Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/October 2018

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018 [1].

---

Biblical criticism

Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the critical reason-based study of the Bible, its history, its major methods, controversies, and achievements, and its contemporary evolution. I believe this is an important topic in the area of religion, philosophy and history. This should be a 'flagship' article for Wikiproject: Biblical criticism, as well as being important to other Wikipedia projects, and since this is a controversial area that is often researched by the public, it needs to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. That's a very high standard, I know, but I am committed to doing whatever I need to do to get this article to measure up to Wikipedia's best. I am cooperative and willing to work hard and will deeply appreciate anyone who cares about making this article great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This article was taken through a thorough Good article review, which it obtained, then it went through the FA mentoring program where it was capably corrected and polished by one of the wonderful volunteers there, 'then' it went through a peer review where great people had great ideas, and finally, it was nominated here. This article owes many people, and is an exemplar of Wikipedia working together doing what it does best. This is a complex, detailed, analytical topic, but hopefully, anyone can follow what is said in this article. It is as non-technical a technical discussion as possible. Please don't feel "unqualified" to review it. Anyone should be able to do so. If not, we need to know that too. Thank you for any and all efforts! Jenhawk777 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support by Katolophyromai

Hello! I just noticed this article was up for "Featured Article" nomination and was disheartened to see that no one had commented on it already. I think this is an exceptional, well-written article that covers the subject quite thoroughly. I do have a few comments, though:

extended resolved discussion

In the 1970s, the New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders did work on Judaism that has pervasively influenced Pauline studies. I think it would be a good idea to link and briefly explain the New Perspective on Paul here, which represents a major shift in scholarly understanding of Paul's epistles, as well as Paul's relationship with Judaism. I think something should also be mentioned about the fact the E. P. Sanders is credited with having greatly advanced the analysis of the historical Jesus within the context of first-century Galilean Judaism. One or two sentences total ought to be sufficient. I have several sources I can provide to support the statement about him advancing understanding of Jesus as a first-century Galilean Jew. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC) This is a really good idea! I would love those sources--and is that one or two sentences on the new perspective and one or two more on the historical Jesus or one or two in total? Do you think Sander's contribution to the historical Jesus should be down in that section or stay in history?Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC) ::::@Jenhawk777: It should stay in the "Twentieth century" section because the "Historical Jesus" section seems to deal with current methods and techniques used for extracting historical material from the gospels; whereas the "Twentieth century" section seems to be dealing with the historical development of our understanding of the Bible. I have added note of Sanders's work on the historical Jesus to the section, along with a citation to a reliable source, and inserted a link to the article New Perspective on Paul in the preceding sentence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Sound reasoning and I agree with it. And thank you again. (If I say thank you too much and get to irritating you with it, please just understand I am too truly grateful for both the input and the help not to say something.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I like it. In one of my earlier versions I had used "paradigm shift" to describe Sander's impact, but one of the reviewers hated that, saying how can you know that? But we do know that! I didn't argue, I just took it out, very sad to see it go. I am over the moon that someone else who recognizes paradigm shift has indeed occurred is now reading this and wanted to put it back! I am trying not to crow--but I am very happy about it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC) "The New Testament synoptic problem" section includes only a diagram illustrating the four document hypothesis. While the four-source hypothesis includes the two-source hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis is independently more widely accepted, a fact which even the text of this section itself seems to indicate. I think it would be better to have diagrams illustrating both the two-source hypothesis on its own and the four-source hypothesis which incorporates it in order to avoid lending undue emphasis on the four-source hypothesis. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I actually did have a diagram of two-source theory, but I had a peer review before putting this up for FA and one of the reviewers said images should not interfere with the headings below them, so I took it out. There was no way to prevent that interference with two diagrams next to text that is smaller than the space required for the diagrams. I tried everything. So I picked the diagram less discussed in the text and made it slightly larger. How do you feel about images interfering with headings? I am happy to put a diagram of two-source theory back in if it is not a problem for you that it disarranges things a little. Alternatively, I can make them fit if I remove the text beneath them. How do you feel about images with no captions? Or very limited captions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: It does not look like you tried using the "multiple image" parameter, which allows you to display two images side-by-side so that neither of them interfere with the next section. I have instated it with this edit. It now displays perfectly on my screen, but every screen is different, so it may look different on yours. If that does not work, feel free to revert my edit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC) This is totally and completely wonderful of you! Thank you! I am an image novice and had not even heard of this before and was trying to figure it out from Nikkimaria's comment below when it showed up that you had gone ahead and fixed it for me. I am so grateful. Thank you. I really like including the diagrams as an alternative to more pictures. If you are happy with the look, then I am happy too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I am truly grateful that you have put so much time and effort into improving this very important and article. This is definitely a subject for which our quality needs to be up to Featured Article standards. I am glad to say that, as far as I can tell, this article meets those standards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Hello! I am so grateful and glad to see you here! I will do my best to address each of your concerns. They are all good and reasonable comments and I will do something about each one I promise. Thank you so much!Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: I noticed a few more things I thought I would give suggestions on: You sometimes spell out the name of the century and sometimes write it using numbers. You should either always write out the name of the century in words or always write it using numbers. Regardless of which way you choose to designate the century, it is important that you use that form consistently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I have a little book of grammar called the Brief English Handbook--awesome book. It tells me I should "use a combination of figures and words when such a combination will keep your writing clear." It says I should spell out the number when it begins a sentence--regardless of how it is used elsewhere. I figured that also applies to headings. Otherwise I should use figures. Of course, rules of grammar change constantly and mine is an old book. I looked for a Wikipedia policy on this and couldn't find one. I will go through and create consistency if you wish--just so you know it could impact clarity, and be problematic down the road for other reviewers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: That is really weird... I have never heard a rule like that. It sounds silly to me. My English teachers always said to write out numbers with less than three digits using words, but to use numerals for all numbers that have three digits or more. The sole exceptions to this rule are years (ie. "1 AD," not "one AD") and days of the month ("5 May," not "fifth May"). Wikipedia does not seem to share that rule, though. I do know that MOS:YEAR states that all years should always be written in numerals on Wikipedia as a matter of policy ("2001," not "two thousand and one"). MOS:CENTURY states that it is acceptable to write out names of centuries longhand or to use numerals. I personally prefer to write out names of centuries using words. I do maintain that it is important to pick a style and use it consistently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC) It is "The Brief English Handbook" by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, second edition, isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 39. Yeah, my husband and I are always having arguments over commas! He is older than I am and was taught differently than I was--so I am always pulling out my handy dandy little book--which usually just makes him leave the room.  :-) I don't personally feel strongly about it one way or the other, and so I will attempt to cooperate because you do. I don't have the ability to find and replace, so I will be doing it manually--so it will take a while. I have company this weekend--and people have this weird idea that if they come to see you, you should talk to them. :-) I will start tomorrow evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: Pressing Ctrl F opens up a search tool you can use to search for terms. I did not know about this until another editor told me, but it has saved me so much time trying to find words and phrases in articles. You probably already know about it, but I thought I would tell you just in case you did not. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I can't get it to work on my Apple! I have tried and tried--it sounds like a wonderful option! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC) On an Apple, you'll want to press the "command button", and while you're holding it down press "F". Then a little search bar will appear near the top right of your browser window. Alephb (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC) @Katolophyromai: I don't know if you noticed but this has been changed so the numbers are all written consistently now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: Excellent! I am glad to hear that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Scholars such as Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), Arthur Drews (1865–1935), and G. A. Wells (1926–2017) have long argued that the gospels are fictional in nature, and, therefore, the historical existence of Jesus is impossible to verify. Bauer and Drews both died over eighty years ago and their ideas are not accepted today. G. A. Wells was a professor of German language, not of Biblical studies or even ancient history, and he actually later repudiated his Mythicist views, accepting that there was a historical Jesus, but still insisting that we know very little about him, a position basically similar to Bultmann. In fact, both of the sources that are cited to support the mention of Bauer, Drews, and Wells are sources which explicitly reject their position as unfounded and extreme. It hardly, then, makes any sense to list them here alongside figures such as Bultmann, Mack, Crossan, Meier, Wright, and Boyd, all of whom still have strong currency within the field of New Testament scholarship. I think it would be better to move the mentions of Bauer, Drews, and Wells to the "Twentieth century" section, since their position is really just a historical one that lacks present-day following. It is certainly misleading to mention them at the very beginning of the "New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus," which almost makes it sound as though their position is the most prominent among present-day Biblical scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) The third "quest for the historical Jesus" was taken up by the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar was undoubtedly an important event which needs to be mentioned here, but it is also regarded by the vast majority of New Testament scholars as an embarrassment and a mistake. Most of the supposed "experts" who attended the Seminar had highly questionable credentials and many of them lacked any kind of measurable expertise in the area of New Testament studies whatsoever. (Paul Verhoeven, a movie director with no background whatsoever in the New Testament, is just one of the more questionable "experts" who attended the Seminar.) Furthermore, the Seminar rejected or accepted material from the gospels based on whether or not it suited their preconceived view of him as a Hellenistic Cynic philosopher. Most Biblical scholars, however, view Jesus as a Galilean Jewish apocalyptic prophet whose message was primarily concerned with the immanent coming of the Kingdom of God, an image which far better matches our surviving sources than the (frankly ridiculous) notion of him as a wandering Cynic. I think at least something ought to be mentioned about the Seminar's overwhelming methodological problems. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I am aware and in total in agreement on all you say here in #2 and #3. First, on #2. They are dead, and what they said has been repudiated, yes, but that actually applies to almost everything discussed in this article including Wellhausen and most of form criticism. So that is not a disqualifier by itself. Most of this is historical since biblical criticism as practiced by these critics ended in the late twentieth century. So that's not a disqualifier either. Most of the people discussed in this article are dead too. None of that matters though. Mythicists make me crazy too--I did consider putting a qualifier that this is a fringe view, but I was trying hard to stay neutral and since I didn't evaluate the other views, it seemed wrong to only evaluate the one I disagreed with. But you are mistaken in saying they lack a present-day following. They have a large present-day following, and those folks would have a just complaint about NPOV at their view not being listed here if I remove it. I can reverse the order if you think putting them first makes it look like they are pre-eminent, and I would be happy to do that, but I can't agree to removing them completely since that would make this section--which is doomed to be controversial--less NPOV and even more controversial. You should also know I desperately wanted to include an evaluation of these views. I looked and looked for a source that indicated what the majority view is, and what percentage of scholars hold which views just so I could use one of the many, many sources that say mythicists are fringe. I spent a couple days looking and could not find it. If you can come up with a way to source that, I will include it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I had to mention the Jesus Seminar as an aspect of NPOV. I make no claims about their conclusions or methods or membership or anything else, and I did that on purpose. I would love to have an article on nothing but N.T.Wright's acerbic, shredding evaluation of them--but it would have been off topic here in this article. This isn't an article about the Seminar, or their methods, or the quality of their work, or anything else about them specifically. They are only significant here if their input into Biblical criticism is significant--and since they made no significant contributions of any kind--a mere mention in history is sufficient. I had to mention them--but I didn't have to say more! Because I think that's all they will get as history goes by--a mention. Please don't be too upset, but your response indicates I did a good job of presenting both sides of this difficult subject in enough of a neutral manner, it actually bothered someone whose POV I share. Katolophyromai I have found a resource that may allow me to rewrite the introductory section to the historical Jesus. It doesn't have numbers of how many scholars think what, but it does discuss --some-- consensus. I might be able to do something with that and still remain neutral. I will try.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) However, I did go and remove the bit you added about the Jesus seminar. There are supporters out there, and neutrality would require including that as well, and that would be too much on that topic imho. If I say anything about the Seminar, I will have to say they made a positive contribution to Jesus' studies by focusing on Jesus' Jewishness--(that is on page 48 of "The Historical Jesus: Five Views")--as well as saying the negative stuff. I don't think that would improve the article. If you think it's important enough to include in an article about criticism--since they made no contributions to criticism--that you agree the positive and the negative needs to be there no matter what, I will do my best to accommodate the strength of your conviction--even if I disagree. But I can't put one side in without including the other. You tell me how important you think that is, and I will adapt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: I apologize for my late response. I was writing a response and then you responded and I had to change it and then I ran out of time and had to go do something. I was going to argue that something needs to be said about Jesus Seminar and Christ Myth theory running counter to accepted scholarship in order to prevent WP:FALSEBALANCE, but, you know what, just forget I said anything about numbers two and three. I looked back at the article and those parts are probably fine the way they are. I do not want to mess them up. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Well, now I am all 'het up' over it too! I did have the same thought--that it creates the impression they are equal, and I want to fix that--but I need a source!! My kingdom for a source!! At times like this I always misquote Shakespeare. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Everyone went to bed and I stayed up and did something on the section in historical Jesus that you didn't like. If you don't think it's an actual improvement--and still neutral--just revert it back to what it was. I am going to bed too--big day tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: That turned out really good. I think that is much better than it was before. Thank you for working on that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Well...I thought you were right. I'm glad you like it. I think it's more accurate as well. And see? I have stopped misquoting Shakespeare... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC) @Katolophyromai: I went to strike through my comments that were no longer pertinent and for some reason at the bottom, it struck your two comments as well. I don't know why. I have tried moving the prompts, but it didn't work, so I have removed them completely in hopes that will work. Sorry. It was unintentional. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Okay, I think I fixed it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed; full review moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Jenhawk777 16:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Outriggr

Oppose [comments were addressed—no further review] on areas of prose. First, I'd like to say that this article has plenty of excellent passages, and that researching and bringing a topic of this breadth to FAC is a very impressive feat. I believe it could become a featured article. There are a number of spots where I found that the writing was of less than professional quality, re FAC criterion 1a. I am going to jumble various examples into one paragraph...

Extended content

From the first sentence there is "uses multiple different methods", an ungainly, redundant, and vague construction; "concerning how the Jesus of the Bible and how the Jesus of history are or are not the same" can be streamlined considerably; "already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts"—avoid these -ing words, in general, by easier-to-read constructions like "already used to investigate Greek and Roman texts"; the second "for" doesn't seem idiomatic in "Camerarius advocated for knowledge of context for interpreting Bible texts"; "Lessing made a contribution to the field" -> "contributed to" (concision; occurs again later); "The late nineteenth century saw the second 'quest for the historical Jesus.'"—an odd use of quotes, or scare quotes, in a topic sentence, and without attribution, if it is a quote!; "Nineteen eighty-five", a year spelled out?; "multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities..."—again with the "multiple" and "different"; "Near Eastern studies, globalization and other academic fields" calls globalization an academic field (the study of it is, as with everything); two sentences of "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..."; why not "many" instead of "variety of different"; is "data" the best word for textual records in "in terms of the sheer amount of data it addresses"; "most influential work, Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologue to the History of Israel, 1878) that sought..." needs ", which sought"; "represented by Rudof Bultmann its most influential proponent" needs a comma or an "as"?. I am not mentioning the very easily fixed deviations from the style guide ("'50s", "--", etc.) Sidebar: The writing consistently fails to use "that" as a conjunction/complementizer, meaning [+that] phrases such as "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. In simpler cases this English dilemma seems to be a matter of taste, or dialect, or formality, or something :-D – but in formal writing I do find it very awkward, to the point of objective complaint, in cases like "Parry and Lord in 1978 demonstrated [+that] oral tradition does not develop...". The more complex the construction, and the more commonly the verb might taken an object, the more of a problem it is. The same happens in this article with the verbs "said", "argued", "asserted", "agree[d]", "believed", "demonstrated". (As an aside, the repeated use of "said" is kind of informal if what the person did was "write", IMO.) It also happens in a slightly different form, e.g. "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The article itself proves my point when it writes "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units" rather than "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units", and "scholar Paul R. House says that the discipline of linguistics..."—a-ha! I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder. Thank you for taking these comments in good... faith. Outriggr (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I have now made as many of these changes as possible; each is addressed individually below. All the changes, but two, have been done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC) It is now all the changes but one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I do absolutely take them in good faith as intended to make the article better, which is what I want, so I am grateful. Thank you--not just for reading and commenting--but for genuinely thinking about what would improve this article. (In the meantime I get help becoming a better writer.) So definitely thank you. I will attempt to incorporate all your comments. I have no problem with most of them. So please understand that, when I do question some of this, I am not being uncooperative. I am just trying to understand those comments that, seem to me, to go against my education. First, I agree multiple methods is a slightly awkward phrase. This is problematic, however, because I was extremely careful to get a definition from multiple sources. I needed to be able to put what the sources said into common English--with no theological or philosophical jargon--and I had to break it down into parts. Biblical criticism is an umbrella phrase. It really does incorporate multiple methodologies, yet it also has two basic ontological premises that provide a similar focus to all the different methods. If you could help me think of a better way to phrase that complex idea in a simple yet less awkward manner, I would be deeply and genuinely grateful. I struggled with it repeatedly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Okay, I tried redoing that first sentence--for the umpteenth time now--see if you think it's any better. Biblical criticism is an umbrella term for studying the Bible that embraces multiple methodologies which all have two distinctive philosophical approaches in common. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) @Outriggr: I have now redone that beginning sentence yet again. I took out the word philosophical and I think that actually helped. Also, I wanted to say, I agree the way my citations have the page numbers outside does clutter things up. Some time ago, I went on Teahouse and asked what I should do about different page numbers for references used multiple times, because it was freaking out at me going red, saying - error - reference referred to twice with different info. This method is how they told me to deal with that. If you can tell me a different, neater, less obtrusive way to use a reference more than once with different page numbers, I am volunteering to go through the entire article and change every one--all 170 of them. It would make it a lot neater and much, much easier to read. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Next, streamlining the sentence about the historic Jesus without effecting neutrality will be difficult, but I will take a stab at it. I was unable to 'streamline' this without completely occluding all meaning--so I went for clearer instead. See if you like this better: The Enlightenment age and its skepticism of biblical and ecclesiastical authority ignited questions concerning the historical basis for the man Jesus separately from traditional theological views concerning him. This 'quest' for the Jesus of history began in biblical criticism's earliest stages, reappearing in the nineteenth century and again in the twentieth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Substituting used to investigate for my phrase in use investigating shifts that sentence from active to passive voice. I was taught passive voice is the number one sin of poor writing. This one goes against all my instruction. I don't understand the comment about -ing verbs either. I've never heard of such a thing. Active voice--often involving -ing verbs--is almost always better than the passive voiced-"to do" anything. Don't think I can legitimately do this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) "for" can go, "contributed to" is better, you're right. I will change those removed 'for'--then it seemed awkward, so did this: Camerarius advocated for using context to interpret Bible texts. See if you like it better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Lessing contributed to the field is now changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) the quotes around the "quest for the historical Jesus" are there because they turn up as copied text on the copyvio. It is the appropriate "Title phrase" found in the sources--everywhere--hence the reason the copyvio detector detects it--repeatedly. I thought including the phrase in quotes would give an indication it was not my phrase, while not actually being a quote as such. I can remove them if you think it's best. There were only two uses of this (the third use is a chapter title in a book) and I rephrased them both to eliminate the phrase turning up on copyvio and eliminate the quotation marks. See if it reads okay to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Nineteen eighty five is spelled out because numbers at the beginnings of sentences must be spelled out. (The Brief English Handbook, by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, Boston: Little, Brown and Co. isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 198, section 39e) This one's correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) @Jenhawk777: That "rule" seems to be completely specific to that one grammar handbook. I have never heard of such a rule and it is directly contrary to everything I was ever taught in school. Furthermore, WP:YEAR, which is part of the official Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically lists writing out the year in words as an unacceptable practice and states "Years and days of the month are not normally written in words." For our purposes here on Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy always trumps external grammar guides, especially ones that recommend obscure (and frankly rather bizarre) practices that do not seem to be known or advocated for anywhere else. Nonetheless, I think that this is a minor issue that should be very easy to fix. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Katolophyromai Okay then. I will make the change--but I wish there was some support for it beyond "Wikipedia says so." I suppose it's that "normally" that's bothering me. The beginning of a sentence is an exception to the other rules for writing numbers, so it doesn't fit the "normally" criteria. It is not just my grammar book that says this. This is a requirement of the Chicago Manual of Style, AP, MLA, and all other citation guides out there. There is no reference--other than Wikipedia apparently--that says otherwise. Check online--every site says the same thing: [2] says "Rule 1. Spell out all numbers beginning a sentence." This one [3] says "You cannot begin a sentence with a numeral." [4] has a list of "numbers that are spelled out" and second on that list is "Numbers at the Beginning of a Sentence." here is the CMS: [5] with "Numbers at the beginning of a sentence listed at 9.5. You have to sign up to access it, but it says the same thing all the rest of these say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Rather than having to pick between ignoring your concerns and breaking one of the rules of grammar--which does not look professional--I rewrote the sentence with the year inside the sentence where it can be appropriately numerical. It now says "The third period of focused study on the historical Jesus began in 1985 with the Jesus Seminar." If this is acceptable to both of you, it is okay with me as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC) All four of these are in one paragraph I have now rewritten.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC) multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities The source for this phrase takes two entire pages to say what this sentence says, and that source is already a synopsis of what's out there. (Handbook of Biblical Criticism, by Richard and Kendall Soulen, Third Edition, isbn 978-0-664-22314-4. page 21-22) It is a watered down statement, absolutely, I agree, but this whole article is an exercise in taking complex ideas and watering them down into simple English without using any of the jargon from the field. The only way to avoid "multiple different" is to list them separately. "Variety of different" communicates something slightly "different" than the word "many" communicates. It's about the change more than the number. Biblical criticism was an almost exclusively white, male, Protestant enterprise for almost 200 years--then it wasn't. The "different" is what matters. "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..." This isn't verbed, it's a pronoun in this case that references what came before in order to avoid repetition. I could use a semi-colon between the sentences if it would make that clearer. globalization should be separated from "other academic studies" you're right. Okay, I took a stab at these which are all the same paragraph; see if you think it's improved. It now reads: By the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, new perspectives from different ethnicities, feminist theology, Catholicism and Judaism revealed an "untapped world" previously overlooked by the majority of white male Protestants who had dominated biblical criticism from its beginnings. Globalization, and other academic fields such as Near Eastern studies, became active in biblical criticism. These changes created awareness the Bible can be rationally interpreted from many different perspectives. In turn, this awareness then changed biblical criticism's central concept from the criteria of neutral judgment to that of beginning from a recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the texts. By 1990, biblical criticism was no longer primarily a historical discipline but was instead a field of disciplines with often conflicting interests. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) The "other" used in front of academic disciplines is still appropriate since biblical criticism is the academic discipline the others were added to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC) data--would you prefer information? Changed it to informationJenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) that should be which, you're right, I will fix it. That's done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) The Bultmann phrase can go either way with the comma thing, but if you want one, I will put one there. I added a comma.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I will fix my numbers to follow the style guide-- I believe this is done now, and the use of "twentieth century" is consistent throughout, and "50s" now says the 1950's as it always should have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Now, my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that." It is, as you say, personal taste to some degree, but there are some rules that do apply to the use of "that," and I want to point out that I do generally follow them. "That" is sometimes a conjunction, you're right, but it's also sometimes a definite article, and sometimes a pronoun, an adverb, or an adjective, and it tends to be overused in all its forms. "Thats" are occasionally necessary, say, when attaching a dependent and an independent clause. For example, "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". "That" was necessary. But it is a general rule that it's best to leave "that" out if the sentence is intelligible without it. For example, "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The meaning of the sentence is not affected by the absence of "that" nor is its meaning made any clearer with its addition. So no "that" is the preferred default. This one too: "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. But it is. The "Gospels" are the object of revealed. You got exactly what the sentence meant. That indicates the sentence is intelligible without "that" in it. So no "that" is the better more professional writing style. If "that" follows "say" or "says" (Richard Soulen says that...), I was taught, it is not good writing. "That" should also be omitted if it precedes a simple relative clause. I often catch myself falling into lazy habits, adding "thats" where they are not needed, so I usually go back and take them out--but I occasionally overlook one here and there. You caught one. "scholar Paul R. House says that is a mistake on my part. I will fix it. And though you don't like my writing style, and you are certainly allowed your personal taste, it is incorrect to say it is unprofessional. Last but not least, I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder. As far as I am concerned, you have the right to criticize whatever you like. I just ask that, in fairness, you take into consideration some facts on the ground. This is a highly controversial topic. Some aspects of this will be even more controversial than others. Being sure that anyone who ever accesses this article has the ability to find multiple reliable sources seems to require including those multiple sources where needed. It does clutter up the reading, you're right about that, but sourcing seemed like a more important issue. I hope that when you have had time to consider, you will agree. I will go and redo everything I possibly can to accommodate all of your comments the best I can. Tomorrow. Again, thank you, and I genuinely mean that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC) I have now done as many of these as possible--only two weren't doable--and I do think the other changes you commented on have improved the article. However, I was unable to make every change. Please understand changes that violate rules of English (Nineteen eighty five) or principles of good writing (that) can't legitimately be made simply for personal preference. Please see my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that," and "Last but not least" above for my reasoning. I hope after reading, you will agree. If there are any more objections to the prose, I am grateful to be given the opportunity to fix them, so please don't hesitate to tell me every and any problem you find. I want this article to be the best it can be. Your comments are helping me do that. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Outriggr I have now changed the sentence that began with Nineteen eighty-five so the number is inside the sentence in numerical form. I have done everything else--except add in 'that' where the sentence is intelligible without it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Hi Jenhawk777... In most of the examples I offered where I thought the writing could be improved, it now has been, even if I wasn't clear enough about the problem. (In one case, what I wanted to say was that two sentences in a row started with "This"—always a sign that the flow could be better—and they are better now.) Also, I was only referring to the citation style, not the need for citation, because the superscripts include page numbers and if there are a bunch of them in a row, it doesn't look good. But I believe that I am not allowed to criticize citation style at FAC, as long as it is consistent, so we can let that go. On the talk page where you pinged me, you included some links about the use of "that", and I felt that the first one supported my position.[6] Using "that" in complex formal writing lifts a burden for the reader, in cases especially where the verb could take a simple object. Looking at the verb 'demonstrate' in the article, we have: Comparing what is common to Matthew and Luke, yet absent in Mark, the critical scholar Heinrich Julius Holtzmann demonstrated (in 1863) the probable existence of Q—perfect linguists Milman Parry and Albert Bates Lord in 1978 demonstrated oral tradition does not develop in the same manner as written texts—no! This is different. They did not demonstrate oral tradition, full stop. This is a complex construction that needs syntax clarification through the use of "that", in formal writing. If "that" were in the sentence, my "grammatical module" would not have to go back and establish that the words that follow the verb are not simple objects of the verb. (P.S. You wrote For example, ""theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units"". "That" was necessary--no, you are comparing exactly parallel constructions here and saying that one needs "that" and one doesn't. In your preferred writing style, what you want here is "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". Exactly the same as the "demonstrated" example I'm criticizing. You aren't on consistent ground when you say that the green sentence needs "that" but the others don't.) I don't want to belabor certain things, as I said above, but I will say in good faith that I personally can't support an article with sentences like the one above. (I don't claim that I want every possible "that" inserted, such as "said that". The external link gives examples of verbs much in line with the ones I mentioned in my first comment, and says to err on the side of caution. There are probably five or ten that I would want to "fix" in this article.) You will have to believe me that my brain interprets these shortcut sentences as "slang" because they imply a familiarity with the reader's ability to parse the speaker's voice that cannot be assumed in this medium. OK, I'm done with this topic! My concern about the sentence Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts and applied them to the Bible. I devoted a bunch of text to this but it's not worth it. You were worried about the passive in "used to investigate" but "investigating" is already passive because it belongs to no actor in the sentence. The reader can only parse "investigating" with assurance after the whole sentence is read. It's not hard to imagine a poorly constructed sentence missing a comma that says something quite different: Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use, investigating Greek and Roman texts ...[now it's Astruc investigating] The reader is on shaky ground with respect to the meaning of "investigating" in the original until he arrives at "and applied them". Anyway... In summary... thank you for addressing most of the items I pointed out. I will take a look at the article again in due course with the hope of striking the oppose. Until then! Outriggr (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC) This is awesome, and I won't argue about "that." Double-meaning intended. I think you have proven your point sufficiently that I now think I am in the wrong here. I got sloppy. I have no excuse for those errors. You have my apologies and will have my humble compliance. If you can point me in the general direction of those sentences I will fix every one. I also apologize for pinging you unintentionally from J.'s talk page. I did not realize--I still do things like that on Wikipedia--things I don't fully understand that I am doing. I know--as my friends here will tell you--I have mostly learned here by falling on my face and deciding to figure out how not to do it again. It makes life entertaining. You're being really nice about all of this, and I am still grateful for your comments. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Awesome! (Pinging is ok, as it lets third parties know they're being mentioned somewhere they don't know about.) I was actually going to delete the last paragraph above as being way too fussy, but you got here first. I'll talk to you later, or perhaps leave room for others to review first... Outriggr (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I have reworked what was mentioned here--whether or not it's improved--I will leave to you to decide. The Jean Astruc sentence has been a burr under my saddle from the beginning. I have not felt 100% about it, ever, so I decided to take a different approach this time. I hope it worked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Before you go away, I don't suppose you could point me toward those sentences? Is it part of my restitution that I have to find them myself? (humor)  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC) Outriggr Would you mind please taking a look at the first sentence again? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC) I put in some thats... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

I took part in the peer review, when many comments were take on board. Right now, I see a "in progress tag". For the moment, I'll look just at the sections I missed before.

Major methods of criticism

This paragraph is very compact and hard to read for someone without knowledge of the topic. I'll look again after reading what follows.

I eliminated two sentences, it should be more easily understood now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars.[56]:11-14 The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation. Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description.[6]:1-24 Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Textual

• "For example, a scribe drops one or more letters" - how about past tense, - no scribes anymore— done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• " but especially for placing in question the entire concept of "original texts."" - perhaps just me who thinks that "placing in question" is a bit complicated.

It now reads For textual criticism, this has raised the question of whether or not there is such a thing that can be considered "original text."[6]:81-112Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "recension and emendation" - the terms are explained, but are there links?

For one and not the other; now linked.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, bless you! I think I fixed these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Bit more:

synoptic problem

• "no primitive source" - is there a link for the meaning of "primitive" here?

Dropped it rather than go into long explanation

• "The theologian Donald Guthrie says" - says when? said when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Just dropped him too--didn't really dd anything significant that people can't figure out for themselves Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, again a few minutes:

Life of Jesus

• "Patristics"?

linked now Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• " that this area of biblical criticism" - which? Better repeat the header, or explain how research gets criticism. Or begin with the second sentence, "The scholarly ..."?
• "originaly" has a a typo, but I could also imagine the sentence without it.
• Link Enlightenment, even if you had it before. A reader may just get here from the TOC. Not sure about the scholars, even they might profit from another link, if not as known as Schweitzer.
• "interest revived"? ... was revived?
• I'd drop the quotation marks around "quests", but if not, don't include the comma.
• "Portraits of Jesus" vs. "portraits of Jesus"?
• cynic please

much of this has now been moved to Historical Jesus per Jytdog's insistence. :-) The section is only three paragraphs now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Need to interrupt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Just so you know, the word "Cynic" in this passage is referring to a member of the specific school of ancient Greek philosophy known as "Cynicism" and, as such, it is supposed to be capitalized, just as we would capitalize "Stoic," "Platonist," "Epicurean," "Atomist," or "Peripatetic." If it were referring to just an ordinary "cynic," as in someone who is distrustful of others' motives, then it would be lower-cased. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd understand "Cynic" alone, but not "Cynic philosopher" where it looks like an adjective to me. Ready to learn, though.

I changed it--but it's gone now anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Jesus was only "authentic" where he was dissimilar from Judaism." - dissimilar in this context?

dissimilar using the criteria of dissimilarity

• I would not begin a new sentence with "Whereas", but connect the two. Did this too
• "limited contemporary consensus among historians" - what's a contemporary consensus? - "limited consensus among contemporary historians"? Fixed
• If we seem to agree that "historical Jesus" is rather a term from a past, - to what extent do we use it?
• can criteria be tools?

Yes that's exactly what they are--and the word can be both singular or plural--I will have to check context, but I think this is gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "the criteria was"? - "the criteria were"
• confess that the following sentences remain Chinese to me
• can criteria be a method?
• "renaissance of Roman Catholic scholarship" is in quotation marks, why? why "Roman" if not a quote? (which would need a citation)

I fixed all of these—and now they're gone! But they look good in Historical Jesus! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Might as well just strike all of that--I'm sorry Gerda. You did unnecessary work there. The fight wasn't going to stop until I complied. And I've since decided he was probably right anyway. It did belong in Historical jesus. He moved all the criteria stuff there and then I moved the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary developments - Responses - not sure about the meaning of these headers

can you help me understand how to make them clearer by explaining what it is you don't get in a little more detail? Maybe? Contemporary means present day, modern, something not 200 years ago. It's the proper term for this--at least it's the term used in sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "... an example of an evangelical who believed historical criticism was a product of Christian theology going back to the Christian Reformation". - can evangelical (Evangelical?) be linked to Evangelicalism? - If no I use Protestant. Does Reformation mean Reformation? - If yes, why "Christian"?

linked now reads is an example of a nineteenth century evangelical who believed historical criticism was a product of Christian theology going back to the Protestant Reformation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "rabbinicist"? link?

godd idea--done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• general: after reading the section, I think some chronology might help, and defining what contemporary means, which seems to be used in more than one meaning.

added some--hope it's clearer Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary methods

• "evangelistic activities" are what?

removed Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• "theology from Germany" is what?

