Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2022

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2022 [1].

English interjections

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brett (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about interjections in the English language, words that most users of English Wikipedia use all the time but know little about. It has had good article status for roughly a year and is one of very few good articles dealing with a topic in linguistics. English grammars generally give very short shrift to interjections, but there's actually a good deal to say about them. I asked User:Jimfbleak to have a look to help me prepare the article for this nomination, and he has kindly made some helpful suggestions which have improved the article. Brett (talk) 14:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some parts of the article dont meet the FA inline citation requirement Buidhe public (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Featured article criteria 1c is usually interpreted to mean that all prose content in the article is supported by an inline citation, including at minimum one citation at the end of each paragraph and image captions that contain information besides identifying the subject of the image. The article currently doesn't make it clear what source supports content like the second sentence in the following paragraph: Some verbs are formed from interjections meaning "utter the interjection", for example, he humphed and sat down or I shooed them out the door.[10] These can be distinguished from interjections by their ability to inflect for tense. If there is no source that directly supports the content, it is original research which is not allowed (t · c) buidhe 16:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this! The relevant citations are given below in the section on morphology. Should these be repeated here or used here and omitted in the morphology section? Brett (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally the article is organized so as to minimize repetition of the same content. If it can't be avoided, I would copy over the citation. (t · c) buidhe 01:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a cross-reference to the appropriate section. Brett (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Typical examples" table seems to be slightly messed up. "no" occurs twice, and the position/count of some of the less frequent interjections do not match the source. – Elisson • T • C • 14:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The second no is due to the way the data is automatically tagged in the corpus. The first no is tagged as in interjection, while the second is tagged as an interjection or possibly an article (e.g., no bananas). Ideally, there would be a single no with 281,120 tokens + x% of 18,949 tokens, but x is unknown. As for the counts, the data was copied and pasted from the query results at the time so the discrepancy is not a typo. A possible explanation is that new texts were added to the corpus since the search was conducted.
The token count isn't particularly meaningful in itself, so perhaps a good solution would be to replace the table with an ordered list. Thoughts? Brett (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, though when I follow the reference I don't see a second "no" anywhere in the list. I was assuming the corpus had been updated until I noticed that the token count of many of the most frequent interjections had not been changed. I.e. how likely is it that new data was added that more than doubled the count for "o" while not adding a single "yes", "oh", or "ah"? Anyway, I agree that the count is not that important, but it's also not completely unimportant as it says something about the relative frequency of the most common interjections. I don't have a strong opinion, as long as the list does not contain two "no" (which will confuse people). :) – Elisson • T • C • 18:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. I don't know why the query results are not entirely consistent. I have changed to the table to a list, removed the counts, and hedged the language slightly. Brett (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Hi Brett, this is not a typical FA subject by any means and it would be good to see it thoroughly reviewed here but unfortunately it's not getting enough traction after more than two weeks to justify leaving open. Given the lack of in-depth commentary I'd be prepared to waive the usual two-week break before another FAC nom but I would suggest trying Peer Review first -- if anyone comments there you can invite them to visit the FAC nom when you start it. Also be great for you to look over more current FAC noms yourself, commenting as you see fit, to get a feel for the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2022 (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) 30 July 2022 [2].

Fallout (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed and published by Interplay Productions for the PC. It was a critical success, with praise for its unique setting and gameplay compared to other role-playing games for the PC at the time. As a result, it spawned a successful series of role-playing games and is often credited as one of the games that revived the genre.

I started work on this article in April 2021, with a successful good article nomination in July 2021. Then, I started working on it again in March 2022 with hopes of turning it into a featured article for the 25th anniversary. To get the elephant in the room out of the way, my previous nomination that lasted from April to June 2022 failed, because only one review on the candidacy directly supported its promotion, with the others either being drive-by reviews or reviews that didn't vote. However, the article did improve during and after the previous candidacy, so hopefully, this candidacy will be different. Please, if you decide to review this article, please try to make it at least somewhat in-depth and vote. I do not want a repeat of the last candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are a couple of citations does not verify the text in the article, which is not good for a prospective FA. Most sources do verify the claims well, however. Spot-checking sources in this version, in FAC talk page here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have finished a source check here, and will be implementing changes to the article to address it soon. After I am done, you can go ahead and do a spot check. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I am finished; you can go ahead a proceed with your second spot check now. Any problems you find should be few and far between or relatively minor. Lazman321 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll look into it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lazman321, seems good to me. Changed to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Sorry Lazman, but with only one review after almost a month and no activity for a week, this nom has stalled so I'll be closing shortly. Given the relative lack of commentary, I'm prepared to waive the usual two-week pause before any re-nomination. You can, when re-nominating, ping editors who have commented at PR or previous FACs with neutrally worded invites to comment on the new nomination. Can I also suggest though that you try reviewing some of the other nominations in the current list? This can not only give you a better feel for the overall process but get you known in the community, which can sometimes result in more people being interested in reviewing your nom(s). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2022 (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) 29 July 2022 [3].

Mars Society

[edit]
Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small organization that advocates for Mars exploration (and maybe the reason you guys have heard about it so much in the news). The article is so short because there isn't a lot of reliable sources around that talks about the subject extensively, which most are just passing-by mentions. I've also avoided using primary sources as much as possible, though sadly I have to use them in the members list. I originally plans to take the article through the GA process first, but I am confident that this article has met the FA criteria, so to save time I directly nominated it for FA here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is riddled with basic errors. I think it might have been wiser to nominate the article at GA before bringing it here. Graham Beards (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I have to agree with Graham: the prose is plainly not close to FA standard at present. The article is also rather unrounded, in that it doesn't include any discussion of the feasibility of what this organisation has been advocating for (much of which seems unrealistic or not well aligned with other priorities). The sourcing is also deficient in that wide page ranges or entire books are given as citations, and no reference is made to the academic literature on this topic ([4]). Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would suggest changes to the basic structural layout of the article, in addition to the above comments; I am most intrigued by the divisions of the paragraphs on the research habitats, and by the separation into two parts of those on the organisation itself. Would suggest withdrawal and nomination at GA first, for the prose and citations at the very least.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- closing per above; PR might also be a useful step before considering bringing back here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 29 July 2022 [5].

