Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2024

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 August 2024 [1].

Raichu

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fictional species in the Pokémon media franchise, the evolution of mascot Pikachu. The article discusses the character's design and appearances, as well as reception in the context of it as its own species and in relation to Pikachu from both audience perception and company handling of the character.

The article passed GAN in January of this year, and underwent a peer review in April, with feedback from both worked into the article. Additional discussions to refine sections have also taken place on the video game character task force to help get consensus on how to approach commonly used terminology and help a reader unfamiliar with the franchise or gaming understand them. One point of issue may be the use of a ScreenRant source in the reception section, however this source is being used strictly for the author Niki Fakhoori's opinion, and they have a long history in gaming journalism for outlets such as Prima Games and RPGFan as illustrated here (the latter of which recognized as a reliable source by the Wikipdia Video Game project).

I hope this article meets FAC standards, and will be receptive to quickly fix any issues or concerns that may arise.Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pokelego999

[edit]

I don't normally look at FANs but given that this is within my main subject area, I thought I'd stop by and leave some comments.

-"Sugimori asked Nishida to design the form, who gave it a "soft and fluffy" appearance. Nishida felt that Raichu's original design was far cuter than people gave it credit for, and wanted to express this in the Alolan form" The wording feels a bit informal here, and I feel this could be better worded.

Reworded for better flow.

-What are Types? (Electric and Psychic) and what do they do? For those unfamiliar with Pokémon this aspect isn't very well-defined.

Added a definition to the opening paragraph explaining this.

-I'd define what an ability is (Clarify it with something like "an in-battle special ability or something like that) for those unaware of in-game terminology

Fixed.

-I'd also clarify what Electric Terrain is, given it isn't clarified what that is.

Fixed,

-"First found in Pokémon Red and Blue, they have appeared in most Pokémon titles since, including every major game." This statement seems to be unsourced.

Reused the Ode to Raichu reference here as he mentions capturing it in every game.

-"and another Pikachu must be obtained instead." I'd reword this to also mention "...must be obtained instead in order to obtain Raichu" or something like that

Reworded

-I'd clarify "the games" Pokémon Sun and Moon in the prose in the Appearances section

Fixed

-I'm not sure how necessary "due to the latter evolving his as quickly as possible" is in the article's context.

Reworded

-I'd utilize a source that isn't Comicbook.com for cite 27 (Verifying Goh's Raichu) given that site is inconclusive in terms of reliability and tends to have low quality articles.

Sadly this is the best source for that matter, as all others omit details. The anime at this point is not heavily discussed in sources and ComicBook.com offered the best material for this matter.

-How reliable are "Visual Entertainment Plandas" and "Gung Ho Bookings"?

Both are the booking companies of their respective talents, and while still primary sources the alternative would have been to cite episode credits directly for Japan or Ms. Mongillo's Twitter, which per the previous FAC attempt was frowned upon. Most voice work in the anime are often either difficult to find secondary credits for or uncredited entirely in the English end.

-"or ending up not using them at all" I'd just change this to "end" for grammatical reasons

Fixed

-"and expressing his confusion at the reaction." I'm very confused as to what this is supposed to mean.

Reworded

-I feel the Comicbook.com source in the Reception isn't really adding much. I know there's other small sources used, but these at least have a reason to be used. The Comicbook.com source just feels unnecessary.

While it's lighter it's used as a glue for that whole paragraph as it helps offer another reaction to how the fandom and company have treated the character. I feel removing this would undermine that paragraph and an idea of how the character was received in that regard overall as the series progressed.

-" to Ash's idealized childlike state instead of maturing in Pikachu's refusal to evolve into Raichu and how this displayed that they drew power from their younger states respectively." I'd cut the "instead of maturing" here because this sentence is very hard to comprehend otherwise.

Fixed.

-The LGBTQ+ source is honestly really cool, but it only mentions Raichu once and is a small part of the article. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage in the scope of a FA.

I feel strongly it helps bring a different enough viewpoint to the relation between the two and is significant enough to keep. While smaller sources on their own may not be ideal, they can help cement larger opinions and give the reader a more thorough perspective on how a relationship between two fictional characters can be seen.

-I think this article has potential but does need some work. Fantastic job overall, but do let me know your thoughts on the above or if you need any clarification, since this article still needs some improvements before I'll give my Support vote. (I believe that's how this works? Do correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not as familiar with FA voting.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999: I believe I have addressed all your concerns.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man thank you for addressing the above concerns. I don't believe I have many concerns regarding the sources above per your explanations, and your fixes are very good. Happy to Support this for FA. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Night Watch

[edit]

I'm traveling right now but I think I'll be able to get some comments up within the next week or so. Haven't looked at Pokémon in a long while but this might be a good start. The Night Watch (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just know that the review is still forthcoming, I'm just not feeling the best. May take a few more days The Night Watch (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figured I'd review this, since I noticed this FAC when I nominated my own FAC.

  • "concepts of self-identity and portrayals of youth in anime media" - I feel like one of these could get a wikilink
  • Wikilinked self-identity, portrayals of youth may be too broad to pinpoint to any one wikipedia article I fear.
  • "the Japanese franchise began in the 1990s with the release of the video games Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy" - I feel like I need to be pedantic and point out that it was called Red and Green in Japan. I think you should mention the exact year the first game was released, since you mention that in the infobox, and otherwise there's no reference for when Raichu made its first appearance. And then you could also say, it was re-released in North America as Pokemon Red and Blue. Maybe even having a note that for consistency sake, they are referred as Red and Blue? I don't want to belabor the point too much, but the remakes were FireRed and Leaf Green, so that lends to the originals being Red and Green. I'd just like some clarification that the article is deliberately calling them Red and Blue.
  • We've actually had some back and forths regarding this across the wikipedia community as a whole, and part of the problem is that the games themselves are listed on here as Red and Blue, causing confusion for some readers when wikilinked if Red/Green was used in the text (I think this even came up with MissingNo. back in the day but that's over a decade ago now). While we could go into more detail on it too, I feel the Keep It Simple, Stupid policy may apply here also as the exact game names bear little weight on understanding Raichu as a concept or character, and going on a tangent about it may confuse readers in this article and others (given this block is shared among multiple Pokemon character articles)
  • Well regardless of the Green/Blue, there should still be a reference and indication that the game came out in 1996. Leaving it to "the 1990s" is too vague when 1996 is a much better answer, and is what's in the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked this a bit, avoided saying "released" to bypass an earlier issue (Red and Blue were technically released in '98, that's why the whole "1990s" bit came about as seen here.
  • Also, since this is up for FAC, I have to ask, is there any literature on when the designs for the Pokemon started? Like, I know Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever created, so I wondered if there's anything about when the rest of them were made. If the first Japanese game came out in 1996, and it was apparently approved as a game in 1990 when Satoshi Tajiri pitched it. I feel like some of this should be mentioned for context, so it's not just leaving it to a vague decade long period that could have served as the origins.
  • Not really, sadly. Pokemon had a very long development period, so an exact window of when certain designs were considered or even when exactly Atsuko Nishida was brought onto the development team isn't clear. We're only now getting more of the behind the scenes as time goes on.
  • "In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train Pokémon." - feels redundant to say Pokemon twice, and "Trainer/train". Any way you could reword this a bit?
  • Reworded this a bit with the following sentence.
  • Pikachu evolves into Raichu through use of the game's "Thunder Stone" item,[9] while Raichu was originally planned to evolve into a Pokémon species dubbed Gorochu. - I love this factoid. I highly suggest splitting into two sentences.
  • Split into two sentences.
  • I wonder if it's worth mentioning the addition of Pichu in Gold/Silver. Raichu is the final evolution in that family, so I think that's worth mentioning.
  • The problem is Pichu came afterward, and has no real bearing on Raichu's design or vice versa, and there's no discussion about a relationship between the two. It would be especially awkward to work it in as it has no bearing on the rest of the article at all.
  • Except Pichu completes the evolutionary family. So when you mention Raichu as "Pikachu-related product lines", I have to wonder about other parts of the Pikachu line. I think it would be natural to mention Pichu after mentioning the canceled Gorachu, since that completes the evolutionary line. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to work it in carefully, since Pichu's design is Sugimori's and I didn't want to throw too much at the reader.
  • "In Red and Blue the Gym Leader Lt. Surge, a Trainer that acts as a boss the player must defeat to proceed, utilizes a Raichu" - the grammar could be better
  • Reorganized, is this better?
  • " Outside of games, Raichu has appeared on several pieces of merchandise, including plush toys, figurines, and as promotional material with companies such as Burger King." - could you go more into this? I think this is the most significant proof that Raichu is indeed fairly notable, independent of its relationship to Pikachu. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to remember when there was an article for every Pokemon, until there wasn't, and only certain ones were important enough for an article. Given all of the sources and analyses about Raichu, there is probably enough here, but expanding on the sentence I mentioned would really help prove that.
  • I expanded this a bit with some references noting how Raichu's been part of Pikachu-themed product lines, I'm hoping that suffices for this. There was some commentary about it being part of the Year of the Rat promotion in 2019, but the only source I could find to corroborate that was Nintendo Soup which isn't a reliable source per WP:VG/S.

And that's my review. I didn't get into checking out the sources or images. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Hit everything I could and addressed the others the best I could, let me know if there's anything else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much better already, just two follow ups, if you don't mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink:Addressed it the best I could, lemme know what you think!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yes thank you! Happy to support this now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]
  • First introduced in the video games Pokémon Red and Blue, they were created by Atsuko Nishida at the request of lead designer Ken Sugimori, with the design finalized by Sugimori. Since their initial appearance, they have appeared in multiple games The lead is inconsistent as to the use of "it" vs. "they".
  • Electric and Psychic-type Try "Electric- and Psychic-type" as both items are hyphenated.
  • "look strong." MOS:LOGICAL the quote of a sentence fragment should have period outside quotes. This also recurs in the Critical reception area multiple times with commas and periods.
  • they had previous explored missing "ly"
  • Both have appeared in the mobile game Pokémon Go, and, in physical media, were in The number of commas obscures that the one after "Go" must go. It is a WP:CINS error, as the subject is the same on both sides: "Both". Try Both have appeared in the mobile game Pokémon Go and, in physical media, were in
  • series of articles arguing that Raichu was "loved by many and despised by more," an This comma is unnecessary
  • that evolving Pikachu would be a disadvantage, or, in some titles, prevent Pikachu Remove comma after "disadvantage"
  • was treated with less recognition, and added Should be was treated with less recognition and added,
  • He argued that Raichu was simply a stronger counterpart to Pikachu, and felt Raichu Remove comma

Very solidly written. The they vs. it dichotomy, especially given that like every other Pokémon the singular is the plural, is a bit tough to square up. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an FAC open myself for your consideration if you wish to review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: sorry for the delay in responding but got everything done, let me know if there's anything else! As for the FAC, I'll take a gander, though I'll admit radio stations tend to be a bit outside my scope of expertise.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sammi, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Happy to Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I know next to nothing about these sources (quite aside from language barriers) so I'll lean heavily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. What makes https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/fukayomi/20180501-OYT8T50139/ a reliable source/translation? Same question about plandas, Gung Ho Bookings, Pocket Games, The Gamer, Woman.excite, PokemonCenter Online, Kakaku and ComicBook.com. Some archives, like #5, seem to be broken - all needs checking. It seems like formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun is a major newspaper in Japan. The interview was translated by Nintendo for their Pokemon website, which was the original citation until primary source concerns were raised.
  • Plandas and Gung Ho Bookings are the respective talent agencies for their voice actors. It's the only available source to attribute them short of citing the episode credits itself for the Japanese voice actor and tweets by the North American VA (unlike Japan the English VAs are not credited in the episodes). This was considered a preferable alternative to those sources in the first FAC, as direct citations were seen as too primary.
  • Pocket Games is a printed sub publication magazine by the Electronic Gaming Monthly team. It was released seasonally in the late '90's/early 2000's.
  • The Gamer is a long standing news website that, while owned by Valnet, has been recognized by the Video Game project as viable for verification and in cases where the author's opinion meets WP:SIGCOV the author's opinion. In the case of the latter with reference 38, Isaiah McCall is a longtime freelance writer with a variety of publications and went to Ramapo College of New Jersey and is a Communication Arts major with a concentration in Journalism according to his bio on the Gamer.
  • Excite is one of the world's largest web portals, with Woman.excite being a sub website of the main Excite hub. It is cited here strictly for secondary confirmation of the existence of these products. I've now wikilinked the reference.
  • PokemonCenter Online is a primary source cited here because there was not a secondary source that could confirm information to the same degree. It is owned and operated by Nintendo.
  • Kakaku.com is a longstanding price comparison company in Japan that started in 1997, and is cited here strictly for secondary confirmation of the existence of those products. I've now wikilinked the reference and fixed the website name.
  • ComicBook.com is a longstanding website with editorial oversight that is part of Paramount Global. They have been cited in multiple articles across wikipedia. The article in question is cited strictly for the author's opinion, who has a degree in Journalism and has written for multiple publications.
  • Fixed the reference error in #5, it appears to be an isolated case due to a bad copy/paste.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've gone through and fixed everything that needed to be, and added verification/justification for each source brought up. Please let me know if there's anything else!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess that I don't think the information sourced to Plandas and Gung Ho Bookings requires a secondary source, it ain't analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but crediting the people directly was a big issue raised during the first failed FAC, so I'm hoping better safe than sorry here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of this source:

  • 1 Using Google Translate, I don't see "cartridge" and the squirrel paragraph is a bit hard too.
  • From the Pokemon website translation, Cartridge: "Nishino: “There was also a problem in terms of the size of the game data. We had to save space by taking Pokémon originally designed to evolve twice and making them evolve only once. Pikachu was not one of the first three Pokémon, so it was an easy target for this kind of reduction.” ROM space may be slightly more accurate, but could also be more confusing to a casual reader.
  • Squirrel: "Nishida: “I didn’t draw an illustration on paper, but went straight to the computer screen and punched in the dots. Using dots to create the face of this dumpling-shaped creature with no definition between its head and body! At the time, I was obsessed with squirrels. I didn’t own a squirrel, but I wanted to because I thought its movement was comical. It was here that I was inspired to make Pikachu store electricity in its cheek pouches. When hamsters store food, their entire body puffs up, but with squirrels, it’s just their cheeks.”
  • 3 Can't read this one.
  • Kei Shindō (真堂圭) is credited at the block of text starting with 【出演声優１】
  • 6 OK
  • 7 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • The book used to be more readily available on Archive.org, but has since been limited.
  • 8 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 12 OK
  • 14 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 16 OK but where does it say new psychic?
  • "We're absolutely loving the new Electric/Psychic Alolan Raichu though, and think it fits in perfectly with the Hawaiian theme of Pokémon Sun and Moon."
  • 17 More a question about the source: Is Niki Fakhoori a prominent commenter? Also, where does it say that the company has an emphasis on Pikachu?
  • Regarding the first part not sure the issue there, she's written editorials for the sites mentioned above and extensively. Not saying she's on par with Jason Schreier by any means but the existence of editorial oversight on the site and her credentials should hopefully suffice. Regarding the second, replaced emphasis with focus, as it's more neutral and summarizes the statements in the article's beginning paragraphs better.
    When it comes to reviews and comments, I tend to grade sources by their prominence. A prominent reviewer is a higher-quality source on a work of fiction than an obscure one, certainly under WP:DUE considerations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • This was on Archive.org but has been since removed. It's one of the harder books to hunt down when it gets scanned.
  • 20 Where is the Boss thing explained?
  • It's inferred, but I could add this from Game Rant as a secondary source there to confirm if needed. I do feel The Gamer's text makes it clear the role of Gym Leaders in the game though as bosses, and I'm wary about adding more Valnet sources to the page given the (slightly founded) bias against them.
  • 21 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 22 You know, I didn't think that "Pokémon Sun and Moon" were 2 separate games. Assuming that they are set on Alola and only on Alola, then it fits.
  • 24 Supports part of the information.
  • 25 OK
  • 27 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 30 Supports part of the information.
  • 33 Where does it say that the anime presentation was inspired by memes?
  • Reworded that slightly as it feels I might've read that incorrectly when citing it.
  • 37 OK
  • 41 Can I have a copy of this page?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part, (Since Raichu's initial appearance, it has appeared in multiple games), I would avoid the repetition of appearance / appeared.
  • Fixed, replaced initial appearance with debut.
  • I was initially surprised by this part in the lead, (a large brown mouse), as I see Raichu as being more orange than brown. The article describes Raichu as having orange skin with brown paws so I would think that makes him more orange than brown?
  • Fixed.
  • I would avoid repetition in the following sentence if possible: (Designed to be the stronger counterpart to Pikachu, who evolves into Raichu through use the of a "Thunder Stone" item, Raichu was intended to be able to evolve into 'Gorochu' before the latter was removed.) I am specifically referring to Raichu and a variation of evolve being used twice.
  • Not really a clean way I can see to fix that, as evolve tends to be a rather fixed term in the pokemon franchise.
  • This could just be me over-thinking things, but I am uncertain about the word "reputation" in this part, (and overall damaged its reputation). I just do not really think of "reputation" in this context, and I would consider something like "appeal" to be better.
  • Replaced, though the term is based off its reception. I can see why on its own it feels amiss.
  • Thank you for the response. Just to be clear, I could just be over-thinking it so I would be okay if you decide to change it back. It was just something that caught my eye for some reason, but like I said above, it could just be a case of me over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (Raichu is a species of fictional creature called Pokémon), shouldn't it be "a species of fictional creatures" instead? Something about the singular in the current version seems off to me, but I could be wrong.
  • Replaced with creatures after some digging online. I was unsure if it should be singular or plural in that case as we're discussing one species, but it seems the terminology is more often plural for the creatures part in similar sentences elsewhere.
  • Do we have any further context on why Satoshi Tajiri changed Pikachu / Raichu from squirrels to mice? I understand if there is not any further information, but I was just curious.
  • We do not unfortunately. A lot of information was kept pretty close to the chest for a long time when it came to Pokemon development. For a long time many articles on here even said Tajiri made most of the Pokemon because that was the common assumption in media due to a lack of info.
  • This part, (When developing sequel titles Pokémon Sun and Moon, "Alolan form" variants), is grammatically incorrect as it literally reads that these variants are the ones developing the games. I would instead use something like "During the development of sequel titles Pokémon Sun and Moon" to avoid this mismatch.
  • Fixed.
  • Since the special ability for the Alolan form is mentioned (i.e. "Surge Surfer"), shouldn't the special ability for the original form be mentioned as well? Or is this not done as this ability is not discussed in third-party sources? If that is the case, then I understand, but I was just curious about it.
  • I haven't found it discussed in third party sources in the same manner. I think Surge Surfer's standing out is in part due to it being unique to Alolan Raichu while the others are more generic abilities shared by others.
  • Is there any information about Raichu's appearances in manga that are not about Ash Ketchum?
  • The Japanese citations should have English translations for the titles.
  • Fixed, did the French book title too!
  • It's just more an oversight on my part due to not knowing which of these have an article given that some do not (for example TheGamer doesn't, despite being a more prominent part of Valnet ironically)

I hope that this review is helpful so far. I have left comments on the citations and on the article up to the "Critical reception" section. I will continue after everything has been addressed so far. I am enjoying the article so far. Hopefully, this FAC will lead to more Pokémon and more video game characters in general being nominated for FACs in the future. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything so far. I will start looking at the rest of the article later today and post the rest of my comments then. I did notice that the question about Raichu's appearances in non-Ash Ketch-related manga was not answered. It could be the case that they were not covered in third-party, reliable sources (or Raichu may not have any importance or major role in those manga), but I just wanted to double check. I am always happy to help (or at least try to help). Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missed that bit but yeah it's an issue of not being covered by third party sources and not having a significant role.
  • I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as shown in this part (with IGN in their "Pokémon of the Day Chick" series of articles arguing). I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I do not know that it is brought up quite often in FACs so it would be best to avoid it.
  • Tried to fix this somewhat to make things smoother.
  • This part, (Later articles, such as Nintendo Life's retrospective of Pokémon from Red and Blue,), mentions that multiple articles, but only cites one in the actual paragraph.
  • Reworded this.
  • I am a bit confused by the overall structure for the first three paragraphs. The last two paragraphs have a clearer topic (i.e. different views on Raichu and the reception for the Alolan form), but could you explain to me how the first three paragraphs are structured? WP:RECEPTION is a great resource as these sections are notoriously difficult to write well.
  • The first paragraph is to cover initial reactions compared to a significant later one, while the second leads into Kenneth Shepard's multiple articles in support of Raichu and his view that the company mishandled the species. The third shows others than Shepard offering similiar views to support the second paragraph, while the fourth is regarding discussions about the species' themes as presented in media. The last paragraph is for reactions for the Alolan version, and how it was received by others including Shepard.
  • I would avoid "Meanwhile" as a transition as done in this part, (Meanwhile, Kenneth Shephard of Kotaku criticized). This transition is used to say something is happening at the same time as something else, and that is not the case here. I have the same comment for this part, (Meanwhile, journalist Nicole Hill).
  • Fixed.
  • I have a clarification question about this part, (or, in some titles, prevent Pikachu from evolving at all). I have only played a few Pokémon games, and I know that Pikachu refuses to evolve in Pokémon Yellow but what are the other games where this occurs? To be clear, I am not saying that the titles need to be explicitly stated in the article. This is just more so because I am curious about it.
  • Let's Go Pikachu is another title where the Pikachu you get at the start cannot be evolved in Raichu in-game and requires the player to trade another pokemon to it.
  • For this part, (In an article for Fanbyte, he further explained), I would use Shephard rather than "he" to avoid any confusion as it has been a bit since Kenneth Shephard was mentioned in the prose at that point in the paragraph.
  • Fixed
  • I would revise this part, (such as the book La Culture de l'Enfance à l'Heure de la Mondialisation, which compared it to the story of David and Goliath), as whoever wrote the book made these comparisons, not the book itself.
  • Fixed.
  • I made a small edit to this part. I removed the university part as I do not think it is particularly beneficial when that can and likely will change for professors. I changed "Social Sciences" to "social sciences" as I do not think this is a proper noun and does not need to be capitalized in that way. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could just be a matter of personal preference, but I have a comment on this part, (Gina O'Melia in the book Japanese Influence on American Children's Television drew). I personally think it is more beneficial to use some sort of descriptor for these individuals to highlight their expertise rather than naming the book in the prose itself (unless the book is notable).
  • Fixed.
  • This following sentence would need to be revised as it is coming across like Wikipedia is saying this: (Despite praising the design on its own aspects, the form came across as a reminder that "if Raichu is to get any spotlight", it would be "as a kind of canvas" for new ideas instead.)
  • Fixed
  • This is more of a clarification question, but did any of the coverage mention any of the more positive representations of Raichu in the anime? I have a feeling that is not the case, but I wanted to double-check with you. It is a shame that Stage Fright! was banned for its usage of Jynx as it would have been a more positive usage of Raichu in the original series.
  • Not that I was able to find sadly. Outside of certain standout episodes a lot of the show itself didn't get deep dives into character handling.

This should be all of my comments for the "Reception" section. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I've got to head back to work on my end, but I tried to address everything you mentioned. Let me know if you notice any other issues and I'll get them done when I get home tonight!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay. I hope you are doing well with work. Aoba47 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience. I have read through the article again, and I do not see anything further for me to point out in my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Raichu.png might need a bit more explanation of how it fits WP:NFCC#8; "showcasing" an image isn't really a valid reason. File:Pokemon Raichu Alolan Art.png, I kinda wonder what the image is of - preliminary sketches of the character? Might also want to say why the images at commons:Category:Raichu (one of which seems nongermane, anyway...) can't replace these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've adjusted both, using terminology based off those used in the images for Jill Valentine, a Featured character article, and your own suggestions. Is this sufficient?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by cooments

[edit]
  • References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • Fixed
  • The IPA spelling should be inside the same parentheses as the Japanese characters. And separated by a semi colon.)
  • Fixed. I think. This is a bit newer for me.
  • "Classified as an Electric-type Pokémon". Why the upper-case E?
  • Typing is treated as a proper noun in the games and capitalized. Even in the development article it's capitalized.
  • "later examinations have been more favorable, showing preference for its design.". "examinations", what is being examined? "showing preference", preference over what?
  • Rewritten, should be better.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Should be all fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 August 2024 [2].

1271 Avenue of the Americas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This office building, constructed for the Time and Life Company, opened in 1960 as part of an expansion of Rockefeller Center. It's distinctive not so much for its exterior (which resembles any other 1960s office building in NYC), but for its whimsical modern interiors, which include a serpentine pavement, steel-and-marble walls, and burgundy glass ceilings. The building also featured a dining club, stores, and even an auditorium. Perhaps the design of the interiors is why the building was nearly fully occupied a year after it opened.

This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

I'll get to this in the coming days. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below are some comments on prose, most of which are nits; feel free to refuse with justification:

Lead

  • "The lobby contains serpentine floors; white-marble and stainless-steel walls; reddish-burgundy glass ceilings; and artwork by Josef Albers, Fritz Glarner, and Francis Brennan." - I think that the semicolons here should be replaced with commas, though I recognize that this is technically proper usage as the last clause itself contains a list with commas. Just a small grammatical nitpick on my part.
  • The first instance of Time Inc. should be wikilinked. Premature apologies for further comments on wikilinking - I recognize that it can be a bit of a nuisance to the nominator and that there are certain MOS standards that should be upheld with regards to it, though I will try to keep it to a minimum here.
  • "Construction started in May 1957; the building was topped out during November 1958; and occupants began moving into their offices in late 1959." - In this case, however, the second semicolon should be a comma, as the last clause is not independent (contains "and").

Site

  • No glaring issues.

Architecture

  • I happened to be familiar with Syska Hennessy for reasons I am not too sure of at the moment; however, to someone who may be unfamiliar, it could appear to be a person with a rather unconventional name. Would mentioning that it's an engineering firm (or just a firm/company) be worth it here, in your opinion?
  • Wikilink Limestone in "1271 Avenue of the Americas' facade is made mostly of glass, which at the time of the building's construction cost the same as a wall made mostly of limestone."
  • Wikilink Canopy (architecture) in "At ground level, there is a canopy over the 51st Street entrance." I won't include further comments on wikilinking from here, though I would suggest it be done for the more technical terms such as emissivity, parapet and terrazzo. I will leave the determination of what could be considered technical up to you, unless more elaboration is requested. Hoping this isn't too big a bother :( I realize that I'm being rather pedantic here.
  • "Internally, 1271 Avenue of the Americas was divided into eight zones for air-conditioning." - Is this currently how the building is set up, or has there been further development here (as of right now, I am not sure whether the upgrade in 1957 was done to address this division). I think that "initially" between "was" and "divided" would be a good disambiguation, though if it's set up like this now, perhaps change "was" to "is".
  • "The ceiling throughout the lobby is 16 ft (4.9 m) high. The ceiling is made of dark maroon glass tiles, finished in a matte covering, with white lighting coves in some tiles." - Perhaps these can be combined into one sentence?
  • "The interiors were designed by Alexander Girard and furniture by Charles Eames." - In contrast to my previous supplications that other terms be wikilinked, I will suggest that the names of the designers be unlinked to avoid too-close duplicate linking.
  • "This arrangement was inspired by the PSFS Building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." - In its current location, this sentence feels a bit out of place, as the arrangement hasn't been described other than the footage of the floors and the presence of columns. Perhaps this could go at the end of the paragraph instead, or could be expounded upon with regards to how it was the column arrangement that was inspired by the Philly building.
  • No further issues with the rest of the section.

History

  • Apologies, I lied. David Sarnoff has an article you could wikilink in "NBC ultimately dropped out of the project because its CEO, David Sarnoff, dissented."
  • "In addition, Major League Baseball moved its headquarters to the building,[162][163] and it leased two stories in the building's base for use as an MLB Store, which opened in 2020." - Should "MLB Store" be in title case here?
  • Rest of this section is straightforward and well-written.

Impact

  • No glaring issues.

