Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2021

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [1].

Steve Davis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC), User:The Rambling Man[reply]

This article is about one of the most important snooker players of all time. Davis is a six-time world champion, and absolutely dominated the 1980s, winning 28 world ranking tournaments and a further 56 invitational devices. Three times a winner of the Masters, Davis was also a master of nine-ball, poker and chess during his professional career from 1976 to 2016. Gaining an MBE in 2000, Davis is also the only snooker player to win the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, and was part of the most viewed broadcast on BBC2 and post midnight at the 1985 World Snooker Championship.

I think the article is fantastic, so I would like your comments as to how this looks alongside my other nominator The Rambling Man. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

[edit]

I may claim Wikicup points, if I consider my review substantial enough. Will probably add my comments in a few batches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • No mention of Frank Callan?
    • I have added a mention. I'm sure there's loads of sourcing about it, but other than him being the coach, there's not much to say. Happy to add a quote if Davis says something specific. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Pocket Money, Gordon Burn notes how Davis had never publicly mentioned Callan and how "Stalin-like, [Callan] has been written out of all the official Davis histories." Seems like Bill Davis and Callan clashed, but given how Griffiths, Hendry, Mountjoy and others have spoken about Callan, it seems very possible that Callan was important for Davis's development and success. He's mentioned now, so cool. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s? I think these were pretty significant for the later development of snooker, and he was the headliner IIRC.
  • No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements? The ratio of his other income to prize money appears in quite a few sources.
    • Any examples? I feel it's a bit of a throwaway thing, other than his relationship with Hearn being monetary in nature, Davis isn't a businessman; and this is a bio about a snooker player. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "At 29, Davis is the game's first millionaire. … cued his way to 255,000 pounds sterling ($510,000 Cdn.) in tournament winnings last year, while endorsements and exhibitions boosted his income to about $1.5 million … Davis has a five-year, $1-million pound contract with a brewery that calls for him to devote 40 days a year on their behalf - at roughly $10,000 a day. His other endorsements include men's toiletries, luggage, watches and, of course, snooker equipment"[1]
      • "his season's earnings in official prize money to a record$A1.06 million. And it is estimated that he earned the best part of another million in restricted tournaments, exhibitions, endorsements and sponsorships … By 1981, the year in which he won the championship for the first time, he was already a millionaire. It is accepted that he has earned a million pounds a year ever since."[2]
      • "Courage’s original agreement to become patron to Davis made him the best-paid sportsman in Britain"[3]
      • "Hearn and Davis need each other"; coverage of Hong Kong trip, and Riley and Goya deals.[4]
        • and another: Dominic Sandbrook, Who Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. London: Allen Lane. 2019. ISBN 978-1-846-14737-1 p.492 : "[Davis] was not merely an exceptional sportsman but an exceptional business, cashing in on the transformtion in snooker's image ...[By 1985] he was raking in three times as much from endorsements, an estimated £600,000 a year, than he was from tournament prize money." BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my desktop view, the names of the tournaments in the performance and ranking timeline disappear when I scroll past a certain year, is there any way to make this a bit more reader-friendly?
  • Legacy section looks a little light, but let me have a look at sources to see if I have any more specific points/comments.
    • I agree there's room for improvement. You've certainly added some good sources below that would benefit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't read it as it's paywalled, but this might be interesting. There's a Eurosport article that might be useful here. The last couple of pages of the Davis chapter of Masters of the Baize are on Google Books (on my view), as is some of Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (see the start of chapter 7, for example). I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Lead

Images

Early career

Professional success (1980-1984)

  • "defeating defending champion Terry Griffiths in the second round" merits a little more detail, I think.
  • "Over the next 18 months, Davis won seven more events" - not verified by source, as far as I can see. (Seems that after the 1980 UK, he won the the English Professional, the Yamaha Masters, the 1981 World Championship and "The following season he won seven more titles" which would probably be ten in 18 months - I've not checked all the dates.)
  • "Davis followed up this with a 9–0 whitewash victory over Dennis Taylor in the International Open final" - sort of, but I think he lost to Griffiths in the Pontins Pro Championship and also won the Lang's Scottish Masters inbetween the world championship and the International Open (if Hayton has the sequence right).
  • "This began a six-month period in which Davis and Griffiths contested almost all the major tournament finals." - source?
  • "In doing so, Davis won a Lada car" - possibly worth mentioning that Lada were the sponsors of the tournament. Also, it feels like that belongs with the previous sentence rather than with "but lost 8–9 to Griffiths in the final"
  • "defeating Griffiths 9–6 in the final." - the source (and Hayton) say 9–5.
  • "falling to the Crucible curse" - I suppose a little poetic licence is allowed even in featured articles.
  • "he was the first player to retain his title at the Crucible Theatre – the venue for the event " - may be worth adding since when it was the venue.
  • How about adding when he first achieved the number one ranking?
  • Feels like this section is slightly out of balance with the Retirement (2010–2016) section, which looks like it has a higher proportion of match scores but for matches which are IMO less significant in his career. (e.g. "He qualified for the Shanghai Masters by defeating Alfie Burden 5–1 and Andrew Higginson 5–0, defeating Zhu Yinghui 5–1 to reach the last 32[116] before losing 4–5 to Ricky Walden" v "Davis reached the final by defeating White in the first round, Higgins in the second round, Griffiths in the quarter-finals and defending champion Cliff Thorburn in the semi-final." and "Davis also won the 1984 UK Championship, defeating Higgins 16–8 in the final".)

1985 World Snooker Championship

  • "lost only 23 frames en route to the final" - might be useful to add how many he won, to put the 23 in context.

Later world championship victories (1985–1989)

  • "The result did not affect his position at the top of the world rankings, since he had won the UK Championship, the Grand Prix and the British Open in the 1985–86 season.2 is not sourced.
  • "By the end of the 1980s, Davis was snooker's first millionaire" - fair interpretation of the source. The Evening Standard for 7 April 1983 says Davis was a millionaire, and there was a March 1985 edition of Sportsnight that said the same, so the current wording is supported but he was probably a millionaire earlier than it implies.

1990–2005

In other media

Legacy

  • "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories. His modern-era record of six world titles has been broken only by Hendry, and his six UK Championship titles has been bettered only by Ronnie O'Sullivan. Davis compiled over 300 competitive centuries during his career. " - all seems to be unsourced.

Personal life

  • "he is honorary president of the Snooker Writers' Association" - source is from 2005, is he still President?
  • "he is on the board of Leyton Orient F.C." - source is from 2011, is he still on the board?
  • "Davis lives in Brentwood, Essex" - source is from 2004, does he still live there?

Performance and Ranking Timeline

Career finals

Sources (I'll try and help where I can if you get stuck....)

  • What makes http://www.cuesnviews.co.uk/ a reliable source?
  • What makes https://www.snookerisland.com/ a reliable source?
  • What makes "The Mob Poker Database" a reliable source?
  • what makes britishcomedychannel.com a reliable source?
  • "Guinness Book of Snooker match report" - not sure what this source is. My book with this title is from 1982, and Guinness' The Records book was published in 1985 so neither of those could comment on a match in 1989.
  • "White Crowned Senior Champion". Archived from the original on 7 August 2011. Retrieved 24 May 2011." looks to be lacking publisher/site.
  • ""Champion of Champions Group Seeds Announced – Matchroom Sport". 17 October 2014. Archived from the original on 18 June 2015. Retrieved 21 October 2014." Publisher is part of the title.
  • "Davis, Steve (1989). The Official Matchroom 1990. Hamlyn" - looks like title is incomplete. (see comment under "In other media")
  • There's something odd about " "When Snooker Went Loopy". BBC. 20 November 2000. Archived from the original on 13 June 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2010." which looks like a BBC site but an IMDB archived page.
  • ""Snooker Loopy". Official Charts Company. Retrieved 5 February 2009." links to Square Dance Rap by Sir Mix-A-Lot.
  • "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005). Masters of the Baize: Cue Legends, Bad Boys and Forgotten Men in Search of Snooker's Ultimate Prize" I'm surprised to only see this used once. The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.
  • Snooker Scene refs aren't consistent. (Also, publisher was Everton's News Agency before Snooker Scene Ltd)
  • Notes section doesn't have any sources. I think this is the first snooker bio to be nominated for FA so I'd be interested to hear views on how far the contents of the performance and ranking timeline (progress, and statements like "not held" or "ranking tournament" or "did not participate") need to be sourced within a bio article.
  • Seems to be quite a high proportion of "World Snooker" and snooker.org sources, which is fine by me to confirm results, but would we be better with some more commentary from secondary sources? (I'll reflect on this after re-reading)
    • I mean, sure, but these are both independent sources in this case. I'd love to use news publications to talk about things, but they aren't all that indepth, especially for the smaller comps. I don't have the snooker scenes from anything earlier than this year, so the worldsnooker links were really helpful, and snooker.org is a good database for what we need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm happy for those sources for verifying the facts of results, dates, etc. I was thinking more of secondary sources for general commentary/analysis, like Black Farce and Cue Ball Wizards (nearly 60 references to Davis in the index, some of which likely lead to interesting stuff), Masters of the Baize, or Hayes's Snooker Legends and where are they now? There are also some older books like Trelford's Snookered and Burns's Pocket Money that cover a couple of years in depth (not just about Davis). There are a load of other 1980's books that talk about Davis but obviously recent publications would be preferable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The archive for "Boniface, Susie (6 March 2005). "Steve's Cutie". Sunday Mirror(Questia Online Library). Archived from the original on 4 May 2021. Retrieved 4 April 2012." isn't very helpful
  • "Layton, Eric. Cuesport Book of Professional Snooker. pp. 159–160." name should be Hayton, as per "Hayton, Eric (2004). The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker. Suffolk: Rose Villa Publications. pp. 344–347. ISBN 978-0-9548549-0-4."
  • Inconsistent ISBN number format in the "Sources" section.
  • Thanks for the responses, Lee Vilenski, I haven't checked through them all yet, but will do. I need to have a look at a few sources to make any other specific suggestions about legacy etc. I haven't found a reliable source for the Hong Kong Gold Cup result - seems it wasn't covered by Snooker Scene unless I haven't found the right issue. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll re-read as a lot has been done on the article since I last looked at it, but the outstanding points from above are:
  • "Master Cueman" is not sourced in the article.
  • Link MBE in body? OBE (same target) is, but not everyone will know that MBE is part of the same Most Excellent Order.
  • "falling to the Crucible curse" - my point about "poetic licence" was that he lost to Knowles, not to this abstract concept.
  • "Davis won a record 83 professional titles and was the runner-up in 38 events, with 28 of these as ranking event victories" - BBC source has 28 ranking and 53 non-ranking (and 9 team) events, which would be a total of 81 (excluding team events). Our table lists 56 non-ranking wins, and I'm not going to guess which 53 are counted in the sources - possibly some not in our list. Perhaps a footnote? I didn't see "was the runner-up in 38 events" in the sources; if it's from the tables in the article then, again, maybe add a note to that effect?
  • Does he still live in Brentwood, Essex? In the absence of RS after 2004, reword or omit.
  • What are the sources for Pot Black performances? (Excluding the finals, which are cited in the article)?
  • Source used for 1989 Hong Kong Gold Cup doesn't have the final outcome or result.
  • "Williams, Luke; Gadsby, Paul (2005) ... The "detailed comparison and ranking of snooker professionals" is only 12 pages out of 235 in my edition so I think that's more a description of part of the contents rather than of the book as a whole.
  • Notes section doesn't have any sources - I'll wait and see what other reviewers think.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding points:

  • No mention in the text of the tours to China, etc in the 80s?
  • No mention of his off-table sponsorships/endorsements?
  • Legacy - "I suppose what I'm looking for in the article, ideally, is some comment or speculation (from suitable people) on why he was so successful, his influence on other players (e.g. style of play, general inspiration), him becoming the UK's highest paid sportsperson, and possibly something about his contribution to the growth of snooker worldwide." (Note "ideally", not "or else")
  • (Added 15/06) Is The Official Matchroom actually The Official 1990 Matchroom Snooker Special (isbn 0600566005)? If so, Ian Morrison is the author, although Davis wrote the introduction and, unlike Morrison, has his name on the cover. ("Introduced by world champion Steve Davis")

New points

Early success (1980–1984)

1985 World Snooker Championship

Oppose from Amakuru

[edit]

I feel really bad here, because I've worked a lot with Lee and TRM in the past and consider them to be very good wiki-friends. But without having gone into the detail yet I think there's a fairly fundamental balance issue in this article with the Career section. I ran a quick prose-size check on Sunday evening on the different subsections, and found the following:

Year range Bytes Words Bytes-per-year
1970-1979 1580 271 words 158
1980-1984 2323 385 words 464.6
1985 1082 184 words 1082
1985–1989 3258 569 words 651.6
1990–2005 1467 253 words 97.8
2005–2010 3855 652 words 771
2010–2016 4570 778 words 761.7

As we can see, the prose is heavily skewed towards the last ten years of Davis's career, a period which evidently wasn't his heyday. (He won all of his world titles in the 1980s). Looking at the narrative itself, it switches in 2005 from extremely broad-brush statements to suddenly having intricate detail of individual seasons, including individual scores in minor events such as the Australian Goldfields Open. By contrast, the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005 is the shortest of all the sections, with only two shortish paragraphs covering an entire period in which he was presumably a higher-profile player than he was in his twilight years.

