Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2020

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

Mandate for Palestine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the sequel to Balfour Declaration, which achieved WP:FA status in 2017. The Mandate for Palestine was the document which made the Balfour Declaration a reality, inventing the state which became modern Israel and the Palestinian territories, and in an adjacent set of events it also invented the state which became modern Jordan. The article illustrates the competing political dynamics during 1917-23 which led to this outcome, and shows how the borders of these countries were negotiated from scratch. No other online resource comes close. The mandate was formally allocated by the League of Nations on 25 April 1920, so I am aiming to get this article to WP:TFA on the centenary on 25 April 2020. I am grateful that the article has undergone a thorough GA review by FunkMonk and others, and has been copyedited by Miniapolis at the GOCE. Like the Balfour Declaration article, this article has many important quotations set out in the endnotes, which serve to maintain the stability of the article in this highly contentious topic area of Israel-Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

[edit]

I will comment here as I go along. Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am somewhat confused as to why the Balfour Declaration comes before Sykes-Picot. From 1914 we jump to 1917, and then back to 1915. A strictly chronological approach would probably be least confusing for the average reader. And perhaps an opening paragraph with the situation in Palestine should be added, giving the respective populations of Arabs and Jews (with numbers), and making a brief introduction on Zionism and nascent Arab nationalism in the Ottoman empire (brief mentions/explanations with links to the relevant articles would suffice). Constantine ✍ 16:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been giving this comment a lot of thought. The reason I haven't gone for strictly chronological in the background section is that all three sets of agreements were discussed and negotiated over the same period, such that chronological would mean jumping back and forth between Zionist, Arab and French discussions. I consider that more difficult to follow and digest than keeping the three counterparties separate (which mirrors the reality that during the war these discussions took place in silos). So I would like to retain the structure, but will work on some clarifying tweaks. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Then perhaps it would be a good idea to have an introductory/overview paragraph at the beginning, outlining the parties involved and their aims. I know just enough about the period not to get confused, but that certainly won't apply to the average reader. Constantine ✍ 11:10, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestine was part of the coastal exclusion" it is not immediately apparent what the "coastal exclusion" was. This should be made clearer, i.e, that the "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo" were coastal (with reference to the map). Constantine ✍ 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " led by Emir Faisal," mention that he was Hussein's son, thus linking the "Hashemites" to the Sherifate of Mecca mentioned above.
Fixed, with explanation of Hashemite moved earlier in the article Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, " briefly mention what this agreement was, or at least that it was signed by Faisal and a WZO representative (perhaps introduce Weizmann here instead of the next paragraph).
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look out for inconsistent capitalization and endash for "Sykes–Picot Agreement"
Fixed both Onceinawhile (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British Foreign Minister Curzon ultimately decided" link Curzon here, and look out for inconsistent mention of him; I suggest "Lord Curzon" at the first reference and simply "Curzon" after, or "Lord Curzon" throughout.
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of September 1920, Curzon instructed Vansittart" what was Vansittart's capacity?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and autonomous Transjordan under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Kingdom of Hejaz" the links here are a bit WP:EASTEREGGy. Perhaps amend the first to include the entirety of "autonomous Transjordan", or better yet, "an autonomous Emirate of Transjordan", and somehow introduce the Sharifian Solution in the main text, since using it to pipe "Hashemite" doesn't make much sense.
Fixed, with explanation of Sharifian Solution Onceinawhile (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " diplomats from the League of Nations": move the link up to "were supervised by a third party: the League of Nations.".
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Treaty of Sèvres was about to be re-negotiated" link the treaty
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links throughout the footnotes Onceinawhile (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stanley Baldwin, replacing Bonar Law, set up a cabinet subcommittee" link both and explain their role/capacity
Done. I removed Bonar Law as doesn’t need mentioning Onceinawhile (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quigley noted that", "As Huneidi noted," who/what are they?
Clarified Onceinawhile (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a "Class A mandate" is introduced in the article in the very first sentence, but is never properly explained, and completely left unmentioned in the body of the text until quite late.
I have removed it from the lede, as it is unnecessary jargon. I have added a more fulsome explanation in the League of Nations mandates section Onceinawhile (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the Fascists gaining power in Italy, Mussolini delayed the mandates' implementation." link March on Rome, add date, and explain that the Fascist leader Mussolini was the new Italian Prime Minister.
Done, good suggestion. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 August 1923, the Turkish assembly in Ankara ratified the Treaty of Lausanne by 215 of 235 votes." the significance of this is not immediately apparent here, and it is already better covered, in terms of context, in the following "Turkey" section. Recommend removing this and amend "The dispute between France and Italy was resolved by the Turkish ratification" by adding "... of the Treaty of Lausanne (see below)" or analogous.
  • "When memorandum to the Council of the League of Nations was submitted" -> "When the memorandum was submitted to the Council of the League of Nations"
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because it required the agreement of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." that is entirely incorrect, the treaty required no assent by Kemal. There was a quasi-civil war between the Ottoman government and Kemal's nationalist movement, at the same time as the latter's fight with the Allied powers (France, Greece, Britain). Just leave it at the fact that the treaty was not ratified, and that following the victory of Kemal's Turkish National Movement in the Turkish War of Independence, the treaty was revised at Lausanne.
  • "of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement" link these terms
Done. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Negev region was added to Palestine" do we know why?
Explanation added Onceinawhile (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. The article is well-written, well-referenced, and very informative, and I don't see any major obstacles to it getting the FA star. I will definitely need to re-read it a couple of times with a clearer head though. Constantine ✍ 17:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I've gone through the article again, and I like the changes. Apart from the two Turkey-related suggestions above, my main outstanding issue is the beginning of the 'Background' section, where I do strongly recommend an introductory section about Palestine in 1914 and the various players regarding it. Also, on the section titles 'Commitment to...' it should be clarified who made this commitment: the POV adopted here is that of the British government, so it should be mentioned (i.e., "British commitment to...") and it should be explained beforehand (in the intro section) exactly why we are dealing with the British perspective first and foremost. As someone somewhat familiar with the subject, I understand the rationale, but we cannot assume such knowledge for the average reader. I would also recommend adding an explanation of the colors to the legends of your maps, the {{Legend}} template should be useful here. Constantine ✍ 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
I have scaled up a number of the images
  • File:1918_British_Government_Map_illustrating_Territorial_Negotiations_between_H.M.G._and_King_Hussein.png is of quite poor quality
You are quite right, and you rightly made the same comment at the Balfour Declaration FAC. As I said then, unfortunately there is no better quality version available anywhere outside the UK Government Archives. It is the only known government map illustrating the 1915 agreement, so is highly notable.
  • File:The_high_commissioner's_first_visit_to_Transjordan,_in_Es-Salt..jpg: when/where was this first published?
I have added a better tag for this one, PD-Matson. The LOC is explicit that this image, and a few thousand others, have no known restrictions.
  • File:Cair_Conference_12_March_memo_regarding_Transjordan.jpg: the UKGov tag is sufficient, life+70 is not needed. Same with File:British_Government_memorandum_regarding_Article_25_of_the_Palestine_Mandate_with_respect_to_Transjordan,_25_March_1921.jpg
Removed as suggested.
  • File:Italy_Holds_Up_Class_A_Mandates;_League_Council_Has_Failed_to_Meet_Her_Views_Regarding_Palestine_and_Syria_-_July_20,_1922.jpg: who is the author? Same with File:Zionist_Rejoicings._British_Mandate_For_Palestine_Welcomed,_The_Times,_Monday,_Apr_26,_1920.png
Both of these are unknown authors. The same goes for File:Syrians Present Grievances to League (of Nations, 1921).jpg. In the US (for the two NYT articles), they fall under the Work for hire designation, so were out of copyright after 95 years. In the UK (for The Times) “ If the author is unknown, copyright will last for 70 years from end of the calendar year in which the work was created”[2]
Suggest in both cases then not using the life+70 tag given that that's not the rule being applied. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Proposal_for_the_Southern_Boundary_of_Palestine,_1919_Paris_Peace_Conference.png: where was this first published?
Certainly prior to 1963 (I have clarified on the commons page), so UK Crown Copyright (which applies worldwide) has expired.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the above comments, which I have now addressed. Are there any other images which you think should be scaled up? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both the first and the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – this has been done. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Display name 99

[edit]
done Onceinawhile (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Link and define Zionism and add a sentence or two about the Zionist movement prior to the Balfour Declaration. Right now I don't feel like the background goes back far enough. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the French got modern-day Syria and Lebanon as a result of Sykes-Picot, didn't they? Why do you only discuss what the British received and fail to mention that? Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second to last paragraph of this section, you mention the protectorate system. I'm guessing that this is what existed under the Ottoman Empire. Can you explain what it was?
More to follow. Display name 99 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment to Britain Palestine

Addition of Transjordan

Drafting

  • "The February 1919 Zionist Proposal to the Peace Conference was not discussed at the time, since the Allies' discussions were focused elsewhere." I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to say where. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit confused now. I see a draft made in December 1919 is mentioned but I can't find anywhere what the provisions were. It's also unclear to me why there had to be so many drafts. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inclusion of Article 25 was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922." This comes off poorly to me unless we first explain what Article 25 was. I feel that we should explain the circumstances that led to the article, say what was in the article, and then say when it was approved. Display name 99 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a number of questions specifically about the sub-section "1921–22: Palestinian Arab attempted involvement:"

Oppose-I'm sorry but I do not think that this is FA quality right now. It is clear to me from my comments and what was identified by Sarastro1 that the article contains plenty of good information but at times is convoluted and ambiguous. In addition, my comments have been posted for nearly 10 days and only one of them has been addressed with no explanation for the inaction. I agree with Sarastro1 that the article would benefit from a copyedit by an unvinvolved editor, especially one who is an expert in the topic, which I admit that I am not. I recommend peer review as a possible solution. Display name 99 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Display name 99: thanks very much for your comments here, particularly the thoroughness of your assessment. I was waiting for you to finish working your way through before addressing them. The article has had a thorough GOCE copy edit, and the GA review was very detailed by multiple users. Your comments are very constructive and I will work through them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

This is a substantial article on a complex and difficult topic. As such, the nominator deserves congratulations. The down side is that reviewers can be a little reluctant to wade in, especially as there are over 8,000 words (which I have absolutely no doubt are necessary). I've made a start, and it looks good overall. I've checked a couple of sources, which looked ok to me, but at some point I may do one or two further checks. From a first look, I do wonder if this would benefit from a copy-edit from an uninvolved editor; there are a few parts that are difficult to understand and other parts where the prose might benefit from a massage. Content-wise, it looks good so far. I'm not an expert on this at all, and most of what I know comes from studying this in history for GCSE a loooooong time ago. So overall, maybe this needs a touch more work, but I have no major concerns so far. Here's what I've found over the last day or two, as far as the start of the "Addition of Transjordan" section. Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ”envisaging the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship”: Fused participle. Maybe “…economic union; Jerusalem would be transferred…”
Changed to "on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship." Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "added to the mandate following a March 1921 conference”: A bit of an easter egg here; maybe make it “following the Cairo Conference in March 1921”?
Fixed Onceinawhile (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration, the wider war had reached a stalemate with two of Britain's allies not fully engaged; the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.”: I wonder if this could be split into two sentences after “stalemate”?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The term "national home" had no precedent in international law,[9] and was intentionally vague about whether a Jewish state was contemplated.[9]”: Why do we have the same reference twice in the same sentence? Once at the end would seem to be enough. Also, I’m not too sure why we are using “p 82 ff” when as far as I can see, everything is referenced on p 82 (and possibly 83, so maybe pp 82-83 would suffice?). A similar issue with reference 20 in the next section (the same citation twice in a sentence). Neither of these is a particular issue, I’m just curious about the reason.
"ff" replaced by 82-83 as suggested. I have kept the same reference twice in those two sentences, on the basis that each separate clause represents an important point. We are being crystal clear that both clauses within the sentence are explicitly sourced. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The primary negotiations leading to the agreement occurred between 23 November 1915 and 3 January 1916, on which date the British and French diplomats Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot initialled an agreed memorandum”: Presumably the latter date? Perhaps this should be specified?
Specified as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 24 is to “Eugene Rogan, The Fall of the Ottomans, p.286” but this is not in the bibliography.
Added Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”His delegation made two initial statements to the peace conference”: As we don’t call it Faisal’s delegation in the previous sentence, and the subject of the previous sentence is the delegation itself, I think this may be better as “The delegation made…”
Amended as suggested Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The Hashemites had fought with the British…”: Specify during the war?
Done Onceinawhile (talk) 10:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although France required the continuation of its religious protectorate in Palestine, Italy and Great Britain opposed it. France lost the religious protectorate but, thanks to the Holy See, continued to enjoy liturgical honors in Mandatory Palestine until 1924 (when the honours were abolished).” A bit to sort here. We would be better without close repetition of “religious protectorate” and “honours” (especially as we spell it two ways in the same sentence). Also, what are liturgical honours? This is their only mention in the article. We need to at least link “Holy See” and what does the Holy See have to do with anything?
  • ”As Weizmann reported to his WZO colleagues in London in May 1920,[b] the boundaries of the mandated territories were unspecified at San Remo and would "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers" at a later stage.” This seems a bit of an afterthought as the rest of the paragraph is not about this. Also, “As Weizmann reported…” appears to be a little bit of editorialising using Wikipedia’s voice. It may be more neutral to simply say “Weizmann reported…”
  • ”British forces retreated in spring 1918 from Transjordan after their first and second attacks on the territory”: Why did they retreat? I’m a little lost here, and can’t quite tell what is going on.
  • ”Britain and France did agree on the East border of Palestine being the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”: Perhaps better as “Britain and France agreed that the East border of Palestine would be the Jordan river as laid out in the Sykes–Picot Agreement”, but why are we capitalising East?
Fixed and suggested, and replaced East with eastern. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Regarding Faisal's Arab Kingdom of Syria, the French removed Hashim al-Atassi's newly-proclaimed nationalist government and expelled King Faisal from Syria after the 23 July 1920 Battle of Maysalun.” This is the first we have mentioned of any kingdom of Faisal’s. I’m a little confused where this comes from, and how Faisal acquired a kingdom when the last we read of him, he was the head of a delegation. There is probably a simple explanation and I’m possible being a little thick, but I think we could make this more transparent.
  • Comma use: I'm not totally sure we are being consistent in how we are using commas at the start of sentences:
    • ”Immediately following their declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire in November 1914, the British War Cabinet began” (comma)
    • ”By late 1917, in the lead-up to the Balfour Declaration,” (comma)
    • ”Between July 1915 and March 1916 a series of ten letters” (no comma)
    • ”In anticipation of the Peace Conference, the British…” (comma)
The rule I have applied is to use a comma after an introductory dependent clause. I didn't have it in the 1915-16 sentence only because that sentence has quite a lot of breaks already. I have added it back, but am now thinking the sentence should be restructured. I'd be grateful if you have any ideas here. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from T8612

