may be ok as a postcard which was therefore published). I don't have much in the way of further information on these photos, other that most were published in A Short Haul to the Bay in 1969. I would attempt to keep some of these photos as fair use if they are deleted, because it would be gutting the photos of the article to the point important information would be lost. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an ongoing discussion at [38] on Commons which may be relevant. Please feel free to bring your concerns there so we can get some input. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Rowland_Gibson_Hazard_by_Jean_Paul_Selinger_1880.jpg: source link is dead, when and where was this first published?
    Link opens just fine for me [39], this was created by an artist in Peace Dale, Rhode Island in 1880 and given to Brown University in 1881. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, when was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to [40], Brown has been collecting these portraits since the 1800s. The portrait collection has been exhibited online by Brown's Center for Digital Scholarship. The portraits are physically located across the university in various buildings and libraries. Per Commons, I am unclear on if the original exhibiting of the portraits in university buildings counts as the publication date, or the later (appears to be around 2003) online hosting does. That said, I think we have to be realistic that a portrait completed in 1880 is unlikely to still be protected by copyright. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RoySmith

[edit]

Just some comments for now.

  • The entire text of the main body is under "History". I'd eliminate that as a top-level section and move all of the sub-sections up one level.
    Yeah, this is something I'm often guilty of. I will rework the headers by moving them up as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit to having a penchant for short leads, but in this case MOS:LEADLENGTH agrees with me. The main body is about 4200 words, which suggests 2-3 paragraphs. Some suggestions for things that can be cut, but these are just a few examples. I'll leave it to you to see what else can be trimmed:
    • "chiefly Rowland G. Hazard", for a summary, no need to go into this level of detail
    • "Peace Dale and Wakefield" it's enough to just say "textile mills", no need to specify the towns they were in for this summary.
    • "absorbed by the Hazards", of course they absorbed it, they owned a thing that was losing money, who else was going to absorb the loss?
    • "The Hazards also operated a connecting steamboat service to Newport." This article is about the railroad, so that's not essential for a summary.
    In progress, I removed "chiefly Rowland G. Hazard" as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • member of the prominent Hazard family, suggest "... Hazard family of Rhode Island".
    Sure, addition made. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • inherited a mill I'm guessing that means textile mill, but only because I know a bit about New England history. You should specify what type of mill. Oh, yeah, you say so in the next sentence, but still better to add one word up front to keep the reader from wondering.
    Good point, changed accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hazards at first focused on Are you talking here about the father or the sons?
    The Hazard family had a very annoying habit of naming one person "Rowland Hazard", his son "Rowland Gibson Hazard", and his son "Rowland Hazard". According to Henwood, the Hazards we are concerned with are Rowland Gibson Hazard, founder of the railroad, and his brother Isaac Peace Hazard. Rowland Hazard, founder of the mills, retired in 1819 according to Henwood, but Heppner says the brothers inherited the mill from him in the late 1820s. Trying to piece together the truth here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel your pain. When I wrote Margaret Sibella Brown, I discovered that the family seemed to name every newborn girl some variation on Sibella for many generations. I guess when you've got a name that works, you just stick with it :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but focused exclusively on rephrase to avoid repetitive use of "focused"
    Reworded as "shifted to". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • destroyed the factory and necessitated rebuilding If the factory was destroyed, then it's obvious that it was necessary to rebuild if they were going to continue the business. On the other hand, it wasn't really necessary; they could have just sold the land for another use and not rebuilt at all. So some clarification would help here.
    They made a choice to rebuild and to take the opportunity afforded by this to change their product line. I've gathered from elsewhere that a major incident where Rowland G. Hazard intervened in favor of a free black man from Newport being held falsely as an escaped slave in Louisiana, and secured the release of over 100 others in similar situations. He also was active with the Republican Party once that came into being. I redid the sentences here. this source draws a direct link between Hazard's activities and the change in business as well, but dates the change to 1849. Not sure which is correct. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still having trouble with this section. When you say "had begun to harm the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states" are you saying that the south in general was buying fewer cotton products, or that southern buyers were specifically not buying from the Hazards as a political protest/boycott? I'm guessing the later, in which case, how about something like:

    Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies had begun to harm his ability to sell cotton products in the slaveholding southern states, as southern buyers turned to other suppliers. This led the brothers to switch to manufacturing high-quality wool products which they could sell into more favorable markets.

    I'm guessing that wool was more popular in the north, where it was colder so people needed fabrics from which they could make warmer clothes? Be that as it may, I'm still thinking you want a paragraph break here. One paragraph would talk about their choice of products in response to market pressures: moving away from cotton to avoid the (I'm assuming) boycott issues, and separately moving from low-grade woolens to higher-grade woolens because (I'm assuming) that was more profitable. And then, in a second paragraph, talk about the engineering factors; switching to a different power source (steam vs water) and the issues that arose from that having to do with transporting coal for the steam boilers. RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states this is an abrupt change of topic. What does this have to do with what comes before (the fire and rebuilding) or after (the re-powering to use steam)? Seems like it belongs in another section somewhere.
    The significance of this, according to Heppner, was a shift in products from lower quality cottons, wools, and linens to woolen yarns of high quality. The transition from water power to steam power took place shortly afterwards, leading to a need for coal (imported by ship from mid-Atlantic ports like Philadelphia, as Rhode Island had little in the way of coal). The mills being several miles from the port at Narragansett Pier made getting the coal there a problem, as there were no trucks back then. This was one of the reasons the Hazards built the railroad. Heppner does tend to go into what some might call off topic or too much exposition, in that he tried to make a book enjoyable both for experts with the subject matter and the general reader, so maybe some of this detail can be trimmed from the article. The key point is that when the mills switched to steam power it provided impetus for a railroad to get the coal from the port to the mills. Henwood also mentions Rowland G. Hazard as an abolitionist but doesn't link that to the railroad directly. He does mention Rowland G.'s investments in the building of the Union Pacific Railroad which I appear to have neglected to add to the article previously. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • neither efficient or cheap for the mill drop "for the mill". For whom else would the efficiency or cost be an issue? Also, I suppose this is a style preference, but saying "inefficient and expensive" seems more straight forward. Taking that one step further, being inefficient implies extra cost, so maybe all that could be reduced to just "was expensive".
    I reworded as "The boilers required coal, imported to the coastal town of Narragansett Pier four miles (6.4 km) southeast by ships and then loaded on wagons and brought to the mills by wagons, a process costly in both time and money." Henwood mentions the coal could be bought cheaply from Philadelphia and imported by schooner, but a railroad was needed to move the coal cheaply and quickly from the docks to the mills. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (commonly known as the Stonington Line, for its western terminus in Stonington, Connecticut) This is a long and complicated sentence. I'd leave this parenthetical out completely, as knowing it doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding of this article's subject.
    I can definitely remove most of the parenthetical, but I've been told that if I'm going to use an alternate name (and the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad was almost universally known as the Stonington Line) that name needs to be introduced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • hampered the mill's ability In the lead, you talk about two mills (Peace Dale and Wakefield), but here you say there's just one. That needs to be sorted out.
    That sentence in the lead is one of the only sentences remaining from before I rewrote the article. While Karr says mills in Peace Dale and Wakefield, Heppner and Henwood concur that the Hazards' mills were in Peace Dale, though Henwood states mills were also present in nearby Wakefield (the two villages are so close together you can walk from one to the other in less than half an hour). He writes "By mid-century, the textile industry had developed and was centered in the villages of Peace Dale and nearby Wakefield. The Peace Dale Manufacturing Company, controlled by the Hazard family, dominated the economic life of the community". The driving force for building the railroad was the Hazard family mills, but they certainly wouldn't turn away other paying freight customers. I'm going to change the lead to just discuss the Hazard family mills in Peace Dale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elisha R. Potter provided an additional $15,000 in funding, use {{inflation}} (here and elsewhere)
    Done, as mentioned below. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when the stockholders held a meeting on January 26, 1876, I'd say "subsequent meeting". Yes, you can work out from the dates that this isn't the same meeting referred to earlier, but this'll make it more obvious. Stopping to figure out the chronology interrupts the reader's flow, so save them the effort.
    Modified accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction between 1875 and 1876. More fuzzy chronology. After you talk about a meeting in 1876, you back up to talk about an agreement in 1875. It's also not immediately clear what "the line" refers to. The Stonington Line or the proposed Narragansett Pier line?
    This is sourced to the Stonington Line's annual report dated October 1876 [42]. The directors wrote "In accordance with the policy heretofore pursued, of aiding to a moderate extent in the construction of Branch Roads likely to increase the business of this Company, $15,000 has been invested in the capital stock of the Narragansett Pier Railroad, at par." The report is "for the 13 months ending 30th September, 1876" making it unclear which year the investment was made exactly. This made the Stonington Line the biggest stockholder besides members of the Hazard family. Open to suggestions on how to word this better. Perhaps we drop "between 1875 and 1876" since the investment had to have been made before the line opened and that should be fairly clear to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded as "The Stonington Line also agreed to subscribe $15,000 towards the line's construction in hopes that the opening of the new railroad would provide it with more business." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to (politely) press you on using {{inflation}}. For stuff that happened 150-ish years ago, our readers won't have a feel for whether $15,000 is a lot, an astronomical lot, or something in between. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is on my to-do list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done, except for the sentence in the Great Depression section where four dollar amounts are called out. I think adding the inflation templates 4 times in a row would be very unwieldy for reading. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable, although maybe just convert the first one in the sentence? BTW, take a look at the markup in American Bank Note Company Printing Plant where I got it to generate a less verbose version, for example $10 million ($339 million in 2023). I think I've settled on using the default "equivalant to" version the first time in an article, then the shorter version after that. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A locomotive was purchased from the Mason Machine Works... this is an overly complex sentence. The inclusion of a multiple-sentence quote makes it particularly difficult to parse. Also, when was the purchase? And what's a "flag stave"?
    Flag staves allow for the mounting of flags on a locomotive like this. They were an optional extra Rowland G. Hazard had no right to demand when he was paying a rock bottom price for the locomotive. The locomotive was ordered in May 1876 and arrived in June, both of which I have clarified in the text. I've broken up the sentence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(this takes me to the end of "Construction" in Special:Permalink/1230479828. I'll come back later.

