Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2024

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) 28 September 2024 [1].

---

Tesla Model S

Nominator(s): 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This is my fifth featured article nomination, after doing four successful nominations on Aston Martin cars. This article is about one of the most important and influential electric vehicles of the 21st century. This is a 6,000-word article with c. 300 references, meaning it is the longest and most-referenced article (second-longest article i've written) I've brought here. I believe this article, however, is well-written, well-referenced, and comprehensive. I plan to win the half-million award with this one, so any comments I receive i'll appreciate; and thanks for reviewing! 750h+ 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

UC

Lots of comments

The Daily Telegraph described the Model S as a "car that changed the world", but Road & Track called it "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]: unfortunately, this doesn't quite hold -- the Road & Track review is specifically about the "Plaid" version, and it's from ten years later -- it's pretty clear in context that they're talking about a) a decline in quality over successive versions of the Model S and b) the fact that its competitors have gotten better. Fine for the body, with proper context, but badly misleading as presented in the lead. fixed. hope this is better It is, but now I have WP:DUEWEIGHT concerns about giving such a prominent position in the lead to a review in a single, not particularly authoritative, publication. I'd be happier if we could show that there was a broader trend whereby critics had reviewed the Model S very positively on debut but increasingly become harder on it. We're still slightly misrepresenting R&T, who do after all acknowledge the car as one of the most important ever made a sentence or so previously. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) i think this is better Sorry to keep poking this one, but I still don't think we have WP:TSI between what the source is actually saying and how we have presented it. At the same time, we do need some measure of the negative reaction to the vehicle in the lead. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I removed "initially", but i don't think i can see any other problems with TSI (it's nearly exactly what the source says). 750h+ 16:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) The words exist in that source, but R&T are pretty clearly a) talking exclusively about the Plaid version, which we don't make clear, and b) making a relative statement that largely depends on how good other EVs have become. For them, it's largely about Tesla failing to keep pace with its competitors, whereas we've presented it as a story of the Model S becoming objectively worse. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Oh. Okay i think that's fixed (hope this is the last one) 750h+ 09:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC) The recent edits need a good proof-read -- a few errors have slipped in through the cutting/pasting process. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Fixed. 750h+ 09:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC) in c. 2007: abbreviations are generally a bad idea in flowing text. Why not just "around 2007"? done after a dispute with Elon Musk, the company's chief executive officer: Tesla's or Aston Martin's CEO? done Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by both Toyota and General Motors: a run-on sentence which has ended up somewhere strange: had Toyota previously been used by both Toyota and GM? fixed Constructed mostly of the aluminum: no the, but things are generally constructed from materials in English. my bad, fixed These updates typically include modifications to the motor: should maintain the past (or past perfect) tense, as in the previous sentence: either included or have typically included. done priced from $50,000 to $70,000: recommend an inflation template here, as this will increasingly be out of sync with readers' intuition as time goes on done The the in "the Fisker Karma" shouldn't be linked. fixed More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I hope the article’s been a good read so far. 750h+ 16:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC) It has, though I'll admit to knowing very little about cars or Tesla. A few more: Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company.: Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see where this $875,000 is meant to have come from? fixed Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit: can we say when this happened? Was it all ongoing while the later development events happened? done Dispute between Musk and Fisker arose after the latter started his own company and began producing the Karma (pictured).: we need either a dispute or disputes here. done Both cars shared a chassis, and the engineers assessed every part of the vehicles, evaluating their positives and negatives.: this seems a bit verbose, and possibly hyperbolic: did they really evaluate every part of the vehicles (down to the cup holders?) Suggest something like evaluated different aspects of the two vehicles. done Tesla engineers initiated a project to construct another electric CLS: at this point, are we talking about "another electric car based on the CLS"? Was it really {'exactly the same thing they used a different CLS early Model S specifications: strictly speaking, Model-S should be hyphenated here as a compound modifier. done the decision to construct it entirely from aluminum was clear: not quite idiomatic English, and it's not clear in context whether the decision was obvious (a dubious statement in Wikivoice) or whether Musk said that it was. fixed To accelerate the development of the Model S, one group of engineers worked during the day, while another arrived at 9 p.m. and worked through the night, : I don't totally understand how this is necessarily faster than having two groups working at the same time on civilised hours, but that may be a problem for Musk rather than for you However, a month after the last car—a Corolla—rolled off the manufacturing line in April 2010: not sure the make of this car is really relevant in this article. "Rolled off the line" is a MOS:CLICHE. See, later, the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line fixed US$42 million, while Toyota invested US$50 million : as above, I would inflate these currency amounts. We don't generally add the US before $ unless there's some reasonable chance of confusion (for example, if the article also includes Canadian or Australian dollars). done completed in the basement of an office: there are quite a few possible cases of MOS:OVERLINK throughout, but I think this one is pretty undeniable -- it's the everyday meaning of an everyday word. fixed The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed: perhaps I'm missing something, but that seems obvious from the preceding sentence -- they could hardly have watched it be finished anywhere else? this is the launch event. Usually launch events take place at motor shows like Geneva Motor Show for example, but this one took place at the fac Ah, so this isn't the same as the event on 22 June 2012? Can we put a date on it, then? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) this is the same date. the launch event just took place at the facility 750h+ 15:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Lots of multi-cites in the Design section, and later, make reading tough going. I would suggest that some of these can probably be removed, but if we must have three citations for a sentence, can you bundle them for readability? The method used in note 3 is a bit clumsy: you could use the Refn template for a smoother way. fixed the drag coefficient as Cd=0.24: simply as 0.24, surely? that's the general layout (it's a template Template:Cd) Right, but I don't think that template is appropriate for this use-case. We wouldn't say {{{1}}} or {{{1}}}. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) done a graphite/silicon anode, and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode: I know nothing about these, but just checking that the slash and the hyphens are meant to be different here? yep In the caption of the Model S and Model X, suggest italicising (left) and (right), as you did for (pictured) further up with the Karma vehicle. Ditto in the dashboard picture further down. done. i don't think the dashboard picture requires it extending the range by an additional 40 miles (64 km) of range.: no need for of range. my bad, done The former produces 235 kilowatts (315 hp) and 325 newton-meters (240 lb⋅ft),: would add of power and of force (torque?) as appropriate. done rear-wheel drive: either rear-wheel-drive or rear wheel–drive. I suspect there are other examples. done Intel Atom-based: endash here, not hyphen. done The 2021 Model S also introduced the "yoke" steering wheel: this makes it sound like it was the first vehicle to have one of these, which of course it wasn't, though it might have been one of the first mass-market cars to do so. done "Radar" isn't capitalised in mid-sentence. done Autopilot uses cameras, Radar and ultrasound to detect road signs: at least since 2021, Tesla doesn't actually use the radar: our article on Tesla Autopilot has A tear down of a HW4 Model S and Model X car in 2023 revealed that they have high definition radar hardware, but the software did not use radar. Likewise, it hasn't used ultrasound for at least a year. Teslas currently drive entirely by camera, which is widely considered a problem -- it would be worth mentioning this, and the many issues that Autopilot has had, at least briefly. It's a little misleading to state all of these supposed capabilities without mentioning that they, quite famously, don't exactly work. fixed I still think we have a DUEWEIGHT problem here -- almost nothing is mentioned in this section of the many reviews/reports saying that Autopilot doesn't work as advertised and is dangerous. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I've added some information about some of its problems, with a footnote leading to the article about all of its problems Better, though we still are missing the demise of ultrasound, and have misrepresented what Tesla Vision is -- it's a branding name for only using cameras, not (as we imply) a new type of camera. I'm also not sure we've really got the point across here -- we've talked about misleading advertising, but slightly glossed over the fact that the features which are definitely promised don't always work very well. The first paragraph of Tesla Autopilot#Dangerous and unexpected behavior, with biblio, is relevant here. A very boring formatting thing, but we should use a section symbol (§) in the footnoted link text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I've added the discontinuation of ultrasound and fixed Tesla Vision name. I've added information from the third point. And i actually was to add the "§", i forgot (thanks for that). 750h+ 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I still don't think this is right, unfortunately: we now have Tesla began using cameras known as "Tesla Vision". As I understand it, Tesla never claimed to be newly using cameras or adding more cameras, only to be removing the other types of sensor and tweaking the software algorithm in vaguely-defined ways. We've presented this as adding something, when that isn't really what happened. Tesla Autopilot hardware has useful material on what happened, its consequences, and the regulatory response, which I think needs some mention in this article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: so i've changed "From 2021, Tesla began using cameras known as "Tesla Vision", which replaced the radar system." to "From 2021, Tesla began using a system known as "Tesla Vision", which relies solely on cameras, replacing the previous radar-based sensors." 750h+ 09:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC) For charging outside the home, Tesla has partnered with businesses to install Tesla Wall Connectors to provide a charging network called Tesla Destination: the tone of this reads a bit like a press release to me. fixed the battery swap program hyphen on battery-swap. added We've given Tesla's case that nobody was interested in battery swapping, but there's a WP:DUEWEIGHT problem here -- most people don't take that excuse remotely seriously; it's more that actually doing that at scale is a stupid idea, and just about everyone knew that from the beginning. it was reported however, and that is what a good amount of sources say [2] [3] Right, but other explanations were also put forward -- see for instance that swapping batteries would make less money than charging, that battery-swapping isn't practical when you have to swap a huge part of the vehicle, that battery swapping is capital intensive and creates economic issues when the batteries lose value, that maintaining the necessary reserve stock of bulky, expensive batteries is economically and environmentally unwise. It was also reported that Musk wasn't being entirely ingenuous about the low demand, given that they set up their trial of battery swapping in a way that you would expect to generate little demand. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) I have added two parts from there, i don't think the rest are necessary though, since three of sources did mention the little demand. Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle a significant portion of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: likewise, I think we need to mention what other people think of this claim. "A significant proportion" is WP:WEASELWORDS -- what counts a significant? done In February 2014, the Automotive Science Group published a study: who are these people, and why do they get a whole paragraph for a single study? Again, I worry about DUEWEIGHT, with a side effect that primary studies are always tricky things and we should be careful about reporting them directly, before they hit the secondary literature (not a perfect analogy, but lots of the points in WP:MEDRS apply). Likewise with the UCS studies in the following paragraph, with the additional caveat that these people are a pressure group, and are not pretending to be neutral. i've removed this, i was actually questioning this source before as it doesn't seem very notable The Nissan Leaf had the smallest life-cycle environmental footprint of any 2014 model year automobile available in North America.: why is that relevant in an article on the Model S? removed the paragraph CO2: should be formatted with the 2 in subscript. done its CO2 emissions in the United States, similar to the Model S, are equivalent to a gasoline-powered car : something has gone wrong here. oops fixed Why does MPG get capitalised but mph -- and practically all other units -- don't? fixed Stopping here for now; more to follow, I hope. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Tesla initially projected it would produce 1,000 units per month, aiming for a total of 5,000 units by the end of 2012. For 2013, Tesla anticipated quadrupling that. The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter. Tesla built its 1,000th Model S by October 31, 2012, and delivered 2,650 units by the end of the year. In the first half of the subsequent year, 10,050 units were delivered to customers.: this bit is a little hard to parse: I would suggest another run for clarity. Anticipated is a tricky word: here, as often, better as expected to quadruple... Do I read rightly that they missed by a lot -- they aimed for about 4,000 per month, and ended up with something like 1,700? so i've rephrased this. the latter sentence is correct The Model S was the first vehicle produced at the Fremont facility: by Tesla, as GM and Toyota had produced vehicles there earlier. done Deliveries to the Chinese market began on April 22, 2014, followed by Hong Kong in July 2014.: we could upset a lot of people here: suggest specifying mainland Chinese. done It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually.: it might be, but is this really due weight in an article about the car, not the factory? this does include what it manufactures, so the "electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells" would be parts the Model S has What's the meaning of the 5.7% at the bottom of the second review table? 5.7% chance of a rollover accident occurring Can we footnote that? It looks like they "scored" 5.7/100, which doesn't sound very good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) done Per MOS:CAN'TREMEMBERBUTI'MSUREICANFINDITLATER, we should really rewrite the bulleted recalls section in prose -- in particular, I would look to draw out common threads between the recalls, the issues they highlighted with the cars and the processes behind them, and their consequences with Tesla, regulators, consumers etc. i have written it out in prose, but i don't think the background behind them is too important I think WP:PROSELINE now applies in this section -- would advise giving it a rework, and trying to make it more of a distillation/explanation than an annalistic retelling of events in sequence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) i have added some background to the vehicle affected by the recalls. as both an influential and significant electric car: what distinction between influential and significant are we drawing here? removed one mentioned that "the introduction of certain features, such as a yoke-style steering wheel, has distracted from the flagship sedan's underlying brilliance, as has Musk's public image: MOS:SAID applies here: this is a statement of opinion. I think we need something here about what he was going on about re. Musk's public image. i added a footnote, i don't think any more about his controversies is necessary (if that's what you're referring to) and mainstream automakers [...] [struggled] to catch up": cut the and, surely? done Samuel Gibbs from The Guardian: I don't have a strong opinion either way, but elsewhere we've introduced major publications as "the newspaper [name]", and here we don't. We should pick a lane. done We have very little in the way of critical coverage of the Model S. Has any of the widespread criticism of Tesla regarding safety, sloppy manufacture and misselling of the self-driving functions been related to this car? i've added another review, which i think should be better White 2014 is throwing a Harvard error: I can't immediately see any citation to it. removed Personally, I would avoid redlinks, such as Automotive Science Group, in the bibliography: there, the attention they grab, in my view, outweighs their benefits. i think i've removed them Over their lifecycle, electric vehicles emit about half as much CO2 as comparable fossil fuel cars. However, the report assumes that electric materials are recycled at rates similar to other cars and excludes the issue of battery disposal due to limited data on current recycling practices and future intentions.: I have some worries about the generalised nature of this comment. This takes EVs as a class -- how do we know where the Model S, with all its various Tesla-isms around how it is manufactured, maintained and so on, sits in relation to other EVs? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC) i did remove a large part of the paragraph that didn't relate to the Model S and added "like the Model S" to specify that it was referring to the Model S. I don't think comparing the Model S to other vehicles that a reader may not have heard of is helpful For 2013, Tesla wanted to quadruple that. : "Wanted" is pretty vague -- I want to win the lottery and move to Hawaii. Did they make any sort of formal statement that they would do this, set it as a target, or so on? fixed, changed to "aimed". The source used is CNET, which (at the time) was reliable Tesla claims to recycle all returned battery packs and states that Gigafactory 1 is able to recycle around 92 percent of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones: the million-dollar question here -- is that a credible claim? Tesla is, after all, famous for making bold statements that prove to be completely untrue. There are also some possible fault lines here -- how many batteries get returned? How much waste do you end up with when you recycle 92% of the elements? How bad is it not to recycle the other 8% -- are those the ones that cause problems? there have been no critics addressing whether this is true or not so i think it's best to leave it, as there are many reliable sources that address this. Just from a quick Google, I found quite a few sources putting caveats on it, most notably that Tesla doesn't really recycle post-consumer batteries, and that the process of recycling itself is made less effective by the way that Tesla design their batteries. See for example here, here, comments on the impact report here, and on recycling more generally here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: I added some of the criticism from the Vice magazine (which was already used a source in the article, though others weren't reliable 750h+ 12:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC) I think that would surprise the writers of Science (unless the website is someone different?). However, I wasn't trying to find all the available sources for you -- merely to point out that a very quick Google search flagged up that there is definitely a discussion here. I'd suggest following up the angles identified in the sources I mentioned into more scholarly and scientific work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: added two sources. 750h+ 01:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: just in case ping. i hope the three criticisms are enough because the paragraph was getting a bit big 750h+ 08:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: i think i've addressed your comments. any more? 750h+ 08:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC) A couple of replies above, both new and from before -- probably not a complete set yet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: in case ping 750h+ 08:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC) I have a number of comments and replies above that are still "live", as far as I can tell. The recalls section is better than a list, but I would still look to reduce the number of sentences beginning with "On [date], Tesla [verbed]" to improve the prose quality. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: i hope this is better 750h+ 09:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC) @UndercoverClassicist: fixed the spelling/grammatical errors 750h+ 09:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC) Oops, didn't see those new ones. Will address those now 750h+ 08:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• @UndercoverClassicist: okay i think that should be it 750h+ 15:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • A few replies above. Honestly, my feeling from reading this is that, like all of our articles, it has been written by people who are interested in the topic, and -- like most such articles -- generally like the thing they are writing about. I still think that it's a little too quick to downplay or excuse the negative side of its subject, and to take what (particularly) Tesla say about it on trust.
    • I have added all the possible background to the vehicles affected by the recalls, but didn't go too into detail (I think). Thoughts, @UndercoverClassicist:? 750h+ 18:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
      • @UndercoverClassicist: do you have anymore comments? 750h+ 03:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I've just given the article another read, and made some minor copyedits. I think I am probably now at the limit of my competence -- the grammar and formatting are better, though there are still a few minor things to look at (particularly full stops after footnotes and MOS:SAID throughout). However, I still have the same impression about POV and coverage, but don't have enough expertise in the subject matter to put my name to it that the article does or doesn't accurately cover all that has been written on the topic. As such, I'll leave this one as comments and wait to see what reviewers with more grounding in Tesla have to say -- may well come back later on and cast a vote. Apologies to leave it "open" after so much work on both sides, but hopefully it feels that this has still been a useful exercise thus far. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