Is this any better? One of its goals was to challenge, subvert, correct, and replace the liberal Protestant theology, imported by scholars from Germany, that had been established since the early 1900s. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• Why give Freud the last word? ;)

Oh amen! What was I thinking?!? It reads now: It can be used in both a historical and a literary manner to examine the psychological dimensions of scripture through the use of the behavioral sciences.[157]:3 :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be away until Monday, all singing biblical texts in compact rehearsals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

okay--I'll pretend I didn't do anything till you get back Monday. :-) I hope it all meets your satisfaction then--but not before then. There is new material in this section that has not been reviewed before, So I am doubly and triply grateful. Please have a wonderful weekend thinking of nothing but beautiful music. Vielen dank, Gerda. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

All done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Axl

• From "History", subsection "Beginnings: the eighteenth century", paragraph 1: "Philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, and Richard Simon studied Genesis and found contradictions, parallelisms, and inconsistencies that indicated to them a single author, such as Moses, was improbable." It is unclear to me that the presence of [antithetical] parallelisms should imply multiple authorship. Is this really what Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon say? (The statement is referenced to Muller, RN Soulen & RK Soulen.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that Axl. This is a leftover from the original article that I did not even question. I am fixing it—carefully. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it. I shortened the statement and gave a more specific reference to Spinoza. The real point here is Astruc, so I didn't bother to go into a bunch more detail on these three if that's okay with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is now According to tradition, Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, including the book of Genesis. Philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712) questioned that. Spinoza records references to Moses in the third person, references to his death, and other inconsistencies and anomalies and concludes "it is clearer than the sun at noonday that Moses did not write the entire Pentateuch."[1]:24[2]:140,404 Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "Beginnings: the eighteenth century", paragraph 4: "Semler engaged critically to effectively refute Reimarus' arguments." I am unsure of the significance of the word "effectively" here. Perhaps "Semler attempted to refute Reimarus' arguments" or "Semler refuted Reimarus' arguments"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I can go with refuted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for reading and participating here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "The nineteenth century", paragraph 3: "These men all made contributions to the study of Jesus in history, but none more than Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965)." I am unconvinced that this sentence is helpful. It could just be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I can see that, It is now gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added a link to "Albert Schweitzer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Ooops! Cut it out when I cut the sentence didn't I? Thanx for catching that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "The nineteenth century", paragraph 3: "Yet it is "one of the ironies of the history of biblical criticism that Schweitzer's picture of Jesus as a religious fanatic who died disillusioned on a cross" merely became an additional witness to the dubious assumptions of the nineteenth century 'quest'." Three references are provided for this statement. Given that "Schweitzer's picture" is part of the quote, I guess that Schweitzer himself did not make this statement; it is unclear who is being quoted. In any case, I am not convinced that the quote itself is particularly helpful. Can this be paraphrased so that no quotation is required? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Added "lives of Jesus" to first sentence so it can be referred to here. The last sentences now read: Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) revolutionized New Testament scholarship by proving to most of the scholarly world that Jesus' teachings and actions were determined by his eschatological outlook. He also critiqued the "lives of Jesus" as built on dubious assumptions reflecting more of the life of the author than Jesus.[19]:154[32]:257[33]:3–4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "History", subsection "The twentieth century", paragraph 1: "Bultmann's demythologizing said faith became possible at a point in history: the historical event of Jesus' death." Really? (I had some difficulty parsing the statement regarding the phrase "said faith", but I think I understand what it is supposed to mean.) Did Bultmann imply that faith was impossible before Jesus' death? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It now reads: Bultmann's demythologizing refers to the reinterpretation of the biblical myths (myth is defined as descriptions of the divine in human terms). It is not the elimination of myth but is, instead, its re-expression in terms of the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger.[37]:627 Bultmann claimed myths are "true" anthropologically and existentially but not cosmologically.[7]:46Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I added a wikilink to "demythologization". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The last two sentences from "History", subsection "The twentieth century", contain two long quotes from "Handbook of Biblical Criticism". Could these be paraphrased instead? As a general comment, I think that the article has too many direct quotes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

These two I just removed. They were added for DYK? and weren't used after all, so I just took them back out again. They didn't really add anything important. Are these better? At least they are not quotes--right? :-) Thank you again for participating here. I am genuinely grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

"Too many quotes" is a criticism I have heard before. I have a weakness for direct quotes. It could be a character flaw... :-) I like them for accuracy--too many people paraphrase and slightly alter meaning when they do so. These particular quotes all got added after the GA review was done--where he made me take out most of my quotes. In response to other reviewers, I put some back, and I shouldn't have. I have no good excuse except "I like them." But you're right, of course, and I will see what I can do to deal with all three of these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

All done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and again, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism": "Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description." "Separating the [critical] methods" and "addressing the Bible as a whole" seem to be completely opposite approaches (both valid). Surely all criticism is "artificial"? In what sense could criticism be considered "natural"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The manner in which they are generally "naturally" used is treating the testaments separately but using all the types of criticism together. Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars. But it isn't really possible to describe them in an article like this in the way they are actually used--that would just be a jumble--but I did think how they are used should be mentioned. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Artificial is used in the sense of "outside the norm," not the ordinary way of doing things, abnormal, contrived for a purpose, that kind of thing. I can change it if you don't like that word in particular. Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars. The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation. Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description.[6]:vii-ix

Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 2: "Ehrman explains: "The errors tend to form 'families' of manuscripts: scribe 'A' will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe 'B', and over time the families of texts descended from 'A' and 'B' will diverge further, but will be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together what the original looked like."" Surely this long quote isn't necessary? Can it be paraphrased? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a summary from Ehrman, a textual critic, and I doubt I could do a better job. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

How about this: "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. Thus "families" of texts arise, with each family containing similar errors. Scholars compare the differences between families in order to deduce the original text." Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite what Ehrman is saying. Remember these texts were passed around in the community, so if you got a copy with an error in it, "A", you would have no way of knowing that, and you would copy it in good faith and pass it on, and those you passed it on to would do the same. So, even if all of you subsequently copied accurately, that error would still be there, and there would be a whole set of texts that followed from it with that same error. They could therefore be identified as having come from that one with the original error forming a "family" of texts descended from "A". This does assume what the error is--that when and where the original error occurred can be identified by those other texts that do not have the error, "B", if it can be shown both "A" and "B" came from the same time and place. Those copied from "B" would be another family of texts that went off in a different direction. Any additional errors that might follow in texts copied from "A" or "B" would not necessarily prevent the original texts from being identified, but they would not aid it either because additional errors would form families of their own. Identification of "which came first" can be extremely difficult as this was going on for hundreds of years.

Locating time and place is done by various methods--but often by the scribe himself. Some scribes were helpful to us and signed their work, but most are identified by handwriting and vocabulary, both of which changed over time, and style of composition on the page, like how many words they would fit into a certain sized space, and individual characteristics like that--what it's written on, the ink itself--so it is often possible to trace a set of manuscripts to a time and place, but those characteristics are, also, often quite general. Some styles of writing were used for long periods of time, etc.

Comparing the copy with the error, and the copy without the error, sometimes assumes what the "error" is. Which one is correct and which one is the "mistake" can be based on how many "B"s there are that don't have it written the way it's written in "A" --and other characteristics that lead to long arguments that are difficult to resolve. Sometimes errors are really obvious. I know of an instance where one scribe copied text that was originally in two columns, but he copied it going straight across the page--an artist who did not read perhaps? Someone really sleepy? But it isn't always obvious what constitutes an error, and some famous ones are still argued over today. In John there's a text that translates differently based on one letter. And it's an important text doctrinally. They usually go with the text they think is the oldest, and any change is thereafter considered an error, but it is often very difficult to determine which that is.

It seems to me Ehrman's "A" and "B" clarify what can be very confusing. It didn't seem right to steal it without attributing, but I think that what's here is already a shortened version of what he says. I would have originally included ellipses where I removed words and another reviewer made me take them out for readability. I am reluctant to remove it entirely because of the likelihood of creating confusion without using his A and B, and I am reluctant to use his "A" and "B" without attributing. See--here--it took me a couple paragraphs to make it clear--if I even did! Ehrman is gifted at making complex concepts seem simple! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any contradiction between Ehrman's implication and the text that I suggested. Your detailed explanation is also compatible with my suggestion. Indeed my suggestion does seem to be a summary of Ehrman's position and your explanation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Axl! Welcome back. What has been suggested here may read slightly differently to me than it does to you simply because you know what you meant! "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. Thus ... It's the "thus" that is hanging me up I think. It makes the development of families of texts dependent upon those "new errors" and that's incorrect. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. How about: "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. "Families" of texts arise, with each family containing identical or similar errors. Scholars compare the differences between families in order to deduce the original text." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. is a true statement and if you want it in the text, I can put it there, but honestly, it has nothing to do with identifying families of texts. Graeme Bird's article also has a definition and you might like it better than Ehrman's: "A major part of the initial process of recensio is the grouping into families of the extant manuscripts, an analysis also known as stemmatics, in order to discover how errors that arose early in the textual tradition have been passed down with repeated copying. In other words, manuscripts which contain such “shared errors” are most likely members of a “family,” and have passed on their errors from one “generation” of copying to the next, much as members of a human family pass on their various genes to their offspring." This part isn't about new errors, it's about old ones and how they proliferated.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted to "tweak" that paragraph a bit since it clearly does not communicate well. I dropped the quote for a summary but I kept the A and B so I still cite Ehrman. I don't know if this is any better, but it is a summary and not a quote, which you requested. It's longer. Sigh. If it's clearer, that's okay. Please let me know if it's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It now reads like this: Copies of the copies having the same mistakes are referred to as "families" of texts. Ehrman explains: scribe 'A' will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe 'B'. Over time the texts descended from 'A' that share the error, and those from 'B' that do not share it, will diverge further, but later texts will still be identifiable as descended from one or the other because of the presence or absence of that original mistake. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together what the original looked like.[54][57]:206–212

I see that you have adjusted the text a little more. The current text is fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Praise God, hallelujah and amen! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have continued tweaking this in the ongoing effort to make it clearer! It contains a phrase "may diverge further" that includes your idea about further errors as well, but hopefully defines "family" in a clear and accurate manner. I'm trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism": "He discovered Genesis alternates use of two different names for God while the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 omits that alternation." Did Genesis really alternate between one name and the other name at every instance? Or was it simply that [two] different names were used in different places? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I can't say that I know what it "really" does. I don't really know how many times it went back and forth or if it alternated sequentially or any of the other details about it. This is all that was in the source. What you ask may be the basis of one of the many criticisms of Wellhausen's theory. Good insight! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Three references are provided: Smend (From Astruc to Zimmerli), Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible), and Wenham (Source Criticism). What exactly do these references say about "alternation" in Genesis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Smend (#66) opens page one with "Everyone knows that the foundation of the modern view of the Hexateuch was laid in 1757 by Astruc in his epoch-making discovery of the significance of the divine names Yahweh and Elohim as pointing unmistakably to different literary sources." That's the last he says about it. Tov and Wenham do not discuss the name alternaton but refer to the other aspects mentioned there. Nothing more in those particular references. Soulen has a mention of the alternation under "Source criticism" on page 178--but it doesn't mention Astruc. I can keep looking if you want more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Aha! So there was no alternation. How about this: "He discovered that Genesis used two different names for God (Yahweh and Elohim), whereas the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 used only a single name." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

So I read this and became alarmed, realizing the source for alternation that discusses exactly what you are asking about is not here at all! That whole paragraph is missing its reference in the middle section--it only has the references at the end. I must have written it, intending to go retrieve the other reference—which is up in the first paragraph of beginnings—after writing, and got distracted and forgot--and I hadn't caught it and no reviewer before you caught it! Thank goodness you did! There was most definitely alternation, (the rest of the OT uses multiple names for God too--that is one of the criticisms of Astruc), and the reference is #4, on pages 166-168: Nahkola, Aulikki (2007). "The memoires of Moses and the genesis of method in Biblical criticism: Astruc's contribution". In Jarick, John. Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc. New York: T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-02932-4. Thank you thank you for catching this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

What exactly does Nahkola say about "alternation"? I would like a verbatim quote please (here, not in the article). My main concern is the definition of the word "alternation". I am happy to accept that Genesis used two different names in different places. However I am skeptical that the name was changed at every instance. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You and all his critics! Skepticism is no doubt warranted. However, alternation was the word the source used. On page 166 of Nahkola, at the top of the page it says Astruc provided four "proofs" including "(2)the alternation between God's names... (3)the lack of this alternation, seen on the whole in the rest of the Pentateuch, from Exodus 3 onwards, where Moses no longer depends on tradition but gives an eye-witness account..." then there is a quote from Astruc himself where he explains his method: "...putting together all the pieces (endroits) in which God is called Elohim...in a column I called A... Next to them in a column I called B, I placed all the other pieces in which God was only called Jehovah... As I progressed, I became aware that I would have to assume the existence of further accounts... Since the name of God is not mentioned...there is therefore no reason to connect them with either of the first accounts..." !!! It doesn't seem like a method that would pass muster these days, nor does it seem conducive to answering your question concerning the pattern of alternation. Was it one of each, back and forth, or were there two of one and one of the other? Was it consistently patterned or somewhat random? I guess that would depend entirely upon how the fragments were arranged--which no source specifies that I can find. It must be in school textbooks somewhere, but I haven't found any on line. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Since Nahkola explicitly mentions "alternation", I accept that. Did Exodus 3 onwards use only a single name for God? The lack of alternation does not necessarily imply this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

There are in fact multiple names for God throughout the Old Testament, and I and a lot of other people agree with you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

*sigh* Can you find a suitable source that mentions multiple names for God throughout the rest of the Pentateuch? That would be very helpful. Sadly, Astruc began with the premise of Mosaic authorship and shoehorned his findings to fit with that prejudice. Ironically, the "alternation" of names in Genesis is (circumstantial) evidence against single-person authorship. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, but why would I need to? It has no place in the article, since this is about his contribution to BC, and that's historical. Yes, you're absolutely right, that is exactly what Astruc did. Right or wrong it started BC and that's how he did it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

"Why would I need to?" Because "the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 omits that alternation" is inadequately informative. This could mean that only a single name is used, or multiple names are used, or two different names are used but not alternately, or no name is used at all. When I read the statement in the article, I want to know what the rest of the Pentateuch actually says. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

When I read the statement in the article, I want to know what the rest of the Pentateuch actually says. That the article stimulated your interest is a lovely, wonderful, and rewarding thing for you to say, and I appreciate it, but the truth is, I simply cannot follow every line of interest this article might spawn for every person. If it is not directly about Biblical criticism itself, it has no place in the article. Staying on topic was one of the major challenges of writing this article--everything connected to and bearing on biblical criticism gets a mention--but nothing gets thoroughly or completely developed except BC itself because doing so would be off-topic. I can only talk about what is pertinent to Biblical criticism itself--where those lines of interest cross--and I can only talk about them in synopsis.

You have no way of knowing, but this is the single most consistent comment I have gotten on this article. One commenter wanted more on Schweitzer, another wanted more on source criticism, another wanted more on Sanders. There have been at least 5 of these--now 6 with yours--think of what this article would look like if I complied with each request. This is an overview of a complex and detailed subject with books and books written on each of these subtopics--and it's in one relatively short Wikipedia article. It is fair to say there is much much more unsaid than said here, and what's in the rest of the Pentateuch, and the names of God, would make a very interesting article--but not this article. If I said the necessary things about biblical criticism--and if it stimulates interest for more--then I have done the job of an Encyclopedia. I think that's the best there is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Could we have a reference for the last sentence of the paragraph in "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism" please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We certainly may. I thought doing so in the sections discussing them was sufficient, but I moved two of them up to that sentence.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis", paragraph 2: "Once the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholarship determined more concerning the number and extent of those sources and their inter-relationship." More what was determined? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How's this? Once the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholarship determined more concerning the number of those sources as well as their extent and inter-relationship Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

How about this: "After the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholars inferred more sources, with increasing information about their extent and inter-relationship." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You know what? I got to looking at these and I think I've decided they are a little awkward because that sentence doesn't really need an introductory phrase at all. What would you think of just dropping it? Producing something along the lines of "Later scholars inferred more sources, with increasing information about their extent and inter-relationship." ?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes! I also considered dropping the introductory phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Great minds...! I'll go fix this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence. No further action is necessary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", contains long quotations by Richard Burridge and Anthony J. Campbell. Are these really necessary? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, in answer to your question I would ask you to observe our exchange above concerning "alternation." It wasn't resolved until I added the quotes using the term, and you accepted it purely on the basis that it was the actual word used in the source and not my personal interpretation. This stuff about form criticism is highly problematic. Form criticism was so dominant for so long—there's so much 'product' out there—people still quote its findings as though they are set in stone. I run into people referencing "laws of development" here on Wp on a regular basis— I had to take it out of this article as a matter of fact—as though it is an established fact when in fact the opposite is true. Tearing down an icon requires lots of proof. Quotes carry more weight. There is no arguing that someone else put their own "spin" in their paraphrase of what they think someone else might have meant to say--if you know what I mean. Because this is controversial, and liable to cause a reaction of disbelief in some, quotes seemed like the best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Because you are convinced that the use of these quotations is the best approach, I accept that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think that "Redaction criticism" should be a subsection of "Form criticism". How about making "Redaction criticism" a subsection of "Major methods of criticism"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", subsection "Redaction criticism": "Redaction criticism developed after World War II in Germany and in the 1950s in England and North America, and can be seen as a correlative to form criticism." I don't think that "a correlative" is the right phrase here. Perhaps a better description might be "a counterpart"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is what the sources say:

• Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, ISBN 978-0-19-925425-5, from bottom of page 28 to top of page 29: "... After the second world war it (The form-critics history of traditions approach) led to redaction criticism..."
• The Historical Critical Method, by Law, ISBN 978-0-567-57820-4, begins on page 181, find this on page 189: "Only when form-critical insights had become generally accepted was it possible for redaction criticism to build on the work of the form critics."
• To Each its own..., ISBN 0-664-25784-4, second paragraph page 107: "Much of the work in redaction criticism, like that in form criticism on which it depends..."
• Interpreting the New Testament, Harrington, ISBN 0-8146-5124-0, page 96, "Redaction criticism is obviously the child of source and form criticism..."
• Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Soulen, ISBN 0-664-22314-1, page 159, "Redaction criticism is generally conceived as a logical and methodological correlative to form criticism." Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", subsection "Redaction criticism", paragraph 2: "Followers of other theories concerning the Synoptic problem, such as those who support the Greisbach hypothesis which says Matthew was written first, Luke second, and Mark third, cannot accept redaction criticism as a method or its conclusions." I don't think that the last part of the sentence is required. How about: "Followers of other theories concerning the Synoptic problem, such as those who support the Greisbach hypothesis which says Matthew was written first, Luke second, and Mark third, do not accept redaction criticism." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You don't think accepting it as a method and accepting its conclusions are two connected but different things? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any part of redaction criticism that is accepted by the Greisbach hypothesis? If not, then there is no point calling out its method or its conclusion as specific parts that are not accepted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

All right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", subsection "Redaction criticism", paragraph 2: " Its method in finding the final editor's theology is flawed, and it was often a kind of preaching and not just an academic tool." It is unclear to me if this is a general consensus, or if this opinion is specific to Greisbach hypothesis followers et al. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I flipped the order and removed that particular phrase so it should be clearer now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Is its method of finding the final editor's theology really flawed? Or is this just the opinion of the source's author? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the method is actually flawed, so I added an explanation. See if that works a little better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Literary criticism", subsection "Types of literary criticism", paragraph 3: "Narrative criticism began studying the New Testament in the 1970s." I don't think that this is the correct phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I added a reference there to Mark Powell, first full paragraph on that page traces narrative criticism's beginnings. In combination with the information from the other references it is a correct paraphrase. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, you missed my implication. "Narrative criticism" is a technique used by scholars to study the New Testament. Narrative criticism itself does not study anything. The grammatically correct phrase would be "Narrative critics began studying the New Testament in the 1970s." However that statement is somewhat clumsy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I did miss it--sailed right past... :-) cahnged it to: Within narrative criticism, critics approach scripture as story. Is that cool? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 1: "Bible scholar Gerd Theissen explains: "It was concerned with presenting a historically true life of Jesus that functioned theologically as a critical force over against [established Roman Catholic] Christology"." The phrase "a critical force over against" is grammatically incorrect. I realize that this is a direct quote from the reference [Theissen]. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, and I understand it is not necessarily incorrect to correct it, but it is not incorrect to leave it either. I am one of those people who doesn't like changing quotes. I will do so this time since you think it's a problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that editing the quotation in that way is the best approach. Two suitable approaches would be to either add "[sic]" to the quotation, or to paraphrase Theissen. Indeed I don't think that it is necessary to mention him in the article's text at all. Perhaps something like: "This research aims to describe the real life of Jesus, often contradicting Roman Catholic theology." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I do like to quote and attribute don't I? Okay, so, it is a statement about history, so not attributing might be okay--I guess--maybe... So I paraphrased thusly: The study flourished in the nineteenth century, making its mark in the theology of the German Protestant liberals. They saw the purpose of a historically true life of Jesus as a critical force that functioned theologically against the high Christology established by Roman Catholicism centuries before

What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

That's good. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Life of Jesus research" includes an image of the painting "Jesus and Nicodemus" by Henry Ossawa Tanner. How is this painting relevant to life of Jesus research? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's more relevant than the picture that was there which was a picture of the Guttenburg Bible. It's a picture of Jesus during his life doing something Jesus is said to have done. It seemed appropriate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, can you expand the caption to state that the historical Jesus really did meet Nicodemus? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Hah! Are you asking if I can prove it is historically true? I am sure now that I am missing implications everywhere... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Given that Jesus's mere existence is itself controversial, I don't think that you can prove that it is historically true. Rather, can you find a reference from a reliable scholar that asserts this meeting as a real event? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus' existence is not controversial--not with scholars. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree he existed and they agree on about a half dozen things about him--such as his baptism by John, his crucifixion, etc. Check out the Historical Jesus--there's a short paragraph on the myth theory there that's good. And while it might be possible to find support for this event as historical, I can't see how or why it is necessary. Including a picture about a story that is in the text is perfectly legitimate. If this were an article on Anne of Green Gables, there would no doubt be multiple artistic renderings of Anne and her home and family to include. I understand--we've been conditioned to think historically--but thinking of the Bible as literature doesn't require historical verification for it to still be story. It's a picture of a story about Jesus. No other claims are made. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

{{tq|Amy-Jill Levine has stated that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE)."Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6 p. 4

The major point of contention about the historicity of Jesus is that the accounts about him were all written after his death (his "second" death?). The texts by Flavius Josephus and Tacitus were the earliest descriptions of Jesus. Why are there no contemporary accounts of Jesus? One inference is that "Jesus" was a myth that accumulated over decades. (More likely, Jesus was a real man to whom various "miracles" were ascribed over decades.) In any case, I accept that the existence of Jesus is agreed by historians.

Back on track: "If this were an article on Anne of Green Gables, there would no doubt be multiple artistic renderings of Anne and her home and family to include." This is not an article about Jesus. As far as I can tell, an 1899 painting of "Jesus and Nicodemus" has little to do with biblical criticism or life of Jesus research. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the "myth theory". That is a very fair analysis. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

There are almost no contemporary records of anyone from ancient times. Emperors, sure, the occasional governor or general might be mentioned here and there, especially if they were in the Emperor's circle, but a poor country preacher who wasn't really famous till after his death? No way. Compared to other poor persons there is actually more about Jesus than any other person in ancient history--and that's according to Ehrman the agnostic. Plus, there is evidence the belief in resurrection and other miracles did not take decades to develop but was immediate. That's under the "evidence" section in that same HJ article. Glad you liked it. I think it's a really balanced and well-done article. And you're right, this isn't an article about Jesus--but it is a section about studying Jesus. What do you think would be a fair image to include? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I should not digress from my review of the article.

Is there a consensus among historians about Jesus actually meeting Nicodemus? If so, then this could be stated in the caption, along with a reference.

I note that "Historical Jesus" states that his baptism and crucifixion were almost certainly real events. Perhaps a picture from "Crucifixion of Christ" might be suitable? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call, but it won't matter, as this is about to fail because I am incapable of getting all the references as they should be. Thank you for your participation and all your input. I'm sorry to let you down, but I just can't do reference Hell anymore. I've hit my limit.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

*sigh* I feel like we are so close to reaching the FA standard. This particular FAC does seem to be unusually long and gruelling though. I sympathize with your feelings. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Axl I can't tell you how much I appreciate the empathy--and your perseverance through this long and arduous article. We are close to FA. And it may be wussy of me to give up this close to the goal, but this article has been running my life since May. The administrator here has been wonderful about it and has actually tried to help. He went through the history and discovered that someone else had come through with the citation bot and changed a bunch of references and actually caused some of the problems. Notifying the person that did it meant they came back and undid that one reference and that fixed it, but now I am wondering if the bot messed up the others it did as well--and how can I tell which ones are screwed up? I would have to go back through 150 references--yet again--which I have already done more than once. I don't understand some of this--it's beyond my level of expertise here, and the idea of going back to reference Hell is more than I can cope with. I will go switch out that image anyway. Though I don't see how the administrator can approve this article knowing there are problems with the references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded the caption and added two references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 2: "After Albert Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede was published as The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1910, the phrase provided the label for the field of study for eighty years." Which phrase/label? "Life of Jesus research" or "historical Jesus"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

changed phrase to "After..., its title provided the label..." Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 2: "By the end of the twentieth century, scholar Tom Holmén writes that Enlightenment skepticism gave way to a more "trustful attitude toward the historical reliability of the sources. ... The conviction of Sanders, (we know quite a lot about Jesus) characterizes the majority of contemporary studies"." Bizarrely, this quote by Holmén about E.P. Sanders is sourced to a book written by Sanders himself. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I had the Holmen reference but when I went to pull it up for A.Parrot just below, I could not get it to access properly so I just deleted it rather than fight with it any more--I pulled a bunch of refs rather than fight with Google over them--and I just forgot to remove hime from the text accordingly. Done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, all you seem to have done is remove the quotation marks. If this is the case, then we now have a close paraphrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Aargghh--I meant to remove the 'Tom Holmen says' and the quotes so what was left was a paraphrase of what Sanders says in his book instead of a quote from Holmen in his book. I'll go check it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Shew! Had me worried there for a minute! Holmen's gone! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

The current wording remains very close to the original quotation. Are you sure that this is not a close paraphrase? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right! I didn't change it enough. I have now paraphrased the whole page from Sanders in two new sentences. Please see if you agree! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I have paraphrased the section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanx for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 3: "Cross says that in the twenty-first century, investigation into the life of Jesus is continued by Christian, Jewish, independent Bible scholars, and secular and non-secular historians." Is there any meaningful difference between "Bible scholars" and "historians" in this context? Perhaps simply: "Cross says that in the twenty-first century, investigation into the life of Jesus is continued by Christian, Jewish and non-secular scholars." Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think that is a controversial statement. Surely there is no need to mention Cross at all? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm cool with deleting Cross. This is a sentence added by someone who said it was important to them to note that those doing historical Jesus research are no longer limited to white male Protestants as biblical criticism was for 200 years. And yes, you're right, in this context there is a distinct difference between historians and Bible scholars. Not many Bible scholars have any real training in studying history and they tend to do "historical criticism" from a hermeneutical perspective using criteria that is not evenly applied or even considered dependable by all. Historians on the other hand, are not any more likely to know anything about the Bible than anyone else and are often atheists, agnostics and so on who are interested in an era or an area--or both. I agreed this was a significant point--so there it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Axl There was a problem accessing the reference so this is gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Responses", paragraph 3: "Hebrew Bible scholar Marvin A. Sweeney writes that some specifically Christian theological assumptions in what was claimed to be a non-sectarian pursuit led to anti-Jewish lines of reasoning from biblical criticism's beginning, causing most Jews to avoid it." The sentence is rather awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That's easy for me to agree to--and I do--I didn't write it. :-) It's the same guy that I was telling you about up in the nineteenth century. I haven't changed it since I am concerned about his response--however--if you changed it--what could he do? Right? Totally not my fault then! If he shows up and reverts, I can tell him FAC did it. Surely he'll leave it then! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

How about this: "Hebrew bible scholar Marvin A. Sweeney argues that some Christian theological assumptions within biblical criticism have reached anti-semitic conclusions. This has discouraged Jews from engaging in biblical criticism." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, if you are the one doing it, you can do whatever you damn well please! :-) If he shows up and screams or reverts and sends an edit-war warning--his usual approach--then we'll deal with it. I have your back. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What if--so as not to create unnecessary conflicts--we just split his sentence into two sentences--and added some commas? Hebrew Bible scholar Marvin A. Sweeney writes that some specifically Christian theological assumptions, in what was claimed to be a non-sectarian pursuit, led to anti-Jewish lines of reasoning from biblical criticism's beginning. This caused most Jews to avoid it. This anti-Jewish reasoning is actually mentioned up in the nineteenth century now, so that connects. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know which editor you are referring to. I am going to change the text to my own recommendation. Of course, if anyone disputes my edit, I shall be happy to discuss the matter further. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You rock Axl. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Responses", paragraph 4: "Full entry into Pentateuchal studies defined by the critical approach did not begin until the early twentieth century." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It differentiates between the trickle of a few things that could be construed as critical work that one or two people did before the early twentieth and the level of involvement that occurred in the early twentieth. There was a lot written that was called "criticism" but it was mostly written from a faith-based view and not a truly critical view and its purpose was to justify faith rather than examine it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Axl So you haven't posted anything in awhile, is everything okay with you? Is there anything left you want to mention on the article? Anything left undone you are still uneasy about? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busy. (It has been two days since I last posted on this page!)

I know! Two whole days without hearing from you! I started to worry you were sick or something had happened to you! I'm glad you're back!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The fact that I don't understand what the sentence means is an implication that the sentence needs to be re-written. Perhaps something like: "In the early twentieth century, historical criticism of the Pentateuch became mainstream among Jewish scholars." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Full entry" is the phrase the source used--but I like yours better. I will change it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 1: "Socio-scientific criticism uses the perspectives, theories, models, and research of the social sciences to determine what "social laws" influenced the growth of biblical tradition." Why is "social laws" in inverted commas? Is this a direct quote from the source (John Hall Elliott)? Or is it because there are no laws in sociology, and the phrase is an analogy to legal rulings? If the latter, then perhaps change the phrase to "social pressures" or "social norms"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes--there are no social laws--but changing to norms makes sense. I'll go do that right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. And I guess you are getting close to done here as well. You do realize after all this time that we've spent together, we are now legally obligated to stay friends and keep in touch on Wikipedia right? It's an obscure new Wiki requirement. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"we are now legally obligated to stay friends and keep in touch on Wikipedia." Haha, okay. :-)

Thank you for changing the phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 1 has three of its five sentences start with the phrase "Socio-scientific criticism". Do you think that one of the sentences could be changed to reduce the number to two? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It is repetitive isn't it? I will fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I have adjusted the text. It still doesn't seem quite right, but I suppose that it will do. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 2: "it [postmodernism] is against any philosophy that attempts to make rational descriptions of society." Is that really true? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It is correct but the meaning may be a little obscure with that wording. I will go see what I can do with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I switched out the quotes. The second quote seemed a little clearer--maybe... Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 3: "In the 1980s, Phyllis Trible and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza reframed "epistomological, hermeneutical, and methodological priorities and lent scholarly legitimacy to women and gender research in biblical studies"." This direct quotation misspells "epistomological" – it should be "epistemological". Is the misspelling in the original source? It may be better to paraphrase the statement to avoid the misspelling. Also, it is unclear to me why two different sources are provided for a single quotation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The spelling error was mine. I'm not really a very good typist. :-) I decided to change it to something a little more "accessible" for the average reader--no jargon. I think it's clearer--see if you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 4: "It begins with an understanding that historical biblical criticism identified the meaning of biblical texts by their historical context eventually producing doubts about the text's veracity." The sentence is rather awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay I will redo it. But then I'm done, please feel free to make any further changes you think this might need for yourself as, after this, I am going to quit Wikipedia. There is one guy who interferes and attacks everything I do here, and has for the entire year and a half I've been here, and I have decided I just don't need the grief. It's been nice working with you. Take care. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

*sigh* I am very sad to read that someone is harassing you on Wikipedia. There are ways for other editors to help you. WP:HOUND mentions a couple of options. I can try to help you if I can, although I don't have any special privileges or expertise. You are a great editor and content creator. I would hate to see Wikipedia lose you, although of course your mental well-being is more important. So take a break and contact me if you would like to discuss further.

Thank you for changing the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Moral support. I have finished reviewing the article. Jenhawk777 has addressed all of my points. Of these, there are only two remaining where we disagree, but I am prepared to overlook those in favour of her opinion.

While I am happy with the text, I am aware that A. Parrot has ongoing concerns about the references. I am also aware that Alephb is/was checking references. Unfortunately I don't have access to the books in order to check them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review and other comments from A. Parrot

This is a whale of a topic, and an essential one. Whatever the outcome of the FAC, I commend Jenhawk777 just for tackling it.

• The sourcing looks excellent. Seemingly all sources are either from scholarly presses or from theological presses with an academic bent. Practically every biblical scholar whose name I know, aside from those who are more archaeological than textual, is cited here, so I think it's safe to assume this is an extensive and representative survey of the literature.

• In terms of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the text, the article looks solid, but my knowledge of most areas of this topic is superficial. In the one area where I have some detailed familiarity, there's a problem. Wellhausen's specific JEDP documentary hypothesis is of course outdated, but the article doesn't say that JEDP is simply a specific type of documentary hypothesis. It's important to clearly state that the hypotheses that replaced Wellhausen posit a more complex process of editing of multiple sources, especially because fundamentalists who defend the literal truth of the Bible like to crow that the documentary hypothesis is dead and don't realize the modern biblical scholarship undermines their position even more. Moreover, I know you link supplementary hypothesis farther down, but it seems like something about it, and about the fragmentary hypothesis, could go near the end of the section on Wellhausen.

Okay this one is done. I was right to be concerned about length--it added a whole paragraph--but I still think it was the right thing to do. I included a couple sentences in the other paragraphs to tie it together, but I think it's good. I hope you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The see also section in an FA should be minimal, but this one is very long. Many of these links look like they should be integrated into the article, while others, like parallelomania, really don't belong here.

The pertinent references have now been moved into the article, and the rest are gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The formatting of the citations is inconsistent. In some entries information that is usually included is missing; some entries for books aren't capitalized; individual studies are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not date formats are inconsistent; notable authors are not always linked. Especially weird is the entry for the Botha article, where the file name ("148148-390476-1-SM.pdf") is listed as if it were part of the bibliographical information. Correcting errors is made especially difficult because the full bibliographic entry isn't always found in the first citation of the book; sometimes it's the second or third. Normally I wouldn't make much of such a picayune problem, but I spent a lot of time cleaning up these small errors and know there's more to be done.

The location of the full reference reflects when the sections were written. It is particularly annoying when trying to go back and find them though! If you think it's important I will go move every one where that's a problem. (Aaaarrgghh!) I think the Botha citation was copy-pasted--I will check it. I'm sure it can be "Wikipedia-fied." :-)

I had some trouble with the ISBN converter. I was attempting to have all the isbns in the 13 digit format and in using the converter, inadvertently discovered it not giving the correct book! I worked at checking every one, but I may have missed one.

I am working on this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, you might think I'm a total idiot, but I can't find the problems with capitalization you refer to. I think I looked at every one, and every book title looks correct to me. I am obviously missing something--chapter titles are not fully capitalized in the same manner--is that it maybe? Or am I just blind? :-)

Also, the only missing information I can find is missing because it was unavailable. For instance, the copy of Spinoza had no isbn --it was an actual copy not a reprint, so the reasons for that are apparent. I could possibly find a reprint with an isbn if you think it is important to do so. Even when location information and other things weren't readily available, I took the time to hunt them down, so I don't think other references are missing info if it was findable. I could be wrong, but if so, I am missing it too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• I plan to spot-check citations later today. I may not get around to it then, but I will do it soon. A. Parrot (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Bless you! Thank you. Thank you for showing up and for commenting. Your suggestion on Wellhausen is a good one. I felt like I under-represented it, but since there is a good quality main article on it, I thought its origins under Source criticism were the main point for this article, and I was trying to keep it short. So much for my excuse! But I agree with you, I think an additional line or two won't add that much length and the content is notable--so I will fix that immediately.

The "see also" section is a leftover from the article before I began work on it and I left it as it was and should have cleaned it up and didn't. I forgot it!  :-) Thank you for reminding me about it. I will do that as well.