(picking up from the start of "Operation by the Hazard Family" in Special:Permalink/1230938022)

(done with everything through the end of "Second period of Hazard Family operations") (picking up with "American Associates ownership" in Special:Permalink/1231293569)

  • at a cost of $25,000, saying "for" would be simpler (thinking lovingly of my copy of Strunk and White).
  • Actually, I'd refactor these two sentences into "American Associates purchased the railroad from the Hazard family in April 1946 at a cost of $25,000.[2][59] American was the family trust of Royal Little who was also the founder and owner of Textron, then a textiles company."
  • Passenger service was subsequently officially terminated at the end of that year Why "officially"? That makes me think that service continued in some unofficial capacity. Also, drop "subsequently" that's implicit in "at the end of that year".
    The authorization to terminate passenger service didn't come from the RI Public Utilities Commission until the end of the year, and as a common carrier the railroad couldn't just decide not to carry them on its own. The few remaining passengers were carried either in taxis or the railroad superintendent's car from June until the railroad received permission to end passenger service. De facto, there were no passenger trains run after June 1952. Unlike the Wood River Branch Railroad, I don't see any indication passengers were carried on trains informally after this point (that is, until Hanold enters the picture later). Added to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With passenger service gone, only minimal freight traffic was carried to and from Narragansett Pier I'm not understanding this sentence. It seems to imply that the ending of passenger service was the cause of the decreased freight traffic.
    The intended message is that passenger service was pretty much all that went to Narragansett Pier. Hanold says the company average 3 inbound freight cars a year there, and the higher outbound total of 51 carloads over the last 5 years was only due to a military base being decommissioned and the military shipping out a bunch of their equipment by rail. Added more detail about this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's it from me for a first pass.

I think there's a few left. I am dealing with a difficult situation irl still (I don't have a car and am working to get a new one) and that has greatly limited my editing time. I was hoping to have that dealt with by now but it's taking longer than I'd like. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update, happy to report that my IRL circumstances have improved as I have a car finally. I should be much more active in the coming week and hopefully address most if not all of the remaining reviewer comments. Thank you all for your patience. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: The article should be ready for you to take a second look now. The only thing I'd say is outstanding is the lead section, but given Dugan Murphy below supports the lead section as is (and I agree with him personally) I'm reluctant to cut much more from it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer on the lead length. The only thing I'm still going to push on is the bit in "Background and formation" about the abolitionist sympathies. What you've got now is awkward. I've suggested one way in my comments above that it might get reworked, but I'm not wedded to that. I do think this needs some kind of reworking to make it all flow better. RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at how I reworded the section. I discovered a history of southern Rhode Island which filled in some gaps. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's an improvement. Support. I'm not really a railfan, but I still found this a fun and interesting article. RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down for a source check. If I let it go longer than a week, ping me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As this relies heavily on offline sources, let me know if you need me to send you any excerpts from the sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: poke. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies!

Nitpicks
  • Poor's Manual is more fully titled "Poor's Manual of the Railroads of the United States". I would also throw in the volume number (37) since that's readily available.
  • Setting over a dozen citations to Railroads of Rhode Island across a page range of pp. 126–133, 155–157 seems unfair to the reader, especially when you use sfns for Henwood, who is also cited throughout.
  • Karr is also a book with a page range reused several time, but I would call that less egregious because the whole thing only uses a 3-page range
  • Utterly a prose nitpick in the middle of my source review, but "compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain" - complaint/complain in the same sentence feels repetitive.
  • That's actually it, I didn't find much formatting to snark about
  • I did clarify in the caption of the legacy image that it's a replica station, feel free to revert if I misunderstood
Spot checks

Not required but doing anyway to be extra. Performed basically at random from what seemed interesting or was accessible.

  • Ref 1 good
  • I don't have full access to Heppner, but information checked through Google snippets didn't turn up any issues
  • Ref 18 good
  • Ref 20 was annoying to find on the page, but checks out
  • Refs 27, 28, 29 all good
  • Refs 33, 34, 36, 37 also good - I've asked to look at ref 35 mainly since I'm already doing this paragraph Recieved and checks out.
  • Ref 50 good, access via TWL - might be nice to have a link to the ProQuest version, since it's "via" ProQuest, I had to go looking myself :P
  • Ref 57 good
  • Ref 62 I can't access but the info is supported by Heppner even though it's not cited here (was looking at Heppner citation for Wakefield Branch Company buying a locomotive and it's nearby in Heppner)

I'm satisfied by the source formatting. Spot checks turned up no issues with either accuracy or copyvio. Sources used are appropriately high-quality; old newspaper sources are used judiciously to support non-contentious statements or reportage as it was stated at the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll read through the article and write out some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (not a source check)

  • It appears that the last name of the author of the book in the references list is Henwood, and his middle initials are N. J. The way it is written out, it looks like "N. J. Henwood" is his last name. I recommend moving the initials to the first name parameter. That would of course mean editing all the SFN citations to match.
    You are absolutely right, and I've modified the citations accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about moving the Heppner reference listing to the General references section and using more page-specific inline citations to it, as you do with the Henwood book?
    Will do. This became an issue because I expanded the page range when I added information on the Sea View Railroad, which is in a later chapter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now complete. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall structure

  • According to MOS:ORDER, the External links section should be last.
    Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Steamship operations section a subsection of the Peak of prosperity section rather than at the same hierarchical level?
    Because subheading 2 and subheading 3 look very similar. Corrected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Legacy section a subsection of the Later owners section rather than at the same hierarchical level?
    I felt weird about having a section at the same level with only a few sentences, but if consensus is making this a full section header is the way to go I'm fine with that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the See also section helpful to the reader?
    The intent was to link the other Rhode Island shortlines, most of which have long histories like this one. I've debated making a good topic on these since all 5 entries are GA or higher. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is just me, but I would prefer to see the References section changed to "Citations" and the General references section changed to "References". I'm saying that because I've seen "General references" used for lower-quality articles that acknowledge generally where the information came from but lack inline citations.
    I know what you mean, and was struggling on the right wording to convey this. I like your solution and have adopted it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Template:Rhode Island railroads included in the article if it does not link this article?
    Because of the "see also: former carriers in Rhode Island", but I have no strong attachment to its presence and would be ok with removing it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else