    Okay, thanks for the thorough review. 750h+ 08:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

    @UndercoverClassicist: now that one reviewer has finished their review (and one is hopefully-near conclusion), the article has been largely expanded in size, and i'd like to get your current opinion 750h+ 13:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

    I think I'm still pretty much in the same place: it's unquestionably a very good article, but I don't really feel any more reassured on my (minor) worries about prose and (more serious) concerns about promotional language, tone and weighting. I'm not sure I'm quite worried enough to cast an oppose vote, but I'm not ready to shift over to a support either. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I am going to review this article. This is a long article, so it might take a while. I should note that, while 750h+ alerted me to this nomination on my user talk page, these observations and opinions are entirely my own. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: just making sure you still want to review? 750h+ 23:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h+, sorry about that. I've had very limited access to my computer over the last 3 days. I'll leave some comments on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

okay, thanks 750h+ 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead:

• Para 1: "the Model S is frequently regarded as one of the most significant and influential electric cars in the industry." - I'd hesitate to say that it has been "frequently" regarded as such, at least without a source specifically saying so, but it would be appropriate to say that it "has been regarded by many critics" as such.
• Para 2: "To produce the Model S, Tesla acquired a facility in Fremont, California, from Toyota, which had previously been used by Toyota and General Motors." - Do we need to include this detail about the facility's previous owners in the lead? I feel like this may not be an important detail.
• Para 3: Might it be worth mentioning the car's other features, e.g. Autopilot and supercharging? The paragraph does a good job of describing the design/technical features of the Model S, but the consumer features aren't mentioned as prominently. (Actually, the "Technology" section isn't really summarized at all in the lead.)
• Para 4: "In 2015, the Model S was the world's best-selling plug-in electric vehicle" - I think readers might be expecting a sales figure after a sentence like this. Probably not in the lead, but maybe in the "Production and initial deliveries" section.
• Para 4: The last quote mentions the Plaid, but the lead doesn't quite explain what the Plaid is.

Development:

• Para 1: "In January 2007, the American automaker Tesla, Inc. opened a facility in Michigan" - If you're including a background section, you might also want to consider mentioning the fact that they weren't even producing cars at that point (and that the Model S was actually only Tesla's second-ever vehicle model).
• Para 1: "The second was to be a range-extending vehicle" - So a hybrid-electric car basically?

no, range-extenders are different

Oh, okay. I thought this was referring to a hybrid-electric design. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "He signed an $875,000 contract to design the car." - I'd change "He" to "Fisker" for the avoidance of doubt.
• Para 2: "Fisker ultimately won the lawsuit in November 2008" - Is the word "ultimately" necessary here?
• Para 3: "Tesla frequently tested the car on public roads; it had 120 miles (190 km) of all-electric range per charge and weighed more than the Roadster." - These should probably be two separate sentences, since the two ideas are completely separate.
• Para 4: "stating that the non-battery-pack portion of the vehicle must be lighter than equivalent gasoline vehicles" - To clarify, did Musk say the non-battery-pack portion had to be lighter than the entire gasoline vehicle?

yes, so everything excluding the battery pack had to be lighter than the vehicles themselves

I see. Epicgenius (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 4: "while another arrived at 9 p.m." - The arrival time of the night shift seems like a rather trivial detail to include.
• Para 5: "later withdrew from both plans" - Do the sources mention why?

i added a bit

• Para 6: "The car's launch event occurred in a section of the facility where the cars are completed" - This detail also seems quite trivial.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed all, and if i haven't then i left some comments left. Thanks! 750h+ 05:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Design:

• Para 1: "The Model S shares its platform and thirty percent of its parts with the Model X" - Not really an issue per se, but I feel like this isn't unexpected since both the S and the X are by the same manufacturers.

it would be. Different car manufacturers sell different cars that use completely different components. For example the Tesla Model 3 and the Tesla Model Y share 76 percent of their parts yet would share less than 10 percent with the Model S and the Model X

Oh, I see. Yeah, if the 3/Y are very different from the S/X, then it might be noteworthy that the S/X share 30% of their parts. (What I meant to say was that I would expect car models from a single manufacturer to use similar components, such as the 3/S/X/Y sharing many of their components, but since the 3/Y share very few components with the S/X, this goes against my assumption.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The vehicle's drag coefficient was improved by a solid front fascia instead of a grille, " - Would the black nose cone in the image right next to this paragraph count as a fascia? As mentioned later on in the article, the sealed-off fascia wasn't added until 2016; before that, the S had the nose cone.

i guess, i mean the image has its front fascia but there are better ones below

• Para 1: "The Model S has a center of gravity height of 18 inches (460 mm),[73][74] reducing the risk of rollovers." - Is this reduced risk because of the lower center-of-gravity height?

yes

• Para 2: "The car's rear trunk possesses 26.6 cubic feet (750 L) of storage with the rear seats upright and 58.1 cubic feet (1,650 L) when the seats are folded down." - Some Model Ss contain backward-facing jump seats in the trunk for young children, which can also be folded down (giving the car 7 seats rather than the standard 5). Is this talking about the children's seats in the trunk, or the seats in the second row?

i added some info on that

• Para 2: "Initially, the seats and steering wheel of the Model S were made exclusively of leather." - I'm not sure about this. If I recall correctly, early buyers could choose between synthetic leather or actual leather. (The real leather option was more expensive than the synthetic leather option, but they had a distinctively different feel.)
• Also, I'm pretty sure there were other add-ons you could buy, like children's jump seats and sunroofs.

i don't think these are very necessary

Fair enough - these are fairly minor details. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, I think some of the features mentioned in "Technology", like Tesla Autopilot and supercharging, used to be add-ons that didn't come with the car by default. The oldest Model Ss (specifically the 40 kWh and some of the 60 kWh from ~2013) didn't even have the ability to supercharge. Not sure if that's worth mentioning, or if there's even a source for these, though.

the initial 40kwh model never came to production actually. supercharging was available from late 2012, so only 6 months after Model S production began. Added more on the charging methods.

According to TechCrunch and Wired, there was a 40 kWh model produced in 2013, but it was a software-limited version of the 60 kWh model. It seems like the software-limited 40 kWh model did have the ability to supercharge (it just wasn't enabled by default), so my bad. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed 750h+ 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

2012–2016: Initial years:

• Para 2: "Instead, a more powerful model with a 60 kWh model, was introduced to substitute the 40 kWh model." - I think you could still mention that, even though the hardware-limited 40 kWh model was never built, a few 60 kWh vehicles were software-limited to 40 kWh. (I say this because, in the next section, you mention the fact that some of the 75 kWh models were software-limited to 60 kWh.)
• Para 4: "Tesla launched the standard 90D and the performance P90D" - What model year?
• I notice that the article says "all-electric range", even though the Model S is all electric. Would this be redundant (i.e. could it just be "range"), or do you need to specify that this is in fact all-electric range?

2016–2019: First major update:

• Para 1: "the previous contrasting-colored grille" - The original grille wasn't contrasting-colored so much as black. If you had a black Model S, the original grille would be the same color as the rest of the car, like this.

i don't think this is worth mentioning; i feel like the customer would know

What I meant to say was that the grille should be described as "dark" or "black", not "contrasting-colored", which seems factually incorrect when referring to dark Model Ss. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 2: "Customers also had the option to upgrade the battery capacity to 75 kWh through an over-the-air update," - Strictly speaking, you could get the update only if you had a newer 60 kWh model (and only if you paid for it, but I think that goes without saying). Pre-2015 60 kWh models are hardware-limited, and if you owned one of these, you'd have to buy a whole new battery if you wanted to upgrade.
• Para 3: "In 2019, Tesla also phased out the 75D, 100D, and P100D variants as part of the company's shift towards a revamped model range.[150][151]" - I feel like this belongs in the next section, because that section talks about what the 75D, 100D, and P100D were replaced with.

i think this is ok, since it's still referring to the pre-simplified naming scheme

In that case, I would recommend mentioning that the 75D/100D/P100D were replaced with other models, rather than merely phased out. The way it's currently worded, it sounds like the models were phased out without replacement (at least, for people who don't read on to the next section). Unfortunately, readers these days sometimes tend to not read the full article, instead only reading a particular subsection and skipping the rest, so it might be helpful to mention that they were not just phased out but replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 750h+ 03:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

2019–present: Simplified naming scheme:

• Para 1: "For 2020, the Long Range model was replaced with the Long Range Plus" - Also 100 kWh?

yep

• Para 2: "In 2024, the Model S received restyled taillights." - The note says "As of July 2024, there are no reliably sourced reports explicitly regarding the updated taillights", implying a bit of uncertainty. Therefore, shouldn't this be "By 2024, the Model S had received restyled taillights"?

More to come. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

All done (with responses) 750h+ 23:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Technology:

• Para 1: The source is from 2012, and as a result, several parts of the section are outdated. This source might be more up-to-date, but it's still talking about an old version of the software. The screen currently looks more like this (YouTube link), which is substantially different from the 2012 version of the software.
  • "Below that, the second section provides access to various apps, such as Media, Navigation, Energy, Web, Camera, and Phone." - This was the case when the S came out. However, the apps are currently near the bottom. I'll try to find a source for this, but it sounds like the article is describing how the apps were originally arranged. If there's no source, we can leave out where exactly the second section is (e.g. you can just say that the interface also provides access to various apps, such as Media, Navigation, Energy, Web, Camera, and Phone.)
  • "with most apps expandable to fill the entire screen." - Similarly, I'm not too sure about this. This was true in 2012, but may not be true now. Currently, several apps (like music and camera) can't be expanded to fit the full screen; you'll still see the navigation app in the background even when expanding these apps as much as possible. The full-screen thing could probably be left out, given that it's not necessarily true anymore.
  • "The bottom section contains controls and settings for the vehicle, including doors, locks, lights, temperature settings, and a secondary volume control." - Whew, at least that hasn't changed.
• Para 2: "Also for 2021 refresh" - Should this be "Also for the 2021 refresh"?
• Para 3: "Released in October 2015 as a software update" - Although this is only for cars that actually have AP equipment. The oldest Model Ss don't have the ability to use Autopilot, regardless of whether they were updated.

i think every Model S has autopilot equipment

Tesla says this functionality isn't available for cars built before September 2014. At least one old Model S was retrofitted with it, but I don't know if this is a service Tesla offers. Epicgenius (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I meant that after October 2015 it was a software update but later became standard 750h+ 12:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was trying to say, it may be helpful to mention that the first Model S's with AP were manufactured in September 2014. The current phrasing might give the impression that AP equipment exists on all Model S's made since 2012 (which isn't true). Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done (i think) 750h+ 23:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Also, since the last two paragraphs talk about Autopilot, it may be worth considering splitting this into a subsection. Though I won't mind if you don't.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done with comments 750h+ 09:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll have further comments on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Charging:

• Para 1: "The units are provided to the businesses by Tesla for free or at a discounted price." - Discounted compared to what?

i changed that to "cheap"

• Para 1: "Not all destination chargers are available to the public, as some businesses limit them to customers, employees, or residents only." - That first bit is redundant. If some businesses limit them to customers, employees, or residents only, then these specific chargers are not open to the public.
• Para 2: "In 2020, Tesla announced plans to integrate the batteries into the vehicle's body to enhance strength and reduce weight and cost" - A person unfamiliar with the topic might ask whether the previous batteries were not integrated into the vehicle's body before. Also, I think this change might've effectively doomed the battery swap program for good, though the article doesn't say as much.

i don't think so, can you explain how?

Environmental impact:

• Para 1: "In 2020, the company recycled 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt" - US short tons, I presume?

yep

• Para 1: "According to Thompson, if a Tesla cell is punctured too deeply or at an inappropriate location, it risks short-circuiting, potentially leading to combustion and the release of toxic fumes." - Unrelated to this section in particular, but Tesla Model S owners are given special instructions on what to do if the battery catches fire. Which leads me to the point that there should probably be some mention of Model S battery fires somewhere in the article. Even though these are exceedingly rare, it might still be helpful to mention, because the article already describes some of the other safety concerns with the Model S. Currently, the article doesn't say anything about battery fires; it only mentions punctured cells in the context of recycling the batteries.
• Para 1: "approximately 99 percent or more of these metals" - Isn't "99 percent or more" already approximate? Alternatively, could you say "nearly all of these metals..."?
• Para 2: "Over their lifecycle" - It might be helpful to mention what that lifecycle is. Five years? A decade?

over the time they operate

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed all, with comments 750h+ 08:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: just an in-case ping 750h+ 08:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I have not forgotten about this. I will leave some comments soon, maybe by tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Production and initial deliveries:

• Para 1: " but, from August 2013, for European countries, final assembly was carried out at Tesla's facilities in Tilburg, the Netherlands." - By "for European countries", I presume you mean Model Ss sold in Europe. yes - 750h+ (Also, do the sources say why European Model Ss were manufactured at a different location than Model Ss sold in the rest of the world?) no, even if i don't think that's worth mentioning - 750h+

Fair enough, I was wondering why you mentioned that the final assembly for European Model Ss was in the Netherlands, but that's a minor detail. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Para 1: "The production of both the Model S and Model X at the Tilburg facility ceased in early 2021." - So is the final assembly for the European cars being carried out at Fremont again?

yep

• Para 2: "Since January 2017, the car's batteries have been produced at Gigafactory Nevada." - Were they made at Fremont beforehand?

actually they've been produced in both japan and the US, specified

• Para 3: It seems strange that you mention only a few countries. Are Model Ss only being sold in Canada, the US, Europe, and East Asia?

i added some other countries, but i definitely can't list every country it's sold in. the ones i've listed are the most reported on

I see. Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Addressed 750h+ 15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Recalls:

• Para 2: "Tesla recalled Model S vehicles On January 20, 2017, " - I don't think "on" should be capitalized. Also, you should mention whether this recall affected all vehicles manufactured to that date. Otherwise, it just sounds like Tesla recalled some unspecified number of vehicles.
• Para 2: "In February 2024, Tesla recalled over two million Tesla vehicles in the United States due the compact size of the warning lights on the instrument panel." - Something is up with the grammar here.
• Para 2: "Tesla Inc. shares, which experienced a downward trend from July 2023 and declined following the company's fourth quarter earnings report last week, fell an additional 2.7 percent in early trading on Friday, reaching levels not seen since May 2023." - I'm not seeing the relevance of the share prices to the recalls.
• Para 2: The last few sentences could probably be summarized. These sentences seem like they were closely paraphrased for some reason:
  • This article: "Documents indicated that the update was to enhance warnings and alerts for drivers. The NHTSA reported that the font size of the brake, park, and antilock brake warning lights was smaller than mandated by federal safety standards. This improper font size may render crucial safety information difficult to read, thereby increasing the risk of a collision."
  • The source: "Documents said the update will increase warnings and alerts to drivers. The agency says that the brake, park and antilock brake warning lights have a smaller font size than required by federal safety standards. That can make critical safety information hard to read, increasing the risk of a crash."