I apologize for the inconsistencies in some of the references. I have just put off fixing it. I have no good excuse! But I will start working on it immediately. I'll come back when these are completed. Thank you, thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

ISBNs are fixed. Haven't found the other problems yet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts. I may have found and fixed the capitalization errors already. I won't have time tonight, but tomorrow evening, barring something unexpected happening, I'll look over the references again and do the spot-checking. A. Parrot (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh good! That explains it then. Thank you for that. I am grateful for your efforts and will look forward to hearing from you again--keeping my fingers crossed you don't find anything--or at least much--wrong! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I want to say an across the board thank you for all you have done on BC. There are too many to send thanx for each individual one but I still want you to know I am grateful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've spot-checked maybe 15 citations, and although several are perfectly fine, I've come across enough problems to be concerned.

• A recurring problem is that some citations point to books without specifying page numbers. I don't know whether these are simple errors, where you forgot to include the specific pages, or attempts to cite an entire book. Citing whole books isn't totally prohibited, but I don't think it's necessary except under certain unusual circumstances—if you want, I can give an example based on the one instance in my wiki-career where I did something like this. Even if you're using the citation to discuss the thesis of the whole book (e.g., in the current citation 147), it's usually possible to cite that to a specific page in the book or to some other source (citation 148 is to a review of the same book, which presumably states what the book is about in a more compact way).

Reference number 147 is the MacDonald book. I included it because I used it as an example of someone who used socio-scientific criticism--but I didn't really reference it--as such. It would be a primary source and any reference I used would be a secondary source about it. I referenced the article which discusses it, #148--which didn't have page numbers. MacDonald's book does have a whole section of the book dedicated to her discussion of her method and how she constructed it, its limitations, yada yada, and I could go back and add those pages--but it would be one of those multiple page references--or I could take the whole reference out--or I could move it down to 'See also' if you think that's better--or whatever you suggest--because it's only there in case someone wants to see for themselves what she actually did.

There are a couple other places where I do the same kind of thing--discuss something or someone and then include it in the references in case anyone wants to read what they actually said--not because I actually referenced it. I didn't use the primary source material for the article but I included it for others who might want to check it out for themselves. Is this bad? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 11 cites a range of 20 pages. I understand wanting to cast a broad net when citing something that the sources refuse to say concisely, but a range this wide can almost always be whittled down. Unfortunately, some parts of this range aren't available to me in Google Books, so I can't tell which pages would work.

About half of these books are referenced from Amazon not Googlebooks because of exactly that problem. #11 can be whittled down pretty easily--or removed as it's a secondary reference--but page 38 is sufficient for that one. Again, I thought someone else might want to read more so I included it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Theologian C. H. Dodd pioneered the biblical theology movement, which can be seen as a rejection of the liberal views of the historical critics who had come before him.": The first two citations don't mention Dodd on the specified pages, and while the third citation is to an entire book about Dodd, a search in the Google Books preview doesn't turn up the exact phrase "biblical theology" except in the title of a journal it cites.

The Penchansky (# 12) page number discussion starts on page 11, but the relevant statement is actually on page 12 (under c.) almost to the bottom, where it references the rejection of liberalism. As to the other, I have no explanation. I can't find the page on either google or amazon now. I clearly read it somewhere since I can find other sources for it, but as to the inaccessibility of the one I cite, I have no clue what happened. I think I will expand this discussion of the B.T.Movement though, so I will switch sources. I'm sorry for this. I will fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "There is also material unique to each gospel. This indicates additional separate sources for Matthew and for Luke. Biblical scholar B. H. Streeter used this insight to refine and expand two source theory into four-source theory in 1925": Page 48 of the cited source only partially supports the first sentence (it mentions a Proto-Matthew but not a Proto-Luke) and does not support the second sentence.

Aargh--that's a typo, it should be page 148, not page 48.

Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "…'laws of oral development' cannot be arrived at by studying written texts." As this statement is specifically sourced to Long and the phrase in quotation marks presumably comes from his paper, you may want to remove the two other citations. If you want to make it into a general statement in Wikipedia's voice, which I think may be the best choice because it seems to be the current consensus, the quotation marks should be removed.

Sounds reasonable. I will do that.

Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Other evangelical Protestant scholars such as Edwin M. Yamauchi, Paul R. House, and Daniel B. Wallace have continued the tradition of conservatives contributing to critical scholarship": There's no citation for this.

They are linked--and their bios say they are evangelicals--is that not good enough since they aren't really a reference? Do I have to have a secondary reference mentioning them and stating that they are evangelicals? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that any of these statements are correct, but the citations don't adequately support them. I'll check more tomorrow, but I worry that an extensive reexamination of the citations and where they point may be needed. A. Parrot (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am feeling insecure now--I would have sworn all my references were careful--I think I will start going over them tomorrow myself. It's 1 in the morning here and I have been up since 6 AM, so--tomorrow. I will do more tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I am starting through all the references one by one. I explained ref#1's lack of an ISBN above.

• ref#2: type in Spinoza, it's on page 140
• ref#3: type in Astruc, start on page 119, scroll to page 122
• ref#4: type in Moses (will also find Hobbs here) pages 212-214
• ref#5: it's in the introduction, so just scroll to it; pages 2 and 3 discuss the "historical consciousness", page 5 the university students,
• ref#6: type in enlightenment, page 39 discusses "important philosophical developments" and page 55 "early decades of 19th century characterized by..."
• ref#7: type in biblical criticism, page 19 discusses "the desire to break the hold of ecclesiastical authority" and the Reill reference, page 6 mentions pietism in that vein

the next reference is back to number 6, type in rationalism, page 42 and also type in exegesis to get Turretin (Turretini here) on page 252 (and some discussion from 39-42)

• ref#8: opens correctly--problem caused by citation bot is fixed now--Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• ref#9: type in deism, it's on pages 39-40
• ref#10: these references are "Higher criticism" by Rogerson and "German Christian Thought" by Law, pages 298 and 261 respectively (ref #11)

I will continue on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• the next ref is back to #6(e) type in natural religion, it's there on page 41
• ref#12: can type in religion or just scroll to chapter 6, "Biblical criticism and religious belief" pages 117-136 discuss it with particular mention on page 138 Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

reference #13 has no page numbers because it wouldn't let me see anything from inside the book--so I used the information in the title and synopsis the next reference is back to 6 (f) type in Reimarus, it will get you pages 46-48;

• ref#14: is about Semler's response and Lessing, type in Semler, and in the chapter on Biblical interpretation in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's on pages 348 and 349; it will also get you a mention of Lessing on page 266;
• ref#15 type in Semler, the left hand column on page 356 mentions his "intellectual disputes" with Reimarus' writings

type in Reimarus and go to the bottom of page 45 and top of page 46

• ref#16 type in Reimarus, remark on Lessing on page 102

I have to leave for a bit, but I will keep on when I get back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll wait until you're finished to review further. Believe me, I know what it's like to have a nerve-racking FAC (they all are for me), and I know what it's like to think all the citations are correct and discover otherwise. A. Parrot (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I appreciate both the understanding and the time! It is very slow going, often involving multiple looks at Google and then Amazon, and reading through those long sections for the pieces that got paraphrased together and so on. It's only right that I should be the one to do this for you instead of the other way around. So--getting on with it:

• reference #17, type in Johann Michaelis and get the ref to his work on the intro to NT; (type in H.S.Reimarus and get good discussion of entire topic on pages 343-346; page 348 has the "Fragments Controversy"); this section is also referenced to #6(h)--type in Michaelis and look at page 45
• ref #18, type in myth, get page 117 and Eichhorn's "hermeneutic of myth"; type in Eichhorn and get Gabler and Bauer as well, page 149 has the "new approach" and "mythical method", page 150 has Gabler, pages 188-191 have Bauer.
• ref #19 is the Soulen quote, type in historical criticism, it's on page 79, second paragraph
• ref#20 type in Bauer and read the footnote on page 99; type in Antioch, and the "sharp break" is on page 79; type in Paul and get more discussion on page 67+
• ref#21 type in Bauer, under section on "work" on page 286 will get a mention of the name of the work that discussion the break between Paul and Peter and the statement that "Bauer's understanding of early Christianity became determinative for later scholarship."
• ref #22 is an addition by another editor that I am in frequent and regular conflict with. I have read this article that he references and while it's a good article and Levinson is an excellent reference, I have not found this particular statement in it. That early BC was anti-semitic is in many cases indisputable, so I am inclined to leave some form of this even though it is also in contemporary responses, but I cannot find this specific statement of "reading back in." It seems to be interpretation--but I dare not remove it because he will come after me for doing so.

Number 23 is now Gerdmar, and each of those page numbers is exactly correct--since I just did it, I am sure of it. There are three of them in a row.

• ref#24 type in Holzmann and you will see the "unaccessible" page 82. I did the 'surprise me' function till I was able to see it! But it is also available in connection with other references, so if this is a problem I can get more.

I have to leave again for awhile--real life keeps interfering! But I will do more later tonight, and I promise I will continue till it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• reference #25, type in Biblical criticism, go to page 22
• ref #26, type in Baur, it's on page 180
• ref #27, type in Johannes Weiss, scroll backwards to page 222
• ref #28, type in David Friedrich Strauss, go to page 365, second paragraph
• ref #29, type in Theodor Zahn, get page 399 for a discussion of Von Harnack's conflicts
• ref #30, type in William Wrede, he's on pages 1056-1059, the specific comment is under "significance."
• ref #31 works properly
• ref #32, type in Johannes Weiss, get 1026-1028, there is one part unde "Christian origins" and another under "Significance"
• ref #33, type in Schweitzer, get numerous options, comments I used are on pages 31 and 257; there is also a reference on page 154 of reference #9
• ref #34, just scroll to pages 3 and 4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I must have been an evil literary agent in a former life as I am now in referencing Hell...

• reference #35, type in Barth, go to page 433, I think it's the third paragraph; this is also referenced to Soulen, type in Biblical Criticism, scroll to page 20, it's in right-hand column toward the bottom
• ref #36, go to page 19, second paragraph
• ref #37, no page number because I used the synopsis from the cover of the book
• ref #38, type in Hans Jonas, go to page 627, second paragraph
• ref #39, is Perrin, just scroll to it since it's on page vi
• ref #40(a) type in redaction criticism, it's on page 443
• ref #41--DSS--type in biblical studies and get page xxv and page 1 --type in impact and get more!
• ref #40(b) type in Joachim Jeremias, pick page 495, scroll to page 498 and 499
• ref # 42 has no page numbers because it is primary source material by J.J. and is only made available for those interested in pursuing what he actually said deleted here, moved to further reading instead
• ref#43, type in biblical theology movement, go to page 82--I removed the other references muddying the waters here
• next reference is 7(f) type in biblical criticism, get page 21, it's there
• ref #44, type in New Criticism, go to pages 8-13 and page 200 changed this to #45 and just added page #s there
• ref #45, type in New Historicism and go to page 60,

And that's it for today unless I can come back later tonight after everyone else has gone to bed--assuming I can stay awake for more punishment.  :-) Thank you for being patient about this! I know it's slow, but I really am pedaling as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• ref #46, type in Structuralism, go to page 296, second column, second paragraph
• ref #47, type in Paul, go to chapter 4, pages 69-92; type in Sanders and find those specific mentions within those same pages; on page 260, there are 'notes', referenced part is in (a);

Have to go, have to get up to attend a soccer match tomorrow morning and it's after midnight here. I'll be back with more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• ref #48, just scroll since it's in intro, page xviii to xxi for full discussion)
• ref #49, Peter Ochs, type in biblical, get page 13, center of page
• ref number 50 is Frei's book -- primary source material on Frei, so just made it available, that's all moved this to further reading
• ref#51 is Robert Miller, Jesus Seminar, used cover to say when it had begunJenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• ref #7(g), type in Biblical criticism, go to page 21, right hand column, bottom of first paragraph
• ref# 52, just scroll as it's page 1, look for "untapped world"; type in "white male Protestant, get page 15, it's there

Really busy day today, should be able to do more tomorrow afternoon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a lot like doing the article all over again! I may have bitten off more than I can chew here but I am chewing anyway! :-) Please, please continue to be patient with me. My real life keeps interfering. I have to teach this week and have to write a lesson, so my time here will be very limited this week, but I will do as much as I can and will come back with a bang the following week. I knew this would take a while, but it is taking even longer than I thought, so please don't give up on me!

• next ref is 7(h), it's in the right hand column under conclusions; type in ideologies an d get 53 as well
• ref#53, type in bias, get a good discussion of confirmation bias, pages 19-20

Major Methods, back to ref #6, David R. Law, type in biblical scholar, get vii in preface, go to #1 and #3 Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• ref #54, type in textual criticism, get page 47, second paragraph on "lower" criticism
• ref# 55, is an article by Bird, used aspects of the whole thing, no page #'s available

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is where I added the new ref in Textual Criticism--that I stole from Biblical manuscripts--in an effort to resolve issues from below, so it is now

• ref #56, Seid

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• ref #57, type in variants get page 2, top of page
• ref #58, type in variants, get the chart on page 30 showing distribution, scroll back to statement used in second paragraph on page 29

next ref is 55, Graeme again

• ref #59 is Ehrman. I cannot find a reference to this particular book online that includes the pages I used. I own the book, so I can see all of it, but unless you also own it, you can't--so how much of a problem is that? I referenced it 6 times!

ref # 60, is Wegner, type in Alexandrian, get the list on page 213 under Griesbach

• Ref #61, is Wasserman, ref (a) is in Note 1, type in "clusters" get page 3 and 9

next (3) refs are back to #6(j,h,k), type in Rabbinic Judaism--all the statements in that paragraph are there on page 82

next reference is back to 59 Ehrman, pages 205 and 209, rescension Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• ref#62 is David Clines, type in 'plough with oxen', it's on page 29

the next ref is to #55, Graeme's article, and #57, Stewart, just scroll to page 2, third paragraph

• ref #63 is Tarrant, type in contentious, it's on page 85
• ref #64 is the web page lexicon; it's just there as proof there is such a thing

the next ref is back 60, Wegner, type in Griesbach, get page 212 and 213, it's on 213 the next three are back to Ehrman, then #59, scroll to page 8 and #61, Wasserman,,just scroll to page 8 That's the end of textual criticism Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• ref#65, starting Source criticism with Simon; easiest just to scroll to page 35, it's halfway down the first full paragraph; there's also a full discussion beginning on page 915

the next ref is back to #4, type in alternation get page 166--and others

• ref#66, Smend, scroll to page 7, bottom paragraph
• ref#67, Tov, type in parallel ancient story, get page 336
• ref#68, Campbell, O'Brien, type in Wellhausen, go to page 5, second paragraph
• ref#69, Guthrie, type in synoptic problem, scroll to 147

Up to Wellhausen next ref is back to #68, same section pages 1-18 again

• ref#70, Nicholson, scroll to page 3, first paragraph
• ref#71, Baden, type in religion, page 247, second paragraph, it's numbered 3.

next ref is back to 68, same section, pages 1-18 again next ref is back to # 40, type in Wellhausen, on page 382

• ref#72, Kaltner, type in Wellhausen, get page 57, scroll to top paragraph on 58
• ref#73, Soulen, type in Graf-Wellhausen, get page 79 (be sure it's the 4th ed.)

Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't quit and I will be back and finish, I'm just a little underwater this week--not going under for the third time--but going under every now and then! Next week will be better. I'm holding onto that.

• ref #74. Viviano, easiest access is go to table of contents and click on source criticism, scroll to page 38, it's in top paragraph
• ref # 75, Van Seters; type in documentary hypothesis, get page 53, scroll to 55, c. 'New Supplementary Model'

Sorry there's not more today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A. Parrot Two other reviewers here asked for some additional information in the "Nineteenth century" section and in Textual criticism. This added three refernce citations in the first and one in the second--which has now thrown all the numbering here into the crapper. I want to weep. Instead I will attempt to go back and fix the numbers now. Pray for me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now renumbered them--I hope correctly. I am checking on the rest now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Beginning at the next references after Van Seters, it goes back to 68, Campbell, type in problems, get page 4, right hand column, bottom paragraph

then #72, Kaltner again, type i n problems, get 50, under recent developments, second paragraph , bottom of page 58, and on page 59 "some version still held"

• ref#76, Berman, type in "documentary hypothesis" get 209, bottom paragraph: "no scholar today"; page 214 has reference for "most celebrated study"; type in problems, get 205
• ref#77, Wenham, type in Gospel criticism, get #6 on page 53

back to two more references to 69, type in synoptic problem, contains full discussion, comments are from first few pages, and scattered from then on in multiple pages

• ref#78, Scroggie, type in Quell source of the gospels, get full page 342
• ref#79, Marshall, type in Q, get page 148 it's in notes, #6
• ref# 80, type in Streeter, get 124, scroll to page 127; type in "fundamental solution" or "Marcan priority" get Lachman fallacy and Streeter both
• ref #81, type in Synoptic Seminar, it's in the footnotes, second paragraph

then it's back to 69, type in synoptic problem, get table of contents, scroll to further reflections on page 1029

• ref#82, it's on page 4 so just scroll to it

then two more 80's. same pages as above.

More later. Assuming I can stay out of trouble elsewhere. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• ref#83, Bauckham, type in form criticism get page 242, scroll to page 243, first sentence
• ref#84, Miller, type in form criticism, get page 242, second paragraph
• ref#85, Mihelic, journal no page #'s
• ref#86, Eddy and Boyd, type in Sitz im Leben, get page 271
• ref#87, type in Sitz im Leben, get page 135
• ref#88, type in literary forms, get pages 20, 21, 25--that I used stuff from
• ref#89, Knierim, type in form criticism, get page 42, used some there, scroll to page 70, second paragraph also used
• ref#90, Burridge, type in form criticism, get page 13, #1, the Critique
• ref#91, Hoffman article, no page #s
• ref#92, Sweeney, type in form criticism, used pages 6 and 8
• ref#93, Kelber, type in form criticism, get page 277, top of page

back to #83, Bauckham, type in form criticism, get page 247

• ref#94, Sparks, type in form criticism, get page 113 "extensive re-evaluation"
• ref#95, Meier, type in laws of oral development, page 141, #9
• ref#96, Sanders, type in laws of oral development, get quote from pages 21, 22

back to ref#86, Eddy and Boyd, type in laws of oral transmission, get page 291, scroll to 296, top paragraph and third paragraph back to ref#84, Miller, type in for criticism, get page 10 back to #86, type in development of Synoptic tradition, get page 298, second and third paragraph

• ref#97 is in the group note, it's a journal article
• ref#98 is Sanders in another note
• ref#99, is Long's journal article, it works

then back to #93(c), Kelber, type in myopia, get page 278, first paragraph about halfway down the back to #89, Knierim, type in Sitz im Leben, go to page 69

• ref#100, Luomanen, type in biblical criticism, page 24, first and second paragraph
• ref#101Wood, type in Hellenistic culture, get page 46, bottom paragraph; the quote from Wright is on page 47

That's it for today probably--maybe a little more later tonight--if I can stay awake. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I am going to do my level best to finish these this week.

• ref#102, Powell, type in Jewish eschatology, start at bottom of page 23 and go on to 24
• ref#103, Porter, type in Bultmann, get page 19

rhen back to ref #83, type in Bultmann, go to bottom of page 247, it's #7-9 then #92, type in Campbell, page 15, quote is opening statement

This is up to Redaction Criticism now

• ref #6, type in Redaction, get info on page 181
• ref#104, type in redaction, get page 96, go to bottom of page 97
• ref#105 is online article, no page numbers
• ref # 106 is Soulen's Fourth Edition, type in Redaction criticism--it's the paperback edition on Amazon

then ref # 107 is Soulen's Third Edition, I know, I know, but the quote I used couldn't be accessed in the Fourth edition, so I went back and got it from the older book; it's on page 159, about Markan priority.

• ref#108, Lee, type in redaction, go to page 355, "evaluation" that starts at bottom of page; next two refs are to the same discussion

Up to Literary criticism now

• ref# 109, Paul House, just scroll since it's on page 3, opening paragraphs; there are four more references using House on different pages but they are all in the same section. It's after midnight here. More tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

on page 3-4 are the factors that led to literary criticism's development; on page 5 there's Robert Alter, some characteristics of formalism, bottom of page 6, another factore in rise of lit.crit.; page 8 has procedures of rhetorical crit.; pages9-11 has structuralism; page 13 has formalism, and Gunn is on page 14.

• ref#110, Conrad, type in Childs or can onical, go to p.46, middle of first paragraph, and page 47, footnote #4, get use of historical critical tradtion both places
• ref#111, John Barton, page 79 gets inadequacy of HC, page 90 #2, says canonical crit. is part of literary crit.; and page 102 discusses dealing with whole not part
• ref#112, Oswalt, journal article--it's a PDF, page 318, bottom paragraph, page 320 top paragraph
• ref#113, Robert Wall, type in biblical criticism, or just scroll to page 2, middle of second paragraph, more up to page 7
• ref#114, Gottwald, be sure to click "Archived" to see
• ref#115, John Hayes, scroll to intro, pages xii-xv; type in canonical, get pages 122,123,125, and second paragraph on 127 Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• ref#116, book review online, prophet ref is in second paragraph
• ref#117, Sonja Foss, type in dimensions, get page 6, second paragraph
• ref#118, Watson, type in rhetorical criticism, 181 and 182 both come up, got to 182, left hand column, second paragraph
• ref#119, Willey, type in Trible, page 615, first line
• ref#120, Greidanus, type in David Rhoads, page 278, top paragraph and footnote
• ref#121, Powell, scroll to page 2, middle paragraph, bottom of page 3, top of 4 has Auerbach quote, bottom of 4 and top of 5, axiomatic, page 26 top of page
• ref#122, Paris, type in narrative economy and narrative unity, page 9, footnote #7
• ref#123, Weitzman on Jstor
• ref#124, Merenlahti, type in Auerbach, p.49, middle three paragraphs, get hidden God
• ref#125, Cross, type in historical Jesus, p.779, 1st paragraph
• ref#126, Theissen, just scroll to p.1, first line
• ref#127, Porter, type in one quest, p52, top of page
• ref#128, Sanders, type in know a lot, p.5, get quote center of page
• ref#129, Telford, type in life of Jesus, page 33 (Sanders quote also on 34)

back to 125, Cross, type in twentyfirst century, P.779, quote at end Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• ref#126, Theissen, just scroll, page 1 first line
• ref#127, Porter, type in one quest, get page 52, top of page
• ref#128, Sanders, type in 'know quite a lot' and get quote from page 5 center of page
• ref#129, Telford, type in 'life of Jesus' get page 33 (Sanders quote also on page 34)

then back to 125, Cross, type in twenty-first century, get page 779, 'Quest of the historical Jesus' section, first and last paragraphs

• ref#130, Watt, there are no pages, but if you type in Christian modernism, pick the third option down,
• ref#131, article--go to the section "The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy"
• ref#132, Bendroth--same article, same section

back to #10, Rogerson, type in A. S. Peake, get page 298, almost to the bottom

• ref#133, Prior, type in 19th century, get page 13, go to #2, Overview, at bottom of page
• ref#134, Madigan, type in LaGrange, get page 84 (starts at bottom of 83) go to section titled "The coming of age of Catholic biblical studies" lookfor Proidentissimus, page 86 has Catholic scholarship
• ref#135, Montagnes, type in biblical school, get pages 23, and some on 135; type in Providentissimus Deus get pages 13,14, 91-94;
• ref#136, Bea, type in Divino afflante Spiritu get 231 and 232; type in Bea, get 236

then back to #10, Rogersone, go to page 298 These next two are not really referencing anything but the men's names in irder to show they are Bible scholars since they don't have a page on Wp to link to

• ref#137, type in Orchard, get four mentions
• ref#138, type in Fuller, get mentions on pages 5 and 9

then it's back to #22, Sweeney

• ref#139, Levinson, type in Higher criticism higher anti-semitism, will get the quote on page 83, second paragraph, also used stuff from 42, 43 and 82
• ref#140, Schwarz, type in historical criticism, page 210, under Jewish Orthodoxy

then back to #22, article, pages 142-146 Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

1. 140 again twice--type in M.M.Kalish , page 213, bottom of page: type in "full entry", get page 222, middle of second paragraph; type in Wellhausen, get page 216 for a discussion of Hoffman; type in Breuer, get page 277

• ref#141, Horrell, scroll to page 3 for 'part of wider trend'; page 4, middle paragraph; then type in form criticism, get page 8
• ref#142, Eliot, type in dimension, get page 70, third paragraph down
• ref#143--journal article, document

then back to ref #40, Soulen type in postmodern get 403 and 404 for date, then bottom of 405, bottom of 406, and middle of 410

• ref#144, Adam, type in stance, it's in the middle of the Editor's Forward, page vii
• ref#145, Soulen, Third Edition, post biblical interpretation, pages 140-142

then back to 144, type in suspicious page 140, in section on PBI it's fifth line down

• ref#146, (twice) Briggs, scroll to page 1, opening paragraph; page 2 top of page about fifth line down
• ref# 147, Fiorenza, type in Fiorenza, page 56, second paragraph--in the 1980's...
• ref#148, Walsh, type in Fiorenza, page 236, discussion of hermeneutics
• ref#149, Jobling, can type in patriarchal or scroll to page 9, bottom of first paragraph
• ref #150, type in feminist biblical scholars, page 49 "dissenting reader"

back to 145, Soulen, type in biblical criticism, left hand column toward bottom

• ref#151, Comstock, journal article, have to scroll
• ref#152, Rollins, (twice) type in began to appear, page 67, 1st paragraph
• ref#153, Kille, scroll to page 3, center of page

Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Johnbod

• Support Not a subject I know (or knew) anything much about, but nothing struck me reading through, and it seems an impressive piece of work on a significant encyclopedic topic. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you! Thank you thank you! Blessings upon you and all your progeny to the tenth generation!Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod There are some changes in Text criticism I am going to have to undo as they have reversed some changes made at the request of another reviewer here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

And I've reverted you, as they were just wrong - you need to firm up on what "ancient" and "antique" mean, and not just do everything reviewers ask. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ancient and antique are specific words with specific meanings in both biblical studies and classical studies. They refer to a specific time frame of the first four-hundred years of Christianity and the Roman Empire of the same time period. I know you said you don't know much about this, so I understand you didn't know, but those are the proper terms to use as they specify what texts are being referred to--as opposed to texts from the Middle ages--and so on. If you would please, self-revert those changes I would be grateful.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

It's biblical criticism I don't know much about - post-biblical history and MS are much more my thing, thanks very much. You don't seem to grasp that most of these MS are medieval on any definition. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Johnbod nevermind, I will fix it with specific dates and that will accommodate both reviewers and add that specificity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Good luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't take offense, I was just going by what you said. It's done. It's copied from the article here on Wikipedia [Biblical manuscripts] so there is synthesis in the meta-data. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Display name 99

This is a very good article. A few points.

The nineteenth century

• "Foundations of Christian anti-Jewish bias in the field were also established at this time, as these critics read the Protestant emphasis on grace and faith, and opposition to Catholic "law", back into the biblical texts, and treated texts in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament accordingly, albeit under the guise of scholarly objectivity." I think a little bit more is needed here. An example or two would be nice. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, certainly--more is always obtainable! In process right now. I'll be back when it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This is now done. I hope you approve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I do. It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Textual criticism

• " There are more than 3,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts..." Maybe throw in the word "ancient" or something like it. Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that there are only 3,000 Greek versions of the New Testament that exist in total. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh Duh! You are so right! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No, he isn't, really. "Manuscripts" should be enough, and many (even most) of these are 1,000 years too late to be called "ancient" - there are only a handful of those.

Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please note this article on Wp [7] uses the term "Antique Rome" to communicate the time period from the first century BC to the fifth century AD. "Late Antiquity" is from the fifth to the eighth found in this one [8] titled "Classical Antiquity." However, I can accommodate both concerns represented here by adding specific dates to this section and will go do so right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I still think that there needs to be something to make it more specific. A brief explanation of the time period to which the manuscripts date would be sufficient. "There are more than 3,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from around..." would be fine. I just think right now it's a little bit vague. Display name 99 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Please get rid of "literally" in the first paragraph. It isn't needed and it's too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

More soon. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I did, but it seemed genuinely needed to me when I put it there because "there must be a million of them" is a common exaggeration--and it's kind of an outlandish claim if you think about it that might be subject to exaggeration. But there were a lot of church "fathers" they all wrote a lot and it does cover about 400 years--so--literally a million. Anyway, it's gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made it through "The New Testament synoptic problem." Everything thus far looks good. I'm sorry I'm going a little slow but I should have everything finished within a couple days. Display name 99 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Take your time. I'm thankful for your participation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Redaction criticism

• I don't really think you need the "then" in the second sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
• Done through Literary criticism." Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"Then" it's gone. :-) You rock. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Responses

• I think a little bit more explanation on Pope Leo XIII and Lagrange in the second paragraph would do well here. A sentence for each would probably do it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I am feeling a little unsure what you might be looking for here. Is it possible to explain a little more? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a short explanation of what Leo XIII said in his encyclical and the sort of specific arguments that Lagrange advanced in his own work. The article provides a fine very basic summary but I think a tiny bit more detail could be added. Display name 99 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Well... I have written something. Please take a look and see if it is anything like what you had in mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is basically what I was looking for. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• Is feminist criticism really all about confronting "liberal Protestant theology?" I'm not sure why the term liberal is included here in reference to the enemies of feminism, since feminism and liberalism go together. Secondly, feminist Christianity is not an exclusively Protestant phenomenon. It exists in the apparatus of the Catholic Church among those who dissent from the Church's practice of only ordaining men, for example. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza is a Catholic. Display name 99 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It isn't actually about feminist Christianity, it's about feminist theology; those are different. One is an inclusive Christian movement that is not denominational and does include Catholics and Protestants, the other is more focused and specifically scholarly, and this feminist theology would also include some of the Jewish scholars--like Tykva Frymer-Kensky--and is not specifically Christian. Feminist theology was a theological response to what was "accepted" in academic circles at the time. Academia was enamored of the German critics. The feminists wrote a good bit on the downside of patriarchalism and its effects. "Liberal Protestant theology" was the theology of the German critics; they were pretty exclusively white male Protestants. I'll go look it over and see if there's a way I can make it clearer--without making it too much longer! I'm not sure what's actually needed here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about this one. It seems clear to me--but then I know what it's about! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help me out once again with what to clarify. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC) That's all. Once I hear back from you on these points, I'll look over the article one more time and will give my support if nothing else comes up in my mind. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support-The article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. It meets the criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so very much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It hasn't shown up at the top--do you know why? This is my first FAC so I don't know exactly how this works! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Display name 99 I don't mean to be a pest, but if it isn't too much trouble, would you mind posting your support in that box at the top? As it is, it looks as though comments are continuing. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note - This has been open for two months. While some support has been earned here, it's clear that issues are still being found, and a thorough spot-check of citations is still going to be needed when all the dust settles. This is work that really should occur outside of FAC, but I don't want to necessarily archive this if we're close. Axl, can you give me a sense of where you are in your review process? Jenhawk777, are you done going through all the citations? If so, can we have A. Parrot take another look? If we're not wrapped up soon, I'll have to archive and you can renominate when issues are worked through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am about three-quarters of the way through. I still need to check "Life of Jesus research" and "Contemporary developments". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain I will finish my re-review of every single source quoted today. If they are not all correct and accessible now, it will have to be archived because I will most likely go shoot myself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I already told you not to do that:[9]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No one ever accused me of being overly obedient. Besides--155 references--I have gone through every single one--you would feel exactly the same... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain, Jenhawk777: I can recheck tomorrow if Jenhawk is ready; I've had a long day today. A. Parrot (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Tomorrow would be perfect. That allows me time for a last run through. Please God. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

As much as I hate to drag this nomination out any longer, I can't give a verdict today. I have started checking and most of the problems that I pointed out last time have been fixed, but I still want to spot-check more extensively. Be back tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain This is my first FAC so forgive my ignorance, but how many votes does it take for an article to be accepted? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Butting in as Laser brain's fellow coord, try not to think of "supports" as votes, because it isn't supposed to be about numbers (a well-reasoned "oppose" may carry more weight than several "supports"). Suffice to say that there seems to be enough supporting commentary to result in promotion once we're all satisfied with the results of the spotcheck, and provided nothing else of consequence comes up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanx! I am burning incense to the reference gods as we speak... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I've done more random spot-checking and found several more errors, without having to look all that extensively. I must assume there are more. I'm very sorry, but I can't support this as an FA.

I want to emphasize that the referencing problems are not insoluble, just insoluble within the time limits of an FAC. I encourage Jenhawk to keep working on them and renominate when finished, although I can understand not wanting to after this grueling FAC. I'll list what I found:

• Citation 8, to the paper on religion and mental health links to a PDF of something unrelated to that paper (looks like book reviews in a 1950s journal).

If you click on the title you get that weird PDF, but if you click on the DOI, or the PMC, or the PMID, (which is what I did when I checked it), you get the correct article. I don't understand why the title goes somewhere else. How is that even fixable? What happened? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 44, about New Criticism, says that New Criticism emerged in the period that the article text discusses, but it doesn't tie it to biblical criticism, and from what I can tell, biblical criticism isn't mentioned anywhere in the book. This use of the citation might be allowable, especially because the book in the next citation does mention New Criticism as affecting biblical criticism, albeit only in passing, but it is less than ideal.

Okay now this one just doesn't seem fair. The statement in the text is New criticism (literary criticism) developed. Period, that's it, that's all it says. The reference says in the second paragraph on page 8 "But the New Criticism was, in America, the movement that successfully introduced literary criticism..." How is that not a fair reference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 61a, to Wasserman et al. on text types/textual clusters, points to page 44, but that page talks about computer tools for studying manuscripts. Pages 8–9 or 8–10 seem to be the ones to cite here instead.

Page 8-9 is the right reference, and 61b has it right, but I apparently forgot the ref inside note 1. It's fixed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 133, on Providentissimus deus: The second sentence, "Part of its message said that no exegete was allowed to interpret a text to contradict church doctrine", isn't supported within the provided page range, although it is supported on page 98. Even so, I'd tone down the language to "no exegete should".