  • The link in the External links section is dead.
    The URL just moved, but I decided to remove the link entirely as I'm not sure it satisfies the external link guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend a Wikilink to Rowland G. Hazard from his portrait caption.
  • Same for the town name in the Narragansett Pier birds eye view.
    Both above items done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessitated rebuilding; Rowland G. Hazard's strong – I don't see a need for this to be one sentence.
    Made moot by changes to the writing in this section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rowland G. Hazard's strong abolitionist sympathies harmed the sale of cotton products in the slaveholding southern states. Is that because anti-abolitionists boycotted Hazard's products?
    This played a part, yes. I made substantial changes to this area in response to RoySmith's comments above which hopefully make this clearer for you as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend changing "slaveholding southern states" to "slave states" and Wikilinking slave state. That is, in case that sentence is rewritten to take the focus away from slave states to people within them who may have been boycotting Hazard's products.
    As part of the changes I mention just above in the previous item, I removed the phrase "slaveholding southern states". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • not long after the rebuild steam power started to be used instead – This phrase needs a comma after "rebuild", but I recommend this rewording instead: "it converted to steam power shortly after the rebuild".
    This has been substantially rewritten based on a new source I found. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts The boilers required coal is a bit unwieldy. I think it would be easier to read if broken up. Also, the "or" should be "nor". If kept as one sentence, you could change wagons, which was neither efficient or cheap for the mill. to "wagons; this was neither efficient nor cheap for the mill."
    Broken into two sentences and reworded. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts Narragansett Pier itself was growing is also unwieldy.
    Made moot by a rewriting of this paragraph. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narragansett Pier itself was growing – "itself" is unnecessary.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nearest rail line being on the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad – "on" should be removed.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution for all of these issues was – according to whom?
    Rowland G. Hazard, who'd learned plenty about railroads as a financer of the Union Pacific Railroad. This is clearer in the text now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • approval for a new charter in 1868 – was there an old charter?
    No, this was the first charter, so I removed "new".
  • The charter was approved in 1868, and the survey was completed "promptly" afterward, but construction couldn't start because of a financial panic that didn't start until 5 years later? Is it that "promptly" means 5+ years or neither party had ever built a railroad before implies a 5-year delay?
    The Hazards struggled to raise funding for the railroad. The Stonington Line's $15,000 didn't come until 1875/6. Beyond the Hazard family, there wasn't really anyone in the area at that time with the money to drop on financing a new railroad beyond small purchases of shares by local residents and businesses. Henwood says "There was a long struggle to raise money, and many disappointing setbacks were encountered. As a result of the Panic of 1873, the financial climate grew increasingly chilly for new enterprises." I have made this more explicit in the text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • could count on sounds a little too far off WP:NPOV for my taste.
    I don't understand the issue. How is this related to NPOV? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two uses of Rowland G. Hazard's full name in the Construction section would read better as just "Hazard". By that point, there haven't been any mentions of other Hazards for a while.
    At least the first mention of his full name is appropriate, I believe, especially since "Hazards" plural is used in the previous sentence. Rowland G. was the biggest driver for funding and building the railroad, but his relative John N. Hazard was company president (Henwood writes, He was of a studious and retiring disposition, and spent more time with his books and chemical experiments than he did on railroad affairs). I am personally inclined to keep the second mention as well; two uses of the full name over three fairly lengthy paragraphs seems reasonable to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think late 1874 should be hyphenated.
    Removed this entirely because it turns out the meeting was in 1875, not 1874, if I'm reading Heppner correctly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading through the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • the new railroad would provide more business for the Stonington Line? Or for the surrounding community?
    For the Stonington Line, which is clearer in the prose now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is tender?
    Tender (rail), which is linked now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to see a couple of contextual words to help the reader understand what a flag stand/stave is. Like, "Disappointed that he would be unable to fly flags from the front of the train, Hazard complained: 'We do not find flag stands on the engine'".
    If you're going to press this point, I'd prefer an interwiki link to the entry on Wiktionary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized flagpole exists and used it as a link for "flag stands". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing William Mason is the owner of Mason Machine works. It would help the reader to introduce him that way.
    He was indeed, and this is now made clear in the text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "personally" is necessary.
    The sources emphasize that Mason, very much busy running an entire manufacturing company, was so peeved by Hazard that he took time out of his day to write a personal response lambasting his demands. Henwood says "On July 24th, the exasperated builder took time to reply to this customer who had purchased the grand total of one locomotive at a minimum price and then demanded extra frills", and Heppner states this was the culmination of multiple letters sent to Mason by Hazard. For that reason, I think it is necessary. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to Hazard stating should be "reply to Hazard, stating:".
    Modified accordingly.
  • To conform to MOS:ELLIPSIS:
    • Add {{nbsp}} before each ellipsis.
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the first word following each ellipsis is the start of a new sentence, they both should be four periods, rather than three.
  • The exasperated Mason quote is a bit long. I think it would be better to summarize most of it and only quote the interesting non-NPOV bits like "expensive and boyish".
    I removed "One pump is sufficient", which I felt was not very interesting compared to the "expensive and boyish" comment and Mason's pointed words about how the locomotive was the cheapest he had ever sold. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink rolling stock.
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add something to define side-dump car if you're going to use that term. You could Wikilink Side dump car in the hopes that it is someday expanded, but at this time, it is very unhelpful.
    I agree that the gondola article needs some expansion (I wrote the history section there). I've added that link as a starting point, since at least the photo there makes is clearer what's being referred to. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culprit is poor word choice for maintaining NPOV.
    I believe this is an accurate reflection of the source, which has an entire section entitled "amateurs assemble a railroad" and repeatedly points out their last minute scrambles to address issues and ill preparation for the task of running a railroad. I think we need to remember that NPOV does not mean "no POV". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (despite Hazard hoping to open the line on July 1) – I don't think this needs to be in parentheses.
    Fair enough, parentheses removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation by the Hazard Family – "Family" should be lower case.
    Fixed, in several instances (turns out I made this mistake more than once). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially, four round trips were run daily for passengers, but demand quickly grew to the point this number was increased to six could be shorter and more straightforward: "The line initially ran four round trips per day, but demand quickly grew this number to six"
    I've condensed this sentence somewhat. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts Passenger trains connected mentions the Kingston connection twice, which seems unnecessary.
    Yeah, that sentence wasn't written very well. I've removed the second mention of the connection since it should be clear enough without it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • filled to the brim is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
    Respectfully disagree. It is accurate to the source and not an opinion. I am a proponent of encyclopedic writing and interesting writing, and don't see the two as being at odds. This is an encyclopedia written by humans for humans, and I do not see anything in NPOV that says writing such as this example is against policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ice was imported in trains for cooling during the summers – being a Maine historian familiar with the 19th-century New England ice industry, I take this to mean that ice shipped on this line was used for refrigeration and maybe air conditioning. If that's the case, I recommend making that more obvious.
    Yes, it was precisely that. I see how this might be interpreted as cooling the trains themselves, so I reworded. The sentence is now "ice was imported in trains for local use as a coolant during the summers" with "ice was imported" linked to ice trade. Since you're more familiar with this topic, let me know if this conveys the meaning properly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was started could just be "started".
    I don't agree, I believe "was started" is the proper language as the act of starting was something done by the employees, not something the engine did by itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • necessary - passengers – that should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
    Oops, this is a very common mistake of mine, to the point I have an endash permanently placed at the very top of my userpage. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halfway through the Operation by the Hazard Family section, Narragansett Pier is being referred to as a resort town, but until then, the reader has only heard about the town's industrial concerns. I recommend adding a little bit to the Background section about the town's resort economy. Or at the very least, preface the first mention of Narragansett Pier of a resort town with something like "Narragansett Pier's tourism economy was also growing" or something like that.
    I apparently read your mind, because I only just read this now but added Narragansett Pier's potential as a coastal resort had been known to businessmen since the construction of its first hotel in 1856, but significant growth was held back by poor transportation links earlier today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • second locomotive used – I had to read this twice. The second locomotive was second-hand?
    Yes, their urgency for a second locomotive combined with limited funding meant they ended up with a used locomotive (originally built 1872) from the Providence and Worcester Railroad. Reworded as "purchased a used locomotive from the Providence and Worcester Railroad". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20,000 short tons (18,000 long tons; 18,000 t) of freight – What does this mean?
    20,000 tons is the weight of all the freight carried by the railroad in that year. This is a common way of quantifying the freight business handled. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikilink for "passenger train" comes late in the body. I recommend moving the link to the first use of that term, earlier in the body. I also recommend a piped link from "passenger business" in the lead.
  • its first dividend to its shareholders – the second "its" is unnecessary.
    Removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "the Pier" refer to the Narragansett Pier or a pier within Narragansett Pier?
  • "The Pier" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. It should be if this is an abbreviation for the town name.
    • I ask Trainsandotherthings to correct me if I am mistaken here, but based on the tiny snippets I've seen of the source material, "the Pier" appears to be an abbreviation for the town name. Because of this, and in keeping consistency with the other uses of the word "pier" in the article, I have capitalized it. (This doubles as a response to the bullet above this one.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is correct. Henwood uses this as a shortening of "Narragansett Pier". I believe the only mentions of a physical pier in the article are towards the beginning mentioning coal was imported from ships at Narragansett Pier, and later on when a steamboat company built a pier and in the process accused the railroad of being a monopoly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Narragansett Pier Railroad was compelled by complaints to reduce its passenger fares in 1901, though passengers continued to complain that the railroad required long layover times for travelers connecting with trains to and from Providence. The two halves of this sentence don't seem as connected as the "though" connector makes it seem. Or am I missing something?
    Split into two sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the trip to Narragansett Pier was only a matter of minutes – from where?
    From the other end of the line at Kingston Station. Given the context I believe this is sufficiently clear to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a map of the line you can include as an image?
    The article already has a map. Click on the "map" icon just above the infobox. I am not sure if I can covert the data from that map into an image. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The monopoly allegation was also made in 1898 by proponents of a new steamboat wharf in Narragansett Pier that would connect to Providence, who pointed to the railroad's high rates (at the time 50 cents between Kingston and Narragansett pier) and surcharges on coal shipments. I recommend rewording and probably splitting into more than one sentence. Reading this the first time, it looked like Providence pointed, though I understand it was the proponents who pointed.
    Split into two sentences, which hopefully makes the meaning clearer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was the steamboat wharf completed?
    1898 according to the source, and I've added this to the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence that starts The railroad signed an agreement is unwieldy. I recommend breaking it up.
  • directly adjacent – is "directly" necessary?
  • take a bus to reach it – Seems too early in the 20th century for a motor bus, but maybe more time has passed since 1902 than I think. Can you clarify?
    Heppner simply says "omnibus ride". The earliest motor buses date to the 1890s, but in this case he is almost certainly referring to a Horse-drawn omnibus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1879 which began – I believe a comma is necessary before "which".