First fire:

• Para 1: "The first widely reported fire involving a Tesla Model S occurred on October 1, 2013," - While I am pretty sure it was the first widely reported fire, the source doesn't specifically say that it was the first.
• Para 2: "25 tons" - Since you included conversions for the other two measurements in this sentence, there should probably be a conversion here too (this is likely referring to short tons).
• Para 3: "NHTSA stating that the addition of a titanium underbody shield, aluminum deflector plates, and increased ground clearance "should reduce both the frequency of underbody strikes and the resultant fire risk"" - Did Tesla end up making these changes?

Subsequent fires:

• Para 1: "The cause of the fire remains undetermined." - Even ten years later? In any case, I think this can be removed, since this exact fact is repeated in the very next sentence.

More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All done except the last one. It's one of the lesser-known fires so they didn't go any more into the case (the most recent reliable cases are primary). 750h+ 05:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: ! 750h+ 23:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I have very limited access to my computer on Tuesdays through Thursdays. I'll leave my final comments tomorrow, as there doesn't seem to be that much left to comment on. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 750h+ 01:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reception and legacy:

• Para 1: "The Model S has been recognized as an influential electric car" - Personally I'd say "The Model S has been recognized by several critics as an influential electric car", or "Several critics have recognized the Model S as an influential electric car".
• Para 1: "The magazine Car and Driver noted" - I was going to recommend saying that this commentary is retrospective (since it's from 2019). However, since the Consumer Reports and Top Gear reviews are also retrospective, it may be better to move these to the end of the paragraph, and put the reviews from 2013-2014 first.
• Para 2: " Chris Perkins of the magazine Road & Track argued that Tesla managed to turn the "most important car of the century into a bad joke", describing the Model S Plaid as "perhaps one of the worst [cars in the world]"" - Does the review include more specific details as to why Perkins felt this way?

i moved that into a black quote since he had many reasons

That's it for me. Overall, this article is pretty good. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: All addressed. Much thanks for the review. 750h+ 23:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Oops, I forgot to do this earlier. Everything looks good to me from a prose and comprehensiveness standpoint. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks for the support Epicgenius! 750h+ 01:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Shushugah

Hello, I am looking forward to reviewing this FAC.

• The last mentioned recalls are from 2021. However it is missing several in between, particularly major and very recent recalls from 2024

  added

• I am searching for better sourcing, but would be worthwhile to mention Tilburg re-assembly was done for voucher/discounts within European market

  no RS say that, but i did add a reason

• The NUMMI plant should be wiki-linked within the body. Interesting history when Tesla Fremont Factory took over

  it already is

• In 2020, the company recycled 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt. -> Is this a lot or very little? The numbers don't convey anything in proportion.

  done

  I should have been more clear. I am keeping an eye out for green washing and vanity metrics. Article should substantiate whether this amount of recycling is a lot or not. Different metrics exist for making comparisons, e.g costs of recycling the battery pack. Disassembling the electric batteries inside the Tesla Model S was cheaper than Nissan Leaf or Porsche Taycan according to this scientific research article.

  the most i can find is a Reddit post saying that they recycled the equivalent of 26,200 cars' batteries

  Please make use of the above mentioned source scientific research article which makes scholarly comparison of recycling amongst 2 comparable competitors. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah: i'm confused here. There's no mention of the "1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt" in the research article. Comparing one car to other car the reader may not have heard of is pointless. 750h+ 13:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Inside this passage is able to recycle around 92 percent of the elements from old batteries, moving towards a "closed loop" system where old batteries are turned into new ones. In 2020, the company recycled significant amounts of metals: 1,300 tons of nickel, 400 tons of copper, and 80 tons of cobalt. the numbers don't quite match, 400 versus 300 tons mentioned in the Science Engineering article, up to 92% of parts can be recycled and more importantly, it defers solely to Tesla's claim about its recycling efficacy without expert analysis. The excellent Vice magazine source is linked as a source, but it is not used to verify any of the claims. Information from this article could be used to expand body with more critical analysis of Tesla's claims, for example that 100% of batteries are recycled in some way and note that Tesla does not specify what percentage of each battery is recycled. More generally, it is quite complex/expensive process. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  the numbers do match. The Vice source verifies the claims in the previous sentence. i don't believe it requires any expansion; most of the from that article is incorporated here, including the criticisms

• Wikilinks to technical terms relevant in each section,
• The European New Car Assessment Programme and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ratings, particularly the table feel promotional and more specifically, lacking context especially the with seemingly contradictory sections about about product recalls. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  these are just tests by official government agencies, I don't see how they're promotional, or the need to add context

  The perfect score of 5 can be explained/contextualised, in terms of other vehicles that have received same score. Tesla has falsely claimed this was proof the Tesla Model S was the safest (lowest injuries) of all competitors, a characterization disputed by the NHTSA. There are further critical ratings inside Criticism_of_Tesla,_Inc.#Misleading_safety_ratings which delve into analysis I would expect. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  added some

• Layout related feedback
• Remove "won" column, all the awards listed already won awards.

  done

  • Would remove sub-section First fire and Subsequent fires

  i don't think so since the first fire was the largest reported Model S fire and has three paragraphs

  • Autopilot should be a subheading-1 instead of subheading-2

  it's a subsubsection of the Features subsection

@Shushugah: addressed. 750h+ 05:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Given your familiarity/expertise with Tesla, I would be grateful for any feedback/commentary you have for my FAC Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tesla_and_unions/archive1. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

All responded to. Will try to review in a bit. 750h+ 03:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Tesla substituted them for permanent magnet synchronous reluctance units -> substituted it with a permanent magnet synchronous reluctance motor? The grammar/plurality alternation is confusing
• the car shares about 30% -> the model shares 30%
• First mention of the Plaid should be the Model S Plaid
• range-extending vehicle -> (uses a more direct comparison of vehicle types) a hybrid electric vehicle with a range extender
• First use of currency should specify US$123 per MOS:CURRENCY, given that Tesla Model S is not unambiguously about one country context (with mentions of China, Netherlands)
• drive a CLS-Class -> Class is an adjective here, and it should either say CLS-Class vehicle or drove a CLS (as subsequent sentences do correctly)
• within the SpaceX factory. -> Specify that Musk owned this, otherwise it seems random.
• another electric CLS -> another electric version of a CLS. (They did not design CLS vehicles for their competitor).
• The passage about history of GM/Toyota is unnecessary trivia. The only necessary bit is that Tesla took over NUMMI and partnered with Toyota and rebranding NUMMI to Fremont Factory (with wiki link please)
• This claim was independently verified by the magazine Car and Driver in the middle of 2014, confirming the drag coefficient as 0.24. -> This claim was independently verified by Car and Driver magazine in 2014.
• First mentions of 270 kW (362 hp) should wiki link to Kilowatt, same for other technical terms mentioned for first time. See WP:TECHNICAL and MOS:REPEATLINK for guidance.
• ("D" stands for "dual") -> move this closer to first mention of P85D for P85D (P85 "dual")
• 652,000 other vehicles -> 652,000 other vehicles including from 12 competitors (I first thought other Tesla models)
• should reduce both the frequency of should reduce both the frequency of -> duplicate words
• The Model S has received mixed reviews. should be higher up in the section after being mentioned as influential.

  the first paragraph is dedicated to critics calling the car influential, whilst the second and third para is dedicated to critics reviewing the Model S

• Comparisons with other vehicles. The article makes frequent comparisons to other Tesla models, e.g Tesla Model Y and Tesla Model X, but neglects to mention competitors such as Nissan Leaf even though multiple sourcing do make the comparisons as mentioned above in two sources I pointed out. I get that it's subjective and weight-debatable.
• Inside this unused source a direct comparison is made for how cost-intensive disassembling batteries components are. This could go in section about environmental impact. I apologise for my earlier reviews which misstated incorrect source integrity.
• around 92% -> up to 92%

Thematically I would like to rely less on Tesla claims, even if they're sourced/weighed accordingly. There are challenges with focus in the article, some of which I've made suggestions for. All in all, I think it's on its way to FA status. Ping me when you have addressed the above points. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah: all addressed. 750h+ 09:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@750h: I went through my feedback one by one, to see which one you implemented or didn't, since you claimed all were addressed, without expanding. Some of the concerns have not been addressed at all. In a few cases, I think new issues were brought in, which I expand on below.

@750h: For sake of ease, I grouped the open issues below this line because I note you're editing on mobile, where it's hard to navigate these talk pages. I also saw that some of the issues I raised on 20 September were raised by Epicgenius a few days prior, even though you said they were all addressed. Can you double check that there are no outstanding requests or make it explicit? Some examples of requests that Epicgenius made that I also made several days later are why Road & Track calls the Plaid model the worst, removing excessive detail about Toyota/GM history at NUMMI. The latter is now addressed, but the former remains not responded to despite being raised. Other common requests include expansion of Autopilot software, which is crucial to this product. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Expand why Road and Track says that Plaid Model S is the worst car produced. For example that it underbraked and turned the positive legacy of Model S into a joke.

  i gave one reason, i don't see the need to go into detail in the lead when the reader can just go to the reception section

  I missed the quote box inside the reception, which certainly expands on the different reasons for why the Plaid was the worst car. I believe this is an appropriate/weighted quote as it is unique, and not easily summarized by other receptions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• Tesla also stated that the battery pack's energy content is about ten percent of a gasoline tank's, meaning the combustion potential of a single module is approximately one percent of that in a conventional vehicle. -> unclear methodology used and possibly promo without verification. Would remove or expand with independent assessment.

  i literally already removed that

  I missed that, thanks! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

• exhaust pipe and underbelly -> I was confused, because I thought pure electric battery vehicles don't have exhaust pipes, so perhaps this is a hybrid version. In any case, the linked citation makes no mention of exhaust pipes. I read sourcing, but missed it if it's phrased in other technical terms. It does compare it to Nissan Leaf (later on that)

  it says "no exhaust pipes to disrupt the airflow."

  Can you quote the exact passage you are using? I searched and read both the source source and archive and could not find the word exhaust or pipe anywhere. Your inline wiki text says no exhaust pipes to disrupt the airflow. so what passage from the sourcing is backing this up? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  done

  It is now verified with addition of Ars Technica source. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• The passage almond-shaped headlights and prominent nosecone conjure images of Maserati, while the rear half has a distinct Aston Martin DBS flavor comparing to Maserati and Aston Martin DB is better moved to the reception section, since it does not actually explain the design in a neutral manner, but rather relates to both design and also "luxury/mood" of other high-end brands.

  This was completely removed, but I think it should stay, just in a different section. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• American automaker Tesla, Inc. opened a facility in Michigan. -> It was called Tesla Motors until 2017, see source here. Something like (then Tesla Motors) would be acceptable, with source.

  Text changed to Tesla Motors, but without any verification from current source, making it unverified. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Improper introduction of MOS:DASH as a grammatical pause. It should have spacing preceding the pause: spacing -for example not spacing-for example. Two examples (there are more) are "trunk"—which and model—with
  • (Unsolicited butt-in) That's only true for endashes (–): the longer emdash (—), which you've used here, is used unspaced on both sides. MOS:DASH sets out this principle and that either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes are fine, though articles should choose one or the other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  per UC. @Shushugah: 750h+ 01:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Retracted and thank you both for teaching me something new! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Open issues (will be moved to above when done)

• What do the Autopilot apps run on? The hardware is mentioned, but nothing about the software the apps are part of. It seems to be called Tesla Operating System, but I don't know enough about the history. Is Autopilot software a core part of Autopilot hardware? i can't find anything about this Later in article, it's mentioned "over the air software updates", so would be interesting for understanding.

  all has been addressed, but the green text i added

  Perhaps QRep2020 could chime in, as author of Autopilot hardware. From what I've read, the Tesla infotainment system is based off Ubuntu, a flavor of Linux OS, whereas Tesla OS is something else, but I am not finding reliable sources easily. There's a ton of cruft/blogs out there adding to the noise when searching. Better to leave it out for now, and save it for a task for the future. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know offhand. I'll see what I can find, but tabling it for now makes the most sense. QRep2020 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• After purchasing a CLS, they disassembled it, modified the Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated it with the battery pack. -> Make it grammatically more explicit that they mixed/match or incorporated a Tesla Roaster battery pack into the CLS. Also good to introduce earlier here that the CLS were gasoline vehicles, instead of later down the paragraph. The way it reads right now, the Roaster is part of every CLS vehicle, when it is actually mixing two different company and battery types together.

  Now the grammar in your edit response is incorrect and repetitive CLS—a gasoline-powered vehicle—they disassembled it, modified the battery pack of a Tesla Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated the CLS with the battery pack.

i think "After purchasing a CLS, they disassembled it, modified the battery pack of a Tesla Roadster's battery pack, cut out the CLS's floor, and integrated it with the battery pack." was perfectly understandable. i'm going to leave it as this

• Revisit current usage of about/approximate and other percentages throughout article. Sometimes approximations are used for trivial matters like "approximately three months", yet with high degree of specificity Holzhausen designed 95% of... which can be replaced with Holzhausen designed the..

  There are nine mentions of about and six mentions of approximately. Could use more variation and or be removed completely in many cases. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  okay, every case of the two words is used correctly 750h+ 13:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Shushugah: 750h+ 13:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Weak support I am new to reviewing FACs so my feedback with a pinch of salt. I very much believe that the nominator has generally tried to address every feedback I gave. However, there were multiple requests I made that have been simply declined without effort to meet mid-way or done with the bare minimum, for example simply removing interesting claims instead of searching for further sourcing. I have tried to ensure that sourcing and verification remain. The example of exhaust pipe were I asked repeatedly where it was verified, only for it to be added on third inquiry was concerning. I am willing to assume good faith, that this is not an issue elsewhere, as I have not found that to be the case in the sources I checked. I am sorry this is not fully a cheery note, but I am in good faith trying to support with constructive feedback and AGF on my part, by giving a support, albeit a weaker one. All in all, a big congratulations on significantly improving an article on one of the most important vehicles in the 21st century! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

Sorry for longer comment here, but I want to indicate it is not a matter of one or two examples, but an in-depth review by you would be helpful. Without going into the more technical claims, I looked at some of the business/simpler claims.

It should be immediately obvious to the reader, what source is being used to verify what claim. When a passage has 3 sources, it either indicates that all three sources verify exact same thing, in which case the best source is preferred (especially for non controversial claims), or that there are contradicting claims, or mix-matching claims. In the case of mix-matching claims, that can be appropriate, but better to then directly place the inline text closer to the claim, instead of the end of a sentence/paragraph.