This should be reference # 134, Madigan. The numbering got screwed up because I added two references per request of another commenter after I had begun the run-through. I tried to go back and change them all, but apparently didn't. "No exegete was allowed" is what the ref says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Ref #134 is now there as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Citation 143: "…this socio-scientific approach revealed women were more important to the beginnings of Christianity than had previously been realized." This isn't supported by the paper linked in the citation. The paper is pointing out flaws in Rodney Stark's claims about women in early Christianity, which do include that women were numerous and had high status within early Christian communities. But the paper doesn't say that this claim is a break with past scholarship, and it uses MacDonald's more nuanced treatment of the same subject as evidence against Stark. A. Parrot (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The paper is primarily about Stark but it does also refer to McDonald's method--that was all I cared about. I lost my other references because my free membership at Jstor ran out and I couldn't afford to buy back in. I thought about deleting it entirely but what the Hell, I didn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph can survive without the example of McDonald. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and participation. I am apparently incapable of getting these all right at the same time. I don't believe I will renominate. Thank you anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Help me understand where you want to go from here? I can't consider promoting this until all of the citations are correct per WP:V. I'd prefer to have this work done outside of FAC especially since it's been open for over two months. However, it would be a shame if you were to discontinue the process altogether. Re-nominating shouldn't be that bad—you can ask those who have already lent there support here to revisit and restate their support as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand completely. I knew that would kill it. I started redoing this article in May, and it has nearly taken over my life ever since. From the beginning, I did the reworking by myself, and only got help with GA and the subsequent peer review--and no one ever volunteered to help check references. I was told to make them consistent, which I did attempt to do, but that's pretty much it. I have been over and over the stupid references and find it the most frustrating process I have ever endured. I don't understand how some problems arise--how is it I can see the pages of a book--use it--and then later can't see it or find it for a reviewer to check? How can I find content on Amazon that Google then tells me isn't there? How is it transformed isbn's sometimes go to completely different books? How did it happen that Citation 8 goes to a different place if you click the title than it does if you click the DOI? I don't understand any of these things, so I am at sea about how to fix them. I think it's me. I think I am simply not detail oriented enough--I'm not a programmer--I'm an ethics major. I am afraid that no matter how many times I go back to reference Hell and attempt to check every one, yet again, that I will only fail at it, yet again. I'll fix one and somehow screw up another. I understand this kills the FAC--and I really do believe it should be a featured article as far as notability and content go--but I don't think I can cope with any more of this. I have been through these references more than four times, and I'm tired. I despair. I have no confidence left in my ability to make all these references what they should be. Renominating requires that I revisit reference Hell probably until the day I am taken over by an alien life form capable of this. :-) I don't have confidence in them either. Aliens never show up when you need them. I'm sorry. Perhaps time will heal all wounds and down the road I will go mad enough to reconsider, but right now, I am just done. Thank you for your consideration. I promised Grabergs I wouldn't shoot myself over this, but I do think I'll go have a good cry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I'm sorry to hear all of this. I spent some time combing through the history and I think a good deal of your bewilderment likely traces back to this edit performed by JudeccaXIII with the edit summary "Assisted by Citation bot". This is where the error to Fn 8 was introduced. At least you know you didn't do something without knowing knowing it, and this is why it's critical to examine edits made by automated tools before saving them. --Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea that was even an issue. I bow to the bots at all times. However do you know this stuff? How did you find that? How can it be fixed? I'm sorry--you've given me a taste of encouragement and it's gone straight to my head. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777 Sorry for the issues. I've been using the bot less as more problems with it have been occurring more often. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Not at all your fault. You were trying to work, that's all, and I am grateful for anyone willing to help with that. I have been on Wp about a year and a half now, and every time I think I have started to get a handle on things, something like this pops up. I have never used a bot, don't know anything about them, and while it may seem fair to say I should have examined these changes before saving them, I didn't actually save them, and I would have had to know enough about them to know to revert all those edits--and that was, quite simply, outside of my level of experience. I guess I didn't do something without knowing it, but I allowed something to be done without knowing it. I guess that makes me responsible. Don't take ownership of articles, but what goes in them is your responsibility. Don't revert other people's work, talk, but foresee future problems they might create--that you will be held responsible for. So far, I have found the rules of Wp a little bit difficult to juggle. So, thank you for the apology, but honestly, I don't think anything is the fault of anything but the circumstances of the weird world of Wikipedia.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain Is it possible to undo the error in ref #8? If you will explain how, or direct me to where I can read about it, I will fix that one at least. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 If it helps, I can restore reference 8 back to the original format. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a great idea! Let's give it a try and see if it fixes its issues. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 Done. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

YAY! That did it! It fixed it! Thank you! Laser_brain!! JudeccaXIII put it back to the original form and now either place you click it goes to the open article! We fixed one thing! In only a day!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain I have asked someone else--not me--to do a reference review. Alephb is exceptionally good with details, and has begun going through these one at a time. It won't take him as long as it took me--he's super smart and terrifically competent and experienced at Wikipedia--much more so than I. He's already completed the first 30 and says there are no problems yet. If you can wait just a little bit more, and not close me out till he's through, I would be so grateful. I am guessing he'll only be a few days. He's amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem! --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to work through the references, although I imagine I'll do the bulk of my work Friday or Saturday of this week. At this point, I'm going through and making sure that each link to a source goes where it is supposed to. I'm pretty confident I can get that particular aspect of the references working correctly. Is there anything else I should be looking for as I go along? I'm not very familiar with what all FAC is looking for in references, although if I have a "checklist" of some kind I'm pretty decent with repetitive boring tasks. I once hit "0" on a calculator, then "+1" and then hit the equals button, causing it to count one by one, until it hit sixteen thousand, at which point I got bored and quit. So I've got that. As for "much more" experienced than Jenhawk at Wikipedia, that's probably a stretch. Edit counter says I have just a few more edits than she does. Alephb (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If I claim you're more experienced I don't have to admit you're just plain smarter and more capable. It allows me to keep a little pride intact and still be grateful.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser_brain Aleph and I have a question. When the bot went through, part of what it did was put in google url links--on some of the refs--but not all. How important are those? I don't usually put those in the template--they always seem to cause those pretty red errors. But I know consistency is the most important thing, so should we go through and put google links in them all? About half the books I used I had to go to Amazon to see inside, so even if we put google links, it wouldn't necessarily access the book that was used. Should we delete what's there or attempt to add more or just leave it and do nothing? Aleph is going through the references one by one bless his heart. He is already up through 92 out of 150. Pretty awesome huh? He's amazing. He should be king of Wikipedia. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Just passing by, guys -- to same me time looking can you point out examples of exactly what you mean and then perhaps I can offer advice? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose Sure. Thanx. Here are the very first two references in the article. They are back to back exactly like this: <ref name="Benedictus de Spinoza">{{cite book |last1=de Spinoza |first1=Benedictus |title=The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza: Introduction. Tractatus theologico-Politicus, Tractatus Politicus |date=1900 |publisher=The Macmillan Co. |location=New York}}</ref>{{rp|24}}<ref name="Richard Muller">{{cite book |last1=Muller |first1=Richard |editor1-last=McKim |editor1-first=Donald K. |editor1-link=Donald K. McKim |title=Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters |date=1998 |publisher=InterVarsity Press |location=Downers Grove, IL |isbn=978-0-8308-1452-7|url=https://books.google.com/?id=mkmcaVKsXbgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Handbook+of+Major+Bible+Interpreters#v=onepage&q=Handbook%20of%20Major%20Bible%20Interpreters&f=false |chapter=Biblical Interpretation in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries}}</ref>{{rp|140}} You will of course see immediately that the Spinoza reference has no url link, whereas the Muller link does. Does that matter? The entire rest of the article is like this--some with url's--some without. I did not do this. But there it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay tks. I think these Googlebooks links are of dubious worth -- even if they do take you to books with previews, there seems no guarantee the relevant pages can be accessed, or even (as you yourself said, Jen) that the edition is the one you used. Perhaps CitationBot improves the references in some other ways, but adding the GoogleBooks links doesn't IMO fit into that category for the reasons mentioned -- and that's before we even worry about inconsistent appearance because some books aren't linked. I wouldn't necessarily hold up promotion over the links but I'd still be inclined to get rid of them -- Andy? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree with getting rid of the links. As a whole, CitationBot doesn't seem that useful. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

YES!! Whoohoo! YAY!! (clearing throat, gathering some sense of dignity...) Thank you very much for that timely input, we will take care of that immediately.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777 and assorted reviewers, when I was most recently recruited to check some references, I was under the impression that what I needed to check was that links in the sources go to where they're supposed to. It was on that basis that I worked out a pace of work that would likely finish by today at the latest. Unfortunately, it looks like the reference issues are going to require a lot more than just making sure all the links work. Out of about 150 references, I'm at 113 so far today and will need to go back over all of 1-94 given how the issues are much more extensive than just the links: there's a wide variety issues with reference formatting, the exact contents of quotes, etc.

I'm still quite happy to pitch in, and I'll keep plugging away at the references until I see no more issues, but I don't want anyone to have the impression that I'm almost finished. I don't anticipate putting more than about two hours a day into this, and given the page today, it looks to me like that's going to mean getting through about 20 references per day or less. Given that I need to go through about another 130 references, I'd be surprised if I wrap this up in less than a week. Just as an example, for the latest bunch of references I've checked -- numbers 102 through 113 -- required some kinds of corrections to 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113. That's nine out of the last twelve references needing some kind of correction. I don't think more than maybe 2 of those nine were "Where do the links go?" sorts of problems. Alephb (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

OMG, I had no idea things were that bad. He just sent me this: There should be a horror movie about a Wikipedia editor slowly losing her grip on reality during an FAC. As a clearly insane editor with bloodshot eyes frantically tries to fix things for a FAC, a low and foreboding voice-over could read, The citations says 1990, while the ISBN seems to lead to a 1979 edition. The Google books scan ... I am there. I am so there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the horrow movie would be very loosely based on real events. Not that you're actually any more crazy than anyone else would be if they spent two months going through a FAC review. Everything I've seen so far seems pretty fixable, and I don't find references unpleasant, so I'd be happy to do the work of getting them all lined up. I just don't want to mislead anyone into thinking it's about to be finished. And they're not actual problems for the most part in the sense of anything that would actually cause anyone problems when using Wikipedia for information. They're just an endless number of little nit-picky problems of the kind that seem to distinguish GA from FA articles. Alephb (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Not so loosely... and he keeps working with me anyway. Every horror movie has to have a hero that rescues the rest--even the crazy ones. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, no, the hero role will have to cast somebody else. I could be the scary narrator voice that reads my nit-picky reference notes out loud as foreboding music runs in the background. I have a voice that would be perfect for audio work, and a face that is likewise made for radio. Alephb (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

We're having too much fun with this. I don't think that's allowed. This is serious stuff you know. Back to work! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Laser brain It appears Alephb is now as fed up with going over these as I eventually became. It does not look likely to be finished in a timely manner for the FAC. My horror movie has a sad ending. Nothing to be done. Thank you for attempting to help, for leaving this open as long as you have, and for your kind understanding, but we are dead in the water now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Alephb: I realize you may have run out of steam in terms of going through the citations, but can you give me an idea of the scope of the issue? Is it that citations don't support the statements they're attached to, or that the citation itself requires formatting/styling? One issue is much different from the other. If it's the latter, that could be fixed within the scope of this nomination and we can move on. If it's the former, I'd prefer to archive this and bring it back after cleanup. --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Laser brain:, I began working with formatting and making sure links worked in the citations. All that stuff could be fixed, and in a reasonable time-frame. As I was doing that, I started discovering citations where quotes weren't quite right, where page numbers weren't correct, where the references only partially supported the information in the body of the article, and so on. I think it would be difficult to find five references in a row where there isn't some kind of issue with the citation not supporting the statement it's attached to. It's likely not fixable in any short amount of time.

I wasn't fed up with going over the reference; I got fed up with something that isn't entirely attached to the topic of this article. I think it would be better if myself and Jenhawk work on separate projects, and I'll continue to work on citations elsewhere. Alephb (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment: what I see is that Jen left, which is sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately since the nominator is disengaging (hopefully temporarily), I have no choice but to archive this. It's gained a solid amount support for promotion but I can't even consider it without a full source review and sign-off. I think someone who's familiar with the scholarship could potentially take this across the finish line (Axl?), so anyone who has been involved here is welcome to try after the sourcing is worked through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2018 [10].

---

Deadpool (film)

Nominator(s): adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool is a 2016 film that was a critical and commercial success, breaking numerous box office records and being nominated for several major awards, which has gone on to impact the wider film industry by inspiring similar films (R-rated superhero films) to be made. I did extensive work researching and re-writing this article through 2016 and early 2017, and in July 2017 it passed a very thorough GA review. The reviewer, JohnWickTwo, encouraged me to pursue FA-status for the article, and I have had time to make some tweaks and improvements since then to the point that I now believe the article is worthy of such status. Thanks in advance for considering this article! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

I've only looked at prose, in the lead. The writing is not of FA standard. I believe the nomination is premature, and that you should withdraw, rework, and resubmit. The lead is a hard part to write, but already there's too much evidence of grammatical ambiguity, and you've made your task all the harder by jumbling together a high density of facts. Check check check that the meaning of every item throughout the article is clear, and that the phrases and clauses make sense in their context (they bounce off each other, so hunt down unintended meanings).

• "Deadpool is a 2016 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, distributed by 20th Century Fox." So 20th Century Fox distributed the Marvel Comics character? Move the last phrase to an earlier position and add "and".
• "In the film, Wilson hunts down the man who gave him mutant abilities, but also a scarred physical appearance, as the antihero Deadpool." It's a bit redundant to start with those three words; but without them there's a slight thematic bump ... which suggests this could be relocated as third sentence. I don't understand "as the antihero Deadpool": who is that?
• "Development of a Deadpool film starring Reynolds began in February 2004, before he Reynolds went on to play the character in X-Men Origins: Wolverine in 2009." It's a bit confusing to jumble these details in. It's the lead, so can't it be streamlined?
• "Reese and Wernick were hired for a spinoff in 2010, and worked with Reynolds to more faithfully adapt the character (including his fourth wall breaking) after the portrayal in Wolverine was criticized for not doing so." Not doing what? Hiring? Adapting? Portraying? Do you mean: "... to more faithfully adapt the character to the original comic (including its breaking of the fourth wall)"?
• "Miller was hired in 2011 for his directorial debut, and an enthusiastic response to leaked test footage he created with Reynolds led to a green-light from Fox in 2014." "For" is ambiguous (means "in recognition of"? Probably not.)—again, jumbling in too many things. Relax the text out a bit. The next bit (, and an ...) only becomes clear at the word "led", in reverse.
• It's not Vancouver in Washington state, right? Probably Vancouver, BC, is enough. Unsure it needs a link, unless you pipe it to the actual studio in Vancouver (that would be cool, but ...).
• Contextual redundancy: "Additional casting began in early 2015, and filming took place in Vancouver from March to May of that year."
• Is this important enough to put in the lead? "Visual effects were provided by multiple vendors and ranged from the addition of blood and gore to the creation of the CG character Colossus."
• Bit of a teaser, the linked "unconventional". Readers shouldn't have to divert from the lead to another article to learn what you're talking about. I'd save it for the body of the article. "Deadpool was released in the United States on February 12, 2016, after an unconventional marketing campaign."
• "The film became both a financial and critical success." Why "became" instead of plain "was"? Why stress "both"?
• It ... it ... not so good. "It earned over $783 million against a $58 million budget, breaking numerous records: it became the highest-grossing R-rated film, the highest-grossing X-Men film, and the ninth-highest-grossing 2016 film." -> "It earned over $783 million against a $58 million budget, becoming the highest-grossing R-rated film, the highest-grossing X-Men film, and the ninth-highest-grossing 2016 film."
• "Critics praised Reynolds' performance, the film's style and faithfulness to the comics"—it does clash with your point about the fourth wall.
• Grammar's a bit hard here: "but some criticized the plot as formulaic as well as the sheer number of jokes in the film" -> "but some criticized what they saw as a formulaic plot and an over-reliance on jokes"?
• Bin "also". "Deadpool received ...". Tony (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Per Tony's comments, I'm going to archive this nom and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Notwithstanding the benefits of GAN, the leap from there to FAC is significant and, per instructions at the top of the FAC page, it's always advisable to seek formal community commentary at Peer Review before nominating here. As well as trying PR, you'd be eligible to give the FAC mentoring scheme a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2018 [11].

---

Mahavira

Nominator(s): Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 07:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the last God in Jainism and has been improved since the last nomination more than an year ago. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 07:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Many of the issues I raised in the previous nomination persist - inconsistent citation formatting, prose issues, MOS problems, and a general inaccessibility to readers who are not experts on the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Prose in the lead, cr. 1a:

• "In the Jain tradition, it is believed that Mahavira was born in the early part of the 6th century BC into a royal kshatriya family in what is now Bihar, India." Which bit is in the Jain tradition? Also, we could tell the readers very briefly what Jain is, so they don't have to divert to the link to find out. It's rather central to understanding the topic, isn't it?
• "6th century" (which I like), but "thirty"? And later I see "24".
• Phrasing is a little awkward. Make it as straight and simple as possible:

  "At the age of thirty, abandoning all worldly possessions, he left his home in pursuit of spiritual awakening and became an ascetic."

  –>

  "At the age of 30 he abandoned all worldly possessions and left home in pursuit of spiritual awakening, becoming an ascetic."

  The timing is unclear ... I guess it took him a while to become an ascetic, but it looks rather sudden. Could you insert "eventually" before "becoming", I wonder? You need to look at sources for when he was first noted as an ascetic. Also, I see further down that he might have been "twenty-eight", not "thirty". Um ....

• "He preached for thirty years, and is believed by Jains to have died in the 6th century BC, though the year he is believed to have died varies by the Jain sect." Well, 30 plus 30 is 60, and you say he was born in the early part of the century. Do you need to tell us he died in the same century? "is believed ... to have died" appears twice. You don't need the second one.
• There's a lot of "is believed to" (the "b" word occurs five times in the lead, and 20 times in the article). Needs variety throughout. Get a list of close synonyms. "probably" might sometimes be acceptable. "may have" "is likely to have", "is considered ...", plus more.
• So he was exactly 72 at death? I'm confused about 30 plus 12.5 plus 30 ... do the last two overlap? Later, twelve and a half morphs into twelve.
• "After he gained Kevala Jnana"—The earlier "attained" is good, but "gained" would be better as "reached", if you want a different word.
• A big noun group: "Mahavira taught that the observance of oberving the vows"—simplify the grammar where possible.
• Weirdly, after this train crash the second half of the lead looks OK.

I'm afraid I'm declaring: withdraw, rework, and resubmit. Nikkkimaria's post above also suggests this. Looking further down, it's quite possible to improve the prose before resubmitting.

MEMOS TO THE FAC COMMUNITY:

• (1) This points to an urgent need for editorial (copy-editing) support of our subcontinent nominators, before nomination. I don't know the answer, but we need sterling articles on the multiple, rich traditions in this part of the world.
• (2) This is the second nomination I've reviewed today in which the lead tries to fit in an awful lot of facts, leading to indigestion and lack of clarity. Just noting this. Tony (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

It seems again that work of the scale that should take place outside FAC is still required, so I'll archive this shortly. The nominator has tried to do the right thing by putting up for Peer Review in the past (2015 to be exact) but I think an active collaborator is probably needed, and then another go at PR prior to any future FAC nom. The collaborator might come via the FAC mentoring scheme, which you'd be eligible to try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2018 [12].

---

National Front (UK)

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a fascist party that reached its apogee in Britain during the 1970s, at which point it gained the country's fourth-largest vote share and contributed to a broader shift to the political right under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government in the 1980s. Over the past year I have brought other articles on British fascism (John Tyndall (politician)) and British politics more broadly (Referendum Party) to FA status and it would be nice if this article, currently a GA, could join them. With the issue of far-right resurgence a particular hot topic both in Europe and the United States, it is important that our coverage of the subject is improved here at Wikipedia, and hopefully this FAC shall contribute to that end. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't

• I've gone through the article and ensured that those that require periods have got them and that those which don't, don't. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg: the historic images tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just what is depicted, is historically significant - eg Tank Man. This needs a different tag and stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Looks like this needs fixing still. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oops, so it does. Fixed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Several bare URLs in the reference list

• Those appear to have been added since I launched this FAC. I'll look into fixing that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• All fixed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Formatting of FN127 doesn't match other sources

• Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Fn128: don't repeat publisher as author

• Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:LAYOUT Further reading is generally an independent section not a subsection

• Fixed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jackson 2011 appears to have a second author not listed here

• I double checked the source. Jackson is the only author of the report, although a Matthew Feldman has written a two-page "Introduction" (more a foreword); hence, Feldman is given as a co-author at the University of Northampton's website, but should not really be considered such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• What makes Walker 1977 a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• It is an in-depth journalistic account of the NF based on considerable fieldwork and interviews with members. Although Walker was not himself sympathetic to the NF, his book is actually far less sensationalistic and overtly biased than much of the journalism on far-right topics that we see today. Attesting to the book's reliability, it has repeatedly been cited in academic studies of the NF and far-right in Britain more widely. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:20, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

In general, seems in good shape, though quite long. Through the end of History, (so to speak)

• "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics, the NF has been characterised as fascist or neo-fascist by political scientists." Isn't this a repetition of your opening sentence?

• This is true, but I think it is a point that warrants repetition. This sentence also offers the added information that some political scientists regard it as "neo-fascist" rather than simply "fascist", which is not something that I think could be fitted into the opening sentence without the result looking rather clunky. We have the same lede structure at articles like British National Party, English Defence League, and UK Independence Party. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• The article and the lead are really long - I think the sentence can be left out of the lead. There is no mention of a distinction between far- and extreme-right in the body of text and aren't they automatically neo-fascist by virtue of their postwar status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The NF generated much opposition from left-wing and anti-fascist groups throughout its history," Shouldn't this be "has generated" given it is still ongoing?

• Again true, and I'll make the change accordingly. Part of the issue here is that the NF has really ceased to be a significant political player since the early 1980s and thus the vast majority of academic and journalistic material that discusses it focuses on the period before that date. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Are the arguments over the location of the party headquarters necessary in such a long article?

• Perhaps they aren't crucial, but they only take up three short sentences that are part of one paragraph, so I don't think that we're overdoing it here. Including mention of this argument helps to underscore the differences within the party at that time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "and in spring 1969 assaulted two Labour Party ministers at a public meeting, thus accruing a reputation for rowdiness.[48]" rowdiness seems a light term, but perhaps it's my American English.

• I'm not able to double-check at present, but I have a feeling that "rowdiness" might have been the word used in the source given. I could perhaps go with "disruptive behaviour" or "disruptiveness" instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• In the paragraph beginning "The NF capitalised", there are a number of sentences beginning "In the XXX election". I might vary the phrasing a bit.

• Agreed. I've made various changes here to diversify the use of language a bit. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "After a resurgence in fortunes for the party in London at the 1977 GLC election—where they improved on their October 1974 general election result—it planned further marches in the city.[87] " I might use commas, but also you seem to refer to the party with both "they" and "it".

• I've added the commas in place of the dashes and have ensured that "it" is used consistently in place of "they". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "that had previously gone to the NF.[92] NF membership had also declined," back to back NFs.

• I've changed the first instance of "NF" to "Front". Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "This party then contested the general elections in 1997 and 2001, but made little impact in either.[119] " I might cut "then".

• Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

More later, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. Your comments are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• "although previous fascist parties—including the British Union of Fascists, the German Nazi Party, and the Italian National Fascist Party—also took part in elections, rendering this argument obsolete.[135] " the last part seems a bit opiniony and may need to be sourced inline.

• A very fair point. I've altered the prose to make it very clear that this is the political scientist Stan Taylor's opinion. This will therefore be the first mention of Taylor in the text, so I have also trimmed back what is now the second mention of him to avoid duplication. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "and the sociologist Christopher T. Husbands cautioned against attempts to understand the National Front through comparisons with Italian Fascism or German Nazism as they existed when they were in power because it remained without political office.[142] " Possibly this whole sentence should be divided. I imagine "it" refers to the NF?

• I've divided this sentence in two, as you suggest. I've also tinkered with the prose a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Over the course of the NF's history, it has contained various different factions, often with distinct ideological positions. From the party's early days until the Tyndall/Webster split in 1980, the NF's ideology and propaganda output was dominated by the ex-GBM faction.[7] According to Wilkinson, theirs was a leadership "deeply imbued with Nazi ideas"" Are you treating National Front as a plural noun in the British fashion that takes the plural form? This passage looks inconsistent on that point. Similarly, in the last paragraph of this subsection, "faction" seems to be referred to both as "it" and "they

• I'll strip out the use of plural nouns here and stick with "it". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "and argued that different races can be ranked on a hierarchy based on their differing abilities.[163]" I might cut the word "their" to avoid having it look like we're saying different races have different abilities.

• Agreed and removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• ""negroes... are not fitted to go to white schools or to live in white society".[109] " shouldn't there be a non-breaking space before the ellipsis?

• Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• "and that black workers prevents unemployed whites getting jobs.[211] " Doesn't seem grammatical. And shouldn't it be past tense?

• I've changed this sentence to the following: "and that the employment of black workers left many white workers unemployed." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

• Anti-semitism: this section is expressed in the past tense, unlike earlier sections on the NF's views, but there's nothing that says they've changed their position, so I don't see why this is in the past tense.

• I've switched most of the sentences to present tense. This is a recurring issue with this article, I fear, due to the fact that the vast majority of published sources discuss the NF as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s rather than dealing with its present day, much denuded form. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• The word "claim" and its forms are overused in the first few sentences of "Government and the State"

• I've replaced two of the three instances in which it is used at that juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• "that the British Army should replace rubber bullets with lead ones," I might say "real" instead of "lead". Just preference.

• I'm not sure "real" is the right term here (after all, "rubber bullets" are still "real", as opposed to imaginary), but I'll change this to "metal" instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• " In 1978 it issued a leaflet, How to Spot a Red Teacher, to school pupils.[307]" I don't like the way the title is in the middle, with "to school pupils" at the end.

• I've changed this to: "In 1978 it issued a leaflet to school pupils, How to Spot a Red Teacher." Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• "by ensuring that all those capable of working do so rather than subsiding on unemployment benefits.[277]" I think you mean subsisting, not subsiding.

• Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The NF was not eager to publicise how many branches active across the UK.[327] " I would suppose that something like "how many branches were active across the UK" or something similar but perhaps it is just my American English.

• It's not your American English, it's a silly error! Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Through Security section.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's the most I'm going to be able to do. Two bits of advice:

First, I think you do need to update the antisemitism section, you should have sources on the present position if you are going to detail the past position. I don't think you can source a statement that a party is antisemitic to a 1978 source.

There is virtually no academic or journalistic commentary on the NF as it has existed since the 1990s, hence the heavy focus on the party as it existed in the 1970s and 1980s. I can't find any commentary on the NF's position on Jewish people since that period; equally, I can find nothing suggesting that their position has changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I would say that you would have to express it in the past tense and make it clear it is from the 1970s. It's a long enough time and enough change of personnel.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Second is a question of tone. Passages such as "During the 1970s, the NF's propaganda regularly presented black people in Britain as a source of crime.[217] This anti-immigrant discourse was similar to that employed against the recently arrived Ashkenazi Jewish community in the late nineteenth century and also echoed the response to gypsies and Huguenots in seventeenth-century England.[218]" There's an extent to which this lends itself to WP:SYNTH because you are equating with a known evil without your establishing a connection between the two--"similar to" is a slender reed. And there's a fair number of zingers that end paragraphs or section, for example, "This literature referred to areas with large African and Asian communities as being "immigrant-infested", a use of language comparing non-white migrants to vermin.[189]" What they say is fair game, but I think you're pounding it into the table there. The reader is as capable of you or I of deciding the NF are a nasty group without needing to be persuaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

In both of these cases, the comparisons were drawn my the authors of the cited text (rather than me personally) but I see your point. I'll amend the text to make it clear that it is the authors' opinions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I will try get back to this, but I don't have time right now to do a full review due to travel. If it closes before I finish, I'll add comments at the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. I hope that your traveling goes smoothly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get in a few more comments.

• "The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance,[284] being concerned with what it perceived as the growing permissiveness of British society," permissive ... permissive. I'd find a synonym.

• Maybe "decadence" or "extravagance" would do, but I think it is difficult to find a perfect match for "permissiveness", which is what the reliable sources use here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• "endorsing Ulster loyalism it never shared the Ulster loyalists' " again a repetition.

• I've changed this to "although it endorsed the Ulster loyalists' cause it never shared their emphasis on the defence of Protestantism." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Although in its first year the party largely ignored the recently passed 1967 Abortion Act that legalised abortion in Great Britain, " does the "its" prior to "first year" refer to the party or the act? If it refers to the act than "first year" and "recently passed" are redundant.

• It's a reference to the party itself. I'll amend the prose to make that clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In the 1970s, the party stressed its belief that education should be suited to the varying academic abilities of different students although did not outright condemn the egalitarian comprehensive school system.[276] " I would cut "egalitarian". This goes to tone. Either the reader has a view regarding comprehensive schools or they do not; if they do not, I would let them form their own.

• Sure thing. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• " It called for far greater emphasis on exams and sporting competitions in schools," I might say "examinations" rather than "exams".

• Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To the start of Organization and structure.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by slatersteven

I would rather sources that are 30 years (or more) old are not used to source current statements. They may not have changed their stance, but we also have nothing to say they have not, and a lot can happen in 30 years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: This is arising from my recent alteration of the "anti-Semitism" section", where I switched the past tense text to present tense on the basis of your suggestion. Slatersteven reverted my changes, and has provided this comment to explain their decision. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the sources. If the sources won't support my suggestions, that's an acceptable reason not to change the text. You've read the sources and I have not. My suggestions are editorial.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead, 1a:

• Do we need to be told that 1967 was "51 years ago", and do we need to have red, white, and blue colours displayed (and linked, for some reason)?

• I don't really know why the red, white, and blue colour boxes are in there (certainly not my addition), and I would not really object to their removal however it does seem that the use of such colour boxes is very widespread in political party articles (Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK), Liberal Democrats (UK), Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States)) so any removal is likely to be met with re-addition at some point. As for the gadget we have that tells the reader how long ago the party was formed, I would personally favour its retention. Again, we see it widely used on political party articles, and I think that it likely saves readers a minute or so of their time should they wish to calculate how long the party has been in existence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This is where we judge article excellence, for possible promotion. Bad practice in a set of other articles isn't a strong argument. The infobox is more effective for readers if clutter by redundant info and gaudy colours is removed. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Is it useful to link "London" in this context?

• I thought the general rule of thumb was to not link countries but to link cities and anything smaller. However, on this count I don't really mind either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The general rule is not to link when every eight-year-old on the planet knows what the word refers to. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I've scrapped the mention of London at this juncture because there are some concerns (raised at the Talk Page) that it may be incorrect. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "fourth largest party"—something is missing.

• We currently have "the UK's fourth largest party in terms of vote share." I don't mind rewording it, but I'm not really sure how that could best be achieved. "the party with the UK's fourth largest vote share", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hyphens required in both. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• "regarding"—would "about" be plainer, simpler?

• That works. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, while the National Front's electoral support deteriorated heavily." It's uncertain from the wording whether these two propositions are causally connected. Unsure "heavily" is the best epithet.

• How about "substantially" in place of "heavily"? Or "significantly"? As for reflecting the impact of causality, how about "Many NF members defected to Tyndall's BNP, contributing to a substantial decline in the Front's electoral support"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Much better. Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• Ambiguous: "Ideologically positioned on the extreme or far-right of British politics". Is it an equative "or"? (also known as the far-right)? Does it mean extreme right or just the extreme of Br politics? Why not drop "extreme or"?

• Yes, it is an equative "or" in this case. I'm cautious about dropping "extreme or" because later in the article the NF gets described as "extreme right". I'll expand the prose at this juncture to refer to "the extreme-right or far-right of British politics"; do you think that this does the trick? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Or use commas: "on the extreme-, or far-right, of". You need the first, hanging comma, from what you say. Or: "on the extreme right (far-right) of". Tony (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• "only white people should be citizens of the United Kingdom"—isn't this central enough to the ideology to add "racist" to the opening sentence? Tony (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure on this point. They are racist, that's certain, but "racism" perhaps is not a fair description of their ideology in the way that "fascism" is. I'm cautious about the opening sentence getting too long with descriptive words; if we add "racist", then an equally valid case could be made for adding "anti-Semitic", "white supremacist", and so on. I also think that the term "racist" is perhaps a bit vague to be used at this point. The racism of the National Front is, for instance, very different from the racism of a white liberal or socialist who might act in a patronising but well-meaning manner to a person of colour; both can be construed as "racism", but they are referring to very different things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the lede, Tony. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Interesting topic. Notes below....

• After the BNP, the NF has been the most successful extreme-right group in British politics since the Second World War. - isn't UKIP far right?

• Not by the reckoning of political scientists (at least, not thus far - the party could always shift its ideology). UKIP has always been more closely akin to the right-wing end of the Conservatives than to the BUF, NF, or BNP; Thatcherite rather than fascist, basically. It spends a great deal of time calling for drastic cuts to the levels of immigration but does not oppose immigration (non-white or otherwise) on principle and certainly does not call for non-white Britons to have their citizenship revoked followed by deportation. Economically, it's all for free markets and privatisation rather than for the national-oriented economic protectionism that typifies the British far-right. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• ok, good point(s). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Contravening his earlier commitment to keep him out, Chesterton welcomed Tyndall into the party - he can't really contravene himself. i'd say "Going back on" or "Ignoring" or something

• How about "rejecting"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• A leadership election produced a strong mandate for Chesterton and his challengers left the party - wasn't it just that he won? Or did they specfically vote on policies as well?

• In the 1979 general election, the NF mounted the largest challenge of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918 - what does this mean?

• It refers to the number of seats that they were contesting. I'll make that clearer in the prose: "In the 1979 general election, the NF contested the largest number of seats of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918." Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is very large - having read through it, I get the impression some material is repeated, but I need to go back and check. It is an interesting read though. More tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• The NF adopted a strong anti-permissive stance - I think this sentence can be removed or merged with the one following.
  • Side comment: Cas, I agree because as an exposed introductory proposition it raises the question of what "permissive" is (it's undefined in the text). Some readers might ask "what behaviour is permitted, and what isn't, in the eyes of the NF?" I do like the "what it perceived as" in the next sentence (the one you're suggesting might open the section). May I also suggest, along the same lines of NPOV, that "regeneration" be in quotes? Tony (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    • I've placed "regeneration" in quote marks and I've also merged the opening sentence with the second sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

Well-written work, as always. A few quibbles follow. Feel free to disagree with me on any of those points.

• You describe Chesterton as a veteran of the Fascist movement in a caption, but not the body; also, it needs a source; also, is there a link we could use for the British fascist movement?

• On the third point, we have British Fascism, which could be linked. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• On the first point, I've added a sentence about Chesterton's BUF membership to the article (appropriately sourced). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if a short descriptor for the LEL would be useful.

• I've added a sentence giving a little more detail on this group. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is nitpicky, but I'm not a fan of the term "extreme-right". While it may be accurate, the one-dimensional left-right spectrum misses nuance in many cases, and is particularly dodgy the further you get from mainstream politics. Are there other terms used by the sources?

• Well, the terms "far-right" and "extreme-right" are pretty much synonyms in this context. I could replace examples of "extreme" with "far" (excepting, of course, where direct quotation is used)? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd prefer that.

• Done! Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Captions should avoid acronyms, I would say.

• I've gone through the article and removed all of the acronyms from the image captions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if "internment of the country's fascists" could be linked somewhere. The White-minority South African government should definitely be linked, I'd say.

• Unfortunately we do not seem to have an article on this topic at present, although it would be a topic worthy of coverage so hopefully someone can produce one in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look at this, Vanamonde! Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, apologies for the delay: I hope to go through the rest of it soon.

• "propensity for chanting" chanting political slogans? Or chanting Buddhist prayer? "chanting" is ambiguous, is what I'm saying.