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

[edit]
Nominator(s): SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration, I give you the series finale to Ed, Edd n Eddy. I've taken the page from this to what it is now since the start of 2022. Unless one counts a review from Steve Pulaski, the reception section has been expanded to include all the reviews I found from trustworthy publications. Hopefully it's comprehensive enough to meet FA standards. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image assessment from Buidhe

[edit]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • What is the current structure for the "Reception" section? I think it would be more helpful to give this section more structure so readers could get a better sense of how critics viewed this film. I believe this essay, WP:RECEPTION, is very helpful for working on these types of sections as they can be difficult to write. I just do not think have this information presented in a long, single paragraph is ideal or as engaging as it could be. To be clear all the information in this section is good. My concern is about it is structured.

This is my only comment. I believe all of my concerns were already addressed in the peer review so I do not have too much to add. Once my above comment is addressed, I will support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope this is helpful and have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, Aoba47, I didn't have a particular order/structure in mind when compiling the reviews and am not sure how to rework them. If it wasn't limited to five sources who all felt it did a good job of ending the series, then I might have a better sense of what to do. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is fair, and I completely understand your point. I will read through that section more thoroughly either today or tomorrow to see if I could get a better handle it to give more direct feedback or suggestions. It could be a case where this is the best way to present this information. I hope that it is okay with you and apologies for the wait. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. Upon further review, this section looks good to me. The paragraph begins with a clear overview of what critics discussed (i.e. how it was a strong conclusion for the series). I appreciate how the reviews are presented in a chronological order and I do think that helps keep the prosing engaging because of the transitions in place around that. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, and I appreciate the support :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help and I was more than happy to read the article. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review, but I completely understand if you are busy. Bust of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should have something from me within 24 hours. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FrB.TG

[edit]

Source review from NØ (Pass)

[edit]

I really like this article's size so I hope it's okay if I grab it for my first-ever source review!

  • What makes this a high-quality source? I wasn't able to locate an About Us page and it appears to host a forums section.
  • All of the other sources appear to be reliable for the purposes they are used.
  • The MovieAddictz ref is not working for me but the archive appears to be ok so it should be marked as dead.
  • Ref formatting appears to be consistent with how individual articles on the agencies italicize.
  • Spotchecks show nothing of concern.--NØ 02:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it might be worth, MaranoFan, here you can find an "About Us" page for ToonZone before it got renamed to Anime Superhero. That's much more detailed than what you'll find on the current incarnation. What I can safely say is that (under both names) this is a place dedicated to animation with news pieces and isn't just limited to forums. It's not being used for any particularly contentious claims (season 5 being completed along with announcement for future movie) and only seems to be recapping what participants discussed at Comic-Con in 2006. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From that page: "Toonzone is an animation news and information web site run by a group of devoted animation fans. [...] What originally began as a small discussion area on old Prodigy service", unfortunately this doesn't give me a lot of confidence. RSN seems to have been divided (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), with some allegations of WP:SPS. A bit unsure this is passable for FA.--NØ 04:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do TheThings and Tom Holland's Terror Time look in comparison? Regarding credentials, you can look here for the former while the latter is from a site by the famous director Tom Holland, often focusing on horror-related works. It also stitches together tweets from Erin Fitzgerald (a member of this show's voice cast), though if you'd prefer linking to one or more of the tweets themselves, then I could probably dig them up. Another option is a video from Akeem Lawanson aka GeekHeavy, a content host for IGN. Before making replacements, I'd like your thoughts please on what would be ideal to use. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see TheThings has an editorial team so that one should work. Don't think I would use the other one.--NØ 06:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TheThings has now been implemented, and I was able to use a 2008 interview with Danny Antonucci to establish how this would mark the debut of Eddy's brother :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question, MaranoFan: do you know how to manually archive links without a tool? My three tries earlier today to run IABot for adding them to newly inserted URLs somehow did nothing at all (which surpised me when this previously worked for other links), and adding these to Wayback Machine also failed :/. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done; the article now passes my source review.--NØ 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your input and archiving are appreciated :D! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Guerillero

[edit]

Oppose

  • Sourcing issues
    • PatricCaird.com
    • ToonZone
    • Use of databases such as the LoC and the Big Cartoon DataBase
    • UWIRE
    • Animated Times
  • Prose issues
    • "It can be purchased on the iTunes Store and runs for 89 minutes"
    • Plot is overly detailed

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except for maybe Toon Zone per above comments, Guerillero, I cannot see any issue with the sources used. In particular, Caird's site feels fine when he composed this film's score. Not sure how much plot to cut when that already has been trimmed down from what it was this past December/January. Each detail included IS relevant. As for the iTunes bit, I hope cutting that to focus more on duration helps in some capacity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources need to be "high-quality reliable sources" not just reliable. I stand behind my review. Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're suggesting the Library of Congress isn't high quality!? That's quite frankly absurd. The least you could do is suggest how to revise the plot or give some useable links. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Copyright Office is an example of the use of databases for basic facts instead of secondary sources. (It's use doesn't support the statement it is used for)

The role of reviewers at FAC is to provide opinions as to how the article stacks again the criteria, not to find sources. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 18:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release/creation dates sound pretty basic to me and they CAN be found in the Copyright Office. You just have to click the link under "Full title" to see more details. I now have revised that link accordingly. In all honesty, your assessment of the refs outside of Toon Zone comes off as unfair, especially when mainstream media coverage of animated TV often is limited compared to what one would find for live action series/movies or even theatrically released animations. This means we sometimes have to look elsewhere for the best possible sources to use on things regarding cartoon shows (which is what I did prior to nominating for FA). You'd be hard-pressed to find much better things than what's already been added. Regarding the plot section, it isn't helpful at all too simply call that "too detailed" without elaborating on which parts could be cut without losing essential information. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guerillero, just checking if your oppose still stands? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Real life got busy. I am looking over this again today -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Are you certain? The whole point it tries to make is that this is the brother's debut appearance (after prior episodes only alluded to him) and that his name is never specified. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Credits adapted from The Big Cartoon DataBase.[1] - can we not say anything more helpful here? Like, give the readers an understanding as to what they are reading. I know the topic is "cast", but could easily say "below is a list of voice actors" or similar. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In The Complete Second Season DVD's "Behind the Eds" interview, he hinted that the film would reveal what is under Double D's hat, though this never occurred. A few episodes, such as "Run Ed, Run", implied that he is bald. - I don't really see what this has to do with this special. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Just a note - I don't really look at sourcing during my FAC reviews (unless something specific pops up), I see there are some comments on this above, so I wouldn't vouch for the quality of the sourcing used. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, Lee Vilenski! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NØ

[edit]

I support this nomination, pending however much importance coords decide to accord to the concerns others raised (I suppose it still being open is a good sign).--NØ 12:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my gratitude for doing so. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

[edit]

I'm going to focus on sources, since those seem to be the biggest issues here.