[edit]
  • Why did you make such long footnotes? and two series of notes? I feel that the readability of the article is really impacted by this formatting (think about those reading it on mobile!). I would much prefer seeing the content of these notes in the text body; the article is not that long for such a complex topic (55k characters), and some sections are quite small ("Turkey", "Legality" have only one paragraph). Imo there is no need to add such long verbatim quotes from primary and especially secondary sources. The former can be interesting when really significant (but not that many), not the latter (unless from a very influential academic or book). All the info in the notes starting by "Biger wrote" etc. should be synthesised and added in the text body. I don't think it is FA standard right now, although you have made a great job at collecting all the material. Now you just have to make it more encyclopedic. T8612 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @T8612: thank you for reviewing the article. You raise an important topic. I last discussed it in detail with the late great Brian Boulton in this thread from the first FAC review of the Balfour Declaration article. I explained the following, which is equally applicable to this article: "The subject of this article is the origin of perhaps the most controversial and hotly debated of all modern conflicts. I have edited in the Israel Palestine area for some time, and have learned that quotes in footnotes are a must in order to avoid edit wars on controversial topics. As it says at WP:IPCOLL, every topic is described differently by both sides. Israelis, Palestinians and their respective supporters come to read this article all the time - when they see something that doesn't fit the narrative they thought they knew, let's just say that they do not bother to go and check the source book out of the library before editing." The rest of the thread goes on to provide more detail.
It has proven to work; both Balfour Declaration and this article went from edit warring battlegrounds to completely stable articles after the addition of these detailed footnotes.
Are there any footnotes in particular which stand out to you? Whilst I feel strongly about the overall concept, I am open to cutting them down further wherever possible. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and I remember having read the Balfour declaration article and being similarly bothered. Would it be possible to transcribe important speeches and newspapers articles on Wikisource? This way they would be easily accessible without making the article overwhelming with quotes/notes everywhere. On edit wars, I thought every article on Palestine had an extensive protection. Isn't it enough?

I'm going to try rewriting a section to show you how I would have written it (the one entitled "British Parliament"):

British public and government opinion became increasingly opposed to state support for Zionism. Even Sykes had begun to change his views after a last trip to Palestine in late 1918, as he considered the situation could become dangerous.[ref to Leslie's book] Following a visit to Palestine in February 1922, the Conservative media mogul Viscount Northcliffe—who notably owned the Times and The Daily Mail—launched a campaign in the press against Zionism, fearing that it would upset Muslims in India. On 15 February, he published from Cairo a statement suggesting Palestine risked becoming a second Ireland.[Defries ref] Concerned by his fading support in Parliament, Churchill telegraphed Samuel—who had begun his role as High Commissioner for Palestine 18 months earlier—asking for cuts in his expenditure, so he hoped he could dodge the critics on the cost of supporting Zionism for the British taxpayer.[ref to Huneidi] This policy initially failed as the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate incorporating the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25 after the June 1922 issuance of the Churchill White Paper, following a motion proposed by Lord Islington.[refs to Huneidi and Hansard] The Lords' vote was only symbolic though, since it was subsequently overruled by a vote in the House of Commons thanks to skilful political manoeuvring from Chruchill. He avoided showing his support to Zionism, focusing instead on imperial and strategic considerations, especially the need for Britain to remain in the area to control the Suez Canal.[refs to Hansard and Mathew].

There is more info and less notes. The role of Northcliffe is important, but with your current formatting, you put the info in a quote that leads to a note; that's not ideal and easy to follow. T8612 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @T8612: thank you for this. I like many of the copy edits in there. To your specific questions: (1) for the speeches and newspaper articles to go on Wikisource, I would need the full piece – unfortunately more often than not I just have the specific excerpts that are quoted by scholars of this topic. Where I do have the complete source material I have frequently added it to Wikisource, or sometimes as a pdf to Wikicommons; I will have a look through to see if I can add more. (2) On edit wars, this is not about IPs, but about avoiding edit wars between experienced editors who feel very strongly about this topic area and are willing to fight over the slightest nuance without double checking the underlying sources. For example, statements in your draft such as Sykes changed his mind "as he considered the situation could become dangerous" and Northcliffe launched his campaign because he "fear[ed] that it would upset Muslims in India" would attract amendments by editors who feel that the summary was not a full reflection. (3) Footnotes are also useful to provide additional detail which would otherwise distort the flow of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

This nom appears to have stalled and we're nowhere near consensus to promote, so I'm gong to archive it. As well as addressing Sarastro's unresolved comments, I'd suggest working with the reviewers, if they're willing, outside of FAC to improve the article prior to another nomination after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2020 [3].

2019–20 coronavirus outbreak

[edit]
Nominator(s): Almaty (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... seriously this is a class C article at best. don't attempt Almaty (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While the article is a eligible to nominate to FAC, is so too early for it for nominate as the event is still ongoing. I would support it to nominated to FAC if the disease ended. There are many spellings, grammar and others that need a correction. Does this article have peer review or nominated to Good article class before? It will be interesting to see.

I'm closing this - entirely too much editing going on to even begin to be stable. --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2020 (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.
  • Delay Closure Ealdgyth Hurricane Noah This outbreak article is in a good time to become FA, because the article obviously got significant improvement time to time. These are very active edits form non disruptive users too. It better start looking into FA now before the page becomes very inactive. Regice2020 (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - This appears to have been an accidental nomination by myself, as I thought someone else had nominated it by placing the template on the talk place and I was commenting on it. --Almaty (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [4].

Cyclone Taylor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was at FAC a few months ago, but owing to some prose issues was archived. After some delay I've fixed it up, and had a second person go over it (credit to @Giants2008:). So now I'm here again, and will be ready to address any issues. I'll also ping the other reviewers from the first FAC: @Nikkimaria, Kosack, Canada Hky, and SandyGeorgia:. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiser, I am traveling, but have a brief moment for a quick look. The first section I went to has grammatical and prose issues:
  • Frank Patrick would later use his close connection with Sir Richard McBride, the Premier of British Columbia, to get Taylor's position transferred west, and helped Taylor get promoted to senior immigration inspector.
Tense changes in the middle of the sentence; this was the same sort of problem I saw earlier.
This is really problematic:
  • Taylor spent considerable time on the ship as it sat in the Vancouver harbour: with the passengers unable to disembark or given additional supplies, Taylor took on the role of supervising everyone until it left back for India on July 23, the passengers refused entry into Canada.
Though ... though ... and an overly long convoluted sentence:
  • Though reluctant to go overseas, he wanted to help out and was willing to do whatever was necessary, though shortly after his enlistment it was announced that immigration officials were deemed a vital job and exempt from service, so Taylor was discharged from the military and spent the war working in Vancouver.
It looks like a better copyedit may be needed. That is only a quick glance at one section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you here. I'll go through it once more in the next few and try to clean up the wording again. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – As stated above, I cleaned up some things in the article, although I don't offer a warranty that I got everything. There are a few items I noticed in the process that are worthy of consideration:

  • Hockey career: I'm presuming there was no issue at the time with a "strictly amateur" player being given spending money by his team, as the early part of this section implies?
  • His height and the comment about him being of average size at the time appear in both the Ottawa Senators and Legacy sections. Since Sandy wanted it earlier in the article, perhaps it should be taken out of Legacy so we don't have redundant content?
  • Marriage and family: This is a long shot, but is anything about Joan Taylor's figure skating career worth expanding on? That's potentially interesting if the sources offer any details. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

Leaning oppose on sourcing: I did some spot checks on "Early Life" and found several issues. (I used Cyclone Taylor: A Hockey Legend by Whitehead which is available to view at the Internet Archive "library") I suspect many of these are minor, or simple errors, but one or two seem to me to misrepresent the source slightly. Additionally, I found each of these issues in just the first two paragraphs. Even if they are minor issues, it concerns me greatly to find so many in such a short section. I stopped after the second paragraph. I'm inclined to oppose this outright, and would require considerable reassurance that the remainder of the article does not contain similar issues before even thinking about looking at prose. I'm open to reconsidering if someone can explain how the source supports the claims - part of the problem may be my hockey ignorance. Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The exact date of Taylor's birth is uncertain, though most sources give it as June 23, 1884.": We cite this to Whitehead 1977, which gives the date of birth as 24 June 1884, and does not support the uncertainty of the date. We should probably be using the Zweig article (which I can't view).
  • "Mary stayed at home and raised the children": I'm struggling to find that in the source. I'm also wondering should we be mentioning his father's drinking?
  • "Taylor was named Frederick Wellington after a local veterinarian, who was a friend of Archie; Taylor's biographer Eric Whitehead states that on the day of Taylor's birth the two men were fishing, so Archie decided to name his son after the elder Frederick.": This is a slightly awkward sentence, especially "after the elder Frederick". But looking at the source, the information is not simply from the biographer, it is a direct quotation from Taylor who is quoting the veterinarian. Also, it is a little more complicated than we state here, but probably too detailed to go into. What if we cut this back to "Taylor was named Frederick Wellington after a friend of Archie" and move the story of the fishing trip to a brief note?
  • "The Taylor family lived a modest lifestyle in Listowel": This seems a little more than what the source says, when Taylor simply says that his family were poor. It might be a touch pedantic, but unless I've missed it, he doesn't describe their lifestyle.
  • "Though he had first skated at the age of five on ponds near Tara, it was in Listowel that Taylor learned to play hockey.": The reference given does not support where he learned to play hockey: the reference to Tara checks out on page 12, but the information that he learned hockey in Listowel is on page 14. Also, "it was in Listowel" sounds a little too much like a dramatic documentary Voiceover. Why not something simpler like "Having learned to skate in Tara, Taylor first played hockey in Listowel"?
  • "Taylor was one of the most skilled on his team": Where are we getting this? The source says "Nor could his bigger, older teammates have kept with him stride for stride had he wanted them to." Even if we argue that this means he was the most skill, it only refers to his first game for the team.
  • "This greatly enhanced Taylor's name across the province, and several teams were interested in having him join them.": Where are we getting this from? I can't find it in the source on the pages given.
  • Incidentally, it would be good if possible to use some sources other than Whitehead for his early life. I also note that nearly half of the references are to Whitehead 1977, and when Whitehead 1980 is included, by my reckoning 60 out of 136 references are to the same writer. This is not necessarily an issue, but I wonder if we could use a few other sources as well? For example, are there any other general sources that could be utilised? Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

As well as noting the concerns above, I see there hasn't been any activity by the nominator for ten days, and this suggests there won't be any for a while, so I'm putting this one to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [5].

The Holocaust in Slovakia

[edit]
Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are a couple of points where the refs run out of order ("Hlinka Guard.[13][3]" and "militia.[13][3]" as two examples). I am not too fussed about the point, but there are some who will say it trips up readers to see the numbers out of order (your call as to fix or ignore)
    • Fixed those, although I'm not too concerned about it either.
  • "HSĽS' " I don't push the point, but a good rule of thumb is to see if there is the sound of a second "s", so I would normally put this as "HSĽS's" (although with the mix of curly and straight punctuation and upper/lower case it's a fairly ungainly looking mix!). Your call whether you follow suit, as there is a no real fixed rule either way.
    • Reworded to get rid of them. (The sound actually from wikt:strana and very similar to English /s/).

Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1938 deportations
  • No need to link "the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom" (and as you've introduced the United Kingdom at the end of the previous para, you can shorten to UK). I tend only to link to non-existent states, so the links to Nazi Germany are good.
    • Fixed
  • "voluntary Aryanization" is a circular link and advised against at WP:SELFRED. If it only occurred in Slovakia then best not to link; if it was a policy in several states, then maybe a quick stub by way of explanation?
    • I redirected voluntary Aryanization to Aryanization, where it is discussed a little, and took out the link to the later section (see below)
Aryanization
  • In my notes for the 1938 deportations I initially wrote that "voluntary Aryanization" needs an explanation "to explain what sounds like, but probably wasn't, a benign process". The explanation in this makes it a lot more clear that the name was a euphemism and that the process wasn't benign. It does, however, read a little awkwardly to have the full explanation on the second mention, which is in a different section. Can we clarify at the first mention (in the 1938 deportations section) what "voluntary Aryanization" was, and then we can deal with its effects in this section?
    • Changed to "a precursor to the state-sponsored transfer of Jewish property (Aryanization)." I don't think we need to be explicit about the type of Aryanization.
  • Is there a reason you've capitalised "Slovak State", when that's not a proper name? Shouldn't it be "Slovak state" in the same way you refer to the "Czechoslovak state" or "Slovak government"?
    • It was (temporarily) the official name of the state; see First Slovak Republic#Name. All of (First) Slovak Republic/Slovak state/Slovak State are used in reliable sources, but I stuck with the last one because it is the most common in the sources that I was using.

Done to the end of Forced labour; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Code
  • Full stop for the image caption as it's a full sentence. I'd also prefer to see a cite there (I'm not sure what the rules are on using citations for translations, but I think it would strengthen it against someone who may later query it
  • "denounced non-Jews perceived as sympathetic to them as "white Jews", engaging in antisemitic demonstrations on a daily basis" This reads as if the so-called "white Jews" were the ones taking part in the antisemitic demonstrations – I think it needs a little tweak to clarify.
    • Reworded

More to come shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning
  • "In November 1941,[93]": I'm never a fan of citations immediately after just a few words. A citation should cover all the information in the text from the previous citation. In this case "November 1941" is meaningless without the text after the citation. Move it to the next one to cover both parts of information in two citations.
    • I realize that there are different opinions on this, but I tend to emphasize WP:text-source integrity in order to maximize verifiability. However, I did move the Hilberg citation to a later punctuation mark.
  • The 'Linda Reich' image caption needs a full stop.
    • Done
Opposition
  • "Acting on behalf of the Vatican[204]": ditto my comment on the November 1941 citation
    • See above. Paulovicova is the only source which states this explicitly, so I think it is helpful to keep that close to the information.

Done to the start of "Hiatus". More soon. This is well written and covers (from the point of someone with no detailed knowledge about the history) everything I would except to see in such an article. It's difficult to get through in places, but that's because the subject matter is appalling, not because of the prose. – SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments...