@Epicgenius: It was a pleasure to read Hearst Tower when it was at FAC, and I'm glad to say the same for this article. This is looking to be in great shape already, and once my comments are addressed, I will likely come back to support. Looking forward to your responses, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far. joeyquism (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Joeyquism, and hope you're having a good week as well. I'll take a look at these on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! I won't hold you any longer for further wikilinking; I'm already glad to support this FAC for nomination. Hope you're having a great week so far! joeyquism (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

Will have a read through soon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, just a gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agh! Hope to be on this later today. Sometimes I need less of a nudge and more of a shove... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, a hearty shove. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Have one other to review first, but will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to review the article, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe and @SchroCat. Just as a heads up, I'm going to have limited internet access for about 2 weeks beginning on August 9, but I probably will still be able to address your feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
Offices
  • "largely uninterrupted by columns": the lead says "Each of the upper floors ... consists of a column-free space". Both of these can't be true
  • "largest floor plates": again, anything "plates" can link to?
  • "The panels themselves were": you don't need "themselves"
  • "The chairs remain in production as of 2015": Any update on this? As it's nine years old, the use of the present tense jars a bit
    • They are indeed still being produced, but I wasn't able to find any non-primary sources confirming this. I changed it to "The chairs remain in production during the 21st century". Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Late 20th century

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @SchroCat. I've addressed all the points you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Incoming! Bug me if I don't get back within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead & Site
  • This is neurotic, but "serpentine-shaped pavement" doesn't really work; I don't know that I'd call serpentine a shape. "pavement with a serpentine pattern" might be better (applies for the same phrasing in the body also)
  • "The ground floor also includes storefronts and originally also" too many alsos
  • "a members-only restaurant during the day." this begs the question of what was it at night?
  • "After Time Inc. expressed its intention" sentence opens and closes with "time inc", which is a bit awkward. "to accommodate the move" maybe?
  • "Just prior to the development of 1271 Avenue of the Americas, most of the site was occupied by a parking lot,[6] which had previously served as a New York Railways Company trolley barn." I feel like this sentence is written backwards? Something like "Part of the site was originally a New York Railways Company trolley barn, later a parking lot" feels tighter
Architecture to Interior
  • "was hired as" twice in one sentence, I think you could write around that
  • "Furthermore, a provision" I don't know that "furthermore" is necessary
  • What is an accordion wall? Google only shows me room dividers, uselessly
    • I've changed this to "accordion-shaped wall". Basically, the windows on each story would have sloped inward, and the spandrel panels between the different stories would have sloped outward. (I've seen this in at least one other building before, though its name eludes me - otherwise, I'd link to a picture.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The glass curtain wall covers either" - that's a big discrepancy, what's up with that?
    • I have no idea. The WSJ said "Plans call for the replacement of its 450,000-square-foot glass-curtain wall", but the Pei Cobb Freed website mentions that 626,000 square feet of curtain wall was replaced. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm. You might want to efn the unexplained discrepancy, as it's so significant it sticks right out.
  • I'm sure you have a good reason to have it there, but the sidewalk image on top of the text, centered with all the whitespace... aesthetically I do not like it and I wish it was elsewhere. I will not attempt to enforce this as it's a personal preference but I wanted to say it
    • This was in response to a concern that Nikkimaria raised about sandwiching. I've added Template:Wide image. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right...yeah, I can see there's kind of no great place to put this. Could we pair it with another image to reduce whitespace? Maybe the current fountains, or an image of Cubed Curve since it seems to be out of copyright? Or a historical image? There's some in the Commons cat
  • " a tribute to its location along Avenue of the Americas" Possibly a question from ignorance, but what's the connection from Copacabana Beach to Avenue of the Americas?
  • "Harrison had believed" - can just be "Harrison believed", as "had" implies that he stopped believing this at some point
  • "A seating parapet ...covered by cement and terrazzo" the past tense in these three sentences suggests that these items were removed? When?
  • "Trees and shrubs were originally also planted" - similarly, are these gone now?
  • "In 1972, the Association for a Better New York hired William Crovello to create a sculpture called Cubed Curve." the paragraph manages to never say that it was placed at the building
  • "supposedly inspired" why supposedly? according to who?
    • The source (CultureNow) says "His 'Cubed Curve', placed outside the Time-Life building, is said to have been inspired by a fluid brush stroke." No further attribution is given. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. I did find a couple of sources that indicate his work was generally inspired by Japanese calligraphy, including Cubed Curve. Might be of use to remove the "supposedly"? [3][4][5]
      • Thanks for the initial comments, PMC. I forgot to ping you when I addressed all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture from Ground floor
  • Link breezeway?
  • "The lobby has the same...relate with the plaza." - these two sentences feel somewhat redundant. And then later in the paragraph you repeat yourself a bit with "marble-based terrazzo tiles that matched the original pavement design". How about tightening the beginning to something like "The lobby was resurfaced in the late 2010s to match the style of the exterior plaza, with white serpentine terrazzo tiles bordered with stainless steel and aligned from west to east. The pavement was installed by the American Mosaic & Tile Company, replacing the original floors of cementitious terrazzo..." and then go from there?
    • There are actually two ideas being conflated here. The original floors were installed by the American Mosaic & Tile Company and made of terrazzo. The current floors are made of marble and contain the same design as the original floors. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a consequence of lack of coffee, but in the paragraph about the ceiling it's all present tense "are suspended" etc, and then you finish by saying the original ceiling was replaced in the 2010s. So does all that present tense stuff, including American-Saint Gobain Corporation, apply to the new ones?
    • Except for the manufacturer (which I'm not sure about), yeah. The replacement ceiling tiles had to be nearly identical to the originals, since they were protected by the city's interior-landmark designation. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seven lowest stories each have about 62,000 sq ft" of floor space, I assume, but I think it should say so in the first instance. The second sentence can chop it now that we've established what we're talking about
  • Link floor slab?
  • context for Henry Luce?
  • I'm not sure the detail about the Time-Life chair is relevant to the article, especially the revised design and price
  • "also has offices" lose the "also" since you're not talking about any other Rockefeller offices or 24th floor offices
  • "it was redesigned by Davis, Brody & Associates in 1983.[89]" redesigned into what? or was it reopened as an auditorium again?
History & impact

That's all for me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review, PMC. I've addressed your remaining comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC, just checking in to see if you saw my comments. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, I just haven't had time lately to really get stuck in on anything. I cleared out one FAC reply obligation earlier and I'll deal with this one either today or tomorrow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, never mind, it was an easy run-through. Two things remain - the additional sourcing for the Cubed artwork, and you signing off on my revision to the lobby paragraph. Otherwise I'm basically ready to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC, oops, I missed your other point above. I've addressed both of these points now. Epicgenius (talk) 00:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me then! Nice work as always. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Thanks for the image review @Nikkimaria. I've left my initial replies above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, thanks again for the review. On further examination, it appears that these images were both published on April 12, 1960, and released into the Gottscho-Schleisner collection. There don't appear to be any copyright notices for either image. Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Don't think that newspapers (The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) need an ISSN. Pei Cobb Freed and Partners is sometimes written with and and sometimes with &. Are Emporis, Progressive Architecture high-quality reliable sources? I don't know them very much. Same question about The Midtown Book (and is it now The City Review or not?), Wallpaper.com, Eater.com, Globest.com and Gothamist. More a question of due weight than reliability, but I wonder if "Herman Miller" is a good source to use, it seems like a sales website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the source review. Here are my initial comments:
  • I won't be able to fix the ISSNs until I get back from vacation in a week or so.
  • Emporis: I believe you asked about this before, but here is my response. This database is defunct, but there was a RSP discussion about this a few years ago, which seems to indicate that it is marginally reliable (with some content that was suggested by users and vetted by staff). I have removed it from this article, as it wasn't being used to cite anything.
  • Progressive Architecture - You asked about this too. This was a reliable source in its field; while no longer published, it was an established magazine with editorial oversight.
  • Wallpaper.com - ditto, it also has editorial oversight.
  • Eater - this also has editorial oversight and is part of the Vox website group, which is reliable per WP:RSPVOX.
  • GlobeSt - this has editorial oversight too.
  • Gothamist - This is a news outlet owned by radio station WNYC. It also has editorial oversight.
  • Midtown Book - The author, Carter Horsley, was an architecture critic for the New York Times for a while. I can try to find a separate source if you want, though.
  • I have removed the Herman Miller website.
Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that sounds like sufficient credentials for Midtown Book. I must have forgotten that I already reviewed these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks again for the review. I've removed the ISSNs now. Epicgenius (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Afternoon Jo-Jo, any further thoughts on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • Are there publisher locations available for Fried, Lederer and Price? There are several others missing.
  • I gather that in References article titles are in title case. I note some over-capitalisation. Can I refer you to the rules at MOS:CT. I am usually prepared to let the odd error go, but "the" and "The" in the same title needs sorting out.
  • "with offices around a mechanical core." What is a "mechanical core"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild, thanks for pointing these out. I have removed the publication places for consistency. I fixed that ref title as well (most of the cites were already changed to title case a month ago). In addition, I removed "mechanical" from "mechanical core", as the mechanical spaces in the core are not explicitly mentioned in the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 August 2024 [6].

Joan (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's 1998. Fresh off of the watery theatrics of Untitled, Alexander McQueen decides he's going to rein it in a bit with Joan. Just a long straight runway, black ashes on it, moody industrial lighting – oh, and a masked woman writhing in a giant ring of fire to cap it all off, of course. Based on McQueen's obsession with Joan of Arc, the collection featured a stark red black and grey palette and androgynous clothing based on priestly garments and armour. Just about everybody loved it, except The Sun columnist Jane Moore, who wrote an irate column after McQueen denied her entry to the show. The strange, ambiguous finale has been variously interpreted as violent, sensual, redemptive, and triumphant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Mcqueen joan finale.gif oooh, a fair use gif! Rare case here, but checks out.
  • File:Paris-statue-J d'arc 02.jpg - CC-BY-SA
  • File:Melun-diptychon-detail.gif - PD
  • File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 45.jpg - CC-BY-SA
  • File:Daguerreotype of three girls, Carl Gustav Oehme, 1845 (cropped).jpg - PD
  • File:Joan Look 42 from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY

Everything has appropriate alt-text and is laid out well. All images seem relevant to the subject at hand. Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • When I first read the lead, I was unsure about this sentence: (Several celebrities attended, including actress Kate Winslet and model Kate Moss.) I was not sure if it is notable enough to highlight in the lead and the selection of Winslet seemed a tad random. I would think that McQueen banned several news outlets from the show would be more notable than the celebrity guests.
    • Yes, good point. Swapped.
  • The pronoun usage in this part,(Particularly in his early career, journalists often framed McQueen as something of a working-class trespasser), seems off to me. I would think that the "his" would need to reference the subject of the sentence, which in this case is the journalists and not McQueen. Maybe changing it to "Particularly in McQueen's early career ... often framed him as".
    • Reworded
  • For the second paragraph of the "Background" section, the placement of the sentence on menswear in McQueen's collection feels a bit random. The paragraph is mostly about the theatricality of his collections so this does not really seem to fit there.
  • I think that for this part, (causing his friend Simon Costin to resign), it would be helpful to have some additional context on who Costin is outside of his friendship with McQueen as it is unclear what position he is resigning from.
    • I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
  • Does robot need to be capitalized in "Robot couture"?
  • For this part, (McQueen had worked with Garland before), could you provide a clearer timeline or examples of other things that they have worked on? I only asked because in previous sentences, examples are given, like with Sarah Harmarnee for instance.
    • I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
  • I think you can cut this part, (one of the last in the show), as it does not add much. The reader already knows that there are 91 looks so they would know that Look 78 would be toward the end of the show.
    • Removed
  • Maybe I am just being dense, and if I am, sorry in advance, but I am not fully sure what the quote means in this sentence: (Menkes felt the photo-printed items were "less assured".)
    • "Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
  • I am not sure the following sentence really adds much: (Writer Chloe Fox called the finale "spectacular".) The one-word quote does not really clarify or illustrate anything further to the reader, and unless more could be added from this particular reviewer, I think it would be best to keep the focus on the other comments.
  • From what I remember, Lady Gaga wearing the outfit at the VMAs was quite iconic. Would it be possible to briefly mention the reception to that? I was debating on whether or not that would be outside of the scope of this article. However, I think something brief would help to further illustrate the legacy and impact these looks had outside of the show itself.
    • Let me see what I can find
      • Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
  • Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the red lace dress on season nine of RuPaul's Drag Race (for an episode where the contestants wore outfits inspired by Lady Gaga's looks). Do you think that would be notable enough to briefly mention here as part of the show's legacy?
    • Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
      • Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)

Wonderful work as always. I really enjoyed reading through this article. My comments are rather minor and mostly nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I did not miss anything, although I imagine that I will not find anything further. Best of luck with this FAC and I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you as always for your comments, Aoba! My articles are always better after you look at them :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the kind words! I really do appreciate that, and it is always a joy to work with you. I have added some potential references for the Nina Bo'nina Brown version of the red dress, and I trust your judgement on whether or not that would be enough to warrant a mention in this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering - partial source check

[edit]

Just zooming through as many non-sfn fns as I can in 15 minutes:

  1. fn 3: eh, I don't think you need this one here? btw, it's also fn 12, you should probably merge these
  2. fn 4: definitely move this one to futher reading instead. This isn't actually about the cited claim at all. I think you should just remove the footnotes from this sentence anyway, since it's so top-level; if the rest of the article doesn't inherently confirm the information in this sentence, you have much bigger problems than citation going on.
    Merged the duplicate refs, but I disagree on removing these; I've been knocked at FAC before for making these kind of broad claims without multiple sources. I feel the pages I cite for the T&F source definitely support the broad claim.
    With respect to the people who have told you that in previous FACs, I don't think that's reasonable. In the case of the second footnote, it's actively misleading, since that isn't what the source is even about. If it were my work being cited in this way, I'd be a bit confused, a bit annoyed, and I'd remove the citation myself.
    I'm sorry that you don't think that it's reasonable, but in terms of the FAC criteria, which asks content to be verifiable and preferably cited, having the citations is better than not. As to your second point, a source doesn't have to be wholly about the content it's supporting for it to support the content, so again, there's no reason for removal since the specific pages I cited do support the content.
    Ah, I was just going to say that the problem with that one would be solved if you cited a specific page number for that source, rather than just citing it generically, but I see now that you did do that, so that's my bad. No more "skimming through as many non-sfns as I can in 15 minutes" for me. I still think this is so top-level it doesn't need specific citations, but I no longer think that's a misleading citation.
  3. fn 11a: This sentence worries me a bit. He felt this? I think you're just looking for "said" or "wrote". I can't find this in the source to give a better suggestion.
    I've used "felt" as a synonym for "said" in a number of FACs before without issue, mainly to avoid repetition. The google translated quote that I'm basing this on is "Matheson explains that the theme of persecution plays a huge role in the artist's narrative, who came from humble origins in the working class of England: “He stood up for those who were not recognized for their potential or who were treated unfairly.”"
    Sorry, disagreeing with your previous FACs again, then. "Felt' is not reasonable here, especially since this is not a subjective assessment involving feelings, so much as a statement of fact: the work contains these themes. (Subjectivity would be if he was saying it was the most important theme, or judging it in some other way - but this is just fact.)
    I've added another citation and revised the wording entirely.
  4. fn 11b: the thing that needs checking here is whether anyone calls McQueen "historicist" - I'm not sure what that word is in Italian, so I have no idea. imo the sentence would work just as well if you removed the historicist bit; the rest is so obvious to anyone reading the rest of the article that you don't need a specific citation here.
    The source is Brazilian Portuguese, not Italian. In the translated version, the paragraph "Although he began his career..." goes into what I'm saying, with the historical references and the self-referential revision of earlier designs/ideas. I don't understand why I would remove the historicist part, as it's important to the remainder of the article, which talks about McQueen using historical designs for the collection. And again, I have been knocked at FAC before for not explicitly citing what's in a given sentence, so I do think I need the refs here.
    I agree that you would need a source here for calling it "historicist". I'm looking for a source that says exactly that word in this context. If you don't have one, that's fine - I really think the sentence works just as well if you remove the beginning of the sentence and just leave it with the remaining, which explains the historical angle.
    With all due respect, the V&A source specifically says "One of the defining features of Alexander McQueen's collections was their far-reaching historicism." The Elle source backs that up even if it doesn't use that precise word, and covers the self-referential aspect.
    Great! This comment was when I was checking fn11b, and I didn't see that exact word there. If it's in fn 3, you're fine for this one obviously.
  5. fn 11c: I don't think he "argued" this so much as stated it as fact. I don't see any reason to imagine this is a controversial statement, so you can just start this sentence with "With Joan..." and not specifically attribute it.
    It's a subjective assessment, not an objective fact, so I felt it best to attribute
  6. fn 11d: I don't see anything about sexuality in here at all? Is this citation a mistake maybe? No ctrl+f hits for "hem" either, and these images are definitely not sexual, plunging necklines, etc.
    From the gtranslated article: "Irreverence and provocation like this defined the presentation, which also flirted with a more aggressive and dark form of sensuality, combining red contact lenses with sheer fabrics, slits, necklines and mini lengths."
    Okay, I was wondering a bit if that was it. In that case I would say the sentence in our article needs changing. Sexuality and sensuality are not synonymous, and the distinction here is important imo. These pieces are weird and draw attention to people's bodies in arresting ways - we're talking about impact and feeling more than physical arousal.
    Revised.

Ack, that was 15 minutes already, so I'm back to work. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for having a look, even if your time was limited. Sorry to push back so much, but I think perhaps there were some issues with the translation software you used to check ref 11 - maybe you ran it as Italian? I've provided quotes, if that helps. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Push back all you like! My I'm-rushing-through-this-as-fast-as-I-can glance is what ID'd it as Italian, as it happens - gtrans says it's Brazilian Portuguese. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did note that above. I've responded to your comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick zoom through the most accessible fns, working from this diff, in case fn numbers change, sigs on each line for your convenience in replying:

  1. fn 16a: I think this is the wrong Vogue link? Did you mean this one: [7]? It mentions the water, but not that the runway was flooded - but I'm not sure if I'm seeing the entire article here or if I'm being locked out of the rest of it by a paywall. asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This one's my mistake both ways round. I was crossing the Untitled runway with Eye and Bellmer la Poupee. Untitled had clear water tanks and rain but the models didn't walk in the water. It was Bellmer and Eye that had flooded runways that the models waded through. I've revised the wording and fixed the Vogue ref.
  2. fn 16b,c: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. fn16d, e: imo these are redundant, given how you already cited this in fn 16d and it's clear the source will still be the same asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, fair
  4. fn16f: not sure what's going on here, when I click on this one it doesn't send me anywhere asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, it's bundled in with ref 89, which begins "Several remarked upon the contrast of elements..."
  5. fn18: this doesn't verify the sentence it's attached to asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "religion was a fascination for McQueen throughout his career"? Regardless, I've dumped it, as it's a review of the collection the Bolton book is from, so largely redundant to it
  6. fn21: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. fn23a: checks out for the Dante claim asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. fn23b: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. fn26: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. fn27: checks out, but also there's some context here that I think would be helpful to include: I don't think "creative differences" quite gets across the issue, which appears to be that Givenchy "was all about elegance and ladylike tailoring and then this wild-child street kid ripped the hell out of it". asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, that sentence basically boils down to "creative differences" in more words. I don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds of why it was a bad match. The reader only needs to know that it wasn't working and McQueen was a huge dick about it unhappy with the situation
  11. fn30: same problem as fn16f, where's this supposed to point? asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's so weird. I removed some images from the multi-image template and I guess the caption (with ref) didn't get removed somehow, so the article was basically showing an invisible reference. (This was the same problem with ref 42; I've tidied both now)
  12. fn38: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. fn42: also not working? I'm getting very confused asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi asilvering, most fixes made and I've replied above where necessary. Thanks for doing the source review, I appreciate it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

[edit]

Will be looking into this.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • By "collection" at the beginning, I understand this is a fashion showcase?
    • Yes, "collection" is the typical word for a set of fashion designed with a unifying concept, presented seasonally
  • McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists from attending. – Maybe can elaborate a little further why? And cite a few examples of banned journalists
    I considered expanding on this when writing the lead, but decided against it. I'd have to explain that he (allegedly) did it for class reasons, which would necessitate the quote, and I prefer not to quote in leads.
  • Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team. – This short sentence by itself seems to be left hanging a bit. Might combine with the latter sentence
    The general statement about the creative team doesn't relate to the details of the set design though (there were other recurring personnel like hair and makeup for example)
  • as something of a working-class trespasser – "as something of" seems a little unencyclopedic unless you are quoting right from the source.
    Fair, I've cut it entirely.
  • McQueen's collections were both historicist, in that... , and self-referential, in that... – probably just me but I'm not very used to the repetition of "in that" here. Maybe you could say: ...historicist through his adaptation of historical narratives and concepts, and self-referential as he revisited and reworked ideas between collections.. Maybe consider splitting the sentences.
    Normally I'm quite a hawk about repetition, but here it's intentional and I think it works better than your suggested tweaks. I'll see if anyone else points it out though.

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, ZKang123, I appreciate it. No rush on anything further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading over the rest of the article, I don't think I have any nitpicks. Your command of English and expression is way much better than mine in very high quality prose. I shall just give my support.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will look at this nomination as well. I'm currently on vacation and might not be able to take a good look at this for 2 weeks, however, but I'll see what I can do. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Fair, done
  • Para 2: "Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team." - Is it possible to mention specific people? If not, I would say "Production was handled by McQueen's longtime creative team" or something like that.
  • I could, but I think it would be hard to justify noting certain people out in the lead and not others, and I definitely don't want to list everyone. I like "usual" more than "longtime" in this context because it doesn't imply quite as much about the length of time each person had spent with him.
Background:
  • Para 1: "nearly twenty-year career" - Should this be "nearly-twenty-year career" (with a hyphen between "nearly" and "twenty")?
  • I don't think so, but I could be wrong
  • Also, I like how one of his collections is just called Untitled.
  • Para 4: "From 1996 to October 2001, McQueen was also – in addition to his responsibilities for his own label" - "Also" and "in addition" are redundant to each other. I suggest removing "also".
  • Hmm yeah. I've removed it from here, and a few other articles that had the phrasing to boot.
More in a bit (hopefully before tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Epic, I'll hop over to your FAC within the week. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sammi Brie

[edit]
  • McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists for being. Being what?
    For being incomplete sentences :) Fixed
  • men's and womenswear Is this styling correct? It is inconsistent with the body.
    Someone noodled with it at some point (possibly me? I don't know). I've cut the Gordian knot by making it "menswear and womenswear" always
  • However, McQueen "got a bit carried away" and the show "turned into another huge production". We have one CinS here, after "away".
  • She was upset that guests were expected to enter the show via a "small entrance in pitch darkness", and that following the show, bouncers refused to let photographers exit the venue for unexplained reasons. Remove comma after "darkness"
  • She criticised the "bizarre little episode", but felt she should not have been surprised given McQueen's treatment of GMTV. Same here.
  • The staff writer from WWD thought that the Joan finale lacked the impact of the rainstorm that finished Untitled, but considered the collection stronger. Remove comma.
  • Callahan considered the collection an expression of McQueen's "ongoing martyr complex", and wrote that "the more he abused himself, the better his work became". Remove comma.
  • Judith Watt felt that it was the end of the press dismissing McQueen as a low-class intruder into the high-class fashion scene, and considered the collection a demonstration of McQueen's "informed mind". Remove comma
    All the above done
  • for her, the red dress represented "flayed flesh", and the dangling beads, "dripping blood" Drop both commas
    Normally I don't fuss, but stylistically, I think the commas work here, especially since "dangling beads" drops the "represented", so the comma puts a slight pause before "dripping blood"
  • Grimaldi Figueredo argued that the finale of Joan incorporated both sacred and profane imagery, and cites it as an example of the aesthetic of abjection in McQueen's work Remove comma
  • Final prose sentence, hyphenate "black-and-white" as an adjective.
    Above two done also

No other issues that I see. Very good as always. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, thanks for your comments, always appreciated. All fixes made except one that I'm going to be a brat about for style reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that not even I can get that one changed. Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC
  • "Costin to quit working with him": "Stop", rather than "quit" would put this on the right side of WP:IDIOM
    Done
  • "Author Andrew Wilson pointed out that both Joan of Arc and Sorel died in service to Charles VII of France.[34]": Did he say anything more on this point? With McQueen in service to a French fashion house, was Wilson making any other points?
    I wouldn't be surprised if McQueen himself had that thought in mind, but Wilson doesn't press the question any further than discussing the women.
  • "including both menswear and womenswear": "including" (meaning there was something other than both mens and womenswear), or "comprising" (meaning just those two)?
    I see what you mean, I've revised the wording
  • "maturity": reviewers": I think that should probably be a semi colon, rather than colon
  • Done also

That's my lot. Another very enjoyable piece, for which thank you! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial support

[edit]
  • "which he found frustrating". Any idea why? I guess he felt type-cast?
    • Yeah, type-cast and discriminated against. The whole "East End yob made good" narrative followed him around, and he got sick of it being the thing that journos inevitably focused on, as opposed to just saying he was a great designer. ("You're pretty funny for a woman", more or less). The problem is that he's not very articulate in interviews and he never quite clearly says this, so I didn't want to put words in his mouth when I summed up. I could expand, or maybe try to find a chunk of quote to add if you think it needs more.
  • "theatrical to the point of verging on performance art". I think this could be a little stronger; at the moment, they were only occasionally nearly performance art. How about "theatrical to the point of being performance art."
    • Fair! Trying to restrain myself and went a little too hard :P
  • Perhaps precede "In Untitled" with "For example", as that's what you're providing.
    • Done
  • Link Dante the first time, and add the date.
    • Oop, victim of reorganization
  • Any idea why his work with Givenchy was poorly received?
    • It's a bit complicated, which is why I didn't get into it in the text, but since you asked... Givenchy's whole schtick is elegant classic Frenchness, while McQueen's was beauty with brutality. It's a total aesthetic mismatch. They were expecting him to be like their last London bad boy, John Galliano, who reined himself in with two reasonably elegant collections (and even those were controversial). McQueen on the other hand had always been very much his own man, so although he made a bunch of lovely clothes for his first Givenchy collection, he also did a bunch of blatantly McQueen stuff like styling outfits with sheep horn headpieces and exposed breasts. It would've made a great McQueen collection, but it was just way too fucking weird to be Givenchy. The press went nuts, Givenchy management was like "well we didn't sign up for this", McQueen was like "you knew what I was like when you bought me", and things went downhill from there. The irony here is that the McQueen label is now going through this. Their new head designer is using a lot of streetwear elements, and basically nobody liked his first collection for the brand. Any time it posts anything on Instagram, the comments get flooded with people yelling "this isn't McQueen!"
  • If you're looking for incoming links, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc could probably do with a sentence on McQueen's piece  :)
    • Didn't even think of that, good idea
  • Link burned at the stake?
  • Unlink second martyrdom
    • Both done
  • It's true that it does "subtly reference[e] the history of Scotland", but perhaps it more bluntly references (per our page), "the Jacobite risings and the Highland Clearances"? Which, of course, dovetails with the overarching theme of Joan (OR, but the reader will put 2 and 2 together!).
    • Ah, sorry, that's meant to say that Joan is what's subtly referencing Scotland. Highland Rape is about as subtle as a swift kick to the head. I've tweaked the wording, is that any better?
  • Does Dante need linking again?
    • No, I suppose it's pretty close
  • ...medieval period.
    • Oop, didn't realize that was a distinction with a difference
  • Some inline quotes (ignoring those after colons) begin with a cap ("It was fucking the most expensive show...", for ex) compared to others using lc (e.g. "so far up his own bottom", or "a small entrance...")
    • Oh, I've been keeping the capital where it's from the text, I didn't realize that MOS says we can adjust that. I've gone through and it should be consistent now
  • Out of curiosity, but speaking as someone who went to the next school up the road to him, did McQ actually say "It was fucking the most expensive show I ever did"? It's only a little thing, but it jars slightly; you'd usually expect to hear "It was the most fucking expensive show I ever did" (or, "It was the most expensive fucking show I ever did". And no, it's not just an excuse to gratuitously swear at FAC  ;)
    • He really and truly said it that way around, at least according to Thomas; I thought it was quite cute
  • Link crossdressing to Cross-dressing, gender identity, and sexuality of Joan of Arc?
    • Ooh, yes
  • The footnote about the Romanov children is dead interesting—to the extent that it could probably be incorporated into the body with no loss of focus—but does it need to be in duplicate?
    • Main-texting it feels........iffy. Esguerra & Hansen 2022 shows what the image really is, but they don't discuss the Romanov thing. They just say, basically, "here's the image that's printed" and then move on to the next thing. Since the age of that image makes it impossible that it's the Romanovs, I'm counting on it being safe to point out an objective error. However, I don't have a source that actually comments on the nature of the error - where it came from, who first made it - or even calls it out as an error at all. I'm trying to skirt the line by explaining the newspaper and Evans sources without really stating a conclusion - I can't objectively say that no contemporary source says Romanovs or that no earlier source than Evans says it, absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.
      I do think it's worth duplicating, as not every reader necessarily reads articles in order, especially on mobile where sections are closed by default and readers might skip around more.
  • Apologies, as I know you've already had source reviews, but I couldn't help noticing fn 41 (Evans). What's "IDK", and why not p.27?
    • Don't apologize, I should've caught that. IDK is "I don't know", and I put that in there when I wrote the footnote but didn't have the book available and forgot to go back and fix it. Whoops!
Another great one PMC; these articles are such a different walk of life to my own, it's completely refreshing. And I love me some macabre  :) Mostly all suggestions above, except. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Serial, glad to hear you're enjoying them. Great comments and nice catch on IDK. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; forgot to follow up! ...The important bit  :) SerialNumber54129 10:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • There are several p./pp. errors.
    • Should be fixed now
  • Are publisher locations available for Davisson, Webb, and Netherton and Owen-Crocker?
    • Added
  • "a dark room lit by metal lamps hung over the runway." Could do with a gentle rephrasing.
    • Ah...yes. The lamps are "suspended" now.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, fixes should be complete now, thank you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 August 2024 [8].

Heptamegacanthus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by FM

[edit]
  • Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.
  • I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.
  • There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:[9]
  • Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.
  • Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?
  • Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.

Comments by Femke

[edit]

Thanks for working on the article!

  • Thank you for your review!
  • I find the first paragraph of the article too difficult. It's an article likely of interest to people how know much more biology than me, but I think some movement can be made towards an easier lead per WP:EXPLAINLEAD
  • Both the first and second sentence say the genus only has one species. The first does it with jargon, the second in plain English, right? Can we omit the first?
    • I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
  • Maybe switch East London and Transkei upon first mention, so that if you skim-read, you're less likely to think it's a part of London, UK (with east london now positioned next to South Africa)
  • Done.
  • I would put the size of the creature much earlier, before delving into difficult things with its hooks and rings
  • Done
  • Not knowing what proboscis means, I found it really difficult to parse the text after. Perhaps starting with the trunk helps (so that we know the proboscis isn't the trunk).
    • Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
  • I find the rings difficult to visualise. From the lead, I hadn't guessed that the ring surrounds (?) the proboscis, as seems to be indicated in Figure 3 here
  • A diagram would help immensely but none exist that are free. I did try my best at rewording, does this work?
  • In the body you explain that insects are an example of an arthropod. I would repeat that in the lead for context.
  • Done.
  • There are no known aberrant human infections for H. niekerki species --> What does the word aberrant mean here? Is it necessary?
  • Well it means that sometimes you can accidentally get an infection even though it evolved to infect something else. I can remove it since it still gets the idea across. Done.
  • but the life cycle of any thorny-headed worm, or acanthocephalan, unfolds in three distinct stages. --> I think if we say "any", we imply that we know the life cycle of all thorny-headed worms. Instead, can we say "in general".
  • Done
  • At this stage, which for H. niekerki measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width, it burrows into the host's intestinal wall and continues to grow --> which for is weird, as it seems "stage" is the antecedent. During which?
  • I changed it to when, which seems to flow better, does that make sense?
  • I've made some minor edits directly to the article.
  • Thank you!
  • I would split the first paragraph of Hosts, as it's quite long.
  • Done.
  • Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus remain unidentified, it is generally accepted that, for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs, insects serve as the primary intermediaries This sentence doesn't flow that well, consider changing it to: Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus are unidentified, it is generally accepted that insects serve as the primary intermediaries for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs.
  • Done, that is much better wording.
  • I found one that was inconsistent, but all journals use the same citation template, so not sure what else is in error. Found first name error, but could not find full stop error.
  • Thank you so much —Femke 🐦! What an excellent review. I've addressed all comments, but a few require your response. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one other possibility for simplifying the lead is to omit US-specific units. Per MOS:CONVERSION, unless there is a good reason to add, they can be omitted in scientific articles. From what I understand, even some in the US use mm in daily life for small sizes like this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue with the first paragraph. It's better than it was, but still has room for improvement.

  • The first sentence still contains both the word monotypic and containing a single species. Okay if you disagree, but I think it's redundant and an easy opportunity to remove the word monotypic
  • Its body consists of a tubular feeding and sucking organ called the proboscis which is covered with hooks and a short, wide trunk. --> I would start with the trunk here, as the next sentence is about these hooks again.
  • Done.
  • There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings that are not radially symmetrical which surround the proboscis, with seven large anterior hooks. --> put the "surround the proboscis" next to the word rings "arranged in rings surrounding the proboscis". You could say. "There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings surrounding the probiscus. They are not radially symmetrical. Long sentence about sizes of the hooks as a function of distance from trunk." Overall, ensure that you vary sentence length, and include short sentences as well. Also keep ideas together as much as possible. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried my best to reword as you requested. I think it's much better, but maybe I made some grammar error I can't figure out on the last sentence of the first paragraph? Other than this part, I believe I've completed the next batch of questions! Thank you —Femke 🐦! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks better now! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "formally described in 1990 by Mary E. Spencer Jones, curator at the British Museum". Describing it as the British Museum is odd. It is true that it was formally called the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, even though it had been separated from the BM since 1963, but it has long been generally (and now formally) known as the Natural History Museum. I think you need to either use the common name or the full formal name as of 1990.
  • "sent from south-east Africa". I think "sent from South Africa" would be clearer.
  • Done
  • "these glands produce a substance used in the reproductive process". Is there no information about this substance?
  • Nothing for this species, but for acanthocephalans in general it's also not much: "a protein with molecular weight of 23 kDa; in fresh glands it is white in colour", not sure this adds anything though.
  • "Much of the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section appears to belong in the Description section as some comments are purely descriptive rather than explaining why the species is morphologically distinct.
  • I see what you mean, but many sources put this in the taxonomy section as it's kinda like a dichotomous key for classification purposes. The taxonomy is defined by this key, as there has been no phylogenetic analysis.
  • "without completing their devoplemented rendering them smaller than normal". Typo?
  • Oops, nice catch!
  • "into the copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)" "into its copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)"? (I assumed that it was the female's until I read on.)
  • yes that is much more clear. Done.
  • "found in South-East Africa in the Nqadu Forest, Transkei, South Africa". South-East Africa should not be capitalised and is superfluous. I would delete.
  • Removed all 3 instances of "south-east" and just kept it South Africa.
  • "the life cycle of thorny-headed worm" "the thorny-headed worm" or "thorny-headed worms".
  • Fixed this and made the acanthocephalan -> acanthocephala to match the plural.
  • Is it known whether the worm harms its host?
  • Unknown. Most certainly yes, but there exists no source to back up my claim.