  • Sources 1, 6, 10, and 11 are database sources or the equivalent, and they really aren't that special – most TV episodes would have these sources.
  • Sources 2, 7, 9, and 12 are self-published sources, either directly or indirectly (via press releases).
  • Sources 4 and 5 only tangentially touch on the topic.

This leaves seven sources that could possibly be considered "reliable" and contribute to notability – the bare minimum for a stand-alone article. This would be sufficient for a typical article, but considering that WP:FACR requires high-quality sources, there are more issues.

The two remaining sources (8 and 17) are fine, but they're nowhere near enough to support a FA, in my opinion. I'm leaning oppose, unfortunately. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having only a brief mention doesn't negate reliability, RunningTiger123, even when less useful for building articles. Databases and self-published sources can also come in handy for basic information (which is what I used them for here). For the pieces that go into further depth, see the above discussion for deciding to use ref#3 (TheThings), which does have an editorial team and I'm not sure how that resembles Showbiz Cheat Sheet. Student newspapers might not be held in as high regard as most mainstream newspapers, but it's not like either of the ones implemented are used for anything controversial, only their opinions on the movie. Same goes for MovieAddictz and Animated Times. If I knew of any better things to include, then I already would've added those. Perhaps we just missed something that was published after I initiated the FAC? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the brief mentions/databases/self-published sources: Yes, they are still reliable sources, but my point was that there isn't a lot of high-quality coverage. It's one thing to fill in small gaps with those types of sources; it's another to base the majority of an article off of those.
  • Regarding TheThings: I hadn't seen that discussion. If consensus is to include it, then that's fine. I personally think it's clickbait (Title: "Why was it canceled?" → It wasn't, it was actually renewed for two seasons past its original end date) and should be replaced with a different source, especially since it's citing a random YouTube video as its source. Speaking of UGC...
  • Regarding lower-quality sources for opinions: If a source is not high-quality, then its reviews are basically just user-generated content, similar to any review you might find on IMDb, Metacritic fan ratings, etc. The college sources fall into this point (in my opinion) because there's no way to know if the authoring students are significant in any way. Also, the Vocal Media and Real Atlanta sources are UGC, as best as I can tell. The Screen Rant article basically says "the movie is a thing that exists", which isn't particularly strong coverage. The Collider article seems okay, though it's not enough to switch my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it might be worth, the YouTube video is from an IGN content host (something I noted earlier); GeekHeavy isn't simply a random user. Our next best option from what I can tell is to use a link that compiles tweets from a cast member (see above). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a borderline case. WP:RSPYT indicates that the credibility of a video is inherited from its creator. If this had been published via IGN directly I'd be good with it, but since it comes from someone who just happens to work there, it's not as strong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I myself would've preferred to see something uploaded through IGN's channel, but oh well. Added Collider in the meantime. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:39, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi RunningTiger123, just checking that you are still leaning oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'm not strongly opposed to this article, but I unfortunately find the sourcing to be of questionable quality, especially in the Reception section. I know it can be harder to find reviews for animated shows, but that doesn't mean we should allow lower-quality sources — Wikipedia articles, and especially FAs, should reflect the coverage in reliable, high-quality sources. If that coverage isn't there, adding questionable sources isn't the solution. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • How much do you believe adding interviews like this would help, RunningTiger123? It admittedly is rather long (over 2 hours), but does feature discussion of the writing process for the film. Maybe Danny Antonucci (the movie's director as well as a co-writer) has some other commentary on the matter. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have any issues with that source at first glance (though it leans closer to UGC because the podcast isn't particularly notable, and UGC isn't ideal). But it doesn't address any of the issues regarding reception. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: - At two months in and multiple oppose/lean opposes, I'm going to be archiving this. The usual two-week waiting period for renomination does apply. I would strongly recommend working with RunningTiger123 and Guerillero about their sourcing concerns before renominating. Hog Farm Talk 13:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 July 2022 [6].

Evelyn Gandy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Evelyn Gandy, the first woman elected to a statewide constitutional office in the American state of Mississippi, and the first woman to serve as a lieutenant governor in the Southern United States. Ambitious from a young age, she was the only woman in her law school class and even served as the school's student body president before being hired as a research assistant by Senator Theodore Bilbo. In that capacity she ghostwrite his book outlining and defending his racist views. From there she trailblazed her way through state government, serving variously as a legislator, welfare commissioner, state treasurer, and insurance commissioner, before being elected lieutenant governor in 1975. Her politics were something of a mixed bag of reform and status quo. Her two subsequent gubernatorial campaigns were narrowly brought down due to her gender and her old views on race, which she repudiated. Considered something of an enigma in her day by her contemporaries and distrusted by black leaders of the time for her erstwhile segregationist platform, in death she has become a hero of Mississippi feminists for overcoming a fair amount of sexism to achieve her career aspirations. Before she was buried, she broke through one final barrier by being the first woman to lie in state at the Mississippi Capitol Building. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF Will review at some point over the next three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was her Mississippi House seat a 4-year term or multiple terms?
    • Single term, clarified.
  • Is it worth noting who she lost re-election to in 1952?
    • Neither the Brown et al. nor the Hawks et al. papers say who she lost to (election was in 1951 btw, Mississippi state officials are usually seated at the beginning of the year following their election)
  • The link for the War Between the States goes to Names of the American Civil War, would it be better to link it directly to the Civil War article? (War Between the States and The War Between the States target different articles)
    • Relinked to the Civil War, though her choice of language was certainly geared towards invoking the Lost Cause feelings which the names article explains.
  • I think a sentence or two explaining how the primary/runoff system worked would be useful - I can't tell if the second place finisher had the right to call for a runoff in certain circumstances, or if this is a Louisiana primary-style thing where the runoff was automatically triggered if a certain condition wasn't met
    • I'm not finding very much information on the state's primary laws at the time. I know that if a candidate won over 50% of the first primary vote they would win the nomination outright and there could be no runoff. But it is not clear to me whether if no candidate took a majority that the second place finisher could concede to the plurality winner or if there was a required runoff.
  • "Her campaign literature omitted any mention of her employment under Senator Bilbo" - does the source specify if this was an attempt to distance herself from Bilbo's segregationist views?
    • Clarified that this is noteworthy because she had in years past billed her connections to Bilbo as a reason to vote for her. The source doesn't explicitly say why this was done, but the implication is that she was trying to modernize her style.
  • "It opened in 2006" - the highway itself opened, or the named stretch was dedicated, or something else? This isn't clear
    • Revised. The state stated it would name the parkway in 2002, but the actual roadway was not complete and open until 2006.
  • her Mississippi Encyclopedia entry (p. 487) notes that she "implemented a program to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of state funds to all banks across Mississippi", refers to the public school land leasing bill as "her most important legacy" and states that she received the Margaret Brent Award from the American Bar Association. (author is Martha Swain). Is any of that worth mentioning?
    • Gee don't know why I overlooked that. I've now incorporated these elements.