Hiatus
  • Are there any further details of the attempt to bribe Himmler? I presume it didn't work as they "tried" to bribe him, but even a few words to say that it failed would stop me clicking on the link to look at another page.
    • Clarified
German invasion
  • "Nazi authorities were eager to murder Slovakia's remaining Jews before the Red Army advanced further into Poland; Auschwitz would shut down its gas chambers in November 1944" The two halves of this sit a little uncomfortably next to each other, with the meaning not totally clear (partly because I don't think you've clarified anywhere that Auschwitz is in Poland). I think I know what you're getting at, but it could be rephrased a little better.
Legacy
  • "The neo-Nazi[394]" Ditto on my earlier comments about refs after a few words
    • Because the Kotleba party is strongly associated with its founder, Marian Kotleba, it's particularly important for BLP to have a strong and verifiable citation for any contentious claims, such as the party being Neo Nazi.

That's it from me. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]
  • Spot checks not done.
  • Impressive amount of research and source gathering here. All sources and citations are correctly formatted and in line with the MoS requirements and FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Ealdgyth: because I think she is up on sources about the Holocaust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to try to get to this sometime this week... being on the road is a bit difficult on reviewing Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both: given the subject matter and possible foreign language sources, all I can realistically do is check the formatting and style, so if anyone else wants to look at any other aspect, please feel free: I'll consider it a great help - I certainly won't think my toes are being stepped on or anything. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance shows nothing that's screaming at me as far as unreliability. I own perhaps half the books cited, but they are at home and I am not. I'll do some spot checking when I get home in the next week or two, as well as a deeper dive into the various sources and reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll have a look soon, though I must admit I waited until someone else had commented because it is a bit of a daunting subject that I don't feel qualified to be the first reviewer of. But it certainly shouldn't be archived due to inactivity. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a good deal of WP:duplicate links htorughout, which can be highlighted with this script:[6]
    • Fixed all except First Vienna Award, which is piped on the first mention and may be confusing otherwise.
  • A bit unfortunate one photo is only an external link. Perhaps we could find out when the photographer, Bedrich Fred Vohryzek, died, to see if it might be public domain?
  • "Holokaust na Slovensku" I'm certainly no expert, but doesn't this refer to Slovenia?
    • It's the dative case of sk:Slovensko, "Slovakia". The names are very similar.
Oh, forgot to remove this point after I had looked it up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had adopted Hungarian language" Link this and other languages?
    • I don't have a preference, but as I recall the languages were unlinked by previous reviewers who felt they were common
  • "Territorial losses to Hungary in 1938 and 1939" Probably good to state who suffered the losses in the caption.
    • Done
  • "The dispute was submitted to arbitration in Vienna by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Hungary was awarded much of southern Slovakia on 2 November 1938" Makes me wonder why Germany gave parts of Slovakia to Hungary, but later supported the Slovaks?
    • It's complicated and not a subject for this article; see First Vienna Award for more information.
  • "Between 5,000 and 6,000 Jews emigrated before 1940" But after when? "Before" seems pretty vague when no interval is mentioned. Also, did they move because of persecution?
    • Reason for the emigration is explained later on. I left the numbers in the background section for numbers purposes, and corrected the interval to 1938–1940 after checking the sources.
  • "Administrative regions of the Slovak State" You could state the interval in the caption, as is mention on the image itself.
    • Done
  • "Solution of the Jewish Question" Link something?
    • Redlinked since there's no article in any language.
  • "using antisemitic stereotypes" Link?
  • "to blame them for the Hungarian domination of Slovakia" What was the rationale behind this?
  • "because of Jews' alleged support for Hungary during the partition negotiations" I guess the above is related to this? Or was it more general than that?
    • As explained in the background section, many Slovak Jews spoke Hungarian and the national-conservatives suspected them of being pro-Hungarian as a result.
  • "were still permitted, and the Nazi German Party formed the Freiwillige Schutzstaffel militia" It is unclear from reading this article that those groups were formed by the local German minority, so you could state it here in parenthesis or similar for clarity?
    • Clarified—I hope
  • You are inconsistent in whether you link countries (I think all former countries should be linked in any case), and sometimes you link them at second rather than first mention.
    • I think I've now linked all the former countries on first mention.
  • "to "voluntary Aryanization"." Anything to link? I now see you link it further down, but links should be placed at first mention. Perhaps you could add a "main article" link under the section header there?
    • I linked the relevant section.
  • "through the Reich" Could be linked.
    • Reworded "through Nazi Germany"
  • "The total number of Slovak Jewish emigrants has been estimated at 5,000 to 6,000." What time interval?
    • I think it's clear from the context that this refers to the time between the 1938 deportations and when it became impossible to leave. I considered making it explicit, but that seemed redundant. Also, the sources are a bit vague about exactly what interval they refer to.
  • Thanks for your comments! buidhe 23:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enriched by property stolen from Jews" Did they call it "stolen", though, and not "confiscate" or such? I realise it is effectively stealing, but the sentence is written as if reporting what they said themselves.
    • Changed to "confiscated", which better reflects the sources.
  • "acquired by Aryan-owned competitors" Were Slovaks considered "Aryan"? I thought it specifically excluded Slavs?
    • I removed "Aryan-owned" because it's not necessary in the sentence. (Nazi racial theories make no sense, but the Slovaks were German allies and therefore considered Aryan, more or less).
  • "Adolf Hitler (left) at a Wolf's Lair meeting" Links and date?
    • Done. Sadly there are no free images of the meeting discussed in text.
  • "Although the Ministry of Defense was pressured by the Ministry of the Interior to release the Jews for deportation in 1942, it refused" Why?
    • Added "possibly because the leadership wanted to avoid complicity in war crimes".
  • "The party's radical wing controlled the Hlinka Guard, whose leader, Alexander Mach, who was appointed interior minister in 1940 at German request" Is the "who" needed?
    • Removed
  • It seems a bit odd that the Holocaust memorial and Tiso's grave are presented side by side. But I guess it is necessary due to lack of space? Is the grave necessary?
    • The intention is to juxtapose different responses to the event within Slovak society.
  • "sealed within the framework of Operation Reinhard" Shouldn't such direct quotes be attributed in-text?
    • Done
  • "the Catholic Church issued a pastoral letter" The global Catholic Church or just locally?
    • Locally, clarified
  • "and the anti-Zionism which had followed the 1967 Six-Day War intensified" was this related to anti-Semitism as such or more with official Soviet policies which favoured some of the Socialist anti-western Arab states that went to war with Israel? And how was it expressed?
    • Basically. See article for expansion, although I don't want to go into too much detail on this point.
  • "Situation during the first days of the Slovak National Uprising" Give dates in caption?
    • Source does not state exact dates, only that it was at the beginning of the uprising.
  • "Over 1,000 Jews were at Sereď by 11 September" I think you could give the year here. 1944 is only mentioned in the preceding section by this point, so it is uncertain the reader would be aware.
    • Done
  • "Alois Brunner took over" Present him?
    • done
  • You mention Gisi Fleischmann multiple times, I think it might be notable to mention she also died in Auschwitz herself?
    • Done
  • I wonder why this image[7] is kept both on Wikipedia and on Commons, unlike the other free images?
    • Actually, I just found out that this image is not PD in the US (although it is free in Slovakia and Germany. I started an import request for a series of similar images to dewiki and will delete once that's been completed. I've removed it from this article.
  • "In all, 211 mass graves with 5,304 victims shot by Axis forces" Here at the end of the article is the first time you link the Axis forces, should be linked at first mention.
    • Done
  • "and about 1,000[329] or 2,000 Romani people were killed" Any article about this to link to?
    • Not really, it was a very minor part of the Romani genocide and there's more detail in this article than that one, so I don't see the purpose of a link.
  • The Summary section does not seem to really be a summary, as it introduces new information? Is there a more inclusive title that could be used? It seems to be more about how people reacted to what happened during the events? Or maybe the info could be spread out in other parts of the article?
  • "returned from concentration camps and Hungary and 10,000 Jews" In Hungary?
    • Refers to Jews from 1939 borders who fled to Hungary versus those who lived in the annexed areas. Clarified this.
  • "After the conquest of Slovakia by the Red Army in 1945, it became part of the Third Czechoslovak Republic." Reads a bit awkwardly, as it may be unclear what "it" refers to. Maybe "after the Red Army's conquest of Slovakia in 1945, it became part of"?
    • Done
  • "(who had fled to Austria)" When?
    • Clarified
  • "A total of 68,000 to 71,000 Slovak Jews" I wonder if Slovak Jews shouldn't be linked earlier in the intro than the third paragraph?
    • done
  • "The Czechoslovak government, initially supportive of Zionism" Was that government dominated by Czechs?
    • Yes, but not exclusively and it governed Slovakia as well. This is a bit tangential so I'd rather not expand on it in this article.
  • "the ban was only removed after the 1989 Velvet Revolution" Not a big deal, but you don't use this name outside the intro, maybe best to be consistent.
    • Fixed this.
  • "The one-party" Only stated in intro.
    • Removed.

Thanks for your comments! buidhe 16:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto

[edit]

While I read, can I ask that you go through this article and put the refs in numerical order? There seems to be a lot that are highest number first. CassiantoTalk 21:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ordering of refs is not part of the Featured Article criteria; moreover, it's a moving target because refs are always moving around. I agree that it looks slightly better when they are all in numerical order but not enough to spend time going through the article and fixing it. buidhe 00:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • What is the source for "File:Slovakia borderHungary.png"? "Own work" doesn't cut it any more than it would for text. Ultimately we need RSs to back what the map is saying - textual, maps or a mix. It may be that you need a separate cite for each of the five sections of the description.
  1. Reliable source for Bratislava bridgehead: "Na pripojenie Jaroviec, Rusoviec a Čunova sa zabúda". SME.sk (in Slovak). Retrieved 2 February 2020.
  2. This source should cover #2 (upn is the National Memory Institute (Slovakia))
  3. See Kirschbaum, Stanislav J. (2016). A History of Slovakia: The Struggle for Survival. St. Martin's Publishing Group. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-250-11475-4. for #3
  4. Lemkin, Raphael (2005). Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation, Analysis of Government, Proposals for Redress. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-58477-576-8. for #4
  5. Rychlík, Jan (2017). "Slovakia (section: The Slovak Republic, 4th paragraph)". Joining Hitler's Crusade European Nations and the Invasion of the Soviet Union, 1941. Cambridge UP.
Excellent, now you need to cut and paste that to "Source" on File:Slovakia borderHungary.png.
  • "File:Slovak Republic 1939 45 Administrative Map.png": Ditto.
    • Third map on this portal, published by the Slovak Ministry of the Environment
Ditto.
Done for both

The source cited for "File:Karte Slowakischer Nationalaufstand 1944 - Aufstandsbeginn.png" is the sort of thing needed.

  • A couple of images lack alt text.
    • Added

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Antisemitic graffiti in Bratislava, c. 1941.jpg" I am doubtful re its copyright status. Yes, there is freedom of panorama, but that means that the photographer has sole copyright. That means that if you, say, had taken the photograph, you could abrogate your rights, but what makes you think that this actual image is PD?
Très amusant. No, it's fine.
  • "File:Ľudové noviny 1941.jpg" Could you add a US PD tag?
    • Done

An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. That'll do fine.

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade Piron

[edit]

I would like to add a couple of comments to the review, mostly on rather trivial issues. I wrote The Holocaust in Belgium and certainly defer to the author for having produced a much better article here!

My comments mostly relate to the lead - and I would refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I would make the following points:

  • The first paragraph of the lead should establish a very potted history of the subject's most important aspects - as a non-expert, I would suggest that this means (i) a two-sentence summary of the article, (ii) a mention about Slovakia's status during the war, viz being a German puppet state (iii) a mention of the number of Jews in Slovakia before the war and the numbers actually killed. I think it must also make a very cursory reference (and link) to The Holocaust which is after all the main topic.
  • I think the "Background" section is entirely absent from the lead at present - one or two sentences would be helpful.
  • It might be worth thinking whether the infobox really adds anything to the article.

I would also make some more general observations:

  • I would suggest breaking up "Background" into at least two sub-sections - perhaps entitled something like "early history" and "Slovak independence" - for users on mobile devices, it is rather too big at present. It might be worth thinking about this in the context of some of the other sections too.

Just a few comments, then. Overall I think the article is very close to FA status! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • Note, I intend to claim Wikicup points for this review.
  • Hradská, Katarína (2016). "Dislokácie Židov z Bratislavy na jeseň 1941" [The Displacement of Jews from Bratislava in Autumn 1941] is lacking publisher information.
    • Added
  • "Their multilingualism (many Jews spoke German, French, or Yiddish)" is sourced to (among others) Bauer 2002 p. 172. I have the paperback edition, but I checked the pages around just in case. Page 172 (and surrounding) is discussing specific examples of Jews in Slovakia - and is borderline supporting the information - it's not really discussing "many Jews" and only mentions German and Hungarian. It says "The meetings must have been held in German, possibly Hungarian, because those were the languages of the Jewish intelligentsia - Slovak was the "dialect" spoken by the peasants." This isn't a great source - I can't access the other two sources, but give that there is three sources listed - this one isn't really a good use of the source.
    • There are several sources for this because each one discusses different languages—removed because this is a less important point. Hutzelmann source specifically discusses multilingualism and the implications of this in that Jews were not seen as Slovak enough.
  • "and Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 175 and Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596. I have both. The Bauer ref does not really support "Jews were attacked in the streets; some were killed." because it is discussing Gisi Fleishmann's brother being killed - one specific case isn't actually supporting this phrase. The Rothkirchen 2001 p. 596 only supports the attacks on the streets and looting - there is nothing on that page that says that Slovak Jews were killed in the streets.
    • Removed
  • "neither the Slovak authorities nor the Jews in Slovakia knew about the Final Solution." is sourced to Bauer 1994 (which I don't have) and Bauer 2002 p. 177. In this case, Bauer 2002 does support the information.
    • Bauer 1994 p. 67: "At this stage, it is unlikely that the Slovak officials knew of the fate that was awaiting the deportees." "After the war, the charge was made that the UZ knew the destination of the transports and did nothing to warn the Jewish public. (70) (discusses details of accusations) "The main point to remember, however, is that not even the Slovak leaders had any definite knowledge in March, April, or perhaps even May or June that all the Jews were indeed destined to die in Poland." (71). Removed citation to Bauer 2002.
  • "Members of the banned Zionist youth movements traveled around the country to warn Jews to hide or flee," is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 177. It mostly is supported, but it does not support the fact that the Zionist youth movements were banned.
    • Added reference to Bauer 1994, p. 70, which mentions "now-illegal Zionist youth movements"
  • "In mid-1941, the Germans demanded 20,000 men from Slovakia for forced labor.[137] Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks or care for the families of deported Jews.[137]" First, we don't need the duplicated identical references here. This is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 176-177. Unfortunately, it's not supported by the source - Bauer says "The Slovaks could not fulfill their commitment to the Germans to supply them with a large number of Slovak laborers for Germany, so they suggested deporting 20,000 Jews instead. It immediately became clear to them, however, that deporting productive workers would leave them burdened with their families, and they therefore asked the Germans to accept the families as well." This isn't supported by the source - the number demanded by the Germans is not given nor is it stated that Slovakia did not want to send gentile Slovaks explicitly.
    • Supported by a different source:

      On May 29,1940, the Slovaks signed an agreement according to which theGermans were to receive 120,000 Slovak workers. On June 17, 1941, Moravek wrote a letter to Tuka in which he reported on a discussion he had had with Wisliceny and another German (Erich Gebert, an economic "expert"), saying that he had offered to the Germans Jews for labor in Poland or Germany.7 In the late summer of 1941 the Germans demanded 20,000Slovak workers, and Izidor Koso, head of Tiso's and Mach's chancelleries,again suggested that the Germans should take Jews instead (see below). In the autumn Tiso and Tuka went to see Hitler and Himmler, and Tuka asked Himmler for help in taking the Jews out of Slovakia. There, too, the Slovaks learned of German plans to "liberate" Europe from its Jews—exactly how they were not told, except that the Jews would somehow be "settled in the East."8 In October they agreed to have Jews with Slovak citizenship living in Germany deported along with German Jews "to the East."9In January 1942 the Slovaks said they could not send Slovak workers;10however, they again offered 20,000 Jewish workers—to Sager, the representative of the German Ministry of Labor.