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Fixed
  • Sadly there is not. There is a line sketch but it remains copywrited and behind a paywall. It is possible none actually exist as the last paper on this species was over 30 years ago. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Mattximus seems to be taking a Wikibreak. Which is fine, except this article is getting close to timing out for lack of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry was on vacation. Was hoping to pass before I left, but only had 2 supports. Am back at it and will be able to complete any missing tasks today and tomorrow. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild. it's been a week with no movement and there are three supports, are more needed? If so I can canvass again to see if anyone is interested. Thanks! Mattximus (talk)
I have requested a source review. While we are waiting for that let's see whether further general comments also turn up. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Well, it seems like this genus has all of 5 mentions in academia. All the sources seem reliable and of high quality. Probably the shortest source review ever. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 26 August 2024 [10].

Costello's

[edit]
Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Costello's was a watering hole for journalists, writers, and cartoonists on the east side of Midtown Manhattan. Ernest Hemingway reportedly broke a cane over John O'Hara's head on a bet; the bar's owner responded by displaying the broken cane over the bar. I wish I could have dropped in for a whiskey there. As an aside, I've been having trouble finding images that are either in the PD or that would satisfy WP:NFCCP, particularly photographs of Tim Costello and the bar's exterior and interior. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave some comments here after I have a look at the article. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Will review this in a bit. lunaeclipse (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments by DWB

[edit]

Comments by Pendright

[edit]

Placeholder! Pendright (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My circumstances are such that I will be unable to review the article at this time. Please accept my apology. Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for offering to review the article. All the best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "speakeasy". In the main article could this be briefly explained in line for the benefit of non-US readers.
    • Is the wikilink not sufficient? I find that trying to explain these things in line leads to unwieldy parentheticals that disrupt the flow.
I am afraid that the MoS requires it. MOS:NOFORCELINK: "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." We are after all building an encyclopedia, we are writing in order to explain things to people who don't already know them. Doing so while maintaining a professional standard of prose is part of the challenge of FAC.
  • "... a speakeasy in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The speakeasy was located on Third Avenue ..." "Speakeasy" twice in nine words seems unnecessary. Suggest "The speakeasy" → 'It'.
    • Done.
  • "James Thurber illustrated the walls, depicting the "Battle of the Sexes"." Why the bold?
  • "during a gut renovation for a new restaurant". What is a "gut renovation"?
    • Changed wording.
  • "and during renovations, they preserved the cartoons". I am not sure about this comma.
    • Changed wording.
  • "John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories that he wrote for The New Yorker." Wrote twice? Perhaps '. John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories for The New Yorker.'
    • Done.

Lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for reviewing. I've replied above. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, just speakeasy outstanding. Perhaps something like '... in 1929 as a speakeasy—a bar illicitly selling alcohol—in Midtown Manhattan ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- Pass

[edit]

All checks out as far as I can see. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2024 [13].

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, geneticist Ron Davis called ME/CFS "probably the last major disease that we don't know anything about". A lot has changed since, most notably a global pandemic that led to millions more contracting the illness (15% to 50% of those with long COVID) and the start of research programmes in many countries. A lot still remains to be discovered. ME/CFS has a long and contested history, making it an interesting but difficult article to write. Comments most welcome :).

Many thanks to those helping with pre-FAC reviews, User:Ajpolino, User:Graham Beards, User:RoySmith and User:Draken Bowser, and those involved in the article over the years (User:Innisfree987, User:The Quirky Kitty and User:Ward20). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to peer review RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Added and expanded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

[edit]

Back from vacation and ready to review! I like what you did with the prevalence estimate, it seems to reflect the inherent uncertainties while remaining comprehensible.

Classification looks good to me.

Signs and symptoms

Severity

  • and 19% have a full-time job - I'm concerned about this for the same reason as the old prevalence estimate.
    The source cited does not have a range. It's based on the broader Fukuda criteria, so may be an overestimate compared to modern criteria. I have found one other source on the topic in an MDPI journal by an independent researcher. The numbers found there are similar (typically 10-30% based on older criteria, one study with the strict but uncommonly used ICC criteria found <10%). I'm not sure the mpdi journal meets the criteria for HQRS, so I'm hesitant to cite it to give a wider range. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern here is that while it's presented as 19% in the source, we're making a very specific general statement about ME/CFS based on a questionnaire answered by a hundred individuals. /DB
    I've changed the percentages to a more vague "one in five". Is that sufficient? Or you still think it's too specific / outdated? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

  • but there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk. - is this trying to say that it is likely polygenic or that no candidate genes have been reliably identified?
    The first. There have been GWASes of like ~2000 people, which didn't find anything. Expanded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions on Pathophysiology or Diagnosis. Time for a break. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Management

  • The goal of the exercise programme borderline case, but the preceding sentence hasn't established anything resembling a structured exercise programme, slight rephrase?
  • the --> a.
  • but there may be a trade-off required rest during the day. I think I get what this means, but could it be spelled out?
    I've tweaked the wording to "trade-off with needed rest", which should hopefully be clearer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis

  • In extreme cases, people can die from the illness. I think we need a little more info here.
    While I would love to write more, there is not much more on this in HQRS. I've written more on trying to expand this at in a recent talk discussion. Did another search, but sources on the topic are either news articles about individuals who've died, primary, implicit, or published in lower-quality journals. Had another search, but no success. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

  • Overall, around 1 in 150 have ME/CFS. Haven't changed with the rewrite of the lead, on the other hand the figure is presented in context here, which might be fine.

History

Time for another break. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino

[edit]

Glad to see this here at last, and looking forward to reviewing in the next few days. Feel free to bother me if I'm not back by midweek. Ajpolino (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting started, but need to step away for a moment. Enjoying the article so far. Some little things:

  • Lead - I am uninspired by the first sentence. I assume you wanted to keep it short and sweet, rather than merging it with the second sentence? Anything else we can say here? The word "serious" seems unnecessary since you show us it's serious with your description in the following sentences.
  • Lead - Similar note for "They are able to do much less than before they became ill." Seems generic; is that not true for many diseases? I think it could be cut, as it's implied much more colorfully by the rest of the paragraph.
    Done (might get pushback on talk for this). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-reverted, as I got pushback. It's a key part of many of the diagnostic criteria: one of the three mandatory criteria in the IOM for instance. The other symptoms may not be sufficiently severe to be this disabling. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it redundant now that the lead sentence changed to include "disabling" (Sorry for butting in). Draken Bowser (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And removed it again, as I think there is a rough consensus to do so now. I agree it's now even more redundant with other parts of the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "less than a day to several months." momentarily confusing as it reads like "less than" could also be applied to "several months" (which I suppose it can be). Is "hours to several months" acceptable?
    That was my initial wording. It felt a bit too vague to me, and a big jump from hours to months. I've now put in hours or days to severals months to emphasize the more typical crash duration (which is >14hours as I understand). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "avoid flare-ups and counseling..." I've never had the strongest grasp of English grammar, but Sammi Brie has instructed me that a comma belongs here (her essay on the topic in case it's helpful). Ditto "healthcare settings and care is complicated".
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "severely affected and unable to leave their bed or home" seems redundant? Sentence means the same with "severely affected and" cut out.
    That was my failed attempt to introduce a part of the severity classification. That classification is a bit unintuitive anyway, so better to not mention in lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification - "classified under other disorders of the nervous system". I don't feel strongly about this, but "other" is not very meaningful unless you look at the ICD-11 to see what it's "other" relative to. Would it be more meaningful to the reader to skip a level and just say "classified under diseases of the nervous system"?
    Done (the first sentence already said neurological). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification - "The cause of the illness is unknown and the classification is based on symptoms which indicate a central role of the nervous system." (1) another spot for the Sammi Brie comma. (2) I had to read this twice to understand. I'd suggest cutting the first clause (we know the cause is unknown because you told us four paragraphs earlier) and maybe tweaking to something like "ME/CFS is classified as a neurological disease as many of its symptoms indicate a central role of the nervous system."
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification - "may better fit" reads as editorializing (I know it's the source's wording, but it's a short "Perspective" piece from an immunologist. A perspective piece is a good place for her to editorialize; the wording fits less well in an encyclopedia article). Is it fair to replace with "is sometimes labelled a neuroimmune condition"?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - "The illness..." I assume you're trying to limit the number of sentences starting with "ME/CFS..." but since the prior paragraph described several illnesses, I think this is a time to specify the subject of your sentence clearly.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - "may be considered outdated" reads as editorializing. Is there a way to rephrase this so it doesn't sound like it's Wikipedia's opinion? Did the new term pick up any steam outside the NICE report?
    PEM is definitely the more used term still. That said, it is used in some prominent publications, for instance this week's lovely long COVID review in Lancet. I've moved the discussion about the best term to the subarticle, where I have the space to do proper in-text attribution. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - " can lead on to a" is how I think it would be said here (US). Is this a regional English thing? If so, ignore me, of course.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - My general opinion is that dividing a section into a series of (mostly) single-paragraph subsections makes for an uncomfortable, choppy read. We don't need a bold title for every paragraph. I'd suggest lumping some subsections together -- maybe one on "core symptoms" (which could even go unlabelled as the top material of Signs & symptoms) and one on "Other common symptoms", as you have now.
    Done, even though there is not full consensus on core vs non-core symptoms across definitions. I've used IOM here, which is probably the most authorative. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - "in muscles (as myalgia) and joints" should this just say "muscles (myalgia) and joints"? I.e. is myalgia a type of muscle pain, or just the word for muscle pain? Also I don't insist you add "... joints (arthralgia)" but my brain cries out for symmetry.
    Removed "as", and linked arthralgia. Despite the annoying asymmetry, I prefer to omit arthralgia as jargon. Myalgia is useful to introduce as it helped explain the name of the illness. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illness severity - "than healthy controls" - consider wikilinking "healthy controls" or "controls" as it's scientific jargon.
    There was no good link, so I changed it to healthy individuals. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pathophysiology - "in work rate at the anaerobic threshold" any chance there's a clearer way to communicate this? I imagine this won't be meaningful to most readers.
    I can't think of any. I would love to omit it altogether and just talk about performance, but the reduction in work rate more generally didn't reach the significance threshold in the last two reviews. I assume the next review will, as the biggest primary study so far confirmed these findings more generally last month. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "... in obtaining a diagnosis and diagnoses may be missed altogether" Sammi Brie comma
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "These include the NICE guidelines, IOM criteria... and CDC criteria." some abbreviations/acronyms get spelled out; others do not. I'm not sure I'd prefer they all be spelled out (since that's a lot of words that readers may not care about) but figured I'd flag the inconsistency for you to consider.
    I've now spelled out IOM at first mention, as I don't think it's a household name. CDC and NICE are both more known by their abbreviation I believe. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "missing more diagnoses and overdiagnosis" this could be read as if "missing more" applies to both. If you flip the order or reword another way it gets clearer.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - I think I said this at talk, but your table "ME/CFS symptoms... diagnostic criteria" is fantastic.
    Thanks :).
  • Diagnosis - "the Fukuda criteria have limitations" reads as editorializing. Would it suffice to say "While used frequently, the large variety of optional symptoms..."?
    This is wording found in sourcing too, for instance from BMJ: "A limitation of the CDC criteria is that PEM is not a requirement for diagnosis. Another limitation is symptom scoring, as the original criteria allowed symptoms to be 'present' without grading for severity. A stricter interpretation requires moderate or severe complaints for diagnosis." I want to convey specifically that missing PEM as a mandatory symptom puts Fukuda out of step with modern definitions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "In addition to PEM and sleep problems..." is it worth stating in the text that fatigue and functional impairment are required symptoms for the CCC (based on the table)?
    I've added fatigue. Becomes a bit too wordy if you include functional impairment imo. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "Similarly, the International Consensus Criteria are stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people" is all we get on the ICC. Is anything else due or is this really a disfavored criteria set?
    I've expanded a bit. ICC is somewhat disfavoured as it defined ME rather than ME/CFS. It was influential in the sense that the illness severity categorisation was first defined there, so I've expanded slightly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "red blood cell sedimentation rate (ESR)" do we need to know the abbreviation (ESR)? It isn't used again in the article.
    Please forgive me for poking my nose in. I think we do. The term ESR is used so often, at least in the UK, that its full name is not known. Graham Beards (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep it as is, per Graham's comment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "Standard tests... thyroid-stimulating hormone." the first two list items are "standard tests" (as promised), the last three are things measured by tests. Is it possible to gently reword so the sentence makes more sense? Maybe something like "Standard tests include an HIV test and blood tests to determine full blood count, ESR, and levels of..."
    Done, and changed away from the superior West Country pronounciation of the H (haitch) in HIV. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - " present similar symptoms... [paragraph break]...Various rheumatological" It's not clear why these two paragraphs are separate. Is there a contrast between these two example groups you're trying to highlight?
    Merged. Only reason to split was to avoid a jargon-filled word salad paragraph; no content reasons. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Management - "cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)" the abbreviation is used a few paragraphs before it's defined.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Management - "flexible, prevent..." is a word missing here? A well-placed "and" or change to "preventing" would work I think.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Pardon my slowness. Will continue to be slow through this week, as we have family arriving this evening. Hoping to be through everything by the end of the weekend. Ajpolino (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks great to me! Thanks for the interesting read. Will take another readthrough, then move on to a source review if no one beats me to it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took another top-to-bottom read. Happy to support this article as an FA based on its prose, conformity with style guidelines, and length (i.e. 1a, 2, and 4. Femke, it's a pleasure to see your hard work to overhaul this article. This is probably the most challenging med topic I've seen brought to FAC since I started editing. Ajpolino (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Working my way through the reference list. So far the article is based on recent scholarly reviews and resource pages from major healthcare organizations. A couple questions on source I'm unfamiliar with:

  • Can you say something about how we know the IQWiG source is reliable? You may assume for the moment that I don't speak German and am shamefully ignorant of German health authorities.
    They're basically Germany's NICE. It's the most recent national clinical guideline on ME/CFS produced from a major country, hence my strong reliance on it. It goes in more detail than the 2021 NICE report. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC), 00:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • O'Leary 2020 is a satisfying read, but as a letter from one philosopher/ethicist sharply dismantling the thesis of Sharpe (one of the PACE trial authors) and Greco (another philosopher) I don't think it's an ideal source for broad claims like "People with ME/CFS often face stigma in healthcare settings" (lead) and I hesitate with it as a source for "a subset of professionals still see the condition as... 'illness-without-disease'" (O'Leary gestures at this, but she's mostly prodding directly at Sharpe and Greco, of whom I assume only Sharpe sees patients). The third place it's used, "Professionals who subscribed to the psychological model had frequent conflicts with patients...", is most defensible. Though I can't help but feel this topic is probably covered in a more authoritative source that set out to review the topic, rather than this one which set out to make a particular point.
    I take your point that a disagreement between a retired researcher and two philosophers isn't the best. I've replaced the first instance of this with a scoping review. The second instance is more difficult to replace. A few sources, for instance Mayo, "In the past, ..., describe this as a historical view, which is not quite correct. BMJ only talks about the controversy in terms of treatment, not of etiology. I've found quite a few papers that argue strongly against (and one in favour) of this psychosocial model that explicitly say some professionals still hold these views. I've added one as a double cite to the psychosomatic sentence. I hope I can replace these cites with this paper once it's published (2023 preprint). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoun Sebaiti, et al. 2022 (used to reference a single statement) is published in Scientific Reports, which is a mega journal. Not inherently a problem, but academics typically publish in mega journals when more selective/prestigious journals won't accept their work. At a glance, I'm not sure why this review was sent to Scientific Reports, but I'd suggest you double-check that the material you cite to it reliably represents the scientific mainstream, and consider replacing if possible.
    It not possible to replace it with something similar, as this is the only meta-analysis of its kind. It's cited, including by in higher-quality journals, and the corresponding author is a well-cited researcher in the field of neuromuscular diseases. I think it adds to the section as it shows objective markers of the symptom. Happy to be convinced otherwise however. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Maksoud, et al. 2020, which is in PLoS ONE.
    I'm confident of this article. Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik is a well-known expert in the field, also behind a Science article on the disease and co-author of the BMJ Best Practice document. Furthermore, none of what we cite to the paper is controversial. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, there are a few citations to articles in MDPI journals. Again, not inherently bad, but since MDPI has a poor reputation you see more work there that's of poorer quality or from a field's fringe, since it's often a destination for work that isn't accepted in more mainstream/selective journals. Consider double checking these:
  • Ditto the Frontiers journal, though I haven't personally noticed the same quality issues with these, and my opinion of the vibe in academic science (for whatever that's worth) is that Frontiers is not disfavored to the same extent as MDPI. Here it's Pollack, et al. 2023 and VanElzakker, et al. 2018
    Both these sources are cited significantly for papers in the field. The recent CDC website update seems to have used the conclusions from Pollack, and it was mentioned frequently in the NIH research roadmap conference. The VanElzakker paper is on the old side, but the paragraph is mostly based on the newer source. The VanElzakker paper allows us to put in into context a bit more, that is, noting that PET evidence is the more direct type of evidence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, there is less sourcing than you'd expect for a major illness, hence my occasional reliance on MPDI/Frontiers. There is a trade-off between comprehensiveness and where to draw the line on HQRS. Learned a new thing about mega journals though; I was not aware Plos ONE was in the same boat as Scientific Reports'. Will have another look at the sources that I'm not 100% on.

Taking this space to pick a few nits. Apologies in advance.

  • Per WP:MEDDATE, we try to source medical information to a source within the last 5 years, to ensure we're representing the (ever-evolving) medical mainstream. Many exceptions apply, of course. I'll try to limit my MEDDATE nit picks to the most relevant:

Still working my way through the list. Possibly more to come. Ajpolino (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Mostly done! Will take another look through everything shortly and add any final comments. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All responses and changes seem reasonable. I think this passes the source review. It's well-referenced to recent, high-quality scientific literature. Ajpolino (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Putting my name down; should be able to look at it properly within the next couple days. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
I was initially going to comment on the first sentence, but I see that it's been changed and I'm satisfied with its current state.

Classification

  • "Alternatively, based on abnormalities in immune cells, ME/CFS is..." – Are these abnormalities also a symptom due to ME/CFS? I presume so from the lead, but it's not clear to me here.
    No, they are not a symptom, and it's not yet completely clear how cellular abnormalities translate to specific symptoms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and Symptoms

Illness Severity

Causes

  • "...there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk" – This makes it sound like there's no genes responsible at all, I think it should be 'there is no single gene...'
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...probably individually have small effects, but..." ==> "...probably have small individual effects, but..."
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and environmental exposures such as mould." – Not sure how you'd change it, but this reads like mould itself is an exposure, rather than talking about 'exposure to mould'. Also, wikilink mould?
    I've changed it to "environmental exposures such as to mould. Is that better?
    Yes. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research

  • "People with ME/CFS can widely differ in which symptoms they have and how severe these symptoms are." seems convoluted; perhaps change to "Symptoms and their severity can widely differ among people with ME/CFS"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis

  • "Could You Have ME/CFS? from US Centers for Disease Control" ==> "Could You Have ME/CFS? handout from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States" or, alternatively, "Could You Have ME/CFS? handout from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The broad Fukuda criteria have a higher risk over overdiagnosis," ==> "The broad Fukuda criteria have a higher risk of overdiagnosis,"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... whereas the strict ICC criteria have a higher risk of missing people" ==> Remove 'criteria', since it repeats second C in ICC?
    Sources use both. I find it easier to understand with the criteria doubled, as abbreviations are tough for people unfamiliar with the topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly to the CCC criteria, ICC is stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people." ==> "Similarly to the CCC, the ICC are stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people." per the issue above?
    See above. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Management

Prognosis

Epidemiology

  • "Overall, around 1 in 150 have ME/CFS." ==> "Overall, around 1 in 150 people have ME/CFS."?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the 1994 CDC diagnostic criteria, the global prevalence rate for CFS is 0.89%. In comparison, estimates using the stricter 1988 CDC criteria or the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME produced a prevalence rate of only 0.17%" ==> Silly question, but why are these sentences referring to just CFS or ME instead of the full name?
    Not a silly question at all. The second one should have been ME/CFS, which is changed now. The term CFS is more associated with old vaguer and broader definitions of ME/CFS (which have higher prevalence), whereas ME is associated with quite strict definitions. Fukuda used the term CFS, and CCC used ME/CFS, so I'm sticking to that. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • Is there any information on when the umbrella term ME/CFS started being widely used that could be added here?
    I think that would be undue? We already talk quite a bit about the term. It's also so recent that I don't know if there is a source talking about it. The most recent source on the topic, published last year, had data up to 2019, when CFS was still dominant, at least in Google Trends. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and you're right that the term is already mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • There's a source with <ref name=":0">, which should be changed per WP:NAMEDREFS
    Changed (also submitted it to the Wishlist a few weeks back, as a perennial VE annoyance).

Final comments above, apologies for taking a while. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. An impressive eye for detail :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Possibly the most challenging disease to write well about, but the article is comprehensive, readable and worthy of FA status. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • I think that the section "Naming" might be better combined with the "Classification" section, right at the start of the article. I suggest this because I was very confused about the name "Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome", which seem to be two alternative names put together, which is quite non-standard and needs explanation at the beginning of the article. Also, most readers will have no idea what the title (i.e., words such as "myalgic") actually means until they reach the end of the article, where it is mentioned en-passant. I think we first need to define the topic before discussing anything else, and some understanding what the article title is trying to say is crucial.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was initially considered a subset of chronic fatigue syndrome – Take this as example: Here, for the first time, you use "chronic fatigue syndrome" without the addition "myalgic encephalomyelitis", and the reader will not know if this now refers to a distinct condition or not.
    I've merged the two sections. I hope this makes it clearer. Some context is missing still from the diagnostic criteria/history (CFS is sometimes used to denote that old criteria are used), but the section is now quite meaty, so I hope it's clear without further expanding. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! One more point about the part Some people with post-acute infection syndrome (PAIS) meet the criteria of ME/CFS. PAISs such as long COVID and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome share many symptoms with ME/CFS and are suspected to have a similar cause: maybe some context is missing but I'm unsure what to make of this information. The paragraph starts with the classification of ME/CFS as a neurological desease, and it does not become clear how these two sentences relate to that. PAIS does not seem to have anything to do with neurology, so what does this mean regarding the classification of ME/CFS? Does this mean that some people do not consider ME/CFS to be a neurological desease? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded to make clear that PAIS/infection-associated chronic illness is another potential classification, based on the new CDC pages. I don't know if there is any official classification of PAISs, but they also have strong neuroimmune symptoms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that the structure of the "Classification" section is not ideal. For example, "post-viral fatigue syndrome" and "post-infectious fatigue syndrome" are discussed in separate paragraphs, although they seem to be synonyms (?).
    Yes, they are roughly synonyms (post-infectious fatigue syndrome can also follow bacterial infections). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the article seems to have only a few issues. My nitpicks as follows:
  • "verbal memory" – what does this mean, can it be linked? It does not seem to refer to forgetting of words, as this symptom was already mentioned earlier.
    Linked and expanded the linked article. Verbal memory refers more to storing and retrieving new verbal information. A verbal memory test could for instance require you to remember a phone number and recall it a few minutes later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • autoimmune should be linked.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A waiting period before ME/CFS is confirmed, is used to exclude acute medical conditions or symptoms which may resolve within that time frame. – The comma seems wrong, maybe try "Before ME/CFS is confirmed, a waiting period is used to exclude …"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sleep apnoea is may also co-occur with ME/CFS. – remove the "is"?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • more to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, avoiding standing by using a shower chair. – This does not read like a complete sentence. Combine with the previous one?
    I've expanded instead, and gave a different example to avoid duplication later on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, these studies have often been small – does "small" refer to the number of participants?
    Yes, clarified. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2015, the Institute of Medicine produced a report with new diagnostic criteria – I guess there must me many "Institute of Medicine" in the world, so this is a bit unspecific (edit: I see that it is linked later, but should be linked at first mention).
    Linked at first mention, and specified in the US one, if there are more. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, well readable article overall! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. Note that I know nothing about this topic, so it will just be a prose review. (feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification) 750h+ 13:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
classification and terminology
signs and symptoms
illness severity
causes
pathophysiology
diagnosis
management
  • However, it is important that patients with ME/CFS undertake activities that they can tolerate. ==> “However, patients with ME/CFS must undertake activities that they can tolerate.”
    must is too prescriptive.
  • be a next step. ==> “be the next step.”
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular repositioning is important to keep their joints flexible, and prevent contractures and remove the comma
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
prognosis
epidemiology
history
society and culture
  • no problems here.
research
final comments

More excellent work from Femke, impressive of you to take on such an article. After my comments are addressed (feel free to refuse some with justification) i’d be happy to support. 750h+ 14:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 750h+ 00:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I am pleased to add my Support. I have one nit-pick. There 39 uses of "people with". Can we find a variation for those affected? Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did another go over the article, and have brought it down a bit again. No single paragraph has two "people withs" anymore. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Femke. Graham Beards (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
    Is there some sort of script that can help me do this? Or can I argue that it's consistent to use the original title? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this does the trick, although I have never tried it: User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter
Consistency. :-) Nice try, but no. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't work on my main account, but I did manage to get the script working on my alt. So this is now fixed too :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About a quarter of individuals are unable to leave their bed or home." Perhaps 'suffers' or 'those affected' or similar instead of "individuals".
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "Historical research funding for ME/CFS has been far below that of diseases with comparable impact." → 'Historically, research funding for ME/CFS has been far below that of other diseases with comparable impact.'?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 August 2024 [14].

1973 FA Charity Shield

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather short article (less than 1500 words) about the 1973 FA Charity Shield, the curtain-raiser to the 1973–74 season. It is arguably Burnley's most recent major honour, although many will argue it is just a meaningless match to kick off the new season. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe instead of a 'pre-match' section maybe title it 'background.' Also, a little elaboration to the blurb about Burnley winning the second division (how they earned qualification to the match) could be a nice touch, but what do you think?
Another idea I had would be to totally rip off the style/format of the 1974 FA Charity Shield article due to its classification as a good article.
Article is brilliant otherwise. Cheers. HYTEN CREW (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HYTEN CREW: Thanks for the comments. I altered the heading to include "Background". I think the current information about Burnley's previous season's success is sufficient (only 4 losses, clinching the title after a draw at PNE), but if you think that's not enough, please let me know. Thanks, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments

[edit]
  • "It was the third consecutive year neither the Football League First Division winners nor the FA Cup champions chose to compete" - might be worth mentioning that normally they did/do, otherwise readers not familiar with the CS might wonder why this is noteworthy
  • "after Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" => "after a shot from Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" (he didn't personally hit the crossbar....I presume :-))
  • " Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed" => " Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed"
  • "The FA Charity Shield was founded in 1908 as a successor to the Sheriff of London Charity Shield" - if you have a source, it would be worth mentioning why the SLCS ended (dispute between professionals and amateurs)
  • "in 1921, the fixture was played by the Football League champions and FA Cup winners for the first time" - mention that this then became the standard format, otherwise it sounds like it could have been just another one-off like the other ones earlier in the sentence
  • "The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete." => "The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition in which neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete."
  • "explained that his preparation was geared to have his squad ready for the first league match of the season" => "explained that his preparation was geared towards having his squad ready for the first league match of the season"
  • "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title the previous season" - I presume you mean the same team as the final game of the previous season specifically? Rather than that the same team had played for literally the whole season......
  • "City started the second half well and dominated the game. [....] Around the 60th minute, Burnley began to dominate the match" - hint of repetition here, anyway to reword?
  • "Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front" => "Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front"
  • "Waldron ran in unmarked from the edge of the box." => "Waldron had run in unmarked from the edge of the box."
  • "Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grew back into" => "Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grow back into"
  • That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "In 1971, double winners Arsenal withdrew from the competition due to previously arranged pre-season friendlies, with Leicester City replacing them." If the norm was FAC Cup winners vs. Football League champions, then it doesn't really make sense to just say Leicester replaced them. How about "with Second Division champions Leicester City and FA Cup runners-up Liverpool replacing them"?
  • "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title during the final game of the previous season." Saying "previous season" is correct because the Charity Shield is generally regarded as the first match of a season, not the last, but it's a bit confusing because it feels like a culmination of the season, so "previous" seems to refer to the season before that. How about "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title against Preston North end in May" (or whenever that match was)?
  • I assume the footnotes for Man City and Burnley in the "Details" section cite the teams, but don't we also need citations for the date, time, score, goals, location and referee, at the start of that section?
  • "Todd criticised City's ineffective style of play, to add:": suggest "adding" rather than "to add".
  • "was more praiseful of Burnley": suggest just "praised Burnley" -- the "more" doesn't seem right since the previous comment was not praise for Burnley at all.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review, Mike! I made the changes in the article, and while doing that, also discovered after checking in the Simpson (2007) book that Burnley actually made one change from the team which had won the 2nd Division title at Preston. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the fixes look good except that I don't see where you added a cite for the match details -- am I missing it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I added the refs under the 0–1 score. If you prefer me to individually cite the stats (time, referee, etc.), I'll happily do that. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that works -- I just missed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Seems like we are mostly using local newspapers and some books that I don't know much about as sources - are these books prominent? Sources seem to be consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: the Burnley book was written by former Burnley F.C. historian Ray Simpson (see e.g., [15]) and published by the club. I don't have a hard copy of the Man City book as I came across it via the Internet Archive. However, I saw this 1993 article from The Independent ([16]), where the book is praised as is the publisher (Breedon): "Their A Complete Record collection, which has set the standard for statistically based club histories". Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, what's your take on Eem's response? FrB.TG (talk) 10:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]
  • The game took place on 18 August 1973 at Maine Road in Manchester, and was played between Manchester City You have one subject, "game", so you don't need the comma here. WP:CINS
  • Shortly afterwards Mike Doyle was in front of the Burnley goal but his shot went wide. But you have two subjects here, Doyle and shot, so you do need a comma after "goal".
  • towards the end of the first half the pace slowed Consider a comma after "half" to aid reading.
  • Around the 60th minute, Burnley began to dictate play. Geoff Nulty headed over the City goal from a dangerous position and Martin Dobson saw his shot saved by the leg of Joe Corrigan, the City goalkeeper. Insert comma after "position" (CinS)
  • Peter Higgs, writing in the Burnley Express, labelled it an "excellently worked goal", but was also slightly unhappy Remove comma after "goal"
  • Shortly afterwards Collins played a one-two with Dobson and hit a powerful shot from an angle but it was saved by Corrigan. Add comma after "angle" (CinS)
  • I note the Wembley format remark. Was this the last Shield match played outside Wembley? outside London? The article alone does not say the proposal was adopted, and this might be a reasonable angle to take or even to add to the lead depending on your response.

Just some minor copy fixes as we dial this in and the one suggestion about mentioning this as the last of its kind, at least for a while, not played in Wembley. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sammi Brie, thanks very much for the review! I added or removed commas per above. About Wembley, the CS was held there from 1974 to 2000, after which it was held in Cardiff as the new Wembley Stadium was being constructed. I expanded the sentence a bit, but if you want me to further expand/clarify it, I'm happy to do so. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: That's exactly what I wanted to see — a little connective tissue to make a non-topic reader understand this. Happy to Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have an FAC open myself for your consideration if you wish to review. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • References: article titles should be in a consistent case - sentence or title - regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • "following a shared title in 1960." The link is an MOS:EASTEREGG; how about 'following a shared title in 1960'?

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for the comments! I've addressed them (and hopefully correct regarding your first point?). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 22 August 2024 [17].