I think that's pretty much all from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a little; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • "Appealing more openly to women voters, her campaign issued special emery boards." Do we know what was special about them? And maybe "distributed" instead of "issued". And this might read better restructured a little: how about "Her campaign distributed special emery boards as part of an attempt to appeal more directly to women voters"?

Do you have a newspapers.com subscription? I see above that a reviewer asked for the name of her opponent in 1947; Arrington came second, per this and this which I just clipped. There's also this which shows some others were in the race. If you do have a subscription I would suggest running a few searches; if not I'd be happy to do some searches for you to see if I can find any scraps of information that could be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Re the emery boards: changed to "distributed", they were special because they carried campaign ads.
  • Re newspapers.com. No, I unfortunately do not have a subscription, which is a shame because I know they do have some editions of The Clarion-Ledger. I'll occasionally Google site search for newspapers.com but the results of that are variable. I found one or two clipped articles that mentioned Gandy but they had little information to add to the sources I'd looked through. I'd be very appreciative if you did a search on my behalf. I'd prefer to use more "article"-based material rather than the unofficial vote tabulations, if possible. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can get access via the Wikipedia Library, so you might consider that. Re the clippings, I agree you wouldn't want to use the unofficial vote counts, but I think those would be reliable sources for the names of the other candidates.

I'll add clippings here as find things that might be of interest. There might be too many to really go through in detail but I'll see what I can come up with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clippings
[edit]

I'm aware that some of these won't have sufficent notability for you to include the material, but since you know the topic and I don't I figured I could leave the editorial decisions to you.

  • She was a local officer of the National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs in 1951-52 and was an officer at the state level too. [7]
    • And from this it appears the state position was 2nd VP.
    • Added, first article actually mentions the state position too.
  • You don't say in the article what district she represented; it was Forrest County.
  • This gives the name of her opponent and the vote count for the 1951 election loss.
    • Added her opponent's name.
  • Official results from the 1951 election.
  • She won a 1941 statewide oratorical contest; I see you have that in the article but this gives the date.
    • Added.
  • Number of women in the MS legislature in 1951 and how they fared in the election.

That's from searching for her name restricted to a date range of 1951. I'll have a look through the article for other possible good searches but let me know if there's anything you'd like me to look for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From 1939:

  • A long speech by Gandy supporting Paul B. Johnson Sr.'s candidacy for Governor. She apparently was a neighbour and friend; his son is the one who appointed her to one of her state posts.
  • And she worked on his campaign. There are other articles mentioning her in similar contexts.
    • Added, since she served in the "speaker's bureau" I presume the bulk of her campaign role was delivering public addresses on his behalf.
  • Another speech. Ouch: "a pretty seventeen year old". And she was actually eighteen.
    • Yeah, the ""A Lady of Many Firsts": Press Coverage of the Political Career of Mississippi's Evelyn Gandy, 1948-83" academic paper makes note of the instances of patronizing news coverage she was subjected to.
  • She won a $50 scholarship competition; rather minor, but worth $1,000 in today's money so not to be sneezed at.
    • I honestly feel that's still rather minor, all things considered. I went to a quality public high school, probably a third of my friends got offered some money/minor scholarships when applying for college.

Are these useful? I can post more if you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More clippings
[edit]
  • Here is her election to 1st VP of the B&PW in 1952
    • Included.

For her government tenure I'll search by the years she was there:

1947 & 1948:

  • Autobiographical notes in her 1947 candidacy announcement here and here.
  • 1947 election. This makes it sounds as though she beat Arrington in a run-off, which would explain the widely separated dates on some of the other results I found, but also that this was just a Democratic primary, not the final election. Yet I don't see anything from November, which is when I would have expected the actual election to be.
  • It was definitely a primary run-off.
  • But there's also no question that she became state rep after the primary run-off, which means I don't understand how the elections worked in MS in 1947. This is unambiguous.
    • No worries, the Mississippi Republican Party did not functionally exist during this time, so winning a Democratic primary was tantamount to election. Many old Mississippian newspapers thus treat it this way. The Republican in the 1947 Mississippi gubernatorial election got 2% of the vote, and that was the only time the Republicans fielded a gubernatorial candidate between 1881 and 1963. The first Republicans weren't elected to any minor office in the 20th century until the 1960s.
      Very interesting. Can we source some statement like that to add here, maybe as a footnote? Incidentally, in the article you link, the vote numbers don't seem to match between the infobox and the body of the article -- if you've not been involved with the article I'll leave a note on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't done much on the election articles. It would appear that whoever wrote that combined the totals of the last two finishers in the Democratic primary and added them to Wright's total, possibly because they thought that was better than cramming two minor candidates into the main infobox? Not a good method, obviously.
  • Work with Child Welfare Divison
    • Included.
  • On University and College Committee
    • Included.
  • Introduces and passes bill
    • Included.

There are multiple references to her involvement with memorial plans for Senator Bilbo; I haven't clipped those but can.

You may decide not to use most of these, but at least a couple seem useful. This is for just two years -- I imagine there will be twenty times this many articles to look through if I go through the rest of her career in government. I wonder if it would be better to withdraw the FAC and go through this material on the article talk page, then bring the article back here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: If you're willing to clip articles for me. The fact that the Hattiesburg American (Gandy's hometown paper) is in the archive means you'll be sifting through a lot of material. The Clarion-Ledger will also prove useful. It will take some time to sift out the wheat from the chaff. I'm confident this article has good bones, but I presume the newspapers might have some meat worth considering. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd be happy to keep clipping. It will take a little while -- there were around 80 articles to look through for 1948 alone. I'll do 1949 next and will post on the talk page; either this morning or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Note that the usual two week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 July 2022 [8].