• A very fair point. I've gone with "political chanting". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It also stood six candidates" is "stood" in this context a colloquialism? It strikes me as such (nominated would be my choice) but I may be wrong.

• I think it's fairly standard terminology in the UK, but "nominated" would also work if its more accessible for an international readership. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I don't suppose there's an explanation for the NF's post-1975 decline in the sources?
• Can you link "statism"?

• Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to suggest that the NF's ideology was different from that of classical fascist parties, but don't describe how. I think some detail might be worthwhile, but if it's not available, just drop that; the section is plenty detailed without it.

• I've reworded a sentence I didn't like the flow of: please let me know if I've changed the meaning.

• Fine by me. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if we could link Ingroups and outgroups in the quote that refers to them: I suspect most readers may not know what these are, and while we don't usually link inside quotes, for a technical term we could bend the rules, I think.
• The ideology section has been very carefully written for such a complex topic., and I can find very little to complain. Nice job! I still commend you on your careful writing, but on a second read-through I find myself bothered by length, and now this sounds silly, so I'm striking the latter half of that comment.
• A more general suggestion, which might be tricky to implement: at 98kb readable prose size and 15k+ words, this is a long article. So, I think we should be looking for ways to prune where possible, particularly if there's any way to remove repetition. One method that suggests itself is the following: merge the "factions" subsection into the history: a lot of that material is already covered, which would maybe allow you to remove a paragraph-worth of stuff.
• Another method (not mutually exclusive) might be to try to condense all the material about racial prejudice. Yes, it's very important, and I'm sure a lot of the scholarly material focuses on it. But I think taking a step back and trying to combine similar material might help. For instance, there's several paragraphs which touch on the "theory" (in quotes, because scientifically a lot of it is nonsense) about distinct racial groups; if this material were collected in a single place, it might allow you to condense a little bit. Ultimately you know the source material best, so I'm not going to oppose over a specific suggestion, but I do think we need an overall length reduction.
• In the same vein; I think the paragraph beginning "The NF's published material" could afford to lose some length.
• I'll look at the rest of that material once you've had a chance to respond above.
• "local militia throughout the island" does this not apply to Northern Ireland, for whatever reason?

• I've got rid of "throughout the island"; it isn't necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "AfroAsian influence" should this be "Afro-Asian", or is this misspelling in the source?

• It's in the source. I'll stick a "[sic]" in there to make that clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It stated that it would not remain allied to the United States" I'm a bit confused, since I'm guessing "it" means Britain, but the sentence structure before it implies "it" is the NF.

• Good point. I've changed this to "an NF-led UK" to make the meaning clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• "the NF endorsed the right-wing Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party" In the context of which election was this?
• I've been making copy-edits as I go: please feel free to revert/ask if you disagree with any of my changes
• Another length-related suggestion: you have a lot of quotes from Tyndall and other members of the NF. Frequently, the nature of the views is quite clear without it being emphasized by Tyndall's quotations. Again, just a suggestion, though.
• Again for length, you could afford to remove the sentence beginning "This was linked to the idea.." I think.
• "No adequate sociological sampling" In an encyclopedia article, this phrasing strikes me as odd: academics speak frequently of study methods being inadequate, but it's the sort of detail we can do without, I think, because in my mind the unwritten assumption of every FA is that it's presenting the available information. IMO you could omit the first sentence, and add the methodological detail when you mention the findings from said surveys.
• Should "South Coast" be capitalized? Unsure.

• We seem to use this sort of capitalisation on the Southern England article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Again looking to edit this for length: I suggest you could omit the sentence beginning "Fielding's interviews with NF..." without losing much. More generally, I think some of the depth of Fielding's analysis could be trimmed here. If you're keen on the material, I'd even recommend a spinoff, simply because the article is so long.
• the paragraph about attracting youth, under "profile", strikes me as fitting better alongside the other material about demographics.
• "could be cited as evidence" I'm not a fan of this phrasing: either it has been cited as evidence (in which case we should say so) or Wikipedia is arguing that it could be cited as evidence (which it shouldn't).

• I've gone with "Alternately, that nine-tenths of the population refused to vote for the Front in its heyday may reflect the K's immunity to the far-right". I've also given this paragraph quite a trimming to get the word count down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if some of the specific statistics could be combined into "electoral performance" from "history" where they currently sit: history could examine the same phenomena without getting into the numbers, thereby partitioning the content a little better.
• I think that's all I have at the moment. Aside from some minor wording suggestions, I think the bulk of my comments are length-related. While I know we've had longer FAs, I do think the scope of this particular topic is limited enough that it could be done justice in a shorter space. I've made some specific suggestions above, but the general theme is that there's places where the article gets into some fairly detailed sociological analysis, where you could afford to trim a little. It's not even that that is bad content; that's just you can afford to cut, given the overall picture. Please ping me when you've addressed these. Overall, an impressively researched and written piece. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• PS: If you still need a source review in a week's time, I may be able to provide one. Vanamonde (talk) 03:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Carabinieri

Hi, Thanks for this article. I haven't finished reading it yet. So far, I just have a few comments:

• "growing concern about South Asian migration to Britain" That sounds like a euphemism to me. Wouldn't "wave of racism directed at South Asian immigrants" or something along those lines be more accurate?

• Difficult one. I do see your point. However, I don't really want to get into the territory of claiming that all concern about immigration is intrinsically racist (which such a change perhaps does); partly because such a view is rather controversial and partly because I think it will readily open up this article to accusations of (left-wing) bias, which I want to avoid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "an organ of National Socialist [i.e. Nazi] opinion in Britain". Is the explanation in brackets really necessary?

• I can imagine that there might be readers not familiar with "National Socialism" as a term. You probably have to have a certain level of historical awareness to know that "Nazism" was an acronym for "National Socialism" and I suspect most people on the planet to not have it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Although contesting six times as many seats as in 1970, its average vote share was 3.2%, slightly less than in 1970" The "although" would appear to indicate a contradiction, but I don't see it. It makes sense that contesting more seats would lead to a lower average vote share, since the party would then also be running in a number of districts where it had fewer supporters.

• I agree with you and will get rid of the "Although". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In the 1979 general election, the NF contested the largest number of seats of any insurgent party since Labour in 1918" What does "insurgent" mean here?

• Its a reference to a party with no parliamentary representatives but which is challenging the existing status quo. I'm very happy to consider alternative terms here, but not quite sure what might be a better option. "Minor", perhaps? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the Wilkinson quote at the start of the "Ideology" section. It says that the NF was the only other case, but it's not immediately clear what the first case is. Is it the MSI? And is this really true? I mean the French Front National certainly also had (and still has) a lot of influence. The same is true of the Republicans and the NPD in Germany and several fascist parties in Italy.

• I think that the French Front National only really got going as an electoral force in the 1980s, after Wilkinson wrote, but I get your point about the problems with the opening of this quote. What I'll do is to trim out the first few sentences of the quotebox; the rest, I think, remains fairly problem free and offers the reader some interesting and pertinent information. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• Does it really make sense to have a separate section for the NF's electoral performances? The history section already mentions a number of electoral results. I think it might make sense to merge those sections and would like to hear your thoughts on that.--Carabinieri (talk) 04:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• I can see your point but I think that there is a case for having two separate sections. Some readers might only be interested in psephology and would skip straight to that section; mixing electoral information in with other forms of history would inconvenience them. I also think that there is a thematic distinction between the "History", which deals largely with the interior workings of the party itself, whereas "Electoral performance" deals more with how they have been received by a far wider sector of the population. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Carabinieri. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a long time... we've got a lot of commentary but not much in the way of solid support for promotion. I've added it to the urgents list but this will have to be archived soon if some forward progress isn't apparent. --Laser brain (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this nom is now almost two months old and has effectively become a peer review rather than FA assessment, so I'm going to archive it. PR is probably where it should've gone first and where I think it should go now for further comment, after which reviewers can be pinged to have another look at a future FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2018 [13].

---

September 11 attacks

Nominator(s): Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about 9/11: the deadliest terrorist attack ever and aviation disaster ever. It would be respectful to have this article be featured Tigerdude9 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, suggest closure The nominator has made only two minor edits to the article, and I can't see a discussion about nominating it on the talk page. While the article is in good shape, from a very quick skim there's some unreferenced text and the balance between the different bits of the article looks uneven. It would be great to see this important article as a FA, but I think a fair bit of work by editors who are engaged in the article is needed first. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, support closure The nominator is just going around nominating articles withot an understanding of FA procedure and policy. I've left them a note asking them to stop doing this until they've done the basic work and understand the process. Acroterion (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- I'm going to close this purely from a procedural point of view, but will archive rather than simply delete because some comments about improving the article have been left. I'll add that the last formal Peer Review seems to have taken place back in 2011, so I'd strongly recommend another before even considering re-nominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2018 [14].

---

Mullum Malarum

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Kettavan kettidil kittidum rajayogam... When the bad is weak and devoid of strength, it results in good fortune. Fall twice, stand up thrice. Last time the FAC failed not because of article content, but because of slow progress and me not actively pursuing reviewers, something I hope not to repeat this time. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead, 1a:

• I'm seeing a formula repeated from other articles on films—a formula that involves poor sentence formation right at the top. This systemic, almost industrial reproduction of format and content—in a few places right down to sentence level—is a problem in articles on popular culture. Here is the sentence at issue:

  "The film, starring Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, was Mahendran's directorial debut and is loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name. [It tells the story of ...]"

  Two quite different propositions are jammed into one sentence. The personnel (the starring actors and the director) are one thing; the fact that the film is loosely based on a novel is quite different. Even if segmented by a comma or something more marked, it would still be problematic. So we explore re-aligning the propositions: "The film starred Rajinikanth, Sarath Babu, Fatafat Jayalaxmi and Shoba, and was Mahendran's directorial debut. Loosely based on Umachandran's novel of the same name, Mullum Malarum tells the story of ...". More logical thematic flow?

  For FA candidates I'd like to some of these systemic issues questioned, so the topic might benefit more broadly by example.

I've split the sentence. See how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Production was tumultuous as Chettiar opposed casting Rajinikanth as the protagonist because of his dark skin and typecasting as a villain at the time, but Mahendran refused to direct the film without the actor and Chettiar reluctantly agreed."

  "tumultuous" normally refers to physical chaos, like the noise made by a crowd. But you're using it metaphorically here. What you mean is "tricky", but that's a little informal. "troublesome" isn't quite right. "problematic", perhaps. Or "complicated by Chettiar's opposition to casting ..."?

  Second, there's "as" (a because "as"), then "as" (in a different sense), then another "because" word. It doesn't read smoothly. Consider a semicolon before "but", and a comma after "actor".

Reworded with complicated. You've left some open-ended <p>s, please close them since I can see the broken syntax through syntax highlighting. --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "The film substantially deviates from the novel, with Mahendran having read only part of the book."—You've already told us it's based "loosely" on the book ... a few seconds ago. Perhaps that needs to be down here instead. What's the logical relation between before and after the comma here? Is it only where M. didn't read the book that it deviates? This is a messy implication, and I'm not sure it's what the sources say.

In his autobiography, Mahendran admitted to not having read the whole book, and this appears necessary to mention. So I've removed "loosely". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "was released on 15 August 1978, during India's Independence Day."—So 15 August is that Day? Why is "on" clashing with "during"?

15 August is India's Independence Day. I've removed "during". --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Although it opened to tepid box-office earnings"—it opened to earnings? Weird. But very nice to use a metaphor: "Although it opened to a tepid box-office earnings"

If you are confused by the wording, I'll tell you what happened: the film's commercial performance during its first few weeks was poor, but it improved in the third or fourth week due to positive word of mouth. Now how do I write this without bloating the sentence? Or can I replace "earnings" with performance"? --Kailash29792 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• "Rajinikanth's performance as Kali received unanimous praise"—you've just mentioned word of mouth. How do you know every viewer was praising? Surely its "critical praise".

Done: wrote critical praise. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The film won ... the Tamil Nadu State Film Award Special Prize for Rajinikanth." Sounds like the film leapt out of the camera and nominated the actor. Not possible. Reword ... the actor won the award for his performance, surely?

Done: wrote "Rajinikanth won the Tamil Nadu State Film Award Special Prize for his performance". Kailash29792 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

• "a milestone of Tamil cinema"—I presume this will be justified in the body of the article.
• "Mullum Malarum, a breakthrough for Rajinikanth as an actor and a milestone of Tamil cinema, focused more on visuals without excessive melodrama and other Tamil cinema conventions that Mahendran disliked."

  (1) More than what? (2) So there was melodrama; just not excessive melodrama, right? And to support the post-qualifier (that M. disliked), you need a "the" before "excessive".

• Is "also" doing anything?

I think it was a milestone because it focused more on visuals than excessive melodrama and other things the director disliked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not promising so far. Tony (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1, it appears this is just the tip of the iceberg. Do you have more comments? Can you please see if your current comments have been resolved? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments

I am uncertain about the structure of the first sentence of the lead. I would put a period after “J. Mahendran” and just have it be about the director/screenplay writer. I would either make the producers part into its own sentence and add in the production company, or remove it altogether as I uncertain if they need to be listed in the lead. Split the sentence. See how it is now. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I would move the third sentence of the lead’s first paragraph to the second sentence to help with the flow. For this sentence (It tells the story of Kali, a winch operator who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with Kumaran (his superior) at a power plant.), I would see if there is a way to present this information without the parenthesis as I am not sure if it helps the sentence curretly. Removed the parenthesis. It was GOCE editor Miniapolis who added it, and I did not want to argue. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I am not sure if this part (Chettiar reluctantly agreed) is necessary as we already know that Rajinianth was cast according to information presented in the first paragraph. Agreed. I removed it and wrote, "who he felt was perfect as the character". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I do not think "who he felt was perfect as the character" is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) For this part (cinematographer Balu Mahendra (also a director) assisted him with the screenplay), I would remove the (also a director) part as it is not relevant to this article. I think Mahendra assisted Mahendran since he was already an established director. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) If that is true, then that needs to be present in the body of the article with a reference supporting. Otherwise, it seems like a tangent. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I would revise the following sentence (The film substantially deviates from the novel, with Mahendran having read only part of the book.), as the “with…” sentence contrsuction is discouraged on an FA level. Something about this sentence (Filming lasted for about 30 days, primarily in Sringeri, and also took place in Ooty.) sounds off to me, specifically the last portion. Maybe something like the following would be better (Filming lasted for about 30 days, taking place primarily in Sringeri and also in Ooty.). Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) For this part (make it a success, with a 100-day theatrical run), perhaps replace (, with a 100-day theatrical run) to (over a 100-day theatrical run)? I've written "with a theatrical run of over 100 days". That good? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Seems fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I think for the following phrase (were orphaned in childhood), it should be “during childhood”. Done accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Should the “Cast” section have a reference? All the cast members and their character names are sourced under "Casting". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I would avoid the repetition of the word “impressed” in the following two sentences (Screenplay and dialogue writer J. Mahendran read only part of Umachandran's novel, but was particularly impressed by the winch operator Kali's affection for his sister and the loss of his arm. He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed.) What do I write then? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Use a different word choice to avoid unnecessary repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I would see if you could revise the following sentence (A significant difference between the novel and the film is that in the novel, Kali loses his arm to a tiger; in the film, he loses it when he is run over by a lorry.) as it is somewhat awkwardly constructed (i.e. the repetition of “the novel” and “the film”). See what I've written now. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) For this part (Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept the offer either.), I would avoid the repetition of “accept the offer”. Now I've written Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept either. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) For this part (Mahendra accepted to work on the film), I think “agreed to work” would be better. Done accordingly. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I would change this part (The film features no duets,) to the following (The film does not include any duets,) as the current wording sounds off to me. I've done accordingly. But now it reads, "The film does not include any duets, which was considered a rarity for Tamil cinema at that time". What do you suggest now? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) Seems fine to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) For this sentence (In 2006, director S. Shankar said that he entered the film industry "with dreams of directing films such as Mullum Malarum" but never got to make such films.), I could cut down on the repetition of the word “film”. I've written, "but never got to make any". But doesn't it create the impression that he never got to make any film at all? In the source he says "I entered with dreams of directing films such as `Mullum Malarum.' I had such a script — `Azhagiya Kuyilae' — ready. But nobody wanted to produce it. And after my first film, `Gentleman,' my well-wishers advised me against going in for small-scale projects. Now it's become almost impossible. Even as producer I could make only a mega `Mudhalvan.' I'm caught in the grip of the image my ventures have created for me". Kailash29792 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC) It seems understandable in the context, but my original comment was advising you not to use the same word repeatedly in the same sentence, and it could have been solved just by using different words. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC) I hope you find the above comments to be helpful, and good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC) I will provide further comments by the end of the week. If I have not commented anything by Saturday, then please ping me about it. I enjoy reading this article, as I love learning about different films. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC) I seem to have solved the majority of your comments. Please strike out those that have been solved. Besides, is this info about the cinematographer correct as per the source? Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematographer, but he did not accept the offer; he instead suggested Ashok Kumar, who could not accept either. Source 1 reads, "Ashok Kumar came recommended to me from Ramachandrababu, an established cinematographer, who I wanted to work with for Mullum Malarum. Meanwhile, Kamal Haasan introduced me to Balu Mahendra, and we ended up working on that film together" and source 2 reads, "Ashok Kumar was called to shoot Mullum Malarum, but he could not accept it then." Kailash29792 (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC) The sentence appears correct to me according to the two sources, though I would revise it to the following (Mahendran initially wanted Ramachandra Babu to be the cinematography, but he did not accept the offer; he then suggested Ashok Kumar, who was unable to work on the film.) to avoid the repetition of the word "accept". Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Done exactly as asked. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC) What kind of poster is the infobox image? Was it a theatrical poster (i.e. released around the same time as the film) or was it something created later? I would clarify this in the caption. Honestly, I have no idea. Earlier I wrote "theatrical release poster" but removed since I could not confirm it. But I do know the poster is official, since it was obtained from the NFAI archives. Do I write "NFAI poster" with the term linked? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I would add that just to make it absolutely clear. Aoba47 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC) That is my only remaining comment for the article. Once this is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, good luck with the nomination this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC) Done: Written NFAI poster in the caption. A message to the co-ordinators: I'll be travelling till Saturday, and I hope someone will address any other issues in my absence. Ssven2 has said he will try, but can't promise. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Veera Narayana

Most of my concerns were covered satisfyingly in the previous FAC. Still, to ensure that i should be sure before voicing out my opinion loud and clear, i went through the article again. And these are what i am having issues with.

• "It tells the story of Kali, a winch operator who dotes on his sister Valli and clashes with Kumaran, his superior, at a power plant." -- what exactly is clashing here with Kumaran?
• "Production was complicated by Chettiar's opposition to casting Rajinikanth" -- cast might be a better choice, no?

Done, used "cast" as a verb. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• "He outlined Mullum Malarum to producer Venu Chettiar, who was also impressed." -- Sorry to say this, but should. A director would pitch an idea to a producer only if he /she likes it in the first place. Why to say "also impressed"?

Veera Narayana, now I've rewritten using this translation of content from Mahendran's book. Please proof-read and tell me if I made a mistake or missed something essential to solve the dilemma. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• "In one scene, after he violently berates her during the day he puts henna on her feet at night while she sleeps." -- a comma is missing.

Added. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Baradwaj Rangan said in 2004 that Mahendran "proved himself a sublime storyteller" -- Was that comment a general one or exclusively related to this film? Please be clear.

The source reads, "With poems on celluloid that include Mullum Malarum, Metti, Poottaadha Poottukkal and, especially, Udhiri Pookkal, Mahendran proved himself a sublime storyteller almost a decade before Rathnam". But now I feel it doesn't add much; it is best removed, isn't it? --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, if that is the case, then yes. Let me know when you address the remaining comments as well. Veera Narayana 08:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I've rewritten to be clearer. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If these are cleared, i don't have any objection to give it a pass. Veera Narayana 16:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Support -- All my concerns have been addressed. Regards, Veera Narayana 13:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Clikity's comments

• The prose in this article needs a lot of work. I'm leaning towards an Oppose right now. I'll list some things below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talk • contribs)

Alright Clikity, what are the comments? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been busy this week, will suggest some things. Clikity (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Well, the reviews been canceled, I have to focus on the Guild of Copy Editors. Clikity (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

This nom has been open a month and although there is some support for promotion, we don't have consensus as there are concerns with the prose that suggest a solid copyedit is needed. I'd prefer that take place outside FAC so will be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2018 [15].

---

Sonic Heroes

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Two years after Sonic Adventure 2 brought Sega's days as a first-party publisher to an end, a new era began in 2003. Unlike previous Sonic the Hedgehog games, Sonic Team USA's Sonic Heroes was released for a large number of non-Sega platforms. It features a drastically different gameplay style from its predecessors—one that focuses on linear platforming and teamwork. Overall, it's simpler and more streamlined than its predecessors. Sonic Heroes divided the gaming press: reviewers wrote that it didn't address the major problems of its predecessors, even if its gameplay was closer to the classic Sega Genesis titles than ever. And yet it was the kind of success Sega hadn't seen in years, selling millions of copies and earning numerous sales awards.

I decided to work on this in December but didn't put in serious effort until March (here's where it was before I rewrote it) and got it promoted to GA in April. Since this was a pretty popular game, I had to go through a lot of articles, interviews, etc. and I now think this is the internet's most complete resource on the game. After doing a bit of copyediting and expansion, I think this meets the FA standards. JOEBRO64 19:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Set six months after the events of Sonic Adventure 2, the story follows four individual groups of characters in their quests to find Doctor Eggman; meanwhile, Metal Sonic secretly manipulates these events.), I would avoid using “events” twice in such close proximity. I think you can just say (Set six months after Sonic Adventure 2) and convey the same meaning.
  • I should've caught this myself. Fixed. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (to complete levels, and collect the seven Chaos Emeralds in special stages.), I do not believe the comma is necessary.
  • Removed it. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this sentence (Sonic Team USA handled development, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka.), something the placement seems off to me. Would it be better to revise it to the following (Sonic Team USA, led by Yuji Naka and Takashi Iizuka, handled the development).
  • I actually think your suggestion flows nicer. Implemented JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• The image caption (Sonic, Tails, and Knuckles in the Seaside Hill stage.) should not be punctuation as it is not a full sentence.
  • Fixed JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Something about the wording for this phrase (In the Sonic series platform game tradition) seems a little awkward to me. I would revise it to read better.
  • Revised to "Like prior Sonic platformers" JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (There are four teams: Team Sonic (Sonic the Hedgehog, Miles "Tails" Prower, and Knuckles the Echidna); Team Dark (Shadow the Hedgehog, Rouge the Bat, and E-123 Omega); Team Rose (Amy Rose, Cream the Rabbit, and Big the Cat); and Team Chaotix (Espio the Chameleon, Charmy Bee, and Vector the Crocodile).), I think that the semicolons should be commas.
  • Actually, the semicolons are correct. Each item in these two lists is actually a complete sentence, so using commas would make the entire thing a run-on. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (Each team has its own campaign, called a story.), is the “called a story” part necessary? It seems rather standard for games to refer to a campaign mode as something along the lines of a story mode.
  • I think it's necessary because they're referred to as stories later in the section. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this sentence (With Shadow missing his memories and Omega seeking revenge against Eggman for sealing him away, Rouge, who wants to get a hold of Eggman's treasure, forms a team with them), do you think the last part would read better as this (Rouge forms a team with them to get a hold of Eggman’s treasure)?
  • Yeah, that's much better. Implemented JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (someone is hiding behind the scenes, posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies), I think you can just simplify it as the following (someone is posing as Eggman and secretly obtaining data from his enemies).
  • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• Please make it clear what references are used to support this bit of information (to commemorate the Sonic series' 12th anniversary.).
  • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this sentence (Critical reception to Sonic Heroes was "mixed or average", according to the review aggregator Metacritic.), please put the references in numeric order.
  • Huh? They already were JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
    • They are not in order when I look at it. They are currently 27, 29, 28, and 26, which is not the correct numeric order. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
      • @Aoba47: aahhh, I was looking at it in the Visual Editor and they were in order there and not the normal article for some reason. Fixed JOEBRO64 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (IGN thought rest of the sound was high quality,), I think you mean “the rest of the sound”.
  • Yep. Fixed JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• I am not sure if this statement (The presentation was generally well-received.) is entirely accurate as there are criticisms about the presentation (i.e. the graphics were not much of an improvement from previous games—comparing them to "a glorified Dreamcast game” and disliked the shiny models).
  • I've changed it to "The aesthetics and sound were generally well-received", which I think is more accurate JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For this part (After working on a few more games, in 2008), the comma should be after “in 2008”.
  • Done, but I've rearranged the sentence a bit. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• The “G” in “AllGame” should be capitalized.
  • Done JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
• For reference 10, the word “interview” should not be in all caps. Make sure to avoid putting words in all caps for the reference titles. See references 37 and 38 for the same reasons.
  • Fixed 'em JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Great job with the article. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. I would greatly appreciate if you could provide comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47, thanks for the review! I've implemented most of your proposed changes, and if I didn't I explained why. I'll comment on your FAC sometime tomorrow. JOEBRO64 23:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything! It was an interesting read. The only thing that needs to be addressed is the numerical order of the references in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section. However, since that is a minor issue that I am sure you will address, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I've responded above JOEBRO64 23:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Sonic Heroes cover.png - FUR is good, everything is good on this
• File:Sonic Heros.jpg - Owner for this is listed as Sonic Team USA and for the other image is Sega. Is that right?
  • Source is dead, but archived here. Recommend replacing the dead link. On a side note, websites from 2004 look funny. Lots of animations.
    • Replaced the dead link with the archived one. I've added Sega as the copyright holder to the rationale (Sonic Team USA is the author; Sega's got the copyright. Covers only list the copyright holder). JOEBRO64 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• File:Yuji Naka' - Magic - Monaco - 2015-03-21- P1030036 (cropped).jpg - License is good, all is good

Very good alt text for all. Might recommend adding there is a shark and a whale island in Sonic Heros.jpg, but it is fine if you do not. Kees08 (Talk) 06:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: thank you for reviewing! I believe I've addressed your point above. I also did add the island details to the alt text; I do think it's worth noting. JOEBRO64 11:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Great, this article passes the media review. Kees08 (Talk) 22:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This article does not pass the media review - File:Sonic Heros.jpg has an IGN watermark. It's also just an awful screenshot that shows a blur where the characters should be. The alt text says they're pushing a car? What? - hahnchen 07:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08 and Hahnchen, I've replaced File:Sonic Heros.jpg with File:Sonic Heroes Grand Metropolis.png. I think it passes again now. JOEBRO64 13:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Is the published date supposed to be the game release date, or the date the screenshot was published? I beefed up the alt text a bit, please modify if I got it wrong. Could mention that sprites of the characters are in the upper right corner as well, if you want. Kees08 (Talk) 22:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: the day the game was released, but I've added the screenshot date as well. JOEBRO64 23:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Passes media review from me, others may have further input. Kees08 (Talk) 23:08, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MX

Great article! I checked the lead to make sure the info there was cited elsewhere and everything checks out. Sources look strong and complete. Prose is good too. Like we brought up in the WikiProject, I'm wondering what to do with the infobox, particularly now with the release dates. The Gamecube (Japan) version is cited in the body, but there is an inconsistency with the NA version (January 5 in infobox; January 6 in text). Windows release has only the month-year in the prose, but not in the infobox. PAL region is unsourced entirely, as well as Windows JP release. Shiro Maekawa is also unsourced. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Also wanted to say that I don't think sources should be added to the infobox. Prose is fine. MX (✉ • ✎) 15:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@MX thanks for the review! I've sourced the Windows release dates and corrected the inconsistencies. Removed the unsourced staff because they weren't really important (writer isn't important because this isn't a plot driven game, and Hoshino has been a main Sonic artist for a while). The PAL release dates aren't unsourced—the European release dates are the PAL ones JOEBRO64 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I support this nomination. Nice job again! MX (✉ • ✎) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

Saw your bat-signal at WT:VG. Overall, the article is solid, but I think it needs some additional work. Thoughts as follows:

• Images: File:Sonic Heros.jpg could use a beefed up rationale for its inclusion; as is it doesn't do a great job showing gameplay and I can't tell what teamwork aspects are being featured. There's also an IGN watermark. I think a different, clearer image with a stronger rationale would be best. (On a minor technical side, I'd also recommend uploading the gameplay images as PNG. Wikipedia's JPEG scaler is really not great and it tends to make gameplay screenshots not at full size look more jaggy and less clear than they could be. But that's just a preference.) Other images are fine.
  • Coincidentally, I just uploaded a new image that is not only a PNG, but removes the watermark and shows a much cleaner representation of the gameplay. If you think its rationale needs improvement, let me know.
    • The new image is better, but the FUR could use beefing up. I'd suggest using the image to demonstrate commentary on the graphics with specific points (such as the vibrant art style.)
      • Yep, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
      • @David Fuchs: this any better? JOEBRO64 20:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Prose:
  • Six months after the battle aboard the Space Colony ARK—what is space colony ARK? Who is Doctor Eggman? In general there's spots throughout where I think a brief introduction is in order for some plot details. I don't know much about Sonic, but many readers might know even less. Other spots include no mention of who Metal Sonic is (the fact that he's apparently a robot Eggman created feels relevant) and a little more on what the Chaos Emeralds are.
    • I've gone and added some clarification. Axed the "battle aboard the Space Colony ARK" and replaced it with "the events of Sonic Adventure 2.
  • How many players can participate in multiplayer?
    • IGN says two to four.
  • all-powerful Metal Overlord I dunno what this means.
    • Clarified.
  • I went through and performed some minor copyedits as well as added nonbreaking spaces for the figures.
    • Yeah, thanks for that, really made the prose cleaner.
  • I'm not entirely sure about the legacy section. USgamer's retrospective alone doesn't feel like it deserves a paragraph, and the details about later appearances of the levels and subsequent games feel a little excessive for the scope of this article.
    • I've gone and entirely reshuffled the section. USgamer retrospective is now part of the first paragraph, and footnoted the level reappearances to better be digested by a general reader. However, I don't think it should be removed entirely—it is relevant to the game and shows it did have an impact on the series. And I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a terrible argument but many other FAs, like Super Mario World and Final Fantasy VII, have information like this.
  • IGN considered Sonic Heroes a major improvement from Sonic Adventure, writing "Sonic Heroes does an absolutely sensational job of re-creating the intensely fast and unpredictable looping, corkscrewing stages from the classic games in 3D".[4] 1UP.com and GameSpy agreed.[2][32]—It's not really clear what 1UP and Gamespy are agreeing to here. That it does a great job of recreating the old games in 3D? That it's a major improvement on Sonic Adventure?
    • That it was an improvement from Adventure. Clarified.
• References:
  • I would suggest axing the notes section. Knowing how many reviews went into an aggregate is mildly interesting, but if we're not calling them out I don't think it's necessary. Likewise, the detail about an event taking place in the previous game is better placed in the text for context. Readers shouldn't need to scroll to figure out that piece of information. The Japanese translation stuff I know is contentious and I defer to whatever the heck the project has hammered together in terms of what the proper usage should be.
    • I've removed the notes. General vibe in recent months is that the Japanese translation is sorta unnecessary for the general reader, and I totally agree with your other concerns.
  • I did a spot check of sourcing and statements attributed to refs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 24, and 40, and found some issues that need to be addressed. (Based on this revision)

• • • Sonic Heroes is a 3D platformer similar to previous Sonic the Hedgehog games.[1] cited to 1, but the source doesn't mention Sonic as a 3D platform and doesn't directly compare it to previous Sonic games besides saying "it is a Sonic game".
      • This is the only one on my reread that still doesn't seem adequately sourced (the second half now works with the IGN link, but not the platform description.) I'm open to this being considered trivial enough it doesn't need a source, but if it's possible it'd be best to source it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
        • @David Fuchs, added a new source that says it's a 3D platformer in the first sentence JOEBRO64 12:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Team Rose, Team Sonic, and Team Dark represent easy, medium, and hard difficulties, respectively, with harder difficulties featuring longer stages and tougher enemies.—the associated source can be used for the easy/medium/hard distinction, but doesn't cover harder enemies or longer stages, just says harder objectives.
    • Unlike previous games, which had been made using custom tools,—the source only covers the previous Sonic Adventure games, not all Sonic games.
      • I believe I've fixed all these.
  • I would suggest doing a runthrough of other references to make sure there aren't similar issues.
    • I took a look and didn't see anything.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: (insert this here) thanks for reviewing! I've responded above. I might not have addressed all the issues but did my best. JOEBRO64 23:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi David, no pressure to declare a position, just checking if you have anything to add. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

As my concerns have been addressed, support the nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bilorv

Excellent article, and I've not much to add.

• "Teams contain three character types: Speed, Power, and Flight, which the player toggles between" – So, there's one character for each type? Have you listed them in that order above (e.g. Sonic is Speed; Miles is Power; Knuckles is Flight)? Perhaps a table of some kind would be a good way to present the information, since each character has two important qualities, Team and Type (and each team has a difficulty).
  • Didn't list them in the right order; fixed that. However, I don't think creating a table would be a good idea because I think it'd read like walkthrough-level minutiae, and WP:GAMEGUIDE-level material. It's better covered in prose. As a compromise, I've listed an example character for each. Since they're all in the Speed-Power-Flight order, I think readers will be able to figure it out themselves.
• Is it worth describing the controls used to manage the characters? If this isn't a standard in VG articles, ignore me, but I would have expected a very concise summary of basic controls. Though I understand there's four platforms.
  • The video game MOS actually discourages explaining strategies like this because it also falls under GAMEGUIDE. I feel like saying "..which the player toggles between using the gamepad's buttons" would sound redundant, because practically every console game is controlled using buttons.
• Were there any reviewers who commented on the difficulty of the game, or said that particular parts were too easy or too hard?
  • Yeah, there were. I've added it to the reception section.

— Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: thank you for reviewing! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 19:56, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, and I'm now happy with all of these. Support promotion to FA. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Red Phoenix ^talk

@TheJoebro64: I know I told you I would look over this a while ago, and I apologize. I've been active as much as I can but it's been a busy month. That being said, I've finally made it over. Here's what I have for you:

• Be mindful of reference consistency. As you know, I prefer you list the publisher with every reference, although it's not an FA requirement and I won't enforce it here. However, we have examples in the references of Eurogamer both without and with its publisher listed. Either include it every time or don't include it at all; it could imply to readers that the references are actually from two different publications.
  • I've removed the publisher in one of the instances. JOEBRO64 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• On the matter of Sonic Retro - I understand they're being used to show interviews, but I don't see a notice that their interviews are re-published with permission. Can you show where they are? If not, my concern is that we're linking to a copyright violation and would be better off tracking down the original publications and citing those.
  • I removed them. I wasn't able to find the original interviews (the pages did have links to them but they're dead and none of the archives had the pages saved), and they were kinda minor. I did manage to find a small little detail from another source, which I've added. JOEBRO64 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
• Aside from that, let the record show that all references should be reliable. Most are listed at WP:VG/S, and I have vetted the remainder.