I will not read each/every pair of sourcing because that is a big ask of the reviewer before a nominator says it is ready, but an explanation why two or three sources are needed for each and every one of the following claims would help. Sometimes it's justified, but I am surprised in the following cases 13 cases:

• In 2007, Musk appointed Henrik Fisker, known for his work with Aston Martin (2 sources)
• as the lead designer of the WhiteStar project (3 sources)
• and debuted the Fisker Karma in 2008, at the North American International Auto Show. (2 sources)
• Musk subsequently filed a lawsuit against Fisker, accusing him of stealing Tesla's design ideas and using the $875,000 to launch his own company. (2 sources)
• Fisker won the lawsuit in November 2008, and an arbitrator ordered Tesla to reimburse Fisker's legal fees and declared Tesla's claims to be without merit. (2 sources)
• In August 2008, Musk appointed Franz von Holzhausen as the project's lead designer. (2 sources)
• Tesla debuted a prototype version of the Model S in Hawthorne, California, on March 26, 2009 (3 sources)
• Tesla initially intended to manufacture the Model S in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and later in San Jose, California, but later withdrew from both plans mainly due to financial problems (2 sources)
• After the Great Recession, GM found itself trying to recover from bankruptcy. It decided to abandon the facility in 2009, with Toyota soon following. (2 sources)
• However, a month after the last car was produced at the manufacturing line in April 2010, Toyota and Tesla announced a partnership and the transfer of the factory. Tesla agreed to purchase a significant portion of the facility for $42 million (equivalent to $58,683,351 in 2023), while Toyota invested $50 million (equivalent to $69,861,132 in 2023) in Tesla for a 2.5 percent stake in the company (2 sources)
• On June 22, 2012, Tesla invited its employees, select customers, and the press to watch the first production Model S roll off the manufacturing line in Fremont. (3 sources)
• Initially, the seats and steering wheel of the Model S were offered in both synthetic and non-synthetic leather options. However, in 2017, following a request from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to become the first cruelty-free automaker, Tesla switched exclusively to synthetic leather. (3 sources)
• In 2014, Tesla discontinued the P85, replacing it with the P85D ("D" stands for "dual"). (3 sources)

• @Shushugah: what really stood out to me was "It should be immediately obvious to the reader, what source is being used to verify what claim.". Is this a policy, because i don't remember it being one? I have fixed your three-overcite issues, since I have already fixed a good number of them prior with Femke's. Two successive cites isn't overciting.

  WP:FACRITERIA 1C: well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (emphasis mine). It does not cite a hard and fast rule, since it's contextual. Sometimes it is appropriate for a paragraph to be supported by one source and in other cases multiple sources is valid. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The claims are verified by the sources at the end. I don't need to verify every single claim. 750h+ 12:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing

• Wiki link authors when they exist e.g Lora Kolodny

  done

• Vance 2016, p. 273. is used twice in a consecutive sentence

  done

• Vance 2016, p. 274. and Vance 2016, p. 273-274. are used afterwards as well. It is a longer paragraph that could also use Vance 2016, p. 273-274. (and special care must be taken that it is paraphrased appropriately
• 2014 Tesla Model S interior, cargo space & seating". U.S. News and World Report. is duplicated twice

  no it isn't

  Trout me,

• 2020 Tesla Model S prices, reviews, and photos is duplicated twice

  no it isn't

  WP:TROUT me. I misread the two different years 2020/2021 as being the same. What partly threw me off, is the 2021 version was published in Brady, Duncan (November 20, 2020) while 2020 was published in Brady, Duncan (June 20, 2020)

• Linked sources, for example Kwanten, Alex (February 20, 2024). "2024 Tesla Model S Review, Pricing, & Pictures and 2024 Tesla Model S interior, cargo space & seating are written by same author. One is a sub-page of the other. Keeping them as separate sources isn't bad but then copy over same author/published date and title to reflect this. Open to other ideas to show it's same review.

Speeds This is excessively detailed and not necessarily interesting for readers. The speeds of the first and latest models would be sufficient, but we don't need a year by year update of every single speed range of each model. Wikipedia should be prose friendly, not an indiscriminate database for technical specs. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll address this tomorrow or later today 750h+ 01:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's excessively detailed. Unlike other articles like this which include weight, 0-60, top speed, consumption and battery cell type alongside the power and torque specs, this one only includes the power, torque, speed and 0-60, making less excessively detailed in the form of prose. I also don't see how a few paragraphs makes it excessively detailed, but might just be me. 750h+ 06:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not find that engaging to read either. It's difficult as a reader to know what actually changed with that much information. Did the car become more dangerous with a faster accelleration? Or did it significantly reduce range anxiety with a larger battery? Etc. What are the highlights of the upgrade? (P.S. for accessibility, avoid linking words like "here"). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

OK. If that's an actual problem then I will remove it. 750h+ 07:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. 750h+ 08:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Review by Femke

• There are some issues with overcitation. For instance, "The Model S is the company's second vehicle and is, as of 2022, its longest-produced model" only requires two sources, the 2020 source adds nothing.

fixed

That was just one example. Please have another look over the article, to see whether you need three citations for uncontroversial statements elsewhere too. Was it controversial that Holzhausen was the lead designer, that the body is made mostly out of aluminium? The range is controversial, as the rated range is typically higher than the actual range. Is the range you give the actual or rated range, and what is the approximate real range? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: i've fixed most cases of overcitation, not extensively in the "Models" section because there could be three or more specs needed (horsepower, torque, introduction/discontinuation, etc) 750h+ 10:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Britain and Europe. Did you mean Britain and the EU? UK is still part of Europe.

fixed

• The numbers in the production section come over as a bit boring. Do we need Tesla's own quarterly expectations? "The company also expected to deliver around 500 vehicles to customers in the third quarter, with the remaining units scheduled for delivery in the fourth quarter." If we remove that sentence, the reader can more easily compare Tesla's projections with actual deliveries.

removed

• "It is one of the world's largest producers of electric motors, energy storage products, vehicle powertrains, and batteries, manufacturing billions of cells annually" sounds promotional (people have no idea if billions of cells is a lot or "normal"), and it's quote from Tesla, unattributed. This is a copyvio concern, so please double check you've not done this elsewhere. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Femke: any more comments? 750h+ 00:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not planning to do a full review here, but it's too easy to find issues and nitpicking still.

• The claim that the battery had small amounts of cobalt and nickel is not verified by the source, as the source does not mention Tesla. My understanding is that NCA batteries have substantial nickel and cobalt shares.

  what it did verify was the which has been identified by the Environmental Protection Agency as having a high environmental impact due to the toxicity of their extraction and refining processes. I've also minorly changed that to verify what is said in the source.

  And you've introduced another issue with the new sourcing. The source about cobalt is fair, as it applies to all Tesla cars. The CNN article does not mention model S, and also says these batteries are used in most of their standard range cars, not all. It also contradicts the design section, which says "and a nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode", without noting that there has been a possible switch to LFP batteries. NCA batteries have a lot of nickel, so I think this is false for at least a subset of model S.

  seems like this one's causing issues so I'll remove it.

  This still contradicts the source. BNEF says: "Tesla currently uses the nickel rich nickel-cobalt-aluminum cathode chemistry, which has a low cobalt content of about 5%". So it's untrue that nickel content was low in their NCA batteries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Furthermore, the new source you added supporting "However, since January 2021, Tesla has completely stopped using nickel and cobalt in its lithium-ion batteries" fails verification in two ways. One: it's a future-looking source, stating the intention to stop using cobalt. And 2) it doesn't say it's going to stop nickel, only cobalt. This could be via a new type of NCA battery with nickel. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  OK. I added the CNN source back but to verify this statement. 750h+ 08:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Which I objected to before, as it does not verify the statement either. Quote from CNN source: "Tesla .. said in April [2022] that nearly half of its vehicles sold in the first three months of the year do not include nickel or cobalt.", which is very different from the statement that they succeeded already in January 2021. I'll make some direct edits to the text, as this article is read too much to wait for the FAC process to sort this out. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  whoops, my mistake 750h+ 16:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• It's not clear from the text that the MIT magazine article is written by Tesla's former TCO. It's not the opinion or editorial of the magazine, but of an individual closely related to Tesla. Language as "indefinitely" sounds a bit promotional from that source. The text here is again too closely paraphrased. It is also not a criticism, but a rhetorical tool to call it unintuitive.

  The article was not written by Tesla's CTO, it was written by Casey Crownhart, and it gives JB Straubel's (Tesla's CTO) opinion on battery recycling

  Fair. Still, the key point for our readers is that you take a quote by Straubel as truth, without letting the readers know there is a COI here. Better to find another source on this. Close paraphrasing is also unresolved. The sentence order is similar, most of what you've done is switching out synonyms and removing the first person.

  The magazine MIT Technology Review criticized the lack of intuitiveness in the discussion surrounding the high level of reusability associated with the metals within the batteries. All of the materials incorporated into a battery and an electric vehicle remain present and intact throughout their lifecycle. These materials do not undergo degradation or compromise; approximately all of these metals can be recycled and reused an indefinitely high number of times—potentially hundreds or even thousands of cycles

  I'll fixe this soon.

  But something that isn’t intuitive is just what a high level of reusability the metals inside of a battery have. All of those materials we put into a battery and into an EV don’t go anywhere. They’re all still there. They don’t get degraded, they don’t get compromised—99% of those metals, or perhaps more, can be reused again and again and again. Literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of times.

  I'm confused what you want me to do here, that's what the source says. I also fixed the copyvio writing.

  There are three POV issues remaining. The first one is that you attribute wrong. There is a difference between the opinion of MIT Magazine and the person they interview. You make it sound like this is MIT's opinion (independent), rather than Straubel's. The second one is that point out is a slightly a non-neutral synonym of said. WP:UNDUE weight on a primary source is the last one. Preferable, you find a different source that's independent. If you want to use this source, the following is less bad:

  "According to Tesla's former CTO JB Straubel, Tesla's batteries can be recycled hundreds of times or even more." Just that single sentence, which is arguably too much already. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve implemented your suggestions. I prefer to use this source, if that’s fine. 750h+ 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  You've implemented 25% of my suggestions, and seemingly reintroduced an error. I don't see Straubel criticising recyling in that source. The volume of text is still too much: there is undue attention to a primary source, and it's better to have either 0 or 1 sentence from it. It still sounds like corporate fluff unfortunately. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Okay Femke, I have

  • removed the “criticised” part
  • have removed two sentences just so there’s one sentence

  What do we think? 750h+ 16:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• The statement that production emissions are 68% higher needs a page number. A quick search in that document seems to imply it's a more generic number than the text implies for EVs.

done

• However, the report assumes that electric materials are recycled at rates similar to other cars and excludes the issue of battery disposal due to limited data on current recycling practices and future intentions --> It now implies you're talking about the IEA results, rather than the older UCS results.

fixed

• Throughout, do we need exact dates (On April 20, 2017 rather than "in April 2017"). To me, this is unnecessary details which make it tough to read the article.

i'm a bit confused how it'll make it tough to read. if it's something like "May 10, 2013, and June 8, 2013, one might think that their vehicle manufactured on May 8 was part of the recall.

• The currency conversions have false precision. Please use the same precision as the original (42 million --> 59 million).

  how do I do this? i've been trying using instructions from the Template:Inflation page but can't seem to figure out how.

  Template:Inflation#Very_large_results. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  Done, if this looks fine. 750h+ 08:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Overall, without doing a full review, I regretfully leaning oppose as issues with neutrality and copyright are difficult to address at FAC stage. For next time, it would be good to slow down, nominate for GA first (I also nommed too fast when I started in 2014). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: with responses 750h+ 00:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

(A small accessibility issue: when you indent, please continue the same style as before. So * is followed by *:, rather than ::. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Will do. I've addressed one of your response, but I'll address the others tomorrow or in the coming days. 750h+ 14:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Coord note

I think Femke has hit the nail on the head. FAC -- and WP as a whole -- is not a race, and the level of commentary above indicates the article is undercooked. We don't have consensus for promotion over a month after the nomination opened, and we're unlikely to achieve that soon. Some of our most experienced editors put articles through GAN or PR or both before FAC, and I'd strongly recommend that (as I have previously) before any future nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 28 September 2024 (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) 11:10, 28 September 2024 (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) 27 September 2024 [4].

---

Super Mario 3D Land

Nominator(s): 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating the Super Mario 3D Land article for Featured Article status because it is a well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced piece that stands out as a high-quality representation of gaming content on Wikipedia. The article thoroughly covers all significant aspects of the game, including its development history, gameplay mechanics, release, and reception. It is well-sourced, and is currently at GA status. Thank you. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:FAC: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it". Considering that you've made 0 edits to this article, did not consult with major contributors to the article, and your FAC nomination was reverted on the talk page, you should reconsider this nomination if you are not familiar with the subject and its sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from NegativeMP1

Per the concerns posted by Vacant, it is pretty apparent that this is a drive-by. I also wouldn't say it "stands out as a high-quality representation of gaming content on Wikipedia" when there's writing issues I would personally not even allow at a GA level (one-two sentence paragraphs, reception section based more on headlines / game ratings rather than what critics actually had to say about the game, etc.). I recommend you withdraw this nomination. λ NegativeMP1 23:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal - both procedurally and content-wise, this isn't where it needs to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a drive-by nom. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:12, 27 September 2024 (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) 20:57, 27 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2024 [5].

---

Godzilla Minus One

Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Godzilla Minus One is a 2023 monster movie by Takashi Yamazaki that won the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects this year. I've put so much effort into improving this article, which was recently promoted to GA, and I believe that it is now viable for FA status. Thanks to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been three weeks since I posted this, and I am very disappointed that it has been ignored entirely while every other FA nom has received some attention from reviewers. I am curious as to why this is. Is it because the article has almost 200 references? Is it because it is on a Japanese topic? Is it because it is of something fairly recently released? Is it because I've only ever nominated one article to FA previously? Or is there something I've missed, and you believe is not worth it? Whatever the reason, I am extremely disappointed and a bit frustrated. I will leave this nomination open for one more week and if it hasn't had any attention by then, I will probably revoke it. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I can understand being frustrated and disappointed by this, but I would encourage you to not take it personally. Sometimes, an FAC just does not attract reviewers. Sometimes it is because editors are too busy to do a review or the nomination just gets lost in the shuffle. I would advise either reaching out to editors on their talk page or reviewing other FACs as that would help to get your name out there (and would help other editors who are in a similar position). Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Nineteen-Ninety Four guy

• Creature design is wanting and could be fleshed out a bit more into something akin to that in The Thing (1982 film), another FA
• On themes and analysis (which should be retitled to "Thematic analysis"), check to see if there are books/dissertations that have already been published about the movie's themes. You can start by searching the The Wikipedia Library, which you should be able to access with your WP account
• The coverage on both the Japanese and international receptions are relatively thin and lack unifying themes. All I am discerning as a reader from the international reception section alone is that critics found the film to be the best Godzilla movie yet and essentially better than previous/contemporary works. Okay, but is this really all that is evident? There are 34 reviews indexed on Metacritic alone, but only about 15 individual reviews are cited in the prose. I don't think 41% is good enough. You should cite all 34 reviews and find what critics have largely agreed on besides the fact it's the best Godzilla movie ever; see the Critical reception on The Thing article. Overall this section still does not feel like "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as per criterion 1c.

It's pointless to support or oppose this nomination, as it didn't get the necessary amount of comments to arrive at either consensus in the first place. In any case, I hope these comments help you somehow in getting you that much-coveted FA status. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully butting in on this a little late. I think some of these pointers are decent. One of the major problems with films of lager scope is keeping the length down to fit Wikipiedia's guidelines. The creature design only needs subtle expansion but not too much. Review section is good and there is no need to cite every single one as that would be excessive. Clearer citations on critics citing it as the best Godzilla film ever would be a little better. Literary sources are tricky as this is a very recent film so I don't see a problem there only if its in reverence to older topics. My suggestion is to make sure the words line up with what the sources say and minor expansion. After that, some copy editing. This is a really good article and not far off from a successful FA review. Much regards and don't give up. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2024 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [6].