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out why this phenomenon might have occurred, it's something we see across the Wiki: 2005 marked the point in time when our august project really hit the big time, and from that point on there would have been editors updating details of his tournaments on a daily basis, as and when they happened. This is why our article on John Isner, a decent tennis player but never anywhere near the best in the world, is significantly longer than Pete Sampras, one of the all-time greats.

It's totally understandable why this occurs, and at GA level I would rate this an easy pass. But for FAC, I think I regretfully have to fail this on both criterion 1b and criterion 4. The Career section needs to be written so that it:

  1. has significantly more detail on the earlier years (particularly that 1990–2005 period), to satisfy 1b "comprehensive", and probably
  2. a bit less detail on the 2005–2016 period, in order to satisfy criterion 4 "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". I doubt we'd want to include Australian Goldfields Open calibre events for every one of the 40 years he played!

Sorry again, but I'm not able to support at this time. If you're able to fix the above issues while the FAC is active, or if there's some fundamental detail that I've missed here, then I'll happily look again and also take a look at the prose and the other sections. There's no doubt this is well on the road towards being an FA, but for now I'll leave it there. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun an expansion of that particular section. There's still a bit more that can be added (I haven't gotten as far as 2000-05 yet), but we are already bordering on 200 bytes per year. I agree the later years are too in-depth (for the reasons you outlined), so I'll get on removing some fluff. I'd argue the 70s section is the right size, as he didn't turn professional until 78, perhaps a little more on his development in the early 80s. The later 80s looks about right, considering that's when he was the most popular, most famous snooker player on the planet.
Give me a day or two to fix, and I'll drop you a ping. Thanks for the in-depth statistics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting, that even after the cull, there are a lot more tournaments in the later seasons compared to those in the 1990s (6 per year against 20ish nowadays). I'm going to do a c/e and get back to you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru - I don't know if you mind having another look? Sorry it's been so long, I'm having a few issues offwiki; but if at all possible I'd still like to progress this. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: thanks for the note, and it's certainly looking much better now. That said, the "1990–2005" section is still giving me a cause for concern though. Is there no more detail that can be added to that? I'd favour splitting it into at least two, and bringing it up to having the same level of detail as we see in the post-2005 sections. Just as one example, we have "During the 1990s, Davis also won the Irish Masters four times: in 1990, 1991, 1993 and 1994"... this has no scores and no individual detail; yet below, we have match-by-match detail on all sorts of tournaments such as the Paul Hunter Classic, Shanghai Masters etc. Perhaps those are more important tournaments than the Irish Masters of the early 1990s, but in general I think the level of coverage needs to be consistent throughout his career for an FA. Regreta that this isn't the answer you want, but this is the gold-standard when it comes to article awards! (Also, the readable prose is at 25kB at the moment, so I don't think there's a danger of the article becoming too long). On the plus side, I'm confident that this can eventually make it, whether on this FAC or a future one, so please keep up the good work. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some additional to those sections. The issue is around the lack of tournaments during the late 90s and early 2000s, where the game was almost killed off. I'll do a bit more to cull some of the extrenous stuff from later years, as clearly the weight of his career is around his titles in the 90s. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: Ok thanks, let me know when you're done with that. By the way, ahead of more detailed analysis on this, I'm thinking that some expansion of his media career may be in order as well. Although obviously his career is the dominant aspect of his notability, I think he has become quite ubiquitous on the commentary at the crucible in recent years and I think it would be worth saying more than just the current one-liner "... is a commentator for the BBC's snooker coverage". I think a "Media career" section similar to Mark_Lawrenson#Media_career might be in order, covering when he joined the BBC, which events he covers, any other TV commitments, plus newspaper columns etc (if any). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Lawrenson bio is good, but most of it is uncitable. To my knowledge Davis doesn't do newspaper columns, doesn't do radio, doesn't have much criticism, he's just been ever present on the commentary and punditry team for the BBC's coverage of the Triple Crown events. I did miss out that he is a pundit, which is more of what he does. Looking at the 2005-2010 section, most of the text is on the 2010 World championship, which is particularly important, reaching the quarter-finals and beating Higgins, and the replay of the 1985 World Championship; which are big deals. I have however, culled the remaining final section, which covers his final title, his retirement and dropping off the tour. Let me know what you think Amakuru. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if you have any further opinions on the weight of the article Amakuru? I think it's suitable now and his later career covers the important results (specifically against Higgins at the world championships, and then his retirement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I will hopefully be able to give this another look-over tomorrow morning. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back for another look. Apologies for the delay compared with what I said above. I've re-run the sub-section prose counts again (yesterday) and found the following:
Year range Bytes Words Bytes-per-year
1970–1979 1636 280 words 163.6
1980-1984 2300 385 words 460.0
1985 1172 198 words 1172
1985–1989 2891 505 words 578.2
1990–1999 2386 408 words 238.6
2000–2005 1596 281 words 319.2
2005–2010 2597 426 words 519.4
2010–2016 2333 387 words 388.8
It's certainly much better than it was before, and thanks for the update. However, regrettably I still think there's some more work needed to get it balanced. Discounting the 70s (when he wasn't yet amongst the elite, so that's fine) it looks like the 90s is now the under-represented era, followed by 2000-2005. All the stuff from 2005 to 2016 is interesting and can be kept, I just think we need more in the 90s. A split into 1990-95 and 1995-2000, so that each section covers five years, and then expand each of those up to the same level as the others. Or, even better, have the length of the early 90s section be a bit longer than the others, since he was still going to the latter stages of tournaments on a regular basis at that point. We need to act as if there was a Wikipedia around at that time with people updating as-it-happened, including the interesting anecdotes such as the glasses and wig-wearing we see in 2010.
I'm really sorry this isn't the answer you're looking for, you've done brilliant work and this article will definitely get there in the end, whether it's at this FAC or a future one (I might also help out with it myself with that later in the year, if you and TRM don't get to it before then, and when I'm not snowed-under with other things). But as I said above FAC is the diamond-standard when it comes to articles, and my honest opinion is that it's not quite there yet. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Looking at the section, we cover his world championship results in reasonable detail until 96, and then don't cover 97, 98 and 99. I'll add something on that (not that he did well!) and expand the bit on his 97 Masters win. I think that would probably cover what you are looking for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably last chance saloon on this one, Amakuru, but I think I've just about made it consistent across all of the sections, with the exception of 1985 being larger (and, for obvious reasons, it deserves more WP:WEIGHT), and his 80's sections being slightly longer than the rest. I'm not a big fan of colour for colours' sake, so I've moved the bit about the anniversary match at the Crucible to legacy, which is probably a better fit. If this isn't quite good enough, let me know as I'm out of ideas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look later on tonight. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, back again and it's definitely getting better but I don't think I'm really close to a support yet, I'm afraid. I just think the prose in all of the early years, and I'd even count the 1980s in this, has lots of room for expansion. Just for interest's sake, I've just looked at Milos Raonic, another FA, and I think that gives a very rough clue as to what we might be looking for. Obviously I'm well aware that you can't really compare sportspeople across different disciplines with different calendars, and most likely tennis players play more than snooker players do throughout the year. But in that article, the whole career section (which is 13 years so far) has 35kb of prose in it, compared to around 17kb at present for Davis. And look at Mark Selby, perhaps a player of similar stature to Davis but playing in the 2010s rather than the 1980s. That one is your GA, it has lots of detail and clocks in at 28kb. I'm not saying you have to get it all the way to those levels necessarily, but I want to feel like there aren't gaps or that there's a difference in coverage between pre-Wikipedia and post-Wikipedia subjects. Just to pluck one example, Davis won the International Open six times in the 1980s, several of those as a ranking event, but only two of those are even mentioned at all in the prose, let alone with some detail on whom he beat and so on. What I would recommend is to go through season by season as we see for Selby; pick out the notable tournaments and how he did in them (particularly any tournaments he won), and document it here. Chapter and verse. The post-2005 era is fine, but the 1980s and early 1990s should definitely have more detail in them than post-2005, not less or even the same, because that's when he was among the best in the world and really winning things. I don't think this one is a million miles away, and I definitely hope to be back with a green tick at some point. Also, if other reviewers don't agree with my assessment here and support the FAC now then I won't stand in its way, because I don't pretend to be the expert. And if I'm applying a standard to this that you think I shouldn't be applying, then I'll be happy to listen as well... but at present this is how I see it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Davis pockets snooker crown", November 2, 1986, Toronto Star, The (Ontario, Canada), Author: Rick Morrison, Page: E6
  2. ^ "... - BUT THE MILLION-DOLLAR MAN WILL NOT BE HERE – SNOOKER", May 4, 1988, Sydney Morning Herald, The (Australia), Author: LES WHEELER, Page: 66
  3. ^ "Elders renews its sponsorship of snooker ace Steve Davis", Gideon Haigh, The Age (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia),11 Apr 1990,Page 26
  4. ^ "Earn with Hearn – it’s the life of Riley" Michael Herd, Evening Standard ,(London, Greater London, England), 01 Apr 1985, page 37

Ceoil placeholder

[edit]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Source review, Support from Vami_IV

[edit]

Placeholder for now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First comments: There are three books under #Sources, and several books, or at least references with an ISBN, in #References. Of the three books under #Sources, two presently do not have citations pointing at them; of the one that does, it presently has a single citation pointing to it. Some of the books in #References, particularly The CueSport Book of Professional Snooker, are cited many times. There are also a lot of missing page numbers, named below. For consistency, I advise for book citations either sfnrefs, or Template:RP to keep the long-form citations. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, at the time of writing, Citation [9] does not point to any of the books under #Sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first source review for Featured content; if I have demonstrated gross incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vami, to make things easier, as I don't really know much about Harvard style citations, I've made everything into regular style references. The two remaining sources are things that help to cover the writing, but aren't specifically cited. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr gutt. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have identified these technical hiccups:

  1. There is no instance of Template:Notelist; as a result, all uses of Template:Efn are broken and will not display.
    1. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No instance of citation [65] has a page number. There are additionally several book citations without page numbers. I recommend, for consistency and verifiability, that all book citations be followed with Template:Rp for page numbers.
    1. Might need your help with this, BennyOnTheLoose Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      1. Sure, Lee Vilenski. Can you list the ones you want help with specifically? The Davis pages in Hayton are 343 to 349. A few weeks ago, I checked the first few years of the performance & ranking timeline and added in some refs for events not in that source, like the 1979 Tolly Cobbold Classic, 1982 Australian Masters, and 1982 Highland Masters. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        1. Basically need page numbers for the CueSport Book of Professional Snooker book. Even if we had a range for the results per year that would be pretty good. Can easily use {{rp}} after each one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          1. I reviewed the use of the book in the article; the exception where page numbers isn't cited is currently ref 65 (used multiple times) and looking through what it's used to support, pages 343 to 349 are indeed OK for that ref. The book has subheadings in bold for each season of results for Davis, so I think that using a range of a few pages in the citation is reasonable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Citation [175] is broken; there are more than one versions of reference "theg_Stev".
    1. fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Citation [197] is still an sfn Harvard reference.
    1. Fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Citations [249], [252], [255], [265], [267], [286], [269], [276], and [287] are missing the |magazine= parameter.
    1. Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Citation [282] also needs |magazine=.

Additionally, I recommend the changing of #Sources's title to #Further reading. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to support as soon as the page numbers are in place. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Vami IV - have a page range that covers this now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sehr gutt. Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for a month and while it has attracted a fair few comments it has no supports and has had an open oppose for nearly four weeks. Unless this changes significantly over the next couple of days, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little seems to have changed, and so I am archiving this. Can I remind both nominators that "If a nomination is archived ... None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator".
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2021 [4].

Willie Mays

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Willie Mays, one of the greatest and most famous Major League Baseball players of all time. Last time this was up as a featured article candidate, it was suggested that the prose needed more work. Since then, I have had this article copyedited by the Guild of Copyeditors.

In reviewing this, be sure to see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Willie Mays/archive1. That review will contain helpful information, as an image and source check were done in the last one. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comments at the peer review weren't addressed. some sections such as "Most Valuable Player, World Series champion (1954–1957)" and "Move to San Francisco, 1962 pennant race (1958–1962)" are awfully long (and these titles look like they cover two separate topics). Trying to split sections every 3–4 paragraphs is ideal for readability, particularly for readers on mobile devices. Also, "Following the death of Tommy Lasorda on January 7, 2021, Mays became the oldest living Hall of Famer." is unsourced and looks like trivia. "Oldest living Baseball hall of famer" is still in the article and still unsourced. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accessibility – the infobox image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I will review this nomination, but I have become busier in RL at the moment. Will try to start within the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long, I've been busier than expected.

Lead
  • "As of his birthday in 2021, he is the oldest living Baseball Hall of Famer." - unsourced, probably trivial
  • Specify that the Black Barons were in the Negro Leagues
  • Mention in the lead the year he made his MLB debut
  • Indicate the significance of the $100,000+ contract in the lead
Early life
  • "Mays did not graduate from Fairfield until 1950, which journalist Allen Barra calls "a minor mystery in Willie's life".[21] He graduated in 1950.[21]" - no need to say that he graduated high school in 1950 in consecutive sentences
Playing career
  • "Ten days later, Mays played 33 innings in a doubleheader against the New York Mets" - A few comments here. It actually appears to be 32 innings - the first game was 9, and the second 23 in 23 according to the box scores, for 32 innings instead of 33. Also, if I read the box scores right, it looks like Cepeda and Jesus Alou played all innings of both games, so unless sources more in-depth than the box scores comment on the significance of this; I'd recommend removing this sentence.
  • "Despite nursing an injured thigh muscle on September 7, Mays reached base in the 11th inning of a game against the Dodgers with two outs, then attempted to score from first base on a Frank Johnson single. On a close play, umpire Tony Venzon initially ruled him out, then changed the call when he saw Roseboro had dropped the ball after Mays collided with him. San Francisco won 3–2." - Not sure in all of Mays's career if this is significant enough to call out in a summary article, although others may disagree with my thinking here
  • "He scheduled his off days that season to avoid facing pitchers like Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver.[177]" - As a baseball fan, I'm aware of why you'd want to avoid facing Gibson and Seaver, but I'd recommend glossing here that these two were some of the best pitchers, as it may not be obvious to someone not familiar with 60s and 70s baseball.