MLS Cup 2022

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most exciting games in American soccer history, which pitted Hollywood money against a blue-collar underdog, and broke several records (and one leg) in 130+ minutes of action. Most of this article was written in the days before and after the game, but has undergone a fair amount of changes through a GAN last year and a more recent GOCE copyedit. I believe it is my finest match article so far of the four MLS Cup articles I have sent to FAC. SounderBruce 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Putting a marker down, I will look at this one when I get a sufficient block of free time (most likely tomorrow evening) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:LAFC vs Philadelphia Union (2018) by Subashwilfred (20180630233148).jpg CC-BY-SA
  • File:Steven cherundolo.jpg CC-BY
  • File:Andre Blake - Philadelphia Union (cropped).jpg CC-BY
  • File:Jack Elliott (cropped).jpg CC-BY-SA
  • File:Los Angeles FC vs Philadelphia Union 2022-11-05.svg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:John McCarthy leaps (cropped).jpg - CC-BY-SA

All look good to me. All have appropriate alt-text, are relevant to the article, and are laid out well. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this still needs a source review, so I'll do that this evening! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Both clubs finished the regular season atop the Supporters' Shield standings" - pedantically, they can't both have finished atop the standings. Maybe say something like "the two teams tied for the most points in the MLS, but LAFC topped the Supporters' Shield standings based on......" (also at the equivalent point in the body)
    • Fixed by mentioning conference tables.
  • Soccer is linked in the lead but not in the body
    • Fixed.
  • "and was contested by 28 teams that are organized into" => "and was contested by 28 teams organized into"
    • Fixed.
  • "MLS Cup 2022 was the fourth final to be contested between two regular season winners" - "winners" is a bit vague, maybe say "conference champions"....?
    • Used "seeds" instead.
  • "LAFC took first place in Western Conference during the streak" => "LAFC took first place in the Western Conference during the streak"
    • Fixed.
  • "By the mid-point in the season in late June" => "By the mid-point of the season in late June"
    • Fixed.
  • "LAFC had amassed a 11–3–3 record" => "LAFC had amassed an 11–3–3 record"
    • Fixed.
  • "The Union sent Blake, and defenders" - don't think that comma is needed
    • Fixed.
  • "who were without forwa rd Talles Magno" - there's a random space in the middle of a word
    • Fixed.
  • "but instead finished a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense" => "but instead finishing a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense"
    • Reworded to be more clear, the sequence was quite chaotic.
  • Elliott image caption needs a full stop
    • Added.
  • "LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute they almost used to score" => "LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute which they almost used to score"
    • Fixed with some tweaks.
  • "In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized through a Diego Palacios cross that Gareth Bale headed in" => "In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized when Gareth Bale headed in a Diego Palacios cross"
    • Fixed.
  • McCarthy image caption needs a full stop
    • Added.
  • That's all I got, and it's all pretty minor. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]
  • "(now known as BMO Stadium)" - don't think this is relevant as this name came into use after the final was played. I would either remove this or say "from ... known as BMO Stadium"
    • Moved to the Venue section, since it still has some minor relevance.
      • Would add "from 2023" instead of "now" since the latter word is a bit vague.
        • Changed and cited.
  • "... but LAFC won the Supporters' Shield with the wins tiebreaker." ==> So LAFC won the tiebreaker and were allowed to play the match at their home stadium. Why was/is there no neutral ground to host the final?
    • The highest-seeded finalist hosts; the explanation is given at the MLS Cup article and probably doesn't make sense to repeat in the articles for each edition.
      • Understood, thanks
  • "LAFC also finished as runners-up in the 2020 CONCACAF Champions League but missed the playoffs in 2021" ==> these are different competitions, I therefore think something like "..., and missed..." (or what you prefer) would fit better here than "but".
    • Fixed.
  • Maybe link words such as goalkeeper (in the body of the article), corner kick and draw (in the body and lede)?
    • Added.
  • "11–3–3 record" ==> maybe use the template here to explain that this means 11 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws?
    • Added.
  • "Five minuites later" - typo
    • Fixed.
  • "equaled the highest-scoring MLS Cup final alongside the 2003 final" ==> who were the teams in 2003 and what was the score?
    • Added.
  • "in the Champions League semifinals" ==> semifinals is written with no capital letter, but e.g., "Conference Semifinals" is. Is it standard practice to write the stages of the American competitions with a capital letters but the continental ones without one?
    • There is a long-running MOS dispute over capitalization and how it works in American sports, but the gist is that the "Conference Semifinals/Finals" are a proper title and branded separately (similar to the Divisional Series in baseball) while in international competitions they are not given special treatment and thus not capitalized.
      • Ah that's clear, cheers
  • Fine work. It's comprehensive and well-written. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

[edit]
  • Quotation marks within article titles should use single quotes
  • FN25 is missing agency
    • Added.
  • FN48 is a broken link. Ditto FN91, check throughout
    • Replaced FN48 with a new link as the Wayback Machine seems to have not archived a live version. Found a different website with the same article for FN91.
  • FN51: author name doesn't match source. Ditto FN85, check throughout
    • Fixed the typo for FN51. The author for FN85 seems to have changed his name since the time of publication.
  • What makes Brotherly Game a high-quality reliable source? Angels on Parade?
    • Replaced; these SB Nation publications are at a reliable level, but most probably do not meet the "high quality" criteria. Some have become independent outlets of their own (such as Sounder at Heart) and should qualify as high quality for their subject matter.
  • FN86: is there no independent sourcing for this material?
    • The only other sources I can find are social media posts. I don't think this would be controversial enough to require independent coverage.
      • Not controversial per se, but is there any evidence it's significant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: It's standard practice in sports finals articles to describe the festivities and build-up around the actual event (for example, the Super Bowl fan zones and the half-time show). SounderBruce 05:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMO there's a very big difference between the Super Bowl half-time shows (which all qualify for standalone articles!) and a local restaurant's hot dog. If no independent sources saw fit to cover this detail, why should we? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Removed the hot dog sentence, but I do think the lighting and flag-raising at various landmarks should be mentioned to remain consistent with previous sports articles (such as MLS Cup 2019). I am trying to find an independent source for these, but Google has become appallingly bad in recent months and my preferred newspaper archives are non-functional at the moment. SounderBruce 05:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is CBS Sports italicized and BBC Sport not? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed.
SounderBruce ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, this one got buried in my watchlist. @Nikkimaria: I have responded to your source review. Thanks for the comments. SounderBruce 08:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria are the sources a pass for you with Bruce's fixes? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was he's still looking for a source for the second-last point? Other than that it's good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have removed the content that was previously cited to the press release and replaced it with a short sentence about the trophy cited to AS. SounderBruce 04:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

voorts

[edit]

Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments (n.b. I do not follow soccer.):

  • Not required for FAC, but archive links for the web sources would be good to have.
    • Ran the bot and it should pick up everything.
  • The lead should summarize the broadcasting and post-match analysis sections.
    • Added a paragraph that summarizes both.
  • Intra- and inter-conference opponents need explanation for readers unfamiliar with soccer, as does an "unbalanced schedule".
    • Reworded, but I think the conference of intra/inter conference opponents is familiar enough to most American sports fans, as is the concept of an unbalanced schedule.
  • The seven clubs in each conference with the most points How are points awarded? Is this just adding up points scored in game?
    • Moved up the link to points; as it is a fairly universal concept in soccer and many sports with league systems, I don't think it warrants a specific explanation here.
  • "Summary of results" needs citations (could be added to the note at the top of the subsection).
    • The table is a summary of the prose that precedes it, so adding citations for the results would be duplicative. The content that is not found in the prose—the conference standings—are cited in the format allowed by the template.
  • The two preseason analyses for each team far exceed the length of the summary of the match itself, which is the subject of the article. Is there a way to trim down those sections?
    • As these sections are providing both background and context as well as a summary of the playoffs run, I would prefer they stay intact. They have been trimmed from those used in previous years, for what it's worth.

@SounderBruce: That's all for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Thanks for the review. I have replied to your comments. SounderBruce 01:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bcschneider53

[edit]

I'll take a look at this one. Full disclosure - as a diehard Philly sports fan...my goodness, this is a pretty painful memory. As a sports fan in general, however, this was an epic match that deserves an article of the highest quality, so I'm glad to see it at FAC.

  • "but LAFC won the Supporters' Shield with the wins tiebreaker...Los Angeles FC" Any reason why LAFC gets abbreviated at the end of the lead's first paragraph, then spelled out again at the start of the second?
  • "a soccer-specific stadium owned by Los Angeles FC" same deal here, it probably only needs to be spelled out on the first mention with "(LAFC)" in parentheses (similar to how it's done in the "Road to the final" section).
  • "LAFC became the eighth team in MLS to win a domestic double" Would it be worth mentioning the two trophies they won here? Or maybe link "double" more directly to "Double (association football)#United States" instead? As it reads now, I'm not sure how easily someone unfamiliar with soccer would be able to understand what this means.
  • "28 teams organized into the eastern and western conferences" Should these be "Eastern and Western Conferences"? They seem to be referring to proper nouns in this case.
  • The first paragraph in the "Road to the final" section is mostly written in past tense but has a few instances of present tense text, I'd suggest keeping it consistent with past throughout.
  • "and free agent signing John McCarthy as his backup" Given their opponent, is it worth mentioning here that McCarthy is originally from Philly and previously played for the Union? I'm a bit surprised that wasn't mentioned in the article until much later when he enters the match.
  • For the Blake image, include "(pictured in 2017)" in the caption. The Cherundolo, Elliott, and McCarthy images clarify they're not pictures of them from the year of the match, I'd suggest doing the same for Blake.
  • "Gareth Bale became the first player to score in the finals of the MLS Cup and UEFA Champions League" Just "Bale" is fine here per WP:SURNAME, keep it consistent with other players in the paragraph.
  • Ref 96 has a red link to Sports Video Group, is there a reason for this?

@SounderBruce: That's all I could find. All relatively minor, actually somewhat therapeutic for me to finally relive all of this in detail...definitely a Good Article on the verge of becoming a Featured one. Great work! --Bcschneider53 (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 August 2024 [18].

Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a causewayed enclosure near Cambridge, in England. It was excavated briefly in 1975 and 1976, but the project was derailed by a tragedy: David Clarke, who was the director of the excavation, died suddenly in his 30s in the summer of 1976. The project archive lay untouched for three decades; in 2006 what could be found of it was written up, but no new excavation was undertaken -- by that time the location had become a scheduled monument.

The "Background" section, and a couple of sentences in the lead, are taken verbatim from other articles on causewayed enclosures, as the background information is identical for all of them. See Offham Hill or Barkhale Camp for examples. I don't think this should be an issue, but wanted to mention in it as an FYI. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a whole lot of comments here - I read some archaeological literature for fun but wouldn't consider myself to have a whole lot of knowledge in this subject base; I wouldn't say my poking around in old farm fields with a metal detector has enhanced my knowledge of archaelogy much either.

  • "and a single bone each from red deer, dog and horse" - is this the dog remains here the same as the wolf remains noted to have been found in the site?
    Hadn't noticed that; good catch. The later review doesn't say so explicitly, but it's clear the case. I've worded it carefully to avoid saying that the review found this to be an error, but I think it'll be clear to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that the dig had not found evidence of a bank associated with the ditch[60]" - misssing a period after this sentence
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overall the site was found to be "spectacularly" rich in finds, " - as this is a direct quote it should probably have inline attribution to the author who is being quoted
    There are multiple authors for that chapter, so to avoid the issue I changed it to "remarkably". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site was listed as a scheduled monument in 1976." - is it known if this is due to St Joseph's aerial work, or Clarke's field excavations?
    I haven't found anything about it and I don't see anything on the HE website giving the background. I suspect that once the 1975 excavation proved it was a causewayed enclosure the wheels were set in motion, but I don't have anything I can cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a very interesting read; I wish I were able to provide a more in-depth review. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; all replied to. As you can see below I am benefiting from an in-depth review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Unless I am missing something (I don't think I am, because I read it through twice to make sure) Clarke's death, mentioned in the lead, is not covered anywhere in the body...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Will give this a look -- very much up my street. A small drive-by for now: the article has WP:TIES to the UK, so BrE should be used (and so analysed, not analyzed), and the St in J. K. St Joseph isn't followed by a dot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you're going to review it. I've fixed the full stop after "St". I think "analyzed" is allowed as Oxford spelling, though I have to confess I came to use that spelling sideways -- decades in the US have corrupted my native British English, and I probably switched from -ise endings without even realizing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit to finding Oxford English bizarre -- it is a perfectly good variety of English, though I'd advise putting up tags to be clear that you're using it rather than "normal" BrE. However, as User:Tim riley explained it to me, OxE uses -ize when the etymology of the word is from a Greek '-izein suffix (so Hellenize); analysed is from analusis, so I don't think that would apply here anyway? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "analyse", and I added the relevant tag. I'd have no objections if you or anyone else changed it all to regular BrEng. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be a bit coy about dating the enclosure: we talk about the dates in which these enclosures were built, but don't at any point try to pin one on Great Wilbraham. Has anyone done so?
    Not as far as I can tell. Gathering Time (GT) is the most recent coverage, and they conclude with "The enclosure remains undated. It was not possible to locate any further suitable samples." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same point on functions: we talk about what enclosures in general might have been used for, but don't say e.g. it may have been a settlement, meeting place, or ritual site.
    I think you mean that it would seem natural to talk specifically about what Great Wilbraham might have been used for, rather than in general times about what causewayed enclosures might have been used for? This is the seventh of these that I've brought to FAC, and I think I've been writing them this way (both the lead and the background section) because I've been imagining them as a unified topic. If you were reading a book with chapters about each enclosure, you wouldn't expect a statement to be repeated in each chapter th at this enclosure might have been a camp, or a ritual site, and so on -- there would be an introductory chapter giving that overview, since the statements would apply to more than just one enclosure. I think it makes sense to take the same approach here -- speak generally about the class of site, then specifically about this site when we're talking about the archaeological or antiquarian investigations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I think the situation is reversed when we've got an article about a specific enclosure -- there, I think we would normally be expected to keep the focus on the Great Wilbraham enclosure, and widen the picture only when necessary to add important context. However, this is a matter of taste -- your approach is entirely reasonable. I do think, as currently framed, we've introduced a strong element of doubt as to which, if any, of these functions could reasonably have been filled by Great Wilbraham, though I can also see why that would be intentional. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons I'd like to keep it as is is that I don't believe there's any consensus on what these enclosures were used for -- it's not as if the function of some has been determined, but not of others. Nobody knows what any of them were used for, so there's nothing that's specific to an individual enclosure that can be said. I have seen a couple of references while looking at Freston causewayed enclosure, which I may tackle next, that imply there are some recent theories, and I'll follow those up in case there's something to be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have Clarke (via Evans et al, too) going out and saying that the site was a settlement, or at least a camp, but as far as I can tell largely doing so by assertion rather than argument. How about something like "the site's excavator, David Clarke, considered that it was probably a settlement. The function of causewayed enclosures in general is debated..." and then go into the discussion we already have about military vs civilian, domestic vs ritual (and, if I may, allow for those functions to overlap?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done; I joined it with a "but" as I think (and Evans doesn't quite say) that Clarke was being much too confident in his assertion, and I want the reader to be aware that the excavator's opinion is not definitive here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the dating issue: Historic England has They were constructed over a period of some 500 years during the middle part of the Neolithic period (c.3000-2400 BC). That's quite a way off what we've said -- I can't get to most of the sources, but are we sure that HE have simply made a mistake and there's no debate here?
    I can send you any of the sources you're interested in, if you like -- particularly if this is an area of expertise for you I'd be very glad to have another pair of eyes on interpreting the material. I am really surprised by the dates given there. GT (p. 897) has "...probably began ... in the late 38th century cal BC ... The pace began to quicken in the second quarter of the 37th century cal BC ... construction of new enclosures in southern Britain was on the wane from the middle of the 36th century cal BC". GT is authoritative, but earlier sources give similar dates. For example, The Creation of Monuments (Oswald et al., 2001) has a chart showing 3800-3200 BC as the date range, with the core period being 3600-3300 BC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we've got good sources on our side, I'm happy to write off HE as an error, but just wanted to check. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've emailed HE with a correction request. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone—mostly cattle, but with some sheep and pig: the first and here is a bit poetic/rhetorical, I think.
    I think "poorly copyedited" would be more accurate! Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they would have provided multiple ways for attackers to pass through the ditches to the inside of the camp: if we just said that we don't know what these are, on what basis do we now call them "camps"? Suggest cutting this last bit.
    They do get called that in the literature. It sounds like you have access to Evans (2006); you can see from that that Clarke's own notes describe it as a "causeway camp". A friend of mine who is a professor of archaeology, whom I contacted for help with interpreting some of Evans' wording (and who, it turns out, knew David Clarke and was at Cambridge when Clarke died) referred to them as camps in his emails to me (though he's not a specialist in that period). I just did a Google Scholar search and found a 2020 source using the term, though it does seem to be falling out of fashion. Both usages in the article currently are in hypotheticals where there are people in the enclosure, so I probably unconsciously put them in on the basis that these were camp-like situations. Having said all that, I can remove it if you think it's misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'd suggest the reverse -- actually say, explicitly, early on that Clarke referred to [the interior of?] the structure as a "camp". UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking about it some more I've changed the two instances of "camp" to "enclosure". The article now mentions Clarke's assertion that the site was a settlement, as you suggest, but I don't think that interpretation should be accidentally reinforced by the language (which was your original point). The "causeway camp" usage does seem to be dying out, and Evans, for example, never uses the word camp except when quoting others, so I think the article should follow suit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent solution to both problems. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction of these enclosures took only a short time: can we put a vague number on that -- a few minutes?
    The source says "Causewayed enclosures ... were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days' work by a large number of people." I could make this "a short time (weeks or months, but not years)" if you agree that doesn't go too far past the specifics in the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there not been any more specific energetics research done here? There's loads of it into Neolithic monuments, where people have attempted to quantify the amount of worker-days involved in constructing the things. "Many days" could be expressed as "in a matter of days", but I'm conscious that the source phrasing is emphasising the large amount of effort, whereas we've turned that around to assert that they were relatively easy to build. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen anything on the energetics but agree that would be worth adding if it exists. (I should probably have a go at the causewayed enclosure article itself, where that would most naturally belong.) I take your point that Andersn stresses the labour, but the article does currently say "since substantial labour would have been required for ..." -- is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, as Femke says below, we're currently blowing hot and cold -- simultaneously arguing that it was a quick job, and a very big one. Perhaps the missing link is that it was a lot of work, but also that it was done very quickly and efficiently? Maybe spelling that out would be helpful UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Had another go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. We might quibble "must have been planned in advance" (emphasis mine) -- people could otherwise have been very efficient because they did it a lot, were very well-organised, or simply had a huge amount of labour power. Perhaps something a little softer like "was probably/almost certainly planned well in advance"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with weakening it if you want to, but "must" is in the source -- "Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared and transported". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a bit woolly to me (they really think it takes years to shift the rocks and choose some good trees?), but if it’s in a good source, that’s all the justification you need. One could make an unkind comment about academics and their sense of a reasonable speed at which to work… UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On reflection I agree with you. I changed it to "would probably". Incidentally, on one of your other points, I found a mention of causewayed enclosures in the British Handbook of Archaeology as "mid-third millennium BC", which is the same mistake that HE made. The author is John Pouncett, who is a Neolithic specialist as far as I can tell, so it's just odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be as simple as someone mistaking "halfway through the 3000s" as "halfway through the 3rd millennium". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason not to push the map up into the "Site" section? I found myself looking down at it as I followed the text description.
    On my screen it would cause a sandwiching problem with the infobox, which is rather long. It would only overlap by a few lines, but I think any sort of sandwiching is frowned on. I agree it would be more useful a little higher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On my screen, the diagram is gigantic -- more than half the horizontal width. Would shrinking it slightly solve that problem? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made the map 20% smaller -- how does that look? Unfortunately that's not going to help the sandwiching since it's the top of the image that will sandwich with the infobox. I moved it up anyway; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Size is good, but I would definitely align it right to keep a consistent left margin (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to the right. It bumps up against the infobox on my screen in that position, which is why I put it on the left, but it's not too bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • included on a list of 16 possible causewayed enclosures: not a major problem, but we had Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles: why the figures now?
    Fixed; just being inconsistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're inconsistent about whether to introduce new people: J. K. St Joseph gets no introduction, and while he needs none among British archaeologists, he probably does for the general public. On the other hand, Christopher Evans (worth a redlink?) gets the small and slightly ambiguous "Cambridge archaeologist".
    Added an intro for St Joseph; he was a geologist and I gather never could be fairly described as primarily an archaeologist, so I went with the CUCAP credit for his description. I haven't found much in the way of independent sources for Evans so didn't redlink him but can if you think it's justified. Would just "archaeologist" be better for him? I included "Cambridge" as a nod towards the academic continuity -- I'm no expert on the history here, but I understand Evans has worked a lot with Ian Hodder, also at Cambridge, who was a pioneer in post-processual archaeology and so a sort of academic descendant of Clarke's. That in turn made me wonder if there is some academic controversy or debate hiding behind Evans' criticism of Clarke and his methods, and again made me want to draw the connection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know Evans, really, but a lot of his early work from the 1980s looks very post-processual, and as you say there are a few co-publications with Ian Hodder (who has been at Stanford since the nineties). I think that's a good reason to introduce him, but I might be clear that Cambridge means the university, not just the city (Evans has long had a foot in both camps). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made it "Christopher Evans, a Cambridge University archaeologist, ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear: more natural, I think, as the enclosures began to appear in southern Britain -- current phrasing sounds like they popped out of the ground.
    Yes, fair. Done. I'll have to remember to make that change in the other articles that use this text. I see you've been replying above; I'm off for second breakfast now and will get back to this later today. Thanks for the detailed comments; by the way. I've pushed back on several above but I don't want to give the impression that I'm resistant to your input -- just trying to communicate the details so we can agree on what's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would generally convert between metric and imperial units -- did Clarke use metric?
    He did. I've added conversions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Archaeology, a movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline: I think it's worth setting out briefly how New/processual archaeology hoped to change things -- in particular, that New Archaeologists wanted excavations to be run like scientific experiments, explicitly theoretical in their conception, carried out to test hypotheses and with the collaboration of lots of scientific specialists. I think it would be worth name-checking his 1973 "Loss of innocence" paper as well -- he talked a lot there about why a New Archaeology was needed and how "traditional" excavators would push back against it. In a sense, was this excavation a bit like the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition or, for a later movement, Hodder's work at Çatalhöyük, in that it served as a way of taking abstract ideas that had been discussed in theory and proving that they could make a difference in the field?
    I looked into this a little while working on the article, but gave up on this for lack of sources. If I find something on New Archaeology, I'm concerned it would be SYNTH to apply the language in whatever I find to Clarke's work here. I think I would need someone talking about Great Wilbraham specifically, so I've made do with Evans' comments. For your second point, yes, I think in Clarke's mind it was exactly that. Evans says "Great Wilbraham also offered the potential to put specific ideas into practice; the chance of taking a systematic approach to data retrieval, analysis, and modelling at site, landscape, and broader scales." I turned that into "it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade". Are you suggesting I should name those ideas in that sentence, for example? I didn't because Evans doesn't and for these abstract discipline theories I am very hesitant to write something that might put words into the source's mouth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there anything in the grant proposal that would be relevant here -- "the value of this excavation is that it will allow us to field-test the methodology of using X, Y and Z" or similar? I do think it's useful to define what New Archaeology was, beyond that it was, well, new, but agreed that it's dangerous to say exactly which aspects of it C. hoped to implement here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (See big comment below on this and related points) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Responded there; perhaps that takes care of this point too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it does: I still think our definition of New Archaeology is too vague, and putting all the concrete detail into Clarke's proposal makes it sound almost as if he came up with the idea of treating archaeology as a physical science, when in fact most of the theoretical groundwork had been done in the United States by people like Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery a decade or so earlier. Clarke was important as an evangelist for the movement, but I'm not sure he did as much to invent it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Clarke has a contemporary status as a disciplinary 'ancestor', cited in claims of intellectual descent and in accounts that sometimes border on hagiography", according to Evans; combining that with this obituary in Nature, which explicitly denies that his work is "in the manner of the American New Archaeology", I think you're right. I'm afraid I'm not clear how you think I should fix this. I had left the references to New Archaeology linked and unexplained in the version I brought to FAC because I didn't see clear statements in the sources I had. I can see why you suggested adding more about New Archaeology, but I don't see where to get it from -- particuarly if Sherratt's obituary is right and Clarke shouldn't be seen as only or strictly in that mould. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can keep it loose -- try Johnson's Archaeological Theory here (frustratingly, no page numbers in Google Books, but search "New Archaeology"), which does so and explicitly uses Clarke. I would cite it to amend something like David Clarke was one of the leading figures in New Archaeology, a hetreogenous movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline bring archaeology closer to the natural sciences, and conduct archaeological excavations in a scientific manner. We don't need to get into the weeds of exactly what that meant in practice to each individual archaeologist, but Johnson is clear that everyone in NA agreed on that much. 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
    Done; I cited it to chapter 3 in the absence of page numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • because the plan included using it as a training ground for students: this is pretty universal for digs led by university academics, particularly in Cambridge, but I'm not sure we can do much with that fact. Was Alexander not also brought along because, well, he would know which end of the shovel was which? Evans et al refer us to Hammond's biographical sketch for Clarke's fieldwork experience, which I can't immediately get hold of, but as I know it he was certainly more of a thinker and a writer than a digger. More pedantically, Evans et al say that Alexander got involved after the project became a training dig, not strictly because it did.
    Yes, Evans says "after", but surely that's just a colloquial way of saying "because"? Why mention it otherwise? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My read of that was that the operation was getting bigger, and so would need two people, rather than Alexander being specifically brought on because of his expertise with training archaeologists, as our framing implies. Alternatively, since the general point was that Clarke was the driving force behind the operation, the decision to become a training dig might have been intended mostly as a chronological marker, to be clear that Alexander joined at a relatively late stage of the planning process. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough -- that's a plausible reading, so I've changed it to "after". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade: as above, I think it would be helpful to set out what some of those were.
    See comment above -- I'd like to be able to do this but would probably need help from you to word this correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits: this presumably implies that someone had been and surveyed it before this point?
    Yes, but as far as I can see Evans doesn't mention it. My own guess would be that it was so close to Cambridge that Clarke probably went there several times while working up the original grant proposal to the BM, and would have noticed the peat (and probably spotted some of the worked flints). That's just a guess though; I don't have anything I can source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarke planned to include interdisciplinary analyses and an evaluation of the surrounding landscape and environment in the project: I would be explicit that this is a definition of "total archaeology".
    Sorry if I'm being too timid about this sort of wording, but Evans doesn't say that so as above I'm uncomfortable using a term he doesn't. Again, can you point me at a source that would let me say something like this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a funny phrase -- lots of people use it, usually to bash it as ill-defined or impossible, but few people actually go out and say what it means! See Godja here, p. 216: "total archaeology (an approach to understanding in which all of the disciplines capable of bringing understanding relevant to settlement history are applied)". Alternatively and more critically, here p. 68: "the ... integration of diverse perspectives ... [and] disparate data generated by an interdisciplinary team of specialists".
    Applying this to Great Wilbraham, Evans et al, cited, p. 118: This was intended to be an experiment in what Clarke called total archaeology. Predicated on the excavation of the entire enclosure, it was to involve a full array of interdisciplinary scientific/environmental analyses and intensive sample recovery. The site's proximity to Cambridge and its laboratories is also stressed as a major advantage for rapid response and systematic information retrieval - feedback, of course, being a major tenet of 'new' procedures. Based essentially on the quantity of its finds, Clarke is unambiguous in his assignation of the enclosure as a settlement given its 'heavy domestic occupation', and there is no mention of 'ritual' whatsoever. He is no less clear that one of the keys to understanding the site would come from exploring its situation at the interface of chalk and fen.
    The three bolded bits are all key "New Archaeology" tenets (lots of STEM-y specialists, a feedback loop between hypothesis, method and results, and a strongly landscape-based approach to the study of a site). I think it's also important here that Clarke said that the site was definitely a settlement -- we might not want to throw all of our weight behind that in Wikivoice, but we should at least talk about it when we talk about the site's functions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Gojda's definition to follow Evans' mention of "total archaeology" and to introduce Clarke's approach; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good, but I realised I missed the obvious earlier on -- the more current term is "landscape archaeology", and while that isn't quite the same thing (part of the reason for changing the terminology is to be a little more specific and concrete), a link or nod might be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see an obvious place to mention it in the article so I created a "See also" section and added it there. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would do "total archaeology, a precursor to landscape archaeology", or even just link "total archaeology" to landscape archaeology (come to think of it, I might create a redirect and put a little explanation in the landscape archaeology article). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you've done this, so I've removed the "See also". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link British Museum?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • allocated for purchasing collections: purchasing artefacts for its collections, surely -- unless it specifically had this money put aside for buying some aristocrat's entire hoard?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarke and Alexander never published their work: this might be a little uncharitable -- we haven't yet, in the body at least, given Clarke's rather good excuse.
    Yes, good point. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the grant proposal for the following year records some of the details of the two weeks: can we put a date on it?
    Unfortunately not -- frustatingly Evans gives no dates at all except to say "three weeks in the summer" for both years. I think Hammond mentions the dig in The Times and I could get a terminus ante quem, so to speak, from that, but it didn't seem worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant for when the grant proposal was written/submitted?
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarke mentions the September 1975 excavation as in the past in the proposal. The only other date Evans mentions is that the Fortran contour 3D plot is dated January 1976, but I don't think we can assume that was before the grant proposal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finds included animal bone including cattle, sheep, pig, deer and wolf: neater as bones of cattle... to avoid included ... including? OK, presumably there were at least some unidentified bone fragments as well, but I'm not sure they're going to be particularly important.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pollen column was taken, which covered 5000 years of the peat: I can visualise this, but I need a lot of "help" from having seen something similar done -- most readers will, I think, need a bit more explanation of what's actually going on here.
    Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • demonstrated changes in the environment over the life of the site, such as the clearance of the site in Neolithic times and later pasture development: might do a footnote to explain how this works -- presumably, they noted a sharp drop in the proportion of tree pollen in the Neolithic, then certain other changes characteristic of grazing?
    I imagine so, but unfortunately this is from Clarke's notes, reproduced by Evans: "Dr. Birks (Dept Botany Cambridge) took a complete pollen column which showed that the peat ran from c. 5000-0 BC recording the neolithic clearance of the site, pasture development and many other interesting features contemporary with, as well as earlier and later than the neolithic occupation." The cite I just added is from a general archaeology reference which goes into a bit more detail about pollen analysis, so I could add a footnote explaining how this works in general. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to you; without specifics, it would have less (but not zero) value. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: Was Clarke hospitalised or dead at this point? I think it would almost be worth bringing Clarke's death to the front of this whole discussion, as a kind of apology and explanation for why we're reconstructing everything out of scraps and plans.
    I've moved mention of his death up in response to another of your comments so perhaps this is now addressed? Clarke died at the end of June, but since Evans doesn't give the dig dates for 1976 I can't see if Kinnes was added while Clarke was ill or after he died. Clarke died at the end of the Tripos and the dig was probably in the summer holiday so I would guess everything was planned and ready to go when he died, and Kinnes stepped in. No source for that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's almost certain that the dig would have been between July and September, but agreed that there's not much we can do without a source. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: I would explain what a spit is in archaeology.
    I'll come back to this -- I have some general references that talk about digging but haven't yet found a good explanation that I can cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got Renfrew and Bahn? Would have thought that any introductory textbook/glossary would do the trick. I can probably dig it out (stratigraphically) if you don't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do, but I discovered in trying to find a definition that modern books don't even use the term any more, so I couldn't use that for the definition. I found a condemnation of spit-digging in Drewett's Field Archaeology and cited that, but had to use the online Oxford Reference for the plain definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • rather than the more modern method of stratigraphic excavation (removing the material in each identifiable layer of soil as a unit).: I am surprised by this -- doing stratigraphy "properly" was a big deal for would-be "scientific" excavators. You might also be being slightly too kind in saying "more modern", implying that it was cutting-edge in the seventies -- back in the twenties, John Pendlebury is on record as moaning that his director wasn't paying enough attention to the stratigraphy. In the UK, good stratigraphic methods had been standard for most of Clarke's life, since at least the 50s, and since the 30s to those who were paying attention.
    I completely agree that it's surprising; there are a couple of paragraphs in Evans that can be translated as "Clarke's fieldwork was very poor", though he's polite about it. I've written a couple of articles about pre-war excavations and the question of stratigraphy vs. spits was clearly coming down on the side of the former back then, so to my lay eyes it's astonishing that Great Wilbraham was excavated like this. Particularly since I gather Alexander was very experienced indeed; that has to imply Clarke designed the methodology. But do you think a change in the text was warranted? The only judgemental (as opposed to specific) comment that Evans makes is "Though not wishing to dwell on matters of hindsight, Clarke's approach to the monument, while undoubtedly pioneering, was also (at least in part) inappropriate."
    Especially given Evans' comment there (bearing in mind nil nisi bonum), I think we've been too kind. I think Evans elsewhere is explicit that the conception and command of the excavation were very much Clarke's? I would certainly reword "more modern" to something stronger like "generally accepted", "the standard method of stratigraphic excavation" or similar -- we make it sound like there was a genuine choice between a new-fangled approach and a traditional one, when in fact very few archaeologists of the time would have defended Clarke's methods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I used Drewett to say "unsound" (his word); is that strong enough? I'd like to be able to say "considered unsound even at the time", but I'd need an old source for that. I tried Crawford's Archaeology in the Field (I have the 1960 printing) but he doesn't get that specific about excavation technique. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something like Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, or again Renfrew and Bahn on the history of archaeological methods? We don't necessarily need a source from the time, only one that looks back on when stratigraphic excavation became the norm. Something reflecting on Wheeler and his legacy might also do the trick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a bit in here (1989), chapters 2 and 3, that makes clear that stratigraphic excavation was a Thing from the 20s and 30s, and that non-stratigraphic excavation was a definite oddity after the 50s at least, but I'm struggling to find a slam-dunk one-liner that can pin it to a single page. Personally, I think there's enough there to cite "the then-preferred method" and reference "for the growing acceptance of the stratigraphic method over the first half of the twentieth century, see Harris 2014, ch. 2 and 3", but that might be a bit loose for some people's tastes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just read those two chapters, and at the moment I'd rather not add anything more -- as you say there's no slam-dunk statement that in 1975 it would have been considered poor technique. Also it seems that there was a phase in which digs were conducted by spit but recorded by spit and stratigraphic layer, and Evans seems to say that that's what Clarke intended -- if I'm reading that correctly it's the execution that is bad, as the layer numbers are not clearly identified or correlated across trenches. If so, spit-digging is not the only or even the main criticism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What we've got works nicely, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • two 45 m long arms: hyphenate, as adjectival.
    Done, with a conversion added, which makes it look a bit awkward. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recording of finds below this level was inconsistent between the trenches: can we explain exactly what this meant? Was one trench simply not very good at it, or did different trench supervisors adopt different recording strategies?
    The full answer to this is presumably lost in the missing part of the archive. Evans says "Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate." Evans says at one point that "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares", and there's a photo to support this, but later "These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered", implying that the layer numbers were stratigraphic. And "buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches". So it seems to be spit-digging, for spatial control, but stratigraphic layer numbering, without a clear way of connecting the notation from one trench to the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous, it's more than "different trenches did it differently", as we imply, it's that no trench seems to have done a usable job. I take Evans as saying that no trench recorded finds consistently (with itself) or clearly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that. Changed to "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a sample of the peat itself to 7000 BC: no error bars on that?
    No -- Evans couldn't find the 1970s lab information for that sample so all he had was "7000 BC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The earliest estimated date was for a retouched blade which may have been from the Upper Palaeolithic.: I'd put a BC/BP date down here so that readers don't have to click away to the Upper Paleolithic page.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the nearby river gravel terrace: hyphen needed in river-gravel.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few artefacts not made from local stone were identified: suggest made from non-local stone; we currently imply that not many artefacts were made of e.g. bone or pottery.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • fragments of stone axes from from Cornwall and Cumberland: not Pike of Stickle, by any chance? Has anyone commented on what they were doing there? Lots has been written about Cumbrian axes, in particular, as having some kind of special status.
    All we have is "In addtion to flint, work in 1975 resulted in the recovery of a small number of artefacts made on non-local stone. These have now been lost, but were identified at the time by Professor Forbes of the Department of Geology and included fragments of Group I (Cornish) and Group VI (Cumbrian) stone axes." That's from Evans p. 131. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha: Group VI axes are from the Langdales, and are indeed a bit of a Thing. I'd suggest naming them and giving some context here. There's a bit that can be said about Group I axes as well: the linked page isn't the greatest source, but gives an overview, and I'm sure from there you or I can follow it up in more authoritative works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, using another source to cite "greenstone" for the Cornish axes. That source (Schauer) refers to Group VI axes from the Langdale source as if there were other possible sources for Group VI. Taylor (the source you linked) seems unambiguous that they're Langdale axes though, so I've worded it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough: I was in a museum this morning and found a rather nice map of the different "groups" and their origin points - it was cited to this edited volume from 1979, and put a nice big dot over the central Lakes for Group VI. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mildenhall ware, a form of Neolithic pottery found in southern England: as ever -- can we put a date on when it was made, other than "Neolithic"? "Made in southern England between 3700 and 3400 BC"?
    The names and classification of Neolithic pottery are nightmarish for a layperson like me. I have two references I use for them: Gibson & Woods, cited in the article, which is from 1990, and a 2002 book by Gibson, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. The former is structured as a dictionary; the Mildenhall entry gives no dates but refers to another entry that calls it middle Neolithic. The 2002 book mentions Mildenhall as the eastern version of a set of Neolithic forms that began to appear around 3600 BC. I think I could reasonably combine these to say "mid-fourth-millennium BC", if you think that's worth doing? I emailed Gibson a couple of years ago asking if there were more recent references, and he said no, and proceeded to give me a very helpful explanation of why the evolution of the terminology for Neolithic pottery is so complicated. It stems partly from changes in the understanding of the chronology, and partly from incorporating what were once regional style names into an overall chronological picture. I can't really cite his email though! He had not at that time interested the publisher in an updated version of his book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the greatest source, but it does have bibliography -- I got those Mildenhall ware dates from this guide: Percival is a professional archaeological pottery analyst. Mid M4th works for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done; I think Gibson is enough here so I used that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • since the excavation was by spits: you might be able to solve this with a better explanation further up, but at the moment it's not obvious why this would ruin the stratigraphy. Technically speaking, this wouldn't be a crisis if Clarke and Alexander had also recorded the stratigraphic context in which it was found (you can, after all, have more than one in a trench without a real problem), but it sounds like they didn't do that or, indeed, establish a system of context recording at all.
    See my comments above about this and the quotes from Evans. I will see if I can address this when I find something I can use to define spits -- it does seem as if there was some attempt at stratigraphic labelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this is still an issue, given the changes so far and the conversations above about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a problem, but I might add, "with no record of stratigraphic divisions" just to be extra-clear. It's possible to dig spits and still record stratigraphy properly, if you have the right systems in place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this covered by "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly, yes, but that's in a previous section. Also, again strictly speaking, our sentence is still a slight non sequitur: it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits. In fact, as we've said The sherds were stored in the 1970s in labeled envelopes, identified by layer, trench, and grid square, I think something may be awry: either layer doesn't mean "stratigraphic context" or there's another piece to this puzzle. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replied in a new subsection below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The upper four layers included some Mildenhall material, but also pottery from the Late Bronze Age through to the present-day. All layers below this, which were all probably from within the various prehistoric ditches, contained Neolithic pieces, with a few Iron Age and Roman fragments. The outermost ditch found in trench GW II contained Roman material in all layers, indicating that this ditch dated from the Romano-British era: lots of dates would help here. Most people know the Romans were about 2000 years ago, but a bit of precision would be better.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dog was apparently present at the camp : again, we've called it a "camp", but I don't see in the article where we've got that from.
    Addressed per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cepea nemoralis: scientific names are italicised. Our page on those snails says that they live in woodland and prefer broad-leaved plants to grasses?
    See next reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though there was some inconsistency between the data from Great Wilbraham and a trend from the Neolithic to the Iron Age at other sites of the woodland form predominating in earlier sites.: I think this could do with a bit more explanation as to what it means and why it's important.
    I've had a go at this. Strictly speaking John Evans doesn't support the "implying ..." part of what I've added, but I think it's a logically obvious statement to make given what he does say about grassland and woodland forms. I think what I've added also addresses your comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cepea nemoralis shells, most of which had visible bands. This form: The banded form of this species? Just want to be clear that "this form" doesn't mean Cepea nemoralis (incidentally, nemoralis means who lives in woodland groves). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lowest sample: I think we need to be explicit about what lower and upper mean in chronological terms.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These pollen spectra from these samples was in agreement with: ce: The pollen spectra from these samples were in agreement with...
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Norman Hammond, Catherine Frieman in the biblio?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give the Antiquity date (for Wilson's article) simply as "1975", as it's an annual publication.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some people get their names spelt out in the bibliography and others, like Maud Cunningham, just get initials?
    This reflects how they are listed in the journals -- Cunnington was actually listed as "Mrs. M. E. Cunnington", but I wasn't going to go there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to spell out where I can, in the same sort of vein as MOS:CONFORM, but that works too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly enjoyed that one -- kudos as well for providing an excellent diagram. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phew. Finished a pass through; will go back through and start on your replies, probably in a little while. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the long review, but hopefully at least some of it is useful, and maybe some of that even passes for interesting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologize -- there's not much on Wikipedia that's more rewarding than having someone who knows what they're talking about engage with one's work. I really appreciate the detailed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am now caught up on all your comments. Will go and recaffeinate and take a look at the comments from others below. ~~`~~
  • And another one -- I don't think we actually say in the body that it's near the village of Great Wilbraham.
    Fixed. I saw your other points but have to pause till this evening as I'm off to work shortly, but I'll just say I suspect "layer" of being used for both stratigraphy and spit level, either in Evans' description or Clarke's or both. I'll see if I can sort that out this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Layers
[edit]