---

Charles Edward Stuart

Nominator(s): Coldupnorth (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about Charles Edward Stuart, the elder son of James Francis Edward Stuart and grandson of James VII and II. He was a Stuart claimant to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

This article reached GA status in 2022. I would have liked to have taken it to FA then but I did not have the time to but I am now able to. This is my first time contributing to FAC so am happy to respond to queries, criticisms and suggestions. I have most of the book references at hand if needed. I do believe the article is suitable for FA nomination. Thank you Coldupnorth (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC! Starting out with an image review.

• Suggest adding alt text

• Suggest editing captions for grammar

• File:Prince_Charles_Edward_Stuart,_1725.jpg: under US law, simple reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright; the given tagging is incorrect. Ditto File:Prince_Charles_Edward_Stuart,_1742.jpg, File:Lochaber_No_More.jpg, File:Princess_Louise_of_Stolberg_(1752–1824).jpg, File:Palazzo_di_San_Clemente,_stemma_Stuart_2.jpg

• File:Gentlemen_he_cried,_drawing_his_sword,_I_have_thrown_away_the_scabbard.jpg needs an author date of death

• File:Bonnie_Prince_Charlie_by_John_Pettie.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• File:Tomb_of_Stuart_in_the_Vatican.jpg needs a tag for the original work

Also, not an image comment, but it would be helpful to work on making citation formatting more consistent before someone comes to do a source review. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do an image review. I believe I have actioned the required changes. I have added alt text to the images in the article. For the image files, I believe I have added additional copyright painting/100 year tags, as well as the other additional information requested. If these are still insufficient please do let me know. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems my alt text has been reverted. In hindsight I do not think its ready for FA and unfortunately being honest, I do not think I have the patience for the wikignome jobs either. So I would like to close/cancel the nomination please. Thank you for the image review though. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2024 (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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 September 2024 [7].

---

Rutherford scattering experiments

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

We have fixed the citation issues. Kurzon (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose (nearing full oppose though). I can spot many unsourced statements/paragraphs towards the bottom of the article and weasel words like "famous". The citation formatting also confuses me; some refs use {{sfn|[author]|[year]|page=}} while some don't, some books don't have page numbers, an author's name is in full uppercase, and the bibliography uses the |author=[firstname lastname] while the inline cites use the |last=[lastname]|first=[firstname] format. Ref 46 should be a footnote not a reference. The bibliography is not in alphabetical order. Ref 51 is confusing me. Ref 15 does not have page numbers. There's most likely many other problems with the article; the lack of preparation for FAC is evident. You've never made a featured article before, so it is highly recommended that you take this to both WP:PR and WP:GAN before you consider nominating for FAC. This article fails 1c and 2c, and possibly 2a (also holding concerns for 1a, but i don't think that's too bad right now). Best of luck, 750h+ 09:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this (and I think the advice in the comment is good): there are a number of Harvard errors in the bibliography, which could be caught and fixed by means of this script. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

• This has been open for nearly three weeks, is not moving towards a consensus to promote and is unlikely to given its clear unpreparedness for FAC. I am therefore going to archive this while urging the nominator to put it through GAN, PR and (possibly) GoCE, as well as seeing if they can involve a mentor, before bringing it back to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2024 (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. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2024 (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 September 2024 [8].

---

Afrique Victime

Nominator(s): 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This is my first FA nomination, so feel free to point out any mistakes.

I edited this article since July 4 and expanded it thoroughly with all the sources I can find on the internet, amounting to 50 tabs. The article has been fixed by multiple experienced editors and is able to have a FAC nomination. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Drmies: and @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: for whom were involved in the previous GA nomination. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also going to tag @Wuju Daisuki: since he was involved in the PR. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm a woman, but thanks. I won't give a long review, but I think the article looks much better than it did when I peer reviewed it. Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not experienced with FA nominations, but as the GA nomination reviewer, I would say it hasn't reached FA level. During my review, TheNuggeteer addressed all the concerns I voiced, but did not go beyond that, and it doesn't look like he has made substantial edits since then. I copyedited the article just enough to meet the GA style criteria, but as others are saying, the structure of the article is still quite repetitive, which will have to be fixed. That being said, I think the sourcing is good, and the article thoroughly includes the coverage about the subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this nomination for obvious problems and reasons, thank you for all your suggestions to make this an FA! Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: the nominator would like to withdraw. 750h+ 07:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC, but I think I must oppose on several issues relating to prose quality. There is excessive duplication of subject matter, especially the mentions of historical colonialism and political instability in Nigeria, which are confusingly spread across several sections. The prose itself is clumsy and occasionally contradictory, and contains various quotes from Moctar interspersed oddly throughout the article. The "Reception" section feels unnecessarily short for the detail provided in the sources, and would benefit from being rewritten following the advice at WP:RECEPTION. In summary, I don't feel that several of the FA criteria are met; the article would benefit from a structural rethink, possibly followed by a copyedit from an experienced editor with a focus on concision. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, recommend withdrawal and WP:GAR (or WP:PR).

• The lead does not summarise the article
• "Its genre is assouf ("desert blues)." where's the other quotation mark
• "It was recorded in multiple places, including Niamey, Niger." where else?

This article has received a nice ce from other editors, but I think this requires another PR in order to become an FA. 750h+ 01:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by oppose from Nineteen-Ninety Four guy

At this time the nominator cannot be expected to deliver a Featured Article quality, let alone the "brilliant prose" criterion, when they can't even write grammatically correct sentences in this nomination page. I feel like the nominator should be working on further improving their grammar and writing skills, not making FA (and GA) nominations in vain. I'm sorry if I'm being a wet blanket/douchebag here, but it's necessary, if this article is to become a top-notch page. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right that grammar is important for an article, but I'd warn against critiquing that the reviewer "can't even write grammatically correct sentences in this nomination page." Keep in mind that many Wikipedia editors are not native English speakers, and try to clean up grammar without censuring people's errors. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It is nessesary to point out, however. Grammar is a key part of the criteria that needs to be correct and consistent, if not copyedited by the reviewer or someone else. TheBritinator (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also

I'm not convinced this should even be a GA (sourcing problems, formatting problems, verbosity, repetition, etc.). This comes after User:AirshipJungleman29's edits, and after few series of edits I made earlier. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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) 10:23, 13 September 2024 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 September 2024 [9].

---

Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a hymn, or four hymns? I have a long history with it, DYK in 2011, GA in 2017 and a peer review in 2019. Today I was invited to the 15 years society and feel like celebrating, with this hymn which - in Luther's version - has been part of family functions. I made the article my story today, and that 2011 DYK explains two hymns (... that the first stanza of the hymn "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist", asking the Holy Spirit for the right faith most of all, is documented in German in the 13th century, and the later three relate to faith, love and hope?), while there are two others in Catholic tradition. Please explore. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Media review

• File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(GL).mid: what's the copyright status of the arrangement?

• File:Berthold_von_Regensburg.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(WA).jpg, File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(1653).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! I dropped the midi files as of no good quality. Dan, can you perhaps help with the licenses for File:Berthold von Regensburg.jpg, File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (WA).jpg and File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (1653).jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I've added US tags for those three files. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Dan! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Ceoil

Reading through; very interesting and aligning to the type of early modern music I prefer. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, and for copy-editing! I am not yet convinced of some changes in the lead, admitting that change is needed, just how?

• The first stanza came from a leise: no, not really. There was a leise, and it became the first stanza of all three later versions, - how can we say that better?
• I am reluctant to call a 1524 work "modern", even if it was 300 years more "modern" than the leise.
• There are three versions in today's hymnals, two from the 16th century (Luther, Vehe) and one from the 20th (Thurmair). Perhaps we need to find a way to say that at the very beginning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fine, but the fact that I was confused as to actual meaning indicates issues. As the text only has 1200 odd words, it should be easily resolved. I'll do buttleted demands from here. best, Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  I now tried to write a new first paragraph to outline the relation of the three versions. Please check, but perhaps first read the body to know what the lead should summarize. History: when I began the article, I only thought of Luther's hymn. I remember how surprised I was to learn that singing in German had this long a tradition, - somehow I had thought it was all in Latin until Luther came along ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

but perhaps first read the body ' agh, you've lost me now. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy, yesterday RL, today Jürgen Ahrend. Did I say something wrong? - When I review, I look at the lead last, that's about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Grand, will resume over weekend....Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Airship: prose

• Lead is rather repetitive:
  • " in German, which all share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise" // "The first stanza in all versions is a leise in German from the 13th century."
  • "wrote three additional stanzas in 1524" // "In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas."
  • " Maria Luise Thurmair wrote a continuation based on this in 1972" // "Maria Luise Thurmair; her version was published in 1972"
• It also needs copyediting for prose—I have corrected a couple of minor errors, but sentences like "They also have in common that they use its medieval melody." and "The request to the Holy Spirit for the right faith especially ("um den rechten Glauben allermeist") suited Luther's theology." are stilted and/or confusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  AirshipJungleman29, thank you for reviewing! Please see above: Ceoil pointed out that the lead lacked an overview of the versions, which was added late, and made some things repetitive. Should the first (new) paragraph be more condensed to avoid that, for example saying only that there were also Catholic expansions, or rather some details cut in what follows?

  Thank you for the corrections. I'd appreciate help with phrasing. Trying something for the melody, please check. I will have to think about the theology. I think that it's rather commonly known that Luther promoted a theology of sola fide, faith alone, - do you think it should be expanded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  A suggestion (I may have misinterpreted some content, so don't feel like this is a demand): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

concise lead

"Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" (We now implore the Holy Ghost) is the title of several hymns in German which share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise, and its medieval melody. This stanza alludes to the Latin sequence for Pentecost, Veni Sancte Spiritus (Come, Holy Spirit). Widely known, it was used as a procession song and in sacred plays. In his 1523 liturgy, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther recommended using the leise regularly in church services; it contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology. In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas, first published in Wittenberg in the same year as part of the Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. His version's themes of faith, love and hope are appropriate for general occasions and funerals. not only Pentecost. Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages, having received various English translations. It inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping. Alternative continuations of the hymn have appeared in Catholic hymnals. Luther's contemporary Michael Vehe, a Dominican friar and theologian, published his version, also with three added stanzas, in 1537. His hymn was revised and expanded by Maria Luise Thurmair in 1972. Both Luther's and Thurmair's hymns have remained in use into the 21st century.

Thank you for thinking about it. I woke up thinking that it would be better to present a very short overview. I did that and then took some of your good ideas on board, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Better, but the repetition between the first and last paragraph needs to be taken into account.

I understand (generally in FAs) the first para as a summary of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:OPEN. The first paragraph should define the subject and clearly convey its significance. The rest of the lead summarizes the most important points of the article. A professional lead (FA criterion 1a) does this without duplication or repetition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

(I am far from claiming professionalism.) I trimmed the lead to no repetition (but see the danger of sandwiching text when too short). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

General comments

• I have added four {{cn}} tags to uncited material. You should look to combine short paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH.
• It would be useful for all readers if a translation of the verses into English were provided. The {{Verse translation}} template may be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! I'll look into the first point later. Translations: sadly, I didn't see a free translation. Bach Cantatas Website (external link) comes with a good one, but from 2015. The various hymnary pages don't offer text, possibly for the same reason. But I now found this and will use it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  I fixed one of the required citations. Looking for something online for Vehe's version in the Limburg hymnal (which I own), I found nothing for that fact, so may add a book ref. I found, however, interesting other sources leading to some rewrite, patience please. The short explanation of what the Vehe hymn says: call it OR, - it's my rendering in English of what it says in German, instead of a translation of that version which - I'm afraid - we will not find. I'll move the publications in other languages to translations, and add more publications of the Luther version. Before all that, there's garden work and dealing with the article of a cellist who died - my plan for today. I can ping you when I'll get to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  (The cellist is on the Main page. Today's topic was a conductor, still far from how the article should be.) I added a ref for the 1975 Gotteslob, and modified to Vehe being the editor of the hymnal, not necessarily the author. As for what that version means in English: would it help if I'd write individual phrases in German with their translation, as for Thurmair's? For hers that seemed necessary because the English is under copyright (but can be seen in the "Fischer F" ref). - Too tired to search for more publications and translations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

  Airship, by now I managed to use Fischer (encyclopedia of hymns) more. I also think I found a better way of referring to it, listing its subpages as pages instead of new references. It led to more versions, and a complete rearrangement of the article structure: trying to avoid level-four headers, I dropped the distinction of Text and Music and then subdivided, changing to one of Leise - Protestant - Catholic, putting all music and translations under Protestant, because I noticed those only for the Luther version. I hope to expand the translation corner which is still short. I found a general ref for many appearances in songbooks and hymnals and wonder if I should mention some of those. What do you think. Do you know the verse template enough to find a way to avoid the excessive white space that comes with it - the more stanzas the more it seems? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

MyCat

I'll gladly review; however, know that my liturgical knowledge is very limited, so much of my review will just be about the prose rather than comprehensiveness. I'll review once Airship's comments are resolved, so I don't say anything they already said. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Saving a spot for later; I'm working on a source review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the source eview. I havae a busy weekend with company and concert, so just brief replies at the moment, and no major changes to the references right now. When I wrote the article, I had access to the volume of Liederkunde written by Hahn, similar to this one but can't find it any more. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review

Citation numbers from this revision.

• In the interest of consistency, convert the references styled liked citation 34 to full citations in the reference list with short footnotes pointing at them.
• I would recommend adding archive links to all web sources.
• Adding translated titles using the |trans-title= parameter would be preferable, but all non-English citations must use the |language= parameter.
• There needs to be consistency for where the page numbers are located. Some sources confusingly have pages in both the short footnotes and the full citations. Recommend moving them all to the footnotes.
• The books should all have publication locations or none of them, for consistency.
• Citation 25 needs a page number or section title provided using the |loc= parameter.
• What makes Fischer 2007 a high-quality reliable source? (I was unable to track down the author due to their extremely common name, unfortunately!)

  It's a research project of the University of Freiburg, Fischer is one of the co-editors. --GA

• In Becker 2022: Switch to {{cite journal}}. Oldenburg University → University of Oldenburg Press. I'm not a fan of the PDF download URL, I would recommend removing. Add |doi=10.25619/BmE_H20224 in any case.
• Recommend removing the URL from Hahn 2000 as Google Books does not actually provide access to that source.
• Kluge 1975 needs a bunch of formatting improvements but, more importantly, it appears to be a dictionary and not a secondary source. Does it actually verify anything in that sentence other than the meanings of the words? Does the inclusion of that information constitute due weight?
• I'm rather confused by Korth 2004, which has the same ISBN and URL as Hahn 2000 but seems to be a different publication?
• In Randel 1996: link Harvard University Press.

I appreciate your patience with my review, Gerda! Still going through at the moment and might be back with a few more comments later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from The ed17

Hello Gerda, and I apologize for the number of the below comments seeing as you invited me to comment. I've gotten through the first part of the article, and unfortunately I found it quite difficult to parse and understand. Some time could be spent simplifying the information we're telling readers, as well as reducing the number of translated words to make is less complicated to read.

• First of all (allermeist) thank you for copy-editing. As said, this is an "old" article, deals with historic events, in two languages different from English, - great to have feedback from a native speaker! Thank you also for the time to go into details. I reverted two things (of the many) and hope the edit summaries were clear. --GA

• Overall question: Why is {{langr}} used so often? The typical {{lang}} sets off translated text in italics so it's easier for a reader to parse.