      — Bauer 1994, p. 65
  • "Initially, most Jews believed that it was better to report for deportation rather than risk reprisals against their families." is sourced to Bauer 2002 pp. 177-178. But Bauer says "By and large, leaders and even youth groups and individuals in the communities refused to listen and decided that it was best to report to what they thought would be forced labor in order to avoid reprisals against their families." This is a bit more nuanced and I'm not sure it really supports "most Jews"
    • How about "many Jews"?
  • "Gisi Fleischmann, leader of the Working Group." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178. This one is mostly supported, although we're losing some of the nuance in Bauer - who states "According to all the documentation we have ... it is clear that Fleishchmann headed the Working Group."
    • Yes, this article is written in summary style and does not include all details. If you prefer I can remove the image, but a caption is not the place for that information.
  • "in 2002, he revised the figure to 7,000." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 178.
  • "Several thousand[j] Jews fled to Hungary, aided by Rabbi Shmuel Dovid Ungar and the youth movements, in early 1942." is also sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 178 - although it specifically mentions that the youth groups were Zionist and that "fair numbers of ordinary, unorganized people" joined the organized groups.
    • The only youth movements mentioned in the article (earlier in the same paragraph) are Zionist. Yes, it's missing some detail, the article is written in summary style.
  • "She was deported to Auschwitz and murdered in October 1944." is supported by Bauer 2002 p. 183, although Bauer states "No one knows how she was killed." so I think a better rendering would be "She was deported to Auschwitz in October 1944 and killed/murdered."
    • I just took this out because it overburdens the caption.
  • "Between 1,600[321] and 1,800[202][322] Jews were arrested, including most of the ÚŽ and Working Group leadership.[202][322][321]" First, footnote 202 is Bauer 2002 p. 183, which supports that the Working group was arrested, but does not mention 1800 anywhere, so the 202 on the 1800 number is wrong. I do not have access to the other sources used here.
    • Supported by the Fatran ref and also Fatran 1994, p. 192: "Some 1,800 Jews, including Working Group activists Oskar Neumann, Rabbi Frieder, Vojtech, Winterstein, and the treasurer, Wili Fiirst, were arrested". The Putík source is open-access.
  • "Polish Jews escape to Hungary via Slovakia. In late April 1944 two Auschwitz escapees, Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler, reached Slovakia." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 229. There is nothing on that page about the escape of Polish Jews to Hungary through Slovakia. It does, however, support the next sentence.
    • Sorry, that part was supported by the citations on the numbers. Since it wasn't clear, I moved one of the refs to the end of the sentence.
  • "The Working Group sent a report to Hungary and Switzerland." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 237 and is supported, but it leaves out some nuance in Bauer, which notes that the information reached the Working Group in late April but did not reach Hungary and Switzerland until early June.
  • "On 19 March 1944 Germany invaded Hungary, including Carpathian Ruthenia and the areas ceded by Slovakia in 1938." is sourced to Bauer 2002 p. 226. It supports the date and the invasion, but not the phrase starting "including..."
    • Hmm, that's a tricky one. Saying that Hungary was invaded sort of implies that all of the areas which were part of Hungary at that time were included. I did find a more explicit source and added it to the article.
  • "About 1,600[305] to 2,000[306] Jews fought as partisans"... the 305 ref is to Bauer 2002 p. 139, which does support the information given.
    • Wrong source, this should be Kubatova. Fixed
  • "In June, Ludin reported that popular opinion in Slovakia had turned against the deportations because gentile Slovaks saw the Hlinka Guard's violence against Jews." is cited to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641 is supported by the source.
  • "German and Slovak propaganda blamed the Jews for the uprising," is also sourced to Rothkirchen 1998 p. 641. which is subtly different - Rothkirchen says "The fate of the remaining Jews was sealed in September 1944 following suppression of hte Slovak National Uprising. Jews were accused of acting as ringleaders. The deportations were renewed and carried out with great efficiency by the German army, aided by storm troopers of the Hlinka Guard."
    • OK, I have added two sources that explicitly mention "propaganda".
  • "was justified by the popular belief (reinforced by HSĽS propaganda) that Jews had obtained their wealth by oppressing Slovaks.[63][64][65]" 64 is Tonsmeyer 2007 p. 81. (63 is Legge 2018 pp. 226-227 and 65 is Lônčíková 2017 p. 85)... which is kinda supported by Tonsmeyer's "This is all the more important as some peopel in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia still believe rather that it was the Jews who had "acquired national property in an illegal manner. Therefore, these people view the expropriation of the Jews in the 1940s as a harsh but not necessarily unjustified measure."
    • The most direct support for this is Loncikova: Propaganda used and misused many stereotypes including the above mentioned notions of poor Jewish immigrants arriving from Galicia and becoming rich inn-keepers shortly after their arrival, stereotypes of Jews who allegedly abused Slovaks for their own personal profit... state propaganda emphasized a pre-supposed right of Slovaks to confiscate all Jewish properties The background also references the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks, which has multiple sources that could be cited. Kubátová and Láníček 2018 discuss the Jew "as exploiter" on pp. 26, 32–3, and 43–4. As "stereotype" more closely matches the sources than does "popular view", I edited accordingly.
  • "The deportees included young children, the elderly, and pregnant women." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which does support this information.
    • Perhaps you have a different edition? I am citing the pdf version (via JSTOR) which includes the quote "In November 1938, a month into Slovakian autonomy, the government de-cided to deport poor Jews and Jews without Czechoslovakian citizenship twenty kilometers into territory ceded to Hungary as a reaction to the result of the First Vienna Arbitration.7 Altogether, approximately 7,500 Jews were forcibly transported from the country, including children, elderly, and pregnant women." on page 506. I'm happy to send you the pdf of this chapter if you like.
  • "For the most part, Holocaust relativism in Slovakia manifests as attempts to deflect the blame for it onto Germans and Jews rather than outright denial." is also sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 506 which somewhat supports it - "Although I would argue that Holocaust denial does not occupy an important place in Slovak postwar historiography, relativization, including deflecting political responsibility for the Holocaust on others - either Germans or Jews - is a widespread and dangerous issue." which doesn't really suppor the "for the most part... "
    • OK, reworded and added source.
  • "Jews fought as partisans, ten percent of the total insurgent force." is sourced to Kubátová 2014 p. 516 which does support this information.
  • "Before 1939, Slovakia had never been an independent country." is sourced to Deák 2015 p. 31 which does support the information.
  • "with the proviso that their confiscated property be passed to Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 285 which does support the information.
  • "A letter sent 15 October 1941 indicates that plans were being made for the mass murder of Jews in the Lublin Reservation of the General Government to make room for deported Jews from Slovakia and Germany. It is possible that these plans contributed to the decision to build Sobibór extermination camp." is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 295, 428 - one quibble - the date of the letter is given on page 294. Also - pp. 294 and 295 do not tie this letter to the construction of Sobibor, and the content on p. 428 makes it clear that the possible connection to the construction of Sobibor is tied to an offer made on 20 October by Himmler to the Slovakian head of state: "There is also the offer that Himmler made to the Slovakian head of state on 20 October, to deport Slovakian Jews to a particularly remote area of the General Government, possibly as the basis for the construction of the second extermination camp at Sobibor." Longerich does NOT tie the letter of 15 October to Sobibor on any of these pages. While the sentence in our article says "these plans" ... it's still a bit of a leap, because the plans in the letter are not expressly tied to the plans of Himmler to the Slovakian head of state.
    • Removed.
  • "The original deportation plan, approved in February 1942, entailed the deportation of 7,000 women to Auschwitz and 13,000 men to Majdanek as forced laborers." is sourced to Longerich pp. 324-325, which does support the information.
  • "Transports went to Auschwitz after mid-June, where a minority of the victims were selected for labor and the remainder were killed in the gas chambers. This occurred for eight transports, the last of which arrived on 21 October 1942." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 326, which is supported by the source, but with a bit of nuance lost - Longerich says "By 21 October we are able to identify eight transports from Slovakia" ... which is historian speak for "we don't have all the records from Auschwitz so there might possibly be other transports" - Longerich sources this information to Czech's Kalendarium, which is reconstruction of the records, not a complete record of transports.
  • "Between 25 March and 20 October 1942, about 58,000 Jews[188][182]" - where 182 is Longerich 2010 p. 326. (188 is Ward 2013 p. 235 which I do not have access to), but it does support the information.
  • "At the end of the deportations, between 18,000 and 25,000 Jews were still in Slovakia." is sourced to Longerich 2010 p. 404, which supports the information.
  • "SS officer Alois Brunner, who had organized the deportation of Jews from France and Greece," is sourced to Longerich 2010 pp. 391, 395, 403 which supports that Brunner was involved with the deportations, but our article implies that he was the only one in charge, which is not really the case - Longerich mentions other Germans involved in the deportations. And Longerich always calls him part of the RSHA, not as an SS officer.
    • Removed reference to SS officer, although that is potentially supported by other sources. Changed to "participated in the organization of transports of Jews from France and Greece"
  • "and about 1,000[340] or ... Romani" 340 here is Longerich 2010 p. 419 which has a subtly different emphasis - "...possibly as many as 1,000 people"
    • Fixed
  • Given the above, there are some problems that have shown up. I don't think they are intentional or malicious, but they are enough that I feel the need to suggest that a thorough audit of the sourcing is done. And .. therein lies the problem - just the above took me most of the morning and its barely scratched the surface. Doing a source audit is exhausting and very demanding work and it isn't exactly rewarding. But we need to get the sourcing right on such an article - there should be no ability for anyone to point to errors in sourcing.
  • I hate to recommend withdrawing the nomination, but I do not think a thorough source review is best done at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for doing this, I really appreciate it. I think I've fixed all of the problems. It's worth mentioning that most of the sources that you checked are the ones which have been in the article longest and have the most opportunity for something to get changed along the way. buidhe 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is... finding this many problems in the ones I checked (and I listed every citation I checked - noting when they did support the information) ... means that there are likely other issues lurking. Just fixing what I've brought up isn't the solution - the whole article needs to be checked against the sources. One or two small errors within this many checks would be "eh, it happens"... this many means that there has been a lot of slippage of sources around ... not saying it's anyone's fault, but that everything needs checking before the source review can be considered passed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • What venue do you suggest? The article has already been through GA review and A-class review. Peer review is dead. I could of course go back and double check all 400 citations myself, but that's not really a source review. buidhe 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Ealdgyth: I have started a page for matching each citation to a quote from the source: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. If you think this would be helpful, I'll go ahead and withdraw this nomination, otherwise, let me know what you think would be a good next step for this article. Thanks. buidhe 23:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let me answer on behalf of the coords: I think that given Ealdgyth's concerns and recommendation that all citations be checked, we do need to close this (and I'll treat it as a withdrawal) and work on that outside FAC. The page you've started seems a fair way to go about things but I'll leave to Ealdgyth to comment further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2020 [8].