I'm ready for the section about the Mets, but I need to stop here. I'll finish this off very soon. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comment

"His right thumb would stick out in the air as he waited for pitches, but he wrapped it around the bat as he swung" - Tried this once in high school, didn't get it back around the bat in time on an inside pitch, and squared up the ball with my thumb instead of the bat. After I could finally bend my thumb again after two weeks, I never tried that again

Assessment and legacy
  • "Third in home runs with 660 when he retired, he still ranks sixth as of September 2020" - go ahead and update the as of date (he's still sixth), and update the accessdate for the source, as well.
  • "His 2,062 runs scored rank seventh, and his 1,903 RBI rank 12th.[42] Mays batted .302 in his career and his 3,283 hits are the 12th-most of any player.[42] His 2,992 games played are the ninth-highest total of any major leaguer" - These all need as of dates, in case they change. Pujols or somebody may pass him in some. Pujols is really close to him in hits, for instance.
  • "and his 1,903 RBI rank 12th." - This needs a footnote. He's 12th per B-Ref, but 11th per MLB, as B-Ref and MLB have different total for Cap Anson, so this needs a note/qualifier

I'm through the cultural effect section, I hope to be able to finish this tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization
  • Some of the categories don't seem to be mentioned or cited anywhere in the text: Cangrejeros de Santurce (baseball) players, Liga de Béisbol Profesional Roberto Clemente outfielders
Infobox
  • Roberto Clemente Award is in the infobox, but I'm not seeing it mentioned or cited in the body (may have missed it)
  • Not seeing where the MLB all-time team in the infobox is mentioned in the body
  • Not seeing where the team Wall of Fame mentioned in the infobox appears in the prose or is cited.

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 03:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all changes! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read over the two news sections added during this FAC, and think that they are fine and due weight. So supporting on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4, did not check others. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

Commenting on images:

  • If I'm not mistaken, this is the direct source link: [5]. The caveat concerns "Images by unidentified creators and images from unidentified sources". Here, the Library of Congress identifies this as a "World Telegram & Sun photo by William C. Greene" taken in 1961. According to the LOC page, it is paragraph 3 you should be looking to, not paragraph 2. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan77777

I don't have time to review the whole article at the moment (maybe later in the year?), but some quick comments:

  • I think the separate All-Star Game section is necessary. The All-Star Game is probably more important to Mays than anyone. Without the separate section (and in particular the quote from Ted Williams), I don't think that is conveyed too well.
  • To a lesser extent, I would also recommend keeping the separate Barnstorming section.
  • Leave MVP in the 1954 section header.
  • Some of the paragraphs have good opening sentences that introduces the rest of the paragraph well (e.g. "The Giants won the NL pennant and the 1954 World Series, sweeping the Cleveland Indians in four games."). A few of the other ones do not (e.g. "Mays began the 1954 season on Opening Day with a home run of over 414 feet (126 m) against Carl Erskine." It would be better to start off with saying Mays won the MVP and the Giants won the World Series.)
  • The biggest problem I have with starting the paragraph with Mays won the MVP and the Giants won the World Series is that I'm trying to present events chronologically. The MVP and the World Series did not happen until the end of the year. I fully agree with you that these are the most important things that happened that season, but in a chronological article, I don't think the first sentence needs to introduce the theme of the year. In an article as long as this, writing it that way could make the article too bulky. That said, if you've got suggestions on improving the first sentences of other paragraphs, please let me know about them. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of similar to that issue, the middles of paragraphs don't always have the best transitions from one event to the next. (e.g. "On May 21, Dark named Mays the Giants' captain, making Mays the first African-American captain of an MLB team. "You deserve it," Dark told Mays. "You should have had it long before this."[140] Ten days later, Mays played 33 innings in a doubleheader against the New York Mets." These are unrelated events, but the "ten days later" transition seems like it tries to connect them. Also, I don't think the specific day he was named captain needs to be emphasized, and there are a bunch of other places where I would also suggest to avoid mentioning the specific date in favor of just the month or the part of the season. Also in general, for individual game highlights unrelated to the progression of the season for Mays or his team, it might be better to introduce them with something like "Mays had a notable day [early in the season] where he [played 33 innings in a doubleheader against the New York Mets]" to make it clear it's not really part of the overarching sequence of events for the season(s).)
  • I actually just removed the 33-inning highlight based on another editor's suggestion. I'll be happy to address other instances once you do your more specific review. As to specific dates, I think they should be included when known. It doesn't save significant room by only mentioning the month or part of the season. However, I don't have strong feelings about this, so if other editors think more general dates are better, I'd be fine with changing it. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment is probably the most regular issue in the article, although I don't think it would be so difficult to fix. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for nearly three weeks and shows little sign of obtaining a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. For clarity, I would want to see two supports, or reviews well on their way to being addressed, to consider that a consensus had, potentially, begun to form. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A month in and no supports. I am afraid that this is going to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [6].

Legend Entertainment

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the top adventure game studios from the 1990s. Their market was niche and their history was short, but they hold importance as the spiritual successor to the acclaimed interactive fiction studio, Infocom. A lot of these types of articles slip through the cracks because the subjects were effectively "gone" by the time the internet hit mainstream. But I see these types of subjects as essential to Wikipedia's mission to preserve knowledge, as readers would otherwise have to cobble the story together from various online and offline sources. I've done the work of assembling those sources, and I believe the article is very well-sourced, thorough, and complete. In the FA process, I'm willing to work hard at the prose, which is within striking distance of the featured article criteria. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

Remember looking at this for DYK months ago -- nice work! Have skimmed, will review in-depth. The big thing that jumps out to me is the nine citations for the acclaimed adventure game studio.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. (I have to imagine people disputed its level of acclaim?) While WP:OVERCITE is "just an essay", it's a fairly accepted one, and WP:CITEBUNDLE strongly suggests you bundle those for readability. Alternatively, you could cut it down to around 3-4 at most. Vaticidalprophet 07:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure comment by Spy-cicle

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Per FAC instructions: "An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time". The editor already has Ur-Quan FAC open (this comes after Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Accolade (company)/archive2, the same nominator, was archived for the same reason). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Shooterwalker, if Ur-Quan had progressed to being almost ready to promote, you could ask the coords for an okay to nominate another article but Ur-Quan isn't at that stage yet anyway. Pls just focus on seeing that one through for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2021 [7].

Raya and the Last Dragon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it meets the FA criteria, I have also had many mistakes listed on the previous archive corrected. Wingwatchers (talk)

  • @Wingwatchers: Have you asked the FAC coordinators to waive the waiting period for nominating an article for FAC? Per WP:FAC: None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator. The last nomination was archived on 17 June 2021, 5 days before today. Also, you transcluded this at the bottom of the FAC page (it's meant to be at the top). Pamzeis (talk) 01:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis:, sorry I have no idea about this time limit. Is there a way to switch to somebody else? Wingwatchers (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wingwatchers: I think it's best if you just withdraw it (use {{@FAC}} to ping the coordinators). I don't have much FAC experience but I think it's usually waived if the previous FAC did not get much feedback. You can still ask the coordinators to waive it though. And I don't mean to discourage you but I don't think this article is up to FA quality. You should probably try to get it up to a good article status as the GA criteria is less strict. Pamzeis (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging FAC coordinators about this (@FAC coordinators: ). Pamzeis (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Pamzeis. Wingwatchers, the bit about the two-week waiting period after a nom is archived, which Pamzies quotes, is in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. I'm not disposed to waiving that waiting period given there was more than cursory commentary at the last nom. Now you are not required to put the article through GAN and/or Peer Review, as was recommended at the previous FAC, but you do need to at least wait the standard two weeks and do everything you can to act on the comments that came up at that FAC. One of the reasons I would again strongly recommend GAN or, especially, PR, is that you might well get further pointers for improvement prior to another nomination here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2021 (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 June 2021 [8].

Accolade (company)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic video game developer and publisher. They are of major importance in the early game industry, featuring veterans from highly notable peers such as Atari and Activision, and going on to create several notable franchises.

This is my second attempt at an FA-nomination. I became busy during the previous nomination, which was closed with some suggestions I didn't get to at the time. I since incorporated the feedback, then sought a peer review for even more feedback. The article is comprehensive, well-researched, well-cited, neutral, and stable, using images in compliance with fair use. I feel optimistic that this article is close enough to the Featured article criteria that I can work on any remaining issues through this process. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2021 [9].

Raya and the Last Dragon

[edit]

@Wingwatchers: The first step in ensuring an article passes FA is to initiate the nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to begin with, the article met all FA criteria. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - MOS:PLOT suggests plot summary should be between 400-700 words, this one is too long at over 800. Entire soundtrack track listing is uncited, as well as a few bits in the voice cast section. A number of sources look to be unreliable or only marginally reliable, like the D23 Expo YouTube link, Digital Mafia Talkies, DisInsider, dvdreleasedates.com, whattowatch, and maybe a few others. Several references are not formatted correctly, including missing publishers and other issues. I don't think this one is quite ready; it currently fails WP:FACR #1c, 2c, and 4, and possibly others (I'm not familiar enough with this film to judge comprehensiveness first. I'd recommend sending this through WP:Peer review and probably the WP:GAN process before renominating. Hog Farm Talk 03:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete it. No worries. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I found another article that also crosses the border of 800 words. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other article is about twice as long as Raya, so the plot summary is only comparatively about half the percentage of the article. I did some very rough math, and the plot summary here appears to be in the 27-30% of the article range (may not be exact, did some rough rounding). Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation problems is obvious, but can you elaborate on why it fails WP:FACR? Wingwatchers (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main issues are with claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources from FACR #1c (several some of the references from the version I checked don't seem to be high-quality RS) and where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes from FACR #2c. Essentially, you'll need to make sure that each reference includes the publisher, that the various things are done in the same way (for instance, "Joanna Robinson" vs "Robinson, Joanna", that the author is listed for all sources cited (for instance, "Raya and the Last Dragon: Creating Disney's First Southeast Asian-Centered Movie" has an author, but it is not included in the citation), and things like including the date for all references that have a publishing or "last updated" date. FA can be a very tough process, so I think working up through GA and then maybe a peer review will be a better path. That way the article can improve in small steps, rather than have to make one big leap. I had multiple articles I'd brought to GA before bringing one to FA. FAC can be tough at first, because it has really high standards. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, I will get it done. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. @Hog Farm:. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Striking oppose for now; I hope to be able to give this a longer read-through over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images Sole image seems OK to me use and licence wise. ALT text is necessary though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, completed. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can some images of the cast be added? Heartfox (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added. @Heartfox:. Wingwatchers (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the images seem like a bit of an overkill now. Maybe reduce them to just the primary cast (e.g. just Kelly Marie Tran and Awkwafina)? Pamzeis (talk) 11:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis: Corrected. Wingwatchers (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and adjusted the size of the images. Feel free to change it. Pamzeis (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF (second run)

[edit]
Lead
  • "The 59th film produced by the studio" - not in body, not cited anywhere
  • "It has grossed $132 million worldwid" - need to indicate an as of date, as this figure may continue to change
Infobox
  • Kiel Murray is not cited
  • Dean Wellins is not cited
  • Rob Dressel is not cited
  • Adolph Luskinsky is not cited
  • Fabienne Rawley is not cited
  • Shannon Stein is not cited
  • Not the nominator but I think the film credits are able to be used here (and above) as a WP:PRIMARY source.
  • March 3 release date in Indonesia is not found elsewhere and is not cited.
  • Running time is not cited
Plot summary
  • Again, this is too long. Not so much in raw word count, but the plot summary is about 33% of the article's length, which suggests either A) the plot summary is too detailed B) the rest of the article isn't detailed enough or C) both
Development
  • Normally, in movie FAs, it's expected that some detail about how the movie was actually produced should be included, in this case, this would be information about what types of animation were used.
  • "The recasting was due to creative shifts in the character and story" - any further detail that can be said here?
  • Tran was selected for her "lightness and buoyancy, but also badassery. [23] - missing the closing parenthesis, you should also directly attribute inline direct quotes.
  • she was well aware that Disney Animation "had already turned her down and removed another actor from the project" - not convinced that the direct quote is necessary here, this should probably be paraphrased
  • "The score was released on February 26, 2021." - Source is actually from before February 26, so it doesn't confirm this
Music
  • No need to quote KZ Tandingan so extensively, quotes from here are almost half of the prose in this section
  • "All lyrics are written by James Newton Howard, except where noted" - none are noted to not be written by Howard, so you can just drop the "except where noted"
Release
  • "Raya and the Last Dragon was available for purchase through Premier Access until May 4, 2021 (March 19 in Latin America) and is available for free to all subscribers as of April 23 in Latin America, and as of June 4 in other countries" - source is a press release from February, so it doesn't support either of those as of dates.
  • "with DVD, Blu-ray, and Ultra HD Blu-ray released on May 18, 2021" - source if from May 15, so it only really proves that this was planned, you'll need a source after May 18 to confirm that it actually was released on that date
Reception
  • "Saying so, the film's performance improved on the next weeks, therefore matching and eventually surpassing Tom & Jerry's box office numbers" - remove "saying so" as not really encyclopedic tone.
  • I don't think the demographics statistics for viewership is really relevant, unless you can find a source discussing why the stats are significant
  • Critical response could probably be fleshed out a bit more; it's rather short for a fairly significant internet-age movie
Sources

Sorry, but I'm back at oppose - this just isn't quite ready for FAC. WP:GAN would be a better step for this. It's also going to be really hard to write an FA about a movie only months after the film came out; a lot of the significant critical commentary about the film probably just hasn't been written yet. Currently, this looks like it fails WP:FACR #1b through likely lacking information about development and critical response, it fails #1c through the uncited text in the infobox and lead, the lead contains information not found in the body which fails #2a, and the fact that about 33% of the non-lead length is the plot summary fails #4. I'm sorry, but this isn't close enough to the FA criteria right now, although GA would be a realistic goal. Withdrawal to work on points outside the fac may be the best alternative. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And Again, I will get you to strike oppose again. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wingwatchers, I'm sure you will in time but I concur with HF's recommendation that the improvements should take place outside the FAC process, plus that GAN and, particularly, Peer Review should be the stepping stones to a subsequent nom here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2021 (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) 16 June 2021 [10].