  I recently was introduced to it, and found it a blessing to use instead of saying "italic=no" each time. I was trained that things separated by quotation marks and coming with the lang template don't need italics also. Incipits of hymn, common Latin phrases that became part of English, - such things. --GA

  Frankly, I don't think I read a single Latin phrase in the upper part of the article that I'd consider "common". :-p I'd recommend using italics to ease a reader's understanding for anything except when it's something like a song title, which then get those quotation marks. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "retaining its text as a first stanza": do you mean "retained the first stanza"?

  No. There was no first stanza, there was the leise. He used its text completely, making it the first of four stanzas. How would you word it? --GA

  Got it. I tried making an edit to make that clear. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "using melodies derived from its medieval tune": what medieval tune? That isn't previously mentioned.

  We are still in the lead, and to devote a sentence to the tune seems to be undue weight. I was encouraged to trim the lead (further up). --GA

  I get the desire to keep the lead short, but it also needs to be understandable, and I don't understand what "medieval tune" we're referring to. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• Additional context around the Protestant/Catholic split may be needed. Otherwise, a reader will not understand the importance of Martin Luther's using it.

  I am not sure, for the same reason - keep it concise. We have a good article about the Reformation, and what of it should be summarised, and how? Would you think of a background section?

  This could be as short as "when Protestants split from Catholicism" or similar! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• What is a "a song for the dying"? Was it used in funerals?

  The German term is "Sterbelied" which implies that it is sung with someone dying. The term appears almost 70 times in the German Wikipedia but has no article. It's also used for poems written by a poet who was approaching death (Hildebrand's Sterbelied), an example for a Sterbelied is "O Welt, ich muss dich lassen". I never heard of a similar thing in English. Help? --GA

  Got it. I added a suggested rewording to the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• What's a procession song?

  a song sung during a procession --GA

• "The leise contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology ...": what's the "right faith"?

  depends for whom as the different versions show ;) --GA

  I'm afraid I still don't get it. Was the 'right faith' Protestantism"? A certain form of that? A generic call to follow the 'right faith' that Luther could then define for his listeners? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• The lead may benefit from a straight divide between Protestant and Catholic usage. Weaving the two together makes for a somewhat whiplash-y experience.

  sorry, that word is new to me ;) - When I wrote the article - see infobox - I wanted to write about Luther's song, in an attempt to have articles about his hymns (in 2017 I believe, when 500 years of Reformation were remembered). Only later did I realise that the other versions should perhaps also be mentioned. --GA

  Sorry! I just mean that it goes back and forth, while instead you could mention the Christian schism and then individually go through its usage in each sect after that. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Catholic use was discontinued after the Baroque period, but the hymn reappeared in a modified version in Heinrich Bone's Cantate! hymnal in 1647. It became used more after the 1938 collection Kirchenlied ...": several points here.
  • Most people, including me, do not know offhand when the Baroque period started and began. Can we use a year or even a rough decade instead?
  • I see from our article that the Baroque period ended in 1750, but despite being discontinued by then it appeared in a hymnal in 1647? That's confusing.

    I apologize for a severe typo in that number which I corrected to 1847 as the body has. - When the Baroque period ended depends on who looks at what, so I'd try to avoid one year. Yes in music it's probably with Bach's death in 1750. --GA

    Could we put a rough decade on it? E.g. "... discontinued after the Baroque period (roughly the 1750s) ..." ? And I think you may have forgotten to fix the 1647 year in the lead. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • If it was discontinued, it wasn't later "used more" -- it was "used again".

    Sorry that I didn't find a way to say what I wanted. It appeared in 1847, but it wasn't used much (if at all, we don't know). It appeared in 1938, and was used - how much we still don't know. It was used more later, and from personal experience I'd say: still not much. People love and sing "Der Geist des Herrn erfüllt das All" by the same Ms. Thurmair, even Protestants. That has become e song suitable for ecumenical service. Where I live we have had one every year on Pentecost Monday for the decades I live there, and we had Luther's version only once (and people not knowing it complained about its "old" language, and Thurmair's version also only once, and I achieved that the last (counter-reformation) stanza wasn't sung ;)
    I need a break, RL, more later today. --GA

    Not a major point, so we can drop this. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages ...": should this sentence begin with something like "In the modern day, ..." ?

  Doesn't the present tense imply that? (I was trained to avoid "currently", "today", "modern times" ... --GA

  True, that's MOS:CURRENTLY. Maybe "As of the 2020s"? The present tense does imply the shift to today, but I'm afraid it's too subtle for many to pick up on. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "It has inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping.": We can simplify this sentence by saying "from the 14th century into the present day", and removing the unnecessary bluelinks to our general articles on Renaissance music and Contemporary classical music that don't immediately benefit readers.

  We could but specific names give more an idea of what kind of composers would use it, without long explanation. --GA

  I think general readers won't know who those composers are, and this is the lead, so I'd recommend shortening. In the end, it's your call. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "It was first a Sterbelied, a song for someone dying.": The translation could be removed to make reading this simpler.

  You think readers would remember? --GA

  I think readers don't need to know the translation. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "As in the conclusion of Veni Sancte Spiritus ("da salutis exitum") ...: The translation could be removed to make reading this simpler.
• "The concern is "most of all" (allermeist) the "right faith" (rechten glouben) ...: Like the lead, what does the "right faith" mean?

  replied there --GA

• "The person praying is aware that human life is transient and believes that the true home is Heaven ...": What does "true home" mean in this context?

  The German word that I tried to translate is "Heimat" which doesn't have an exact translation. What would you suggest. "heimfahrn aus diesem Elende" means "return home from this exile", not easier by modern-day Elend meaning misery. Help welcome - this is talking theology, so difficult. --GA

  And I'm not particularly familiar with theology, so I'm struggling too. How about "... human life is transient and believes that they will find eternal life in Heaven, ..." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Protestant Reformers tried to continue medieval tradition": Does this refer to medieval Catholic traditions or something else?

  This was added late for the context that Luther, like other reformers, had no intention to throw traditions over board, almost the opposite. I simply took it from a source. The word "Catholic" had a different meaning after the Reformation resulted in different denominations. --GA

  Gotcha. How about a couple sentences like this, assuming it's covered by the source: "Although Protestants were seeking significant liturgical changes within the Catholic Church, they did not seek to overturn most religious traditions. For example, when Martin Luther issued a 1523 liturgy for services, he recommended including three traditional German hymns: "Gott sei gelobet und gebenedeiet" ... etc. etc. " Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" and "Christ ist erstanden" (Christ is risen) are the only medieval songs still in use.": in use by who?

  sung in "modern day" services, - or what would you think "use" means? Again, I took that from a source. --GA

  Sorry for the ambiguity. I mean by which religion, and if possible by what kinds of congregations (w.g. traditional ones?) in what geographical areas. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "The leise had a long tradition.": I suspect this should say "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" vs. "the leise" to specify we're talking about a specific leise, and not them generally.

  We would still have to add "the leise" to not be ambiguous, and teach me English: could "the song had a long tradition" mean "songs" in general? --GA

  I re-read this and think I missed why this actually sounded off to me. I'd still use the full name, but because it wouldn distinguish which one you're talking about from the three things you listed in the previous sentence. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "Its topics of the right faith (rechter Glaube, veram fide) and the thought of the time of death must have appealed to Luther. He had mentioned veram fide in an early sermon about the leise (1509 or 1510), and promoted salvation by faith alone (sola fide)":
  • There's no need to translate "right faith" again, and "veram fide" should just be "right faith".

    "veram fide" would literally mean "true faith".

  • We can remove "sola fide" and just link "faith alone".

    We can, but would loose a short illustration of how much Luther relied on medieval Latin tradition. --GA

    It's your call in the end, although I'd argue that it's far too subtle to convey the point you're trying to make. I certainly missed it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• "... as "Du wertes Licht" (You esteemed light), "Du süße Lieb" (You sweet love) and "Du höchster Tröster" (You highest comforter).: these translations don't line up with the translations given in the full translation above it.

  No, and if they did, they didn't have to be there. The translation given next to the poem is a singable English version, which means that aspects of rhyme and number of syllables have prominence over literal meaning. --GA

  • As always, it's your call whether to act on these comments. But as a general reader coming in with no background on this material, I was expecting the translations to line up and was confused when they didn't. E.g. "Thou precious Light" does not sound like the same thing as "You esteemed light" :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• If you are going to shorten the name of the leise to "Nun bitten wir", I would prefer that you start doing that in the lead to prepare readers

  I guess I'd then rather have the full name consistently. --GA

• "... which mention its manifold gifts ...": what are manifold gifts? I suspect this sentence clause could be dropped without impact on readers.

  I gave it a link to Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. --GA

• "His three stanzas can be seen as related to "Glaube, Liebe, Hoffnung", the theological virtues of faith, love and hope, which Paul the Apostle expressed in his letter, 1 Corinthians 13:13.": We can simplify this sentence, and "can be seen" needs in-text attribution. E.g. "Historian Michael Fischer has said that his three stanzas relate to the theological virtues of faith, love and hope."

  I suspect this is not one historian's view ;) - I see the same, and would you not? (It was even the DYK fact, DYK? ... which was years before I even looked at the Fischer source.) I can check if others see the same, but not today. --GA

  Ideally then, we'd add citations to those additional similar views. The passive voice the sentence currently uses implies that there is more than one. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

• That makes it to the beginning of the "Publication" section. I'll try to return and look through the rest of the article, but for the moment I hope this gives you some ideas on how to improve the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, and I like the discussion, - thank you for taking the time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for replies, read and mostly understood, but I have some things on my mind with more urgency (translate an article of a person who died, do a peer review as promised last week ...). I'll reply when I get some time of rest. It may be archived by then, but will help the article in the long run, transforming it from simply about one song to something like the development of congregational singing in different denominations over centuries ;) - I fixed that year, sorry to have overlooked it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This has been open for three weeks and we currently don't have a single support for promotion. Unless this changes within the next few days, I'm afraid this is at the risk of archival. I recommend that you ping the above two users who expressed an interest in reviewing this later. 11:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrB.TG (talk • contribs)

Don't be afraid, just archive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

SN 54129

• Suggest dropping the second 'German' from the lead sentence: it's clear what the language is from the first usage.

  Thank you for your comments! - This one: I'm not sure I understand. In the second sentence, if I drop it, we'd say "one of the oldest hymns" which would be wrong, - there were much older ones, in Latin and other languages. --GA

• "...several Christian denominations in different languages, having received various English translations": better to mention some of the different languages ("such as..."). and then something like "as well as receiving various translations into English".

  I'm not sure that mentioning Danish and Spanish (for examples) would make much difference, other than a more complex sentence. --GA

• In the Luther 1524 section you abbreviate the piece to ""Nun bitten wir". This is good, as the title is a bit of a mouthful and interrupts the flow a little. But suggest you abbreviate it sooner, after the first full usage in the lead.

  One of the reviewers above thought that it was not good ;) - It's not much left of the meaning in the short version. --GA

• "It was first a Sterbelied": is that as in, "It was originally a Sterbelied..."?

  Sounds good. With English not my first (or original?) language, such nuances often escape me. Why would I use four syllables when I can use one? --GA

• Perhaps quote the line from S Paul in full.

  You mean: "For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ"? In that KJV English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• "from the chant of the sequence": suggest "from the sequence's chant".

  taken, thank you --GA

• Link Processional (song).

  used Processional hymn (the other is a redirect) --GA

• "the only medieval songs still in use": In wot? Churches, public performances, processions?

  Does it matter? Churches then. - In performances, your hear a lot of historic stuff, - but I thought that "use" means something regular or common. --GA

• "The leise had a long tradition": Surely, that's been pretty much established by this point in the article.

  While that is true, the point is that it was something positive for Luther, who wasn't someone who wanted everything new and different. Help how to express that welcome ;) --GA

• "Protestant Reformers tried to continue the medieval tradition": tried here implies "attempted unsuccessfully", whereas it would seem to have been successfully continued—particularly if it's still being played today? Suggest "Protestant Reformers continued..."

  Which better word/phrase would you suggest, related to the previous response? --GA

• The line "Luther expanded "Nun bitten wir" by three stanzas, addressing the Holy Spirit three more times..." duplicates the last line of the Protestant expansion section ("Luther expanded the leise "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" by three stanzas, addressing the Holy Spirit three more times."); can these be merged?

  I shortened the second time. --GA

• "The focus is on the aspects": link to Aspect (religion); (also per Hamlet, of course, "That from her working all his visage wanned/Tears in his eyes, distraction in his aspect", or Byron's 'She walks in Beauty', "And all that’s best of dark and bright/Meet in her aspect and her eyes", or even Dennis Wheatley from The Devil Rides Out, "Our Lord... in his aspect as the Redeemer"), unlike the following two times you use the word in its usual, non-theological capacity.

  Thank you, I didn't even know that meaning, let alone the article. - Having read it, I'm not sure that it helps to clarity ;) --GA

• As a technical term, link Metre (music).

  done --GA

• Have you fielded queries re. SATBB and SSAATB at your previous FAs? If so, apologies for retreading old ground. But no one knows what this means. Link—and preferably gloss, using em dashes, footnotes or parentheticals of your choice—to SATB.

  Sorry, I just forgot that it was never linked. I also put it in brackets trying to indicate that it's necessary for the meaning. --GA

• "The Catholics": sounds slightly... perhaps "the Catholic Church", as it was not so much the personal choice of an individual Catholic as a new policy directed from Trent. In a similar vein, suggest adopted 9or your choice" instead of "countered" which, in a certain light, might be seen to imply a lack of agency from the CC and that it was purely reactive in nature. In fact, it's probably worth mentioning [[counter-reformation][] somewhere here so it's clear that the hymn's early modern context is a European-wide distancing from old ideas.

  I don't know enough if it was an official "countering" of the Catholic Church, or individual efforts. I had a link to Counter-Reformation in place until I noticed that Vehe's hymnal was before the dating of the movement. --GA

• Do we know why Thurmair "completely ignored" the hymn's treatment of death in 1975? Was it personal? A reflection of the times perhaps? (E.g., I note the Red Army Faction had severely upped its campaign that year.)

  I don't know, wish I did. - You may have noticed that I had a few other topics that kept me busy (Alexander Goehr where a massive rewrite was needed, then BWV 78 because of a time wish.), - there was one source talking about the meetings in preparation of the 1975 hymnal, which took years. I can look at that again, but not soon. --GA

• Nice work, Gerda, considering I have no known taste in music at all  :) SerialNumber54129 12:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for interesting aspects! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:53, 12 September 2024 (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 September 2024 [10].

---

Me at the zoo

Nominator(s): TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the very first video on YouTube. You could say it was the start of one and many, many other Internet stories. After I reviewed it for GA, I was convinced this article could be a featured article, considering that this video's, and therefore YouTube's, 20th anniversary is about to come. After two peer reviews, I'm certain this article is prepared to be a featured article. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Vacant0

Will leave a review here. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've checked sources for verifiability and did not notice any major grammar issues. I would, however, suggest cutting down the number of quotes.

• Mention the video's reception and legacy briefly in the lede.
  • Done.
• Ref 1 only mentions that Chen studied at the UIUC.
  • Changed (although Karim's page states that he went to UIUC too).
• "Karim stated that inspiration for the platform came from the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami" is mentioned in all three cited references. I suggest removing one of the Business Insider sources because texts in both Business Insider sources are the same.
  • Whoops! Removed the 2024 edition.
• "The video was recorded by his high school friend, Yakov Lapitsky" is cited by two Time sources. I suggest removing one of them.
  • Decided to move the 2015 Time story to the sentence mentioning the exact time the video was released.
• The rest of the Background section is verifiable.
  • Nice.
• The Reception and Legacy sections are both verifiable.
  • Niiiiice.