Still reading. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They found a buyer "They" are the Hazards, not the Pier, right?
  • They found a buyer in the New Haven, which under the control of J. P. Morgan was fearful of the Southern New England Railway and its plans to build a competing rail line in the area; were the Southern New England to buy the Narragansett Pier, it would have an outlet to Narragansett Bay. This sentence is unwieldy. Who is under Morgan's control? The buyer? How could Southern New England Railway buy the town of Narragansett Pier?
    • Given the context of the preceding sentences, the buyer seems to be the Hazards. The sentence indicates that Morgan controlled the New Haven (railway), and that the town is not for sale, but the NPRR instead. I have split the sentence in two by replacing the semicolon with a full stop, added "railroad" after "the Narragansett Pier", and replaced "they" with "the Hazard family". (This doubles as a response to both above items.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the New Haven is the buyer here, and this was all put into motion by J. P. Morgan. The Southern New England Railway was viewed as a threat that might buy the NPRR as a means of completing a line to Narragansett Bay and breaking the New Haven's monopoly on interstate transportation. This also came up with the Moshassuck Valley Railroad in northern Rhode Island around the same time, though that company remained independent. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "small change" is a poor choice of phrase for maintaining NPOV.
    I don't see what this has to do with NPOV, quite frankly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto "one-way track towards bankruptcy".
    In this case I agree and have reworded as "and in danger of entering bankruptcy". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • shareholders that distrusted should be "shareholders who distrusted".
  • not a good fit – according to whom?
    Reworded to better describe what I intended to convey, which was that for a company that operated streetcars, trying to integrate a short line which only used steam locomotives was particularly difficult. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend changing Though it was never an intentional act, the Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners neglected to "The Narragansett Pier Railroad's new owners unintentionally neglected". It's less wordy and, in my opinion, more aligned with NPOV.
  • The article starts using USRA without making clear what it is abbreviating.
    Oops, acronym is now introduced. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Haven, CT, should be Wikilinked from its first use, rather than where it currently is Wikilinked.
    It is linked at its first use. Other instances of the string "New Haven" are referring to the NYNH&H. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which could not claim much importance in the war effort seems tacked onto its sentence without being that relevant to it.
    The relevance is made clear by the previous sentences, which describe the effects of World War I. The line was considered low priority by the USRA controller in New Haven because it didn't carry much in the way of war-related traffic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the USRA cut passenger rail service and overwork the locomotives at the same time?
    By neglecting their maintenance.
  • I would argue that the "finally" in "finally failed" is unnecessary and leans away from NPOV.
    I don't understand what you mean. This is "finally" because there was a previous history of financial trouble. The "finally" makes it clear that this wasn't a spontaneous bankruptcy but the culmination of years of financial problems. That doesn't have anything to do with NPOV as I understand it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of the resolution of the Rhode Island Company's assets, the Narragansett Pier lease was cancelled in 1920; the USRA returned operations to the Hazard family on March 1, 1920. So the lease was canceled, then the Hazards took back control?
    This is because of the nationalization. The Sea View failed in 1919, but federal control didn't end until March 1, 1920, and the court cases dealing with the Rhode Island Company's assets concluded with the Narragansett Pier Railroad lease being cancelled before the end of federal control. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • already proven to be a maintenance headache just to get operational is a poor phrase choice for NPOV.
    I don't really agree, but nevertheless I have redone this section to give more detail on the issues with the railcar and removed this phrasing in the process. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • citing competition by cars and trucks – given the predominant use of car for rolling stock, I recommend replacing with "automobile".
    Yes, it's very annoying how car has multiple meanings. Switched accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Railbus is Wikilinked from the lead but nowhere else. I recommend Wikilinking the first use in the body and the only use in a photo caption.
    Done and done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a "train-mile" a real form of measurement in RR world? Is it different from a mile?
    Yes, a train-mile is a unit of measurement referring to one train traveling one mile. It is useful for cost purposes, as shown in this example. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • prompted an increase of over 10,000 passengers in one year, prompting – I recommend getting rid of either "prompted" or "prompting".
    Replaced one instance with "resulted in". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • nickname - "Micky-Dinks" - after – Those should be two en dashes, not hyphens.
    En dashes added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was not ignorant of the role of automobiles is poor phrasing for NPOV.
    What part of this contradicts NPOV? NPOV does not mean that writing cannot be expressive, and the sentence is an accurate description of the state of affairs and a faithful representation of the views of the cited sources. Management knew that the automobile was a threat and decided "if you can't beat them, join them". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (in large part, this covered the route of the abandoned Sea View Railroad). I think this would read better as its own sentence outside parentheses.
    That's reasonable, changed as suggested. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • spelled the end is not a great phrase for maintaining NPOV.
    I don't know what to say to this beyond I simply do not agree. Using language such as this doesn't have anything to do with POV, and your interpretation seems to be that any sort of remotely expressive language is disallowed. I do not believe that is how NPOV is intended, and have never faced such criticisms before in any of my GANs or FACs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve readability, I think which sat on valuable land in demand for commercial use should be set apart from the rest of the sentence with en dashes rather than commas.
    I agree, endashes added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • back from the brink is a poor choice of phrase for NPOV.
    Again, I strongly disagree. This is an accurate reflection of the circumstances. The company was close to shutting its doors. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • business - namely the closure of local mills and increased use of automobiles - resumed should be en dashes, not hyphens.
    En dashes added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • year - the should be an en dash, not hyphen.
    En dash added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said "its wooden-spoked wheels fouled every switch in the nearby tower"?
    Henwood. I struggled greatly with paraphrasing this particular sentence to the point I decided to use a quotation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family in "Hazard Family" is capitalized once, but appears elsewhere in lower case. It also appears upper case in headings twice, which should not be.
    Addressed in response to this further up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the behest of the State of Rhode Island, which was building a highway crossing the railroad right-of-way near Narragansett Pier, the now seldom-used segment beyond Wakefield was abandoned, shortening the line to approximately five miles (8.0 km) in length. Unfortunately for the state, by the time the Interstate Commerce Commission gave the railroad permission to abandon the segment, work on the bridge had progressed to the point it was cheaper to complete it than to abandon its construction. I don't understand what's happening here.
    The state asked the railroad to abandon the very infrequently used part of the line from Wakefield to Narragansett Pier so that a proposed highway crossing the route would no longer need a bridge. The railroad eventually obtained ICC approval, but by the time it came through work had already started on the bridge and it was now cheaper to simply finish the bridge than demolish what had been built and redo the highway to cross the former railroad alignment at grade. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does the quote "liquified fish guts" come from?
    Heppner, but I rewrote some of this section and removed the quote in the process. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the railroad's "physical plant"?
    [43] Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1928-built and 1876-built: I think you can remove "-built".
  • New Haven is WP:DUPLINKed
    No it isn't, according to the current guidance at MOS:DUPLINK. This was a relatively recent change so I can understand why you might not know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Penn Central?
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is railfans a real word?
    Yes? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Jersey Railroad it was needs a comma before "it".
    Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire Legacy section should be rewritten to improve shelf life: has been converted to "was converted" and since 2010 terminates under a mile from Narragansett Pier to "in 2010 was extended to a mile outside Narragansett Pier". For the last two sentences, adding "as of 2007/2017" is appropriate because those publications cannot say what is standing today.