Vespertine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bleff (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Björk's fourth studio album. I worked a lot on this article back in 2014-16 and was encouraged to eventually nominate for FAC by the reviewer of its Good article nomination. Since then I have been very intimidated by the idea of nominating an article to FA, but I am determined to undertake this new challenge. Bleff (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Hidden Place sample.ogg non-free rationale needs to be filled out
  • File:Pagan Poetry music video.jpg Not convinced of the NFCC value for this one. The caption also doesn't have an obvious connection to the image.

(t · c) buidhe 07:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed, thank you. --Bleff (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is a screenshot of the "Pagan Poetry" music video and, if you look closely, it shows unsimulated fellatio. It is a home recording of the singer actually having sex, as described in the section, and the careful way it was edited accounts for the highly sexual but stylized tone of the album and its visual derivatives. --Bleff (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 100cellsman

[edit]

Are you sure you're wanting to tackle this without a WP:Peer Review? From a glance, I'm not confident that this article is ready for Featured Status. It tends to overuse quotes, sometimes quite lengthy ones too. This article may be too broad in some places, for example, the instance of Björk fighting with Von Trier. Also the article states that the album is different from Homogenic three times in different ways. As a Björk fan, I'd like for this article to head the right direction and I'm willing to highlight what can be improved, otherwise its a leaning oppose for me. 웃OO 04:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your advice as a fellow fan. Thank you! The request is found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Vespertine/archive1 and help from any reviewer is appreciated. --Bleff (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mods please archive this nom. 웃OO 22:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the intrusion. I just wanted to add the @FAC coordinators: ping so that the coordinators can see this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2021 (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) 16 June 2021 [11].

1951 in spaceflight

[edit]
Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about 1951 in spaceflight. I have been going through these old timeline articles one by one and making them presentable. If anything should be FL in this project, it's the Timeline lists. :) Neopeius (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: - Did you mean to send this to WP:FLC instead? Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I did. I didn't realize they were different queues... ^^;; @Hog Farm: --Neopeius (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: - Given that this is mainly a list and is even assessed as a list, shouldn't this be archived to that it can then be sent over to FLC, which is where it should probably be? Hog Farm Talk 03:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As Hog Farm says and the nominator seems to agree, this is in the wrong place, and so I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2021 (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) 10 June 2021 [12].

Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon

[edit]
Nominator(s): You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the debut posthumous studio album by American rapper Pop Smoke. It was executive produced by American rapper 50 Cent after Pop Smoke was murdered at the age of 20 during a home invasion. To the other two FAC coordinators. I have contacted Gog the Mild and they said it was okay to nominate the article a little earlier than the two week period. I would also like to thank Gerda Arendt. If it was not for her I would not be taking this article to FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria I have changed the FUR for the original ugly version of Pop Smoke's album cover and added alt texts to all the images. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new FUR is insufficient - that big red "purpose must be stated" should be dealt with, and given the details of the image's creation we probably need to also identify the work from which it derives. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria how does it look now? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the image is based on a pre-existing photo not by the graphic artist, correct? What is the source of that? And what benefit specifically does the reader derive from seeing this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I have removed the image. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 00:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

[edit]

Interesting read! Did not see anything worth opposing. 웃OO 04:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake

[edit]
Resolved comments from K.Peake

The article mostly looks great, but I do have a few concerns:

  • In the lead, usages of "the album" and similar terms are too close to each other; I would suggest changing "three songs from the original album" to "three songs from the original" for a starting point. The others to fix would be changing "Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon" to "it" at the point where the genres are listed, cutting "After the album was complete" down to "After the completion", using the title instead at the "sequencing the album" point, writing "upon release" and "the production" instead in the critical reception sentence to avoid being too wordy, changing "The record appeared on several publications' lists of the best albums of 2020; it was" to "It appeared on several publications' lists of the best albums of 2020, including being" and mentioning the title again at the start of the commercial sentence.
  • LilBaby and DaBaby are different people, so add the connective between their names and use "are" instead of "was".
  • WP:METRO specifies that Metro is considered unreliable on the main website like you have cited, so replace or remove this and the source shouldn't have passed GA. Furthermore, Earmilk, Rap-Up and The Source are acceptable sources for GA, but can you make any arguments for them being high quality FA sources? --K. Peake 08:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake: I have reworded the lead and removed Metro, Earmilk, Rap-Up and The Source. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a lot better, but I would suggest adding info from a different source about the lyrics of "44 Bulldog". --K. Peake 09:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake There is no other source talking about the lyrics of "44 Bulldog". Do you support now? You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 09:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do since not every song's lyrics need to be discussed when it is an article about the album; fantastic job here! --K. Peake 10:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for praise I hope to live up to. I support the article per my comments in the PR and FAC 1. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moise

[edit]

Oppose for now. Gerda asked me to look at this. If you can improve the Critical reception section, it will go a long way to bringing the article closer to FA level. Refer to WP:RECEPTION if it's helpful. But in a nutshell I would give the following advice (some of this I'm copying from another review I did, but it's relevant here too):

  • Try to paraphrase half or more of the direct quotations.
  • Try for a little more variation in sentence structure. Most are currently "Reviewer—of/from publication—verb—review." (The sentence that starts with "Reviewing Shoot for the Stars, Aim for the Moon for Entertainment Weekly" is one exception I noticed.)
  • Organize the review content into big themes (or largely related comments) by paragraph. See the Reception section of A Crow Looked at Me or Pod (The Breeders album) for ideas.
  • Within the paragraphs, try to group the comments even further. It gets repetitive if it's always only "A said (or a variation on this verb) ---. B said ----. C said ---." (one sentence per reviewer/idea). Are there things people said that are similar enough, or share some elements, whereby you could combine two or more reviews into a single sentence? For example, "Both X and Y commented on such-and-such aspect of the album; X additionally noted/opined that..." Or "Some reviewers found that (such-and-such). X elaborated that..." Maybe the reader doesn't need to know every nuance of what each reviewer said. To find points to combine, if necessary you could also look at details the reviewers said that are not currently included in the article; there might be other usable tidbits in their reviews that can be clumped into mini-trends? Both of the articles I mentioned above have examples of different kinds of sentence combining; The Breeders Tour 2014 has a shorter reception section but also has some ideas for this you could look at. (OK, two of the articles above are ones I worked on, but I'm just citing them because I'm more familiar with them and it's quicker than me hunting down examples that I'm sure exist in other FA articles.) I hope these suggestions are helpful. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: You can go ahead and close this now. I think the article is good at GA level. My teenage mind is not good enough to get this to FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2021 (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) 10 June 2021 [13].

London and North Western Railway War Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another war memorial! I think there's something fascinating about pieces of stone that have stood on the same spot for 100 years. This one has seen some changes over that century, some of which are illustrated by the photos in the article. Once part of an impressive classical arrangement, it's now one of only two traces remaining of the "old" Euston; the rest was swept away in the 1960s in the name of progress. Meanwhile, the company whose employees it commemorates has been amalgamated, nationalised, and then privatised.

I'm grateful to Carcharoth for his input in the article's development, Thryduulf for his detailed photos of the statues, and the reviewers at the MilHist A-class review who provided some very useful feedback. Hopefully you agree it's up to standard, but all feedback is welcome! :) Due to real life, it might take me a couple of days to respond to comments but I'm not ignoring you, I promise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support

[edit]

I supported this article at the A-class review, and I support it now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Thryduulf

[edit]

Looking through the photos on Commons, there are identical inscriptions on the east and west elevations "Remember the men and women on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway 1939-1945" yet there is no mention of WWII at all. (I meant to comment about this in the A class review but never got round to it). I'll have a more detailed read of the text later. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article did mention these, but I've added in the dedication.
  • The lead feels rather long. How much of "The memorial was unusual in featuring an airman so prominently." and the final two paragraphs is needed this early?
    • Fair point. Trimmed a bit.
  • Consider using {{inflation}} to give present-day values for the last paragraph of the background section
    • I'm sceptical of the value of these templates. I feel they're comparing apples ang oranges.
  • Is there anything that can be said about the history before the unveiling, e.g. about the commissioning?
    • Not that isn't already mentioned. You can see from the size of the bibliography that this is covered in a lot of places, but none of the sources (even the LNWR's official history of the war) gives any details on the commissioning process. That's not really surprising for a private company building a monument on its own land using its in-house architect—there wouldn't be a lengthy paper trail. This is similar to, for example, the Midland Railway War Memorial; we only know so much about the North Eastern Railway War Memorial because of the controversy over its location, and even then we have barely a footnote from the minutes of a board meeting.
  • Don't need to say both "leaving the war memorial and two station lodges the only surviving parts of the old Euston complex." and "the lodges, along with the war memorial, were the only survivors of the 1960s redevelopment" in successive paragraphs, especially when it's already in the lead. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Comments from Nick-D

[edit]

I'm fascinated by World War I memorials erected by companies for some reason - maybe as they illustrate the trauma the war caused across society - and am interested in visiting this memorial when the world returns to normal and I'm next able to travel to the UK. I'd like to offer the following minor comments:

  • The first para should note the number of LNWR employees who were killed, given this is the subject of the memorial
  • The order of sentences in the first two paras of the 'Background' section feels a bit random. I'd suggest starting with what the LNWR was, then the size of the company, then the numbers of its staff who fought, etc. The sentence about companies building memorials might best work in the last para of this section.
  • Can anything be said about how donations from the company's staff were solicited? (for instance, was this effort led by management, or was it led by the workers and/or their unions?) Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, thanks for the comments! I agree there's something fascinating about company war memorials. I think they show that the war affected all areas of life. Though somehow I don't think modern companies would feel moved to build monuments if something similar were to happen today. Let me know when you're planning a trip to the UK and I'll try to get up to London so we can visit it together. I believe I've addressed your first two comments. As to your third, there's nothing in the sources about this; it seems to be implied that there was some sort of agreement that the company would cover a large percentage of the cost, possibly as a unifying gesture following the 1919 strike. This is in contrast to the NER, interestingly, who built a large memorial entirely at the company's expense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I'm happy to support the nomination now. With a sufficient amount of luck (and an acceleration in Australia's vaccine program) I'm hoping to visit Europe late next year. I wouldn't be shocked if it isn't doable though! Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Remember that the lede is a summary of the whole article. Don't give exact figures for manpower or money there; save them for the main body.
  • Same with its height, the detailed description of the memorial, the name of the prominent attendees and the date of unveiling, etc.
  • Put the citations above the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 👨x🐱

[edit]

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I've seen you around at other FA discussions, so thought I'd stop by to review this. As an American who's a dummy in history, I'll be the perfect user to comment on this XD.