Overall, generally a well-written article about one of my personal favorite video games. I would have done some structural elements differently, but I would still call those FA quality as it is. Let me know your thoughts on the two points I have raised above. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix, thank you for reviewing! I've responded above and I think I've corrected the problems. JOEBRO64 20:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

misc

• The lede doesn't explain what the player does in the game
  • I've explained it better. If you think I haven't addressed this properly, please let me know. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• "under the Player's Choice, Platinum Hits, and Greatest Hits lines for GameCube, Xbox, and PlayStation 2, respectively." Is this an accolade worthy of inclusion in the lede? It's sourced to primary source screenshots—not even sure it merits inclusion in the prose, nevertheless the lede. Doesn't this simply mean that the game sold over a certain amount? (Its sales were already noted.)
  • I've generalized it for the lead. The primary sources actually weren't needed, the GameSpy source about sales actually had all the budget line rereleases listed. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Is the plot of this game important? If so, why don't reviewers say anything about it? If not important, why does it need its own section and why does it need to be summarized in the lede? Very hard to understand what's going on with the teams and characters in the lede, and it's the most precious part of the whole article: the first paragraph. How would you explain the plot to a general audience?
  • I've merged it. I had left the plot in when I rewrote the article because I felt like it was pretty barebones enough to keep (not like Sonic Adventure's, which needed some heavy trimming). The plot now is just what reliable sources say. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• The Gameplay introduces teams without explaining why they exist. Why teams? If that's a plot element, worth baking into this Gameplay section (again rather than splitting it out). In platform games, the "plot" tends to be a component of the gameplay.
  • Yeah, it's related to the plot. I believe their existence is justified now. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Retrospective article in the Legacy section: what should a reader do with "19 of 27"? Say "I guess that's mediocre"? Would be more useful to make this qualitative. "As of 200X, USgamer ranked the game as below the franchise's average quality" or "among the franchise's bottom half of games" (begs the question, what is the actual purpose of the ranking? If none, then the "19 of 27" really signifies nothing, right?)
  • Used your "among the bottom half" suggestion. JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

(just passing through, not watching, please {{ping}} if feedback requested) czar 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Czar, thanks for taking a look! I've gone through and given the article some changes based on your suggestions. Do you think it looks better now? JOEBRO64 21:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

lede edits: feel free to change czar 21:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain

Recusing from coordinator duties to look at this.

• I think it's late in the game for a reorganization that introduced errors: "Sonic Heroes was the first multi-platform Sonic game: it was developed the GameCube, PlayStation 2 (PS2), and Xbox." Reviewers who supported based on the version prior to this should be pinged and asked to re-review, in my opinion, as the text has changed substantially.
• Further, a comprehensive comparison of sources to the text is going to be needed. David Fuchs uncovered issues that were seemingly fixed but the first one I checked fails verification. "IGN lauded detailed, varied, and realistic character models, and wrote that the environments were colorfully and crisply textured. They also praised the realistic and 'gorgeous' shading and lighting effects." The citation given is to an IGN review that doesn't accurately reflect what you've written. In the process of moving words around to avoid close paraphrasing, we're actually losing the intended meaning. For example, the reviewer wrote, "Textures are usually crisp and clean, not to mention detailed, but up close they don't always maintain detail." You paraphrased that into "the environments were colorfully and crisply textured" which is actually pretty close paraphrasing but at the same time you changed the meaning. The reviewer wrote that the water effects were "gorgeous" but the lighting and shading are not discussed as such. I find that too often the "Reception" sections for VG and other media are sloppy paraphrases of what the reviewers write. The reviews should be read for comprehension of meaning and then the Reception section written as fresh prose in our own voice without being a series of "IGN said (close paraphrasing)" statements.

Oppose as this needs considerable work. --Laser brain (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: the IGN issue you noticed was the only problem, which I've fixed. I've read through all the reviews and all the paraphrasing is correct. The reorganization was really just merging the plot section and tightening the lead, so the text wasn't really altered much. Regardless, I'll ping the supporters: @Aoba47, Bilorv, David Fuchs, and MX. JOEBRO64 14:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll understand when I say that the hit rate for problems is sufficiently high that the sources need examination by an independent editor. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain, I understand but I still feel like you sorta jumped the gun on opposing this. In most of the FACs I've seen/been a part of it's not uncommon for an article to go through some substantial changes more than halfway through the cycle. You say "the text has changed substantially", but it hasn't—a section got merged and the lead got copyedited, that's all. JOEBRO64 20:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The IGN summary still says "the textures were colorful" and I'm unclear where in the review this comes from. My previous review did a couple of source spotchecks but I didn't find anything amiss. I've come back to it and done a couple of spotchecks on reviews specifically. The Eurogamer source does not use the word "vivid", and I don't think it's a good idea to use the word unless a reviewer has. The GameSpy review is summarised accurately, as is the 1UP review. Overall, I think another rewrite would be helpful.

As for the prose changes:

• Remove the distracting and unnecessary link "characters from the franchise's history".
  • Done. JOEBRO64 19:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• I completely disagree with Czar's comments about the teams—I suggest again having a table on the right hand side to list team names, roles and characters, but if not then the team names and characters should be spelled out in full in prose.
• "because they mission-based" – There's an "are" missing.
  • Fixed. JOEBRO64 19:30, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand Czar's comments about the plot not being requiring its own section (is this not VG standard?) but I'm willing to accept that they are more experienced in this topic area and defer to their judgement. I agree that the substantial changes made mean that we need a couple of people to go over this article again, and I'm neutral until this occurs. I don't think the nominator should be punished for making changes based on a review, so I hope a couple of other people can take a look over the new version of the article. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv, thanks for coming back. I've replaced "colorful" with "detailed". I've removed "vivid"; although the review didn't use it, I was trying to express that they thought the colors really made the game stand out. MOS:VG recommends merging the plot section if it's not major or independent from the gameplay. I felt like it was sorta separate here considering it's told entirely through FMV cutscenes and voice acting, but as czar pointed out it's mostly part of the gameplay here. I haven't responded to your second bullet point because I want to see if czar's going to say something first. JOEBRO64 20:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

re: teams, I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. Did the sources make a point of enumerating the composition of each team? If so, fine, list it out. If it's trivia—and the 12 fictional character names apropros of nothing tends to be trivia—then don't list them. All in all, my suggestion to generalize that info (rather than barrage a general audience with with unnecessary detail) is hardly immoderate. Also I agree with what Joebro said above re: splitting the character functions into a table: more befitting of a game guide than an encyclopedia article for general readership. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: Listing the names of the characters in the game is hardly trivia; quite clearly I'm not understanding how things work in VG, but if this was a TV article then we wouldn't consider plot to require discussion in the sources—it's just a standard section which is implicitly sourced to the work itself. The current article lists 9 of 12 characters and 1 of 4 team names, which is a bizarre, incomplete compromise. I would even prefer as an option just listing one team (name and characters), to serve as an example. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 19:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Subjects like this are of differing opinion in the Video games project. I do get what czar is getting at; if it's that important, why isn't it reliably sourced? TV articles tend to have sources that discuss the plot, while that's not always the same in video game reviews. I'm personally of an opinion that plot sections in video games are usually unnecessary as a result — ergo, one of the reasons for my comment on how I would have structured the article differently myself. The point is, to someone who's not familiar with video games or has never played anything in the Sonic series, does it matter who of the series' pantheon of characters is involved or who you can play as? By the same token, MOS:VG I feel is a little ambiguous as to what is enough material to constitute having a plot or a legacy section; some editors interpret it more broadly than others. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I never said that plot must be sourced but that the detail should be proportional to its coverage in the sources. If plot/story is not a significant component of this game, why should it get its own section? I also didn't say that character names are automatically trivia. However, a table/chart of the characters, their types, and team names, as originally proposed, like some kind of sports team roster, would be disproportionate if the sources did not do the same. Put another way, that's trivia. czar 13:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggested alternatives; it seems like I didn't make my main concern clear enough—the current article lists 9 of 12 characters and 1 of 4 team names. That's simply incoherent and incomplete whichever way you slice it. I don't care if you add more information or take some away, but the current prose is not following a consistent pattern. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv, cut the team name; now it's just the character names. You think it flows better now? JOEBRO64 15:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy with that. Thank you. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Andy, would you have a chance to revisit for a status check? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional comments:

• Not a lot seems to have been done since I asked for an article-wide source audit, and problems are still easily spotted. For example, you wrote about the team-based gameplay "GameSpy argued it was well-balanced and thought it greatly increased the replay value." The source actually reads "adds to the replay value" which is far from "greatly increased" and fails verification.
• The writing overall I find to be below the standard called for in 1a. For example, "The aesthetics and sound were generally well-received." What does it mean for sound to be well-received? And what do you mean by sound? You should delineate discussion of the music and the sound effects as they are quite different elements of the game. You later say that IGN called the music "laughable" which is an incorrect interpretation of what the source reads: "Heroes returns with cheesy 80s-style guitar riffs and all." You also say they called the sound effects high quality, which they didn't really...

I'm very sorry and not trying to be harsh but I find this to be written at around a B-class level at best. Where I've looked, you seem to have misinterpreted sources and in the process of trying to paraphrase them, expressed the wrong meaning. I do feel like this will require significant reworking and checking against each cited source before it's ready for FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2018 [16].

---

1982 Formula One World Championship

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. Commonly known as one of the best, but also most tragic, season of F1, it saw highly competitive racing in very dangerous cars. Two drivers were killed during the year, another sustained career-ending injuries. On the competitive side of things, eleven different drivers won races, none more than two. The article passed through GA review a little while ago. Since then, I have added alt-texts to the images (please check if they are OK, this is not my strong suit!). Other than that, feel free to suggest any chances to bring this to FA level. I could imagine that some attention must be given to the Background section. A layman's view would be welcome here, since I am not sure how understandable the text is right now to people not familiar with F1. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

1a: Lead ...

• "The season commenced on ..."—We have "start", "begin", and "commence". The last is rather formal, but English is at its most elegant when plain.
• Why is it a contradiction or a suprise that a powerful car is dangerous? "In powerful, yet dangerous cars, two drivers lost their lives". And what about making the point of departure (the grammatical theme) thus: "Two drivers lost their lives in powerful, dangerous cars." I hope they were unusually powerful and dangerous ... danger seems to arise from the driving situation, not the car itself.
• "Later on in the season, championship favourite Didier Pironi suffered a career-ending accident during qualifying for the German Grand Prix." Why "on"? Can we get around ing ing? "while qualifying"?
• "led to regulation changes aimed at increasing driver security for the following season."—that's what you'd write if there'd been some doubt about their efficacy. More neutral would "changes to increase".
• This is a winding snake: "Rosberg won only one race during the season, at the Swiss Grand Prix – the first World Champion to do so since Mike Hawthorn in 1958 – but consistency gave him the title, sealed at the last race of the season ahead of Pironi and John Watson."
• "two times" ... why not simplify?

Table: why is the text in one column bolded?

The next two sentences:

• "Brabham had entered a deal for engine supply with German car manufacturer BMW for the use of their L4 turbo engines." Replace four words with two, to simplify the grammar.
• "The team announced in January that they would only be using the new BMW engine,[3] however, after experiencing reliability problems with the BMW engine, they reverted to using the Cosworth DFV engine several times during the season." -> "... engine; but after ...". Isn't it simpler?

The prose is not good enough for an FA.

Hate the effect of hundreds of flags. Thank god they're small (could they be even a little smaller?). But when it comes to the purply yuck filling the table cells, I need shades and a vomit bucket. I wonder whether some of those colours could be less saturated (esp. the purple). I understand the efficiency of conveying an extra dimension of meanings by colour—don't get me wrong. But it turns out so gaudy. Tony (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - It's evident there is work to do before this is ready for consideration. Please work over the prose with a good copyeditor and you may renominate any time after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2018 [17].

---

Scarface (1932 film)

Nominator(s): Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The original film version of Scarface made by Howard Hawks and Howard Hughes in 1932 was based on the life of Al Capone. Al Capone himself reportedly liked the film and was rumored to own a copy of it. As one of the first and most important gangster films, this film significantly influenced the future of the gangster genre including the 1983 version Brian de Palma version of Scarface starring Al Pacino. The film battled with censors over its excessive violence, sympathetic portrayal of criminals, and undertones of incest between the main character and his younger sister. Due to censorship, the film has three different endings, two of which were released and can be found currently on the DVD box sets. Upset that he did not make money on the film, Howard Hughes took the film out of circulation after its release and hid it in his vault until it was discovered after his death in 1979. The most violent gangster film of its time, Scarface depicts the violent life of a prohibition-era Chicago gangster through murder, betrayal, lawlessness, and Thompson sub-machine guns.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Scar2.gif needs a more extensive FUR. Same with File:The_world_is_yours_scarface_1932.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, in response to your comment, I deleted the image File:The_world_is_yours_scarface_1932.jpg., because after more consideration, I felt that it was difficult to justify the use of the image in the article, because I believe the understanding of the topic was not greatly augmented with the use of the image and could easily be understood by words alone. File:Scar2.gif on the other hand is necessary for identification and comprehension of the subject and I attempted to update the fair use rationale for that image, using a template for more organization. Please let me know whether my changes were adequate, because I am definitely not an expert on FUR. Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Definitely better, but we should generally have content for each of the criteria represented by that template. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note -- This nom has been open a couple of weeks without attracting any comprehensive commentary, a bit surprising considering it's such a classic and has the connection to the infamous Pacino version. On a procedural note, I see that there's a Peer Review that's still open -- per FAC instructions, articles shouldn't be appearing at PR and FAC simultaneously. We could close the PR, but I think we'd be better off if we close this and you actively try and scare up some commentary from film/crime-related projects and editors at PR, then renominate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Ian Rose, thanks for your response. I am willing to remove my nomination; however, the only reason I decided to nominate my article, was because I was having a difficult time finding help for the improvement of my article. It has been on peer review since August with no response. Considering the backlog of articles on peer review, it is hard for me to know whether the article will be reviewed any time soon. I have also directly asked mentors for help with my article with no response. I decided to nominate my article for FA, hoping to actually get a response and some suggestions for improvement. I was as surprised as you were for the lack of response here as well. Considering what I have already tried, do you think it would be better if I keep it nominated here or remove my nomination and wait for a peer review? Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier, Skyes, had a busy couple of days... I think Tony has helped answer the question, there's a few things you could be going on with there as far as improvements go but let's make it in Peer Review, not FAC. I might try and get a few people along to the PR myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

1a: Oppose. Not good enough on the basis of the first half of the lead.

• "It was produced by Howard Hughes and Howard Hawks. As well as producing, Hawks also directed the film." Repetition. Something like: "It was produced by Howard Hawkes and Howard Hughes; Hawkes also directed the film."
• "Written by Ben Hecht, the screenplay is based on Armitage Trail's 1929 novel of the same title, which is loosely depicts the rise and fall of Al Capone." Fluffy, and what is "is loosely depicts"? "The screenplay, by Ben Hecht, is based on Armitage Trail's 1929 novel of the same title, which loosely depicts the rise and fall of Al Capone."
• So we reverse apprehend that Dvorak didn't just "feature", but was a "star". "The film features Ann Dvorak as Camonte's sister, and also stars Karen Morley, Osgood Perkins, George Raft, and Boris Karloff." Why not: "The film stars Ann Dvorak (as Camonte's sister), and Karen Morley, Osgood Perkins, George Raft, and Boris Karloff."
• Contextual redundancy: "A version of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is represented in a scene from the film." Not from the film, surely. "A version of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre is represented in one scene."
• There are 99 instances of "that". Chop about a third of them. Like here: "Believing that the film was too violent and that it glorified the illegal acts of the gangster, Hollywood censorship offices called for major alterations of the film, including an alternate ending that would more clearly condemn and shame Tony Camonte." Consider "the gangster's illegal acts. Tony (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2018 [18].

---

Basil II

Nominator(s): Векочел (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Basil II, Byzantine Emperor from 976 to 1025. He is best known as a military leader. He also lessened the power of the Byzantine senior officials. His sister's marriage to Vladimir I of Kiev led to the Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Векочел (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A few inline citations n the lead; any thoughts? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see having citations in the lead as a problem. This is rather common, even for featured articles. For instance, the articles of Augustus and Cleopatra both have citations in the lead. Векочел (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Citations in the lead (and in the infobox) should certainly be minimized. Generally, anything in the lead and the infobox should be cited in the main body, meaning the mentions in the lead and infobox do not need citation. An exception is when a quote is used in the lead; even if the quote is repeated and cited in the main body, you would expect to cite it in the lead. Other than that, unless there is a statement that for some odd reason simply doesn't fit into the sequence of the main body (an example from some military bios I've written is a nickname and no source states just when it was acquired) there should be no need for citations in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I have removed all citations in the lead except for one. Векочел (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up both maps
  • Both have been scaled up in size. Векочел (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Use scaling rather than fixed px image sizes
  • I have removed the fixed sizes. Векочел (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• Coins should include an explicit tag for the original work
  • All three coins in the 'Birth and childhood' section are said to have been found at CNG Coins. I could only find the original for one of the coins, that of Romanos II and Constantine VII. I will remove the other two. Векочел (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
• File:Khazarfall1.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not certain here. It can be removed if necessary. Векочел (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Procedural note -- Векочел, the FAC instructions state that you cannot nominate an article within two weeks of a previous nomination being archived, as yours was two days ago. I'd normally remove this nomination as out-of-process but in deference to some reviewers getting in early with comments, I'll let it go. Pls take note of the instructions in future though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'll make sure of this in future nominations. Векочел (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Support. A well-written article with good sources. It would be a shame if this didn't end up becoming a featured article. --Pjoona11 (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Support An excellent candidate, well-written and thorough, and with a nominator of the particularly collegiate kind. Am pleased to support at this juncture. per MOS:CITELEAD, as discussed above. There's no good reason presented to pepper the lead with refs, and that it—unfortunately—happens elsewhere should really have no bearing on this candidate. All things being equal, however, I imagine that this is a relatively easily-rectified position. Cheers! —5⁴¹²⁹ 05:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Support It would be great to see this article achieve such status, since it is definitely a well-explained, well-written, and well-cited article in my opinion. I have previously expanded the article, and also previously nominated it, but at the time it did not seem fully ready in terms of structure. However, from the recent contributions to it, it has been vastly improved. Pleasing to see more support for it, nevertheless. Best of luck Векочел. 20DKB03 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

R8R

• My first question concerns the title of the article. Is it certain that this article should be just Basil II when there is also an article titled Basil II of Constantinople?
  • A disambiguation is provided above the lead. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Is this Byzantine emperor the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the title "Basil II"? Personally, I have relatively little knowledge of Byzantine history so I can't tell whether this emperor is significantly more important than the patriarch in the modern discuss of the Empire; it may be so since cursory googling showed he is indeed very notable. But if he is not, then (per the guideline I referenced) the article should be renamed "Basil II (Byzantine emperor)," judging by how other articles on Byzantine emperors are titled "Constantine III (Byzantine emperor)" and "Alexander (Byzantine emperor)."--R8R (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • He seems to be much more notable than the patriarch Basil II. A quick Google search shows many results for the emperor, but none for the patriarch. Векочел (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I got the same impression after looking for some info for this Basil, so let's agree on that. I'm glad we settled this.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• He was not a fluent speaker -- of Greek? What was his native language then?
  • The source does not state his language. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It is nevertheless far from great when text raises questions that it doesn't answer, let alone in a to-be-featured article. Please try to find an answer or, if such a search is fruitless, reword the phrase somehow so that the question does not arise.--R8R (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I replaced "fluent" with "articulate". Векочел (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• as senior emperor -- perhaps a senior emperor? Also, were there junior emperors? It would be great if you wikilinked "senior emperor" to something or added an explanatory note
  • A "senior emperor" is one who holds power, while a "junior emperor" has little influence over government matters. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • It will really help the reader understand the reality being described if you make a note on this. I strongly suggest you do so. Most readers will certainly not read this FAC. The easiest way to make a note is to use {{efn}}; the description of the template explains how to use it very well.--R8R (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I will add a note. Векочел (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• The section titled "Birth and childhood" actually only mentions one event that regards his childhood and does not actually discuss his birth, but is rather concerned with dynasty politics. Perhaps it would be better to rename the section or (preferably) include something relating to the aspects of his birth or childhood if there are available; if not, it would be better to explicitly mention that.
  • Changed to "Background" Векочел (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• would prove -- "proved" seems more appropriate
  • Changed Векочел (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• The first paragraph in Rebellions in Anatolia and alliance with Rus' starts with a general description of his military and political traits, which seem to refer to his life and reign as a whole, but then immediately proceeds to focus on his early reign. I suggest you break this paragraph in two. Also, it is a little hard to follow the story here without understanding of what age Basil was at the time.
  • I think it is preferable to leave it as one paragraph. Regarding the age of Basil, who was born in 957 or 958, it was between 976 and 989, a period covering from Basil's late teens to his early thirties. Векочел (talk) 12:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • After a re-reading, it doesn't seem so bad to me. Maybe I was wrong.--R8R (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• eunuch Basil Lekapenos -- see WP:SEAOFBLUE
  • I changed it to say "Basil Lekapenos, a eunuch". Векочел (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• Nikephoros II Phokas and John I Tzimiskes -- both have been introduced by this point, their honorifics seem redundant given that you include the Roman numbers as well
  • I'll remove the surnames. Векочел (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• The relationship between the two generals was interesting -- this is not a particularly great phrase to use as it implies that the encyclopedia finds it interesting, which is inappropriate: an encyclopedia is meant to be a neutral observer. You may try something like "complicated"
  • I've changed the wording here. Векочел (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• dropped dead and fell from his horse -- did he die and then fall from the horse or did he fall and then die? In the former case, the falling part seems irrelevant; in the latter case, this needs to be more explicit
  • I am not sure of the order of events; it is clear, however, that he died in battle. Векочел (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• the main Imperial base -- of Byzantium?
  • Yes. Векочел (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't you clarify that in the article, rather than here? Nobody will read this FAC after it's over.--R8R (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I will do that. Векочел (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• The fall of Basil Lekapenos followed the rebellions -- this confused me for a second. It is more convenient to mention events in chronological order: "The rebellions were followed by the fall of Basil Lekapenos."
  • The wording has been changed. Векочел (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
• the confiscation of his property -- "the" seems out of place
  • I've removed "the" from this section. Векочел (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• 987/8 -- this seems unusual. Normally an en dash is used: –
  • It now reads 987–988. Векочел (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

More to come later.--R8R (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Векочел (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not worry, I haven't forgotten about the review. I'll check your responses and write more when I have enough spare time; probably tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• I found that the minuscule article in the Simple English Wiki describes historical importance of Basil better than the medium-length lead in this article. Also I found this great quote: "Basil’s near-50-year reign had ensured the Byzantine empire was at its very zenith". It would be great to have something of this sort in this article's lead.--R8R (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • How about "He left the Empire with its greatest expanse in four centuries"? Векочел (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • That would be fine.--R8R (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's continue, shall we.

• The hatnote says, For the Russian ruler, see Basil II of Russia. I have problems with this. First of all, "Russian ruler" is sort of correct but ambiguous: the phrase may imply that we're talking about a ruler of Russia and that Basil wasn't a ruler of Russia as there was no political entity named "Russia"; it only appeared almost a century after his death. I suggest "Muscovite prince" or something like that. What's even more important, you are directly referring here to the article, rather than its subject; as such, you should use the actual title of the article, Vasily II of Moscow.
  • I can change that. Векочел (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• After re-reading some of the article I noticed you refer to the Kievan prince as "Vladimir I of Kiev." This is rather uncommon. At the time, nobody called Vladimir "the First," and now he is primarily known as Vladimir the Great; in fact, even the article on the prince is called Vladimir the Great. Later, you say, "David III Kuropalates of Tao"; why not say, "Vladimir the Great of Kiev"? Perhaps better still, since this article uses old-fashioned English, you could refer to people the way they were actually referred to in their lifetimes, i.e., "Vladimir Sviatoslavovich of Kiev"?
  • Changed to Vladimir Svyatoslavich of Kiev Векочел (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• "Al-Aziz Billah"; "al-Aziz" -- is it "Al" or "al"?
  • Either is acceptable; this caliph's article lists his name both capitalized and lowercase. Векочел (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• "he failed to pursue the siege with vigor" -- this is not encyclopedic. What exactly did he do wrong?
  • Removed Векочел (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
• I am equally unsure about Arabic names here. Why use "al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah" for the first mention of one person, "Al-Aziz Billah" for a second person, and only "Lu'lu'" for third? I suggest you standardize this
  • Changed Векочел (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Aaron -- are we talking about Aron of Bulgaria? if yes, why not wikilink him and call him Aron?
  • Changed to Aron Векочел (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• By 987, Aaron had been eliminated by Samuel, and Basil was busy fighting both Skleros and Phokas in Asia Minor. -- it seems like the two are not connected; why are they listed like they are?
  • I removed the part of this sentence about Basil. Векочел (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• In 992, Basil II concluded a treaty with Pietro Orseolo II under terms reducing Venice's custom duties in Constantinople from 30 nomismata to 17 nomismata. In return, the Venetians agreed to transport Byzantine troops to southern Italy in times of war. -- how did Pietro get involved? Venice is not in Bulgaria and Bulgaria is not in southern Italy; why is this at all important in the section titled Conquest of Bulgaria? Also, the article is named Pietro II Orseolo; maybe you should follow suit, if this is to be kept? also on Pietro, it would be nice to specify "Pietro II Orseolo of Venice" so that the reader gets a proper introduction and doesn't have to guess who this Pietro is and deduce it from later information

• reducing Venice's custom duties in Constantinople from 30 nomismata to 17 nomismata. -- are these flat? could you import any amount of goods for the same 17 nomismata?
  • I do not know the answers to any of these questions. Векочел (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Skopje -- I was expecting a link to the article on the town. You should either reword the phrase or retarget the link
  • I have retargeted the link to say "intercepted at Skopje". Векочел (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• Watch out for duplicate wikilinks. You normally only need to wikilink terms on first mention. See MOS:DL
  • I've done my best to eliminate this. Векочел (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• King George [...] left his infant son Bagrat a hostage in Basil's hands. -- this is confusing. Why would Basil need him after the fighting was over?
  • I am uncertain but this is what the Bulgarian king did. Векочел (talk) 11:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Basil created, in those highlands, a strongly fortified frontier, which, if his successors had been capable, should have proved an effective barrier against the invasions of the Seljuk Turks. -- I usually avoid making comments on prose as I am not native speaker of English myself but have you tried reading this sentence? You have to make a pause every few words! I suggest rewording it. Also, says who? This is purely hypothetical, you can't state this as if it were true: this is an encyclopedia. Attribute this thought to someone.
  • I removed the hypothetical statements. Векочел (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Southern Italy -- Carefully look through the article to catch any duplicate mentions of anything and see what they are linked to. A while ago, you had southern Italy. Armenia and Tao are two words you should make similar checks for and possibly more
  • I've done my best to eliminate this problem. Векочел (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
• the help of land reforms, something that many of his successors would not enforce -- I don't entirely understand it. If Basil managed to get things right, then there would be no need for further reforms, so no new reforms would need to be enforced?
  • I myself find this to be confusing. This can be removed. Векочел (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• our [Bulgarian] national mythology -- you would have no need to make any clarifications if you introduced Kiossev as a Bulgarian. Texts that are naturally clear are preferable to texts with clarifications
  • Changed Векочел (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

An interesting read overall.--R8R (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Constantine

Unfortunately a very strong Oppose. I still do not see the chief concerns raised in the previous nomination addressed. There have been a host of mostly cosmetic changes in the meantime, but nothing of substance. Again, to anyone who seriously wants to bring this to FA: take the time to study and understand the subject and rewrite the article top to bottom. Merely copyediting stuff around is not enough, not for an individual of his eminence. A serious effort at bringing this up to scratch would require months of diligent work and an understanding of the period and subject, which is absent from the nominator, as far as I can see. The article as it is may "look" fine to the layman, but in terms of content and analysis, to anyone who is familiar with the subject, it is far from being a serious and comprehensive treatment of the man and the reign, as expected of a FA-level article. Just for starters, on a topic highlighted in the current nomination, "lessened the power of the Byzantine senior officials", the relevant section makes direct reference to Psellos, without providing a modern scholar's interpretation. The "Allelengyon" is not even mentioned, let alone discussed. This is a topic on which modern scholars have shed streams of ink, but there is no indication of that here. The discussion on these reforms then veers off to his being unmarried and childless, which is neither good prose nor a good sign for the authors having a coherent structure in mind. I could go on and on, but as I raised the exact same points in the earlier review, I am not convinced that this is a serious attempt at actually improving the article, rather than point-scoring by getting this with as minimal an effort as possible through FA. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: I do hope that this becomes a featured article. Do you have any more suggestions? Векочел (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Векочел, so do I, but frankly, it is far from being there yet. I already made my suggestions above: The scholarship on Basil II is huge, take time to study up and form yourself a clear and comprehensive picture of the subject. I must also say that I do not have confidence in your editing pattern as I have observed it here and elsewhere: you reacted by my mention of the allelengyon above by simply adding it in, without any further explanation or analysis, which is actually the desired point; on my criticism about the marital status, you simply removed it, without putting it anywhere else where it would be more appropriate, and crucially, you still left the direct reference to Psellos, a biased primary source, which is actually the far bigger problem here. You are not the primary author of the article as it stands now (no-one is, that is part of the problem, it is a cobbled-together patchwork), and from your replies to questions above ("I don't know", etc.) and your editing pattern, it is clear to me that you do not have the requisite knowledge on the subject, or understanding of what makes an FA actually "featured".

Making an FA nomination means that you have worked on the article yourself considerably so that you are familiar with and knowledgeable about it, and can stake your reputation among fellow Wikipedians (or scholarly reviewers, if it came to that) that it is both complete and factual. Cosmetic changes and ad hoc addition of factoids to an article that was largely the same a year ago merely to get through a review process is not enough, first must come the hard work to make it "complete", create a coherent narrative, and ensure high-quality and up-to-date sources reflecting current scholarly opinion as well as past perceptions in historiography (and there are many of them regarding Basil). I can point you to sources and issues, but the scope of the work is such that it will take months. If you want to undertake it, I will gladly help, but I will not start making a list of all the problems here, as they go far beyond copyediting; they are fundamental to the structure, scope and content of the article. This may not be evident to the casual reader, but it is evident to anyone with some knowledge of the subject and the relevant literature. Constantine ✍ 22:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I admit that my knowledge about Basil is rather basic. Векочел (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added Psellus' statement that Basil was childless to the part of the assessment section describing his successors. Векочел (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

While I admire the honesty of admitting that one has only basic knowledge of their nomination's subject, I have to agree with Constantine that we'd want to feel more confidant that FA criteria 1.b and 1.c are met. I hope that the two of you can work together to put meat on the bones of this article, but that will be something for outside the FAC process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2018 [19].

---

Swift Justice

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above article is about an American detective drama, created by Dick Wolf, which aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from March 13, 1996, to July 17, 1996. It is about a former United States Navy SEAL (James McCaffrey), who becomes a private investigator after being fired from the New York City Police Department. Critical reception to the series was mixed; some television critics praised its visuals and cast, while others panned its storylines as too violent and formulaic.

This is my ninth FAC on a television show article, following the successful promotion of eight other ones. I believe that the article fulfills the FA criteria, though I will greatly appreciate any comments or suggestions. For those interested, this is what the article looked like prior to my expansion. This is yet another one of my projects on an obscure series from UPN. One day, I should work on an article about a television show people actually remember, or at least one that lasted more than one season lol. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Clikity

I'm happy you're back. Might as well take a look.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comments on prose
• "Swift Justice is an American detective drama, created by Dick Wolf, which aired for one season..." How about "Swift Justice is an American detective drama created by Dick Wolf, which aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from 13 March 1996 to 17 July 1996. No comma is needed between the dates.

• Removed the comma. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• NOOOOO! I just realized you were supposed to. Sorry on my part. Clikity (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "It is about a former United States Navy Seal(James McCaffrey)..." Why put his name in parentheses? It might confuse someone who doesn't know who James McCaffrey is. Is it the name of the Navy Seal? The actor? I'd prefer "The show is about a former United States Navy Seal played by James McCaffrey..."

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "The supporting cast includes..." How about just "The cast includes..."

• True. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Dick Wolf created Swift Justice and the executive producer." Dick Wolf created the executive producer? "Dick Wolf created Swift Justice and was the executive producer."

• Apologies for that ><. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Notice- I will be cleaning small obvious mistakes throughout the article. Feel free to revert my changes if necessary.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, my c/e is done. Clikity (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

• Other

• Okay, I think the 2nd paragraph of the section "Premise and characters" is too long. It talks about the pilot, but there are many different aspects, such as how people received it. It also talks about other episodes. I made an edit to fix the organization. For the new short paragraph, please add more detail on how they received the pilot. Feel free to revert

• Thank you for the edits. I did some rearranging. I made a fourth paragraph in the "Premise and characters" section to focus on the critical commentary on the show's premise (i.e. the comparisons to other programs, the examples of some of the storylines, etc.), and I moved the sentences about its use of violence there as I think that it fits. I formatted the section in this way: the first paragraph introduces the characters, the second paragraph is about the pilot, the third paragraph is about the rest of the series (i.e. where be becomes a private investigator), and I already explained the fourth paragraph above. I hope that makes sense. Also, I have already found and add all of the sources that I could find on the show to the article prior to nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Clikity: Any further comments? Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Looks good. It passes for FA and is pretty good for an obscure show. Clikity (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
• I saw the previous revision of your comment. At that time I wasn't so sure about the article's comprehensiveness.

Kailash

Lede

• In the infobox of TV series, we use title cards instead of posters and advertisements, don't we? I think yes, because that's how all the Arrowverse series have been doing.

• Replaced. I used an advertisement instead to include images of the two actors/characters for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I just hope you saved the advertisement and its source for potential re-upload in case I'm wrong. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• It is pretty easy to find again online so it should be an easy fix. I agree though that the title card is probably the best fit to keep everything consistent. Aoba47 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• "Critical reception was mixed" - unsourced critical reception summary, since the word "mixed" is mentioned only once in the whole article.

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Premise and characters

Is it possible to split this into two sections? One for premise and another for cast.

• I do not see the benefit of doing so. The section already covers the basic premise and characters of the show directly. There are only three main characters on the show, so I do not see the value in a separate "Cast" section as they are already discussed fully here. Aoba47 (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright. Since the entire series was only 10 episodes long with only three main cast members, I agree splitting isn't a good idea. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you. I understand what you meant though. This show's main cast was particularly small for some reason. Aoba47 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Episodes

Why are all the episode summaries single lines? Since they have finished airing, the plots need to be complete.