Almost done, I think. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • I'm of the opinion that everything in the infobox should be drawn from the article body. Can you add the track gauge to the body? I'm also not sure the 8-mile length shows up in the body. The reporting mark doesn't.
    The length was actually 8.5 miles, though officially reported as 8 in a number of sources. This has been corrected and both sourced and stated in the body. The reporting mark comes up as NAP in The Official Railway Equipment Register on Google books, though unfortunately only a snippet view is available. Nonetheless I have cited it as it shows enough to me that I can confirm the reporting mark is correct. I cannot conceive of any way to discuss a reporting mark in the body, and also disagree that the gauge needs to be explicitly discussed. Essentially every single railroad in North America has used standard gauge since the Civil War ended. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 09:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingston Station as well could use a comma before "as"
    That's reasonable, added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a blow the resort town never fully recovered from isn't great NPOV wording.
    Again, I do not agree with your interpretation of NPOV and do not see why this needs to be changed. It is an accurate depiction of events. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1936 the railroad could use a comma after "1936".
    Comma added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • non-rail operations; steam locomotives: I don't think the second part of that sentence relates enough to the first part to justify joining them with a semicolon.
    Split into two sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the lead should be reworded to preserve shelf life. Most of the right-of-way has been converted could be "In the 21st century, most of the right-of-way was converted". And using now operates is asking for it to become out of date.
    I don't see an issue with saying "most of the right-of-way has been converted". The trail isn't going anywhere, and the chances of it becoming a railroad ever again are infinitesimal sadly. I changed the wording of the last sentence to "along with a steam locomotive that has been restored to operation by the Everett Railroad". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Modified further as "Several railroad structures have been preserved, along with a steam locomotive that was restored to operating status in 2015 by the Everett Railroad." Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

Despite my long long list of comments, I think the prose is good enough to be FAC-worthy if all of those comments are addressed. Honestly, if I had it to do over again, I would say that this article should go back to peer review before writing out all those comments. Having done so, however, I think there's an opportunity to bring the article to FAC quality here. Earwig finds no likely plagiarism. It is certainly well-researched, assuming PMC's source check finds that the sources are all good and represent a comprehensive survey of the relevant sources. The article is certainly comprehensive in telling all the twists and turns in the railroad's history and I think the lead does a great job compressing all that detail into something that can be consumed quickly and easily. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, I am disappointed you appear to feel burdened by what I assumed would be received as a helpful list of comments I spent many hours drafting while reading through this article. I'm under the impression that our purpose here as editors is to improve articles. The level of critique in this FAC forum I have found so valuable for achieving just that. Thus, I am always appreciative of reviewers' time and I try to offer it as a reviewer myself when I can. Having said that, I am willing to offer more of my time to read through the article again to see how my comments have been addressed. Unfortunately, it may take more than a week before I am able to find that time. Somebody else has already asked me to contribute to their peer review and I will soon be taking a planned internet hiatus (August 8–11), which I did not anticipate would affect this nomination when I drafted my comments almost six weeks ago. If this nomination is still active when I have the time, I will take a second look. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeliness discussion

[edit]

@Trainsandotherthings: I see you have responded to some but not all of my comments. Once you feel they are all addressed, ping me like this and I will be happy to take another look at the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I have internet now and should be editing more steadily so I will work through your remaining comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, how are you getting on with responding to DM's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on it. I converted one source to Sfn notation yesterday. Real life has gotten very busy. I didn't get home until 8 pm my time today. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that real life happens, but one of the FAC rules is "Nominators are expected to make efforts to ... address objections promptly." Some reviewer comments have been outstanding for a month, which is not acceptable. You may wish to consider withdrawing the nomination and renominating it when you have more time. In any event, if all outstanding comments are not addressed within 48 hours the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that real life happens Clearly, you do not. In the past month I moved, started a new job, and had my car die on the side of the road in the middle of the night. These presented challenges I did not anticipate at the time of nomination. I had points where I went days without even having the opportunity to log into Wikipedia at all due to real life concerns, which take precedence over an online encyclopedia. Despite all of this, I have been consistently working over the past week to address comments. Dugan Murphy left an extremely long list of comments (I count one hundred and five!!!!) that I have dedicated hours of my time to addressing. I had to do additional research and find new sources in response to some of his comments and to improve the article. Do me a favor and archive this now. And when people ask why editors refuse to participate in FAC, maybe remember this moment. I certainly won't be back anytime soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Trainsandotherthings: I came to this FAC intending to review it because the subject matter (New England railroading) interests me. If I have your blessings, then I would like to help out this week with addressing outstanding comments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, it is your call. I am happy to archive the nomination per your request, or to leave it open for Dylan620 to review. Which would you prefer? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept your generous offer, thank you. I believe most of the remaining concerns are prose concerns, as opposed to questions which require deep dives into the sources (unfortunately the best ones are offline). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620, whenever you're ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings and Gog the Mild: I've just addressed a few minor prose concerns, and will be working through as many more concerns as I can over the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

As this nomination has been open for seven weeks and only has picked up a single support, it's liable to be archived in the next few days unless significant progress is made. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs and Gog the Mild: Please archive the nomination at this point. With my appreciation and thanks to the reviewers, to Gog, and to Dylan620 for his generous assistance, I can't keep dealing with the stress from this FAC, which has gone on too long. It has been a source of misery for me for weeks and Wikipedia is something I do because I enjoy it. I don't want it to make me miserable on top of the challenges I've had recently IRL. Maybe I'll try my hand at FAC again in 2025, but for now I need to step away. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2024 [44].

Perry County, Tennessee

[edit]
Nominator(s): nf utvol (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rural, sparsely populated county in Tennessee. It has been continually improved since reaching Good Article status in 2022, and was recommended to take to FAC by peer review in 2023. Additional updates, modifications, changes, and improvements have been done since then, and it's about as good as I can get it. Sources have been exhaustively researched and statements cited. At this point, I am running out of additional sources to keep building the page from, so I think it's as good a time as any to start the FAC process. Thanks in advance! nf utvol (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • File:Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Noah_Harder.png
Thanks! Added alt text to everything and scaled up the maps a bit. Let me know if you think they should be bigger. Regarding the image publication info, the info on their sourcing is in the file page on Commons, but they're both items in the collections of the Tennessee State Library and Archives. The exact original publication date and author are unknown, but they are both listed as out of copyright. Regarding the age pyramid, I went ahead and removed it. I'll work on building an updated one with sourcing. Thanks again for the image review!!! nf utvol (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing anything at the source link for the first item regarding copyright status - could you clarify where that's coming from? On the second, I see a claim it is out of copyright, but not one specific to the given tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again and you're correct about Perry_County_Courthouse_(1868).jpg, it doesn't have a copyright status on that page, however the courthouse depicted in this image burned in 1928. Additionally, the image was mounted on a card that had an estimated date of 1900 on it (I pulled the physical copy from the library and scanned it to get a higher resolution image), hence the date in the image's page. Using the library's date of 1900, that would put it as before the 1903 guideline listed in WP:PD for unpublished works where the author's identity is unknown. Regarding the Noah_Harder.png, I updated the tag to just reflect no copyright instead of copyright expired since that better represents the notice on the source page. nf utvol (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I don't have time for a full review, but I do have some concerns.

  • " "It's Just Our Nature". YouTube. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes a youtube video from "patvb2003" (with less than 2,000 views and the channel with 5 subscribers as of the time I'm posting this) a high-quality reliable source?

:I should be able to source the information from this elsewhere, that particular source should have probably been removed long ago anyway. Anything that can't be sourced I'll remove.Removed a date not supported by other sources and removed the source.nf utvol (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cedar Grove Iron Furnace". The Historical Marker Database. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - this source is user-generated
  • " "Perryville First County Seat of Perry County". HMdb.org. Retrieved October 2, 2023." - also user-generated
For the HMdb.org entries, while the source itself is user generated, it is in turn sourced to a historical marker inscription. If that's not acceptable, then I think for most of this information I can find a different/better source, or just source the marker itself...let me know your thoughts.
I still wouldn't cite even the historical markers. The text of the markers is quite variable in quality. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Both items sourced to RSs and HMdb sourcing removed.nf utvol (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Younger, Lillye. "Perry County, Tennessee". Decatur Co. TNGenWeb. Archived from the original on March 14, 2022. Retrieved March 14, 2022." - what makes this local genealogical source a high-quality RS?
Younger is a historian who has been published by a university press (see here). My reading of WP:NOTRELIABLE leads me to believe this is enough to establish some level of subject matter expertise that would allow a self-published page to pass the bar for reliability for non-BLP related items. Considering this, if this is still too questionable, I'll see if I can find separate references.
This seems reasonable. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Duncan, James Carl (2013). Adventures of a Tennessean. AuthorHouse. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-4817-4157-6." - what makes this self-published book a high-quality RS
I'll see if I can find a separate source, if not I'll pull that sentence and source. Source pulled and sentence it was supporting removed. nf utvol (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tennessee River Flood Stages Data". Parsons Weather. ParsonsWeather.com." - what makes this a high-quality RS?
So this is pretty borderline, I'll admit. It's a self-described "weather hobbyist" site from a group that provides information to the CWOP. I'll see if I can find additional sourcing from the NOAA or other government/academic sources. Updated info and source to FEMA flood maps.nf utvol (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Tennessee Population Density County Rank". USA.com. World Media Group. Archived from the original on March 15, 2022. Retrieved March 15, 2022." - what makes this website a high-quality RS?
I see the concerns here, but it's nothing more than a compilation of otherwise publicly available census data that appears to pass a spot check for accuracy. I'll see if I can find it in another form from a different source, though. Surely the Census Bureau has this information in a pretty digestible format.
There ought to be a better source for this. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with Census info and source. nf utvol (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Domino 4328 – The Pickard Family – 1929". Old Time Blues. Retrieved February 27, 2024." - this is somebody's personal website. What makes it high-quality RS?
Let me dig to see if I can find another source for this. If not, I'll remove it and the associated information (as well as the associated sourcing and information on The Pickard Family). Found a primary source with the information, should be okay for uncontroversial fact-of information like place of birth per WP:PRIMARY. nf utvol (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Domestic Names Search". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey. Retrieved March 7, 2024." - this is being used to support the existence of a place as an "unincorporated community". This source is not appropriate for that; see WP:GNIS
I'll pare down this list to only those with non-GNIS sourcing. I was under the mistaken impression that GNIS could be used for sourcing for lists such as this, but should not be used to establish greater notability for individual articles.
GNIS doesn't really vet its feature classes. The GNIS entry claimed that the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Pond, Kentucky was a populated place. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I have concerns about the sourcing not being up to the FA standard. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial review, I'll start working on these and any others that might be of concern! Any further advice/recommendations is appreciated! nf utvol (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2024 [45].