  • Infobox image has no alt description.
  • Any reason why some image alts start with a lower-case letter?
  • There's some history and sculpture WP:JARGON in the lead I didn't get on a first read (hey, that rhymes), so it should be linked or explained. "Obelisk" "pedestal" "bronze wreath" "over-life-size" "artilleryman," "infantryman," "sailor," "airman"
  • More of the same in the body that introductory readers may not get the first time: "private-sector", "artillery shells", "munitions", "conscripted", "granite tablet", "Buttresses", "the Western Front". Check for others
  • Lead: "much of the company's infrastructure was turned over to the war effort." Body: "During the First World War (1914–1918), it turned much of Crewe Works, its main engineering facility, over to the war effort." The lead implies most of the infrastructure of all of the company's facilities went to World War I, but this contradicts the body.
  • "skilled employees" WP:VAGUE. Why are we calling the employees "skilled"? Isn't skill required to do any work in the first place, or did these employees have elite skills most others didn't have?
  • "introduction of conscription," Why not just conscription?
  • "to commemorate their employees who were killed in the war." I find this to be Fluff. I think it's obvious what war memorials are to introductory readers.
  • "Owen also designed a war memorial" Read MOS:LINKCLARITY to see the problem here.
  • Why is "R. L. Boulton & Sons." not credited in the lead for building the statue?
  • Why do the first two paragraphs of "Design" have all of the cites bundled at the end of paragraph? Why not certain citations for certain sentences? I don't imagine all of those citations having every single detail in that paragraph.
  • "The tablets are inscribed "Remember the men and women of the London Midland and Scottish Railway 1939–1945"." Does this mean all the later tablets had that text on them?
  • Lead: "a cross in relief". Body: "stone cross protruding from the body itself". I found relief a simpler description with the link to the article about relief.
  • "Obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, though Wynn Owen" --> "Although obelisks are not inherently associated with Christianity, Wynn Owen"
  • " he intended the addition of the crosses" Hold on, those crosses were "added"? I thought they were initially built with the rest of the sculpture, that doesn't speak "added" to me. Addition would imply crosses were after well after the sculpture was made.
  • Per MOS:FAMILYNAME, you must present the full name of a person on his first mention in the article, than reference him by his last name. Any reason why "Wynn Owen" is repeated instead of just Owen? 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, gave a dedication." Vague. What kind of dedication?
  • Since you use an initialism of "Victoria Cross" late in the article and introduce the full phrase in the background section, "Victoria Cross" --> "Victoria Cross (VC)"
  • "largest for a railway company war memorial." Of all-time? Until another war memorial had happened later in history?
  • Was is "the official narrative of the war"? What are "special trains"?
  • Since more than half of the "History" section is about the memorial, I would split it into two sections. One would be about the memorial, the other about the statue's presence in later years.
  • "The company also produced a Roll of Honour, a copy of which was presented to the nearest living relative of each of the dead." Was the "Roll of Honour"? I'm guessing it's a paper or book or some sort. Only description word used is "volume", which I don't know what that is.

Well-done article overall. The prose is engaging and professional, but needs some clarification or linking in places. I imagine memorials don't get much coverage besides those in history and awards books, although I did find these. I don't have the book sources with me or can access them, so I would ask another review to spotcheck the sources.. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Bibliography

Citations

  • Generally speaking I'd suggest sfn footnotes, though preferences obviously vary.
  • #1: What does "location 1803–1830" mean?
  • #14: The article from The Times is undoubtedly available online somewhere.
  • #24: The "eds" is probably unnecessary here.

Source from this version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2021 (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) 10 June 2021 [14].

Code of Hammurabi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Code of Hammurabi is an enigmatic legal text with powerful literary passages. It’s also one of exceptionally few bits of Assyriology known to non-Assyriologists. Politicians and curators pay it lip service and buy expensive replicas, and the page gets 1.5k–2k views in a day. All in all it deserves an article above C-class. I've rewritten it, and have had some very generous FAC mentoring from A. Parrot (talk · contribs). Feedback much appreciated! Emqu (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Done. Emqu (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Scrapped.
Also: what sort of citation do you think is needed for the cn you inserted? A few examples to show that the terms are conventional? Emqu (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would just delete it. To keep you would need a source that explicitly discusses use of the terms, not just some examples which would be WP:OR. (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: OK, done. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Thanks for the edits. I've just unlinked the guilt/shame/fear spectrum which I always found rather suspect. Emqu (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]
  • Should there be a "circa" before the date range in the lede?
Done. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammurabi's letters suggest that he was You can remove "that".
Hmm, this sounds odd to me? I feel that I would always use "that" in this context. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not 100% sure, but I saw the folks at GOCE doing it to my last request. ~ HAL333 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Emqu (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "cm" in the body look strange. I think there's a template for that.
Is it seeing dimensions in the body per se that is strange, or specifically the abbreviation "cm"? And were you thinking of a template like height? Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the template. ~ HAL333 13:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Emqu (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • many alternative interpretations Is "alternative" needed?
Have changed this paragraph, hope it is clearer now. Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later. Like what I see and the subject matter definitely deserves this treatment. ~ HAL333 23:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can references be in the middle of sentences rather than after punctuation? Not sure myself. If not, I would address that.
Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all expressed --> "These are expressed"
Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrath of all the gods --> "wrath of the gods"
Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source for the order in which Gods and goddesses are invoked?
Have supplied a Roth ref as per the rest of the section. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Justinian and Napoleon caption, why not make it a single sentence: "Justinian I of Byzantium (L) and Napoléon Bonaparte of France (R) both created legal codes to which the Louvre stele has been compared." You can also apply this to other captions.
Done: for this, for Ea/Enki, and for Moses. I'm inclined to keep "The text. ..." as it is, though. Unlike with Justinian and Napoleon, without a simple label it is not at all clear that the image shows the text on the stele. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of many of the captions having full stops despite not being sentences.
MOS:CAPTION says that if there is any full sentence in the caption, then all sentences and sentence fragments must be capitalised. The only caption which I think violates MOS:CAPTION is the Capitol caption, and I had actually removed the full stop there before. I've removed it again now. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Code and, e.g., United States law and medieval law Is it okay t have "e.g." in the body of the text? I have only seen it in notes and parentheses. If so, ignore.
Ignoring as per your edit. (WP:MOS uses it 37 times so I think we're safe.) Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some have remarked that the punishments Who?
The two cited sources. It seemed too wordy to say "C. H. W. Johns and... and...", so I just put them in the footnote, but let me know if this is not acceptable. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some writers incorrectly state Which?
Ditto. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Civilopedia" a high quality reliable source?
No for history, yes for the game. It's published by the game's publisher and I believe it's just a copy of the in-game encyclopaedia. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure ref 170 is reliable or that it fully supports the dependent text.
Is this the soundtrack link? I thought the Apple Music page was a reliable source for a soundtrack. If not, I will scrap the mention of the series because I couldn't find any more concrete link to the Code. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relief portrait of Hammurabi hangs over the doors Does it hang?
Fixed. Emqu (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. ~ HAL333 18:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

[edit]

Add alt text to the images per WP:CAPTION/MOS:ACCIM and a caption to the table per MOS:DTAB :) Heartfox (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I hope the alt text is OK? Emqu (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wretchskull

[edit]

Review after a quick skim through the article. Thorough review coming soon

  • However, he invokes the wrath of all the gods on any who disobeys or erases his pronouncements. Remove the 's' from "disobeys" and "erases" because they should not be third-person singular simple present.
Fixed. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The beginning of the "Theories of purpose" section is unreferenced. 20th century dispute or jurisprudence theory having more support should be referenced.
Addressed. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many footnotes use the same books frequently, I'll check for possibfle plagiarism soon, and perhaps look for weasel terms. Great job on bringing this vital article all the way to FAC rather quickly! Wretchskull (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I would say, regarding samey sources, that most instances of Roth (1995a) are page references to Roth's translation. I incorporated these at the end of the FAC mentoring. Emqu (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many overlinked words, even some words that shouldn't be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK. You could fix these manually or with a script if you wish.

  • Remove all links from:
  1. "Justice"
  2. "Law" (only if it stands alone, do not remove links from words such as Mosaic law, etc.)
  3. "Portrait"
  4. "Legal system"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these words have been linked once in the lead and once in the body (or in an infobox/image), remove all other links from these words:
  1. "Relief"
  2. "Stele"
  3. Any names: scholars, writers, historical figures, etc.
Done. (Some of the duplinks were there because I thought the captions had their own "count" for links.)
"Middle chronology" is technically linked twice in the body, but the second is for the "ultra-long chronology", which is covered in the same article.
Would you say that the infobox is part of the lead, and that I should therefore remove infobox links found in the lead? Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: Information below.
  • Add missing links to the following words:
  1. First mention of "stele" in the lead section (note that this word is also in the bullet above)
  2. The city of "Isin"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • References:
  • In the Jurisprudence section, the references of laws should be placed after the law number. Placing it after the text is fine but for MOS, it would be best (-Law x[reference], etc.).
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have for now. Wretchskull (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thorough review

  • More about links:
  • In the Louvre stele section, you should be careful with how you link acropolis, as in this case, it leads to the ancient Greek settlement. Also, you could link the city of Susa in the images, as the rule of thumb goes: One link in the lead, one in the infobox, one in the body, one in images, and more if they aid the user. You could say that the lead is separate from the infobox. I will come with more soon. Wretchskull (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have relinked the captions on this basis. Delinked acropolis too. Emqu (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead section
  • Hammurabi claims in the prologue to have been granted his rule[...] Somewhat incorrect adjunction of words, change it to "In the prologue, Hammurabi claims to have been granted his rule[...]".
Changed (though I disagree that it was incorrect). Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their scope is very broad, including, for example, criminal law, family law, property law, and commercial law. "Very" is a redundant adverb, because it would be used when the mentioned verb or explanation is beyond its scope of the subject. In the text, it talks about laws, which is part of the subject despite its broadness. Remove "very".
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hammurabi
  • Hammurabi (or Hammurapi), sixth king of[...] There is a missing definite article "the" before the word "sixth". It should be used because it is about Hammurabi specifically.
Neither phrasing is obviously preferable to me. Changed nonetheless. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast to his aggressive foreign policy, Hammurabi's letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. I understand the gist of the sentence, but it is worded rather unclearly.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He commissioned extensive construction works, and in his letters he frequently[...] There should be a comma right after "letters" because it is a subordinate clause connecting with a main clause.
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier law collections
  • Several earlier collections survive, in Sumerian as well as Akkadian. Remove the comma, the whole sentence is a main clause.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Louvre stele
  • The main copy of the text was found on a basalt stele now in the Louvre. Replace "main" with "original" as it is has a more direct definition for the subject.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is 225 cm (7 ft 4 1⁄2 in) high; its circumference is 165 cm (5 ft 5 in) at summit and 190 cm (6 ft 3 in) at base. Add the definitive article "the" before both "summit" and "base".
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scheil hypothesised that the stele had been taken to Susa by the Elamite king Shutruk-Nakhunte, and that he had commissioned the erasure of several columns of laws in order to write his own legend there. Remove the comma (main clause grammar rules), remove "in order" as it is redundant, and remove the redundant word "own" because "write his..." already suggests that it is about himself.
Done. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other copies
  • Over fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known, found not only in Susa but in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and more. Slightly clear but grammatically unsound. Change it to "Over fifty manuscripts containing the laws are known. Among them, they were not only found in Susa. They were also in Babylon, Nineveh, Assur, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, Ur, Larsa, and more.". If it is unsatisfactory to you, you may alter it however you see fit.
Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign: after, it became a part of the scribal curriculum. Unclear wording within two main clauses sandwiched by a sunordinate one. Consider changing it along the lines of "Copies were created both during and after Hammurabi's reign. After his reign, they became a part of the scribal curriculum."
Amended. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: I will continue with the other half of the article later. Apologies if this is too much, an article this important deserves to be a FA. Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all—thorough feedback is always the best! I'm very grateful. Emqu (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you may alter unsatisfactory/unconfident suggestions however you want