Starting a new section for the layers discussion since I want to quote a couple of things from Evans, which would make a mess of the bullet list above. From Evans:

  • "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares (Fig. 7). Whilst potentially maximising the spatial control of finds, discrete fills were not distinguished, nor - breaking with convention - was any kind of feature numbering system systematically applied." (p. 122)
  • "Recording was undertaken by dividing each trench into 1 m2 units, each given a unique letter and number. These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered. In several trenches, alternate squares were dug as a first priority to establish the nature of deposits, quantify artefact densities, and 'record stratigraphy'". A photo of a context sheet from the dig is included. (p. 124)
  • "... buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches, and provided the first horizon at which artefacts were collected and recorded systematically. So far as can be established, no cut features were identified above the chalk marl. Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate". (p. 125)
  • A grid diagram is captioned "Trench artefact densities shown by spit/layer depth and metre square". (p. 128) It seems spit/layer only makes sense if they are different indications of depth, so this use of "layer" seems to refer to stratigraphic layer, but there's only one depth dimension given. That dimension is labelled "layer" not "spit", so this seems to be a stratigraphy diagram.
  • "The material was contained in 499 individual envelopes separated by trench, grid square, and layer. The majority of the envelopes held mixed assemblages reflecting the spit method of excavation." Surely "layer" here refers to spit depth? Otherwise the second sentence makes no sense.

Given the above I think the sentence at the end of the "Reanalysis" section is OK -- it doesn't make any direct assertion about the stratigraphy and just reports Evans' criticism of the recording. You comment above that "it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits", but I think the last quote from Evans above says that it was the case. My interpretation would be that the envelopes were separated by trench, grid square, and spit depth, and that layer does not mean stratigraphic layer in that sentence of Evans'. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed -- they've clearly done the vertical divisions arbitrarily (at 10cm increments) rather than stratigraphically. How about in labeled envelopes, identified by layer spit depth, trench, and grid square? I do think, at the moment, the word layer is going to cause confusion with the upcoming since the excavation was by spits this meant that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer, since we need the reader to understand that what we're calling layer and stratigraphic layer are completely different things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Not sure why I couldn't see that that was a simple solution to the confusion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: that's my last quibble sorted, and on re-read I have nothing but praise for the article. I've certainly prodded and poked it over the course of this review, but I hope it's been beneficial: at least from my perspective, I think we've beaten out some really tricky issues and made it even closer to watertight. Very impressive work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, both for the support and for the detailed and very helpful review. The article is much improved because of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "The site was rich in finds, including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone..." Two ands in a row?
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third paragraph is really short, which makes the lead unbalanced. Perhaps that sentence could be tacked onto the end of the first paragraph, behind "The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972."
    Per Iazyges comment in the review below I've made a different change at that part of the lead, so I added it to the end of the second paragraph instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Site

  • I would link Cambridgeshire in the body as its only linked in the infobox. Also, just to clarify, are you not linking terms already linked in the lead? I believe that is fine, although I would typically link those terms in the body as well.
    Done. My intention is to link again in the body, as you say; did I miss others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is Cambridge. There is also David L. Clarke, who is linked upon his second mention in the body but not first. Its also inconsistent as to whether he is mentioned with his middle initial or not.
    All addressed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No conversions to imperial units? Either way, the unabbreviated measurement should be given first. "20 m" should be changed to "20 metres" and "2 ha" should be changed to "2 hectares".A non-breaking space should be put between each figure and its units as well.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most causewayed enclosures are oval..." Suggest changing to "Most causewayed enclosures are oval-shaped..."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The site is slightly tilted towards the old river course, with the upper edge of the site at the edge of the higher ground." This is unclear to me. What is the higher ground referring to? In what way is the site tilted? Is that just a way of saying the site is sloped? If so, saying the site is sloped towards the old river course is a clearer way of putting it.
    Done. "Tilted" seems to be the preferred way to describe this sort of thing in sources about causewayed enclosures, but you're right that "sloped" is perfectly clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological investigations

All responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Here's my support Steelkamp (talk)

Comments by Femke

[edit]

Lovely article, thanks for working on it.

  • It may be nice to have a feeling of the size of the enclosure in the lead.
    Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would split the first para of the background section in two, it's quite long.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section relies quite heavily on older sources. For most of the material, that's no problem, but for two instances, I wonder if newer sourcing exist:
    • The debate on the purpose of the enclosures. Has there been any development in that debate since 2011? Or in terms of military analysis, since 1930.
      I'm not aware of anything more recent, though I have a couple of papers to read that may have more ideas. I think "military analysis" is probably too dignified a term for some pre-war archaeologists guessing at the defensibility of the site! But I think the military possibility has to be mentioned because of the evidence that at least a couple of these sites were attacked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles --> Is this number still roughly the same since 2011? I can imagine that satellite techniques may be increased this number.
      It does seem plausible but I only know of one site identified since 2001, though there may be others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand the sentence " The construction of these enclosures took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches". The first couple of times I read this sentence, it seemed contradictory (I read the first bit as implying it was easy to make, the second bit as difficult). Can you reorganise / split the sentence so that this becomes clearer? For instance, by first talking about how much and what work is needed, and then a second sentence about the findings of low constructions times / organisation.
    This has been reworked as a result of other comments -- how does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, consider breaking the first paragraph of the Archaeological investigations in two, it's quite long.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider explaining cropmarks the first time it's mentioned. (I assume you've looked into adding an image of the cropmarks of the find, and there weren't any suitably licensed ones available. Would be cool if we could have one).
    I added a note; does that do it? And yes, sadly there's nothing freely available, and I don't think fair use could be justified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should ploughsoil be (red)linked? Seems notable, and it's jargon
    I added a link to glossary of archaeology; I'm not sure it could be an article, but I agree it's jargon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link fieldwalking
    It's linked -- maybe I added the link after you read the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link sherd
    Same here -- this is linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These pollen spectra from these samples --> Only use these once (the pollen spectra from these samples).
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was all from me! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Femke, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very happy with the article now, support :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges

[edit]
  • The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972. keeping this in the first paragraph of the lede seems somewhat awkward, suggest making it the first sentence of the second paragraph.
  • Excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, but in other ways the work was advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective. the phrasing seems a bit odd to me, perhaps While excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, the work was in other ways advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective.
  • That's all from me. A fascinating article! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see that some issues have been noted above. I kinda wonder why "Hammond, Norman (30 December 1975). "Archaeology report: Cambridge: Neolithic 'causewayed camp'". The Times. London. p. 10. " is written by an expert on archaeology on another continent. ""'Causewayed camps' and 'interrupted ditch systems'"." lacks a DOI. Otherwise, it seems like we are dealing with well-cited publications from reputable publishers, keeping in mind that this isn't an area where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added the DOI for Wilson. I think Hammond was the archaeology correspondent for The Times at that time, so he covered everything in the field for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment by Ian

[edit]

Clarke's long-term plan for the site was ambitious, but could not have been achieved with the money requested in his proposal, and a later review of the project identified shortcomings in the plan and execution as well. -- Mike, I think we need "and" here instead of "but". Call me cynical but when I hear "ambitious" applied to a project I figure we can expect it to go over budget or fall short of its goals, or both. If you agree, suggest recasting to Clarke's long-term plan for the site was ambitious, and could not have been achieved with the money requested in his proposal; a later review of the project identified shortcomings in the plan and execution as well., avoiding "and" repetition. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fair. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 16 August 2024 [19].

Fountain Fire

[edit]
Nominator(s): Penitentes (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Fountain Fire, a large and destructive wildfire in rural Northern California in 1992. The fire itself largely took place over two dramatic days in late August, but its effects persisted in the region long afterward. It destroyed multiple small communities along the State Route 299 corridor and was only contained by the efforts of more than 4,400 firefighters, making it one of the most destructive and expensive wildfires in state history; as fires in the Golden State have gotten bigger and badder it no longer makes any top 10 lists but remains no slouch. The article was successfully nominated for GA in January 2023 and received a peer review in February 2024. This is my first FAC nomination.

Penitentes (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Reserving a spot for a review. —Kusma (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: what is "long-range spotting"? (Googling I get things about hunting telescopes).
    "Spotting" refers to wildfire behavior wherein embers and firebrands are lofted by wind or the fire's own convective smoke column and, landing in unburnt vegetation, ignite and thus spread the fire quickly and unpredictably. I've changed the lead to "...behavior such as long-range spot fires", wiki-linking to spot fire and crown fire next to it for good measure. — Penitentes (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: TIL {{rp}} has a quote option. I am not sure I like it, but my personal preference is not a FAC criterion.
    I'm not very attached to them, I think the relevant text is easy enough to find in those references. I've removed them. — Penitentes (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't really opposed to the quotes, just to the way they are presented, which actually violated MOS:NOHOVER. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, good to know. I've bookmarked this. I have one or two other wildfire GAs I need to alter for compliance. — Penitentes (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you say something here about what the vegetation / forests in Shasta County were like before the fire?
    Great thought. I've added a short paragraph to the "Background" section giving some general geographic context and describing the forest—I don't think it feels redundant to the information given in the "Post-fire landscape" section but please do tell me if you feel that way. — Penitentes (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem in my opinion. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 20: " Investigators found pine trees two–three feet (0.61–0.91 m) in diameter snapped in half.[15][19] Such vortices have been recorded ..." so was this snapping blamed on fire vortices?
    It was. I've reworded this paragraph to make the attribution clearer. — Penitentes (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A map of the local area helping the reader see what is where (a bit more zoomed in than the main map) would be great to understand this section better.
    Also a good idea. I'll try and whip something up in QGIS tonight if I have the time, or possibly this weekend. — Penitentes (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 21: again, I do not understand what "more long-range spotting" means here. The dab page spotting and wikt:spotting are both not helpful.
    I've reworded this sentence as "...growth was enabled by more long-range spotting fire, as ember attack started spot fires between...", hopefully describing the actual process a little better as well as wiki-linking to spotting fire (which goes to the same place as spot fire) and ember attack. — Penitentes (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • August 22: what is a "hand line"? (I apologise for my lack of fire and firefighting related vocabulary)
    Hand line refers to firebreaks dug/cut using hand tools instead of by bulldozers, as is also common. No need for an apology, I'm so immersed in the subject that it's very helpful to know what terms can and can't be gleaned by fresh readers. I've rephrased it in the article to "constructed firebreaks by hand" and added that wiki-link to firebreak. — Penitentes (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firefighting effort: is it worth giving more context on the $22 million by using {{inflation}} or similar?
    Done. — Penitentes (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am allergic to false precision, so would prefer |r=0. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. Fixed. I also added an inflation calculation to the total damages estimate in the "Damage" section. — Penitentes (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism and response: "it interviewed 24 different fire officials" here, "it" is "the report"; did the report really do interviews?
    Changed to "it relied on interviews with...". — Penitentes (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closures and evacuations: how long did the evacuation order last?
    I agree that this is necessary. It'll take a little longer to dig through the sources but I will try and do it this evening/this weekend, along with the map you mentioned above. — Penitentes (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think this is largely done. It's difficult to pinpoint what communities were evacuated for which time periods, but I've added this text, which is supported by existing references. "Some residents of burned areas were able to access their properties on August 23 and 24. By August 25, Big Bend, Moose Camp, and Hillcrest were the only communities still under mandatory evacuation orders, and almost all evacuees were able to return by August 28." — Penitentes (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, found a Los Angeles Times source and was able to add this new sentence right before the two sentences above: "The majority of these evacuees were able to return to their homes on August 22, leaving 2,000–3,000 still displaced from Moose Camp, Montgomery Creek, Hillcrest, and Round Mountain." I think this now pretty well covers the coverage and duration of the evac orders to the extent the sourcing allows. — Penitentes (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salvage logging: " 10 families belonging to the Pit River Tribe of Native Americans occupied Smith Camp " had occupied?
    Inserted. — Penitentes (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herbicide application and replanting: link second-growth forest.
    Done. — Penitentes (talk) 14:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cause: this section comes a bit late for my taste. Perhaps before "Effects" might work just as well or better?
    You're totally right. Moved to before "Effects". — Penitentes (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is in excellent shape already. Some specialist terminology could perhaps be glossed/avoided, but overall I find very little to complain about. I am amazed that this is your first FAC. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind! I've responded to all of the comments above, and made changes pursuant to them (barring the new map and the evacuation duration). — Penitentes (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent changes. I am happy to hear you are working on an additional map and have one minor point above, but this is already good enough for me to support. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thrilled to hear it! I thought all your suggestions were really quite helpful. I'm very grateful for your time. — Penitentes (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress 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) 15:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've left notes on a couple WikiProject talk pages inviting users to comment, but assuming those do not pan out I'll happily accept the archival (any feedback > no feedback) and spend some time reviewing GANs and FACs before I re-nominate this article. — Penitentes (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Penitentes, good to see this article up at FAC. I was the reviewer at the peer review and found the article to be very well written. I can happily support this article for promotion to FA class. Also, I would appreciate if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Thanks in advance, and cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matarisvan, that's very kind! I was very happy to receive your feedback in my PR request—they were helpful suggestions all—and I'd be happy to lend some time to yours. — Penitentes (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments at the PR, @Penitentes. I would suggest you comment on at least 5-10 FACs which are open right now to get reviews for your own FAC. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source & image review

[edit]

Still on semi-holidays, but I'll tackle this item. File:1992 Fountain Fire Map 1.png and File:1992 Fountain Fire map zoomed.png need licences for the underlying map elements. Why is File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg in the 21 August section? File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg seems to have a different image at its source. Source-wise, newspapers don't need ISSNs. #92 and Bonnicksen, I think that should be "cite report" not "cite web". Otherwise, not much to say on the sources, they all seem adequately formatted and appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Working on map element licenses for those two images.
  • Moved File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg to the 'Salvage logging' section
  • The source image for File:Fountain Fire burn scar.jpg should be correct, the full image extent just doesn't show unless you click it on the source page. If there's a way I can clarify that, let me know!
  • Converted Bonnicksen to 'cite report'. If #92 is the FEMA link, there's no actual associated report, so it should be OK as is?
Thanks very much for the review. I will update when I've completed the map element item. — Penitentes (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for your patience! I've added licenses for all underlying data for both of the maps. If any concerns remain relating to the above points, let me know; if not, I will move on to addressing your spot-check comments below tomorrow. — Penitentes (talk) 03:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK on the images, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus, will you be doing spotchecks? Matarisvan (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 That source doesn't say that firefighters were occupied with wildfires elsewhere.
  • Removed the phrase ...and the rest of the western United States.... Rephrased the remainder to ...during the Fountain Fire's first day, four thousand firefighters were deployed on the destructive Old Gulch Fire in Calaveras County, which is supported by the text ("At least one team fighting the blaze had come from the Old Gulch fire in Calaveras County... About 3,650 firefighters were still assigned to that fire, down from a peak of 4,000 the day before..." — Penitentes (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 OK
  • 9 OK
  • 10 OK
  • 21 OK
  • 25 I don't see the memo? Or the details about Burney.
  • 28 Doesn't seem to discuss the Pit River thing or the position of Moose Camp.
  • Removed portion about the specific location of Moose Camp. Re: Pit River, [28] mentions the steepness of the terrain, the old-growth forest, and the other at-risk "resource values" in the second and third paragraphs on page 10 of the source. The "ball game" quote is mentioned on page 1 of [31]. I've added [37] for the mention of the spotted owl (penultimate paragraph). I've also rephrased it a little and given the quotes their own citation so that it's clearer where they come from. — Penitentes (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 46 OK
  • 69 OK
  • 70 OK
  • 77 OK
  • 80 I don't see this information in the source.
  • 86 OK
  • 87 OK
  • 92 OK
  • 99 Where does it give the title of the law?
  • 102 and 103: Where is the Tribal Council mentioned? Or FEMA?
  • 106 OK
  • 107 I figure there are no doubts about the figures given?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus, I think I've addressed all of your spot-check comments so far! If you have any more clarifications or concerns I will get right on those as well. Thank you for your time—these were very useful evaluations. — Penitentes (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes muster, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Will be along for a review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Just a couple of points on this:[reply]

August 22 onwards
Firefighting effort
  • "Additionally, on August 23": it's not great to start a new paragraph with "additionally": the new paragraph is evidence of a change in narrative, so it can safely be ditched

- SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2024 [20].

Battle of Tinian

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The Battle of Tinian isn't as well known as Battle of Saipan, but it was an important part of the Mariana Islands campaign of World War II. It was mostly a US Marines show, but the other services were heavily involved. The battle is a good case study of the process of command decision making. The island became an important base for B-29 bombers and in August 1945 the atomic bombing missions were launched from there, which is what it is best known for today, if at all. There is plenty written about it though, and the article could have gone much deeper into the fighting. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: did an image review at A-class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aye. I'd say any image improvement to comsider is more to do with FP than FA. It's fine. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 16:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review and reserving a seat. I'll be back. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Combined Chiefs of Staff". Perhaps 'the US and British Combined Chiefs of Staff' to fill in the blanks for readers not familiar with the nomenclature of the higher echelons during WWII?
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tinian lay too close to Saipan to allow it to be bypassed and remain in Japanese hands. The 9,000-strong Japanese garrison was eliminated, and the island joined Saipan and Guam as a base for Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers" is out of chronological order and repeats what is given in more detail later. Suggest deleting.
    Deleted the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ramps mounted on LVTs". In full at first mention please. Or an in line explanation of what LVT means.
    Added explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Orange plans". Why an upper-case O and lower-case p?
    It is a proper noun. Orange was actually the code name for Japan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as the Orange plans ... along the lines envisaged in the Orange Plan". Plural or singular?
    Plural. Plans were continually updated. There were many variants, such as Orange-Black (Japan + Germany) and Orange-Red (Japan + the UK). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 10 August, Japanese casualties included 404 taken prisoner and 5,745 dead that were buried by the Americans." This leaves some 2,850 unaccounted for. Do any of the sources suggest how they might be accounted?
    Holed up in caves. Some dead, some alive. Some may have escaped to Ajuigan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be worth adding that. If only to clarify that while the battle was over all resistance was not, hence the "Mopping up" section.
    When the Japanese forces were reduced to the point where they were no longer considered a threat to the West Coast of the United States, the American commander would declare the island "secure", and "mopping up" operations would begin. In some cases, more Japanese were killed during mopping up than in the battle. Stan Savige (on Bougainville) and Bob Eichelberger (on Leyte) reported that they had killed more Japanese than G-2 reported were present in the first place, but there were still plenty more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "Tinian was considered a target from the outset ..." It would be helpful to state here somewhere the distance between the two islands.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " On 12 March, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directed Nimitz to neutralize Truk and occupy the Mariana Islands, with a target date of 15 June ... With the conclusion of the Battle of Saipan on 9 July, preparations began for the attack on Tinian." Perhaps a sentence or two on the battle of Saipan?
  • In the lead the battle ends on 2 August ("Resistance continued through 2 August"), in the infobox on 1 August.
    Rewritten. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several cases where false precision has been introduced - eg 100 feet given as 30.5 m or 1/2 mile as 0.80 km - which could do with reviewing.
    Resolved a few. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the dry season from November to March, but the wet season from November to March ..." ?
    Oops. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. (To the start of opposing forces.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They were well-trained combat veterans". Perhaps a quick mention of where they had done their fighting to become veterans?
    Alluded to already, but I made more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with its two battalions of 155 mm guns and two battalions of 155 mm howitzers". So how many actual weapons was this? Similarly "for a total of thirteen battalions."
    Each 155mm gun battalion had 12 guns, manned by 26 officers, 2 warrant officers and 529 enlisted men (TO 6-55 31 July 1943). Each 155 mm howitzer battalion had 12 howitzers manned by 29 officers, 2 warrant officers and 500 enlisted men (TO 6-35 15 July 1943). Added that there were twelve tubes per battalion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the support of observation aircraft from Stinson OY Sentinel aircraft". Needs some sort of tweak, perhaps delete the first "aircraft"?
    Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which could be enfilade the White Beaches from defilade of the artillery on Saipan." ?
    deleted "be". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "50 dead Japanese were inside." That reads very oddly. How about 'they were garrisoned by 50 Japanese, who were all killed'?
    We don't know that. There might have been more, some of who withdrew, and some of the dead may have committed suicide. Tightened text to clarify that fifty dead Japanese were found inside. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a UDT?
    Underwater Demolition Team. Added definition and link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. It reads well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

I was part of the A Class review at WPMH and found the article to be a great read on an expansive topic. I have some minor suggestions which you could look into, Hawkeye7:

  • Since the 3 units of the US Army were all part of the V Amphibious, perhaps you could wrap these up into a {tree list}?
    Sure. Added a {{tree list}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I looked at the infobox image, I thought it was the only one which didn't have alt text. To my surprise, none of the images have alt texts. Why so? As an aside, many of the images are good ones which could go FP as Adam said, you should look into co-nominating some of them.
    Most of the captions are descriptive of the image, so the alt text would say "refer to caption". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how much deeper could we have gone into the fighting? Would it have been day by day details or something more substantial? I ask because that would impact the comprehensiveness.
    Yes, into the day-to-day fighting in greater depth. There is already a subarticle on base development. The article currently has 8,350 words, and going into the fighting in much greater detail would add a great deal more. I feared that there would be complaints that the article was WP:TOOBIG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, I would appreciate if you could look into my recent FA nom, linked here.