This Year's Model

[edit]
Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. Even better than his debut My Aim Is True, Model really shows the artist and band at their best in terms of songwriting and musicality. I've been rebuilding a few of Costello's albums from the ground up now and I believe this one is ready for the star. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver

[edit]

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver Would appreciate feedback sooner rather than later. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

[edit]

(1) Lead section. Use of the word 'viscious' seems a quote of Costello in his interview but you do not quote this word in quote marks. Suggest you quote it, or change it to 'cynical' or 'sarcastic' without quote marks.

(2) Side one section. It seems like a good idea to quote Elvis's opening words which kick off the song. Direct quote of the first 9-10 words before the band kicks in.

Its "I don't want to see you, I don't want to touch." Its surprising to see that none of the songs on this album have a Wikipedia page. It would be nice to see the opening lyrics from this song in this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Packaging and artwork section. Its obvious, but mention that he is photographed in his signature black frame glasses.

(4) Critical reception section. It says that it was album of the year 1978 here, but its not stated as such in the lead section. Album of the year for the Village Voice is worth putting in lead section.

  • I mean "appeared on several year-end lists" I think makes that clear. And is it? Since it appeared on multiple lists stating an American publication and not the others seems odd to me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The phrase "ranked as one of Costello's best...", may look better as, "ranked as among Costello's best...".

(6) No Legacy section? No one has ever tried to copy one of his songs with any success?

There is a duet with Elvis Costello & Billie Joe Armstrong doing No Action. Since there are no singles articles from this album on Wikipedia (other than Radio, Radio?), then it would be nice to see a Legacy section for the album and its hits, listing any notable covers which might be out there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Wasn't able to find much stuff on potential legacy, unlike something like Low. If we go on a song-by-song basis I guess we could add something like that, or Linda Rondstadt's covers, or even Olivia Rodrigo's potential plagiarism of "Pump It Up" for "Brutal". But then again, I'd want legacy or influence to about the album as a whole rather than that. Might be just a me thing. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should serve as some start comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of optional further edits that I am listing above which you might add to the article, and I'm supporting this nomination. The article already has a top to bottom copy edit from its good GAN and the sources are well-developed and comprehensive. Supporting this nomination. If you have time to make some comments, then I've put in a nomination for the pop music group BTS for possible support/oppose comments from you if you can get around to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Cool, this is one of my all-time favourite albums and I always had it at the back of my mind I'd like to expand it someday, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) (Ha, it looks like I made two edits to this in 2006 but haven't edited it since.) I will try to review this soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in my impressionable mid-teens I'm pretty sure it what sparked my interest in this was the 1987 Rolling Stone issue ranking it #11 best album of the last 20 years. I was instantly won over by its energy and catchy hooks, and have been a big fan ever since. OK, enough gushing, better get started with the review!

First read-through:

  • Critical reception: "calling the album "more potent" than its Aim". Should this be "its predecessor Aim" or is this meant to be part of the direct quote? If it's not part of the direct quote (this may be personal preference but) it feels a bit casual to me for an encyclopedia article to use a shortened version of the album name. But if you disagree, no worries (I know I've seen other people in Wikipedia do that kind of thing, so again, it may be personal preference).
  • "In the midst of the punk movement, Christgau dismissed This Year's Model as punk rock, but acknowledged the genre's influence on the album and artist". How I naturally read "dismissed as" is meaning "dismissed as being" which I understand from the context is the opposite meaning to what is intended here. How you intend it is also a valid reading, but would it be possible to rewrite this so there is no ambiguity? Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrospective appraisal: "finding the material "gall"... He considered the package "unfeasibly invigorating" following its "mild-mannered" predecessor, but commended Lowe's production." I found this confusing—not sure what the overall message is supposed to be. "Invigorating" has a positive connotation, "unfeasibly" perhaps not, "but...commended" suggests what follows is good and what precedes is bad. Also "gall" seems to be used as an adjective, a usage I'm not familiar with and didn't immediately find with a quick internet search. Also, while I'm in this section, "package" seems a bit of a casual usage to me (at first I assumed it was talking about the packaging). Could I suggest Jim Irvin's section be reworked? Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Model: This seems like a run-on sentence: "La Marisoul, a huge fan of Costello's, felt honoured to sing "Little Triggers", now titled "Detonantes", who approached the track by saying "Okay, I'm gonna live in these lyrics." Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Model: I wonder if it might be worthwhile to mention the release date of September 2021 earlier in this section. The start of this section mentions 2018 and then "led Costello to conceive reimagining the entirety of This Year's Model in Spanish". For three or four paragraphs, I was assuming this was shortly after, but finally realized it didn't happen for another three years. I guess I could have looked at the infobox, which I didn't. I don't know, it's just an idea to fit in mention of the release date earlier somehow, but if it proves not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have any time this weekend but hopefully can start my second read-through early next week. While doing the second read-through, I'll try to have a think about the question about the Spanish Model chronology. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting second read-through:

  • Lead: "received critical acclaim, with many highlighting the songwriting, artist and band performances, and appeared on several year-end lists": Hard to parse and possibly ungrammatical. Is this supposed to mean "the artist was praised and the band performances were praised" or "the performances by the artist and band were praised"? If it's the former, "many highlighted the artist" seems questionable as a construction; if it's the latter, the sentence as a whole is incorrect with the verb "appeared" at the end. In any case, the parsing is ambiguous and I recommend reworking the sentence.
  • Background: "Wanting only himself on guitar,[5] the first person hired was Pete Thomas": Seems like a dangling modifier, as "wanting" is meant to modify Costello, but in this construction it modifies "the first person hired". Moisejp (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 3 October, the group embarked on another tour with other Stiff artists": the full wiki-linked name of Stiff Records appears after this instead of at its first mention here. Moisejp (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the meantime, Costello had amassed a large amount of new material": Mini-suggestion to changed "amassed" to "written" as it's more specific and may be clearer. Moisejp (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the debut, Lowe primarily wanted to capture the songs live with few overdubs ... Having frequently played the tracks live, the band were able to complete them with few overdubs": There is some repetition here; if both points are important, maybe try to find a way to to join these together. Moisejp (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Thomson, the sessions were vibrant and productive.": Consider combining this more with what is said before and after this by Thomas and Béchirian. There seems to be some overlap, but "According to" somewhat isolates what Thomson said, as though others may not necessarily have agreed. Moisejp (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tour of America in January": Minor suggestion to change "America" to "the United States" (or "North America" if any Canadian cities were possibly included on the tour). Moisejp (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]
  • I seem to be 300km away from the nearest library copy of Perone's The words and music of Elvis Costello, but looks like it could be a valuable source, from the preview pages. If you have access to the relevant chapter, I think it can provide some further material. I can't say it's an essential source, but it does look like it might be useful. (I did have a browse of Perone's Elvis Costello: A Bio-Bibliography earlier today, but that has only a dozen pages of biography preceding lengthy discographies and a bibliography.)
  • I just bought the book cuz why not. Figure I'll be doing quite a few more of his anyways. I'll see what I can dim I'll probably be making quite a few new additions. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the sleeve notes as a source, except for the catalogue number, seems a bit like original research. I think the St Michael source (page 34) supports the content without needing to add the sleeve notes. The Attractions weren't named on the cover, but they were pictured (on the back, with Costello), I believe. Might be worth mentioning that, if it's in reliable sources.
  • If it's in reliable sources, consider mentioning:
  • there were videos for "(I Don't Want To Go To) Chelsea", "Pump It Up", and "Radio, Radio". (The "Pump It Up" one is mentioned in passing under the Spanish Model part of the article.)
  • "This Year's Girl"/"Big Tears" was released as a single in the US.
  • Unfortunately none of the bios discuss non-UK singles either; definitely not as in-depth as Bowie (ugh). I'll check out some websites but I don't recall many mentioning them. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clayton-Lea writes that most of the relationships in the songs concentrate on the artist failing to get the girl" seems quite a close paraphrasing of "..mostly concentrated on how Costello failed to get the girl" (p.38)
  • "provokes and invokes" - I couldn't see this in the St. Michael book. Which page is it from?
  • What makes acclaimedmusic.net a reliable source?
  • It's just an aggregate website similar to Metacritic. It's only being used for overall album rankings and nothing else. I used it in my previous FAs Hunky Dory and Low and they passed just fine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for specifying the nationalities of "American writer Jon Pareles" and " English writer Colin Larkin"?

Comments from magiciandude

[edit]

Withdraw request

[edit]
Gog the Mild Hey Gog you can go ahead and archive this. I'm going on vacation in less than two weeks and was hoping this would be further along by now but with where it stands I'd like to just start over when I get back. Since I opened this I've also gotten a few more books I haven't utilized yet that would just change things a decent amount for commentators already here. So I'd appreciate if you or one of the other coordinators could just archive it for the time being. Thanks and appreciate it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 July 2022 [9].

Leonard Neale

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another article in the Georgetown University presidents series and the last necessary to promote its topic from Good to Featured status, an uncommon event! This article is a GA and I believe it meets FA standards. Plus, the subject's brother, Francis Neale, is already a FA. Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Leonard_Neale_portrait.jpg: is there a source indicating pre-1927 publication? The copyright info provided at the source is self-contradictory
  • File:Leonard_Neale.jpg includes an 1891 published source but also a claim of unpublished - these seem to contradict each other. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on tracking these down. Ergo Sum 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers

[edit]

Nice read, an intersection of topics about which I know very little.

I'm assuming this chap was the first Roman Catholic bishop consecrated after independance, and that others had been consecrated in the 13 states before the revolution? Either way it might be worth qualifying this, with maybe a footnote or see also for any earlier consecrations in Miami or New Orleans.
As far as I can tell, Neale was, in fact, the first bishop ordained in any of the territory that is today the United States, including areas that were not part of the 13 colonies. I don't have any indication that bishops were ordained before Neale in Florida, Louisiana, or the Spanish missions in California or the Southwestern U.S. Do you have a source that says there were? Ergo Sum 11:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Puerto Rico had bishops for at least two centuries before that I'd be surprised if this was the first consecration on what is now US territory, but the few I've checked do seem to have been consecrated in Europe and sent out. Can I suggest a rephrase to clarify that it was the first Roman Catholic consecration in what is now the continental United States, as I read the article as just claiming he was the first consecrated after independence. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he became Archbishop after becoming bishop I'd be tempted to swap those two round in the lede, unless there is a pressing reason for the reverse chronology?
With biographies in general and religious biographies in particular, I've noticed that the highest title attained always goes first, unless that person held many titles of comparable stature. Here, Neale's most significant office was certainly Archbishop of Baltimore, so I think it belongs in the first sentence. Ergo Sum 11:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole suppression and restoration of the Jesuits saga seems underplayed in the article. Unless he left the Jesuits for part of his career or the Jesuits were tolerated where he was? ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a whole article on its own. I'm not sure what else that is relevant to Neale can be added. There is already mention of the suppression, how that impacted Neale's plans, and a whole paragraph about his advocacy for the restoration of the Jesuits. Ergo Sum 11:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, WereSpielChequers. I've left some comments above. Ergo Sum 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this has timed out.
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 July 2022 [10].

USS Johnston (DD-557)

[edit]
Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is finally my great pleasure to submit to FAC the fightin'est ship the US Navy ever saw. This article is about the destroyer Johnston, famed for its two-hour brawl with basically the whole Japanese surface fleet in October 1944. If it is not the most famous destroyer to ever sailed, or even the most famous US destroyer, then it is certainly the most famous the 175 Fletcher-class destroyers. Speaking of, I hope this to be the first of a long, long line of submissions to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to MILHIST A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All of the images have licenses that seem feasible, but all of the source links are currently dead. Not sure if that's a permanent problem, but if it persists in a day or two I would suggest looking at archives or updated links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Suggest running the first paragraph of the lead straight into the second.
  • "the Liberation of the Philippines." I suspect that should be a lower case l. Do a majority of hte HQRSs capitalise liberation?
    • A cursory search on Google Books would imply "no", so I've lower-cased "liberation" (I've changed the second instance of "Liberation of the Philippines" to a piped link, "invade the Philippines"). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 25 October 1944, Johnston ... were engaged by a large Imperial Japanese Navy flotilla." Could we have an introduction to this? If only 'While doing this ...' or similar.
  • "with 187 losses". By "losses", do you mean 'killed'?
    • Yes; changed (and the sentence shortened by removing the mention of the Johnston' being crewed by 327 personnel.)
  • "which included Evans." → 'including Evans.'
  • "Johnston was laid down in May 1942 and was launched a little more than a year later." The article states "Her launch ... took place on 25 March 1943." This is not "a little more than a year later."
  • "Design and characteristics" section: I think that it would be helpful to introduce this section with something like 'USS Johnston was a Fletcher-class destroyer built for the US Navy.'
  • Somewhere in the article could what "DD-557" means be explained.
  • "The Fletcher-class destroyers were designed, beginning in October 1939, to be large enough to". This is an odd construction, usually dates are at the start of a sentence. 'Beginning in October 1939, the Fletcher-class destroyers were designed to be large enough to' reads more felicitously to my eye.
  • "to be large enough to adequately carry the armament of the preceding Gleaves-class destroyers." Does this mean that the Gleaves-class destroyers were not large enough to adequately carry their armament? Is any further information on the Fletchers' design specification or requirements known?
  • Link "standard load" and "full load".
  • "and 0.5 inches (13 mm) on the deck over its machinery". Was the rest of the deck armoured? If not, is in known what it was made of?
  • "five dual-purpose 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal. guns". Were they in single mounts? Where on the vessel were they positioned?
  • "Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System"; "Mark 27 Torpedo Fire Control System"; "Mark 27 Depth Charge Fire Control System"; "Mark 51 Fire Control System". Why all the upper case initial letters?
  • "at the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation's yard". Is it known where this was located?
  • "fitted out into early November." Should "into" be 'in'?