Support then once the number of quotes get cut down. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Sorry, but this isn’t ready for FAC. Structurally it is a bit of a mess. As this article is about a video that was posted, I wouldn’t expect to see the posting information in the background section, but in a release section. The Reception section is indistinguishable from the Legacy one, and both of them are quote farms. Karim’s status is a bit unclear: he is shown as a founder and then shown criticising YouTube’s actions, while readers are still thinking he’s connected.

Some of the grammar is also a little clunky. “The 19-second video, recorded by his high school friend, Yakov Lapitsky, features Jawed Karim” hides Karim’s name too far down the sentence when it should be up front. Another example is “After Hurley registered the website's domain on February 14, 2005,[5] "Me at the zoo" was uploaded on April 23, 2005,[6][7] at 8:27 PM”: it’s odd to have “after x”, and then an event three months later. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• I agree about the "reception" and "legacy" sections. Based on the titles alone, I would expect "reception" to cover what people thought of the video/its release at the time it actually happened, and "legacy" to cover retrospective views from potentially years later, but as far as I can see both sections cover the latter and there's nothing anywhere about what (if anything) people thought of it at the time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I should definitely close this nomination early... I didn't see this coming.

TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 14:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree on the structure too, that should definitely be addressed. Also, the number of quotes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 September 2024 [11].

---

2022 Tour de France Femmes

Nominator(s): Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.

This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck! Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Some polite pings - @AirshipJungleman29 who took part in the first review, and @Reidgreg who did the very excellent job of copyediting the article! Turini2 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :) Turini2 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Reidgreg

As noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.

• I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
• I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
• The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris. If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.
• and not being hard enough for the professional peloton Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.
• pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.
• As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the second and third editions of the race?

That's it for now. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA 2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help! Turini2 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications. Turini2 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, do you have any further comments or thoughts on this article. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
• "French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
• Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
• "with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!

The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.

• Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.

• Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.

Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.

• Removed.

• Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g. La Route de France. It's complicated!

That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.

• Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.

• Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.

I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.

• Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.

Turini2 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• "and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
  • Piped to clarify
• "Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
  • Fixed
• "We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
  • I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA 2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.

• "Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
  • Fixed
• Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
  • Rephrased
• "with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
  • Clarified

I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild hi - as per above, I've made those edits and redrafted the lead substantially - now 267 words in length (3 paragraphs) rather than 369 words. Turini2 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a fix loop. For example

• 'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event." ' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
• There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
• "chasing back after a mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." There are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)

• Given the points above, each of which is an example of a broader point which I am unhappy with, I am currently leaning oppose. Unfortunately, while happy in principle to discuss this and open to changing my mind - there is a lot of good work in the article and it is not that far off FA standard - I am going to be away from any internet connection for most of a week. So apologies for an anticipated slow response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

  I consider I have addressed these three points, as well as making some wider edits to clarify things and unknown terms. In terms of your wider point about a fix loop, this is why I had the article copyedited prior to bringing it to FAC. Turini2 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hey, would you consider these points to be resolved? Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @Gog the Mild does your oppose still stand? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

The article uses the following main images:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022_Tour_de_France_Femmes.svg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019-10-26_14-54-37_planche-des-belles-filles.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jumbo_tour_de_france_reims_1408748.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-30_16-36-56_TDFF-Willer-sur-Thur_(cropped).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-31_17-20-13_TDFF-Plancher-les-Mines.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-31_-_TDF_Femmes_-_Lure_-_302_(cropped).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-30_16-38-12_TDFF-Willer-sur-Thur_(cropped).jpg

They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour also needs to end with a period. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Amended and fixed, thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, the article passes the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator note

At four weeks in, the article has failed to progress towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significant change in the next few days it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

How do I encourage more people to engage with this article? I've been pretty on the ball here and responded to changes requested? Turini2 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

SC

A marker for now. I'll be along shortly for a review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support This is a decent article - nothing here that would stop it being an FA as far as I am concerned. I think you've done well in explaining the technical side in most places (I know nothing about cycling except that it's a damned uncomfortable for of transportation, but I still managed to understand it).Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Penitentes

Hello! Some initial comments after a read-through (disclaimer: I have no real knowledge of cycling)!

• The early breakaway was caught in the closing kilometres, with the stage win determined by a bunch sprint. - I agree with Gog the Mild above in that there are several cases where I can guess at the meanings of terms but am not certain of them. Both "breakaway" and "bunch sprint" are not perfectly clear to me. "Bunch sprint" could use a link to the glossary and both could use a very brief explanation.
• On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton - Suggest changing to (and linking) Col du Petit Ballon, or Petit Ballon if the sentence is referring to the mountain itself instead of the pass.
• A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel - Suggest linking to Col du Platzerwasel.
• Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace. - Suggest linking to Col du Ballon d'Alsace.
• van Vleuten suffered a mechanical - Gog the Mild is correct above in that I wasn't quite sure what "a mechanical" referred to until I saw the link to it. I think this is worth instead calling "an issue with her bike", or even specifying what the issue was if there's coverage of it.
• ...Women's WorldTour races have a maximum stage length of 160 kilometres ... the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar... - Are these two instances of "WorldTour" referring to the UCI Women's World Tour? If so, is there a reason they are spelled differently?

Overall, I think my impressions are very close to that of Gog. It's a very good article and it's close to fulfilling FAC criteria! But it does read like an aficionado of the sport wrote it and so it suffers from a little bit of jargon. — Penitentes (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much – I've made most of these amendments.

• Clarified wording in a few spots and rephrased.
• Added links to climbs. Sources refer to them as Ballon d'Alsace and Petit Ballon (not Col), so I've left that wording w while linking them. Interestingly, I had considered adding links to them previously – but considered it to be MOS:OVERLINK !
• Mechanical – sources usually specify what the issue is (i.e. a broken part of the bike, a puncture etc) but in this case, I can't find what the issue was – even in a specific article about the incident! I've amended to "an issue with her bike" as suggested.
• Sources (and the governing body Union Cycliste Internationale) have WorldTour without a space, so I've followed their example. Unsure why the wikipedia article name differs!

Turini2 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, good changes all! Assuming the source concerns below (incl. spotchecks) get addressed I will be a support. — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• CyclingWeekly is a work title and should be italicized, and be consistent in whether it's presented as CyclingWeekly or cyclingweekly.com. Ditto letourfemmes.fr vs Tour de France Femmes, Cycling News vs cyclingnews.com... check throughout
  • Fixed
    • Check wikilinking as well - eg you've got a wikilink on Tour de France Femmes in FN82 but not FN1. Why is there a publisher included in FN1 and not FN2? On 80 and not 81? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether "The" is included for publication titles that use it, and if so whether it is capitalized
  • Fixed
    • Why The New York Times but just Washington Post? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include ISSN - for example FNs 60 and 75 are to the same publication but only one includes it
  • Fixed.
• FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN16, check throughout
  • Fixed and checked.
• FN6 is dead
  • No thanks to the Washington Post not allowing archiving of their old posts! Found a fixed link, and changed citation to News.
• Be consistent in whether author names are presented first or last name first
  • One author name replaced with first/last.
• FNs 12 and 13 are the same work. Dittos FNs 31 and 32 - check throughout
  • In both cases, one citation is supporting a quote, and the other citation is supporting a wider sentence/paragraph. Believe this is correct approach?

• • • Not sure I follow what you're saying here - why do you need different citations to the same source, rather than calling the same citation multiple times as you do elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  Because I specifically want to include a quote in the citation? The quote then does not support the wider sentence/paragraph, so I've used the same source for a different citation. Another example would be FN71 and FN77 - same source, two separate quotes to support two separate bits. Turini2 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Fn14: title doesn't match current source and archive link is non-functional
  • Fixed
• FN16 title also doesn't match source - check throughout
  • I blame the autofill visual editor citations! Also fixed.

• • • If that's the problem, it looks to be a broader one - eg FN46 has the same issue. Suggest checking the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

These have all been checked and fixed. Turini2 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Stopping there and oppose for the moment - lots of cleaning up needed for consistency and functionality of citations. Happy to revisit once that's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Edits and fixes made - I believe that's everything checked and resolved! Turini2 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria Resolved! Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• Quote marks nested within quote marks should use single quotes

• Wikilinking is still inconsistent - eg you've got Cycling Weekly linked in FN 33 but not 5 or 34. You can do all, none, or first, but not random.

• Fn71 has reversed author too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I have referenced the first of all references (unless they have no article about said publication), and removed all other wikilinks. Reversed author fixed. Did not know about MOS:QWQ, also resolved! Turini2 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

As today the 2024 race kicks off, I will try to find time to review. My comments for the lead:

• avec Zwift --> this only appears in the lead. Should also be in the body somewhere. With source.
• took place from 24 to 31 July 2022 --> that 2022 is redundant. Already used at the start of the sentence
• the first sentence should say that it was a cycling race for female professionals
• I don't get what footnote a adds. Is this somehow controversial?
• media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders --> why an Oxford comma after coverage, but not after teams?
• polka-dot jersey or polka dot jersey?
• so we have yellow jersey and GC link to the same place, which I think is fine, but then we should link polka dot and green and white jerseys as well. But then we end up with a sea of blue links. This would argue for not linking the yellow jersey.
• which brings me to the jerseys: the white one is explained well, but the others not very well. Queen of the mountain needs to be explained, points classification needs to be explained, and the general classification is such a misleading name (suggests some sort of average) that it needs to mention fastests time.

More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Majority have been resolved.

• in terms of the footnote, there were previous "women's Tour de France" races - called things like Tour de France Féminin. The footnote clarifies that the race is the first of the Tour de France Femmes races, as well as responding to a talk page comment. The first women's Tour de France took place in 1955, for example!
• In terms of the jerseys, it's already substantially more detailed than featured article 2012 Tour de France - and I don't want the lead to become longer, given previous feedback. Expanded a little in the race overview.

Turini2 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that FA 2012 Tour de France as a reference. That helps.

• I don't think a footnote is the right mechanism for explaining previous versions. This should be more prominent. I would take the first paragraph from Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, condense it a bit, and place it as the 2nd sentence. And then reposition the "followed years of campaigning" to connect it.
  • Rewritten
• held primarily in France, first held --> that duplication of held is not particularly elegant
  • Fixed
• Since the mid-1980s --> I don't get why the ones prior to the 1980s are not mentioned
• using the Tour de France Féminin name from 1984 to 1989 --> other names should be listed as well
  • Section rewritten
• sexism and trademark issues --> sexism, and trademark issues
  • Fixed
• pushing for a women's Tour de France --> pushing for a revival of the women's Tour de France. Or a fully equivalent women's TdF. Or something distinguishable
  • Fixed
• The one-day stage race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[12] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place in a variety of locations across France in conjunction with the men's race --> this confused me. The "would take place" suggests to me that that was the plan, but actually did not happen. Then the location: first it is Paris and then it's all over France. Then the timing: first it is prior to final stage, then it is in conjunction.
  • Fixed
• 'sharing the stage' --> why the ' and not "? Or no quotes at all?
  • Fixed
• welcoming the live TV coverage and visibility of taking place alongside the men's race --> not sure about visibility of taking place. Let's assume it was held in January. It would still be visible.
  • Disagree - backed up by FN13, moved to clarify
• However, La Course was criticised --> by whom? and when, given that initially there was praise
  • Added, some criticism was straight away - but three sources in the article are 2018 and 2021
• Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve --> when?
  • There are sources for this from 2015 onwards (the two in the article are 2018 and 2021)
• mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> but no one seemed to have argued for that, so that would not be pushing back
  • That was the original push from Le Tour Entier, but I haven't included their detail of exactly what they wanted, too much detail.
• Dutch rider Anna van der Breggen stating --> that's 3 times the verb to state in short succession
• Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> sorry, 4
  • I clearly am afraid of using synonyms! Have amended throughout. Some are still there because they work best!
• "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France" --> add comma: "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France",
  • Fixed
• Zwift had signed a four-year agreement to sponsor the race --> what is missing here is the bit about the official name
• Fixed
• The 24 teams which participated in the race[25] were --> why put the ref 25 mid-sentence?
  • Fixed
• selected by Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the organisers of the Tour --> we already knew that, so just selected by ASO
  • Fixed
• selected by --> is anything known about the selection process? Highest bidder?
  • nope, literally selected by the organisers!
• covering a total of 1,033 kilometres --> should this not also be mentioned in the lead? The FA 2012 Tour de France does have distance in the lead
  • Added
• on the same day as the final stage of the men's tour --> before or after the men's finish? Ah I see that's mentioned later. I would put that here
  • Disagree, I feel the wording works better
• Vosges mountains (including the longest, stage 5), and a summit finish on stage 8 at La Super Planche des Belles Filles in the Vosges --> this isn't working for me. That last Vosges thre me, because I thought "stages in the Vosges mountains" already had dealt with that
  • Fixed
• including the longest --> repetition including
  • Fixed
• as men's Tour de France --> as the men's Tour de France
  • Fixed
• as the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men --> may I suggest to remove this bit and instead add something like "whereas the maxima for men are x km and y days" after the paragraph's 1st sentence
  • It's really complicated to explain... the summary of "the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men" is the simplest way of doing it IMO.
• In the stage characteristics table it is odd to show the riders' nationality instead of their teams. This race is really about team tactics, not like the Olympics. I was surprised by this omission, as the lead rightfully listed the team name of the jersey winners rather than their nationality. But I see that 2012 Tour de France does the same. Was it discussed there? Or also overlooked?
  • It's what all the cycling race articles do, so I'm following their practice!
• Paris: Tour Eiffel --> Paris: Eiffel Tower
  • The official name of the stage was Tour Eiffel, so no change.
• tipped for the points classification --> tipped for winning the points classification
  • Fixed
• The Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> not sure if the classification is the thing being awarded
  • Tweaked
• The Queen --> perhaps add something like "similar to King of the Mountains in the men's race"
  • Added
• referencing --> this word choice looks a bit odd to me
  • Fixed
• was very positive --> given that there was criticism, I would drop the very
  • Fixed
• outsprinted Marianne Vos --> link Marianne Vos
  • Fixed
• In the final, Vos --> not sure if it is obvious to non-cycling fans what the final is. I would just avoid and simply use "at the finish"
  • Fixed
• to take the yellow and green jerseys --> was this straight on time or was there any bonus time involved?
  • yes time bonuses and also clarifies
• Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg) took the lead in the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> remove (QoM) as this abbreviation was already given. One could question the need for QoM at all, if it is not used
  • shortened
• her to lose a minute and a half --> just to be clear, I'd say finish a minute and a half after the winner. Or whatever the difference
  • Have changed to "lose time" otherwise it's duplicate text
• was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar --> was the longest of the 2022 Women's WorldTour calendar
  • fixed
• due to bonuses --> is there no place to link to, explaining this?
  • Unfortunately not, but I've added a little bit above
• On the descent of the penultimate climb, a small group including Wiebes and Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx) crashed on the descent, --> that's descent twice
  • Fixes
• with everyone involved finishing the stage --> but everyone involved ultimately finished the stage
  • Fixed
• A group of fourteen riders that --> who instead of that?
  • Fixed
• had gained time ahead of the peloton in a breakaway --> "who had been ahead of the peloton"
  • Half fixed, leaving breakaway pipe
• by a large group of riders in a bunch sprint --> this makes me think earlier sprints were not bunch sprints. Is that true? If not, the term should be introduced earlier.
  • Fixed
• for the stage win as the race headed towards the mountains --> by adding "as the race headed towards the mountains" a non-informed reader may wrongly infer that there are some bonuses given to the winner of the last race prior to the mountains
  • Removed
• five category 1 climbs --> is 1 for easy or hard?
  • Added wording to route
• eventual winner of the general classification (GC) --> GC was already introduced and used
  • Fixed
• 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) of vertical climbing --> isn't climbing by definition vertical?
  • Fair point!
• with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, --> for context it would be good to give the length of this stage somewhere
  • Added
• ensuring that the yellow jersey --> not necessarily. She could have caught up
  • Rephrased
• following her crash on stage 6 --> Given the position of this in the paragraph, I assume she started but then gave up. Perhaps better to provide some description of causality.
  • rephrased
• achieved an impressive stage win --> better to use quotes here, otherwise find more neutral words
  • rephrased
• Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM --> this is puzzling: how come van Vleuten did not become QoM, as she seemed to get to the tops first?
• while Katarzyna Niewiadoma --> while Niewiadoma
  • Fixed
• rounded out the podium --> not sure the tone is right here, sounds more something a fanzine would write
  • Fixed
• Vos continued to hold the green jersey --> a little help for the reader would be good, something like "as only x points were awarded in this stage"
  • rephrased
• Stage 8 was the second mountain stage --> given that for stage 7 we got the number of meters of climbing, why not here as well?
• stage of the Tour, --> now we have Tour, but earlier we had tour
  • Fixed
• The final climb to La Super Planche des Belles Filles was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long with an average gradient of 8.7 percent, with the final --> final duplication
  • Fixed
• With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, --> again, for context, how long was this stage?
  • Fixed
• Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace --> this tells the reader little about how long she was behind for, so some km reference would be good
  • Fixed
• attacked from the peloton --> I have never heard this expression
  • Rephrased
• She passed the remnants of the breakaway --> which breakaway? this was never mentioned
  • have added

I'll check the last bit as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Edwininlondon - I'll take a look at this today, there are some great clarifying points in here thank you. I will note that some of this detail was previously cut from the article for being too much detail for summary style! Turini2 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Here is the last batch.