On the text in general, a happy support from me. Will try to get a source review done by tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]

Saving a space. This will be quite the read! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe: Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Apologies for the delay, will get to this when off work after tomorrow. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor points from me here. A very thorough article. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, setting this up as a placeholder, will do the review tomorrow. Please feel free to respond after you return from your break. How is the Olympics live experience? Matarisvan (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Here goes:
  • Suggest adding archive links for the following:
Refs #52, #82, #137, #138, #153. Biblio: Aandahl, Franklin & Slany 1958; Bosworth 1944, Cate 1953, Crowl 1960, Dyer 1969, Franklin & Gerber 1961, Harwood 1994, Hoffman 1951, Jones 1944, Melson 1996, Olson & Mortensen 1950, Raines 2000, Richard 1957 (if full text can be archived), Schmidt 1944, Smith 1989, Craven & Cate 1953, Turner 1944. Or you could just run the IA Bot through the page once, and it will add archive URLs for all of the above.
Bot is not working. "Bad title: The page you entered is invalid or doesn't exist. Please check your spelling and try again." Do not see any requirement for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this ISBN for US Navy Department 1947 valid: 9781460949641? If so, consider adding? Also does this link: 1 cover the full text of the book? If so, consider adding it here along with an archive URL?
    That is for a 2011 Binghamus Press reprint, but my copy is a 1947 edition I found in a second hand bookstore in Boston. They did not have 13-digit ISBNs until 2007. While they may match, the All the book is now available online in the Navy reading room, but it is split; the url link for the pages used in the article is this one. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #17: ok.
  • #26: Mostly ok, just 1 minor issue: The source says Magellan claimed the islands not Legazpi. Perhaps #27 says the latter, can you confirm?
    This was picked up by Wtfiv at the A-class review. "Magellan only landed on Guam. He may have informally claimed it, but not Tinian. The islands were not formally claimed until 1565 by López de Legazpi." Verified this from the other sources, such as Morison and NPS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I ran the bot myself, I hope you don't mind. The sources here are hosted at websites of the US Army which may never go down, but prudence and redundancy never hurts. Matarisvan (talk) 07:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #41, #48, #63, #74, #87, #107, #116, #137: all ok.
Almost a pass, only the archive URLs and the ISBN/link for the aforementioned source need to be added. Matarisvan (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass now. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • The infobox image is public domain with a valid PD tag.
  • Map of the Battle of Tinian (1944).svg is a featured image. It has a relevant CC tag.
  • The remaining images are all PD photographs that are taken by the US military, generally marines or navy. These have appropriate PD tags.
  • The dominance of images from the US armed forces is understandable but to provide a more neutral point of view, it would be good to have some contemporary illustrations from the perspective of the local populous or the Japanese. Are these available? simongraham (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV is always a problem with the Pacific War articles, as one side was nearly annihilated. Sometimes we have POW interrogation records, but not always, and Japanese sources are often not translated. We have no Japanese photographs of the battle on Commons, which is not unusual. The local population was deported to Japan after the war, so today, the island is inhabited by Chamorros who came from other islands and their descendants. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a very good point. Accessing Japanese literature is likely a requisite for criteria 1b and 1d. Although not strictly part of the image review, I did quick search of the Japanese Memorial Museum for Soldiers, Detainees in Siberia, and Postwar Repatriates[22] and it brought up a few short papers that I feel could be more easily translated with an online translator, including Battle of Tinian: The Island of Suicide (Japanese: 玉砕の島テニアン戦記)[23], Neither Surrender nor Suicide: Surviving the Suicide Mission on Tinian (Japanese: 降伏せず自決せず 玉砕地テニアンを生き抜く)[24] and Tinian Island War Chronicles: Surviving Without Surrender (Japanese: テニアン島戦記 降伏せず生き抜く)[25]. Please do take a look and see if these are helpful. simongraham (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added them to the article. No images though. :( Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, I think that will be in case.
  • Suggest adding Japanese Peace Memorial - Tinian - panoramio (1).jpg, which is included in the Japanese wikipedia article.
  • Add ALT text to the images for accessibility. simongraham (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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 18:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [26].

Brighton hotel bombing

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 October it'll be forty years since the IRA's assassination attempt on the British Prime Minister and her cabinet. This article has been through a complete re-write recently, with the widest range of high-quality sources used. It's has an excellent and highly profitable and constructive PR, with comments from Tim O'Doherty, Ceoil, UndercoverClassicist, HJ Mitchell, RoySmith, MSincccc and Tim riley. I have hopes for a main page appearance on the anniversary, if it can possibly be done. Any thoughts and comments are most welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I didn't mention in the PR was that the reason I noticed it at all was that the NY Times crossword had just had THEIRONLADY as an answer. I wonder how many kids these days would even recognize the reference? I'll try to take a look, but I'm trying to get a bunch of other stuff done so can't commit. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Support from PMC

[edit]

I will try not to have popcorn thrown at me this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Negotiations between the British and Irish governments that had begun in 1980 continued, despite the bombing" rm the comma I think
  • "and the republicans minority" this may be a region-specific grammatical difference, but shouldn't it be "republican minority"?
  • "...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike. The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners" suggest combining into one sentence and tweaking the wording, maybe something like "...imprisoned at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland, went on hunger strike to demand/request/something Special Category Status (SCS) be returned to prisoners" (or maybe "to protest the removal of Special Category Status from prisoners")
  • Very judicious use of quotes from Mr. English
  • This article says ASUs were 4 volunteers, the ASU article says 4-10 (and later 5-8). Was it flexible or was it rigidly 4?
    The article’s citation doesn’t support the claim, but I’ve been slightly too exact when the source gave some flexibility, so I’ve added ‘normally’, which is more in line with it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the England Department, the IRA's ASU that operated in England" - so (building on above), the IRA only had 4 guys operating in England? (my knowledge of the Troubles is limited, so forgive me if this is on its face a stupid question)
  • "He was given room 629..." this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself, and repeats "high level" twice.
  • "A ball was being held in Top Rank ballroom, a nearby venue," could simplify to "being held in nearby Top Rank ballroom", I don't think you need to clarify that a ballroom is a venue
    All done to here. Thanks for the comments - all good stuff here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from Reactions onward:

  • taoiseach is italicised the first time but not the second time it turns up
  • "IRA cache found..." I immediately stopped to question how all this was known. I see that it's in the footnote, but I wonder if it might be better in the main text, as stopping to wonder quite took me out of the narrative. (Also, again, possibly a foreigners' question, but why would the ATB leave the cache in place?)
    They didn't leave it in place (or at least the sources don't say they did). Does it give that impression? If so, I'll reword slightly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I somehow missed that it was found with the timer already absent and made an unwarranted assumption about the chronology. It makes sense now that I read it again properly (I also think having it in the main text instead of the footnote helps that fact be more prominent)
  • "A decision was made..." followed by "It was decided that..." is a bit repetitive. Can it be written around?
  • I suggest reordering the paragraph about Magee meeting Jo Berry a bit. Sentence 1 could be combined with sentence 3, possibly something like "...met at Berry's request; she wanted to understand the conflict from Magee's perspective."

Reading over Roy's comments about the background, and having had similar thoughts in my first pass, I agree that it could be reduced slightly. Some of the details of the other attacks could be trimmed. The location of Mountbatten's death isn't important for the narrative of this bombing. "...was killed by an IRA bomb on his fishing boat" gets us where we need to go. Similarly, the Warrenpoint ambush doesn't really need the detail of "with two bombs: the first aimed at a convoy, the second at reinforcements arriving to deal with the incident". You could trim those details and probably merge the paragraph with the one about about Neave. The Sands paragraph I think should stand as-is, because it directly underpins the motive behind this bombing.

I suspect some of the quotes relating to Thatcher's approach could be reduced or paraphrased without losing much. Finally, some of Magee's early biographical details could be trimmed - the petty crime and childhood moves don't really contribute to the bombing narrative.

All that being said, overall, this is a good summary of a difficult topic that I - as someone with only very basic knowledge of the Troubles - found clear and understandable. As usual, this is a fine piece of work and you should be proud of it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC. I've done the immediately actionable ones (although there is a question above) and I'll go over again with an eye to trimming. However, I don't think we're doing the best we can for the reader when we cut too much. I think we need to know Mountbatten was off the coast of Ireland when blown up (otherwise people may assume he was in England and ask IRA activity here, rather than on the island of Ireland). Similarly, the two bombs of Warrenpoint point towards a level of sophistication in IRA planning and execution that a reader wouldn't otherwise grasp. The Troubles was a complex series of events, and by cutting too much we run the risk of ending up with a "Catholics and Protestants killing each other" narrative, which is the all-too-common viewpoint of people. That said, I will go over it again to see what I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm...I still think you could trim to "off the coast of Ireland". Similarly, I think the IRA's technical expertise is well established by the time we get to Warrenpoint - they've already bombed two prominent people to death at that point in the narrative, and now they've managed to kill 18 British soldiers in one go. I won't insist though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

UC

[edit]

Support following the PR; I've made some very minor copyedits since, at least one of which may be a little controversial. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Doherty

[edit]

Support- per my PR. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Support. My main worry at the beginning of the PR was that the reasons behind the hunger strikes were fairly described, even though the bombing itself was a horrific tragedy, and a shameful incident. The article is delicately balanced and fair and am happy to support. Ceoil (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would remove both the Morrissey and John O'Farrell quotes as they are both more "wits" rather than serious political commentators with a deep understanding, and undermine the "the bombing was celebrated in some quarters" claim, which is suspect at best and probably should also be taken out. Better, having not gone back on the sources, within some of the NI & ex-pat republican community. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Morrisey may be a shining wit, both these were examples were splashed in the press of the times and I think should probably be left in. I take your point on perhaps weakening the 'celebrated' quote, but maybe I'll move Morrissey and Farrell up to the "public condemnation was fairly weak" quote instead. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

Oppose MOS:OVERLINK concerns and I'm not happy with the balance of the article. Why, for example, was Infobox civilian attack chosen? Other similar articles use a different one. The event was part of a war and the infobox should reflect that. Happy of course to discuss further. As it stands it does not represent our best work. "Feet" is the plural of "foot" last I heard! John (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Oh joy. What overlink concerns (you can't just waive around a term without examples of where and why); ditto the "balance"? The IB pre-dated me and the same one is used on other IRA-related events, although there is no consistency in the choice over numerous similar articles. You last point is a straw man. Discuss if you must, but you need to provide examples, not vague generalisations. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think John's comment on the infobox is a good point but maybe more for the talk page than here, as it could get emotive as we hash through. I have thoughts but will post them there. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure: there are a couple of possible ones that could be used, but as there is no consistency in other IRA-related articles, there are multiple arguments for and against any of them. It's certainly not really a valid point on which to oppose, but nor is overlinking - particularly as the MoS is flexible on the point nowadays. Any oppose that does vague hand-waving, rather than raising specific points is invalid, but that would spoil the point of his stirring, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on the current infobox choice, I'd like to trash it out on talk anyways as it might become an issue down the line. Overlinking, if an issue, is easily fixed. An oppose at this stage is only a position, its not final. Ceoil (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Ceoil, my intention is to help bring it up to standard, and that's an iterative process. Overlinking as you say is easy to fix, and we can discuss the infobox issue in talk as you suggest. The 'foot/feet' issue is really one for primary education and I think that's a deal breaker for me, but we can even discuss that if the willingness is there. See you in article talk. John (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s already ‘up to standard’ and the lack of actionable points is notable. OVERLINKING isn’t an issue at all (again, if you want to try pushing that false line of argument, then you need to highlight examples after you’ve got up to speed with the guidelines). You’re still pushing a false straw man with the feet/foot point. - SchroCat (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the other attempted assassination of a PM undertaken by the IRA in modern times (the Downing Street mortar attack, so probably the most similar of articles) uses the same box as this one. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note, without necessarily rejoicing, User:John's return to WP to dispense his/her wisdom on the rest of us. I think we can ignore specious objections. Suggest we move on to some more constructive suggestions. Tim riley talk 17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you too, Tim. On reflection I withdraw the point about the infobox; I'm still uncomfortable with using an infobox that uses "perpetrator" on an article about an attempted assassination during a time of low-level warfare, but I think this is a discussion for another time and another place. I don't really see why this article uses a different one from Killing of Osama bin Laden, for example. This is another example of how infoboxes simplify situations where nuance is required. If I'm not mistaken, the editing community managed to sort out the foot/feet confusion, which just leaves the overlinking to deal with, unless anything else leaps out on further reading. John (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed a few more links, and am pretty happy justifying those that are left; for example I don't know what unctuous means. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I'm against linking like this:

the assassination of Airey Neave; the assassination of Lord Mountbatten

That's four links where two would be better. Classic WP:SEAOFBLUE. John (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a SEAOFBLUE: that's a misrepresentation of what SOB actually is. Please read the guideline before relying on it. SOB refers to links being next to one another, which isn't the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Please explain the additional utility to the reader of having the four links rather than the two. I'm not seeing it at all. Fewer, judiciously chosen links are better for the reader. John (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsolicited, but I think the four links are correct there -- in each case, it's reasonable to expect that a large number of readers will want to read more about the person, and more about their assassination, so the links are beneficial. The only other sensible formulation would be "the assassination of Airey Neave and the assassination of Lord Mountbatten", and since the point of WP:SEAOFBLUE is to reduce the readability hit of having large amounts of text in a different colour, I don't see that making that change improves anything for the reduced opportunities it imposes upon the reader. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment is very welcome but I do not agree with it. This is the same idea as SEAOFBLUE, albeit with a couple of characters between the links. A reader interested in finding out more about the victims will find it readily at the respective assassination articles as there will be a prominent link thereto. It is the assassinations that are directly relevant to this article. One defence to keeping these chainlinks in place is that others may add them in the future. They may, but if we are peer-reviewing to get this as good as it can be, I do not think they belong. It's uncomfortably close to New York City, New York, United States, which we used to see a lot of. Adding multiple links to similar targets close together like this is not helpful to our readers. This is reflected in the guideline MOS:SPECIFICLINK which is well worth a look. John (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, but the benefit to readers outweighs the flexible guidelines of the MOS. This does not breach seaofblue or specificlink. - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, as MoS compliance is still a Featured Article criterion, and this article as it reads is not compliant because of overlinking. Never mind. John (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame you're stretching on this point. It doesn't breach the flexible guideline of overlinking, but never mind. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; been busy. Another thing which jumps out at me; I am uneasy about how the use of "IRA sympathiser" fits with WP:NPOV. I suggest "supporter" on both occasions. We are not supposed to be telling the story from a UK establishment point of view, but from a neutral point of view which best reflects the best sources. John (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the term "sympathiser" that remotely goes against NPOV; it's just not true to say that this is told 'from a UK establishment point of view'. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wild about "IRA member" either. They called themselves "volunteers". On a delicate subject like this it's so important to get the language just right. John (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also called themselves "members" too, as do many republican-leaning and neutral sources: the biographies of Magee and Richard O'Rawe use both terms, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "The Troubles were the conflict in Northern Ireland lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, between the then majority population of unionists and the republicans minority." I would delete "then". It is clumsy and superfluous as any majority/minority can change over time.
  • "The strike was to have Special Category Status (SCS) returned to prisoners." The wording implies that you have previously mentioned SCS. I would say when it had been introduced and withdrawn - by Thatcher?
    I've added a footnote with the dates. Not withdrawn by Thatcher, but under a Labour government - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other prisoners also joined in the strike at intervals." I would say "Other IRA prisoners" for clarity. Did loyalist prisoners support the strike?
    I'll go with 'Other republican prisoners', as INLA were involved too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she wanted a military victory over the IRA and for "integration"". "wanted...for integration" does not seem grammatical to me.
  • You should explain ASU at first mention.
  • "He was given room 629, on the sixth floor facing the sea, chosen a high-level room as he thought that would be where Thatcher would stay; a high level for additional security, given striking miners might also occupy rooms in the hotel." This seems clumsy and unclear. You first imply that the hotel chose the room, then that he did. "chosen" grammatically appears to refer to the hotel. What is the relevance of striking miners? Would they have been allowed in but only in lower rooms?

Reworked to clarify. He asked for a high room and was given 629; they thought the miners might invade the hotel and occupy it, so thought Thatcher may have taken a higher level room to avoid it. Hopefully that's all clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "deputy chief whip". Maybe "deputy chief whip".
    I've delinked, as we link Chief Whip in the previous sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That is the way we must respond such vile acts in this democracy". to such vile acts?
  • "unless a majority of its citizens agreed to join the Republic" "voted to join the Republic"?
  • "These were the successful assassinations on Mustafa Mohammed Ramadan, a Libyan journalist and Mahmoud Abbu Nafa, a Libyan lawyer. There were then assassination attempts on the British general Steuart Pringle; Michael Havers, the Attorney General for England and Wales and Attorney General for Northern Ireland; Shlomo Argov the Israeli ambassador to the UK; and Rahmi Gumrukcuoglu [tr], the Turkish ambassador to the UK." Were these assassinations all by the IRA? Why did they target foreigners? Also, for clarity I would specify "unsuccessful assassination attempts".
    Not IRA assassinations, but the police and security forces were examining a rise in such attempts in general, regardless of perpetrators (although some of these were by the IRA too). - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from RoySmith

[edit]
I think all those links are valid, which is why I added them in the first place. I'm fairly sure that if this article sits around for a year, or goes onto the main page without many of the links, people would add them. These individuals and events may be well-enough known to many reviewers, but they won't be to the majority of our readers. There will be people from outside the UK who don't understand what "leader of the Opposition" is, so we have to help them. I tend to underlink articles I work on, so it's an odd call to be accused of overlinking, and I think the ones we have here are justified. - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Troubles ... lasting from the late 1960s until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. The cited source talks about both the start and end of The Troubles being hard to pin down precisely. Your "late 1960s" wording accurately summarizes the source, but your assertion of a specific end date is at odds with how your source describes it.
    • Later in that same sentence republicans minority. That looks odd to me; should it be "republican's" (possessive), or just plain "republican" (singular)? Or maybe this is just a British/American usage thing?
    Both done. (Not a BrEng thing - just a leftover from some editing done overnight). - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat you still have "until the 1998 Good Friday Agreement" as the finite end of The Troubles. RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith, Oops - changed the footnote (messing it up while I did it, but neglecting the main body!) Both should be in line now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 27 August 1979—less than four months after Thatcher became prime minister—Mountbatten was killed by a 50-pound (23 kg) gelignite bomb on his fishing boat, off the cost of Mullaghmore, County Sligo, in the Irish Republic, which was near his summer home of Classiebawn Castle. This is an overly complicated sentence. Do we need to know this was near his summer home? Do we need to know how much the bomb weighted or what it was made of?
    Ive trimmed them off a couple of details, but I don’t think it’s a beneficial move. Different readers want different information from an article without needing to click away to a different article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • not having to wear prison uniform "a prison uniform"? Or British/American again?
    This is okay in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "Special Category Status" a proper noun, i.e. does it really need to be capitalized?
    I’ll rerun some searches, but I think nearly all the sources capitalise it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1971 he returned to Belfast,[22] and joined the IRA in 1972 after attending a shebeen—an illicit drinking den—in the Unity Flats area of Belfast, raided by British soldiers. If I understand it correctly, his decision to join the IRA was driven not by his attending the shebeen per-se, but by his mistreatment from the soldiers who raided it. The current wording makes that unclear.
    • Directly after that, He was beaten and detained for thirty-six hours without charge,[29] and in 2001 said ... I think I'd make that a full stop (or at least a semicolon) after "without charge", then pick up with "In 2001 he said..."
  • Somewhere around the middle of "Patrick Magee" when you talk about how the ASUs came into being, I started thinking, "OK, this is a lot of background, when are we finally going to get to something about the bombing". And then looking down to the next major section head ("Build-up") and thinking, "I guess not for a while". My point being that, for sure, some background is essential. As an American who grew up while most of these events were going on, my understanding of the background is not much deeper than "Catholics and Protestants killing each other". A lot of what you're going over really helps me have a deeper understanding of history, but I think you could trim a lot of this and concentrate on the things that are essential to understanding the bombing itself.
  • Actually much of the background is essential to understanding the bombing. Sure, I could gut the much of the background section, but readers wouldn’t actually get the full picture of why and how it happened. There are lots of people who think the Troubles were "Catholics and Protestants killing each other", but that would only be a tiny part of the picture, and they’d walk away not actually understanding the circumstances properly.
    Thanks for the comments which are very helpful: I’ll go through them thoroughly shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magee and his comrade realised they were under surveillance and returned to Dublin it's not clear from this if they had a general suspicion that somebody was watching them, or if they specifically believed O'Connor was an informer.
  • I remember saying as much to a comrade, who agreed. was this the same comrade who was going to share the flat with Magee?
    The source (Magee) does not say. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The man visited Magee over the three days I suspect this was supposed to be "... over the NEXT three days"?
  • Carroll considers the timer the considering happened in the past, so "considered".
    Carroll’s opinion and words are current, so it should be ‘considers’. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 428 Roberta Wakeham, the wife of John, the chief whip, was killed I had to read this a couple of times to figure out that it was Roberta, not John, who was killed.
    • This is still overly-complicated. The sentence now reads

      It destroyed room 528, accommodating Eric Taylor—the North-West Area chairman of the Conservative Party—killing his wife Jennifer; in room 428 Roberta Wakeham was killed, she was the wife of John Wakeham, the chief whip; in room 328 it killed Sir Anthony Berry, the deputy chief whip.

      I had to read this carefully, examining all the punctuation in detail, to suss out that "in room 428" modifies "Roberta Wakeham", not "his wife Jennifer". Likewise that "in room 328" goes with "Sir Anthony Berry", not with "John Wakeham". How about one sentence describing what happened in each room?
      It also took me a while to understand that you were not describing the damage to random rooms, but rather methodically working your way down from the top floor. I think you could make this clearer with something along the lines of:

      As the chimney fell through the roof, it destroyed all the rooms ending in 28. First was 528 where Eric Taylor — the North-West Area chairman of the Conservative Party — was staying; his wife Jennifer was killed. 428 had John Wakeham, the chief whip; his wife Roberta was killed. 328 housed Sir Anthony Berry, the deputy chief whip, who was also killed. In 228 was Norman Tebbit and his wife Margaret. Tebbit later recalled...

      I'd leave out entirely the bit about clipping the 29s. You don't say anything further about these rooms, so it's just a distraction in an already compllicated passage.
    OK, I've added more or less that. The only problem I have with it (and it may be one that we have to live with for the sake of clarity), but this is a very male-dominated way of doing it. We give the man's name first on every instance, with the women coming second - and two of those women were killed while their husbands were lucky not to be. (That's not to say the original was better - I had the men first on three of the the descriptions, but having all four seems much worse). - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she, her husband and Butler were all uninjured. At first, I thought she had brought her own Butler with her, and it took a while for me to work out this meant Robin Butler, Baron Butler of Brockwell who was previously mentioned several paragraphs earlier.
  • cut to ribbons, perhaps fatally one has to wonder how one can be non-fatally cut to ribbons, but that's not something you can fix :-)
  • Casualties were lighter than expected whose expectations? The IRA's or the rescue personnel's?
  • Injuries included broken and fractured bones aren't "broken" and "fractured" the same thing?
  • Magee was staying with republican sympathisers in Cork, I would move this up to the last sentence of "Build-up": " He spent the third night in the room and checked out at around 9:00 AM the following day, traveling to Cork to stay with republican sympathizers there".
    But we don't know he did that. There was over three weeks between the two events and all we know is that he was in Cork when the bomb went off. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll pick up with "Reactions" next time).

  • The attack was condemned by world leaders.[90][h] This included denunciation from Garret FitzGerald ... -> "The attack was condemned by world leaders[90][h] including Garret FitzGerald ..."
  • was supported by her domestic political opponents, I'd drop "domestic"; it implies that her international political opponents did not support it.
    • Actually, reading further, it looks like that is indeed the case, so scratch that.
  • The Washington Post highlighted the possibility that the funds for the bombing may have come from the US This makes it sound like it came from the US Government. I suspect it was really from private organizations in the US sympathetic to the IRA; this should be clarified. Also, do you have a better citation than "The Brighton Bombing". The Washington Post. 14 October 1984. p. D6. I'm a WaPo subscriber and can't find anything in the archives that looks like it could be that.
    RoySmith, sorry for the delay on this. It's in the WaPo archives. Oddly, if you try to access it through ProQuest Historical Newspapers in the Wiki Library it doesn't come up, but accessing the WaPo archives directly from your Post account should do it. (I searched for "Americans of conscience must reject this violence" through my WaPo account and it came up). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's weird. When I log into ProQuest through WPL and click your link, I get to a page that says "Access provided by WIKIPEDIA", shows the correct citation, but also says We're sorry, your institution doesn't have access to this article through ProQuest. And https://www.washingtonpost.com/search/?query=%22Americans+of+conscience+must+reject+this+violence%22 gets me 0 results found for - “"Americans of conscience must reject this violence"”. I'm going to write to WaPo customer support to see if they can figure out what's going on. RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What's also odd is that I originally got this through ProQuest through Wiki Lib, very recently, but it's not there at all now - in fact I can't find anything from the Post for that time period. Maybe my timing was out and they've recently withdrawn permission, but it's all very odd. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not to worry. I left a more substantial comment higher up about a passage that I still think needs simplifying. This WaPo reference thing at this point is just a curiousity that I've got stuck in my craw but it's certainly not going to hold anything up. I've also got a request in to the NYPL reference desk to see if they've got it in their archives. RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the NYPL got back to me (on a Saturday!) with a scan of the editorial, and instructions on how to search ProQuest using my NYPL credentials; when I do that, I do indeed find it. Maybe different ProQuest accounts have different access levels? Anyway, mystery (mostly) solved. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Republican prisoners in the H Block celebrated the news I don't know what "the H block" is; this is the first time it's mentioned.
  • police and security services decided to wait until Magee returned to the UK. The British government decided not to tell their Irish counterparts Rephrase; the repetition of "decided to" sounds stilted.
  • Jumping way back to "Patrick Magee", it says He was soon assigned to be one of the IRA's "engineering officers", the organisation's term for a bomb maker. I'm curious what his qualifications were. Did he have some previous experience in explosives, or some related engineering field? Did the IRA just teach their members everything they needed to know from scratch?
    No details were mentioned in the source to say he has any, but I'll go over his autobiography again to see if he highlights why. - SchroCat (talk)
    He had no experience at all. It wasn't a popular role to hold, given how many IRA members died at the hands of their own bomb. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done down to here, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(next time, "Arrest and trial")

  • The police decided to raid the property since this is a new section, I'd add some context, i.e. ".. raid the Langside property".
  • The rise in such attempts, and the events at Brixton What events? This is the only mention in the article of Brixton.

OK, I'm done.

Thanks very much: all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've run out of things to complain about, so happy to add my support to this. Nice article! RoySmith (talk) 22:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I remember the bombing and this is a superb account. I was particularly impressed with the section on the explosion, the subsequent devastation and fate of the victims. I timidly made one tiny edit, which is a humble suggestion. I have two more. I think John Wakeham's name should be given in full and perhaps say "almonds" instead of "marzipan"? I am pleased to add my Support. Graham Beards (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, I've made those other two edits too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I have only now twigged that I haven't commented here. (Sorry to be late on parade.) I have previously reviewed the article twice, the first time informally and the second time at PR. Such comments – very minor – as I had were expeditiously dealt with, and after a final read-through now I have no further suggestions. Happy to add my support to all the other supports, above. A fine and balanced account of a dreadful story. Tim riley talk 10:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

Another day, another polished nomination from SchroCat. I have not spent very long around FAC but I see a pattern with your work. Happy to support. I have a few comments below, take them or leave them as you like!

  • He was interned (detained without trial) at Long Kesh prison from June 1973 to November 1975. - Is the reason for Magee's detention worthy of inclusion? I was curious while reading through the article but I leave the decision to you.
    The slightly flippantly sounding 'on suspicion of being Irish' is fairly close to the truth here. He was known to be in the IRA and known to be one of their bomb-makers and he was pulled in on a relatively frequent basis for search and questioning, but there was no specific charge they could pin on him. That was much of the point of internment: you didn't need a court or evidence for arrest and imprisonment. - SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood! I wasn't sure if some specific prior bomb plot or similar was the cause and could be briefly alluded to as background, but it's fine as is given the broader context + other editor's requests for brevity. — Penitentes (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cache had been found in January 1984 in buried dustbins that contained arms and bomb-making equipment. The haul included submachine guns, handguns, grenades, ArmaLite ammunition, mercury tilt switches and six long-delay timers, numbered between one and seven, with number four missing. All were pre-set for the same length delay. - This passage feels slightly misplaced - it interrupts the narrative of how the police connected a 17 September registration card to Magee. I wonder if it shouldn't go right after: The Anti-Terrorist Branch of the police informed the investigation team of an IRA cache found in Salcey Forest which had a missing timer that was possibly set to twenty-four days, six hours and thirty-six minutes. This might also better explain how the police knew there was a missing timer, and the time it was likely set to. At the moment it's a little jarring to read that they knew it, move on to the identification of the 17 September guests, and then interrupt it with the proof of the timer before resuming with the identification of Magee. I hope this makes sense.
    Do you mean like this? If so, then good, as I think that's better than the original. Either way, if you can let me know, that would be great. - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I meant. I like it better too. Thanks! — Penitentes (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...set with a long delay timer to explode at 1 pm on 29 July. - I notice all other timestamps in the article give the time down to the minute. Is there a reason this is not "1:00 pm"? (I think "long delay" is also missing a hyphen?)
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for me. Great work. — Penitentes (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Penitentes. I've done the bottom two points, but the first one is a bit more difficult to put into words without a lot of extraneous detail on what internment was and how it worked (and a couple of editors above have requested I trim out superfluous detailing, which I've tried hard to do!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the results on all counts! Thanks for addressing these. — Penitentes (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source reviews

[edit]

SchroCat, my comments on source formatting, comments on general text to come soon:

  • Add archive URLs for Dawson 2017 and Everton & Melia 2017? You could also club those two citations using the Harvc template, which would save you from adding two duplicate archive URLs.
  • Add archive URLs for NITLR Act 2023, Brittan 1984, Fitzduff and O'Hagan 2009, Thatcher 1981, Thatcher 1984, Maume 2012, and both links to BBC Genome 2004?
  • Why are there no links for most of the news articles in the sources? Are readers or reviewers who want to do spotchecks expected to look up the articles themselves? Especially when we do have links for some articles here and links for articles without them can all be found? I do believe you will be able to find all these articles on either Newspapers.com or the British Newspaper Archive.