I am going to pause here. Vami_IV, this is looking distinctly under-prepared for FAC. While some of the above is minor, some is not, and there are a lot of issues given that I have not yet got into the meat of the article. I am thinking that withdrawal, a visit to PA and possibly GoCE prior to a renomination may be the way to go. Or are you quite confident that things will improve once I move into service history? Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will act on these comments and withdraw the nomination. Feel free to make further comments on the talk page; we only stand to gain from them. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • A revised edition of Friedman was published last year
  • Conway's is an anthology with chapters by different authors
  • Rohwer is the 3rd edition and needs the full subtitle added
  • The DANFS entry needs a date
  • While I appreciate your use of Hornfischer and McComb, I'm afraid that I cannot regard Morison and Roscoe as highly reliable sources due to their age and lack of access to Japanese sources
  • I'd strongly suggest cross-referencing Hornfischer's account of Johnston's final action with the individual Japanese ship pages on combinedfleet.com to see exactly which ships engaged the destroyer at which time and any effects their fire might have had on the ship.
  • While I'm not fully up to date on recent publications on the Battle of Leyte/off Samar, I've found Milan Vego's The Battle for Leyte, 1944: Allied and Japanese Plans, Preparations, and Execution and John Prados's Storm over Leyte: The Philippine Invasion and the Destruction of the Japanese Navy helpful for my Japanese ship articles that were involved in the battles.
  • Oppose--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2022 [11].

William Utermohlen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a long while improving this article (about ten months, seven on FAC). The only reason I am here again is because I want to be finished with this; I'm just kind of tired of this and want to focus on my other projects now.

William Utermohlen was an artist that was active for around four decades. When he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1995, he tried to understand what was happening to him the only way he could, art. for about six years, ending in around 2001, he created a series of self-portraits that show the effects of the disease on his art. The portraits show several emotions, but Nicci Gerrard summarised it as "emotional modernism".

This originally started in July 2021 as a hobby, I did'nt originally want to get this to the bronze star or, even GA status. But I felt like it could become an FA after it did become a GA in October. After seven months and three unsuccessful attempts, this is going to be the last attempt. Once I am done with this FAC, I am done with trying to improve this article. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Realmaxxver! Obviously it's not encouraging not to succeed at FAC, but when I look at the article now versus when it first showed up here, I am wowed by the great improvement that was made. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ping commentators on previous FAC: Wetrorave, DMT Biscuit, Ceoil, asking if your concerns were addressed (t · c) buidhe 22:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also JBchrch, SandyGeorgia (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of prose issues throughout still, and I'm not sure the Neurology Today article has been completely tapped (as I mentioned in FAC 2); I am unsure how quickly I can do a thorough review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, I might give another run through re prose/MOS, which might take a few days, so no panic there for now. Will update when Neurology Today is better incorporated, so hold tough for now. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be able to do a full review, but I see that substantial additions have been made about the medical analysis of the case in the #Legacy section since the last time I checked [12], which addresses the concerns I had. Perhaps it could be improved and more sources could be added, but I'm not opposing. Whatever the outcome will be I am admirative of @Realmaxxver's commitment. JBchrch talk 14:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biscuit

[edit]
  • "He moved to London in 1962 and married the art historian Patricia Redmond in 1965." - how relevant towards the lede is this?
    Very relevant. He was an anglophile, married an English woman, and was heavily influenced by Francis Bacon. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication seems like a misnomer. Maybe explain the relationship between Utermohlen and the journal.
  • "He experienced memory loss beginning in 1991" → "He experienced memory loss, which began in 1991.
  • "which included two years in the Caribbean" - relevance?
    It was two years of his early life, and mentioned in the early life section. Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Chris Boicos, Utermohlen's art dealer, said that the subject matter of the lithographs were a metaphor for the forthcoming Alzheimer's disease diagnosis a year later" - admittedly, I am somewhat lost with this. Is it implying that Utermohlen was aware/surmised that he was in falling into the thralls of dementia? If he was aware/foresaw and the metaphor is intentional then that should be reflected by the prose.
    Now restated as the lithographs "...are described by his art dealer Chris Boicos as a seeming premonition of the artist's Alzheimer's disease diagnosis made in the following year.[46] By the time Utermohlen completed the lithographs, he was often forgetting to show up for teaching appointments.[47]" Ceoil (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking due to her citation in a non-academic text, what is Leslie Millin's credentials. Reflect in prose.
    A generalist journalist. Restated as "Writing for the Queen's Quarterly, the journalist Leslie Millin" Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)u[reply]
    "Polini states that the cycle also had elements of war, alongside the cycles Dante and War" - Polini is mentioned by surname before his introduction.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "created by Rembrandt; describing" - semi-colon to a comma and describing to a more smooth synonym (contending, writing...etc)
    Reworded as A 2013 article in The Lancet compared his work to Rembrandts self-portraits, and ... Ceoil (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilink neuroimaging.
    Good catch. Done Ceoil (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please contine DMT. Ceoil (talk)
  • No, I am very much done. If realmaxxer has no objections, I am happy to support on the basis of the above resolutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT Biscuit (talk • contribs) 13:46, June 13, 2022 (UTC)