Bank War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Rose. I did undo the change you made from "Rise of Jackson" into "Jackson's rise." I believe that the former flows better, and while I fully understand that it is poor taste to begin a header with a definite artile, I do not think that it is as bad to have one in the middle of the header. I did change "The failure of compromise and war" into "Recharter," because that was the issue being debated. Using a one-word header there should resolve that problem. Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:

  • The lede is wordy. It would appear any number of descriptive terms could be removed without changing the actual content. For instance "extend credit where needed" - well, would one extend it where it's not needed? "supply the nation with a sound and uniform currency" - is not sound and uniform somewhat overlapping in this case? As it stands the lede fills an entire page on my screen and I think that should be looked at. I can get more specific, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on it first.
I removed "where needed" because it did seem unnecessary. Sound and uniform are not interchangeable. The currency being uniform means that it was virtually the only currency being used in the United States. The fact that it was sound means that it was stable and not overly fluctuating. We can have one but not the other. Overall, the lead seems about fine to me. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that the lead occupy no more than four paragraphs. This lead has exactly four, and it's a similar length to leads of other articles that I've successfully nominated for FA status where this issue was not commented on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "boasted that the nationalists had the support of the yeomanry" - the linked article is about a type of British cavalry. The usage is descended from the original, which refers to some sub-group of farmers or landed gentry. I had no idea what this term meant, and was rather confused after reading the linked article. I would suggest adding a small NOTE or even parenthetical statement defining yeomanry. I assume in this case you refer to farmers, in which case why not just say that?
I fixed the link. Thank you for alerting me to that problem. I see no need to define the word yeomanry. It's a common term and anyone incognizant of its meaning can view the now-corrected link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of jargon, odd phrasing, and unclear statements:
    • "scarcity of specie" - lack of hard money? Overuse of paper money? I shouldn't have to search to find out what the statement means.
Added "or hard money" in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was exacerbated" - was worsened
I see no improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rapid emission" - printing?
I see nothing wrong withe emission. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...of paper money and fraud" - is fraud a form of money? that's what this wording implies
Changed to "fraud and the rapid emission of paper money." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As a result" - of what? "...of the devaluation of the notes,"?
I think that it's made clear by the previous sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "collapse of businesses, and bankruptcies" - what's the difference?
Removed mention of bankruptices. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Overall," - unnecessary?
Probably so. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "himself privately" - remove "himself", who else could it be?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • of "memorandums", he - why the scare quotes?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "planter class" - first use of this term. Link. Is this the yeomanry?
Link added. Yeomanry were small farmers. The planter class were much wealthier and owned large plantations, typically operated by slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A state bank" - is this the same as "the National Bank"? It sounds like he's referring to something else? If the next paragraph is the topic of this statement, it should be moved there.
State banks were run by states. The national bank was run by the federal government. State banks did business with the national bank, which provided them with notes. Who do you mean when you say "he?" It would be helpful if you'd use specific names and make clear what section of the article you're referring to. It would be easier to address your concerns in this way, both here and elsewhere. I did however add more information on state banks to the first two paragraphs of the article. This should help explain how they worked and what kind of relationship they had with the national bank. I felt that there could be more information about that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "laid taxes" - did what?
Laid taxes, that's what. What's the problem here? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not be taxed.[29] In 1819, Monroe" - two paras
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "sole political party in existence" - in the US? at that time?
Changed to "only political party in the country." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would provide the support" - how exactly? Do you mean votes?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "wielding universal white male suffrage" - this is unclear. How does one "wield" suffrage? Do you mean "win the election"?
Changed to "with the aid of." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "supporting recharter.[155] The final bill" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "rendering Biddle" - giving?
I don't see an issue with the word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "practically immediately" - almost immediately?
Took out completely. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jackson determined to " - chose? decided? began to?
Again, I don't detect an issue with word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • "his first term.[72] To defuse a potentially" - two paras
If you aren't going to use headers, it would be better if you could at least list these concerns in order of where they appear in the article. The information on either side of this citation covers the same topic, and so I do not see the need for separate paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Polemically, the veto message" - do we need "Polemically"? or is this the right place if we do?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "hard-money predilections" - leanings? favored?
I see nothing wrong with this. Adding the word "favored" would be grammatically incorrect. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be" - wordy
Maybe a little bit, but I don't think it's ridiculously wordy. Do you have an alternative proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Clay arose and strongly criticized" - Clay strongly criticized
No, because with that version we don't know where he criticized it. As it stands now, the article makes it clear that he made his criticisms on the Senate floor rather than somewhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Jackson's campaign benefited" - this para jumps back and forth between one side and the other. Should be two paras, one starting "In the end", which is clearly separate anyway. The remaining first para should be reoganized so it presents one side and then the other.
I don't see the need for two separate paragraphs and I don't think that the existing paragraph jumps back and forth. First it talks about Jackson's campaign strategy. Then it discusses Clay's before stating the results. That does not seem disorganized to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Scotched, not dead" - what does this mean?
Those are Jackson's words, so it's not possible to rephrase them. Trying to explain in other words what he meant would be awkward, especially because I think that the meaning is clear. If you don't know what this means, get a dictionary. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "deposits secure.[221] Jackson subsequently" - para break here.
I don't see why. Again, it would have been helpful if you'd listed your concerns in the order in which they appeared in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "or eviscerate the central" - eviscerate?
Yeah? What is it? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "However, some of the deposit banks drew prematurely" - using the transfer warrants? if so that needs to be mentioned here.
I added a few sentences of explanation here which seemed to be needed. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "returned to Washington.[270] In Biddle's view" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Having failed in their attempt" - just said this a sentence ago
I'm not certain what happened here. I removed the second appearance of that sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "as did good harvests in Europe" - it is unclear to me why good harvests in Europe would have any effect here.
More cotton being produced in Europe meant that there was a stiffer competition for American cotton. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "was, thus, the drop in the price of cotton that precipitated" - "the resulting price drop caused..."
Changed to something like this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one he had inherited" - direct quotes need immediately refs
I don't think so. There's no need to cite the same source twice in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are 14 "howevers", but that seems OK in an article of this length.
I have a tendency to use that word a little bit excessively in my writing. I removed four usages of the word. It is now used only 10 times. That seems acceptable. Thank you for mentioning this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maury Markowitz, I have responded to your points. Thank you for your comments. I found several of them to be helpful, and the article has definitely improved because of revisions that I made in response to some of your suggestions. However, I had difficulty understanding what you meant at certain points, and I don't think that there was a need for the numerous changes in parlance that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still have significant problems with the article. It appears to be written with an eye to demonstrating the author's vocabulary as its primary goal. I find it hard to read in its current form, and because of this, I don't feel this is FA quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, this is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have heard from an FA reviewer. There's nothing wrong with a person reading an article on Wikipedia and not immediately knowing what every single word means. If they come across a word that they do not know and want to determine what it means, they have the means to do so. The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it. I truly do not think this article does. Many of the words that you said you had problems with are not obscure words at all, and you at times did not make clear what issue you had with them. If your knowledge of the English language does not extend beyond a middle school level, that's not my problem. I'm not saying that merely to insult you. I just cannot identify any other reason you would have for wanting all of this language changed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it." - that is precisely what I am claiming is the problem, but I guess that wasn't clear because my "language does not extend beyond a middle school level". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (content)

[edit]

I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on this revision. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clay... maneuvered the election in favor of Adams... [36]. Is this a fact or a theory? Meacham (2008), 45, writes "Though much may have been implied between them, the likely truth is that Clay and Adams did not reach an explicit deal." Or should I not view those two statements as at odds, given that "explicit deal" may not rule out "Clay maneuvered" (i.e., on his own)? I see that the 1824 election article says "Clay would use his political influence in the House to motivate House delegations in states where he had won at least a voting plurality to vote for Adams"--but I don't feel that the web source there fulfills that statement. Please confirm that my point is moot, I guess?
Meacham does not believe that there was an explicit deal between Adams and Clay. The article does not say that there was. It says that Clay maneuvered the election in favor of Adams. That is widely accepted fact which Meacham does not contest in the above quote. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said that he was approached by Clay and asked to support Adams. He refused. (Parton III 61-63) The congressional delegation from Kentucky, Clay's home state, received instructions to vote for Jackson. It voted for Adams even though he had not received a single popular vote in that state. On the same day, Ohio declared for Adams. "Obviously Clay had powerful influence with both delegations." (Remini II 89) "And so, Clay told associates in mid-December, he would throw his support to Adams, which would give the secretary of state virtually all the state delegations he needed to prevail in the House." (Wilentz 2005 47) The part which is theory is whether Clay supported Adams as part of an agreement to be appointed Secretary of State. The article takes no position on that subject. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 1: pass. The sentence with footnote 36 is supported by Meacham 45-46, (although I feel p. 44 is relevant to the earlier sentence(s) about Clay).
Agreed. I added page 44 to the footnote. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 2: pass with comment. Fn 164 (Meacham 211) is relevant to the topic, but since it occurs in the middle of a sentence, whose main verb has not yet occurred ("was not bound" is after the fn), I'm not sure what its purpose is. To show what Jackson "averred"? OK, check.
  • Check 3: pass with style issue. Fn 76 (Meacham 75) refers to a quote which is missing the italics from the original. Other than that style glitch, the quote is used well in context.
Historians, especially popular historians like Meacham (who are writing for broad audiences and therefore try to make their writing as engaging as possible and less academic) sometimes add italics to emphasize a paticular part of a quote that they want us to remember. We don't carry those over to Wikipedia articles because they do not fit with an encyclopedic style. The italics also could not have been part of the original document. Letters were written by hand in those days and so it would not have been possible for there to be italics. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Biddle himself, in his collection of correspondence, using the emphasis: https://archive.org/details/correspondenceof00bidduoft/page/70 ("great hazard of any system...") Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding this. Italics added. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 4. Fn 111 (Remini 1981, p. 326). The term "Kitchen Cabinet" was used by Jackson's opponents, as Remini says, but the article seems to present the term without providing that context: the creation of a "Kitchen Cabinet" – an unofficial group of Jackson advisors.[111] Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Amos Kendall and Globe editor Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy... My main points are: this was the opposition's term; and, if something was informally "created" or organized (despite Remini 326 calling it an "invented concept"), we need to know by whom--Jackson, who is missing as an active agent in the current sentence. "Jackson sought advice from an unofficial group of advisors ... who were deemed the 'Kitchen Cabinet' by his opponents."--for example.
I've rephrased this and clarified that the term was used by his opponents. I think it looks better now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 5-6: pass with comment. Pleased with correspondence of fn 121, 122 to Remini. However: at the beginning, I'm not clear how adjusting tariff rates pays down the debt—through which the federal government would adjust tariff rates, fulfilling one of Jackson's goals of paying down the national debt — when it's the 16+8 million mentioned next that does so? Tariffs are mentioned once later on p. 337. Is the "anticipated revenue" tariff revenue? How can that be if "increased revenue meant that the tariff could be adjusted to a more equitable [i.e. lower?] level"? (Remini 337, emph. mine)
Adjusting tariff rates would not pay down the debt. I didn't do a good job of writing this sentence and changed it to "reduce operations and fulfill..." As far as revenue, Remini does not get into specifics. I consulted four other sources (three secondary and one primary) and they don't seem to either. It may have just been annual taxes. There are other sources such as Schlesinger which I'm not able to consult at present. However, I will examine those in the future and try to see if I can find anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the detail is necessary, just that the green excerpted text be re-configured as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check 7: pass. Fn 268 (Meacham 279).