Lead section
  • Their scope is broad, including for example criminal law, family law, property law, and commercial law. Add a comma before the word "for" and right after "example".
I think this makes it significantly harder to read. Comma soup. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hammurabi
  • Hammurabi's foreign policy was aggressive, then, but his letters suggest he was concerned with the welfare of his many subjects and interested in law and justice. Remove "then," because "was" suggests that it is past tense. Adding the pronoun "that" after "suggest" seems logical, but I think it is already correct; unconfident about that one. Add "was" before "interested" because verbs should certainly be repeated after multiple words explaining the previous verb; the sentence would be unclear otherwise.
Added "was".
I agree that a "that" makes it flow better. I had one there but removed it (see above on this page).
I'm inclined to keep "then" to indicate that it summarises the preceding paragraph rather than adding new, uncited information. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Early scholarship
  • [...]Scheil gives a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images. Using third-person singular simple present about the past is strange, change "gives" to "gave" or "had given" if it is discussing what happened after the brief introduction.
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]this is an earlier estimate than even the "ultra-long chronology" would now support, and the "middle chronology" is now favoured. There are some weasel terms, vague attribution, redundancy, and unclear grammar. Consider changing it to along the lines of "[...]this is an earlier estimate than even the "ultra-long chronology" would now support. Therefore, the "middle chronology" is favoured."
How about now? Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Code was compiled near the end of Hammurabi's reign (1792–1750 BC); this was deduced partly from the list of his achievements in the prologue. Unnecessary semicolon and incorrect pronoun. Replace ";" with "." and replace "this" with "It". I see misuse of semicolons quite often, but that will be fixed.
Changed the semicolon. "This" is definitely correct though. "It" can only refer to the stele itself, whereas "this" clearly refers to the estimate of date given in the previous sentence. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]history of the human race"; he remarked that[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "he".
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relief
  • Contrastingly, Scheil in his editio princeps identified[...] Add a comma before "in" and right after "princeps".
Again, really seems like comma soup to me. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prologue
  • The prologue and epilogue together occupy one fifth of the text, the prologue 300 lines and the epilogue 500 lines out of around 4,130 total For clarity and consistent style, add a dash between "one fifth" and rewrite the sentence to "The prologue and epilogue together occupy one-fifth of the text. Out of around 4,130 total lines, the prologue has 300 lines, and the epilogue has 500."
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anum, the Babylonian sky god and king of the gods, granted rulership of humanity to Marduk; Marduk[...] I assume you mean that Marduk became ruler of humanity, if that is the case, replace "of" with "over". Misuse of semicolon, replace ";" with "."
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]shepherd also recurs; it was a common metaphor[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "it".
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]maintaining temples, and peerless on the battlefield. There are two main clauses, remove the comma.
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Epilogue
  • He exalts the laws and his own magnanimity (3152'–3239'). Remove "own", because "his" with "magnanimity" suggest that it is about himself.
Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]legal imagery, and notably the phrase[...] Add a comma right after "notably".
How about now? Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the king's main concern appears to be ensuring that his achievements are not forgotten, and his name not sullied. Main concern? "Main" seems redundant. Remove the comma after "forgotten".
Comma done. I disagree with "main" though. The aforementioned appears to have been his main concern but not his only concern. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation
  • Only if the text was intended as enforced legislation can it truly be called a code of law and its provisions laws. "Truly" is redundant as the whole sentence already suggests that with context.
I'm inclined to keep it. Even scholars sceptical about the "code" and "laws" being a code and laws have not produced a satisfactory alternative. Because of this, and because the terms are convention, it would be confusing and original to call them "code" and "laws", even if that is not strictly what they are. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The document does on first inspection resemble a highly organised code, similar to the Code of Justinian and Napoleonic Code. Remove the comma. The sentence can be worded trivially better, also, add "the" before "Napoleonic". You could write "The document, upon first inspection, resembles a highly organised code similar to the Code of Justinian and the Napoleonic Code."
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vital areas of society and commerce are omitted: for example[...] Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for".
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Mesopotamian legal document explicitly references the Code or indeed any other law collection[...] "Indeed" is unnecessary, "any other law" addresses the point concisely.
Done. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip: Rosetta stone is a featured article and you might see some similar details that you could add onto this article.
Will have a look tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 00:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: That's all I have for today. I will continue with the rest of the article tomorrow. Best of luck! Wretchskull (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Law report
  • Image: library of Ashurbanipal Capitalize library, it's a proper noun.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]law report, containing records of past cases and judgments, albeit phrased in an abstract way. Remove the first comma because it is a main clause. "In an abstract way" is redundant, rephrase it to "abstractly".
How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, these judgments were concerned As per MOS:WTW (I highly suggest you read some points there), one should maintain an impartial tone, and "indeed" is not allowed (MOS:EDITORIAL). Either remove "Indeed" or rewrite the sentence to fit the references but without the word.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jurisprudence
  • [...]within Assyriology, is that the Code is not in fact a true code, MOS:WTW here again, "in fact" is not allowed. Also, it is redundant because "not a true code" already suggests that. Also, remove the comma next to "code".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others have provided their own versions of this theory. "Own" is redundant. "Their" already suggests that by definition.
Inclined to keep this one. I think without it there would be ambiguity. For example, "their" might refer to the two omen collections just mentioned. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]pursued, in order to generate a sequence. Remove "in order", "to" should be alone.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Van De Mieroop provides the following examples. Replace "." with ":"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, following the principle of pointillism, circumstances are added to the first entry in order to create more entries. Link "pointillism" as it may be confusing to some. Remove "in order", again: redundancy.
Removed "in order".
I can't link pointillism, since the article is about the painting technique. I would normally scare-quote "pointillism" to remind the reader that it was defined above, but I see that scare-quoting violates WP:MOS. Do you still think it is a problem? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, in the case of the goat used for threshing[...] Link "threshing".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, linking the Code[...] "In addition" is used quite frequently, change it to "also" or "besides" to avoid redundancy. If the wording is important as it is, you could perhaps change "in addition" in other parts of the article.
Done x3. Only kept it where it is "in addition to...". Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Code in fact appears in a late Babylonian[...] "In fact" is not allowed (MOS:EDITORIAL). Remove it or rewrite the sentence.
Done x2. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]it may best be considered a scholary treatise. Add missing a missing L: "Scholary" ---> "Scholarly". Also, "it may be best considered" according to whom?
Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]legal system: for example, that it demonstrates that there were no professional advocates, or that there were professional judges. Replace ":" with "." and capitalize "for". Remove the comma after "advocates", two main clauses connected.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Underlying principles
  • Indeed, laws 196 and 200 respectively prescribe an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when one man destroys another's. Same issue with MOS:WTW, remove "Indeed" or rewrite the sentence. Remove the comma after "tooth".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]house's builder; the following law[...] Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "the".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • before the law: not just age Replace ":" with ";"
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]though contentious it seems likely[...] Missing comma, add one right after "contentious".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, most readers will be struck[...] Rephrase "In addition" to "also" or "besides" unless it is significant.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • innocence: the very first two laws Replace ":" with ";". Remove the redundant "very"; if you mean the first two laws of the entire stele then it may be an exception.
I did mean that, but have removed anyway. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]laws, and as Owen B. Jenkins observed the Replace ", and" with "." (two independent clauses) and capitalize "as". Also, add a comma after "observed".
Rephrased. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Language
  • (In the second paragraph, add the missing indefinite article "a" before the words "sequence". Also, link the first mention of "clause" if it hasn't been linked once in the article as it is very relevant to the subject.)
Linked "clause". "Sequence of action", though, is an uncountable grammatical term. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • muškēnum is now thought to derive[...] The first word of the sentence should be capitalized. Never use vague attribution (MOS:WTW). I see the word "now" used incorrectly throughout the article quite often.
Assyriological scholarship never capitalises Akkadian words. MOS:LCITEMS isn't clear about what to do here. (Anyway, I changed the sentence to avoid vague attribution so it doesn't matter.)
I've removed a bunch of "now"s. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other Mesopotamian
  • [...]god-given legitimacy in a similar way. Unnecessarily wordy, rewrite "in a similar way" to "similarly".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also like the Code of Hammurabi[...] Add missing comma after "Also".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that scribes were still copying e.g. the Code of Ur-Nammu when Hammurabi produced his Code does suggest that influence can be inferred from this similarity. A rather unclear sentence and is wordy. Can't the sentence be reworded and reduce the extremely wordy "suggest that influence can be inferred from this similarity" to "influenced" in a way?
How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Middle Assyrian Laws, and to the Neo-Babylonian Laws Remove the comma.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]tradition of legal writing, outside Mesopotamia proper. Remove the comma.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mosaic, Graeco-Roman, and modern
  • There are certainly similarities between the two law collections[...] Remove "certainly" per MOS:EDITORIAL, using such words is not allowed.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]collections is very difficult to establish. Is "very" necessary? If not, it is redundant.
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]Twelve Tables; however, this is highly conjectural, as are most arguments for Mesopotamian influence on the Graeco-Roman world. Replace ";" with "." and capitalize "however". It is "highly conjectural" according to whom?
Full stop done. Removed the resulting second sentence. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even Van De Mieroop acknowledges that the majority of Roman law is not similar to the Code, or likely to have been influenced by it. Replace "the majority of Roman law is" with "most Roman laws are"; more concise and could lessen the risk of plagiarism if the previous text was closer to the reference.
Changed to "most Roman law is". Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...]the Code and e.g. United States law and medieval law. Add a comma right after the first "and".
Done. Based on your other suggestions I assume you also wanted a comma after the "and", but let me know if this is wrong. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Code are no more severe and in some cases less so. Add a comma right after "and" and "cases".
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception outside Assyriology
  • The king's reputation as a lawgiver presumably inspired the name of Iraq's Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, and of the South Korean novel and television series called Ms. Hammurabi, which are about a judge. Remove the comma after "Organization". Also, this sentence is unreferenced. Even if it may seem logical, using words such as "presumably" to hypothesize and speculate something is not allowed in an encyclopedia and is original reseach. Unless there are references, the sentence must be removed.
How about now? Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are replicas of the Louvre stele in institutions around the world, including the Headquarters of the United Nations in New York City; the Peace Palace in The Hague, seat of the International Court of Justice; the National Museum of Iran in Tehran; the Pergamon Museum in Berlin; the University of Chicago Oriental Institute; the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; the University of Kansas Clendening History of Medicine Library; and the Prewitt–Allen Archaeological Museum of Corban University. Replace all semicolons with commas (incorrect clause listing).
Done. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes:
  • I notice that you sometimes do not like "comma soup". These commas are actually fully justified and grammatically necessary, and paradoxically, it would be invalid and ugly not to have them. If there are some instances where you feel like you could rewrite a sentence to avoid it, that is an option.
Have changed them. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Hammurabi article, there are some sources and details in the "Code of laws" section where you could use sources that aren't used in this article. That could perhaps diversify your sources to avoid possible plagiarism of Roth-sources. You could also add and alter information there as you obviously know a lot about the Code.
I'll have a look at these sources. Initial impression is that they are not the best. Also, at least two were written much earlier than the article attributes and have not been updated.
The Code article itself is not reliant on Roth. As stated, during the FAC mentoring, I added a Roth page ref after every line number ref and changed my own translations to hers. I grant that this may create an impression of uneven source use. Is this a problem? Is the current scheme necessary?
Yes, once this FAC is done I might go and improve the articles that reference the Code. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: Yep—the sources in that article aren't ideal, and most of them are mis-dated. I've added some highlights though. The Hazor paper is somewhat interesting, and I had forgotten about the Ziolkowski book.
I also added stuff on the Civilization games because they are doubtless responsible for many of the pageviews. Emqu (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you see that I have missed some words to watch, you could fix them.
Have done so. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: That's my review of this article. I'm sure promotion will be a cakewalk for you, good luck! Wretchskull (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your thorough and upbeat comments. I'm touched that you also want to speed this along to FA! Do let me know if you're unhappy with the edits. Emqu (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wretchskull: just wondering whether you would now support this? Emqu (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: Sorry for the delay. I have three minor things to say. If you look at the footnotes section, there are some short citations that do not have page numbers. Another thing is that before you started your rewrite of the article, I saw that the relief at the top of the stele is referred to as the "fingernail". Is that something significant that could be included once or twice in the article? Also, are there any good references prior to the rewrite that could be used here to diversify the sources? Apart from that, I absolutely support this nomination! Wretchskull (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wretchskull: Re footnotes: yes, in those cases it is where I make a general point about the work. Is that OK? Re "fingernail": the only sources I have seen calling it that are the old Wikipedia article and the iconography article it cites, which I could not access to check, so I'm inclined to avoid it. Re sources: a few are obviously non-reputable, and numerous are from general history books. Unless the latter are of special significance (e.g. the H. G. Wells), I would also consider them non-reputable.

Notes on the old sources:

  • Moorey says it's granite, most sources say basalt. I'm inclined to defer to the consensus but if you think it's worth mentioning then I will.
  • As mentioned, I couldn't find the Collon, and I wouldn't want to include the fingernail thing anyway.
  • Ragozin is actually from 1896, not 2017, so deserves caution. Secondly, Magan's location has been somewhat controversial since then. Thirdly, I couldn't find any mentions of Magan (or Makan) in the Google Book at all.
  • The H. G. Wells and the Barton would improve the article so I'll add those.
  • I'm inclined to ignore the constitution footnote. The Flach article is bad (and Flach was not an Assyriologist). The Thomas & Stevens source is a kids' book.
  • I checked Victimology already. The Hammurabi coverage is not reputable.
  • Fant & Mitchell, Ancient Orient, and Sax are also bad. Emqu (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: Very well. The only thing left is the concern that some text in the article may not be supported by the corresponding references as per, for example, the few ones raised by Ovinus in a spot-check. If that is because it does support the text but is unavailable then that is fine. You can add and remove whatever point you raised as you see fit; you are the only Wikipedian who I dare say is an expert about the topic. Wretchskull (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: I had another look today at citations not included in Ovinus' spot checks. I can only say that, to the best of my knowledge, the article's claims are justified.
I've now added Wells and Barton from the earlier revision.
And thanks for the archive links, I didn't think of that. Emqu (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Wretchskull: is your support now without caveats? Emqu (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Emqu: Without a doubt! I keenly support this nomination. Wretchskull (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: Thanks again for how much you invested in this!
@Gog the Mild: I think that's consensus. Emqu (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is for the coordinators to decide. As a first time nominator I would prefer to see more than the bare minimum of three supports, comprehensive as they have been. The nomination also needs a source review. (I have had it Source review requests for a while.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: I haven't seen you active for a while, I hope you are still there. Wretchskull (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: Check your talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks from Ovinus

[edit]
  • [5]: Footnote, not a source
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [11]: I'm getting a 404
That could be a localised issue; at least it is not happening to me, not sure. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [16]: "This remains the consensus." Doesn't seem to be found in the source? Roth says "for it was taken to Susa, perhaps by Shutruk-Nahhunte I, a Middle Elamite ruler, or by" (emphasis mine)
  • [25]: good
  • [31]: good
  • [40]: good
  • [41]: good
  • [44]: good
  • [53]: good
  • [57]: good
  • [62], [65], [68], [69], [73], [75], [76], [78], [79], [106], [130]: @Emqu: I have the 1997 edition of Roth 1995a, which looks to line up, but I don't understand the conversion between line numbers. Perhaps you could explain, then I can check these ones?
  • [88], [102], [107], [113], [127], [149], [155], [158], [160]: unobtainable print sources
  • [144]: Not seeing it in Roth, but maybe it's in the others
  • [150]: Roth seems to support the last half, can't check the first
  • [169]: good
  • [176]: good
  • [177]: good

I programmatically chose 35 random numbers, so coordinators let me know if more would be appropriate. Ovinus (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ovinus, that looks more than good enough to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation issues that persist are the ones Ovinus pointed out but also that some citations do not have page numbers. I fixed some since Emqu has not been online for a while now, unfortunately. Wretchskull (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus: @Wretchskull: So sorry, for some reason I missed your last ping Wretchskull! I will get on these tomorrow. Emqu (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ovinus: Thanks for these, and for the article edits.