I Feel It Coming

[edit]
Nominator(s): 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 single by the Weeknd and Daft Punk. The single is a disco-pop track in which the Weeknd tries to reassure his lover to not be scared of falling in love, despite her own failed relationships. With a Warren Fu-directed music video about a "love story in a cursed land", the song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100.

6 months ago, I checked this article out. I noticed that... it wasn't very detailed, so I decided to add some stuff. After a ton of work, I have finally decided to take this to FAC, to become my first (and likely) my only FA. I spent the time between the DYK nomination and this working on its prose, as the DYK reviewer had some concerns about it, so i started to tighten some unnecessary things. I have heard stuff about FAC's being "harsh" which is why for about a month, I have put off doing this. But after a spark of inspiration, I came back to this article and made some final adjustments. I believe this article is ready. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

Stopping here. Oppose per 1a, 1c. Heartfox (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • After three weeks the only review the nomination has received resulted in an oppose. Given this lack of movement towards a consensus to promote, I am timing it out. The usual two-week hiatus before any further FAC nominations will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 August 2024 [46].

Letterpress (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Letterpress. A shining gem among a sea of cheap, soulless, free-to-play mobile games. A game that touches players with its simplicity, designed entirely from the ingenuity of Loren Brichter. What better way to spend time than battling it out with words you had no idea existed until you pulled up the dictionary to cheat?

When I first met this article, it was but a mere three sentences. Over the course of (nearly) a year, I began to expand the article to its fullest potential. I put it up for peer review (twice), and it passed GA status in an instant. At that moment, I knew what had to be done. I brought it to FAC, learned from that review, and requested for a copyedit at WP:GOCE/R. I even learned Inkscape! (Great tool, by the way.) Now I'm here. To say that I am satisfied that this article is no longer a stub is an understatement. I hope to make history and achieve my very first featured article. Thank you, TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to the following users who have reviewed this article before: @Aoba47, @David Fuchs, @Mike Christie, and @Teratix. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. Unfortunately, I am currently taking a break from reviewing, but best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I would like to request for this nomination to be closed early per Teratix's comments; the article needs more work. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 03:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from UC

[edit]
  • I must admit that I find the explanation of how the game actually works pretty confusing. I think we need to start with the idea that both players are given the same grid of letters -- if I've got it right, you then have to draw from those letters to make words, and doing so gives you that many points and "locks" any tiles where you've got (two of? all of?) the tiles touching it?
    • Correct. FYI, a tile can be locked if all the tiles directly adjacent to it are selected (sorry if that's worded weirdly, I just woke up).
  • Some quite basic statements seem overcited: do we really need four different sources to say that there are two players and 25 tiles? One is the Manchester Evening News, which is pretty low-grade source, put mildly.
    • I was unsure how to use the sources Teratix provided me, so I figured, "Why not overcite everything? That's using sources, right?"
    • Update: I have now limited the amount of sources in the gameplay section.
      • Also, most of the sources I found repeated the same information.
  • The copyright claim on the three images is potentially dubious to me -- I know they are your own work, but they are also pretty clearly derivative works of the original game. Now, that game itself is only made up of basic shapes, letters and colours, but there's a lot of distinctive combination of those that, at least to my non-expert mind, would seem to pass the threshold of originality. Now, there's a very possible fair-use rationale for including a visual demonstration of how a game's fundamental gameplay loop works, but we'd need to upload the images locally to Wikipedia and write one of those.
    • Sorry, do you want me to reupload the image locally to Wikipedia as "non-free"?
    TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 22:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to get a more expert opinion on the image's copyright status, but my view is that it is non-free. If that's the case, the only way to include it in an article is to upload it to Wikipedia (not Commons) and write an explanation as to why we should be allowed to use it, despite its copyrighted status. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, we can't claim the icon as the "own work" of the uploader. We could probably claim that it is ineligible for copyright because it only consists of simple geometric shapes: that would need {{PD-textlogo}}.
    • Added.
  • I find the lead leaves a few loose ends, or unanswered questions: take, for example, The gameplay gradually evolved during beta testing; in the prototype, players would avoid using unclaimed tiles, leading to excessively long games.. The obvious question raised here is "so what did they do about it?", and that's not answered until the body.
    • Added information about solution.
  • it was criticized for not having a single-player mode: later in the body, we talk about it having one, so presumably this was added later? Similarly to the above, I know that we can't include every detail in the lead, but we should avoid giving a misleading impression to readers who only read the lead.
    • Yes. The bot mode was added at some point after the game's initial release. I'm not sure if removing it is gonna satisfy this point, but I'll do it anyway.
  • two players compete to claim the most colored tiles on a grid of 25 letters: most colored is ambiguous: the most (coloured tiles) or the (most coloured) tiles?
    • First option. Removed "colored".
  • Loren Brichter, the founder of Atebits 2.0: the footnote says a bit about why there was an Atebits 2.0, but I think we probably need to give a bit more context about what Atebits 1.0 was.
  • Brichter saw Letterpress as a way to experiment with new software: what new software?
    • According to this source, Brichter states, "With the Letterpress idea, a whole bunch of things happened to align that made that an obvious thing to pursue: games had taken over the App Store, I wanted to try a free app, and I wanted to test a whole bunch of other technologies." He doesn't really elaborate what he wanted to experiment with, unless I'm missing something here.
    • Furthermore, he states, "One of my complaints about design of iOS is it’s doing things that aren’t true to the hardware."
  • players could indiscriminately create long words: indiscriminately is not the right word here (that means "without thinking about it"): try "freely"?
    • That's the word I was looking for! Changed.
  • The link on pressing letters to letterpress printing is a bit of an easter egg: I think we need to spell out that it's a pun with a double meaning.
    • I'm doubting it's named after that: Explained allusion. "[Federico Vitici]: Why the name Letterpress? That evokes some print memories to me. Which is kind of anachronistic. -> [Loren Brichter]: Totally. The name just kind of grew on me. And the whole game is you pressing your letters with your finger. Letterpress. Not sure. Just liked it."
  • Brichter marketed Letterpress as freemium... why is this paragraph in the past tense?
    • Changed surrounding text. It turns the "freemium plan" was before the Solebon acquisition. As of right now, players can change themes, play unlimited games, and see their previously played words for free, so I'm gonna change it back to past tense.
  • Letterpress has a "generally favorable" Metacritic rating based on eight critics: advise putting an as of on this statement (and checking it fairly regularly!)
    • I don't think that's necessary. Most video game articles I've seen don't add that + there hasn't been a new review for about a decade.
  • Reviewers found the strategic elements of Letterpress engaging, comparing it to Scrabble, Reversi, Connect Four, Go, SpellTower, Words With Friends, and chess.: that's a lot of different comparisons. Can we say anything about how they compared it with each of these games?
    • I'll try to examine the sources once more.
  • Game Center, Apple's multiplayer network service: I would explain what this is on first mention, rather than second. Does it still use Game Center when it's on Google Play, for example?
    • Changed.
  • Despite Wiskus acknowledging the negative impact on user experience, he mitigated it with iMessage. He also highlighted the friction in initiating rematches, which led to simultaneous matches between players: I don't really understand what either of these sentences mean.
    • Simplified.
  • Letterpress was among a list of minimalist apps provided to inspire Jony Ive, a designer for Apple's iOS 7: provided by whom?
    • Doesn't say (unless I'm overlooking something here): "Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS, according to people familiar with the matter. When Jony Ive took over as the company’s head of design, he was given a list of forward-looking apps that suggested how iOS could evolve..."
  • Looking at the last FAC, I'm not sure the sources provided by User:Teratix have been fully incorporated -- in such a short article, we have the luxury of space to talk about how the game has been studied, for example.
    • Shoot! I was hoping that would get solved.