Outriggr, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I inserted two more replies above, one which I believe refutes a point.
To Be Continued... I will do another batch of source checks (with another source or two) as, and if, the FAC progresses. (I don't agree with another reviewer's claim that the article is overly verbose to an extent that is broadly problematic.) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also [9], you can access the full text of these public domain books on Google? I can't. That's why I changed three of them to Internet Archive resources. In fact, of the 10+ versions of The True Andrew Jackson on google books, not a single one is viewable to me. Outriggr (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes can't find full versions of books on Google books. For older books, it is often possible. I found what I think are the entire biographies of Jackson by Snelling and Parton on Google books. In general, I find Google books easier to navigate than archive.org. I've also seen it used more widely on other articles without any problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when and if the FAC proceeds/there is a need for it. (I'm not sure the exchange with the other reviewer is going to attract participants here.) Outriggr (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC) No, regardless of outcome, I'm done with the source review "spotchecks" and based on what I looked at, it's a "pass". Outriggr (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Unfortunately we're once again sitting well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion. Normally we'd archive at this time but I'm holding tight for a few days since this is attempt three. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laser brain. I think that the article is FA quality, and the majority of reviews that I've received during my three attempts have been supportive, but I am a little bit disappointed by the lack of interest. Thank you for your patience and assistance. Display name 99 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • A cartoon with illegible writing is not suitable for the lead image.
I'll try to find a better one, but I'm not sure I can. The cartoon shows Jackson fighting Biddle, the essence of the Bank War, and I'm not sure that I can find an image that encapsulates the Bank War so well. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The next best thing that I could find also had text which was mostly illegible. I'm afraid we'll have to continue with this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The columns of lead figures in the infobox should be headed for and against the bank.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statements of the arguments for and against the bank is the second paragraph is biased. Arguments for are stated as facts, criticisms as "According to them".
The fact that the Bank was a stabilizing force in the economy that regulated inflation is not contested by historians, even ones sympathetic to Jackson. See Remini 1981 p. 229, or note 67. However, I removed the word "helpful" prior to "fiscal services." Finally, Jacksonians criticized the Bank for corruption, and it is indeed well-documented that it was corrupt. I added this to the lead. The other allegations against the Bank are still controversial with no consensus from historians, and therefore cannot be treated by us as fact. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Bank's public–private organization". A sentence describing the bsnk's organization in the first paragraph would be helpful.
I added an explanation to the beginning of the second paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "financial assistance to Clay". You should spell out that Clay was the National Republican presidential candidate.
Added that he was running for president earlier in the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "constructionists" What does this mean? It needs a link.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would benefit a small few" "small" is redundant.
Replaced "small" with "group." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "big mercantilists". What does this mean? It needs a link.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The practical arguments in favor of reviving a national system of finance". This sounds POV. I would delete "The practical"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monroe hoped" This is the first mention of his name. Below you have "Secretary of State James Monroe". they should be swapped.
Replaced Monroe with "It was hoped." At this point, Monroe wasn't president yet. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monroe informed Madison". You should say President Madison for clarity.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The federal government purchased a fifth of the Bank's stock". So B.U.S. was 80% owned by private shareholders. You should spell this out.
It isn't spelled out in the source, so I'm afraid I can't do that. It should be clear from the information given. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B.U.S. notes were receivable for federal bonds." What does this mean?
A person could take a note in exchange for a federal bond. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Panic was caused by the rapid resurgence of the European economy" This seems a non-sequitur as countries are usually benefited by improvements in the world economy.
This created more economic competition. America wasn't the only market anymore. I'll try to see what I can add here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added that improved European agriculture caused the prices of American goods to decrease. Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He eventually began to call in loans, but nonetheless was removed by the Bank's directors". Why "nonetheless"? It sounds like a reasonable action.
It may have been, but it was too late. The panic had already happened and Jones was blamed for it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kentucky Bank came in debt to the National Bank" "became in debt"?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was a man of the pen-quick, graceful, fluent". I do not understand dashes but this seems like the wrong one. It seems to say that he was a man of the pen-quick.
Added longer dash. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which would choose among the top three vote-getters". This is wrong. It was the top three in the electoral college.
I meant in terms of electoral votes. But to make it clear, I changed it to "top three vote-getters in the Electoral College." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Jacksonian coalition dealt with a fundamental incompatibility between its hard money and paper money factions". This does not sound quite right. Maybe "had to deal with".
Replaced with "Had to contend with." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he still maintained doubts as to the Bank's constitutionality" I may have missed it, but I am not clear why the Bank's constitutionality was questioned.
I couldn't find where Jackson had expressed his views on the Bank's constitutionality prior to this. Therefore, I replaced "still maintained" with "had." Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to cut down on the size of the lead a little bit, even while adding some material that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dudley Miles. Thank you for your review. I have implemented several of your suggested changes already, but am a bit busy and will need a little bit more time to get to all that you have suggested so far. Please give me a few days. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, I have addressed all of your concerns so far. Thank you for your review and your patience. Display name 99 (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Dudley Miles. Anything else? Display name 99 (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to come back ot it in the next day or two, but the background (sections 1 and 2, not the lead) still seems to me too long. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Second Bank's reputation in the public eye recovered a bit" This is too colloquial. I suggest "partially recovered".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To John McLean, who had urged caution in light of allegations of the Bank interfering on behalf of Adams in Kentucky, he wrote" This should be dated. The timescale of this paragraph is unclear, as it seems to imply a gradual build up of distrust towards the bank over Jackson's first term, but in the next paragraph it appears to be almost immediate.
I dated McLean's letter. Meacham doesn't give a date for Biddle's response, and I don't own a harcopy and so I can't look in the index. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attendees of one meeting in Richmond" What meeting? This is far too vague.
Sentence removed. I looked at the source again but the source is fairly vague. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The claim regarding the Bank’s currency was factually untrue" This is POV and should be attributed as "According to..."
Changed to "Many historians agree" and cited to five different historians all arguing that the claim was untrue. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson’s official cabinet members were opposed to an overt attack on the Bank." What does "official" mean here? Were there unofficical cabinet members who took a different view? I see that you explain this below but I do not think you need the word "official" at this point.
I removed it and also moved the discussion of the Kitchen Cabinet up. The reader should understand why no clear policy emerged from the Jackson administration in 1830 and 1831 as it is reading about what happened during those years, not after. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " According to Benton, it was "enough to excite uneasiness but not enough to pass the resolution"." What does "it" refer to here?
Changed it to "the vote tally." Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their presence created the appearance of balance, open-mindedness, and compromise, in spite of the fact that the rest of the official cabinet members were anti-Bank." This is an example of what I see as the main problem with the article, bias in favour of the BUS. The sentence is POV as it implies that the appointments were designed to give a false impression of balance, and is thus unattributed editorialising.
Yes, absolutely. Left over from an old editor to the article and unfortunately not removed. The sentence is now gone. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "would necessitate strong changes to the Bank's charter" "strong" is an odd word here. Maybe "substantial".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the liquidation of the debt, future revenues could be applied to funding the military." What does this mean - that all tax receipts would be spent on the military?
No, rather military funding would be increased. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were wary of making ultimatums" I think "were wary of issuing ultimatums" would be better.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "James K. Polk" Maybe "future president James K. Polk"
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These delaying tactics could not be blocked immediately" I had to read this several times to work out that you mean (I assume) that bank supporters were forced to accept an enquiry.
Replaced immediately with indefinitely, which appears to have been the intended word. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many legislators also benefited from the largesse supplied by Bank administrators." Why is this relevant at this point when you are saying that legislators went along with anti-bank forces?
The point is that the public would have grown suspicious about why congressmen were reluctant to investigate the Bank. It turns out, they had good reasons for not wanting to but eventually went along with it for fear of public pressure. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the report was filled with innuendo and largely unproven allegations" This is more POV which should be attributed to the writer who makes that judgment.
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supported his decision" Presumably supported his decision to veto, but you should say so.
Added "to veto." Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the most "popular and effective documents in American political history"" Yet again, should be attributed.
I actually think that this is okay. It's in quotes and followed immediately by a citation, which makes it clear enough in my opinion that it comes from a particular person. If it's in quotes, it isn't a judgment made by me or any other editor to this article. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ignoring the Second Bank of the United States’ value in stabilizing the country’s finances" More POV
Replaced with "Jackson gave no credit to the Bank for stabilizing the country's finances..." This sounds more neutral to me. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a brilliant political manifesto" Needs attribution.
I'm going to say the same thing here as I did two points above. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to finish my review and oppose at this point. This is an interesting article, but it is not written from a neutral viewpoint. It seems to me to be based largely on writers who are hostile to Jackson's views on economics, and whose comments are too often quoted without attribution as facts. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dudley Miles. I'm going to go through and address your comments, but first I want to point out a few things. Firstly, I do not think it is true that the article is based off of writers who are largely hostile to Jackson's views. In fact, it's the opposite. Remini is moderately pro-Jackson, and Schlesinger and Baptist heavily so. These authors are cited widely throughout the text. Authors Hofstadter and Howe, who are also widely cited, aren't pro-Jackson, but they do criticize Biddle for his obstinancy and using the Bank for corrupt purposes. Hammond is the only author cited here whom I know to be decidely pro-Biddle and anti-Jackson. Anyhow, I am happy to address your comments, including the ones alleging POV, and I intend to do so over the next few days. I think that it would have been more helpful if you had waited to see how I would respond to your concerns and only opposed if I had not agreed to make changes. I think that I might be able to persuade you to change your vote, but I ask for time to respond to your comments. Display name 99 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to look again once you have made the changes, but I would ask you to go through the article and look at all the places - not only the ones I have specifically commented on - where you have made a judgment without attributing it to a named author. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. There was one editor who worked on the article before I arrived and whose views seemed to be somewhat hostile towards Jackson. Some of the sentences that you singled out were written by him, and I simply didn't change them. At one point, someone claiming to be a professional historian, actually levelled charges that the article was biased in favor of Jackson. He made a lot of edits to the article, some good, some not so good, and this also accounts for some of the problems. It leaves me in a difficult spot because, while this may surprise you, I actually favor Jackson's views on economics. Display name 99 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should not be a problem. Many of the comments on economics can be deleted and the rest attributed to named authors. It seems that you are left to clean up POV comments made by previous editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles, I have addressed your remaining concerns. Display name 99 (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments
  • If you want a cartoon as a lead image, there are better pictures online. There should not be a copyright problem in view of their ages.
I don't see any better images. The Whig cartoon of Jackson depicted as a tyrant might theoretically work better, but it's already in the article inside of the section on the 1832 election, where it belongs, and I am unsure about whether it would be best to use such an overtly partisan cartoon. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "owned excessively large amounts of material resources" What kind of material resources did the bank own?
Too vague. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections 1 to 3 on the background are almost 4000 words. This is far too long. The length is also offputting for reviewers and may be one reason for the difficulty in getting support for promotion. There are many excessive details, such as the number of candidates in the 1824 election. How much of the background sections are really needed to understand the background to the Bank War?
I understand your point, but I think that at the very least most of it is. It's important for the reader to be given a brief explanation of the history of banking in the United States before the Bank War, which happens to be rather complicated. However, I have decided to remove some background material. Please see the article's history. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Panic of 1819. This should be linked.
It is linked in the first paragraph of the section "Panic of 1819." I removed the second mentioning of it because Jackson's 1828 campaign rarely addressed either the Panic of 1819 or the Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson won decisive pluralities in both the Electoral College and the popular vote" I am not sure that 41% is a "decisive plurality" and its meaning will not be clear to many readers.
I don't think that the language is complex. His victory in the popular vote was decisive because the next closest finisher, Adams, ended more than 10% behind him, rounded up to 31%. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He did not win an electoral majority" "He did not win a majority in the Electoral College" would be clearer.
I'm not sure how. "Electoral" is a fairly common word. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the enormous expansion in the electorate a factor in Jackson's 1828 victory?
Yes. The role of "universal white male suffrage" is briefly mentioned in the fifth paragraph of "Rise and Jackson," and I added a little bit about its impact on Jackson's candidacy in the 1824 election in that part of the article. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slavery. Your comments are unclear. Were supporters of the Bank opponents of slavery and Jacksonians supporters? What was Jackson's view?
This goes too far off topic. The point is that some supporters of slavery, fearing that the government would try to abolish slavery if it grew too powerful, saw the Bank as an agent increasing the power of the government. By expanding federal power, the Bank posed an indirect threat to slavery. However, the argument was not widely used and slavery ultimately played no real role in the Bank War. Perhaps it would be best to remove the paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capitalizing on the fears building since the Panic of 1819 and the Missouri Compromise" Fears of what?
Changed to "fears of national discord." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banks have to lend more money than they take in. When banks lend money, new money is actually created, which is called "credit". This money has to be paper; otherwise, a bank can only lend as much as it takes in and hence new currency cannot be created out of nothing. Paper money was therefore necessary to grow the economy. Banks making too many loans would print an excess of paper money and deflate the currency. This would lead to lenders demanding that the banks take back their devalued paper in exchange for specie, as well as debtors trying to pay off loans with the same deflated currency, seriously disrupting the economy." This is one view of economics which is POV and beyond the scope of the article.
Pardon me, but I don't see how. It's a basic explanation of how banks work, and within the purview of this article because a particular reader might lack the information. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also signed a certificate with recommendations for president and cashier of the branch in Nashville." I am not sure what this means.
It seems fairly clear to me. Jackson signed recommendations for who would become president and cashier of the BUS branch in Nashville. What is confusing about this? Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "state-charted banks" state-chartered?
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B.U.S. branch offices in Louisville, Lexington, Portsmouth, Boston, and New Orleans, according to anti-Bank Jacksonians, had loaned more readily to customers who favored Adams, appointed a disproportionate share of Adams men to the Bank's board of directors, and contributed Bank funds directly to the Adams campaign." You imply here that branches appointed bank directors, and each branch could make its own political donations. Is this correct?
Yes. I tried to find another source that explicitly said this so that I could add it to the background information on the Bank, but as yet have been unable to do so. Display name 99 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The statement was politically potent" Which statement?
Adjusted to "Jackson's statements against the Bank were..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it went back up after the Senate report." What report?
The report is mentioned later, and I moved the part that you singled out back to after the Senate report is discussed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the Eaton affair, in 1831 Jackson replaced all of the original cabinet members but one.[" You say this above.
Changed to "After replacing most of his original cabinet members..." Display name 99 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, your latest comments have been addressed. I know that it is a long article and I am grateful for your assistance here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Sorry but this has been open more than six weeks and I see no prospect of it gaining consensus to promote anytime soon, so I'm going to archive it. It would be useful if Dudley could continue to work with the nominator on his remaining concerns before any future nomination. I'd also strongly recommend reconsidering the response to Maury's comments; if Maury still expresses concerns about the language in the article then I'd say the thing to do is, rather than take umbrage, request further examples and see if you can't work together on those items. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 February 2020 [10].

St Scholastica Day riot

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not often a corked wine ends up with three days of rioting, ninety dead and a grudge between town and gown that still lingers, but that's what happened in Oxford in 1355 on the feast day of St Scholastica.

This article has been re-written from a rather slim version to a more complete version we have now. Any and all constructive comments are, as always, most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I gave this a fairly thorough going over at PR. Let's see what else I can quibble over.

Two weeks ago I was in Oxford drawing the attention of some of today's students to this article. They were impressed. Apparently even the roughest of drinking disputes no longer lives up to, or down to, this standard: the benchmark for tavern brawls.

  • "An annual penance was imposed on the town: each year, on St Scholastica's Day, the mayor, bailiffs and sixty townspeople were to attend a mass at the University Church of St Mary the Virgin for those killed; the town was also made to pay the university a fine of one penny for each scholar killed" This reads as if the penny a student fine was repeated annually, have I got that correct?
  • "In 1334 Oxford, a town of 5,000 residents" Does that include students and faculty?
  • "many townspeople died or left" Possibly 'many townspeople and students died or left'?
    • Can we hold fire on this change until we see what others say? The problem is the remainder of the sentence "and a quarter of the scholars died": we know the proportion of students, so I think that info should stay in. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise tho. - SchroCat (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My point is that the current text suggests that many townsfolk either left or died (or survived), while the student seem only to have died (or survived). One might have thought that more students than townsfolk would have left (Isaac Newton style). I realise that you are constrained by your sources. (In passing, as a non-actionable comment, 25% is a low death rate. I assume because the students tended to be young, fit and well fed.)
  • "a town of 5,000 residents, was the ninth most wealthy in England" Given the footnote, does that mean that Oxford was the ninth most wealthy town? Ie excluding cities, however many there were.
  • "In around 1297 a citizen and a student were killed; the townsfolk responsible for killing the scholar were excommunicated and the town was fined £200 in damages." That really begs the question of what happened to the student[s]?
  • "In 1314 a riot between the two main factions of the university—the Northernmen and the Southernmen—39 students were known to have committed murder or manslaughter" Grammar. ('In a 1314 ... ?)
  • Not an actionable comment, but I do like the idea of students drinking wine from quart pots.
  • The bailiffs seem to have been the chief trouble-makers; is any reason for their antagonism known?
    • Not from the sources, unfortunately. I presume because they were annoyed at the behaviour of the students over a long period, but the sources don't really clarify it enough. - SchroCat (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The bells of both the town and university churches were rung to rally the respective supporters and students locked and barricaded some of the town's gates, to stop an influx of outsiders coming at them from a new direction." Suggest a sentence break at "and".
  • "any student who was found in his rented rooms or who was hiding" I think you mean 'or hiding place'. I assume that not every student who was hiding was killed.
  • " proclaiming in the king's name that "that no man should" - "that "that".
  • "The command from the king to the townsfolk had no effect." What command? None has been mentioned.
  • "The number of students killed in the riots is a matter of disagreement among the sources: Wood thinks it was 40; others put the number of students killed at 63." - "The number of students killed ... the number of students killed".
  • "In the early fifteenth century a series of poems ... was written; ...they could have been written between 1356 and 1357"?

NB, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup. - Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid stuff. I look forward to it breaking the servers when it is TFA. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

Marking my spot. CassiantoTalk 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background
Dispute

Looks fine

Resolution
  • "After the rioting ended both the university hierarchy and the town burghers surrendered themselves and the rights of their respective entities to the king." -- and the/and the
Aftermath

Looks fine

That's all from me, an interesting little article. CassiantoTalk 17:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN's corner of the proles' bar

[edit]
Is this another of those FACs that ends up with a cast bigger than Ben Hur  ;)
Will be looking in tomorrow, to make sure you've got the Battle of Hastings in somewhere (as essential background, you know). ——SN54129 20:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the sourcing, I tend to agree that a source that old is not the best we should use, but it is clearly not WP:PRIMARY. However, usage of "old" sources is not black/white, and comes with pros and cons. J. J. Alexander, writing in 1937, discussed the use of antiquarian texts by modern historians. He noted that some of these writers often had access to now-lost sources, and, likewise, that some may even have been researching with the scientific method, but on the whole, "the practice of quoting from eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century sources…is to be deprecated". About 1837 seems to be the cut-off point, although off the top of my head I have no idea why such a bizarrely precise date.
    All things being equal, I support on sourcing, which was my main concern at the peer review, and everything since then has been an improvement. ——SN54129 14:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Like Gog, I gave this article a good going-over at PR, and thought it in very good fettle then. Little to add now – a few trivial points. Apologies if I missed them at PR.