• Why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? What that FA does well in Classification leadership and minor prizes is lots of explaining all the classifications and extra info about price money. That FA does nt have reception info, but here I would put that in its own section
  • Have added this - thank goodness the relevant regulations are still available - there are no secondary source for this.
• In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> is there any kind of rule you're applying when you use GC and when general classification?
  • Just that it's a conclusion - so I've just the full wording.
• In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> feels repetitive to keep saying which team she is in
  • Again, it's because it's the overall conclusion of the race, so it could be a bit that people jump to reading
• In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) won the Tour de France Femmes --> can you really say it like that? How about: In the final general classification, van Vleuten came first
• advantage over Vollering (SD Worx) --> advantage over Vollering
  • As above
• of almost four minutes while Niewiadoma was third at more than six and a half minutes down --> of almost four minutes, and of more than six and a half minutes over third-placed Niewiadoma
  • Fixed
• Vollering won the mountains classification --> this seems to me the best place to use Queen of the Mountains phrase
  • Fixed
• while Vos (Team Jumbo–Visma) won --> while Vos won
  • As above
• and the super-combativity award --> should be explained on what basis
  • Added
• won the young rider classification --> 2 issues here: 1) the lead explains how this works, so this should be explained here as well 2) the lead mentions the white jersey, so that should be mentioned here as well
  • Added
• Her rival Vollering considered that they --> who is they referring to?
  • They'd is better?
• fourth-place overall Juliette Labous --> fourth-placed Juliette Labous ?
  • fixed
• Cycling Weekly stating --> stating repetition
  • Fixed
• and L'Équipe stating --> and again
  • Fixed
• Race director Marion Rousse stated
  • I left this one :)
• with the 2024 edition of the race set to visit the Alps --> on Sunday this likely will have to go pas tense :)
  • changed
• the column headers in the table Classification leadership by stage should all be links, just like the 2012 FA
  • Added
• The 2012 FA has links for terms in the Legend table
  • Added
• Final general classification (11–109) table width is different from 1-10. Looks broken
  • It's because of the longer team names in the 11-109 table, have amended table size so this (and the below text wrapping is fixed)
• + 1 h 00 min 49" --> + 1 h 00 min 49 s
  • Fixed
• + 1 h 01 min 01 s --> for me, from here on the text in each row starts wrapping. This could easily be fixed
  • As above
• in the young rider table, number 8 has a slower time than number 9?
  • Wrong way round! Fixed
• This is just under half the audience of the men's tour --> I would use past tense and give the 2022 year
  • Fixed
• The 2012 FA has a section UCI World Tour rankings: does this not exist for the women?
  • It does... but the data and sourcing on it is incredibly poor/hard to find. The best I've done in the past is reference who the new leader of the UCI Women's WorldTour is!

That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Some comments and fixes made, will come back to this later Turini2 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon believe these are all resolved, or have explanations why I disagree! Turini2 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I had another look at the lead. Found the following:

• make a redirect for 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift
• (officially Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift) --> (officially 2022 Tour de France Femmes avec Zwift)
• Various cycling races have been held as an equivalent to the Tour de France for women ... by the public, media, teams, and riders. --> May I suggest a bit tighter paragraph: Starting in 1955, various cycling races for women have been held similar to the Tour de France for men, under different names (for example, Tour de France Féminin, Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, La Course by Le Tour de France). Many of these were one-day races, unlike the three-weeks races for the men. The first edition of Tour de France Femmes followed years of campaigning by the women's professional peloton for an equivalent race to the men's Tour de France. The race drew large crowds, had substantial international media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams, and riders. And then add the 3 week men's race to the Background section + source.
• (French: maillot jaune) --> I don't see the value of adding this. It is never used again. And no other term is given in French. I would remove it.
• who put in a consistent performance during the first six stages and finished in the top five on both mountain stages --> this is not menioned in the body of the article
• following consistent stage finishes --> Not quite right: if she had been consistently last, she would not have gained many points. Plus where is this mentioned in the body of the article?
• Canyon–SRAM won the team classification --> Canyon–SRAM should not be linked, was already linked

I will have a 2nd run through the body as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Most changes made, with some tweaks to lead wording.

I haven't redirected the race + sponsor name, I didn't think that was the done thing for sporting events - e.g. FA 2008 Japanese Grand Prix does not have a 2008 Formula 1 Fuji Television Japanese Grand Prix redirect, FA 2017 EFL Trophy final isn't 2017 Checkatrade Trophy final etc. Turini2 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

• If I read WP:REDIR correctly, there really should be a redirect for this more specific form of the name. Looks like an oversight at the other FAs to me. But I'm happy to let this go. No users will be hurt.
• and to shorter duration --> to does not look right to me

• Fixed

• It still looks wrong to me: now it reads as "under a shorter duration" which I have never heard of

• Rephrased, is that better?

• position she'd maintained --> MOS:CONTRACTIONS

• Noted, deleted as per below

• she'd maintained throughout the race --> this is still not what the body says. Everything in the lead should come from the body. I don't think you need to say this; there is no info in the lead about how number 1 and 2 did throughout the race either.

• Fixed

• following consistent stage finishes --> this is still not what the body says: nothing about Vos in stage 3 or 4. I would rephrase

• Disagree, "after finishing in the top five on the first six stages, with wins on stages 2 and 6" later on in the article - that counts as consistent in my books!

• We should just try to avoid any misunderstanding, so simply say "following top five finishes in the first six stages, including two wins"

• Done!

• and two stage wins in the early part of the race --> stage 6 is not the early part of the race. Plus I only now notice that the section Early stages goes all the way to 6 out of 8. That does not look right.

• Struggled how to word this - the mountain stages decided the outcome of the race, so they're separated out as a key part. Initial stages? Early part of the race? "Starting in Paris and heading east" is not a great header either. I've gone with Stages 1 to 6, but thoughts welcome!

• first taking place in 1903.[2] It takes place --> repetition

• Fixed

• From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently --> is this really true? From the text it seems there was no race in 1990 and 1991. Nor in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013

• It's complicated so I've reworded it. At least one equivalent race for women in France was held from 1984 to 2009 - some years had multiple from different organisers, but that's TMI

• I agree that is TMI, but we cannot say "From 1984, a women's Tour de France was staged consistently" if it is only the case until 2009. What we have now is misleading.

• Rephrased to a "between 1984 and 2009" wording

• took place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[13] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place --> repetition

• Fixed

• with sponsors welcoming --> the previous sentence has the same with ..ing construction, which feels repetitive. Please check the rest as well, as you really seem to favour this construction.

• Some edits and tweaks made

• ASO noted that logistical issues mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> ASO noted that they were unable to stage a men's and women's Tour de France simultaneously due to logistical issues

• Fixed

• The first edition was be held --> grammar

• Fixed

• Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig commenting --see MOS:SAY

• Fixed

• A group of fourteen riders --> above you have All 14, so as per MOS:NUM change one

• Fixed

• Stages 7 and 8 took place in the Vosges --> unlink Vosges

• Fixed

• of climbing including the Grand Ballon --> of climbing, including on the Grand Ballon

• Fixed

• ensuring that the yellow jersey would change hands at the end of the day --> still not right. It does not ensure this.

• Rephrased and moved losing the yellow jersey to later on

• the second climb of the day --> now I'm confused: There is the first climb, which is unnamed. Then there is the Petit Ballon, which is a mountain, so should be the 2nd. So isn't Col du Platzerwasel the 3rd climb?

• Rephrased

• 3rd place --> MOS:ORDINAL

• Fixed

• remnants of the breakaway --> remnants of the breakaway group

• Fixed

• As I asked above, why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? It seems odd to have a section called Results and recption, and then another section called Classification leadership. The first paragraph of Results and reception and the content in Classification leadership really belong together. I would follow as much as possible what 2012 TdF is doing, and then add a separate Reception section

• Partial tweaks made - separating out results and reception. I actually think the prose works better keeping the summary of the final results (and the comments from riders) separate from classification leadership.

• Last bit I will check later, asap. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• after finishing in the top five on the first six stages --> the reader will infer that this is the reason to win the award, but that is a bit misleading. I would explain that a jury does it based on x y z, like you now have in the section below (which is why I think these 2 sections should merge). But if you do not want to do that, I would leave it out instead of repeating.

• Reordered and rephreased

• Her rival Vollering considered that they'd performed --> 2 issues: MOS:CONTRACTION and it is unclear who they is referring to. Is it not simply "she had performed"? Isn't she just talking about herself?

• Changed - I think I had "Her rival Vollering considered that she had performed well throughout the race" before, but wanted to make clear it was Vollering talking about herself!

• Just say "Vollering" instead of "Her rival Vollering"

• Done!

• Worldwide media coverage praised the event,[74][75] with CNN calling the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented --> grammatical issue here, which I would fix this way: Worldwide media coverage praised the event.[74][75] CNN called the race a "rebirth",[76] Cycling Weekly commented

• Fixed

• 2024 edition of the race visited the Alps --> 2024 edition visited the Alps

• Fixed

• The climbs were categorised as fourth-, third-, second- or first-category --> earlier you use a different notation: category 4. Consistency is better

• Fixed

• with the more difficult climbs rated lower. --> just be explicit: category 4 being the easiest and category 1 the hardest.

• Fixed

• I would also say something here about with hors catégorie, which was introduced already in the route section, even though there isn't one. This detailed section has all the rules, so might as well add.

• Added

• Yes, but now there is duplication: it was already linked and translated, so not needed again. Plus what I wanted to see is how many points, so should come after the category 1.

• Duplication removed. As there are no hors-categorie climbs, the source has no information about how many points would be available. (It varies race to race)

• Fourth-category awarded 2 riders, the first with 2 points; with 1 point; third-category awarded 3 riders, the first with 3 points; second-category awarded 4 riders, the first with 5 points; and first-category awarded 6 riders, the first with 10 points. -->MOS:NUM defifintely change the numbers for the riders. Plus there is an error in first bit. I would leave the points numbers. So Category 4 awarded two riders, the first with 2 points, and the second with 1 point; category 3 awarded three riders, the first with 3 points; category 2 awarded four riders, the first with 5 points; and category 1 awarded six riders, the first with 10 points.

• Fixed

• was restricted to riders who under the age of 23 --> apart from the fact this is not grammatical, the source says nées depuis le 1er janvier 2000, and this is how the 2012 FA avoids ambiguity as well.

• Ah, but other sources say "Coureuses âgées de moins de 23 ans". Have left it with grammar fixed.

• what are these other sources? Should you not add those? Right now you have a claim that is not backed up by the source. BTW isn't this source providing the official rules?

• Added source to support.

• The leader wore a white and violet jersey --> In the lead and elsewhere it is pure white.

• That's me blindly copying the detailed source, when every secondary source just calls it white! Amended.

• yellow number bibs on the back of their jerseys.[88] --> no yellow helmets?

• Source doesn't mention it!

• At the conclusion of the Tour, the jury awards--> why present tense? everything was past tense
• + 1 h 00 min 49 s --> the issue with s was fixed here but now there is a new formatting problem: it sticks out

• Fixed

• over the 8 stages --> MOS:NUM

• Fixed

• France 3, RTVE and SBS --> France 3, RTVE, and SBS

• Fixed

• In France, France 3 --> delink

• Fixed

@Turini2: Just pinging you in case you missed my last batch of comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:51, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon I had, in the chaos of getting the 2024 edition to ITN! I'll work on this today. Turini2 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Vast majority done, a few more need to be resolved with a fresh pair of morning eyes. :) Turini2 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon hello, all of these have been actioned or commented on! Turini2 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a few issues left. See nested comments above. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon edits made! Turini2 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• 51 52 53 together cover the whole paragraph. This was quite an effort to check. I could not see any of these 3 source supporting the word "rolling". I did see "The succession of short, sharp climbs through the hills", which to me as a non-cyclist doesn't sound like rolling. Cycling Weekly called it "punchy terrain".
• None of the 3 sources mentioned the word "loop"

• 53 supports the loop and the rolling terrain - the profile shows the profile of the course and the map tab shows the route looping into Epernay.

• "seven riders contending for the general classification broke away from the peloton" --> could not find support for this in any of the 3

• replaced seven with several to avoid adding another source here to support one word (I think the seven was from Cycling News, originally).

• 55 and 56: With around 23 kilometres (14 mi) remaining --> 55 says 25km, 56 says 20km

• Amended to 25 - crosschecked with Cycling News

• 57 58: Continuing east across France --> could not see this in these 2 sources

• this is clear from the overall route direction, with a map above and route sources

• With around 45 kilometres --> Guardian says 50km, Cycling W says 42km

• And Cycling News says 45 exactly! Does "with around" caveat these numerical discrepancies enough?

• due to bonuses --> did not see this in 57 or 58

• Added source to support this

• 59 60: Stage 6 to Rosheim was a hilly stage --> I happened to notice that source 58 speaks of not 2 but 3 mountain stages: "eve of a trio of mountain stages". 59 calls it a transition stage. But "hilly" I did not see in these 2.

• Hilly is from citation 1, supported further up in the article in the route section.

• four categorised climbs and another climb with bonus seconds at the top --> in 59 I could only count 4 and nothing about bonus

• Added Rouleur source (used above) to confirm

• of the penultimate climb --> 60 definitely does not indicate which climb, and 59 says "final classification climb, the Route de Mollkirch". Probably needs another source to indicate this is indeed penultimate

• The Rouleur source added above supports this

• everyone involved ultimately finished the stage --> could not find support for this in 59 60

• Added Tissot Timing source to support

I'll stop here. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

One comment from Jonesey95

I noted this on the talk page before seeing that an FAC was open. Flag use in this article appears to be contrary to MOS. See the talk page for details. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page, TLDR the article follows the consensus for cycling articles (and has been discussed numerous times). Turini2 (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS:SPORTSFLAG has been edited following the established consensus for cycling/Formula 1/golf etc, and this matter is therefore resolved. Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Archiving on David’s behalf as per this as he probably forgot this part. Having been open for more than two months, this is still a long shot from achieving a consensus for promotion. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply.

• 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. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

A little bit of a disappointing outcome, given the supports and responses to comments made. I guess I will go again in due course! Thanks all for your help and comments in this process. Turini2 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

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