I suspect I'm at a bit of a disadvantage knowing very little about the topic, but in other ways that makes me the target audience -- I don't really get the feeling, at the moment, that I fully know what's going on, whereas there are plenty of current FAs that manage to hold your hand, even as a complete newcomer, so that you at last feel comfortable that you are getting the information with the context you need to understand it. It's a short article at the moment, and perhaps a bit more could go into padding out the explanations and context? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I may be a little late with your comments. I picked a bad time to nominate this article because of how busy my life is getting now. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BP!

[edit]

Hello there! I'll try what I can to bring up all of the article's possible issues after partial reviewing the article (Also, can you review my Ada Wong's FAC if you're able to? =) ).

  • There are a lot of ref bombs in the article currently. Pls, bundle the citations that have been cited from more than 3 sources.
    • Will examine the sources I have been provided with (if time pertains).
    • Update: Limited the number of references in the gameplay section.
  • Remove ScreenRant source as low-quality source
    • That's the only source I could find that covers the single-player bot mode, plus WP:VG/S states that Screen Rant is "deemed reliable enough" for any non-controversial statements.
  • At ref 15, pls italicize the publication
    • Done.
  • "Matthew Panzarino of The Next Web and Federico Viticci" Who is Federico Viticci? Add the publication/website
    • Whoops. Added.
  • Unsure about the Macstories reliability.
    • MacStories follows their guidelines listed here ("What Guides Us"). Additionally, they have an experienced editor team, and they don't do paid reviews.
  • What makes 9to5Mac reliable?
    • Zac Hall has written for the Clarion-Ledger newspaper (USA Today), and they even state that they have been cited by NYT, Washington Post, WSJ, the Financial Times, and others. Also, they don't do sponsored reviews.

🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave some comments. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Situational sources like Screen Rant and The Next Web can stay in the article because they're not used in controversial statements. I do not see any other issues with referencing.
    • Noted. (nice)
  • I think that you could specify which colours in the Gameplay section.
    • There are multiple themes in the game, so the game can be in various colors other than red and blue.
      • If there's a source for that, you could add it to the article.
  • Are all three images really needed in the article? I think that one image demonstrating the gameplay is enough in the article. You should also probably re-upload it to Wikipedia as a non-free image, even though it is a recreation and not an actual screenshot of a game... Or you could instead upload an actual screenshot of the game. It's up to you.
    • I did the second thing, but in the previous FAC review, Teratix (I believe) told me to recreate the game in Inkscape. I will upload the game locally if I have the time.
  • Do we know which side projects? Software or video games?
    • Does not say. This source states that he left Twitter to work on "personal projects", while in this source, he states: "What happened was after I left Twitter I had this massive backlog of ideas going back five, six years. Stuff I was thinking about in college and I just didn't have time to work on it. When I left, I just plowed through my old to-do list. I ended up making a dozen or so things, most of which will never see the light of day, but Letterpress was one of those things."
  • I assume new software for iPhone? I think that this should be clarified a bit.
    • Clarified; added "Apple".
  • Do we know how was the game advertised, considering that it was downloaded over 60,000 times on the release day.
    • Nope. I do remember a fragment of an interview saying that he did use plain and simple gameplay screenshots for the App Store, but that's pretty much about as far as marketing goes.
      • That's amazing.

Oppose from Teratix

[edit]

(responding to ping) I've had a look at the changes compared to the last time this was at FAC and my view hasn't changed: there's a lot of good material going underused. There's a lot of cases (e.g. Game Developer and Wired, which I already pointed out at the last FAC) where a source gets cited a few times but the article doesn't actually incorporate any of its information. The answer isn't to cut back on the number of sources – the answer is to make the article longer and use more details from the sources, especially when you have a reviewer without background coming in and finding things difficult to understand without more explanation and context.

To be honest, this is an issue too fundamental for an FAC to sort out at the moment. The article needed a substantial rewrite to properly integrate the new sources at the previous FAC, and that hasn't been done. So I'm opposing on these grounds, but I also want to give some comment on the media issue.

As anyone who has tried to explain a familiar game to new players knows, it can be supremely difficult to convey a sense of how things work when you rely only on your words. So, particularly for featured status (criterion 3), it greatly benefits this article to have some decent illustration of how the game mechanics function. However, as UndercoverClassicist has mentioned, aiming to replicate the game's interface in an illustration – colours, shapes, font, spatial arrangement and all – is likely not compatible with our copyright obligations. Rather than replicating or even mimicking what the player sees, we should be trying to illustrate the concepts the player will come across during gameplay – selecting tiles, compiling words, locking tiles, scoring. (Apologies, my comments at the last FAC didn't make this distinction at all clear).

My tentative, non-expert understanding is that gameplay concepts in themselves are not copyrightable elements, only the specific way in which they are expressed, so there should be some way to illustrate how these concepts work without actually copying the look of how they're implemented in Letterpress. It is a bit of a thorny question to work through, but getting the illustrations right is going to help this article a lot. I would perhaps ask about these issues at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions to get some better-informed opinions.

Throwing up our hands and saying "just stick to a non-free screenshot" would be convenient, but I don't think it would be for the best. A single screenshot doesn't properly illustrate the gameplay loop. – Teratix ₵ 04:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! You've brought up some neat points I didn't see coming. Really thought I had the whole comprehensive article thing solved... oh well. Thanks for responding! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 1 August 2024 [47].

2003 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2003 World Snooker Championship. I look forward to any comments you might have.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Embassy World Snooker 2003-05 logo.png: Not copyrightable, although it could probably be vectorised - this isn't important for the FAC though.
  • File:Ronnie O'Sullivan PHC 2011-1.png: CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Stephen Lee PHC 2011-1.png: CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:Ken Doherty.jpg: CC-BY-SA 3.0 & GNU Free Documentation License.
  • File:Mark Williams at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-05 01.jpg: CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • Some of these images have the persons facing right: this is usually recommended to be left-justified according to MOS:IMAGELOC, although I have been told that this is not strictly a FA criteria requirement.
  • Images have proper alt-text.
  • It might be worthwhile to note that these are not images of them at this specific event in the captions — I initially thought so until I saw the dates myself. I believe that falls under prose though, so Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joeyquism

[edit]

Should get to this soon; end of Saturday (America time) at the latest. joeyquism (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee! I've listed some things that I noticed below; feel free to refuse with justification:

  • Before Gog comes through, you should change the reference titles to be all in title or sentence case - there's an extension to assist in this if needed. Additionally, appropriate web/news links should be archived if they can (I'm sure you are familiar, but I would suggest using IABot here).
    • I only just learned about this script the other day. I've run it, but it does cause some issues with mobile view, so I have to install it each time I need to run it, which isn't ideal. I do run IABot, however, due to some localising, some news sites cannot be archived through IABot (the Eurosport.co.uk links), so I've archived where I can. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overview looks great. Snooker terms that I would have otherwise not been familiar with are wikilinked appropriately, and are described in a way that is clear and isn't overwhelming. I would, however, suggest moving the footnote [a] to be after "modern era".
  • This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships; the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship. - I'm not sure of the use of the semicolon here. I think "and the first" with a comma would read a little bit better.
  • In an all Scottish clash... - I believe that "all Scottish" should be hyphenated here.
  • ...whilst Hunter perhaps drew on his two Masters finals wins to motivate him in the deciding frame. - Could you provide the text in the original literature that corroborates the "perhaps" in this sentence?
  • Mark Williams defeated seven-time champion and close friend Stephen Hendry 13–7. - I'm not sure of the relevance of including "close friend" here; it seems a bit extraneous.
  • The final was officiated by the Netherlands' Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final. - Has this been superseded by anyone else? I would word it a bit differently if so (something like "then the youngest referee to oversee a world final until [name] in [year]") but I understand if this is not appropriate.
    Just noticed this @Lee Vilenski & @Joeyquism. FYI, Verhaas (aged 36 in 2003) is no longer the youngest to referee a world final. Paul Collier was 33 in 2004 and Marcel Eckardt was 30 in 2020. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for alerting us of this! In that case, I would say that the proposed revision would be better suited here, if you can find a source for Paul Collier's age in 2004. joeyquism (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly found very little wrong with this article; most of it is already very well-written and comprehensive. As someone unfamiliar with snooker, I feel like I learned a lot from your clear elaborations. After these initial comments are addressed, I'll give it another read and see if I find anything wrong - if not, I will likely come back to take a supportive stance. Apologies if I came off as pedantic; however, I do hope that this review was at least a little bit helpful. Thank you for all your hard work, and I hope you have a great day! joeyquism (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thats exactly what I look for in a review. I want the article to be better after recieving one. I'll take a look in a mo. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski, I note that you are away on holiday. I hope that you are enjoying yourself. I note that you have not commented here for five weeks. While RL obviosly comes first, can I point you towards the rule "Nominators are expected to ... make efforts to address objections promptly". I will give you another couple of days, but this nomination is in imminent danger of being archived for inactivity, which would be a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I don't think Lee Vilenski would have received a ping on the 25th, but hopefully will now. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a week since the prod and Lee hasn't popped up to address the piled-up comments, archiving for now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HurricaneHiggins

[edit]
Global comment
[edit]

This article feels rather "thin" to me in comparison with other World Championship tournament articles that have Featured Article status. For instance, the summary section mentions nothing about the qualifiers and doesn't even mention who the debutants were in that year. The first-round summary mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 16 and the second-round summary also mentions just 4 matches out of a possible 8. And some of these mentions are just "this guy beat that guy." I would have liked the summary to go into a bit more depth and detail in order to convey more of a flavour of the tournament.