  • "1333–1334" – a riot that lasted across two years is quite a riot. 1333 and 1334 seems more likely on the face of it, but the present wording is of course fine if that's what the source says.
  • Dispute
  • "reoccurrence" – the OED allows this word, but I think the more usual "recurrence" might be preferable – more familiar and slightly shorter.
  • Resolution
  • Consistency of ulc: "entities to the king … the King restored"
  • "When each new mayor or sheriff was sworn in, they had to swear" – unless, which seems unlikely – there were female mayors or sheriffs between 1355 and 1825 there is no excuse for this linguistically awkward plural pronoun with singular nouns. This should be "he had to".
  • Aftermath
  • "a lack of cathedral in the town" – looks a bit odd without an indefinite article before "cathedral".

That's my lot. Over to you. I'll look in again with a view to adding my support. Tim riley talk 09:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image

[edit]

Image review

  • Map caption needs editing for grammar
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:St_Scholastica_Day_riot.jpg: as per the tag, the image description should include details of the steps you've taken to attempt to ascertain authorship. Same with File:Ending_the_St_Scholastica_Day_riot.jpg

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Catto should include volume
  • Cobban 1992: link is to a different edition. Same with Cobban 2002, Harding 1993, Horan
  • Be consistent in how volumes are formatted
  • Darby is an edited collection and should be cited as such
  • Be consistent in if/when portions of citations are wikilinked
  • Maxwell Lyte is missing location

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Sounds like my alma mater The following are purely suggestions that you are free to ignore if you don't agree or they are too time consuming to be worth the effort Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The students became quarrelsome with the taverner— why not just quarrelled with?
  • had arisen several times previously—over what period? presumably that which is stated shortly after, but not explicit
  • Let me have a look at this. It's probably longer than this, but we've not covered the whole gamut of town and gown conflict in the article, just some high (or low) lights. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • remainder sought religious sanctuary—any idea where?
  • assay—perhaps a link?
  • The map could do with increased contrast if that's reasonably feasible for you, not a big deal though
That's all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support and nit-picks from Graham

[edit]

....and I thought I misbehaved when I was an undergraduate. I was a saint compared to this lot. I have three silly nitpicks, which you can ignore if you want.

  • "local residents" do we need "local"? I think it's obvious that they live nearby.
  • "their own Chancellor" I think perhaps "own" is redundant.
  • Perhaps a comma after "third day"?
  • I haven't gone with the comma on similar constructions in the article, except when there is a sub-clause afterwards. I'm happy to see if others pick up on the point if you are? - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an engaging read. Articles such as these enrich Wikipedia greatly. Graham Beards (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Graham, I am endebted to you, as always, for your thoughts. I've gone with two of the three suggestions and demurred on the third: I hope the explanation for that is clear. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of Fowler&fowler

[edit]

The article is well written. I like the organization of the sections. I like the ready availability of the sources online. The latter, however, might be related to the issue that concerns me. They are readily available because they are very old, so old that they have become public domain.

The riot is an event of the mid-14th century, first chronicled 300 years later, with less than certain reliability (see here, p232 and here) by Brian Twyne and Anthony Wood (here), the latter's English account apparently borrowing much from the former's Latin. Today, 300 years later still, the riot garners a paragraph or two in histories of the University of Oxford (here, or of the English universities in the middle ages (here). It is a pivotal event no doubt but recorded in history books not so much for the bloody violence as the changes it effected in local law and governance. The core section is Dispute, constituting 40% of the article. It has 49 citations, 25 of which are to books, chronicles, or records, older than 120 years. 13 are to the chronicles of Anthony Wood (died 1695) whose manuscript was edited and published by John Gutch in 1792 (here). Another 13 are to Lawrence Hall's attempt at writing a bestseller on John Wyclif in the 1980s. (See humorous but devastating first paragraph of a scholarly review.)

Concerns:

  • 1. There are altogether too many primary sources. Can you reduce this dependence?
  • 2. There is
    • a) WP:SYNTHESIS. Sample: "Many of the student halls had been plundered or vandalised, except that of [[Merton College, Oxford|Merton College]], whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone.{{sfn|Hall|1983|p=57}}{{sfn|Cheetham|1971|p=74}} (Hall, 57) = Fortunately Merton College was one of the few collegiate halls in the town of Oxford built entirely of stone, and its stone walls offered protection that some of the other halls lacked. (Cheetham, 74) = Only Merton College, whose clerks had a reputation for quiet behaviour, was left undistrubed.
    • b) WP:OR and SYNTHESIS: Sample: "They were served wine by John de Croydon, who was the tavern's [[vintner]]{{sfn|Jeaffreson|1871|p=227}} or possibly the [[Landlord#Licensed victualler|landlord]],{{sfn|Green|1859|p=41}} although the historian Louis Brewer Hall and the [[antiquarian]] [[Anthony Wood (antiquary)|Anthony Wood]], among others, describe him as a friend of John de Bereford, who was the tavern's owner and the [[mayor of Oxford]].{{sfn|Hall|1983|p=55}}{{sfn|Wood|1792|p=457}}{{sfn|Catto|1984|p=160}}
  • 3. Please fix these. There are similar sentences in the article, their warrants or evidence patched together, sentences that you will find nowhere else in any account of the riot. Please go through the article and fix those as well. I don't have any other concerns. As I've already remarked, the prose flows smoothly. The sourcing and synthesis and OR issues, however, can be dealbreakers. It is better to leave out than to mix and match. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thanks. There is no OR (all information is from reliable sources) or SYNTHESIS (information is clearly identified as to source). There are no primary sources (excepting the very small number of newspapers used) and if you want the older sources removed we’d end up with a gutted shell of an article that doesn’t inform people of diddly squat. As this article stands it is entirely within the structures of the MoS and the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler: I would be interested to know what primary sources you are referring to. As you have recently discovered, it is insufficient to make vague handwaves towards the possibility of an issue; rather, you must demonstrate an issue exists.
    In other news, a one-way interaction ban would be most unfortunate. Cheers, ——SN54129 20:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with SN54129. I am, to my considerable regret, beginning to have the feeling that Fowler&fowler has for some reason got it in for SchroCat and is raising frivolous and unhelpful objections that nobody else has the least sympathy with. I have myself had valuable input from Fowler&fowler, but it's starting to seem like Jekyll and Hyde – constructive in the review of my recent FAC but determinedly obstructive here, as at another of SchroCat's FACs. Tim riley talk 20:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, Serial Number 54129, and Tim riley: The primary motivation of my review was SandyGeorgia's off-repeated regret that FACs are not being reviewed with the care and rigor they deserve (see here). Furthermore, per Ealdgyth's cautions I cannot respond to imputations of motivation whether in the form of a threat of an interaction ban (which presumes I bear malice or ill-will toward anyone) or comparison with the protagonist of RL Stevenson's less than first-rate work. (Had it been Kidnapped, Tim riley, and had you cast me as David Balfour's evil-hearted Uncle, I would have responded with delight. :)) The primary sources I am referring to are Wood (1792) (written in the 1670s or 80s and the manuscript edited and published in 1792; Wood died in 1695) Jeaffreson (1871), and Green (1859). The article has one core section, "Dispute." Half the citations in that section are to these sources and half of them are to Wood. Old sources, be they 19th century or 17th (published in the 18th) are primary sources, their narration of events is not reliable, their assignment of emphasis or weight is dated, their employed methodologies are dated. I've already given you two links above of modern sources that say the same, using "if the old chronicles can be trusted," or similar expressions. A history article in any encyclopedia, cannot use old sources, especially not 17th-century chronicles written 300 years after an event, except occasionally in a direct quote which complements something in a modern secondary source. As far as I'm aware this is a non-negotiable axiom of encyclopedia writing. Fear of reducing an article to a hollow shell does not allow us to negotiate with that principle. But in keeping with Ealdgyth's other caution in the same note, I will await others' weighing in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "old=primary", you are mistaken. I am sure the other reviewers will also note that by implication you do not think they have conducted their reviews with care and rigor. - SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to learn that Fowler&fowler's delusion that old sources are ipso facto primary sources is not due to obstructionism, but it remains a delusion. See the definition of primary sources on the "No original research" policy page, which starts: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The policy contains helpful supplementary definitions at footnote (c), including this: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer".
I would like to remind Fowler&fowler that his sympathetic and helpful review of Randall Davidson in its way to FA did not object to my extensive use of the biography by George Bell, although Bell was Davidson's chaplain and secretary and later Dean of Davidson's cathedral, and "a participant or observer" in or of many of the events covered in the biography. None of the sources used in the present article are of this kind. (Indeed, Sarastro comments below that we are not told who the primary sources are that the published accounts draw on.) The generalisation "old = primary" is so clearly contrary to Wikipedia's stated policies that it cannot go unchallenged. As to the more common notion that old = not as good as new sources, I smile when I see this, as new sources invariably draw on the old, either to recycle or dispute them, but that is a different argument, and the source review for this article makes no complaint that 18th- and 19th- century sources have been used. (I am glad about this, as it would be a pity to rule e.g. Gibbon, Hume, Acton et al unacceptable sources as Fowler&fowler would evidently have us do.)
As to standards, I'm not clear what SandyGeorgia's "oft-repeated" views have to do with the matter. We have not seen SandyGeorgia reviewing here or, as far as I recall, at any other FACs I've been involved with as reviewer or nominator. Tim riley talk 09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) Old sources about an even earlier period are not primary sources because they are simply old but because their main value is a primary one for their historical period, as evidence of interpreting history during their period, of writing history, and so forth. (For that same reason, we would not be using Macaulay today other than sparingly, and directly quoting from him, when writing a history of England in a tertiary source.) It is difficult to assess their reliability, as it is difficult to identify the "primary" sources on which they are based. They are also difficult to evaluate for DUE as contemporaneous reviews of literature do not exist. (Old tertiary sources are a little better for use on Wikipedia, in my view, but these did not really exist in the modern sense before the late-19th century.) Tim riley, I made it clear several times in my review of Randall Davidson I was reviewing only for syntax, usage, and coherence of text. Yes, absolutely, we would not be using Gibbon today, for example, for the early Popes, nor indeed Mandell Creighton for the later ones—on Wikipedia that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Sarastro's comment below: your concept of a primary source differs from that of others. There is not an issue with the sources we have here, nor in their use of them., all of which fall within the requirements of the MoS in general and the FA criteria in particular. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

[edit]

I haven't read the whole of this article, but I did notice the comments of F&F above. Regarding the claims of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR, I'd require rather better examples than the two provided (It would be a little easier to read if F&F didn't include such long quotes with the formatting mark-up and explained concisely instead). But what drew my attention was the claims of using primary sources. F&F appears to have misunderstood what primary sources are: in this article, they would be sources from 1355 or around that time. The oldest source here is from 1792, and even if that author died in 1695, I think it is highly unlikely that he was writing from his memories of having witnessed these events!

However, that doesn't invalidate the concern of using older source material, which is one I've often raised myself. My inclination is that we are OK here though. Older sources are fine if they are being used for indisputable facts that cannot have changed in the intervening period. A quick glance suggests that this is the case here. All analysis that I have seen is sourced to modern historians. Therefore I believe we are fine on this issue: older sources for facts, modern analysis. Obviously, it is best to use modern sources throughout but for articles like this I am conscious that this is not always possible.

But (getting slowly to the point...) this does raise a couple of valid issues. With the qualification that I haven't read this closely, and I might have missed the things I'm about to mention, do we discuss the actual primary sources here? It would be good to know how we know about the riot. Who told us about it? Are those original sources reliable (from the viewpoint of the historian, not WP)? For example, I'm thinking of something like the Green children of Woolpit which has a sources section as part of the article. And I'm also wondering if there is something to be said about the historiography too. It may be useful to know why Wood, Green and company were writing about this when they did, if there is anything that discusses this. Sarastro (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro, thanks for your comments. I haven't seen anything that discusses the points in your final paragraph, but let me go back over the sources and see what they say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro, I have the following that can be added to identify the primary sources. I'm looking into one or two other things that may or may not be enough to add, but these are the key historiographical points:
Cobban identifies two sources of primary documentation, Oxford City Documents, Financial and Judicial, 1258–1665, edited by the historian Thorold Rogers in 1891, and Medieval Archives of the University of Oxford: Vol 1, edited by the historian Rev Herbert Salter in 1920.[1] The historian Jeremy Catto adds Collectanea, edited by Montagu Burrows of the Oxford Historical Society in 1896.[2]
Sources

  1. ^ Cobban 2002, pp. 193.
  2. ^ Catto 1984, p. 167.
I'm not entirely sure of the best place to add this - probably the Aftermath section, I would think, unless you have any better ideas.
The historiography itself isn't covered. From my OR I can see that the older works (pre, say, 1930) covered the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot (i.e. they state it happened and may mention it was over bad drink), but are more detailed in looking at the impact. That's why the Dispute section has more from the older sources, while the other sections are from the more modern sources – they reflect the availability of the best sources of information available for the particular sections they deal with. Unfortunately I can't find a review of the literature that cover this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 I agree with some of the things you have said. (See my post above.) We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these. Wood does identify some sources (see here) but only for names and direct quotes. For the rest, whatever "sources" Wood has used, we are not sure that he has not recorded them so faithfully or unquestioningly as to make his document a primary source (in the usual sense). If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former. I can't recall this very minute, but I read somewhere that Wood had borrowed liberally (and perhaps literally?) from Twyne's Latin version. All in all, the Dispute section is very troublesome for me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler&fowler, just to make it easier for all of us, and so this doesn't all go back to the state of Humphreys review, can you just pop an "oppose" onto your section and the rest of us can carry on regardless. The co-ords can judge your comments accordingly. This will be much less of a waste of time for all concerned. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line? He has the names of the killed and wounded. All Irish, he "conceives." That is not much of an more or less a simple interpretation for that time and milieu. Can we mention the names, but not their description as Irish, or can we quote him on that too? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, Sarastro1, you asked for clarification about my synthesis example Here is (a): "Merton College, whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone." It has been cited to Hall who mentions the stone walls but not quietness, and to Cheetham who mentions the quiet behaviour but not the stone walls. In my quick scan, this seems to be happening in several places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to actually read WP:SYNTH. The opening line states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (my emphasis). As is rather obvious, we reach or imply no conclusion here. Just because two pieces of information come from two separate sources, it does not mean there is synthesis.
As I have said, I would prefer if you just opposed and left it there. You may think that you are doing someone else's bidding by such reviews, but it is down to the current FAC co-ordinators to judge your comments and your approach, no-one else. This approach certainly did not work last time you tried it, and I suspect it won't work this time, if you are basing it on novel interpretations of SYNTH and PRIMARY that are not aupported by the policies themselves. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The statement, "Many of the student halls had been plundered or vandalised, except that of Merton College, whose students had a reputation for quietness and whose hall was made of stone." is an inference or conclusion made from the sources. It is not made by either of the two sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. I am, however, happy to let others, particularly the current FAC co-ordinators judge the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the point: Somewhere above the wall of text that has appeared, SchroCat replied to me. In terms of where to put about the sources, I'd say after the aftermath, in its own section if we can squeeze out enough information. The more specific we can be about who said what in those sources, the better it would be. If there is nothing on historiography, there is nothing on historiography, and we can't include anything unfortunately. Sarastro (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Fowler&fowler: With the greatest respect, this constant back and forth is not helping anyone and it is certainly not establishing if this article meets WP:WIAFA. If you believe it does not meet them, it would help if you simply said so, explain briefly on what grounds, and leave the rest to the coordinators.