  • [11, now 10]: The Louvre had a page on the stele, which was of course a useful source, but it appears to have removed it since I submitted the article for FAC. Infuriating. Should I assume that the removal is temporary and leave the article, or assume it is permanent and remove all references to it in the article?
  • [16, now 15]: Removed the "consensus" sentence.
  • Re line numbers: Roth's edition doesn't give precise line numbers (at least, the 1995 edition doesn't). The article needs to cite an edition which does. I chose CDLI's edition for these since it is open-source and very thorough. (I initially pointed the reader to CDLI instead of Roth, but my FAC mentor commented that CDLI was less useful without knowledge of Akkadian.) However, CDLI uses a different line numbering scheme.
  • Is "unobtainable print sources" an obstacle to FA status?
  • [144, now 143]: Reworked.
  • [150, now 149]: Rephrased.

@Wretchskull: Re page numbers.

  • Louvre is (/was) a web page.
  • Winckler, Bonfante, and Johns in the context refer to their editions as a whole.
  • Have clarified that the Harper and Equitable Trust Company citations referred to their titles.
  • Souvay and Horne are web pages containing the raw text of early print editions.
  • Citation 40 refers to sources which have this as their topic.
  • Added for Elsen-Novák & Novák.
  • Added for 71.
  • 82 cites editions endorsing this view, for which citations are given later. I would have thought this didn't need a citation?
  • Would 84, 85, and 97 be improved by "passim"?
  • 111: I couldn't find a specific citation for Listenwissenschaft in my notes on that paper, and no longer have access to the paper. Worth retaining?
  • Johns 1910 is another web page of raw text.
  • Most citations from 163 to the end are web pages. I assume it was not these that you were flagging up. Emqu (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: If you want to return a link to its original form you can archive it via, for example, archive.org. I have archived the louvre sources so do not worry about that. Wretchskull (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at Roth 1995a (1997 for me) for some of those ones and it looked to match up, though I of course couldn't check the exact line numbers. So based on that I support on the spot checks, and it looks like y'all will figure out the page numbers. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fowler&fowler

[edit]
Hi @Fowler&fowler: are you still interested in reviewing? Emqu (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but I forgot all about this article. I don't have too much time right now, but if it is archived—which I hope it is not as it reads very well in my cursory reading—I promise I will come back and review it with care in its second appearance. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Not to worry. I'm active now so should be able to stop it getting archived. Would you feel able to support it? If you would rather not without a full review then I understand. Either way I'm glad you like it. Emqu (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Land

[edit]

I randomly browsed onto this article, started reading it, thought "Why isn't this a Featured Article?" Then saw the candidacy on the talk page. So here I am!

I don't have a detailed knowledge of the subject, but I can find very little scope for improvement. I have made one small edit to "Reception outside Assyriology" and I would be interested to know in this section if the Code has any impact in modern legal discussion, or if it is simply treated as a curiosity to add weight.

This said, based on my initial reaction and subsequent more detailed read of the article, I am delighted to support it. Great job! The Land (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Land: Very late response, but thank you!
I have to say, 'where it is assumed to be a true code of laws, and that its provisions are laws' seems ungrammatical to me. I have inserted a compromise. I am happy with the other edit you made.
I suppose that depends how you define 'impact'. In terms of influence on modern laws or legal thought, probably only via Roman/Greek/Biblical laws, if it influenced those. Most legal scholars I have read take it as given a) that its entries had legal weight, b) that it was a full code of laws, and c) that it was the first code of laws. Then they move on to whatever point they are trying to make. Emqu (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Borsoka

[edit]

Thank you for completing this interesting article. Please find my first comments below:

  • ... his father Sin-Muballit ... Does the cited source verify it?
Added.
  • ... leaving his organisation intact Why is this statement relevant?
It characterises him as sensible rather than vindictive or rash.
  • ... forming alliances to do so when expedient Does this statement provide actual information?
Yes, surely...? Though I would agree that it isn't essential to the article. Removed.
  • All these preoccupations surface in the Code, especially in the prologue ... and epilogue.... OR?
Removed.
  • ...(e.g. 37–39, 51, 90–97) ... (e.g. 3154'–3164', 3240'–3253') What are these numbers? Consider moving them to a footnote.
  • Is the ISBN for Van De Mieroop (2007) correct?
Have changed to the 2007 edition.
  • It was excavated by the French Archaeological Mission under the direction of Jacques de Morgan.[14] Susa is in modern-day Khuzestan Province, Iran (Persia at the time of excavation). Consider changing the sequence of the two sentences.
Done.
  • Introduce Father Jean-Vincent Scheil.
Done.
  • The introduction is problematic, because it is not verified (see my comment below).
Can I just remove it? I didn't initially have one and it doesn't seem necessary to the article.
  • The editio princeps of the Code was published by Father Jean-Vincent Scheil in 1902, in the fourth volume of the Reports of the Delegation to Persia (Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse). After a brief introduction with details of the excavation, Scheil gave a transliteration and a free translation into French, as well as a selection of images.[23] Editions in other languages soon followed: in German by Hugo Winckler in 1902, in English by C. H. W. Johns in 1903, and in Italian by Pietro Bonfante, also in 1903. OR?
Surely a plain edition history is not OR??
Meaning it's not OR, right?
Does it state that it is the editio princeps? Borsoka (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1792–1750 BC) Repetition (that Hammurabi ruled from 1792 to 1750 BC is mentioned in the first sentence).
Cut. Emqu (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...the French Dominican and Assyriologist who wrote the Code's editio princeps... OR? The same information is repeated some lines below.
See above re Scheil intro. re editio princeps: I have now cited every instance.
  • The relief appears to show Hammurabi standing before a seated Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and god of justice. Repetition.
Thanks, done.
  • ...before a seated Shamash... OR? (The source verifying the statement does not name the god. You may want to verify the statement with a reference to Roth.)
Done.
  • Shamash wears the horned crown of divinity and has a solar attribute, fiery rays,... OR?
Addressed.
  • ... in his editio princeps... OR? Perhaps italics?
Added citation, and on my end at least it was already in italics. Emqu (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • There are several p. or pp. errors. Eg cites 21, 95, 118.
Fixed.
  • Bonfante is missing a publisher location and an OCLC.
Added publisher. Couldn't find OCLC.
It's 458622280.
  • Standardise your hyphenisation of ISBNs.
Removed all hyphens.
  • Are you sure about the ISBNs given for Barton, Driver and Edwards?
Barton: I was using an online copy with no ISBN. I couldn't find an ISBN for that particular edition. Driver: fixed. Edwards: I think it's correct.
  • Barton: In which case, where have you obtained the ISBN you give from?
  • Driver: In which case, why are you giving one? (And where did it come from?)
  • Edwards: I don't. Where are you obtaining the ISBN from? (Perhaps use the OCLC instead?)
  • Breasted needs an ISBN.
Fixed.
You have given the ISBN for the 2015 reprint, not the 1916 edition you cite. Which did you obtain the information cited from?
  • The ISBN given for Davies is for the 2010 edition, not the edition cited.
Fixed.
  • Equitable Trust Company needs an OCLC.
Again, I wasn't sure how to find this.
WorldCat is your friend. Scroll down.
  • The ISBN given for Home is for the 2015 edition.
Fixed.
It still seems to be for the 2015 edition. Where are you obtaining it from?
I cannot find the correct one anywhere. Do I need the OCLC, since I just got it from the URL?
I don't think that you are getting the information from The Code of Hammurabi (1915). I don't even think that there is such an edition. You seem to be getting it from the Fordham University Ancient History Sourcebook and should cite it to there.
  • Are you sure about the ISBN given for Johns (1903a). Which, apart from other issues is the same as that given for Johns (1914).
Fixed.
3601005123 is the ISBN of the 1980 edition, not the edition cited. Which did you obtain the information from?
  • Could you check all of the pre-1967 ISBNs and all of the works which don't have identifiers. There is a trend developing.
Sorry about this, I think I just misunderstood how ISBNs worked. Have done this, minus a few I wasn't sure about. These were: Encyclopædia Britannica 11 (or whichever volume Johns 1910 is in); The Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1910; and the Wells 1920 edition.
Encyclopedias don't need identifiers, so that's fine. The OCLC for Wells (1920) is 867104710.
  • As Stark is listed as a book, why is it under "Web" in "Sources"? It also needs a publisher location.
Well, it's a newsletter, and I'm not certain whether it was printed. I'm also not certain whether simply being printed qualifies a newspaper to go under 'books and journals'. I wasn't sure what cite to use but thought book produced the best result. Added a location.
  • Publisher locations: Why is the country given for "London", but not for "Bethesda"?
That's the convention I was taught: that for U.S. locations, state name is sufficient. I don't think WP:MOS forbids this, and I have been consistent about it. Emqu (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't given the state names: you have, I think, given the US Post Office codes. Mostly I was wondering why you felt it necessary to disambiguate Milan, Qxford, London etc, when it seems unlikely that there will be any confusion as to which is intended - you have, as you say, been consistent here; while "Bethesda, MD" probably doesn't tell a non-North America which of these is intended.
I really was consistently applying the convention I was taught, which is a cannibalised APA. It is US-centric, but I am a "non-North American" and I find it perfectly clear. If you would like me to change it, then say the word.

I'll leave things there for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ensure that each "Sources" list is in alphabetical order by (first) author surname.
Some responses above and an additional comment. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry, give me two days to address these queries and the others. Emqu (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done. Unless otherwise specified, I have added OCLCs using WorldCat (thanks for the tip). Emqu (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just Horne that I still have a query against, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Emqu, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the coordinators

[edit]

The nominator, Emqu, has been inactive since 9 April. It may be time to archive this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Very sorry, I have been extremely busy and also didn't get notifications about these. If you could just leave the page open for two or three more days I will address everything. I am pleased that more people have commented and I look forward to replying. Emqu (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll give you another three or four days, then drop by again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Emqu: I'm glad you came back, but make sure you check this page every now and then; there are more reviews and answers to your previous comments. Wretchskull (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator absent from WP three weeks, time to close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ajpolino

[edit]

I admit I knew nothing about the topic except for the whole "eye for an eye" bit, so I'll be reviewing only on criterion 1a.

  • Earlier law collections:
    • Not a hill I plan to die on, but "... make it tempting to assume..." is odd to read in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps a rephrase?
    • "practice of law, from before..." - The comma seems purposeless; perhaps the whole ", from" could be removed safely?
  • Copies>Louvre stele
    • "However, others,..." could be shortened to "Others, including..."
    • Jean-Vincent Scheil is wikilinked at second use rather than first.
    • "...Elamite city of Susa. Susa is in modern-day..." - a bit choppy to read. How about "... Elamite city of Susa in modern-day..."
  • Copies>Other copies
    • I'm not sure I understand "a part of the scribal curriculum". If you're generally referring to texts typically copied by scribes, then I think it's fine. If you mean something more specific or different, perhaps a clarification is in order.
    • It's momentarily confusing to read that the Louvre steel is "most complete" and later that "The additional copies fill in most of the stele's original text, including much of the erased section." Am I to understand that the known copies contain less complete fragments of the code, but happen to also include the sections erased in the Louvre stele? Or am I misunderstanding something?
  • Early scholarship:
    • "...first volume of The Outline of History, and to Wells too..." is clunky to read. How about "Outline of History, calling the Code 'the earliest known code of law'." or something that similarly avoids saying Wells twice in a dozen or so words.
    • The two sentences "The Code was compiled... in the prologue" stand out as different from the who-said-what style of the surrounding paragraphs. You repeat the same information in the Prologue section ("The list of his... Hammurabi's reign"). I think it flows a bit better there, so I'd suggest removing it here. Alternatively you could just state it here; either way I don't think the reader needs the repetition.
  • Prologue:
    • I'm not sure I understand the purpose of "but is perhaps justified by Hammurabi's interest in his subjects' affairs." You just told us that the shepherd metaphor was common for rulers of that time and place. Is an additional justification necessary?
  • Epilogue:
    • I'm not demanding its removal, but I don't think the structured list of god(desse)s in order of invocation is particularly informative to a reader. It would be equally informative without breaking up the page to say "The epilogue continues in this manner, invoking (in order) Anum, Enlil...". Or it could be removed; we get the idea from your description just above.

More to come... Ajpolino (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2021 (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) 7 June 2021 [15].

Lights Up

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Harry Styles's song, "Lights Up", released as the lead single from his critically acclaimed second studio album, Fine Line (2019). Co-written by Styles after a period of self-reflection, "Lights Up" is about self-acceptance and was praised by critics for its pop and R&B sounds, as well as its unconventional structure. It became Styles's second top-10 hit in the UK following his debut single "Sign of the Times" (2017). The song and its music video, released on the National Coming Out Day, attracted debates about the singer's sexuality. The article went through an extensive peer review over the last few months and I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. I would like to thank HĐ, Panini, The Ultimate Boss, Bruce1ee, Aoba47, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Atsme, HJ Mitchell, HumanxAnthro, and Heartfox for participating in the peer review, and Twofingered Typist and Baffle gab1978 for copy-editing the article. Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Ashleyyoursmile! 12:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Full disclosure: I participated in the peer review, but haven't edited the article. Versioned reviewed.