• I found all of the episodes on YouTube. I just assumed that full episodes were not available, so it looks like I have to actually watch this. Yay >< lol. Aoba47 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. Once these are addressed, I'll support this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments. I have addressed most of your points, and I will try to expand the summaries over the course of the week, though I must admit I am not too excited about it lol. I will let you know when I am done with the expanded plot summaries. Aoba47 (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Support: I like reviewing short articles since their conciseness allows better solving of issues, thereby making them FAC/FLC worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you! I will still make sure to expand the plot summaries for the episodes though. Hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The following YouTube account (Gaelin Wade) had uploaded some of the episodes. Unfortunately, some of episodes are missing (i.e. "Stones", "Isaiah's Daughter", "Pilot Episode") so I am uncertain if I should expand the summaries if I can do it for all of them. I will leave this up for reviewers to decide. Just wanted to leave an update about this. The show is actually better than I had anticipated; it is schlocky, but pretty fun for what it is. Aoba47 (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. If there are reliable sources documenting what happened in the story, cite them in the article like I've done at Kalidas and Miss Malini since those are lost films. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for Withdrawal

• @Ian Rose:@Laser brain:@Sarastro1: Please withdraw the nomination as I do not have any further interest in continuing it. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2018 [20].

---

Kenora Thistles

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The smallest city to ever win a championship in North America, the Kenora Thistles are more a footnote in terms of modern hockey. Due to the small size of the city they have been subject to multiple scholarly articles, which is both unusual for a hockey team and forms the bulk of the sources here. One concern during the GAC was how to layout the article properly, in that the Stanley Cup challenges sections are in a peculiar section, and I'm still not sure how to feel about it. So any comments are appreciated. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

It's not a city, is it.

Lead, 1a:

• Will any readers want to hit the link to both Kenora and Ontario? I'd just link the most specific, which itself will have a link to the province.
• Fancy calling a town "Rat Portage".
• I trip over the ands: "They won the Cup in January 1907 and defended it that March, and lost it later that month in a challenge series, and disbanded in 1908."
• "and were the winner from the introduction of the Cup in 1893 until 1912 to not be from Montreal, Winnipeg, or Ottawa." Huh?
• "Four homegrown players and five other players have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame" -> "Nine players—four of them homegrown—have been inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame"
• Final comma in quote: should be between the closing quote and the ref tag (see MOS).
• "Combined with economic downturn in 1907, the team was unable to sustain its success, and disbanded in 1908." This is a train-wreck. What is combined with what? If it's a reference to the previous proposition, both this and the preceding sentence need to be reworked.
• MOS breach in the infobox: closed range dashes, please.
• "Manitoba-Ontario provincial border"—en dash. It's under the edit-box.
• parentheses within parentheses?
• "However the closer proximity to Winnipeg (roughly 210 kilometres (130 mi) away) and the rest of Manitoba meant Rat Portage remained focused towards the west rather than east towards the rest of Ontario, where the closest city was Port Arthur (now Thunder Bay) (500 kilometres (310 mi))." I'm bracketed out. Closer distance. Do you need "roughly"? Do you need "remained"? toward is good without the es. "had closer relations with the west than with the rest of Ontario to the east, where ...". Away, then no away.

The issues occur too densely. I suggest Withdraw, rework, and resubmit. Can you attract a few good copy-editors from the wikiproject? Tony (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for going over it, I'll take some time to look it over based on this in the next day or so. And with respect, I'd prefer to have some other reviews here before its withdrawn/archived, as I honestly haven't had much success with other options on other articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

As promised I went through the article again and copyedited it, trying to trim some wording and so on. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Tony, given I hadn't picked up on your withdrawal recommendation, and the nom has ce'd, would you be able to perhaps spotcheck some prose in the body of the article and see what you think now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Random spot-check of three adjacent sentences:

• "Again played in Ottawa, this time in a best-of-three series, the Thistles were much more respected by the media compared to 1903, regarded as "serious contenders for the Cup"."
• "Attendance for the series further highlighted the heightened status of the team, with the games having between 3,500 and 4,000 spectators, and hundreds more waiting outside; there were also thousands across who congregated to hear live telegraph reports of the games."
• "There was also considerable mention of the home-grown nature of the team, which was becoming rare as ice hockey teams began to use professionals."

All train-wrecks: multiple weirdnesses. The least unsatisafactory is the third one. "mention" by whom? Those congregating? "that the team was home-grown". "was becoming ... began" (grammar needs to be parallel); is a because "as" or a while "as"? Tony (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Based on Tony's follow-up above I think we should take this out of the FAC list for the moment and get some outside assistance on the prose. It doesn't look like it's had a Peer Review either so that -- perhaps aided by notices to sports-related projects and editors -- might be another step before renominating here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2018 [21].

---

Army of the Rhine and Moselle

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Army of the Rhine and Moselle, a French army during the French Revolutionary War. I had submitted it earlier, but realized thanks to Tony that it was not ready for prime time. It has been radically revised. Please feel free to share your comments. Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Fitzcarmalan

General observation:

• I noticed a fair amount of text that doesn't seem to follow WP:WTW, including idioms, euphemisms and stuff that frankly seems to be meant for a secondary school textbook, which doesn't feel right in an encyclopedia largely targeting adult readers (couldn't express that in any other way, sorry). I will mark those throughout my review by a spade symbol (♠), for the sake of brevity, followed (possibly) by an alternative suggestion of mine. And I won't use wikilinks in my suggestions to avoid confusion, so don't forget to re-add them.

Lead

• "crushing [...] drubbed" - Suggest "defeated" instead.

Background

• I'm not seeing the words "France" or "Germany" (as in the regions) mentioned anywhere in the 'Geography' section, which is strange. Suggest introducing them in the Rhine knee sentence.
• "The Empire included more than 1,000 entities" - Was it during this campaign? I assume you meant in general throughout its history. In that case I would suggest adding "at various points" or anything with the same meaning.

Purpose and formation

• "learned when his troops lynched him" - ♠ - Suggest "such as the case of Théobald Dillon who was lynched by his troops in 1792".
• "and the fédéré volunteer battalions" - Suggest linking to Fédéré.
• "and a tricolour cockade}}" - This redirects to Flag of France. Suggest linking to Symbolism in the French Revolution#Tricolore cockade instead.
• "was an appointment with Madame guillotine" - ♠ - "...implied disloyalty, which often resulted in execution by the guillotine"
• ": several of the highest ranking generals [...] were killed" - Suggest replacing the colon with a period, and "killed" by "executed".
• "the Hussards du Saxe and the 15éme Cavalerie (Royal Allemande) regiments" - Suggest linking to Hussards de Saxe and Régiment Royal-Allemand and slightly rewording the second one to "15^e cavalerie (Royal-Allemand)".
• Reorganization: Would you consider relocating the first three paragraphs in this section, from "By 1792" to "survived intact" (along with their 'Military challenges' subsection header), to the 'Background' section right above 'Geopolitical terrain'? The rest, beginning from "By 1794-95", can stay as it is under the 'Purpose and formation' section.
• "into task forces" - Suggest finding a more contemporary alternative to "task force", which is kind of ahead of its time as it stands.
• "currency called the Assignat" - Suggest lowercasing and italicizing.
• "after April, pay was made in metallic value, but pay was still in arrears" - Repeated word.

Campaign of 1795

• "The French Army of the Sambre and Meuse [...] while the French Army of Rhine and Moselle" - Suggest de-linking, per MOS:DUPLINK. And no need to keep mentioning that they're French, as it's already made clear in the section right above.
• "The French fumbled away" - ♠ - "mishandled"
• "Pichegru bungled at least one" - ♠ - "Pichegru had at least one opportunity to take over Clerfayt's supply base in the Battle of Handschuhsheim, but did not seize it."
• "Clerfayt gave Pichegru a drubbing" - ♠ - "Clerfayt defeated Pichegru"
• "or bad generalship" - I'm sorry but this doesn't really strike me as NPOV, though I could be wrong. Considering the fact that the Directory wouldn't execute Pichegru and even offered to appoint him as ambassador to Sweden, it becomes clear that something was going on and/or they still thought highly of him and his military career (either he accomplished something in the initial phase of this campaign or he was still a national hero because of his previous successes in the Low Countries). What does the source actually say about this? Because that part could use some extra detail, as it is also very relevant to this article. A footnote might help.

Campaign of 1796

• "began with Jean-Baptiste Kléber's attack" - It should be made clear earlier that he was commanding a flank (which one?) of the Army of the Sambre and Meuse. Suggest: "Jean-Baptiste Kléber, who commanded the left (northern) flank of the Army of the Sambre and Meuse, opened the Rhine Campaign of 1796 with an attack south of his bridgehead at Düsseldorf."
• "Moreau lent credence [...] When Archduke Charles" - Suggest writing their full names and wikilinking, since that is their first occurrence in the body. And of course de-link in the following paragraph.
• "troops in Fürstenberg’s corps" - Same as above.
• "from the free imperial cities" - Suggest de-linking (duplink).
• "between Karlsruhe and Darmstadt" - Suggest wikilinking.
• "Neither Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé's Army of Condé in Freiburg nor" - Suggest referring to it as a "counter-revolutionary" or "royalist" army both here and throughout the article to avoid confusion with revolutionary armies.
• "Ferino executed a full crossing" - Suggest writing his full name, the flank he was commanding and wikilinking.
• I have one major concern regarding this entire section. Starting from the second paragraph onward, focus suddenly shifts towards Imperial troop movements, their placement along the HRE's French and Italian frontiers, etc. For example, there isn't a single mention of the Army of the Rhine and Moselle in that very same paragraph, which is a rather bulky one (the one that begins with "The armies of the First.."). There are also sentences like "The Swabian militia consisted of recruits provided by the members of the Swabian Circle and most of them were literally raw recruits", which I believe has very little to do with an article about a French army. Another concern is how that same French army is being twice referred to as Charles' "opposition"; if anything it's the French who should be referred to in this article as "Moreau's army" and Charles as the opposition, not the other way around. And if I was looking for a strategic and logistical analysis of this campaign from a Habsburg perspective (e.g. which army would be fast enough to relieve some isolated contingent), it would be easier for me to read your Rhine Campaign of 1796 article instead, which is broader in scope and is actually supposed to deal with such things. So, as I'm currently reading much more about Imperial operations and much less about the French ones, I am unfortunately going to recommend that you significantly cut down some of these parts, then either 1) merge them into the Rhine Campaign article (I assume they're already there), or 2) convert them to footnotes. I prefer the second option.
  

Summer of 1796

• "At the Battle of Neresheim on 11 August, Moreau crushed Charles' force" - I don't think "crushed" is an appropriate word. The relevant article seems to describe the outcome differently. What does the source say about this?
• "Charles inflicted another defeat on the French" - The first one being...?
• "were cut to pieces" - ♠ - Thought of "scattered" initially but I don't know if it's more appropriate. Up to you, I guess.
• "The tide now turned in the Coalition's favor." - Suggest adding "however", in contrast to the French victory mentioned right before that.
• "Both French Armies" - Suggest lowercasing "Armies" (not a proper name).
• "what the French had tried to do to Charles and Wartensleben" - Suggest adding "earlier".
• Third paragraph: Again, I'm seeing the same amount of excessive detail mentioned above (e.g. numbers of squadrons and troops) with much less detail of the sort about the French and their flanks. Don't get me wrong here, I find such information valuable to understanding the situation on the ground, but not so prominently to the point of being off-topic. Which is why I'm suggesting footnotes.
• "Archduke's force" - Definite article missing?
• "between Riegel and Emmendingen" - Suggest wikilinking.
• "Frölich" - Suggest writing full name and redlinking.
• "ambush St.-Cyr's advance [...] attacked Beaupuy" - Suggest writing their full names and wikilinking, while de-linking in the following section and avoiding "St." in favor of his actual surname.
• "was but earth and ruins" - ♠ - "was in ruins"
• "victory at the Battle of Schliengen" - Suggest wikilinking.
• (caption) "{{xt|and pathways treacherous" - ♠ - I really love the fact that you added a panorama, which I believe should be done more often in MILHIST articles. Not entirely fond of "treacherous" though. Suggest "challenging" instead.

Organizational and command problems

• "brilliant actions" - ♠ - Not really a fan of this word on Wikipedia, per MOS:PUFFERY. Perhaps "well-executed actions"?
• "As a hero of the Revolution captured Mannheim but inexplicably he" - Suggest "As a hero of the Revolution, he captured Mannheim but inexplicably..".
• "throughout 1796, his machinations in Paris" - Suggest mentioning that he became a member of the Council of Five Hundred (despite his treason).
• "into Bavarian and toward Vienna" - Typo?
• "extraordinary young officers" - ♠ - "distinguished"?
• "In 1895, Richard Phillipson Dunn-Pattison" - Suggest wikilinking.
• "François Joseph Lefebvre [...] Michel Ney [...] Massena [...] Jean Baptiste Bessieres" - Suggest wikilinking.

Order of battle

• No issues found. Just wanted to note that my earlier suggestions to de-link second occurrences don't apply to this section.

I strongly recommend that you look into my main concerns regarding the weight given to Imperial troops in the prose. Best of luck. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments - Auntieruth55, it looks like you haven't been around much since these comments, but I'm looking for your initial response. Since we're already in the "older nominations" and substantial issues have been raised, I'm of a mind to archive it so they can be addressed outside of FAC without the nomination sinking to the bottom in the meantime. Fitzcarmalan, I hate to be a pain but please remove the xt templates from your comments per the FAC instructions at the top. They cause lots of issues with the page now and after archiving. --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Thanks for pointing that out; all dealt with now. It's just that I tend to write a lot of stuff and felt like the green text makes it less confusing for the nominators. Is there an alternative that would be acceptable for any future reviews?

@Auntieruth55: I recommend previewing the older revision, though it's up to you of course. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: Anything that doesn't use templates. Supposedly the templates slow the FAC page down when it tries to load them all at once. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This review has been open almost a month and the initial (extensive) comments are still to be addressed, so I think we'll need to archive and try again at a later date. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2018 [22].

---

Washington State Convention Center

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Seattle's convention center sits atop a freeway (which I hope to bring here soon), wraps around a non-profit theatre, and sits under a few high-rises. It is made famous by one of gaming's biggest conventions (which just ended) and was the host of the 1999 WTO conference that was disrupted by the infamous Battle of Seattle. In fact, during its construction the project nearly went under after one of the lead developers filed for bankruptcy because of a lender agreement gone south.

This article went through a GOCE copyedit and was languishing for an entire season in the GAN backlog, so I've decided to push this forward. It's a bit of a long read for convention center, but the project was more than just a place for bleary-eyed visitors to hob-nob and indulge in plenaries and meetings. SounderBruce 07:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

Lead:

• "meeting centers"—any word to substitute to avoid such a close repetition of "center/s"? Thesaurus? Especially since there are more to come in the opening para. Suggestion: "and the convention center opened on June 18, 1988" -> "and the complex opened on June 18, 1988" ... but up to you; I'm unsure that's a good substitute there. And "the existing facilities"? Just thinking out loud.
• "A second expansion at the site of Convention Place station, a block north of the original convention center, has been under construction since 2018 and is planned to be completed in 2022." What about: "A block north of the original facility, a second expansion at the site of Convention Place station has been under construction since 2018, with competion expected in 2022." ... or something like that.
• If it's already under construction, why does a caption below talk of "planned construction site"?
• Is the area given for the each of the two halls, or both?
• Parking spaces? Bit boring for the lead.

Tony (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: I've rewritten the lead per your comments. Thanks for dropping in for the early review. SounderBruce 23:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Tony1: Anything more to say? SounderBruce 02:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

A few paragraphs further down:

• "It re-opened the following year for use by conventions, trade shows, banquets, and other events"—you could remove two words.
  • Dropped "use by"
• "recommended a facility with 70,000 to 90,000 square feet (6,500 to 8,400 m2) of meeting space and 40,000 to 60,000 square feet (3,700 to 5,600 m2) of exhibition space to host conventions of up to 7,000 attendees. It would cost $47 million (equivalent to $149 million in 2016 dollars)"—why not use closed en dashes to reduce the clutter? Do we need the "equivalent to"? Why not and equivalence to 2018 dollars?
  • Switched the "to"s to dashes, which are surprisingly accepted by {{convert}}.
  • The inflation conversion is generated by {{inflation}}, which is updated when new data becomes available. Pending catastrophic economic changes, the difference between 2016 and 2018 dollars should be minimal.
• Clunky–bumpy:

  "It would cost $47 million (equivalent to $149 million in 2016 dollars)[7] to construct, paid for using state and county funds, and be located at one of four sites:"

  "Construction would require $47 million of state and county funds ($149 million in 2016 dollars), at one of four sites:", perhaps?

  • That sounds good to me.
• "creating approximately 13,000 new jobs"—"some" would be less spikey than the x word. But more importantly, does this come from some press release by a body with a conflict of interest? I'm always suspicious of claims of new jobs. To start with, is that permanent new jobs, or just through the construction phase? Always needs to be stated by these shysters.
  • The newspaper article is quoting the study, which seems to focus on permanent benefits but does not outright state that the jobs are permanent.
    • No, well they're almost certainly not, if experience is anything to go by. It's part of the lying and exaggeration used by vested interests. Please remove their propaganda if you can't be sure from the source. Tony (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
• "siding with the business community over the city's hired consultants"—I read the unintended meaning into "over" (concerning).
  • Swapped the order and filled it out a bit more.
• "The city and chamber of commerce began lobbying the state legislature for the approval of $64.2 million (equivalent to $190 million in 2016 dollars)[7] in 30-year general obligation bonds issued by the state, and a hotel-motel tax increase to pay for the project". They "began"? Or they "lobbied". "to approve $....".
  • The post-recommendation drive marked the start of formal lobbying to legislators, so I've made that a bit clearer.
• "The state legislature considered the financing plan in February 1979, with Governor Dixy Lee Ray taking a neutral stance on state funding despite her support of the project.[20] However, the bill was introduced too late in the legislative session to pass out of committee.[21][22] A citizen initiative barring the city from funding a convention center project or other tourist activities was filed and placed on the November 1979 ballot,[23] where it was defeated by voters.[24][25]"—"...1979; Governor took ...". So the proposal to bar funding was defeated. It's a nest of double negatives. Voters wanted it to be funded, right?
• Ref 7 is a mess of red.
  • The {{inflation-fn}} template has been broken for a few days, but it should be fixed soon.

My earlier hunch was right. Needs cleaning up and resubmission. Tony (talk) 07:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Bit surprised this hasn't attracted more commentary -- I'll list it under FAC Urgents but if it doesn't get more attention very soon I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919

This seems close to the mark, but the winding history of the project requires strong attention to clarity. Some of the longer paragraphs and sections made me wonder if there are details that could be trimmed out. Here are some specific spots that need cleanup or clarification:

• The infobox seems overstuffed with images: a logo, a photo, and two maps. The second map supports zooming in to see the details, so I would think the first map could be removed.
  • Removed the non-interactive map.
• I didn't do a full source review, but I did notice that ref 6 uses the {{Rp}} template for the page number, but no other notes do. This source is only cited once, so using Rp seems pointless. I'm also not clear on what page is actually being cited; the document uses section numbering, so there is an S-3, I-3, II-3, etc. I suspect I-3 is the intended reference, but it should be clarified.
  • Fixed the page referencing.
• I want to second Tony1's reservations about uncritically repeating pre-development job projections. There is a substantial literature indicating such studies are inaccurate. For a relevant example, this source criticizes inaccurate projections of increased usage of the WSCC made in a 1994 study of the then-proposed (later approved) expansion. And given that the facility broke ground almost a decade later, any projections from the 70s seem to have limited relevance. (Other elements of such projections are also untrustworthy. Notice that the requested funding, after adjusting for inflation, went from $190M to $227M to a $334M actual cost.)
  • I'll leave out the jobs projection, and integrate the 1994 study critique at a later time.
• "Architects TRA and engineer HNTB" -- I believe that as names of firms, 'TRA' and 'HNTB' are collective nouns, so I would think the singular 'architect' and 'engineer' would be used. Even if I'm wrong about that, I would expect the construction to be parallel, either both singular or both plural.
  • Fixed by using TRA's actual name.
• "A group of elderly First Hill residents" -- is age relevant here? It's not mentioned again. If you omit the description, the sentence could probably be merged with the next one to something like: "A group of First Hill residents opposed the freeway site design and announced plans to file a lawsuit to halt further planning."
  • The GOCE copyeditor created a lot of odd sentence splits during their run-through, so I have to track back and patch things. I've taken advantage of the split here to add more detail. SounderBruce 07:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• After the initial reference to CHG International, it is often referred to just as CHG, but then sometimes the more expansive "developer CHG International" creeps in. Unless there is a significant separation between mentions, I would think just CHG is sufficient after the first reference.
  • Chopped down to the short-form.
• "The convention center project required CHG to deed its parcels to Westside" -- this construction seems to obfuscate the source of the requirement, since a "project" is not an independent entity. Did Westside require this as a condition of funding, or was it mandated by some other source such as a regulatory body?
  • Re-ordered based on information from the citation.
• "further complicated by President Ronald Reagan's steel import quota" -- this would be more clear and less surprising if you mention that the import quotas were imposed in September 1984, after the project was approved. (Sources for that should be easy to find if the date isn't in the sources currently cited.)
  • The source lists the import quotas as having "been announced earlier this week [Jan. 10]", so this might be a separate action.
• "federal seizure of imported Taiwanese and Japanese steel later found to have cracked joints in need of repair" -- I'm confused again. If the cracks were found later, why was the steel seized originally?
  • Split apart, as the issue wasn't really related to the seizure.
• The Eagles Auditorium Building and McKay Hotel are referred to multiple times, but their relationship to the project isn't particularly clear. The Eagles building finally gets some explanation after it has already been mentioned a couple of times; what the McKay has to do with the project is a mystery to me.
  • Both buildings were turned into low-income housing, a key political point that was mentioned earlier. Added a mention to a sentence in the Construction section.
• "The convention center enjoyed success during its first five years of operations, helping revitalize Downtown Seattle and its retail core." Suggest: "The success of the convention center during its first five years of operation helped revitalize Downtown Seattle and its retail core."
  • Fixed. SounderBruce 07:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
• The sequencing of the Events section comes off a bit odd, first describing overall activity as of 2016, then describing various specific events from various times, then backtracking to 1999 to talk about the WTO protests.
  • @RL0919: I've split out the WTO protests into a separate subsection. I prefer having the statistics before listing out major annual events. SounderBruce 07:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I also made a few small edits; as usual those can be undone if they seem wrong. --RL0919 (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been open for a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present with open suggestions for rework and improvement. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 [23].

---

Archie Meets the Punisher

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1994 mash up between an All-American teenager and a murdering vigilante. The crossover started a trend of Archie meeting unusual guest stars the led to him being killed by the Predator in 2015, among other things. The article was created in 2004 and remained in poor shape until a rewrite and GA promotion earlier this year. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Media review

The fact this comic exists is amazing. Commenting on the only image:

• The rationale says "300px size unsuitable to use for high end reproduction.", but the image is 255x391 pixels. Looks like it used to be 300px until DatBot resized it. Rephrase rationale please.
• Alt text is great. Consider adding that the title is Archie meets the Punisher and to describe the font it is in. If you don't, that's fine too.

Fix the one small issue and we will be good. Could you maybe add any images of the artists too? Kees08 (Talk) 23:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Kees08: Thanks for the review. I have updated the alt text and rationale. I also added images for the writer and artists based on what was available in their articles.

• Kidding - one of the artist's image was non-free and has been removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:Batton Lash.jpg
  • Add an English description, remove the comment someone made in the description box
  • Add a personality rights warning
  • Hm. The current license is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 (not okay on Commons) but a bot verified it as cc-by-2.0 (okay on Commons) at the time of upload. So I suppose it is okay..?
  • Caption is fine. Alt text is nice but not required
• File:StanGoldberg11.15.08ByLuigiNovi1.jpg
  • License is fine
  • Caption is fine. Alt text is nice but not required

Let me know when you have addressed the above, thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 05:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The first sentence in the first paragraph of the lead is rather long. I think it may be beneficial to make everything after “with art by…” into its own sentence.
  • done.
• For this sentence (In the story, the murderous vigilante Punisher mistakes all-American teenager Archie Andrews for his criminal prey.), I am not sure if “murderous” is needed.
  • I believe it is because it's one of Punisher's defining attributes. It's a significant contrast to most non-lethal superheroes like Superman or Spider-Man, and it the primary reason this particular crossover is so odd. It's a stark comparison to Archie meeting Adam West's Batman.
    • Makes sense. Thought I might as well ask. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• I would revise this sentence (Lash came up with the plot after Archie editor Victor Gorelick suggested the general concept.) to something like this (Lash developed the plot from a suggestion by Archie editor Victor Gorelick) for more concise language.
  • done
• I would revise this sentence (The script was written with the intention of remaining true to the spirit of both characters rather than focus only on Archie's humor or Punisher's action.) to avoid the repetition of the word “script” twice in the same sentence.
  • I think the second instance is spirit... Did you copy the wrong sentence?
    • Apologies; I misread the sentence >< Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• For this sentence (The comic book was kept secret inside both companies until it was announced at a press function shortly before it was published), I would change “before it was published” to “before its publication” for more concise language.
  • done
• I would revise this part (Although the announcement was initially believed to be a joke by news outlets and critics, ) to avoid the passive tense.
  • done
• For this sentence (Many praised the odd pairing as an interesting narrative hook.), specify what you mean by “many” as you reference both media outlets and critics in the previous sentence.
  • done
• For this part (During lunch one day in San Diego,), I would say instead (During a lunch in San Diego,) to avoid the vague wording of “one day”.
  • You know, I was really unhappy with that phrase when I wrote it, but couldn't think of a way to avoid it. Your suggestion is embarrassingly obvious.
    • No worries; I think that we all have been there before. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
• I would revise this sentence (Before Punisher and Microchip leave Riverdale the next morning, they say goodbye to Archie and his friends.) to (Before leaving Riverdale the next morning, Punisher and Microchip say goodbye to Archie and his friends.) for more concise language.
  • done
• Do you have any information on the comic’s sales?
  • I may be able to locate something. Comic sales are reported as estimates at best, and prior to 2000 or so they only released data for the Top 100 sellers.
    • As a followup, the primary source for this type of information doesn't have details for this particular issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the responses. Aoba47 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful work with this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for taking the time to look! I have responded to all of your points. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review

spotchecks not done

• FN3 should include publication date

• Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names

• Citations to multiple pages should use |pages= rather than |page=

• Fn13 is missing publisher and location. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • These have all been corrected. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I wish I had read this comic before reviewing here, but well, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Batton Lash should be linked i the image caption.
• The first paragraph under Development should not only end with a note, but also with a citation.
• Hero Illustrated and Comic Book Resources are duplinked.
• I sent you an email with some material that might be useful as sources.
• "Each artist was responsible for drawing the characters and backgrounds associated with their company's intellectual property" But what was the procedure when characters from each universe meet in the same panels?
  • It worked the same. If the characters met in Riverdale High, then Goldberg drew Archie and the background, Buscema drew the Punisher. If it was in Punisher's van, then Buscema drew the background and Goldberg drew Archie. I assume the background artist did the layout and provided a stick figure or something to guide the character artist, but I don't have a source saying that.
• "such as Archie vs. Sharknado, Archie Meets KISS, and Archie Meets Glee" Give years?
• "Prior to the release of Archie vs. Predator in 2015, Geek.com felt that Archie Meets the Punisher was the gold standard for unlikely crossovers."
  • I rewrote this one to be more clear. (I'm guessing that's why it was copied here?) Argento Surfer (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I forgot to add my comment, which was that does this imply that AVP is the "new" standard? FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note - This has been open for well over a month and hasn't gained much traction for promotion. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2018 [24].

---

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about an aviation regiment of the Soviet Air Defense Forces and later the Russian Air Force that had a 68-year career. The article passed GA and a Milhist A-Class review before I nominated it. Kges1901 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by PM

• in the lead, suggest "After the war, it moved to an airfield..." and perhaps indicate in what direction and how far Yaroslavl is from Moscow

• Done.

• IAP is introduced in the body without explanation, I assume from the lead that it means Fighter Aviation Regiment?

• Added 2nd explanation, but Dank removed it.
  • What I removed was one of the two instances of "(IAP)"; the same abbreviation shouldn't be defined twice at the beginning and end of two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies, I was wrong about it. Kges1901 (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• in the World War II section, are there any non-Soviet/Russian sources that confirm any of the claims by the 177th?

• No, unless one can match Luftwaffe loss data to kill locations.

• I would put the Winter War before WWII when mentioning Talalikhin's victories

• Done.

• suggest "three shared victories each" for clarity

• Done.

• suggest "The 177th aircraft and crews returned", as only 20 had been detached, not the whole 177th, unless that was the whole regiment

• Rephrased - it was indeed the entire regiment.

• Did the regiment not engage in any combat after 1 Oct 1943? Were there no raids on Moscow in that time?

• No, the Germans apparently lost the ability to make long range raids by that point in the war. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• was Fomin's victory confirmed in non-Soviet/Russian sources?

• Yes, the USAF reported an air-to-air loss on that date and mentions Kwaksan, which is near where the Soviet account mentioned the combat taking place[25].

• how many of the regiment's claimed victories in December 1950 are confirmed in non-Soviet/Russian sources?

• Only the F-80 claim on 27 December and F-86 claim on 22 December. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• in general, it appears there is only one source for most claims in Korea, Seidov & Britton 2014. Are there other perhaps non-Soviet/Russian sources that confirm these victories?

• Yes, a relatively small number are confirmed by the USAF. Kges1901 (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• suggest "the 177th IAP flew"

• Done.

• a pic of a Sukhoi Su-9 would be good, considering it flew them for 20 years

• Done.

• in general, the repetition of PVO after every regiment, division etc is jarring. I appreciate you are mostly redlinking, but I suggest piping to get rid of the PVO. The equivalent is RAF, RAAF or USAAF/USAF and we wouldn't usually append that each time we mentioned a different squadron of the RAF, for example.

• Piped. Only two units mentioned are not PVO anyway. Kges1901 (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Overall, this article is in great shape. I'd like to see some corroboration of Soviet victory claims from non-Soviet/Russian sources to be completely comfortable that criteria 1c. and d. are met. I've requested a review of Seidov & Britton from Air Power History as I'm unfamiliar with its quality. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• PM, please refer to my comments on the ACR for my interpretation of the Seidov and Britton. If there is any way I can further emphasize that these are only Soviet claims and uncorroborated by the Americans, feel free to suggest it. Kges1901 (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• I'm not taking any position on the first paragraph ... it will be fine for some tastes, and not for others.
• "Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 jet fighters, which were swiftly replaced by the Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-15 jet fighter.": Either singular or plural is fine, but don't flip back and forth.

• Rephrased, also removed repetition of jet fighters.

• There are more red links than people generally like to see at FAC. It would help if you could write some stubs.

• Will do.

• "providing air defense for Moscow, from the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign": That's perfectly good British English, but most Americans need to see a "to" after "from" to get that it means "beginning in", unlike in Commonwealth countries. So, is this AmEng? I see "familiarizing" later on. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Rephrased. American English. Kges1901 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The changes look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• I have serious reservations about the book by Seidov and Britton upon which this article draws heavily. My concerns are drawn from a review of the book in Air Power History which I obtained through WP:RX. It is less-than-glowing, to say the least, stating that it is a poor excuse for an military aviation history book, "unbridled acceptance of North Korean, Chinese and Russian victory claims while vilifying and denouncing all American and British documentation of aircraft and aircrew lost as fallacious propaganda", that the authors overstate the number of Sabres shot down by Soviet pilots by a factor of more than 2.5 (650 vs. 224), a lack of source references for the "misinformation" in the book, gross deficits in technical knowledge about US aircraft and Korean geography, and concludes it contains 400 pages of misinformation, has a flawed premise and contains false conclusions. Pretty damning stuff. I don't think it meets our requirements for high quality reliable sources at FA. Happy to share the review, just send me an email. Also pinging Ian Rose who queried this text in the Milhist A-Class review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Peacemaker67: Can Seidov be used as a source for only the information that the Soviets claimed a certain number of victories (which is what the article uses it for), or should I remove claimed Soviet victory totals? Kges1901 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the review, I actually think that the source is unreliable and shouldn't be used at all in a FA. You could ask for an opinion at WP:RSN if you felt that is too harsh. However, if the consensus among other reviewers was that it could be used with care as a questionable source because it has "a poor reputation for checking the facts", QS are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others (including victory claims in this case). If other reviewers thought it was reliable, IMHO it would have to be explicitly stated in the article that Seidov significantly overstates Soviet victories, and all claims from Seidov would need to be attributed to him in-line thereafter. There is also the issue of the "supercharger", which clearly isn't right and needs to be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've reworded the sections to make it clear that these tallies were only based on the Soviets reports of themselves, and removed the supercharger part as well as any vestigial parts of Seidov's analysis of Soviet pilots' firsthand reports. Kges1901 (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I don't think that is enough. I don't think Seidov can be used except for the basic material Ian Rose has mentioned, names of pilots, moves of unit, what engagements they were involved in, but his victory claims are so obviously overstated as to be unusable, as he hasn't even attempted to match them to US/UN losses in many cases. Without US/UN versions for these matters to contrast with, I don't think you can mention victory claims using Seidov on their own, as they are clearly misleading. Even if you do use him, you will need to attribute him in-text with a statement about the inaccuracies in his book, and really, that isn't consistent with sourcing standards for a FA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties here, I reviewed at MilHist ACR and was okay with prose after copyediting, I've just tweaked a couple of things after checking changes since I last edited the article. One thing re. the lead:

• "After completing its formation in July 1941, the 177th spent World War II providing air defense for Moscow, from the early stages of the Eastern Front campaign to the end of the war." -- I saw Dan's point about the initial version of this sentence and agree that the "from" part deserved a "to" clause. My concern now though is that the last part is redundant -- if it spent WWII doing something that implies it did it till the end of the war -- so might be better to just drop everything after "Moscow".

• Entirely rephrased. I was trying to convey that it did not spend all of the war doing that since it was not operational until weeks into the German-Soviet War.

Re. sourcing, tks PM for getting hold of that review of Seidov and Britton. The issues with the book that I expressed at ACR were based purely on my own reading of various passages so it's useful to know that someone with more professional expertise than I has articulated concerns as well. In response to Kges' query above, I'm now dubious about using the book as the sole source for even ambiguously worded combat accounts. As the Air Power History review suggests, the book is probably all right for sourcing the unit's movements, commanding officers, losses and so on, as well as the pilots' personal experiences, but I think that's about it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• In his review, which can be found for free here, Dildy did state, however, that Seidov supplies a wealth of detail and data regarding Soviet units, commanders, pilots, and operations.. As a result, can Seidov still be used for at least what patrols they made, and with a stronger rephrasing of the accounts of the claims, perhaps "their pilots reported that they had downed", "reported that they had engaged" etc. "uncorroborated by the USAF." I would rather not remove text if it can be avoided, because Krylov and Tepsurkaev, the only other detailed source, focus on B-29 combat and thus there would be a gap between 10 January and the end of their tour. Kges1901 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think that's fine. That sort of stuff is unlikely to be influenced by author biases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk

• I'll have a look soon, some initial comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• There seems to be unnecessary space between the intro and the table of contents.

• Done.

• You could mention the years in the captions of all the historical photos.

• Done.