Comments fromSupport by Ceoil

[edit]

My concerns re comprehensiveness in the last few noms are largely met. Closer look to follow with a week or so. I expect to support. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are Sherry Irvin and Alan E. H. Emery (ie say for eg the critic Sherry Irvin etc).
I dont speak citation templates, but things like p 42-43, should be pp. 42-43
To co-ords, have commentated extensively on the last 3 FACs. Closing out here. Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have read through a number of times, now inclined to support on content and prose. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

[edit]

I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki..... Re the footnote "He was able to travel through Europe through the G.I. Bill, which he gained from his additional service in the Vietnam War". The article says that he completed his military service, and I think the European travel, before I thought the US got involved in the Vietnam War. Would you mind checking your source on that one? If indeed he did serve in the Vietnam war it would likely have been later and unless he was there as a war artist, an odd digression in a career such as his. ϢereSpielChequers 19:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Ceoil, I may not be the most prolific FAC reviewer, but I thought that all wikipedians were potential FAC voters and that my dozens of FAC reviews had counted. As for my taking 24 hours to respond to a reply to a query I made 11 days earlier...... We all take the occasional day off. ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks RealMaxxver, it would make sense that the portraits alluded to the Vietnam War - as an American in London in the late 60s he won't have been able to avoid the biggest topic of the day. But being influenced by the main issue of the day and going to fight in that war are very different things. It is possible that he benefited from the GI Bill, though I think it financed education rather than travel. Are there any other parts of the article as contributed by "Thegreatsoldiers" still in the article where you haven't yet reviewed the content to make sure they reflect what is actually referenced? If so would you be able to check or remove them?ϢereSpielChequers 08:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies WereSpielChequers, to acknowledge that you are an experienced reviewer, and as I mentioned have gravitas, and to be sure you have picked over and helped bring a few of my own noms, it just seemed that the stuff was passing, and didnt want the nom to be held waiting for you to ok an uncontroversial removal. That said, I'll get my coat. Ceoil (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ps, your substantive point isnt being ignored....hold on....Ceoil (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from PMC

[edit]

Hello! Saw the request for image review on the request template so I thought I'd chip in.

I see no concerns with the image use. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

[edit]
Viewing this version of 28 June
There are still medical issues in this article. Was there an autopsy? I see no indication that there was, so his diagnosis could not have been AD (it would have been probable AD). That's why Crutch et al use language like "probable" AD and "consistent with AD". The case report upon which other sources are based does not misuse the diagnostic terminology. They say "We have reported the case of a 66-year-old man with probable Alzheimer’s disease fulfilling DSM-IV criteria.". See Alzheimer's disease#Criteria for "probable" and "possible"; definitive diagnoses of conditions like AD and dementia with Lewy bodies require an autopsy. This problem permeates the article. His diagnosis is presumed, as stated by Crutch, unless there was an autopsy. Also, the article describes him broadly as having "memory loss" (nonspecific), while Crutch points out that he was able to continue drawing because he had relatively preserved visual memory, which is uncommon in AD. Crutch speculates about why he had this uncommon preserved visual memory, which is another indication that an autopsy would have been needed to establish a definitive diagnosis.

Awkward prose:

  • "At the time, that section of Philadelphia was split along language lines; his family would've been in the German-speaking part of the city, but inward migration across the United States resulted in their living in the Italian bloc." I'm not sure what that means.
  • Due to racial tensions, Utermohlen's parents did not allow his venturing outside of his immediate surrounding. ... did not allow him to venture ... ?
  • Thought what ? "He earned a scholarship at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts (PAFA) in 1951 where he was thought by the realist artist Walter Stuempfig."

Skipping down a few sections ...

  • The Conversations paintings are described by the French psychoanalyst Patrice Polini as Utermohlen attempt to establish the events of his life before memory loss.

Skipping down further:

  • Alan E. H. Emery believes that the progressive effects of Alzheimer's gives neurologists "an opportunity to study how [Alzheimer's] affects an artist's work over time," adding that it can also gives a unique method of studying detailed change in perception, and how it can be linked to localised cerebral functions. He concluded by stating that documenting the change over time with neuroimaging could help us understand the relationships between the cognitive and visual pathways.
    • First, this is too close paraphrasing, borderline possible copyvio.
    • Second, "it can also gives" ... copyedit needs apparent.
    • Third, the conclusion is faulty. The conclusion given in that paper is about multiple conditions, not just Utermohlen's presumed AD.
    • And finally, the reader is unlikely to know what the unlinked "cognitive and visual pathways" means.
  • Patricia covered the mirrors in their house because he was afraid of what he saw there, and would no longer used them for self-portraits. ... would no longer used them ...
  • The article refers to "the research team at The Lancet" ... ???? ... researchers have their work published in journals; Crutch et al were not a Lancet research term.
  • Sherri Irvin is described as "he" and misspelled as Sherry ("Sherry Irvin says that the portraits show the "perceptual and cognitive disturbances" that are common within Alzheimer's, while also having "remarkable stylistic features, [rewarding] serious efforts of appreciation and interpretation."[112] He notes that their ...") And she doesn't seem to have medical credentials, so why are we highlighting medical statements made by her in an art journal? I'm not seeing what background she has to comment on perceptual or cognitive disturbances in neurodegenerative conditions.

I haven't read further as there are basic copyedit needs. Also, I have repaired the dashes and inconsistent dates, but MOS:LQ attention is needed. And there are HarvRef errors. Attention is also needed to linking medical terminology. This is a worthy effort, but I must regretfully Oppose, as this article is not yet near promotion. Should it approach promotion, a source-to-text check should be undertaken by a medical editor who understands the nuance. I have not read the entire article; these are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I revisit the article, I have found more copyedit needs ... the lead has "He relocated to Massachusetts in 1972 teach art at Amherst College before returning to London in 1975." --> TO teach art ... this is a problem throughout the article, and I've only offered samples of why the nomination should probably be withdrawn, copyedited, and gone through by a medical editor to reduce undue mention of some speculation and correct some medical nuance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal request

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I give up. I am not doing this anymore. I am never going to finish this. I don't want to. When I thought about doing this in October, I was stupid, and I kind of still am for trying to get this to FA after that first attempt failed. To all of the people that have reviewed in the four attempts, I'm sorry for wasting your time. I'm moving on now. Realmaxxver (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2022 (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/July_2022&oldid=1101305324"