You said to me "We do have some public records, of course, but it is not clear that Twyne and Wood have used these" but I do not understand what that has got to do with anything. My question to SchroCat was about the actual literal primary sources that everyone else has used to discuss these events, as I believe we should discuss them in the article. Nor do I understand what you mean by "And if we are going to use Wood, where do we draw the line?" as your example is a non-sequitur. And I still do not agree with you about synthesis, but I'd be hugely appreciative if you did not explain to me here why you are right and I am wrong.

And although I don't want to reply to your every point: "If no modern source has details of the dispute, then we cannot use 300-year old sources to fill them in. We are not talking about using such a source for names or direct quotes, but for the description of how the event unfolded. That is as important as its interpretation, for the latter is based on the former." Once more, I cannot see how your second argument follows from your first. But to take your first argument... that may be something worth raising at WT:FAC. I disagree, I have never seen that argued elsewhere, and I'd need some convincing. It may be worth asking the opinion of others. If you wish to take this further, can we please discuss it away from this FAC? My talk page is nice and quiet. I repeat, please don't argue every point here as it just clutters the page and is not relevant to whether this article meets WIAFA; I am happy to argue elsewhere. Sarastro (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm inclined to say we should move most of this back and forth to the talk page where it is out of the way (and I include my above ramblings in that). Sarastro (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sarastro. I'll do some more digging, but the meat of what I have found so far is above (Both the sources used there, Cobban and Catto, both have footnotes that say something along the lines "For documentation on the riots see: ..." and then the sources I've mentioned (See Footnote 32 as an example). I suspect some of the original sourcing is from documentation held in the Bodlian, but I'll see what I can put together from what there is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's slightly irritating that they don't make it nice and explicit. I'm used to early medieval writing where they spell out what the sources say, who wrote them and various other mind-numbing details. This merely confirms my prejudices against the later medieval period. You wouldn't have this trouble with Beowulf! They even talk about the scorch marks on the paper when they're talking about Beowulf! Sarastro (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note from a source reviewer (and historian) (who is NOT wearing her coord hat)

[edit]
The definition of primary source in history can actually deviate a bit from that as defined above by Tim (No original research" policy page, which starts: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The policy contains helpful supplementary definitions at footnote (c), including this: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer".) In the medieval and classical periods of history (as with some other areas), a primary source can indeed be something that is further in date from the actual event. Medievalists consider something like Bede and classicists consider something like Plutarch, to be primary sources, even though they are often writing about periods long before their time. There are some works from the early 1500 and 1600s that should be considered primary for the medieval period, not secondary even though hundreds of years separate them.

Also - older works need to be used with care - EVEN for plain facts. While there are some exceptions, most Victorian historians do not approach history with the same rigor that more modern historians do. And this also applies to their ability to sift fact from fiction in their sources. Many a Victorian historian took forged documents at face value and built their narratives on something that has later proven to be contentious or downright wrong. (The classic example here is Gundrada de Warenne - where uncritical acceptance of forged documents means that prior to the late 1800s, most folks accepted that she was either the daughter of William the Conqueror or of William's wife Matilda. We know now that this is incorrect - but it STILL pops up all over the place ... and if you aren't familiar with the sources and the historiography - it's very easy to uncritically take a history from the 1840s, say, and repeat a disproven fact.) I strongly strongly strongly suggest that we should not rely on 19th-century sources, even for filling in details, because it is important to dig into WHY more modern historians aren't repeating the information - has it be proven wrong? Or embelished? Or is it some other reason?

Likewise, it's a bad idea to use newspaper articles to source a history article on wikipedia - frankly, the ability of newspaper writers to get history wrong is boundless. The fact that wiki policy allows us to use 100-300 year old sources or newspaper articles doesn't mean we should. We're trying to write the most accurate and up to date articles we can - which should be built on modern scholarship. If the fact that you can only flesh out an event by resorting to those sorts of sources, then things are not good.

I'll also point out that F&F pointed out that one at least of the book sources has at least one very bad review in a schoarly journal - THAT needs to be investigated also - is that one review an outlier? Or do most scholarly reviews pan the work - if that latter, then we again, should not be using a work for a historical subject that is considered bad scholarship by historians. Wycliff is a VERY well-studied subject in history - surely there is a better biography of him to use?

My point here is that ... again... we cannot just uncritically say "policy allows us to do this" and think it's fine. It isn't nearly as cut and dried as that ... and we're doing a disservice to our readers if we just do the minimum without actually trying to understand that the best practices would be to avoid usage of some sources even if policy on wikipedia seems to allow them. We're supposed to be writing the best we can... and that doesn't always mean including everything guidelines and policy might allow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an essay than a note and belongs on the Talk Page not here. While being a useful commentary, it is most unfair on the nominator to use his FACs as test cases.Graham Beards (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let the other coords decide whether it belongs here or on the talk page. But, I don't think it's at all unfair to rebutt some arguments made above from a different perspective. If I was going to use this FAC as a test case, I'd have opposed, which you'll note I haven't done. And I don't intend to. I do, however, think that folks are too busy quoting the letter of policy to look at the bigger picture of trying to make the best article possible. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a coordinator for this FAC; you have recused. I still maintain that is not the venue. Graham Beards (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One poor review does not preclude the use of the source. "Reviewed Work: The Perilous Vision of John Wyclif, (Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1983) by Louis Brewer Hall"; Review by: Lawrence S. Snell. Teaching History (JSTOR 43256137) is less negative. - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teaching History is a journal for sixth-form teaching (see here). The JSTOR review you cite ends with, "especially recommended for sixth-form libraries." A more relevant review, in addition to the critical one I have cited earlier, is in Theology Today (subscription only; see here), which says, "This is a well-told, popular-level account of the life and times of a maverick theologian ... Hall, an expert in medieval English poetry and drama, has grappled with the difficulties in Wyclif biography and has chosen to harmonize his sketchy and discrepant sources in a way that seems somewhat more straightforward and circumstantial than the hard data actually quite allow. ... Professor Hall is an ardent admirer, and presents Wyclif as a hero—stopping short, however, of a probing analysis of the philosophical and theological issues ... This, then, is not a book for experts. ... Neither is it a book for nitpickers: the agglomerate noun for sheep is not “band” (pp. 17, 18, 165); “Oxfordians” is not what Oxonians call themselves (pp. 31, 51); Bury St. Edmunds is not “north” of London, but northeast (p. 181); “the slaughter of the innocents” was not in Nazareth (p. 204); Cambridge was not a “major city” (p. 237)." The main point is that the writing style of the book, the dwelling on silly anecdotes (such as the young Oxford girls disappearing upstairs to console the pub's clients and so forth) does not bespeak overall reliability. It has to be used judiciously. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: I am, as you know, always happy to make improvements to articles based on constructive suggestions that are related to the relevant guidelines and policies, but I am at a loss here. There are comments above that are unclear and contrary to accepted policies and practices.
As nominator and primary editor of this article, I’m at a loss as to how to progress and to which comments or sentiments I should address. If you could clarify which (if any) comments need addressing, I’ll consider them. Thanks, if you are able to assist. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 02:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My suggestion remains that old sources—including 19th-century sources, much less 17th-century manuscripts (Wood) published in the 18th—not be used in the article except occasionally. Also, as I have pointed out, Hall is melodramatic, to be used judiciously, not for example for the first use of "havoc," in English. There are some issues of synthesis. See also Sarastro1's talk page. You are better off following the modern sources, expanding the Background and Aftermath and reducing the Dispute. Your article will become a good piece of work. I certainly will be happy to support it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Ian Rose and Laser brain The nominator collapsed the comments section and withdrew the nomination two days ago, as stated by him above; in which case, the nomination should be archived. He cannot then leave us, the reviewers, in the dark, and, while not letting us comment further, also suggest that there is no oppose and that it is for the non-recused coordinators to "close" this, as if to suggest that he has not withdrawn the nomination. I have serious concerns about the ill-use of very old sources in the article; one, in particular, is from the 17th century. Please clarify if the article has been withdrawn from FAC or not. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Please withdraw this. For the second THIRD time in a row at FAC my enjoyment levels are too low and my stress levels too high because of a second rate reviewer who does not understand how to conduct a review and appears to have some petty and stupid grudge for Christ knows what reason. It may be some time before I bother with FAs again, if at all. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is still awaiting closure I'll add a brief note for the record. There are six supports to this article and no opposes, yet I am still requesting withdrawal.

Sourcing: The older works (pre, say, 1930) cover the more graphic aspects of the riot and then looked at the after effects; the modern works are very perfunctory in dealing with the riot, but are more detailed in looking at the impact. For each part of the article the most recent and reliable sources dominate where possible. It should be noted that at no point do any of the modern sources contradict the older ones on the points that are used in this article. Despite the implication from a recent posting at the FAC talk page from someone who has no clue about my approach to article development, the majority of the sourcing was done during visits to the British Library.

Reviewer conduct: Sadly this article deserved a lot better than a troll bludgeoning comments across several sections and bringing a toxic battlefield attitude to this review. I note that the pattern continues elsewhere. This was the third review on the trot when this aggressive pushing of personal preference causes a disturbance; they were asked by Ealdgyth at the last review not to do this and by Sarastro (on their talk page) in relation to this one, all to no avail. You are able to judge on all three reviews where the problem lies: interactions with all other reviewers, over comments positive and negative, show the good faith in which those contributions were made by both parties. Only in one area did they break down.

I still request this to be withdrawn, and I will still be declining to participate in all aspects of FA-land for the foreseeable future. To clarify: this is not a threat to say 'pass this or I won't write FAs anymore': I really do not care about the FA process. All enjoyment has been sucked out of this increasingly politicised process with the second-rate interventions of a very small number of people intent on moulding FA into something it is not and was never meant to be.

Ian and Andy, as you are the only non-recused co-ords here, it will have to be you that closes this. Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2020 [11].

Dryomyza anilis

[edit]
Nominator(s): AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fly Dryomyza anilis, with a significant portion of the page focusing on mating behavior. I underwent a rigorous round of edits to improve the page to GA status, and believe that it is a realistic candidate for FA status. I am absolutely open to hearing any and all feedback to improve the page. I also believe I have successfully incorporated edits from my first FA nomination for this page (I incorrectly nominated the page for FA before going through the GA process). AnuBalasubramanian (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi, just to be clear, there's no requirement to go through GAN before FAC, but getting as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, whether through GAN, Peer Review, or just asking people, is certainly useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments of Fowler&fowler

[edit]

Hello AnuBalasubramanian: I can help you with the lead, which seems short for the article's size. I will get around to that in a day or two, but I couldn't help noticing the language, which seems a tad too technical. Would you consider wiki-linking some of the unfamiliar words so that someone like me, a rank beginner, can take a stab at summarizing the text into the descriptive prose appropriate for the lead? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Just looking at the reference list...

  • BugGuide probably isn't reliable, as far as FAC goes. It's hosted by a university, but here's the disclaimer: "Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world."
  • Same for NatureSpot. It looks like a great little local conservation charity, but it's not at the level of the sort of sources we'd be looking for here - unless you think I'm wrong about that?
  • "Otronen, null"?
  • Your Hocking reference is incomplete.
  • I couldn't see anything supporting the claim "As the fly matures, its cephalopharyngeal skeleton also modifies with time to maximize the fly's ability to take in nutrients." on the "Diptera – an overview" source, but I didn't look that closely. The reason I was looking is that the page is just providing extracts from Elsevier books/journals related to the Diptera. Perhaps it would be better to cite the books/articles/chapters/whatever in question directly?
  • Are your date formats consistent?
  • Are you consistent in your use of capitals? You seem to change between title case and sentence case for article titles. Also check your italics in article titles. And the way you refer to authors (Milburn, J. vs. Milburn, Josh - etc.). Things just look a little untidy right now - fine for GAC, but something that needs sorted for FAC.
  • Is this worth citing?

Sorry - I know these comments are frightfully dull, but this is the sort of thing that needs to be gotten right at FAC. I have to oppose until these things are sorted, but I'd be happy to withdraw my oppose and take a look at the rest of the article once the sourcing issues are resolved. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC) For the record, I'm taking part in the WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Consider adding alt text.
  • There is no need to add a caption to the infobox image, as that just results in "Dryomyza anilis" appearing both above and below the image.
  • "File:Dryomyza (=Neuroctena) anilis - male (22900404455).jpg": "dog poo" in the description is not very encyclopedic; and may not travel well for non-BritEng speakers.
  • I there a reason why "File:Dryomyza anilis 05.JPG" is set smaller than the other images. I note that it uses px to size; this is depreciated, could you use upright?
  • Caption "Face of Dryomyza anilis, depicting the fly's large red eyes". Being picky about your choice of words, the picture depicts the face, as you say; possibly '; note the large red eyes' or similar?
  • Caption "Wing markings of Dryomyza anilis. Similar.
  • The "source" does not link to the image; replace it with the link against "Description".

The above notwithstanding, impressive work on the images for a first FAC.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]

Coord note (2)

[edit]

Hi, it's been well over a week since the first comments and no response from the nominator, plus I think the sourcing concerns Josh raises are probably best sorted outside the pressures of FAC, so I'm going to archive this. Aside from the suggestions above, I'd again recommend, per Brian and Laser brain at the previous FAC, considering a mentor for a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2020&oldid=943280928"