• WW2 and Russian are duplinked in the intro, and NATO is duplinked in the last section.

• Done. Thanks, Kges1901 (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Model names should be linked in image captions.

• Done.

• The caption that says "Three MiG-15s attacking B-29s in 1951" Could specify that the latter were American (isn't self-evident to everyone).

• Done.

• " Manchuria (part of China)" Perhaps specify eastern China?

• Changed to 'northeast china' as eastern China means something different.

• No insignia to show in the infobox?

• The unit did not have a unique insignia.

• "in late 2009, the 177th was disbanded during the reform of the Russian Air Force" Anything on what happened with its materiel and personnel?

• I have not been able to find anything about it, the Russians would probably not reveal that. Kges1901 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - well-polished article, as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Link reconnaissance aircraft, Kaesong

• Done the recon a/c, but that would be the wrong Kaesong, apparently.

• For future reference, Zhang, Xiaoming (2002). Red Wings Over the Yalu: China, the Soviet Union, and the Air War in Korea. Texas A & M University Military History. 80. College Station, Texas: Texas A & M University Press. ISBN 1-58544-201-1 might be useful to replace Seidov

• Zhang actually sources his mentions of the 177th from Seidov's original Russian book.

• including one bomber, 15 fighter-bombers, and eight fighters Be consistent about spelling out or using digits. Consistency overrides normal MOS rules for spelling out numbers.

• Done.

• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate note - This has been open for two months and I don't feel there is sufficient consensus for promotion, especially considering the issues stated with Seidov and Britton. This issue should be solved outside of FAC and consensus reached on the appropriate usage of the source. --Laser brain (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2018 [26].

---

Deep Space Homer

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a second run at FA for this article. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I believe this article is ready for another go. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: Notifying Aoba47 about second run as the user was the most concerned for the first run. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Kees08

Placeholder, plan to review this when I have time. Kees08 (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kees08, this nom could certainly do with further review so if you can find the time that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Are we supposed to use decorative quotes at the beginning there?
• Personal preference, but I like In the episode, NASA hoped to boost public interest in spaceflight by selecting an ordinary man, Homer Simpson, for a space mission. better than In the episode, NASA selects ordinary man Homer Simpson for a space mission, hoping to boost public interest in spaceflight.
• This doesn't flow great: It was well received, with many critics and fans calling it one of the best Simpsons episodes; a copy is available for astronauts to view at the International Space Station.
• Well, they were going to send people, but the program was cancelled before they did. Mirkin based the story on NASA's Teacher in Space Project that sent ordinary civilians into space to increase interest among the general public.
• Reword this: The writers focused more on the relationship between Homer and his family and his attempts to be a hero than on a linear plot.

Is there a place online I can legally stream this? I will review the plot section once I can view it.

The prose is not great so far, I would recommend trying to rewrite it to flow better. Things like As some writers were concerned that Aldrin would consider his line "second comes right after first" an insult, they wrote an alternative "first to take a soil sample"; Aldrin had no problem with the original line. could be written better. The paragraph does not make it clear which line they ended up using, and does not flow well in general. Kees08 (Talk) 17:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: Fixed all of your issues stated. You can stream this on "FXNOW: Simpsons World" however you will need to enter a cable provider. They do give free trials to newcomers on the website though.

Those were examples of the issues, and not a comprehensive list. The article needs better prose and a better plot summary. It also uses a significant number of primary sources, it would be great if you could find more secondary sources. If another major rewrite is performed, ping me and I will check it again. Sorry, I know you have put a lot of work into this. Kees08 (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I reread it, and I still think the prose needs work. You can try using WP:GOCE if you need additional help. I apologize that I do not have the time for the back and forth the other reviewers have had. I wish the nomination luck and for your future success. Kees08 (Talk) 18:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Kees08: I will continue to work on it, however I am currently on vacation at the moment until thursday. AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Current discussion on Prose

@Kees08: I'm probably responsible for some of the things you don't like about the prose and plot summary, as I copyedited the entire article very dramatically a few days ago. Can you give examples of why you don't like elements of those things? For example, what's wrong with the plot summary? Popcornduff (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Popcornduff: Thank you so much for the ce and the backup. I have a similar message below to Kees as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Kees08: Thank you for your insight but I literally have spent over 50 edits these past few months improving the refs and prose. With the help of others, I completely redid the refs from its previous review in February. The prose has been massively changed thanks to Aoba47 (talk · contribs) as well. Can you please give examples of where you would want to see improved prose and refs? AmericanAir88(talk) 01:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC) Sure. I brought up decorative quotes, but you only fixed the instance I noted and not other instances in the article. G-force should be g-forces (per the linked article). The reception talks about the episode being one of the greatest ever, while the Broadcast and reception section talks about it being rated lower than the episode the week prior, with no language used to describe the disparity. I was surprised when I was on the Simpsons site to find it rated around the same as the other episodes from the season. When the NASA employees ask Barney to be their astronaut, Homer takes credit. The next paragraph talks about Barney and Homer training, even though the preceding paragraph did not mention they were both selected, which is a little jarring. Again, just picking out a few things, without going into much depth. If a major rewrite takes place, please ping me and I will reread the article. Kees08 (Talk) 03:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Kees08: I will perform a sweep of the episode and look for issues. The writers cite the episode as being one of the greatest. It does not say one of the most viewed. Just because ratings were lower does not mean the reception was not good. Personally, I feel your stance is too soon as you have not clearly stated what is wrong with the passage such as what Aoba did. Thanks again Popcornduff (talk · contribs) for the help. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC) @Kees08: I did a complete sweep and some copy edits but I still am not fully figuring out your reasoning for the oppose. The article reads fine and I would appreciate if you could give me specific quotes to work on similar to what Aoba47 (talk · contribs) did. Aoba47 (talk · contribs) provides countless quotes and advice for the article and still ended with a support vote. You have put an oppose vote up and have given minimal coverage on what you want fixed. Please give more insight. AmericanAir88(talk) 01:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Apologies for butting into this conversation. I just wanted to add my opinion as I have been pinged multiple times. Every reviewer has a different style for an FAC. I have seen users take a similar approach to Kees08, particularly during an oppose vote. He thinks the prose currently does not meet the standard for a featured article, and has voiced his opposition on that basis. I would suggest you look at the following essay (User:Mike Christie/Fix loops), specifically the following sentence (What each reviewer does is up to them, but it should be acceptable behaviour at FAC to oppose on prose and not be expected to give more than one or two examples, and not be expected to return and reread the article or provide a second round of examples) as it is applicable to this situation. I approach FACs differently as a reviewer, but I am by no means a particularly good FAC reviewer. I hope this message proves helpful to you. I am also uncertain if multiple pings will motivate Kees08 to respond. Good luck with this review, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thank you so much for your response and you are not bad at FAC. I apologize to Kees for the criticism but would like more examples from the user. I also want you Aoba to know that I am very sad of the news on your user page. I wish you the best of luck on your retirement and hope one day you return. You have been a fantastic guide and I hope you know the inspiration you gave me. Thank you and Good luck. See you around buddy. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: Indeed, and the problem of fix loops is why I generally don't get involved in FAC reviews. I would have cited a bunch of prose problems and opposed this nom, but decided it would be more productive to rewrite it myself, leave a few more suggestions, and leave it at that. Popcornduff (talk) 03:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC) I completely understand that. I think it important to always have transparency (i.e. letting the nominator know that you believe the prose issues are too great to be resolved in an FAC setting and you would not return for further comment) and courtesy (there is no reason for sly/snarky comments) in the FAC process, especially during an oppose vote. I mean a more general "you" (i.e. a general reviewer) not specifically you ><. I appreciate Mike Christie for writing the essay as I think it is helpful when thinking about an FAC review from both sides. I just hope that the FAC process serves as an encouraging area for both the nominator and the reviewer. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Media review

• File:A screenshot of a famous news scene in the Simpsons Episode "Deep Space Homer".jpg
  • In the summary page, put a space before the parenthesis 'Simpsons World(Watching the episode and taking a screenshot)'
  • Not good for the purpose in the article. Rewrite that bit to be appropriate: 'I am doing this as a editor in the "Featured article" section asked for it. '
  • Say where it actually is, and use proper grammar: 'I will use it once either in "reception" or in the infobox. It will one of two photos in the article.'
  • I think you can fill out NFCC 1 and 2
  • In the 'Non-free media data' section, several things are capitalized inappropriately
• File:David Mirkin by Gage Skidmore.jpg - doesn't match the license for his Flickr page. Not sure if it matters? Also not sure there is even a difference between the unported and generic licenses.

It matches as Flickr says to please attribute.

• File:Aldrin.jpg - caption is fine, source is fine, license is fine. Too bad there is not a free image of him around 1994 that is any good (closest I saw were 1989 and 1999, and both low quality).

All good

@Kees08: All done. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems good now. Passes media review. Kees08 (Talk) 23:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Resolved comments

References are normally discouraged in the lead, unless you are citing controversial information. I believe that the information currently cited in the lead should be present and cited in the body of the article, which would make the current citations unnecessary. I would rephrase the first two sentences of the lead to something like the following (“Deep Space Homer” is an episode of the American animated sitcom The Simpsons. It is the 15th episode of the fifth season, and was first broadcast by FOX on February 24, 1994.) with the appropriate wikilinks where necessary. The reference formatting for the books is inconsistent. There are instances where you use the page number and link to a bibliography (i.e reference 19) and there are other cases where you just cite the entire book (i.e. reference 17). I would revise the article to follow the first pattern. Some of the references are incorrectly filled out for the work/publisher parameters. For instance, reference 1 should be a wikilink to Stuff.co.nz as opposed to Stuff.co, and Vulture needs to be linked in reference 12. Wikilink Adweek in reference 21. I would make check all of the references for this. Please be consistent with how dates are formatted in the references. Some do MDY and others do YMD; some have it all in numbers, while others write out the month. Any way is fine as long as it is consistent throughout the article. I am uncertain about the reliability of reference 14. Using a source written by Wikipedia contributors as a Wikipedia source does not seem appropriate to me. I am not sure why you mark reference 6 as “in Arabic” when it is in English when I click on it. What makes the following sources (therealgentlemenofleisure.com, Simpsons Archive) reliable sources? I am not saying that they are bad, but I was wondering if you could point to something that shows their reliability. Aoba47 I fixed gentlemenofleisure but the Simpsons archive has information not attainable anywhere else. The couch gag and Piece are things very visually noticeable in the episode. I am not using it to expand the article, more as a way of proof. AmericanAir88(talk) 00:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC) I think you can paraphrase this quote "inanimate carbon rod”. Aoba47 The phrase is used in the episode very prominently. You still want me to paraphrase it? AmericanAir88(talk) 00:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. I have not seen the episode in a very long time. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC) *I would revise this sentence (A version of James Taylor's 1970 single "Fire and Rain" was recorded specifically for the episode containing some altered lyrics.) to (A version of James Taylor's 1970 single "Fire and Rain", containing altered lyrics, was recorded for the episode). This sentence (He also sings You've Got a Friend.) has several issues. Who is “he” in this sentence? “You’ve Got a Friend” is missing quotation marks and a descriptive phrase in front of it. I would revise this sentence (Although the episode was directed by Carlos Baeza, the potato chip sequence was directed by David Silverman.) to avoid repetition of “was directed by”. You could shorten the following sentence (At the Power Plant, it is the ceremony for the "Worker of the Week" award and Homer, believes he will win.) to this suggestion (At the Power Plant, Homer believes that he will win the “Worker of the Week” award.) for more concise language. I am uncertain about the comma placement in this sentence (His boss Mr. Burns, instead gives the award to an "inanimate carbon rod”.). This sentence (Homer, feeling that no one respects him, turns to TV and comes across a live space shuttle launch, which he finds dull, prompting Homer to make an angry call to NASA.) is very awkwardly phrased and needs revision. I would revise this sentence (Due to the call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.) to the following (After hearing Homer’s call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.). I have two issues with this sentence (The episode was very well received with many critics and fans calling it the best episode of the Simpsons.) from the lead. I think you can avoid the repetition of the word "episode" and it should be "The Simpsons" as opposed to "the Simpsons". The prose for the “Plot” section as a whole could use some tightening and revision to avoid awkwardly constructed sentences. I will go more in-depth for future comments. A copy-edit from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors may be helpful. I would revise the image caption ("Deep Space Homer" is the only episode credited as being written by David Mirkin (pictured in 2012).) to (“Deep Space Homer” is the only episode that David Mirkin (pictured in 2012) wrote for The Simpsons.). Make sure that all of the references are placed in numerical order. One instance where they are not is (Several silly gags were therefore toned down to make the episode feel more realistic, including an idea that everyone at NASA was as stupid as Homer.). This sentence (Some computer animation created using an Amiga was used in the sequence in order to make the potato chip rotation as smooth as possible.) is very awkwardly worded and I would rewrite it. For instane you use “use” twice in the same sentence. You never actually say or cite in the body of the article that the episode aired on February 24, 1994. It would also be nice to include the time that it was broadcast. I believe you can revise this sentence (In his book, Planet Simpson, Chris Turner names the episode as being one of his five favorites, saying it is "second to none", despite listing "Last Exit to Springfield" as his favorite episode.) to avoid repeating “episode” and “favorite” twice. Make sure the "Bibliography" subsection is alphabetized. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC) I can tell that you have put a lot of work into this article, but I still think there is a lot of work left to be done. There are key issues with the reference formatting, and I have noticed issues of prose throughout the article. I think a thorough copy-edit would be benficial. I will provide more comments in the future if/when these are addressed, but I did not want to leave too long of a list. I hope that you find this helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 All done. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for resolving my comments. I am going to do a more thorough review of the prose either this weekend or next week (as I am busy with off-Wikipedia obligations this week). Please ping me by the end of next week if you have not heard from me. Good job with the article, and I hope that you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 Thank you for the help and praise. Talk to you whenever you are back. Good luck with the obligations. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:18, 29 August 2018 (UTC) The dates are still not consistent in the references section. For instance, reference 3 uses MDY, while reference 15 uses YMD. There are some inconsistencies even within the same reference (for instance, you use MDY and DMY for reference 10). The formatting should be consistent throughout each reference so please correct this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Aoba47 Done AmericanAir88(talk) 19:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC) Below are comments/suggestions that I have just for the “Plot” section. Apologies for going slowly through the article, but I just wanted to make sure that I do a thorough review. For this sentence (At the Power Plant, Homer believes that he will win the “Worker of the Week” award.), I am not sure that “Power Plant” should in caps as it is not a proper noun. Unless you are going to include the full name of the power plant, then I would believe it should be in lowercase. I would use the full name of the plant (i.e. the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant). This sentence (While watching TV, Homer comes across a live space shuttle launch, which he finds dull, prompting Homer to make an angry call to NASA.) is very awkwardly phrased. A possible revision is the following: (Homer watches a space shuttle launch on television, but finds it dull and calls NASA to complain.) I think you revise this sentence (Meanwhile, NASA, frustrated over its drop in the Nielsen ratings, decides to send an "average shmoe" into space as the solution.) to something like this (Meanwhile, NASA decides to send an “average shmore” into space in response to a drop in its Nielsen ratings.). I would revise this sentence (After hearing Homer’s call, NASA chiefs realize they have found their man.) to the following (NASA chiefs pick Homer after hearing his phone call.). I would try to revise the following sentence (When they arrive at Moe's Tavern in search of Homer, Homer believes he is in trouble for making the call and blames Barney for the incident.) to avoid having “Homer” repeated twice right after each other. I am confused by this sentence (However, when Barney toasts his victory with a non-alcoholic drink, he reverts to his normal alcoholic self and escapes.). How would Barney “revert to his normal alcoholic self” by drinking a non-alcoholic beverage? Aoba47 Thats the joke. Barney is a drunk and is so addicted to alcohol that he reverted to his old self even with a non-alcoholic beverage. Reworked a bit. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC) For this sentence (Homer wins by default and is selected for space flight, but he becomes nervous about going.), I think you can remove “about going” as it is clear from the context. For this sentence (He talks with his wife Marge on the phone, and she says that he ought to take advantage of the opportunity.), I would use “should” instead of “ought to”. I would revise the following sentence (He agrees, and the launch, which is also a Nielsen ratings smash, proceeds.) as it reads rather awkwardly. I am also not sure what you mean by “also”, as you have not mentioned anything else being “a Nielsen ratings smash”, in previous sentences. I would also use different wording than “smash” as it is rather informal. The word “success” may be more appropriate. I would avoid the use of the word “reveals” in this part (Homer reveals he has smuggled potato chips on board). To avoid it, I would revise these two sentences (In space, Homer reveals he has smuggled potato chips on board. He opens the bag, but due to the effects of weightlessness, they spread around and clog the instruments.) to (Homer smuggles potato chips on board the shuttle. While in space, he opens the bag, and the chips spread around and clog the instruments due to the effects of weightlessness.). I have also revised some of the language/sentence order in my suggestion. For this part, I would say “his family” instead of “the family”. For this sentence (Although Homer is a hero, the press only has eyes for the carbon rod that he used.), I would use a different word than “only has eyes for” as it sounds somewhat too informal. Again, I hope you find this helpful. I will be going through the rest of the sections either this weekend or next week. I would also like to add that the original airdate does not need a reference in the infobox as that information should be present and cited in the body of the article. The infobox should also include the runtime, and that information should also be present and cited in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: All done with your comments. The runtime cannot be added to the infobox as the Simpsons IBox template does not contain it. The main Simpsons article says that all episodes excluding specials are 22 minutes. Runtime seems pointless in the article. Thank you again. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for addressing my comments. I will get to the rest of the sections in a few days. My comment about the reference for the airdate in the infobox was not addressed though. Aoba47 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: Thanks for this thorough review. I forgot to remove the Box ref but did mention it in the article. All good now. AmericanAir88(talk) 11:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Below are my comments and suggestions for the “Production” section: I would revise this sentence ("Deep Space Homer" was written by then-executive producer David Mirkin.) to avoid the passive tense/voice. Also, please make it clear what reference is being used to support this sentence. For this part (Mirkin had worked on the idea for the episode for a long time), could you clarify what is meant by a “long time”? It is rather vague, and it could mean anything from days, weeks, months, or years. If you do not have more exact information on this, then I believe you could cut it and have the sentence read “Mirkin based the story…). I have two comments for this part (basing the story on NASA's Teacher in Space Project to send ordinary civilians into space in order to increase interest amongst the general public.). Rather than “to send ordinary civilians”, I would say “that sent ordinary civilians” and I would cut “in order to” to just “to” to be more concise. I think you can condense and combine these two sentences (There was some controversy amongst the show's writing staff during production as some felt that having Homer go into space was too large an idea.[5][6] Matt Groening felt that the idea was so big that it gave the writers "nowhere to go".[4]) to the following suggestion (The show’s writing staff felt sending Homer into space was too large an idea, and Matt Groening said that it gave the writers “nowhere to go”.). For this part (Several silly gags were therefore), I think you can remove the word “silly” and just say “gags”. For this part (the relationship between Homer and his family and Homer's attempts to be a hero.), I think it should be “his attempts to be a hero”. Unlink James Taylor and Buzz Aldrin as they were linked in the “Plot” section. I would revise this sentence (Some of the writers were concerned about Aldrin's line, "second comes right after first", feeling it was insulting to Aldrin.) to the following (Some of the writers were concerned that Aldrin would consider his line, "second comes right after first”, an insult.). I have two comments for this part (An alternative line was written: "first to take a soil sample", but Aldrin had no problem with saying the original line.). I think that the colon should be changed to a comma, and avoid repeating the word “line” so much. For this sentence (Taylor also sings Carole King's "You've Got a Friend".), specify the year in which the song was released. For this sentence (The potato chip sequence was directed by David Silverman instead of the episodes director, Carlos Baeza.), it should be “episode’s” instead of “episodes”. For this sentence (Some computer animation was created with Amiga and was used to make the potato chip rotation as smooth as possible.), I would cut down “and was used to” to just “to” for more concise language. The following are comments for the “Themes” section: I have two comments for this sentence (The episode contains numerous references to Stanley Kubrick's 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey:). I think you can use the episode title in the beginning, and I would end the sentence with a period rather than a colon. I would make each of the following parts into their own sentence to avoid having a run-on list. I would revise the following sentence (in the space shuttle, Homer floats in zero gravity, eating potato chips (this echoes the docking scene in 2001, with the use of the music piece The Blue Danube)) to something like this for more concise language (The scene in which Homer floats in zero gravity and eats potato chips includes the musical piece The Blue Danube as a reference to the movie.). The source provided does not specify it is a reference to the docking scene. For this sentence (tchy comes out to torture Scratchy in an EVA pod much like those aboard the Discovery craft), please wikilink Itchy and Scratchy (they are redirects to The Itchy & Scratchy Show). I am a little confused by the sentence as the plot section does not reference Itchy or Scratchy. I am assuming that Homer or someone else watches an episode prior to the space launch (again, it has been many many years since I have seen this lol). Some clarification would be helpful. I would condense down this sentence (and at the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker into the air – in slow motion, it rotates in mid-air, before a match cut replaces it with a cylindrical satellite (this parodies a similar transition scene between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the famous Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra).) to something like this (At the end of the episode, Bart throws a marker, that rotates in slow motion, before a match cut replaces it with a cylindrical satellite. It is a parody of a similar transition between "The Dawn of Man" and the future sequence in the film, including the use of the Richard Strauss piece Also sprach Zarathustra.) I will get to the “Reception” section sometime this weekend. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate comments for my current FAC. It is not as popular as this episode by a long shot, but I would greatly appreciate any help. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: All done with suggestions. Thank you again for this amazing help. Ill give insight on your FAC. AmericanAir88(talk) 02:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I am just glad that I can help in any way. Thank you. It is a short article so hopefully, it should not be too much of a bother. Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Below are my comments on the “Reception” section: Do you know the time that the episode aired? I would add that information to the first sentence of the first paragraph. Add a few sentences on the formats in which the episode is available to watch (i.e. DVD, Blu-ray, digital download, and streaming) with appropriate sources. Unlink “Nielsen ratings” as you already have it linked in a previous section. Avoid using the episode’s full title in the first two sentences of the first paragraph. Do you have information on the episode that aired directly before and directly after this to see how this episode’s ratings compared to the previous one, or if the next one had higher or lower ratings compared to this one. I would recommend making the first paragraph into its own section (as it will be expanded with information about its release) called “Broadcast history and release”. Link Fox as you have done so in the body of the article. Why is reference 5 awkwardly placed in the middle of the sentence about MSNBC as it does not seem connected? MSNBC should not be in italics. Instead of “Empire Magazine”, just say Empire and italicize it. IGN should not be in italics. Add the year in which Planet Simpson was published. There is not a clear structure to the second paragraph. It jumps around between these three points: 1) NASA loving the episode and including it on the ISS, 2) positive critical reception, and 3) the references in Tapped Out. I would make sure each paragraph has a structure/flow. Here is a good resource for copyediting reception sections (Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections). The third paragraph also jumps around from talking about 1) the guest performances to 2) the staff response. Link Planet of the Apes. The Empire Magazine sentence is missing punctuation (i.e. a period at the end). The sentences on Planet Simpson could use from revision as they are awkwardly phrased. Some of the sentences say that X thinks that “Deep Space Homer” is one of the best episodes (i.e. Empire and The Daily Telegraph), but do they explain why they thought this? Link Chris Turner. I hope that this is helpful. I also just noticed that you reference The Right Stuff in the lead, but it is not included anywhere in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC) @Aoba47: All done. Thank you so much. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. Apologies for the extreme length of the review. I support this for promotion. Great work with this, as I feel that this has improved a great deal since the last FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for all your help! Good luck on your FAC as well! AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Indopug

Comment Not sure what ref6 "Commentary, Simpsons World" refers to? The link is broken too.—indopug (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Indopug: It is referring to commentary on the episode by the writers on the website of Simpsons World. I have fixed it. Thank you AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from FunkMonk

• I'll take a look at this soon. Some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
• David Silverman is overlinked.
• You could give an example of an overlord meme, unless readers know about it already, they would have no idea what it entails. You explain a bit further in an image caption, but that is not the place for unique information; it should also be stated in the article body.
• "created with Amiga" With or on an Amiga? Also, probably good to specify it is a computer.
• Groening is neither lined or introduced in the article body.
• You should spell out Homer Simpson at first mention in the intro and article body. A bit too esoteric otherwise.
• "The writers focused more upon the relationship between Homer and his family and his attempts to be a hero" Than on what?
• The astronauts (and everyone else, such as James Taylor) mentioned also need to be linked and presented as astronauts, both in intro and article body.
• "A version of James Taylor's 1970 single" You don't need to spell names out after first mention in the article body.
• "the musical piece The Blue Danube" Mention composer, as you do with other music pieces.
• "with people replacing the ant photo" This is awkwardly written. Something like "wherein the ant photo is replaced with" would sound better.

@FunkMonk: All done. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, more below. FunkMonk (talk)

• "which is lifted from Kent Brockman's line" Since the reader may not know what line you're referring to, could be quoted here.
• "The term was used by New Scientist magazine" In reference to what?
• "rule over humanity such as robots" Comma before "such as robots".
• Could you add some dates for the various commentaries and events listed under reception?
• Groening, Silverman, and possibly others, don't need their full names spelled out multiple times after first occurrence either.
• "who was also the executive producer at the time." Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
• Barney should be linked in the intro.
• "instead of the episode's director, Carlos Baeza" Seems a bit strange that the main director is only mentioned as an aside?

@FunkMonk: All done with new issues. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks good to me now. I wondfer if you should explain why Brockman thinks giant ants will take over the world... FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Thank you! He thinks that as when he is looking at footage inside the shuttle, a giant ant appears infront of the camera which scares him. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I wonder if it should be clarified in the article for context. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: That idea was in my head but I felt as it would not benefit the article as its implied in the plot section that ants broke loose. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, there's a bit of a leap from ants breaking lose and someone thinking they're giant, but it's your call. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I put a small mention in the plot on how it scared Kent Brockman. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:32, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Popcornduff

MOS:TVPLOT: "Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words." As I look at the article now, it has 484 words. This isn't just a matter of enforcing policy - the description of the hatch stuff is very wordy, for example. I've drastically trimmed several Simpsons plot summaries over the years, many of them FA or GA, and it seems to be a recurring problem. Popcornduff (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've edited this down now. Popcornduff (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Update 2: I've copyedited the entire article, as I didn't think the prose quality as it stood was up to FA scratch. Sorry to create extra work for people, but the editors who've reviewed it so far might want to read it again to see how it stands now. I have a few further comments:

• Should add something brief (like one sentence) to the lead to cover production (ie writers feared it was too wacky and toned it down)
• NASA loved the episode and Aldrin's cameo Loved it why? Is there a quote we can add to expand on this? It's vague.
• contains one of Groening's least favorite jokes, why doesn't Groening like it? Popcornduff (talk) 03:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• Do we really need the long string of sources following the info about a copy being placed on the space station? Popcornduff (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Addressing. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: I have Fixed everything. I removed the "NASA loved...cameo" sentence and strengthened the ISS sentence as it is implied that they enjoyed it. I rewatched the commentaries and found Groenings reasoning. Thanks for the help on the summary! AmericanAir88^(talk) 01:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Coord note

Sorry but this nom has been open over six weeks and we still don't have consensus to promote. OTOH we have a call for a complete copyedit and that should take place outside the FAC process, after which (and provided the usual two weeks has passed) you can renominate and ping the earlier reviewers for another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 [27].

---

Ludwigsburg Palace

Nominator(s): Vami_IV† 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace, the "Versailles of Swabia," is a current Good Article and Did You Know subject. The palace has four distinct architectural styles, a massive garden, hosts musical festivals annually, and once housed a porcelain manufactory. This is my first attempt at a Featured Article as well as the article's, but I've had aspirations for the bronze star for a long time now. Vami_IV† 19:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Other contributors: User:Farang Rak Tham (GA Reviewer), User:Jmar67 (copy editor).

Image review

• 1889 plan should be scaled up

•  Done –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Germany does not have freedom of panorama for interiors of buildings or sculptural works not permanently in place, so all of these images will need tags for the copyright status of the pictured elements

• The only image that I, a copyright novice, can think of that would violate FoP is the image of the porcelains in the museum. However, those are in the collection of a state-owned museum in a state-owned palace. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• This applies to File:Ludwigsburg,_November_2006,_27.jpg, File:J_C_W_Beyer_Celllospieler_KGM_img01.jpg, File:Ludwigsbg_mirror.JPG, File:Ludwisburg.jpg, File:RSLB_Riesen_im_Riesenbau.jpg, File:Ludwigsburg,_November_2006,_17.jpg, File:RSLB_Kirche1.jpg, File:RSLB_Ahnengalerie4_Bildergalerie_gegenueber.jpg, File:RSLB_Schlafzimmer_Koenig_Friedrich.jpg, and File:238_Waschgarnitur_Ludwigsburg_c1805-1816_02.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Axed all images of the palace interiors. –Vami_IV† 06:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:Residenzschloss_Ludwigsburg_floorplan_(numbered).jpg: if the creator of the source map is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?

• As it turns out, the author didn't; he died in 1938. Should I replace the image with the original work plan on the German version of Ludwigsburg Palace? –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done Did this anyway and replaced. –Vami_IV† 18:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• What is the source of the data underlying the new map? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• Original work, 2017, by Commons user Gerd Leibrock. –Vami_IV† 05:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

• File:Schloss_Ludwigsburg_1705.jpg: source links are dead. Same with File:A008318a.jpg

•  Done First picture axed from article, repaired source link for the second. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• What is the source of the data underlying the various Bluehender_Barock diagrams? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Done They're original works, but I've added a reference and citation to the Blooming Baroque website's map of the gardens. The website's map is at an angle and looking from the northeast, however. –Vami_IV† 18:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: What tag should I be using on the images? I'm new to image copyright.

Comments from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

@Casliber:

• built for the dukes of Württemberg. - I'd put this in the second sentence of the lead rather than at the end of the first where it is now. it's a bit clunky as is.

• I've removed it instead. –Vami_IV† 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• arranged as it might have appeared in 1800 - "they"? aren't we talking about "gardens"?

• There is no instance of the word "they" in the lead. –Vami_IV† 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• It is currently "it" but as it is referring to the gardens (which is plural), it should be "they" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Fixed

• A porcelain manufactory - why not just, "A porcelain factory"

•  Done –Vami_IV† 05:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• Frisoni should be wikilinked and mentioned by whole name on his first mention in the article.

•  Fixed

• Several other people have the same problem.

•  Done

Carabinieri

Hi, I haven't reviewed the article's prose in detail, but here are a few comments:

• What makes sueddeutscher-barock.ch and porcelainmarksandmore.com reliable sources? As far as I can tell those are personal websites. I also think stuttgart-tourist.de, briefmarken-versand-welt.de might be a bit iffy.

• I'm myself not sure how reliable Porcelain Marks is, because he doesn't cite sources, but Bieri Pius (Suddeutscher Barock) is legit. He's got his name, CC 2.0 license, and his library on his website. Region Stuttgart is a marketing company partnered with the city of Stuttgart, but I removed them from the article anyway because I only referenced them once. briefmarken-versand-welt.de is also gone now. –Vami_IV† 21:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• The fact that Süddeutscher Barock has a free license, an author name, and a list of sources doesn't make it reliable in my mind. If Porcelain Marks isn't reliable, it probably shouldn't be used.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• I can whittle down content from and then purge Porcelain Marks, but I'd like other opinions on Süddeutscher Barock's credentials. –Vami_IV† 19:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• According to the Süddeutscher Barock's impressum, it's Pius Bieri's personal website, and there's no indication anyone else is involved. That pretty clearly runs afoul of WP:RS, which deems sources "with no editorial oversight" questionable.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

• Understand, Pius Bieri was in the light in the dark here for me here and it would be very painful to throw him away, but I'll still bow to policy. I started looking into WP:RS/SPS's exceptions and then into Pius Bieri himself and found that he was fairly recently involved in a restoration of a Baroque building on Ufenau. –Vami_IV† 02:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I have conducted further research. Pius Bieri has also been on the team that restored this church and he's mentioned by name as a "further reading" source in Daniel Fulco's book Exuberant Apothoses, page 503, footnote 5. He is also in the bibliography of this book (page 360), coincidentally for a page I cited in the writing of Ludwigsburg Palace. Here's a Google Books search result for "Pius Bieri" –Vami_IV† 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• The first paragraph of the "Porcelain manufactory" seems to be a very close paraphrase of the porcelainmarksandmore.com page.

 Done I've rewritten the entire section from scratch and in one paragraph. –Vami_IV† 06:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• The references section contains a large number of sources that aren't actually cited in any of the footnotes.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Every single reference in "References" is linked by at least one citation. –Vami_IV† 19:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry. I missed it because a lot of them aren't listed under the author in the footnotes.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Quasi-oppose from Johnbod

All interior shots not of pieces of porcelain etc have been removed, following a comment above by Nikkimaria. This brings the article below the level where I can support. Fortunately I think her argument that "Germany does not have freedom of panorama for interiors of buildings or sculptural works not permanently in place, so all of these images will need tags for the copyright status of the pictured elements" is completely wrong. All the elements in all the photos previously there are either original 18th century pieces or possibly in some cases copies or restorations. But in any case there is no question of intellectual property rights remaining. We have never taken copyright to this excessive extent now, and it is important that this copyright creep is resisted. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, no. I didn't say all of them needed to be removed, but tagged to reflect current copyright status. We have always required appropriate tagging of images where copyright has expired due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I had no idea where to start so I opted for an ax rather than a labelmaker I don't know how to use. –Vami_IV† 11:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't agree with this approach, but the tags requested on the Commons files are not difficult (normally). Looking for an example, I went through several FAs of historic buildings with interior photos (including Palace of Queluz, Oregon State Capitol, Pennsylvania State Capitol, Michigan State Capitol, IG Farben Building and others), without finding any tags of this sort at all. I don't believe that we have ever required tagging of this type in such cases in fact. Nikkimaria, perhaps you could supply examples of FACs where such tags have been requested (or were already in place), and indeed an example of what such a tag would look like? Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't believe any of those would require such tagging - both Portugal and the US have freedom of panorama covering public interiors of buildings, and looks like the only Farben interior is utilitarian rather than creative (bookshelves). As to tagging, something like File:'Hiawatha's_Marriage',_marble_sculpture_by_Edmonia_Lewis,_1871.JPG would be a good model. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The US does not have FOP covering contents, works of art etc, just the actual structure, so is very comparable to the German cases here. Re Farben, if you think modern chair designs aren't copyrighted, you're very wrong! The Hiawatha image is of a single work. How many works do you think need tagging for in this, one of the images you complained about? Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Chair designs can be copyrighted, certainly, but to be so they need some originality - I don't agree that the ones in the Farber image are likely to qualify. But you are correct about the US images, I should have looked at those more closely rather than making a general statement. As to the image you cite, while there are multiple potentially copyrightable elements I suspect most if not all would fall under the same tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the images to the article. Let's stop fighting and figure out which tag to use. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Coordinator note - This has been open for over a month without attracting any support for promotion, so it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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