Quality

  • In the i-D article, the author appears to source the director/music video filming from a PopCrave tweet... I don't think this meets the "high-quality" sources requirement in WP:WIAFA #1c. Is there another source that lists the director?
  • Unfortunately, I cannot find another source that mentions the director. I have used this source for my FL Harry Styles discography.
  • What makes Atwood Magazine a high-quality source; auspOp?
  • removed Atwood. Replaced the latter.
  • E! Online, Insider, and Evening Standard's reliabilities are currently listed as "no consensus" at WP:RSP. I don't have a particularly high opinion of WP:RSP unless there has been an RfC, but do you think there are better sources that can be used instead, or maybe not cite them at all if you don't really think they add anything to the article?

Formatting

  • I believe The New York Times is actually url-access=limited, not subscription; they do give you a few free articles.
  • revised
  • All of the Rolling Stone refs are url-access=limited. I did get a few free articles but then it paywalled everything.
  • revised
  • fn 12: maybe helpful to specify it is Vanity Fair Italy.
  • revised
  • fn 15 is Vulture, not New York. Also url-access=limited.
  • revised
  • The Atlantic url-access=limited.
  • revised
  • The Cut url-access=limited.
  • revised
  • fn 36: this is a press release from Sony, as seen at the byline at the bottom. It should be formatted as cite press release (not web), with via=<website name>. I don't know where "Radio Airplay S.R.L." comes from; the bottom of the page says "Airplay Control S.R.L."
  • revised
  • fn 40: the article title italicizes Saturday Night Live.
  • revised
  • fn 97: don't link to the page directly, as only people with Newspapers.com subscriptions can view it. Instead, link to the clipping I made here which anyone can see.
  • revised
  • fn 119: I would argue this does not indicate a UK-wide release, as only one radio station/network is cited. It may be more accurate if used in-text, specifying BBC Radio 1, not "United Kingdom". There are other radio networks in the UK like Capital FM that may not have playlisted it.
  • revised

Spotchecks

Oppose by Nick-D

[edit]

I don't think that the prose is up to FA standards at present and some claims I spot checked weren't supported by the source. Some comments (intended to be illustrative) are:

  • "Styles conceived the song's lyrics, which discuss self-acceptance and Styles's embracing of his own identity, after a period of self-reflection." - awkwardly worded and meaningless
  • "The song was written by Styles, and producers Tyler Johnson and Kid Harpoon, and on 11 October 2019, Erskine Records and Columbia Records released it for digital download and streaming as the album's lead single. "" - also clunky
  • "Critics have compared the track's production to the music of Tame Impala and Justin Timberlake." - are these the same critics? These artists have quite different styles.
  • "the video attracted debates about Styles's sexuality" - clunky
  • "To promote the song, Styles performed it on several television programmes, including Saturday Night Live and Later... with Jools Holland." - doesn't need to be in the lead: musicians routinely promote and play their music.
  • The first para of the 'Writing and production' section should be in past tense
  • "both of whom had collaborated with him on Harry Styles" - awkward
  • "Styles described "Lights Up" as "the most unorthodox song" he had ever made" - as this is from only his second album, this seems vacuous. I'd suggest thinning out the references to Styles talking about himself, as they're not very useful.
  • "It was written via voice notes with Tyler [Johnson]. He'd send me a track and we'd send voice notes back and forth" - does this contradict the claim that it was written as part of a burst of inspiration?
  • "Media publications including Time and Paper noted a melancholic edge to the lyric" - only Time and Paper are then referenced, so the claim that there were other "publications" who "noted" this isn't supported (also, are these the editorial views of the publications, or of their critics?)
  • "Music critics lauded Styles for experimenting with pop and R&B sounds, exploring a new musical direction that showed his versatility as an artist." - not in the source, which seems to be the view of a single author.
  • I gave up at this point given that the same problems kept coming up. Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 June 2021 [16].

Singer Building

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, that was briefly the world's tallest building and later the tallest to be demolished peacefully. It was first constructed as two low-rise buildings in the late 1890s, which were combined and expanded in the 1900s. The building had an otherwise relatively uneventful existence until 1967, when it was torn down to make way for a larger and less architecturally distinguished structure. The interior was elaborately decorated, as was the facade, and the building in its heyday would have been considered quite innovative. Unfortunately, the Singer Building just didn't have enough space for modern office demands, so it was not preserved.

This was promoted as a Good Article nine months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from Eddie891. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Epicgenius, you could do with attracting some reviewers to this. More than two weeks in and no sign of a consensus to promote promoting. If this doesn't change over the next two or three days I am afraid that it liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have let this go another two weeks, but sadly it still shows little sign of building a consensus to promote. If this doesn't change over the next two days I regret that it will be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Unfortunately, I don't expect this will see any more comments. I'm OK with it being archived, but for the future (i.e. after two weeks have passed), would you have any recommendations for how I can draw reviews? It seems like some topics tend to just draw less attention than others. This is at least the third time I've nominated an article which had few reviews. Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveat that I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, here are some comments you may consider:

  • Infobox says Beaux-Arts but the body does not mention this
  • Infobox says demolished 1968 but body says start in September 1967 and finished in 1969
    • Done.
  • Infobox says 15 elevators, lead says 16
    • Fixed the infobox.
  • I'm not convinced about the lead's last paragraph. The content is fine, but I find it odd that the original building is described last in the lead, I would expect it to be the second paragraph. Is there a reason why straightforward chronological description isn't used?
    • The last paragraph of the lead is chronologically arranged. The first buildings on the site are described in the first sentence. The second sentence is about the tower expansion and the annex to the two original buildings. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault, I failed to make my point clear: I was wondering if it would be better if the second paragraph starts with "The original 10-story Singer Building was erected between 1897 and 1898, while the 14-story Bourne Building was built adjacent to it from 1898 to 1899." and so on, all chronologically. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that makes sense. I have rearranged it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expected the article to start with a background section about early skyscrapers, probably about Manhattan specifically, but definitely including which building previously was the tallest. And maybe consider putting in a bit about Singer as well. Just to set the stage rather than jumping straight into Design.
  • I'm also not sure about the History section coming after Design. It may just be personal preference, I just like a chronological approach. In the current approach there is lots of detail about the original building and the Bourne building in the Form section, and then a bit more in the History section. But no doubt there will be issues with a chronological approach as well, so as I said, I'm not sure. But something for you to consider.
    • You have a good point on both counts. To me, it seems like a background section would be suitable. However, it would be more suitable as the beginning of a history section. As for why the design section comes first, I do this in many of my articles because I feel the design elements are most relevant to the subject, followed by the history. I'm fine with changing the order around if there's a better reason why the history section is more relevant to the subject. I am currently working on writing a background section. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and agree that the design elements are more relevant than the history. If this follows the structure of other articles, we should not deviate. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead uses Singer Manufacturing Company but Design section uses Singer Sewing Machine Company
    • Fixed.
  • previous headquarters at 561 Broadway.[b] The previous --> repetition of previous
    • Removed.
  • was also referred to the "Little Singer Building" --> insert as?
    • Done.
  • Otto F. Semsch,[12][4]--> I believe the convention is to list refs in ascending order
    • Fixed.
  • Contemporary sources at the time ... to the entire structure. --> Perhaps it would be better to end the section with this, to keep things in chronological order?
    • Done.
  • The base of the building filled the entire lot. --> there's an earlier lot that is not linked
  • There was a gap of 10 feet (3.0 m) --> this is a bit puzzling to me, as The tower was set back 30 feet (9.1 m) behind the base. Is it set back 30 feet on one side and 10 on another?
  • The narrowness of the gap was because the columns required to support the Singer Tower would have been too large to place atop the original Singer Building. --> Sorry, I don't get this
    • The original building was at the southeastern portion of the lot. The original building couldn't support the weight of a large tower. Instead, when the northern annex was built, the tower was built atop that northern annex. That portion of the building was close to the City Investing Building. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4,280,000 pounds (1,940,000 kg) of limestone --> we go from square feet to million bricks to cubic feet to pounds: it would be nicer if the unit of measurement could be consistent. Not sure if the sources allow you to do that of course.
  • There was extensive ornamentation used --> that's 3 times used in short succession
    • Fixed.
  • After the 1906–1908 modifications --> In the Form section it was From 1906 to 1907. Is this a typo or is there another set of modifications I missed?
  • between the 7th floor and the three-story roof --> earlier we had seventh story. Be consistent with MOS:NUM
    • Done.
  • self-glazed --> what is that?
  • supported by brackets on the 35th floor. Cantilevers supported the balcony. --> would it be better to combine these 2 supports into one sentence?
    • Done.
  • Though the top of the lantern --> Why "Though"?
    • Fixed.
  • The tower was lit at night --> the whole tower or just the top?
  • except on the basements, first floor, and 14th through 16th floors --> I assume there they were 1 story?
  • H. W. Miller--> earlier we had J.J. Spurr without a space between the capitals
    • Fixed.
  • 9.5 acres --> can we have this in square feet, like all the others?
  • a combined capacity of 15,000 U.S. gallons (57,000 l; 12,000 imp gal) --> don't need to do the conversions again I think
    • Removed.
  • The boilers had to generate 150,000,000 pounds (68,000,000 kg) of steam pressure to meet demand. --> pounds doesn't seem to be the right unit to me
I don't think we can have an FA article with pressure expressed in pounds. If there is no other source it seems to me the sentence will have to go. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. It seemed out of place to me, in any case. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lobby was characterized as exuding "celestial radiance". --> by whom?
    • Added.
  • There was also retail space --> repetition of also
    • Removed.
  • The Singer Company's main offices on the 33rd through 35th floors, where there was a plethora of ornamental plaster --> verb missing
    • Fixed.
  • equivalent to $14 in 2020 --> perhaps update to 2021
  • $25,352,000 in 2019 --> perhaps update to 2021
    • For both of these, the conversion was conducted using the last full year of inflation data that is available, which should be 2020 for small dollar amounts and 2019 for large dollar amounts. The figures for the current year are not readily available in the template because of frequent changes in inflation rate. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Singer Company's offices on the center stories and rental office space on the middle six stories. --> aren't the center stories the same as the middle stories?
  • Bourne bought three five-story structures --> Bourne personally? or for the company? I assumed Bourne personally but then a little further it says "By 1905, the Singer Company controlled most of the block along both Broadway and Liberty Street;" so now I'm not sure
  • Flagg was retained to design the fourteen-story Bourne Building --> a bit earlier it was 10-story .. please check for MOS:NUM consistency throughout
    • Done.
  • In conjunction with the tower's construction, in late 1905, Flagg --> It reads as if the year is referring to the tower's construction, which is not the case. Do we need this first clause at all?
  • The Singer Building was the tallest in the world for a year after its tower's completion --> surpassing which building?
  • In 1961, Singer announced it would sell the building --> Huh? But they had already sold it in 1925 to the Utilities Power and Light Corporation .. did they back it back at some stage?
    • I investigated the sources again. According to the newspaper sources from that period, the sale in 1925 was in fact only an agreement. The list of deed transfers does not indicate that any sale took place at that time. Presumably the buyer backed out. Epicgenius (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagram of the world's tallest buildings from 1908 to 1974 --> I like this diagram but can't read any of the text in it
  • have setbacks as they rose --> this is not the first use of setback, so move link
    • Done.
  • mid-20th century --> is 1916 already mid-century?
  • I would add a few links: Roof lantern, dome, cornice, Indiana limestone, pediments, belt course, bracing, girder, water level, monogram,
    • Done.
  • After my first scan of the article I thought it could be trimmed as I was under the impression it contained quite a bit of unnecessary detail. However, when reading closely, I found most of the material relevant. For instance, it was interesting to read about the elevator operators, and the complexity of expansion. And I even got interested in what happened to the original entrance.

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I am glad you found the article interesting. I'll respond to these comments in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed all of your comments now. I added a little context under the "history" section, in regard to your note about context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the new background section. Just check for MOS:NUM issues in this new text. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have done so. Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References formatting check (using this version):

  • Check for missing publisher locations (just a few examples: Wiley, Amberley Publishing, Taylor & Francis, University of Chicago Press)
  • #9: since we have J.J. in the body of the text, we should also have no space between initials here in A. M. Same issue in #170
  • #103: why does this not simply read Condit 1968, p. 119 ? Or actually a better question is Why is the Condit book listed in sources, since it is referenced only once, and all the other books referenced only once do not appear in Sources?
    • I removed the redundant ref from the sources section.
  • #112: It looks like you link publications on first mention only. So Brooklyn Daily Eagle should link here but not in #128
    • Removed.
  • Willis, Carol (1995). Form Follows Finance: Skyscrapers and Skylines in New York and Chicago. Princeton Architectural Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-5689-8044-7. --> I don't think that p.50 should be there
    • Removed.

That's it for now. I plan to do a source spot check soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks (using this version):

  • #1 #16 #18 #19 #24 #25 #31 #47 #49 #74 #127 #141 all ok
  • #7: mostly ok, but it just says East 23rd St, nothing about Madison or its district
  • #20: I couldn't quite find the "30 feet"
    • On page 10, the quoted text is "About the same time the project of extending the front of the original Singer Building northward on Broadway and erecting a tower of some forty odd stories, 30 feet back of this front, was accepted by the Singer Company, and the plans for this part of the building, henceforth called the 'Singer Building Addition,' or the 'Tower,' were begun." However, this is the setback of the tower, not the length of the additional frontage. I have corrected that now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for the source review and spot checks. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Support from me. I hope you can attract some more reviewers soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2021 (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/June_2021&oldid=1030344394"