Lead
[edit]
  • "This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship had been held at the Crucible, marking the 26th anniversary of the first staging of the event at this venue." This feels both confusing and redundant. How about "This was the 27th consecutive year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible, where it was first staged in 1977."
  • "became another first-time champion to fall to the Crucible curse" ... another? Of how many?
  • O'Sullivan's maximum break and his achievement in becoming the first player to make multiple Crucible 147s are surely lead-worthy?
  • In my view, the lead should mention who the debutants were that year and also give the century break total for the tournament.
Overview
[edit]
  • This section mentions the popularity of snooker in China, Hong Kong, and Thailand, using references from 2015 and later. But this article is about the 2003 tournament, and so we seem to be talking about stuff that hasn't quite happened yet in the sport. Yes, the main stage featured two Asian players (Fu and Wattana), but Ding Junhui had not even turned pro yet, and so it seems premature to be talking about China in particular.
  • I would suggest moving the sentences about Joe Davis and the tournament moving to the Crucible to the start of the paragraph in which they feature.
  • "It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." Note that the brand "World Snooker Tour" was introduced as part of a 2020 rebrand of World Snooker. It didn't exist in 2003. People typically referred to the "main tour" at that time.
  • "The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 17 in the semi-finals; the final match was played as best-of-35-frames." It seems confusing to mix "best of" and "first to". "The second-round and quarter-final matches were the best of 25 frames, the semi-finals were best of 33, and the final was best of 35" would be more consistent.
  • "This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships and the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship." This makes it sound like O'Sullivan himself is a maximum break. I'd suggest "This was the fifth maximum compiled at the World Championship and the first since O'Sullivan's maximum at the 1997 event."
  • "a 132 break in his first round match" -- hyphenate first-round match.
  • "Ebdon lead 4–3 ..." Should read "Ebdon led 4–3"
Quarter-finals
[edit]
  • "The quarter-final was played" -- should be "The quarter-finals were played"
Semi-finals
[edit]
  • "A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic." How relevant is this? Or is it an example of recentism bias?
Final
[edit]
  • "Jan Verhaas, the youngest referee at a world final." The article should probably note that while this was true at the time, Verhaas (then aged 36) is no longer the youngest to referee a world final. He was superseded in the 2004 final by Paul Collier (then aged 33), who in turn was superseded in the 2020 final by Marcel Eckardt (then aged 30).
  • "Williams took an early lead in the final, leading at 6–2 after the first session, and extended the lead to 10–2 in the second session." Overly verbose. "Williams led 6–2 after the first session and extended his lead to 10–2 in the second session."
  • "On the resumption in the third session, Doherty won six frames in-a-row" -- I'd suggest "In the third session, Doherty won six frames in a row" (do not hyphenate "in-a-row").
  • "The win allowed Williams to become world number one again, the first player to regain the position under the current ranking system and only the second overall after Ray Reardon." This may need clarification. The "current" rolling ranking system (in 2024) is different from the annual ranking system that was in effect up to 2010. And the sentence suggests that Reardon regained the number one position under another, different ranking system. All this is confusing, even to someone familiar with snooker history.

Hope this is helpful. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

Some initial commments. I might do a fuller review later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are there particular reasons why this is significantly shorter than the article for, say, the 2002 edition of the tournament?
  • Why are there no details about the qualifying competition? I don't think we want full results as there were so many of them, but looks like there was some bizarre set-up with different pre-qualifying competitions for non-WPBSA members, WPBSA members (non-tour), and WPBSA challenge tour members, followed by six qualifying rounds.
  • "There were a total of 120 entrants from the tour" - not verified by the source, and I don't think it is accurate.
  • Prize fund has the Highest pre-TV break prize but not the money awarded for Last 48/64/80/96/128 round losers.
  • The article doesn't mention who won the Highest pre-TV break prize.
  • "The next two frames were tied" - I don't think this is the intended phrase.
  • "However, Fu won the match 10–6" - is this supported by Almanac p161? (I'm guessing not)
  • "a 42-minute final frame" - can some context be given, or the duration removed?
  • I dislike "all-Scottish clash", but support for this is in the source.
  • "defeated seven-time champion Stephen Hendry" - why only mention his titles at the fourth instance of his name?
  • I see HH above queried "A condensed version of the match was showcased on BBC Two on 28 April 2020 in place of the 2020 World Snooker Championship which was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic" - I'd suggest removing it.
  • "He was only the third player to win these three events in a single season and is the most recent player to have achieved this" - suggest rewording as the source is from 2003 and he may not always be "the most recent player to have achieved this"
  • "With three of his matches going to a deciding frame, Doherty played 132 out of a possible 137 frames in the tournament, a record for the modern era, with only his quarter final win over Higgins having been decided by more than two frames" - not all supported by the source. Adding Downer's Almanac as a source should sort this.
  • Main draw - I checked a couple of the references against the dates and they didn't verify all of the info (e.g. dates on which matches were played.) Perhaps these are redundant as you have cited the Crucible Almanac, which I'm sure has all of the session dates.
  • I know opinions vary about the best way to present the scores from the final, but personally I dislike this one which has the scores twice.
  • Caption "Ken Doherty was six frames behind, but won 17–16." - maybe add the round, or the opponent?
  • Ref 3 - "worldsnooker.com. World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" World Snooker and WPBSA are, and I think were in 2003, related but different organisations.
  • Some other citations are inconsistent, e.g. "Peter Ebdon "I'm Delighted". BBC." but "Williams Takes Centre Stage". news.bbc.co.uk"; the snooker.org citations
  • I've corrected the authors for the Snooker Scene articles and made some other tweaks to them - please check that these changes are OK.
  • Lead "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." is not included in the body, so is uncited.
  • Format: "It was the ninth and last ranking event of the 2002–03 snooker season on the World Snooker Tour." not supported by sources. The BBC source is about a different season, and the snooker.org source has "WPBSA ranking tournament (#8 of 8)"
  • Tournament summary - you could add a cuegloss link to "sessions" at the first instance.

Comments by RoySmith

[edit]
  • The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker . [1] It's unclear if the source supports calling it "the official world championship".
  • Founded in the late 19th century by British Army soldiers stationed in India, [2] What makes snookerheritage.co.uk a WP:RS? Also, the source says "already popular at his club in Rangoon (Burma)", so it looks like it was invented in Burma, not India.
  • There were a total of 120 entrants from the tour .... [15] I can't find where the source says that.
  • The top 16 players in the latest world rankings automatically qualified for the main draw as seeded players. As defending champion, Peter Ebdon was seeded first for the event, with world number 1 Ronnie O'Sullivan seeded 2; the remaining seeds were allocated based on the players' world ranking positions. [16] I see where it says Ebdon was the number one seed, but can't find any of the other stuff.
  • The opening round was played from 19 to 24 April as the best-of-19 frames, held over two sessions. Ronnie O'Sullivan compiled a maximum break in his first-round match against Marco Fu , making him the first player to have scored two 147s at the venue. This was the fifth maximum compiled at the world championships and the first since O'Sullivan at the 1997 World Championship . [19] Two issues here. First, Chris Turner's Snooker Archive looks like a self-hosted blog, so not a WP:RS. Second, it doesn't say any of those things.
  • Ebdon lead 4–3 but then won six frames in a row to win. Ebdon thanked stronger contact lenses for his ability to stay in the match. [22] [23] citation 23 is not much more than a Wikipedia:Bare URL. It gets you to some piece of RTSP content and then immediately closes the connection. There's no enough information in the citation to find it through other means, so I'd say this fails WP:PUBLISH.
  • 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/August_2024&oldid=1242739771"