Matarisvan (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The book itself is linked, which is sufficient and per the template instructions;
  2. Done
  3. I've never included links for news articles from papers in any of my previous FAs. It's partly because, yes, readers can look them up themselves, but mostly because the point of the citations isn't for spot checking, but to show the source of the information. I could include links, but personally I find it really, really frustrating when clicking on a link to find it behind a firewall, and many of these sources are on neither newspapers.com or the BNA.
Thanks for these suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat I think you've dismissed @Matarisvan's comment about links too quickly. I know URLs are not required by WP:FACR, and you are certainly right that spot checkers are not the main audience for citations. But, if you've got a link already, I see no reason not to include it. Some readers will find it useful, and readers are our primary audience.
The point of a citation is not just to support WP:V, but also as a jumping-off point for our readers to do a deeper dive on their own. And, as you've seen with the WaPo snafu, what appeared to be a perfectly legitimate citation turned out to not be useful and only through a certain amount of obstinance on my part was I able to access the source. If there was a link, that would have saved me a bunch of time. And if the problem was, as you suspect, shifting content policies at ProQuest, WP:IABot might have well grabbed a snapshot while it was still available.
We obsess over minor typographic details such as the proper punctuation to use in citations, the inclusion or exclusion of (for example) ISSNs, whether we link publishers, and how we capitalize titles. These items may satisfy the cravings of gnomes for uniformity of presentation, but they do nothing to help our readers. Providing links to sources does help our readers, so I think it deserves at least as much attention. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I dismissed it quickly: it's a point I've mulled over a few times before and always come down on not including the link. There are a few reasons behind that decision, but there not really germane to this particular review; the one point that may be relevant is that I don't have links for all of them. The references are all there and all correct. If people want to use them as a 'jumping off point', the citations are still there and still valid for them to use as a starting point. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts: MOS policies are a little confusing on this issue. WP:CITE#Handling links in citations says "it is helpful to include hyperlinks to source material, when available". WP:SOURCELINKS says "it is not generally important... to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third-party login". It also says "you may provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available" and "If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted". I concur with @RoySmith that links should be added, especially since the news reports in question are around 30-40 years old and finding them through a Google search is quite tough, making spot checks harder. Due to the age of the reports, the simple citation style without links, if it serves as a jumping off point, makes for a jump which takes quite a lot of time. As for the issue that you don't have the links for all of the reports, I reiterate that Newspapers.com, Newspaper Archive and the British Newspaper Archive will have most if not all of them. If you need help then I can find the links for you. Matarisvan (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan, The absence is links is entirely within the policies, and the formatting is a pass as far as FAC requirements go. You are supposed to be judging this against the FA citation requirements, not a different standard that isn't covered by the guidelines. All the information that people need to find the source is included in the citations as they currently stand. If you want a new standard that requires links, then please feel free to raise the subject at the right venue, but insisting on it on a single FAC is too out of process for my liking. (And, at the risk of repeating myself: many of these are not on either Newspapers.com or the BNA). It may be helpful if you consider what WP:SOURCELINKS has to say on the matter too ("it generally is not important to cite a database ... or to link to such a database requiring a subscription or a third party's login. The basic bibliographic information you provide should be enough to search for the source in any of these databases that have the source", etc. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From another perspective, WP:SOURCELINKS also has If the source only exists online, give the link even if access is restricted, which at least demonstrates that a paywall is not a conversation-ender regarding including a link. If the only objection to including a link is that it's paywalled, I'd suggest there's probably more value in having the link than not: after all, some readers will have subscriptions (personal or institutional) to e.g. the Times or the Telegraph, and it's not impossible that TWL will add a subscription to some of them in the future, or that the paywall will otherwise be less of an obstacle for at least some readers. Of course, SchroCat is quite right that this isn't a hard line in the FA standards, but then very few things are. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the objection to it being behind a paywall isn't the only objection: there are others, including the fact that as not all the sources are accessible online, we'll end up with an inconsistently formatted set of citations. There are others, but as I've said above, this isn't a subject for this particular FAC, given the source reviewer is trying to impose different standards from the norm. The sourcing on this article is as strong as all the others I write and is in the same format that has passed numerous times before. If there is an appetite for changing the standards, it would need a more centralised discussion, rather than trying to impose it on this individual nomination. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we'll end up with an inconsistently formatted set of citations Let me emphatically state my objection to prioritizing uniformity over utility. RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have utility by providing the sources in the first place. If you want to change the standards of consistency of approach that have been expected at FAC for several years, then again, this is not the appropriate forum for that discussion. The source review for this article should be based on the current accepted standards, not some new wishes that people may want to see. - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and @RoySmith, SchroCat's approach to linking is a little confusing, because, of the 9 links they've added in the article for news reports, 3 are behind paywall, namely 2 from The Daily Telegraph and 1 from the NYT. As to the links not being available, Newspapers.com is down rn so I can't check, but once it's up again I will. I found some links myself: Hoggart 2003, Tendler 1986, Tendler 1993. Others are quite tough to find even with targeted Google searches. Btw, @SchroCat, do you have the physical copies of all these newspapers? Most of them don't seem to be available online. Matarisvan (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Tendler 1986 has the reports of the times dated 13 May 1986, 16 May 1986 and 4 June 1986 which we have cited here as well. The link is from the Internet Archive and open access so there should be no problem with it as well as the link for Tendler 1993. Matarisvan (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan, Let me be clear on this: I do not think links should be added and I will remove them if you add them. Your job here is to review the formatting in the light of the existing guidelines and to judge whether they pass or fail based on whether what is here is in line with the guidelines. Please focus on that and not waste time on out-of-scope unnecessary make-work. - SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So above, you are fighting to the death to keep useless links which contravene FAC standards, yet here you are fighting to the death to remove links which might help readers to verify material? "I will remove them if you add them" indeed! How about you step back from this and have a good think about just how daft that looks to people who are not you? You are a very good editor but you aren't perfect and you do not own this article. Please think about it. John (talk) 08:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can everyone please lower the temperature on this. Thanks. There is no FAC requirement to add either links or archives, so if there is a desire to discuss this aspect further, could it be at a more appropriate venue. The FAC talk page perhaps, or some part of the MoS. Matarisvan, when passing or failing the source review feel free to add a summary of whatever deficits you see in the linking and/or archiving for the closing coordinators consideration. Thanks again to everyone. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source formatting review is a fail, since finding links for most of the articles cited here doesn't yield any results, especially so since TWL access to Newspapers.com is down rn. That puts the source review in a precarious position too, because spot checks on the unlinked news reports cannot be done.
    The links fall under the purview of the MOS. My most recent FAC nom was archived immediately when MOS issues were raised, without giving me a chance to respond, also the SYNTH claims had not been substantiated by the reviewers, I had asked them to do so but the nom was archived before they could. Here there are clear instances of the MOS not being followed as noted by UC and John, and partly by RoySmith; but here, the reviewer has not just been given time to respond to the issues raised, but the issues themselves have been declared void for FAC by an FAC coordinator. What is the reason for this differential treatment of the two noms, or say editors? Why are SchroCat's reviews and nominations being treated like acts of God? Also I would have raised this at some talk page but this issue is relevant here and now for this FAC nom. Matarisvan (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Can the following statements not be classified as provocation or intent to edit war? "I do not think links should be added and I will remove them if you add them". Have the coords either not taken cognizance of this, or they have and are silently allowing it? If the latter, why so? Isn't this un encyclopedic behavior at the very least, even if it is not against any of the FAC criteria? Noms have been closed previously for (comparatively) much smaller issues. At least a warning on the talk page or this page is due here? Matarisvan (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you’re trying to get someone blocked or castigated for something said in frustration because of a sub-standard and out-of-process review? Goodness. Taken with your comment here and the mini rant above about my reviews being treated differently, I really do doubt your intentions with this review after I opposed one of your nominations. (And my FACs are really not treated differently from anyone else’s: I go through the same process as everyone else and am treated no differently during them). - SchroCat (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop it both of you. Matarisvan, the coordinators are perfectly capable of policing FAC if they feel this necessary. I would be grateful if you could restrict future input on this page to matters clearly related to reviewing the article. SchroCat, you have handled yourself with some grace to this point, there is no need to engage in some sort of race to the bottom. Please direct any future comments on this page at actionable points in reviews. Leaving any comments overnight to review before clicking "Publish" may be the way to go. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source review comments from Jo-Jo Eumerus

  • Gog the Mild asked me for input; I guess the question is about the links. I don't interpret these MOS pages as requiring links, and while I might ask why there aren't any, it's something that "stylistic preference of mine" is a valid reason for. In this case I must ask why some sources (Guardian, Telegraph) are inconsistently linked, though.

    Regarding spotchecks, one can ask for screenshots or copypasted text to be sent to you, by email or otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo. They're not inconsistently linked per se: the Guardian and Telegraph are from online news sources, while the others are from paper sources and the {{cite news}} template automatically formats them in different ways. Thanks for clarifying the other points: I'm not sure I've ever seen a review failed in such spectacularly woeful manner - the 'failing because newspapers.com is down' is definitely not a valid reason (particularly as it's not down at the moment)! - SchroCat (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might as well consider other sources, too: Is Aitken 2013 a good source, given how close he was to Thatcher? Tebbit (sp?) also makes me wonder. Nothing else jumps out to me as inappropriate, but note that this isn't a field I am deeply familiar with and a contentious topic too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are used in very limited ways: Aitken only once to offer a view of Thatcher's personal feelings (rather than anything on policy or events). Similarly, Tebbit is only used to discuss what happened to him and his wife, rather than anything political. - SchroCat (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • First, addressing the conversation above, which SchroCat asked me to look at. I wouldn't generally agree with the argument that links need to be excluded for consistency - sometimes some piece of metadata is not available for a particular citation but is for others, and can be included where it is available. For example, some of the newspaper sources here do not have authors; others do, and include them in the citation. That being said, there is no requirement in WIAFA or in MOS for these links to be included, and difficulties in accessing sources are not a barrier to FA status.
  • Not familiar with "Frontline Noir" - could you elaborate on its reliability?
    It’s a small but seemingly reliable publisher based in Scotland. There’s no sign on their site that they accept any form of vanity publishing. - SchroCat (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. Anything more to go on than not-vanity? Do they do fact-checking of their publications? Any reputational evidence? What about the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find no criticism about the publisher, book or author. I can’t find anything about the author at all, but that’s not unusual or a sign of any problems, particularly as its one use wasn’t supporting anything contentious. Just to be on the safe side, however, I’ve strengthened it by swapping for a stronger source. - SchroCat (talk) 04:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the page numbers given for Ball based on the published version or the version linked? They are not the same.
    Delinked. I’ve used the original publication version for the page numbers, rather than a reprint copy
  • How are Websites being ordered?
    Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles shouldn't be included in author names (Brittan)
    That’s the default for Hansard
    How so? I see that it's an available parameter, but as far as I can tell there's nothing in the documentation requiring it to be filled. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Removed. - SchroCat (talk) 04:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year ranges in titles should use endashes
    OK, done (I think!) please let me know which ones I’ve missed, if there are any. - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does one of the Daily Telegraph links include a retrieval date and the other not? Why does the Hansard link have no retrieval date when the other Websites entries do?
    The {{cite Hansard}} template doesn’t accept retrieval dates (I presume it’s based on the fact that, similar to newspapers, the remaining details act as a form of ‘manual doi’ to identify the hard copy origin). - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ;-). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah - didn’t know that was possible, given it’s not referred to in the template. Thanks, Nikkimaria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria. All addressed appropriately, I hope, but should you have any further comments, I’d be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria and thanks for this. Can I just check that this is a source review pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "over thirty people were injured." 'more than'.
  • "He was found guilty and sent to prison". Perhaps mention a trial and, possibly, when this was?

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog: all sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Profuse apologies for the delay. I know you're working to a deadline so I'll try to be quick; wiki life and real life have both been a bit hectic recently!

  • Just noting that I've read the dispute above and that the standard is that the article provides enough information that the source can be found and the information verified, not that access is easy or online. Similarly, the standard is that the formatting is clear and consistent, not that it is the way any given editor would have laid it out. Editors have wide latitude in how they structure and format articles.
  • I love the extra background on the Troubles; I know you added this at my suggestion from the PR and I really think it adds vital context. But I wouldn't have included events from the 90s/2000s; I think it's better if it just provides a build-up to this event.
    Which events from the 90s/2000s? The bits about Magee and Berry? - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's just until the late 1990s to early 2000s that I found jarring; it's telling the reader about the end before the beginning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll take it out, but I think it gives the context of the dates and where events of the article sit within them. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think some of the details of the preceding events could be slimmed down. We don't need to know a lot about Airey Neave or Warrenpoint, just their relevance to Brigthon (see the edit I made).
    Not just to Brighton: their impact on Thatcher is key. She was largely ignorant on NI but had a knee-jerk Unionist bias, but it was the events that determined her approach and policies, and it was that approach that led to the assassination attempt. I don't think slimming down these fundamental steps to Brighton is the right way to go, and it's one reason that many of the sources stress the connection. - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right, I was using Brighton as shorthand. Their impact is important but we don't need to discuss the events themselves in detail. I don't think we need the sentences between the explanation of SCS and "Thatcher remained unmoved". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've half cut it, but left in the bit about him being an MP. I think that is an important detail that most readers won't have a clue about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, I think we can stand to lose some of the detail on Bobby Sands. We have a biography of him and an FA on the strike so we just need to establish context relevant to Brighton here.
    Thatcher's stance on the strike was the direct cause of the assassination attempt. There is only a very limited amount on Sands, and I think this point deserves the rather limited amount we have on it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure "Irish outlook" is such an unusual term that you need to couch it with attribution and quote marks.
    I'm not sure, but OK. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was decided to make the attempt in 1984 when the conference would be back in Brighton By whom, and do we know why?
    Not in the the sources. One presumes the Army Council, but that's not said. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conference began on 9 October 1984 and was scheduled to last four days, with Thatcher's speech on the final day "began on [...] with [...] the final day" doesn't really make sense.
    Yep: done - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor point, but East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service would have been known as East Sussex Fire Brigade at the time.
    OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fred Bishop of the fire brigade requested ten more fire engines This whole sentence is a little bit awkward. We don't have an initial number of fire engines (ten in addition to what?) and it introduces a non-notable person and relatively obscure rank, which forces the awkward "of the fire brigade". I'm guessing the sources don't focus heavily on the emergency response so I would cut it down to something like "12 fire engines attended" (if the sources do have more detail on the emergency response, I'd be happy to see it added but it's unusual to find that kind of detail on pre-21st century incidents).
    Added that three engines turned up initially. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is footnote f (paying for taxis) important?
    Not 'core' important, which is why it's in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike most of the other footnotes, which provide useful context, I don't think this adds anything to the reader's understanding. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's good for background, but okay. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The singer Morrissey commented "The only sorrow of the Brighton bombing is that Thatcher escaped unscathed. Is there anything more about this sentiment among notable commentators or public opinion? Morrissey is a professional contrarian but I think that view had some sympathy, even among people with no love for the IRA.
    Only the 'public condemnation was fairly weak' comment. I was surprised not to find more: I remember there being more comments along those lines by members of the public, but they're not the ones covered by the history books, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when she crossed the border to Eire this is the first and only use of Eire; maybe stick with "the Republic" for clarity
    Good point - done - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote l (assassination attempts in London) is very interesting and possibly the basis for its own article but I feel not relevant here
    I think it is: the UK isn't thought of as an assassination hotspot, but it was at the time, and I think these examples show it wasn't the assassination of UK politicians, but (with the exception of IRA attempts), there were numerous foreign conflicts being fought out here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this was implemented by Thatcher a few days after the bombing what was? The subject of the sentence is The previously relaxed view...
    Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Measures were brought in to protect the political elite "political elite" feels like a charged term. Maybe "prominent politicians" or similar since the security is mostly for those deemed at risk?
    It's a term that appears in many of the sources, but okay. Not sure "politicians" is the right word for diplomats, etc though. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything more available on increased state security/policing/security at party conferences?
    I haven't seen any in the sources that describe Brighton and its repercussions. I think we run the risk of going into extraneous detail if we focus on this though. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised there's nothing about enhanced security at the 1985 Tory conference, for example, but I'm happy to let it lie. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been through the Times and a couple of other broadsheets and there's nothing in there at all for 85. For 86 there's some acknowledgement that the costs are higher, but not even any details on the figures ("for security reasons"). - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harry - all done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few re-replies above. Nothing major. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy. Support. Well done! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry. - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 14 August 2024 [27].

Cyfeilliog

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyfeilliog was a bishop in south-east Wales in the time of Alfred the Great. He is best known for having been captured by the Vikings and ransomed by Alfred's son Edward the Elder for the large amount of forty pounds of silver. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

I am unable to find anything to pick at in this fine article, so I shall simply support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • It is unsourced and apparently created by an editor who has long since disappeared. All the other maps I can find in Commons are not as good and equally unsourced. There is a map in Lloyd's History of Wales, and as he died in 1947 it is presumably out of copyright. Can I scan and upload it? It is over size (9x11 ins) but I can presumably either shrink it or scan part of it. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds as if it will work to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I have replaced the map but I am not sure what the licencing details should be. Can you advise please? Does it look OK? It is a cropped version of c:File:Medieval Wales map Lloyd.jpg. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Give the full details of the source, similar to eg File:Battle of Cape Ecnomus map.svg. I would suggest adding Lloyd's birth and death years, just to show that that we have death plus 70 years braces to the CC licence belt. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog but the Ecnomus map has licence {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. Presumably I cannot use that as I just scanned the map. Can you advise what the licence should be in this case? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you do the two things I mention above, then I believe that a {{PD-old-70}} tag should be sufficient. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hiccup. I have this work first published in 1901, with a second edition in 1912. Is that correct? Do you know if the same map featured in either of those? If it did, on what page? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, except that the first edition was in 1911. I will ask for a scan of the map - if there is one - in the first edition to check. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog it is the same map in the 1911 edition. So can I use {{PD-Art-two|PD-old-100|PD-1923}}? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that is valid. I think {{PD-old-100}} will suffice. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog I have added an image of the cryptogram tracked down by UndercoverClassicist. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest cropping that image, and/or adding a caption that more clearly points the reader to the top right? It's not totally obvious which bit is the cryptogram (it could be the marginal note about two thirds down, for example). It might also be worth cropping out the Cambridge UL copyright claim, as Wikimedia's position is that Cambridge can't claim a copyright purely by virtue of scanning the thing (edit: but perhaps they could for the scale ruler, so another argument for cropping?). UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this -- very much so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

A really excellent article, and no doubt some tricky source-work to pull it all together. As ever, the below are thoughts and suggestions rather than demands:

  • Can we give a pronunciation guide at the top?
  • Welsh orthography is very consistent between spelling and pronunciation: see Help:IPA/Welsh or, if you like, you could reference something like this guide from Aberystwyth University. Given that very few Anglophone readers will pronounce Cyfeilliog anything close to what's intended, the benefits of adding at least an IPA transcription seem to greatly outweigh the costs. In policy terms, I'd say that this is the same principle as WP:CALC (that making a routine calculation isn't OR): if we have a good source for how all of those morphemes are pronounced, it's a routine calculation to string all of those together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you sort this out and cite your source as you understand it? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone and done this using Help:IPA/Welsh (erring on the side of South Walian pronunciations). As the template automatically links there, I believe that's the usual practice for "citation" where the name is pronounced as "normal" in the language. I haven't written a respell, deferring to your point above about it being more subjective. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I reading this right? It looks like you added Modern Welsh pronunciation to the Old Welsh name. My understanding of the diachrony of this is that there is no way /au/ would have been pronounced [ai] in Old Welsh. This paper (p. 7) shows that /au/ monophthongizes to /o~ɔː/, which is indeed confirmed in the Modern Welsh orthography (-auc → -og) . Unless I misunderstand, this should be removed before promotion. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair cop -- I've removed the IPA for the Old Welsh. Is this something you think you'd be able to put right? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't see this! The short answer is no. For one, I'm not terribly well-versed in Old Welsh. For another, a brief look through some literature I have on hand seems to indicate that there is some debate as to the precise phonology (esp. the emergence of the pitch accent). Plus, medieval manuscripts are notoriously finicky wrt to spelling vs. phonology. I think best-case of me taking a stab at it is I blatantly violate WP:SYNTH. ThaesOfereode (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bartrum 1993 citation: check formatting of AD. Currently one letter has a dot, one doesn't, and both are spaced: our MoS advises no dots or spaces (and to make that change in a title per MOS:CONFORMTITLE)
  • I would spell out the d. in the first line or, at minimum, use the abbreviation template.
  • Cyfeilliog is probably the author of a cryptogram (encrypted text) in the Juvencus Manuscript: the tone here sounds as if we expect readers to know what the Juvencus Manuscript is; I must admit that I didn't. Suggest "the book of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript" or similar? I think we've got space in the lead to play with.
  • Bit of a problem now with in the ninth-century collection of poetry known as the Juvencus Manuscript, which would have required a knowledge of Latin and Greek: what's the antecedent of which? As written, it's "the ninth-century collection...", but I think we mean it to be "being the author of that". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but some historians are sceptical as they think that this date is late for a bishop active in the 880s.: we don't really explain this in the text, but it sounds like a pretty weak objection to me: surely he could have been consecrated in his twenties or so, and it's not ridiculous to have therefore died in his sixties or seventies? Do Sims-Williams and Davies give any more detail here? On another note, "are sceptical" sits slightly awkwardly: I think it's the combination of it being so explicitly mind-reading and so clearly present-tense. Perhaps better as "some historians consider this date too late for..."?
  • The souces do not give any more explanation, but it is not correct that he could have been appointed in his twenties. He was a priest, and the minimum age for consecration as a priest was 30. He was probably a monk for some years before becoming a bishop, so he was most likely born before 850 and would have been around 80 by 927. This was old for the time. Sceptical sounds OK to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that seems a bit more solid, though at least personally I'd take that more as "may be a bit too late" rather than "definitely false". Augustus, Augustine and Jerome all lived well into their seventies, for example. But this is probably now better dealt with below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider translating Rhodri Mawr?
  • It would clarify that Mawr isn't strictly a name, for non-Welsh speakers. It would also avoid the 'easter egg' effect, where some of our readers will pick up information here that isn't available to most. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, traditionally claimed hegemony over most of Wales: I am not a huge fan of traditionally for a few reasons: one, all traditions are invented: was this 'tradition' years old, decades old, centuries old...? Secondly, was this really a matter of people piously observing tradition, or a matter of the Mercians having lots of rough people with sharp things ready to enforce that 'tradition'? Suggest something like "which since the sixth century [or whatever] had claimed/asserted..."
  • This is the wording usually used by historians, and I think it conveys the position better than alternatives.
  • Do they put a date on it at all? I imagine that most of these historians are writing for people who know a little bit about the period, so won't assume that this stretches (e.g.) into the fifth century CE or earlier.
  • It went back to the early ninth century. There were claims in some periods of the eighth century, but the position then was more variable. I have changed to "Mercia, the Anglo-Saxon kingdom on the eastern Welsh border, had claimed hegemony over most of Wales since the early ninth century." Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're updating the map, could we perhaps shade in the area claimed by Mercia?
  • In 881, Rhodri's sons defeated Æthelred in battle, but he still continued to dominate the south-east Welsh kingdoms, and they sought the protection of King Alfred the Great of Wessex. Is "they" the sons of Rhodri or the south-eastern [NB adjectival form] Welsh kingdoms?
  • Should Anarawd get a name-check as to the defeat of Æthelred?
  • On the maps front, this one, with a few additions and sources to support, could be used as a starting point, perhaps cross-referenced with the Lloyd map?
  • all the districts of right-hand [southern] Wales: the word for "right-hand" and "southern" (de) is the same in Welsh, so I think we can just say "southern" here -- it's not some metaphor or odd turn of phrase; there's not really another way to say it.
  • Also interesting that it is evidence against the claim made by some historians that Asser's biography is a fake by a later English writer. The claim is now rejected, but I have not looked into the arguments closely enough to see whether this point has ever been made. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellipsis (...) typically has a nbsp before it and a regular space after.
  • the king of Glywysing: as we've fairly consistently capitalised King in this context, I'd do so here.
  • Page ranges take an endash (looking at n. 5 in particular)
  • I don't, unfortunately: the important rule here is that ranges (of pages, dates, etc) take an endash. More broadly, endashes are used if you would pronounce or think of the mark as "to" or "and" (so pp. 9–10 ('pages nine to ten'), the London–Edinburgh train ('London to Edinburgh'), the Oxford–Cambridge rivalry ('Oxford and Cambridge'), a Lee–Enfield rifle ('Lee and Enfield'). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.: not sure I've quite grasped this one: did the writer simply use e.g. the first Greek letter for the first Latin letter, the second Greek letter for the second Latin letter, and so on? I'd be interested to know what they did with y, in that case, as there are only 24 letters in Greek and quite a few Ys in Welsh...
  • It is in Latin, not Welsh. The source says "The cryptogram uses a code based on the Greek letters for the numbers 1-23, each of which replaces the appropriate Latin letter in the inscription." To avoid copyvio, I have "It is in Latin, with each letter being the Greek for numbers one to twenty-three replacing the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet." Does this look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interesting thing (no, honestly) is that there's a couple of ways to do it: if you could send the original over by email, I'd be very interested. At the moment, "the Greek for" sounds like it would be the Greek word: if we'd said "each letter is the English for that number", we'd expect to be reading "one, three, seventeen" or so on. How about "the Greek numeral", perhaps with a link to Greek numerals? The question-mark is whether the writer used the numerical system or simply swapped in the letter with the same number (in other words, is L written as λ or as ΙΑ?), but I'll be able to see that from the text. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how to do that. I could probably send it to you by WhatsApp. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have actually managed to dig out the cryptogram here, and he has used the numerical system (so Cemelliauc becomes Γ Ε IB E ΙΑ ΙΑ Θ Α Κ Γ -- 3, 5, 12, 5, 11, 11, 9, 1, 20, 3. I must admit that I can't make the rest of it work, partly because I don't think I'm reading all of his Greek letters correctly (and possibly haven't got the Latin alphabet in the same order), but it's definitely Greek numerals, so suggest with each letter replaced by the Greek numeral for the number of the letter in the Latin alphabet.UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no errors in Greek in the cryptogram: if I've understood the system correctly, surely this only means that the author knew (or could look up) the order of the Greek letters: the language skill is in the Latin, surely?
  • This did occur to me, but Davies said that she had been unable to copy the cryptogram without errors, and it would have been extremely difficult for someone who did not know what he was copying. I have written "very difficult", not impossible. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Delete "very"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be wise. Might have something more intelligent to say when I've seen it, mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've managed to get hold of Davis' big book on the Juvencus manuscript via a certain online repository: there (p. 27), she only avows that the scribe must have known the Greek alphabet and understood the cipher (and therefore that the scribe is almost certainly the Cemelliauc/Cyfeilliog who composed it, rather than a later copyist). She doesn't credit him with knowing the Greek language, and indeed points out on p. 28 that some of his 'Greek' letters are rather more Insular-Latin than Greek. I think we can now clarify these details a little. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and this would have been very difficult to achieve unless the writer knew the language: see above: if it's simply a matter of letter-matching, I'm not convinced.
  • which was an unusual accomplishment in the period: well, it was in Wales. It was pretty normal in the Byzantine Empire, probably/maybe still a Thing in Italy, and wasn't all that unusual in Ireland, at least in the C8th. Pedantic, perhaps, but I'd specify "in Wales", "in most of Western Europe", or similar.
  • I am not sure that the source supports your interpretation. It says "Eriugena is credited with a knowledge of Greek far exceeding that of his contemporaries" and "So the evidence points to a considerable disparity between the study of Greek in Ireland and that among Irishmen on the Continent, supporting Laistner's view of Greek in Ireland being almost non-existent." He does question the latter comment on the basis of later medieval material. The comment in the Cyfeilliog article that knowledge of Greek is rare is based on Michael Lapidge's encyclopedia entry on the Continental scholar Israel the Grammarian. That obviously would not apply to Byzantium or Moslem areas. I could add "in Europe". That would not be strictly correct as Europe technically includes Byzantium, but I do not think it would be misunderstood. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite where the article ends up: Moran's point is that the evidence makes it look as if Greek was almost absent in Ireland, but he goes on to argue that this is an artefact of how our evidence base has been formed: he argues that at least some Irish people had a basic understanding of Greek and the tools to pick up a more advanced one. The other tricky area is southern Italy, particularly Sicily, which remained under Byzantine control for quite a while and where Greek has survived in tiny patches into the modern day (see here, p. 444ff). I think "Europe" is still too broad, but "most of Western Europe" would be fine, or you could take another approach and say something like "outside regions where it remained a spoken language"? Certainly, by even the most optimistic models of the survival of Greek in the west, being able to read and write it fluently as a second-language learner was impressive (though again, I'm not convinced that knowing or being able to look up the Greek numerical system is really the same thing as that). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cryptogram is in a different handwriting from the rest of the manuscript: not sure handwriting is a countable noun: in a different hand or in different handwriting.
  • Is McKee's the only reconstruction of the cryptogram? Especially given that we've got lacunae, I'd be surprised if there's not some level of uncertainty or debate. Would be nice to include the 'ciphertext' and the Latin, if we've got them.
  • There probably are no other reconstructions as Davies says that the cryptogram has been ignored in recent years. She copies the version by Whitley Stokes, which she says is "apparently" based on decipherment by John Rhŷs and his daughter Olwen in the 1890s. My Greek is non-existent, but I can email you a scan of the Greek and Latin versions if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but as the source for the document: can we clarify this: do we mean "the person who tells us that the document existed" or "the person who came forth with the document"?
  • This is complicated. Edward Williams's 1796 History of Monmouthshire contains a tract dated 1729 ascribed to David Williams, allegedly based on a transcript received from the forger Morganwg. Some scholars have objected that the tract cannot be genuine as David Williams died in 1720, but Sims-Williams argues that some manuscripts date the tract 1719 and the 1729 date is probably a misprint. I am not sure how much of this detail is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does sound like we can reword "source" to be clearer: perhaps something like "the manuscript was initially brought to scholarly attention by the forger Iolo Morganwg"? We certainly seem to have other sources to say that the document existed, even if there are doubts as to whether it was genuine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not quite right. There is independent evidence of the 1719 tract, but not of the original ancient document. I think you have been misled as my wording was inaccurate. I have changed it to "He is included in a list of abbots of Llantwit said to have been in a "very decayed and rent" parchment recorded in a tract dated 1719, but as the tract was based on a transcript by the forger Iolo Morganwg, scholars are uncertain whether the list was genuine." Does this look OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha! Yes, that's perfectly clear and seems to be spot on as to what's known and what's uncertain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience: what are those?
  • Three clerical witnesses to Cyfeilliog's charters also witnessed those of Bishop Nudd, and another three those of Bishop Cerennyr, probably because these bishops were Cyfeilliog's predecessors, and he inherited members of their episcopal households. Cerennyr was active over the whole of the south-east, suggesting that he had a superior status.: it's taking me a bit of work to get through why these two people are important here. So Cyfeilliog succeeded these men (both at the same time?) as bishop, but Cerennyr (did he come first or second?) seems to have been a bigger cheese than (his predecessor/successor?) Nudd? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we briefly introduce the ASC, in particular by date?
  • I prefer to leave out a date because it gets into complications which are irrelevant to the article. The different versions of the ASC were written at different times and give slightly different dates for Cyfeilliog's capture. Dorothy Whitelock dates it 914 and her date is mostly accepted by Anglo-Saxon historians. Welsh historians sometimes date it 915, but on this point I prefer to rely on Anglo-Saxon specialists. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there would be value in a rough date (early/second decade of the C10th?), but I can see the argument. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His diocese probably covered both areas: both being Ergyng and... Gwent? Would clarify.
  • (about 120 acres (50 hectares)): can we avoid the double brackets by, for example: – about 120 acres, or 50 hectares –
  • on the Severn and the Afon Meurig: afon just means "river", so if it's just the Severn, it should just be the Meurig.
  • modii should be in Lang templates as Latin.
  • granted Villa Caer Birran: can we add something like "the estate of Villa Caer Birran"? Was the "Villa" part of its name, though, or was it a villa/manor called Caer Birran?
  • She gives a translation of the charter: "King Arthfael gave Uilla Cair Birran, with four modii of land, to bishop Cyfeilliog; ?; c. 890, bounds." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I'd render that as "the village/manor of Caer Birran" (remembering that Latin doesn't really do capitalisation), but this is now the last outstanding issue and it would be wrong to ask you to edit a source, however trivially, on the say-so of an anonymous peanut-thrower on the internet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in puro auro": lang template. The MoS would prefer that we lose the quote marks, but I can see the argument for them.
  • of the worth of his face, lengthwise and breadthwise: I may regret asking this, but how do you calculate the worth of someone's face?
  • Well, indeed! From what I can find out about the term (see here p. 471 and here, it sounds as though "face-worth" meant "money paid to apologise for an insult" -- in other words, 'face' as in 'loss of face'. Again, I'm a bit uncomfortable leaning too heavily on an interpretation from a single source that doesn't seem to be corroborated by any others, and if anything seems at odds with them. Davies (p. 130) glosses "worth of face" as "compensation for insult". It's a tricky one: barring any additional sources, my preference would be to cut "lengthways and breadthways" as unimportant and/or unclear, and to explain "worth of his face" as meaning something like "in compensation for the loss of dignity". Certainly, I wouldn't leave in what seems to be an obscure legal term that will almost certainly mislead readers (neither Davies nor anyone else suggests that any skull-measuring went on here). UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is compensation for insult and the article says so. Sims-Williams quotes the charter: "pretium faciei suæ longitudine et latitudine in puro auro". He translates it "in length and breadth", whereas Davies has "lengthwise and breadthwis". I think it is interesting and well supported. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it absolutely clear in the translations whether they think "lengthwise and breadthways" refers to the face or the compensation? As I read it, it's most likely to a pretium (piece of compensation), which was made up entirely of gold (that is, "lengthwise and breadthwise of pure gold"), given in compensation for an insult. I'm struggling to make longitudine et latitudine modify faciei suae in a way that would sound right in Classical Latin, but medieval writers may have had different ways of doing things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across this book, which does talk about a practice of demanding a chalice with a golden cover as broad as the Welsh king's face in recompense for insulting him. I'd be interested to see exactly what our sources have to say on this one, but I should probably withdraw my earlier objection -- it may not be the worth of his face so much as the size of it that was in question, but it does seem like what it says on the tin. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • described as "a holy virgin": would that be a nun?
  • In 914 Cyfeilliog was captured by the Vikings, and the event was recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: are we absolutely certain that the recording happened in 914 (not 915, for example?) If not, would lose the "and" and break the sentence instead.
  • For consistency, we should give the place of publication for the ODNB.
  • It's not usual to give the season in "Summer 2000a" unless there's another one for e.g. the Winter. As written, the "a" makes it look as if there's going to be a Summer 2000b.
  • Sims-Williams citation: doesn't Llandaf have an extra f?
  • Why does Wareham come before Sims-Williams in the bibliography?

UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • A few replies done -- absolutely no quarrel with most, but there are a couple of tricky ones where I've made some tentative suggestions, or at least tried to make sure I've been clear as to the concern. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks again for your very thorough review. The map is now in place if you would like to edit it. I think I have now replied to your points apart from endashes, which I am not sure how to deal with. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- this has been an interesting and at times arcane process; I've enjoyed digging into cryptograms, face-worth and villas, and thank you for your patience with me while I've done so. By your leave, I'll sort the endashes myself, and maybe come back to the map at some point -- the first is a quick fix and the second absolutely optional. Very nice work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • UndercoverClassicist thanks for amending the alt text. The reason I made it a placemarker is that an editor has deleted the alt text on a couple of my FAs on the ground that it duplicates the information in the label, and another editor explained that the alt text should be a placemarker because its only effect is to display the label text instead of the file name. I do not know if that is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to pull you in contradictory directions, but that really isn't what alt text should do. The idea of alt text is that, as far as possible, readers who can't see the images can get the important visual information conveyed to them. It's true that it shouldn't duplicate the caption, but my alts didn't -- I used the alt text to give the visual information (that is, convey what the image looks like), while the caption's job is to convey what the image is and why it matters. Our own MOS:ALT is not universally loved, but the RNIB have a very concise guide here, which might be of use, or there's another from Harvard here. While there's some debate as to what constitutes the best alt text, personally I don't see how an article can meet MOS:ACCIM (which, as part of the MoS, is an FAC criterion) if it consciously doesn't try to use alt text -- that guideline includes Images and icons that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Dudley Miles, my comments:

  • "a knowledge of": Remove the "a"?
  • "called in Old Welsh Cemelliauc": consider rephrasing to "called Cemelliauc in Old Welsh"? The latter phrasing flows much better.
  • Consider linking to Llandaff in the Diocese section?
  • Introduce who John Edward Lloyd was?
  • Were medieval English pounds equal in mass to modern pounds? If so, consider using the {convert} template to include the weight in kgs, in both the lead and body?
  • In the biblio, link to: Peter Bartrum, John Blair (historian), Andrew F. Wareham?
  • You could consider expanding the lead to at least 3 paragraphs, I believe 4 is the FA criteria. I think there is enough material to do so, if not you could split the lead into small paragraphs.
  • We could add a picture of Edward the Elder here. Wdyt?
  • For the alt texts, why have we just left placeholders? We have only two images so adding the alts for them will take you very little time.
  • An editor has deleted alt text on several articles I have edited on the ground that it repeats the information in the label. I understand that the alt text just makes readers see the label instead of the file name, and it should therefore just be a placeholder. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have the time, I would appreciate if you could look into my recent FA nom, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • "He is recorded in charters" there's a comma splice here that jars a bit, partly because of the changing tense in the middle. It may be well to split (full stop or sc), but I leave it up to you
  • Just wondering why FN 37 is in the form "p. 24 n. 6, pp. 68–69" and not just "pp. 24 n. 6, 68–69"

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I see from UndercoverClassiccist's comments above that you were planning to replace "According to a Canterbury list of Professions of Obedience" with "According to a Canterbury Cathedral roll" but it appears that did not happen? I think it would be a good change.
  • "The Asser who was the biographer of Alfred the Great spent a year ill in Caerwent at this time": we haven't given a date so there's no referent for "at this time". Around 885, I assume, looking at Asser, which I wrote so long ago that I can remember little of it.

That's all I can find to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Imma ping Ealdgyth here as I think she's the resident expert on this field. Is Arthur Bannister this guy? Looks like otherwise we are dealing with major publishers and reputable authors, with my usual caveat about this not being a topic I am deeply familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth, are you able to have a look at this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Serial

[edit]
  • Maybe tweak "praises a priest called Cemelliauc in Old Welsh", as by one reading (not the one you intend) is that the praise was given in Old Welsh, whereas you mean that the name was Old Welsh. So: praises a priest, in Old Welsh, called Cemelliauc or praises a priest called, in Old Welsh, Cemelliauc.
  • In the transl/cription of the cryptogram, the language template should use Cemelliauc rather than Cemelliauc.
  • Why name a historian from 1939 but not those who later disputed him?
  • What does "a disagreement between their households" mean, more precisely?
  • Perhaps ...are sceptical because they this as late for someone..., avoid repetition of date, tighten.
  • Tyrhtel would appear to have been the Bp of Hereford during the relevant period.
  • Tyrhtel lived over 100 years earlier. There were several Bishops of Hereford during the period.
Completely bizarre of me. Yes, I guess I intended to link this chap; why I didn't I have no idea.
  • Also the ISBNs are inconsistently formatted. Completely anal, I know, but consistency need not be a luxury... a mixture of 978-1-3-5-0, 978-1-5-3-1, 978-0-2-6-1. I think the latter is your most common atm. SerialNumber54129 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's me, DM. Another good read. Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Excellent, clear and wholly readable article. My only quibble is that in the lead "The location and extent of his diocese is uncertain" gives us two nouns with a singular verb, but I don't press the point ("fish and chips are a good supper" -v- "fish and chips is a good supper" – a case can be made for both). Tim riley talk 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to resolve this complex question must be... to get double portions of fish and chips *mmmm* SerialNumber54129 17:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2024 [29].

Talking to Yourself

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 18:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Carly Rae Jepsen's 2022 song "Talking to Yourself". Pride month might be over, but it is never a bad time to listen to a good old-fashioned Carly Rae Jepsen synth-pop song to boost one's mood. Built into an album ironically titled The Loneliest Time is this club-friendly track that still feels underrated even though critics raved about it briefly after its release. At least the Japanese liked it! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.- NØ 18:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • The lead specifies that Benjamin Berger and Ryan Rabin co-wrote the song and make up the production team Captain Cuts, but it does say that they actually produced the song.
  • The lead specifies that reviewers praised the production as "infectious and danceable", but I do not see that claim supported in the "Critical reception" section with an overview sentence or another sign that this was a view shared by multiple critics.
  • Siroky and Sanchez called the chorus catchy, and the others said something along the lines of calling it a hit or fit for the dancefloor. I have revised this sentence to a more general one, which hopefully takes care of it.
  • The Billboard Japan chart placement should be discussed in the prose. I am not sure that a separate table and section are needed for a single chart placement, but even if it is kept, chart placements should be discussed in the prose. You could wait to see what other reviewers have to say about the inclusion of the table and section as it could be just something that I am noticing.
  • I would prefer to keep it.
  • I am uncertain about the "embarked" word choice in this part, (Embarked on the Dedicated Tour). I think something like "While on the Dedicated Tour" would be more suitable.
  • I am unsure about the word choice for this part, (creativity was stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic). It makes it seem like Jepsen was inspired directly by the pandemic itself rather than getting inspired after being stuck at home during COVID-19 lockdowns. I think that this part could be worded better and more clearly.
  • The "endured bereavements" wording seems a tad over-dramatic, and I think could be replaced with something else.
  • For this part, (She worked with several producers and created more than 100 songs), I am not sure the "with several producers" part is necessary. It is generally assumed unless otherwise stated that when an artist works on music, they are working with producers and others. That and I find it to be vague as "several" could mean any number. I think just saying that "She created more than 100 songs" would be more concise and would not lose any information.
  • Is the day that Jepsen announced the album, (August 1, 2022), relevant for any reason? I believe that all the reader would need to know is when the album was released and that there were two other singles put out before its release.
  • I believe it helps put a timeline to when the album's production had definitely been completed and the tracklist chosen.
  • I am not fully convinced, but I do understand your point. It is not a major point for me so I would be okay with it staying in the article and it would not hold up my review in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there any further coverage on the music video or on the performances during the tour?
  • The music video does not have any coverage, considering there really isn't much going on in it. And the tour has shockingly received no reviews from reliable sources I could find.
  • Would an audio sample fit in the "Composition and lyrics" section or would there be concerns that it would potentially overwhelm the section (or any other concerns in general about one)? I was only asking as I could see a strong justification for one illustrating the 1980s vibes that are being discussed here.
  • I would link engineered, mastered, mixed, and programmed to help with readers unfamiliar with that level of music jargon. I would link them in the prose and in the section with the credits.
  • For this part, (and influences of the 1980s), I would instead say (and influences from the 1980s music) to clarify where the link goes.
  • In the "Composition and lyrics" section, there are two sentences in a row that use "According to X critic". One of these instances should be revised to avoid repetition.
  • I was confused by this part, (the song does not specify if it was a serious relationship, friends-with-benefits, or just a crush). The article has consistently referred to the subject of this song as an "ex-lover" and that to me implies more than a crush.
  • This is a very good observation. There is a general critical consensus the song is about an ex so I have made this an attributed opinion.
  • I tried to look for any other citations for this song. This source from Attitude says that she performed this song at Glastonbury Festival 2023. I am not sure if the source is appropriate for a FA so I would leave that up to you, and the citation does not go into much detail other than she performed it. Other than that (and again, I'd trust your judgement about it), it appears that you have covered everything else.

I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with this FAC, and I hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far, NØ 02:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Great work with the article as always. I am always happy to see a song article up for a FAC. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your support!--NØ 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • and commented on the lyrics -- perhaps a specific consensus of what reviewers thought of the lyrics overall
  • That would make a great addition but unfortunately the critical comments on the lyrics do not have any overlap to summarize.
  • An accompanying music video for "Talking to Yourself" was released alongside it. -- I think this will work as "The music video for "Talking to Yourself" was released alongside it"
  • and performed it at Glastonbury Festival 2023 -- at the Glastonbury Festival 2023.
  • Chris DeVille of Stereogum thought it recalled the 1980s pastiche of Jepsen's albums Emotion (2015) and Dedicated (2019) -- does the reviewer mean the song drew parallels or is reminiscent of her previous albums 1980s theme? Maybe some wording change to "recalled"
  • That's all I have to add. Great read and its surprisingly nice to see you work on Jepsen. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for doing a prose review as well, Pseud 14! I do not know if I will be working on any other Jepsen articles, but this song was an immediate standout to me. I have fixed the issues along with some copyedits.--NØ 18:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "praised its production as catchy and commented on the lyrics" - "commented on" is a bit vague and doesn't really convey whether the comments were positive or negative. Possible to reword to give a tiny bit more detail?
  • "lockdowns following the COVID-19 pandemic" => "lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic"
  • "unable to join her family" => "being unable to join her family"
  • The openings of the three paragraphs under "Composition and lyrics" are all very similar - any way to reword?
  • "PopMatters's Jeffrey Davies" - while not technically wrong, this looks a bit odd with the "s's" and the second s not being italic. Maybe "Jeffrey Davies of PopMatters".......?
  • "described it as a sanguine track and "dance-pop anthem"" => "described it as a sanguine track and a "dance-pop anthem""
  • "and honed it among Jepsen's most high-energy songs" - I don't think "honed" is the right word here at all. Maybe "named"?
  • "using some diverting production brandishes" - "brandish" isn't a noun, so this doesn't work. I think maybe you mean "using some diverting production flourishes" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all done now, ChrisTheDude. Thanks a lot for reviewing this!--NØ 11:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Seems like sources are consistently formatted and are mostly dedicated magazines. I wonder if somewhere there is a list of reliable magazines on music topics. Spotcheck upon request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I suppose WP:RSMUSIC is the closest thing we have.--NØ 17:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Does this pass, then?--NØ 00:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "recalls a previous relationship with an ex-lover". "a previous relationship" and "an ex-lover" seems a little clunky due to the redundancy. Perhaps delete "previous"?
  • "While on the Dedicated Tour". Perhaps tell us when this took place?
  • It was preceded by the singles "Western Wind" and "Beach House"". I assume that these were both on the album? If so, could we be told?
  • "The song was included on the set list of the tour". Which tour?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog the Mild. Done up to here. Good ideas.--NØ 01:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kaye said it strikes the perfect balance". 'Kaye said it struck the perfect balance' maybe?
  • "and compared its topline". What's a topline?
  • Added a note.
  • "cited "Talking to Yourself" among the pop treasures on the album and named it among Jepsen's most high-energy songs." Could we avoid repeating "among"? Maybe 'as one of' for one of them?
  • "and compared its lyrical themes to Jepsen's other music." Optional: 'comparing its lyrical themes to Jepsen's other music.'
  • "it gives a voice to the "delightfully unhinged" while demonstrating". Just checking there isn't a vowel missing after "unhinged"; it reads a little oddly to me.
  • I cannot think of anything that is missing here but open to specific suggestions.
  • "thought it recalls the concept of inconspicuousness"; 'recalled'?
  • Changed to "shared" in case that's better?

Apologies for the delay in completing this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done, Gog the Mild. No need for apologies.--NØ 17:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 13 August 2024 [30].

Benjamin Jackson (sailor)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A man and a woman enslaved in the United States find an opportunity during the War of 1812 to escape their home country and settle down as free people in rural Nova Scotia. Half a century later, their son travels to the American South as a US Navy sailor in the war to end slavery. His grave went unmarked until 2010 when he was honored with a Civil War-era military funeral service. This is one of those instances where you go on vacation, read a historical marker, look to Wikipedia for more information, then end up overhauling the article. I have 7 successful FA nominations so far, plus two FLs. This is my first using non-American English, so I would especially appreciate if anyone can find me misusing Canadian English. Thank you in advance for reading through the article and commenting on the nomination! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg need a US tag
{{PD-1996}} added since Canadian copyright law would place it in the public domain as of 1990 (75 years past the 1905 date of creation). Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The earliest publication I can find is the 2010 newspaper article cited in the article. Your question has prompted me to check on the image's original creation date and, according to the record at the archive that holds the photo, it was created in 1903. For that reason, I have changed the US copyright tag again, this time to {{PD-US-unpublished}}.
  • File:Harper's_weekly_(1864)_(14784619962)_Crop.jpg: is a more specific tag available?
{{PD-US-expired}} added given the 19th-century publication date. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I changed the tag to {{PD-US-unpublished}} since the photographer is unknown but the work was created before 1904. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for the review! I believe the image issues are fully addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I believe all image issues you brought up are resolved, including the issue with File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVetCrop.png/File:BenJacksonNovaScotiaCivilWarVet.jpg. Do you agree? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

Happy to take a look, I'll try to get to this soon. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: This is a courtesy ping since it has been a little over a week since your above edit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder. Here's what I have:

Lead and infobox

  • "He suffered a serious hand injury and received a Civil War Campaign Medal" → is this the same medal from the previous sentence about the grenade (I assumed so, given the hand injury)? If so, I'd break off the previous sentence after "naval mines" and have a separate sentence about the grenade episode that includes this information rather than repeating the medal bit
The two medals appear to be separate, so I've reworded that part of the lead to hopefully make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson retired from commercial sailing in 1875, but continued managing" → You can change "Jackson" to "He" since we're still talking about him from the previous sentence, where he's named
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gun #10, USS Richmond" → unless this is standard practice for these types of things, I would recommend changing to "Gun No. 10" per MOS:POUND
I can't find a standard. The source uses #, but I think its more appropriate to follow the MOS, so I just changed to match your recommendation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • "their parents petitioned" → I know what you mean here, but "their" could be a little ambiguous since you've mentioned the children and the families in the first part of this sentence
I changed "their parents" to "those families". Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In adulthood, Jackson was more than six feet tall" → this doesn't quite fit in here; I would also lean towards questioning its relevance but if you can find a place where it fits I wouldn't object
Removed. Because Jackson is not a super well-documented person, I feel like I need to include every fact I could find about him. This was obviously the hardest to weave into the narrative. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Civil War

  • "At this point in the Civil War" → Does this refer to the specific date of his enlistment or the duration of his service?
Both are true, but I rewrote that to reduce the possibility future readers will wonder. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Exploiting Mexico's neutrality, the Confederacy used that country's ports" → it seems a tad clunky to me to name "Mexico" and then use "that country" later in the same sentence. I feel like a rewording that can eliminate the need for separate clauses would be better, perhaps "The Confederacy exploited Mexico's neutrality by using its ports for international trade" or something better you can come up with
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gun #10" → same POUND note as above, if applicable
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a role he continued to serve" → this is a little picky, but I'd prefer "a role in which he continued to serve" since it sounds more natural to say you "serve in a role" rather than "serve a role"
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"." → I think this would be better as a footnote that came after the quote, rather than a full sentence in and of itself. As is, it's a bit confusing as the reader why I'm being told this until I read the next sentence
I think this fact is too crucial for understanding the quote to be relegated to a footnote. Looking over that section, I can't think of a better way to include Farragut's famous quote and have the reader understand what it means. Let me know if you have other thoughts on this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy Definitely see where you're coming from. Perhaps the two sentences could be combined with a semicolon? "At the time, mines were called "torpedoes"; following the command "Damn the torpedoes..." or something like that? This won't keep me from supporting but the wording of just that sentence still seems off just a bit to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I combined the "at the time" sentence with the previous one rather than the following one. Thank you for the idea. The same information is there in the same order, but maybe now the "torpedoes" definition seems less disconnected. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late life

  • "Nova Scotia became one of four provinces via Canadian Confederation" → this reads a little awkwardly to me; perhaps "as a result of Canadian Confederation"?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Washington, DC," → recommend using the article title style "Washington, D.C."
Sure. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Percy Paris's title (which is quite unwieldy) should be capitalized to stay consistent with the other titles in that sentence
Thank you for catching that. Another editor moved everything around in that sentence, which I didn't notice made this necessary. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very nicely written article, that's all I was able to find. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thank you for taking the time to read through this article and to write out your comments. Do you think any issues still need to be addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Left a comment above but that alone won't keep me from a support. Nice work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention to the article and your help in improving it! I did sort-of follow your recommendation regarding the torpedoes issue. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems very long for a relatively short article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
Thank you for pointing to LEADLENGTH! It is now compliant. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the use of a review of Lincoln's Trident: The West Gulf Blockading Squadron During the Civil War rather than the book itself deliberate?
Yes, in the sense that it provides a summary. I used it as a source for some basic information about the WGBS to contextualize the information more specific to Jackson that I got from other sources. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to accept a position as ship's cook on the Saint John, New Brunswick-based Marlborough, sailing from Liverpool to New York City." This implies that he boarded the ship in Liverpool. Is that correct? If so, is it known how he got there?
Thank you for catching that! Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need a sentence or so explaining what the - or at least a - blockade was.
I think the first two sentences of the Enlistment section now make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. How would you feel about "At this point in the Civil War, the Union blockade of the Confederate States of America was working to cut off those states' maritime trade" → 'At this point in the Civil War, the Union was imposing a naval blockade on the Confederate States of America in order to cut off those states' maritime trade'?
I like that better. Recommendation accepted, sans "in order". Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "advancing to a new post on the USS Potomac". Suggest "advancing" → 'moving'.
The VANSDA source said "advanced", so I figured I would use that here to make clear that he was moving into a higher status position. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
  • "actively blockading off the coast of Veracruz, Mexico." That should be 'actively blockading the coast of Veracruz, Mexico.' Also, at this point a reader is thinking "Why is the Union navy blockading Mexico?!"
I added a little bit to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Farragut commanded his fleet into the bay". "commanded" → 'ordered'.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Documentation of the injury varies in both cause and severity." Do you mean something like 'Documentation relating to the injury varies in its descriptions of both its cause and severity'?
Yes! I inserted your language with one word change. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like most Black Canadian veterans of the Union Navy,[d] Jackson returned to his home country" read together with note d "About half of the Black Canadian veterans of the Union Army stayed in the US" does not make sense to me.
I added a couple of words to the footnote to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments! I have addressed the first few. I'll get to the other ones soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All comments are addressed. It seems I was able to get to them sooner than I thought! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benjamin Jackson (January 2, 1835 – August 20, 1915) was a Canadian sailor and farmer"; "Like most Black British North American veterans of the Union Navy". Canadian, British?
Jackson was born in the British North American colony of Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia was still a British colony until two years after the Civil War ended, when it gained independence through confederation with the other now-Canadian provinces (48 years before Jackson's death). So it seems right to me to introduce him as Canadian in the lead, but refer to the Civil War vets as British North American if they are from anywhere in what is now Canada. Let me know if you have further thoughts on that, particularly if there is a policy on this I'm not aware of. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is important information about Jackson and should be in the article. I think your summary above - in green - is admirable. (I assume it is readily sourced. :-) ) Why not insert it somewhere in "Early life"?
I reworded the first two sentences of the Early life section to clarify that Nova Scotia was a colony at the time of his birth. I also added a sentence to the Employment and family section to mark the moment when the Jacksons became Canadian citizens via Confederation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was still working as a peddler by 1907." "by" → 'in'.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson started receiving a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy." Suggest 'Jackson received a military pension of US$4 (equivalent to $79.62 in 2023) a month upon discharge from the navy.'
Accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption: "Gun deck of the USS Richmond". Perhaps mention when the photo was taken?
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, then $10 in 1890, then $14 in 1892." Maybe 'The pension increased to US$8 a month in 1888, $10 in 1890, and $14 in 1892' to avoid the repeat of "then"?
Recommendation accepted. I'll work on the next three comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later increased it to $17 a month, then $20 circa 1910". "He"? Do you mean 'It was'?
I was trying to make clear that the increases came because of Jackson's persistence with the pension office, but I realize the other sentences around this one make that clear. Changed to "it was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For "circa" use {{circa}}.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a Civil War-era funeral service." What is "a Civil War-era funeral service"? Does it involve time travel?
Ha! Yes, time travel. For real, I've reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shame. I was getting excited.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the additional comments! I particularly appreciate having the eyes of a Civil War buff read over the article. I have addressed all of your comments. Do you think anything warrants further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. A couple of thoughts above. (I would not consider myself a Civil War buff, I am not even American. But I am a MilHist buff and passably knowledgeable on the age of sail.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I feel better about the whole Canada vs. British North America dynamic after adding a little more clarifying content. Do you see anything else worth discussing about the article?

Matarisvan

[edit]

I reviewed this article at the peer review and found it well written and likely to pass FAC. There is only one thing I would like to suggest, Dugan Murphy:

  • Consider restructuring the lead so that it is 4 paragraphs long, which is the FAC criteria.
Gog the Mild made me aware (above) that MOS:LEADLENGTH says this article should have a 1- or 2-paragraph lead section, so I reduced it down to what it currently is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once that is done, I could do a source review if you don't mind. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Thank you for hopping into this nomination! I would very much appreciate a source review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: I offer you this a courtesy ping because it has been a week since your last edit. I hope you're still able to complete a source review! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am on a work trip till the 22nd and don't have my laptop on me. I hope to get a source review done by the 23rd or 24th. I hope that is alright. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinators are free to say otherwise, but I think that should be just fine. I'm still working on attracting more reviewers to look at other aspects of the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine Matarisvan, if you could do a source review it would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, had completely slipped up on my timeline for this. I will try to get a source review done by end of day today. Matarisvan (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy and @Gog the Mild, a support from me on the text, source review to be done below tomorrow, if that is ok. Matarisvan (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading through the text! I look forward to seeing what comments you have about the sources. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • In the lede, I might mention that he was likely a substitute before going into details of his service. It seems out of place.
Reordered and reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson earned a Civil War pension for more than 50 years," I might say "received" rather than "earned". He earned it through his service, he received it later.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1867, Canadian Confederation made Nova Scotia one of four provinces; Jackson and his family became Canadian citizens" I have my doubts on this. I did not think Canada had a separate citizenship until 1947. I would not think that Jackson's status as a British subject changed in 1867.
You are exactly right. Thank you for catching that. I've reworded that sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thank you for these comments, especially for catching the citizenship thing. That was me misreading the source and not fully grasping the difference between a subject and a citizen. Do you see any other issues keeping this from being FAC-quality? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks good. No, I didn't see anything in particular that would prevent it from becoming a FA, but I didn't check into the sources in detail and it's not really my area of expertise (such as it is) so there may be things I would miss. Wehwalt (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Hi Dugan Murphy, will do this tomorrow if that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: This is your courtesy ping. Have you had a chance yet to look through the sources? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my computer malfunctioned, I just got it repaired, will get this one done by tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes:

  • #6: ok.
  • #4: "Both sons died in childhood" in our text, "Three daughters survived to adulthood". Could be contended by other reviewers but ok with me.
  • #11: ok.
  • #22 and #24: ok.
  • #26: ok.
  • #35: ok.

Well, the review is a pass, if any reviewer would like to do more checks, they can. Matarisvan (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking through the sources! I appreciate it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened up recently, linked here. Thanks in advance Matarisvan (talk) 04:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I don't know much about Turkey or the 2nd century BCE, but I've been through FAC a few times, so I may be able to come up with some helpful comments for your PR. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 August 2024 [31].

Texas Centennial half dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk (it/she), Wehwalt (talk 19:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the United States commemorative half dollars. By the 1930s, these were getting much less special as every nonprofit in the country seemingly tried to fundraise through one of them. The Texas commemorative half is famed for its absurdly intricate reverse design, which is a great example of the pitfalls of coin design by committee. I initially planned to bring this up to FA by my lonesome, but Wehwalt took an interest to it and added a bunch of contemporary newspaper sources, so now it's a co-nomination! Hope you enjoy the read. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
I've added for all not having them excluding the infobox where the image is described.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a tag from the image page that implies publication, and left the one that this is part of the Bain collection and freely usable.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Throwing in my hat for a prose review. Should get to this in a couple days; personal life has been really wearing me thin recently, so if I somehow don't get to it in that time, feel free to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love to see the Texan representation here. Below are some things I've noted, some of which are nits; as always, you are free to refuse any suggestions with justification:

Lead

  • "...while the reverse is a complex scene incorporating the winged goddess Victory, the Alamo Mission, portraits of Texan founding fathers Sam Houston and Stephen F. Austin, alongside the six flags over Texas." - I was a bit confused by this sentence (I find that I am unable to properly articulate why it was confusing - I will say that it reads as an incomplete list with no "and" to signify the end of the list). Perhaps wording it so that the six flags over Texas goes first (e.g. "incorporating the six flags of Texas alongside the winged goddess") or adding "and" before "portraits" would be better?
Since the flags are not prominent, I've adopted your suggestion to add and, with a couple of other slight modifications.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Authorization

  • Pretty straightforward, no glaring issues I could spot. The only thing I personally had trouble with was the sentence beginning with "Bertrand H. Snell of New York asked how the coinage dies would be paid for", as I had been thrown off by the use of "dies" as a reference to both the minting term and the last name of the congressman. Just a little unlucky coincidence there; I'm not sure that wikilinking Coining (mint) would be worth it as it seems redundant in the context of this article, though I will suggest it anyways for your consideration.
Instead, I've added "Congressman" before Dies' last name. It may still be a little jarring but it's unavoidable.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation

  • "Coppini had previously designed various public monuments in Texas, prominently including..." - I am not sure of the inclusion of the word "prominently" here; it feels out of place to me. This is not a pressing issue, however, and will not significantly influence my vote.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Moore, the chair of the commission, had become critical of the commemorative half-dollar series, and took an especially dim view of Coppini's initial models, describing them as a conglomeration of 'the whole history of Texas and all its leading personages in a perfect hodgepodge.'" - The quote does not appear to be that critical to me; is there perhaps a more scathing quote that would better convey Moore's disdain for the models? I understand that "hodgepodge" here would be used for its more literal definition ("a confused mixture of different things" according to Cambridge dictionary), but I think today it is more colloquially used to mean just a heterogenous mixture. Plus, the addition of "perfect" sends a mixed signal; perhaps paraphrasing the quote here and using a quote for Lawrie's criticisms could be beneficial. I recognize that this is a silly critique and that you have no control over what a guy who died 80 years ago says, so if there's no such quote and/or you find it to be silly as well, feel free to ignore this comment.
There is a more scathing quote and I've included it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design

  • No glaring issues with the design description. I do wonder if the reception section could be rearranged into paragraphs focusing on positive and negative feedback, but this is mostly coming from my experiences with album reception section organization, and I'm not sure if this is appropriate for numismatic articles.
With over forty commemorative coin FAs all following similar formats, I'm inclined to say, leave it as it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Production and distribution

  • "The first coins to be vended were sold on December 15" - Is "to be vended" necessary here? It feels rather redundant.
Sometimes the first coins struck by the Mint were sold at a premium. This is not such a case. These, so far as can be ascertained from the sources, were simply the first ones sold. I think if we deleted that phrase, there might be ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. In that case, leave as is. joeyquism (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the coins were placed on exhibit at the Austin Chamber of Commerce so the public would know what they looked like" - Could benefit from a more formal wording; something like "for public viewing" would suffice.
I've reworded a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Civic organizations and other groups joined the Legion in selling the coins" - Who are these other groups? If there are no details on them, that is okay.
    The source says "various business and civic organizations and schools". That's what we got on that. I saw some references to local chambers of commerce in other sources, if that helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this information. I think it could be worth it to include these details here for the sake of clarification, but ultimately I will leave this up to you. joeyquism (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only group I can find specifically named is the Austin Chamber of Commerce and as far as I can tell, they only displayed the coins, and did not sell them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that information, I would maybe include the businesses and schools and omit the Chamber of Commerce. Regardless, this is still up to you and should not affect my decision going forward. joeyquism (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collecting

  • No glaring issues.

A wonderful article. Much of this is already in good shape, so I think that many of my criticisms can likely be ignored. Still, I look forward to reading your responses, and I will likely come back to support after they have been addressed. Great job from you both, and I hope you have a wonderful week ahead. joeyquism (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done or responded to all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, glad to support here. I also have an FAC open here, if you have the time. Of course, you are not obligated to review, though it would be much appreciated. joeyquism (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds interesting. I have one promised review I have to do and then will get to yours, likely by the end of the weekend. Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Putting myself down for a look. Poke me if I don't get to it within a week! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Texas independence from Mexico" shouldn't this be "Texas's"? I know it sounds goofy with Texas, but try subbing another place and see what I mean - "Canada's independence from" vs "Canada independence from". It should be the possessive.
  • Also suggest linking to some article for "Texas independence from Mexico". Texas Revolution maybe, or Timeline of the Texas Revolution?
  • "Such a method of funding had been proposed...who proposed" - word repeats in the sentence
  • Why is the image of Coppini half up into another section? MOS:SECTIONLOC suggests images not be placed too early. Better to move it under the "Preparation" header so it rests where he's first mentioned
  • "Coppini did not charge for his services" might want to specify that this means in this instance, when I initially read it my first thought was "really, ever?"
  • Wow Moore was really on a tear here
  • "design elements, likely requested" and "criticized the design, and wrote" - rm unnecessary commas here (see User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences)
  • "CFA members eventually dropped their broader criticisms of the design, accepting adjustments to the specific design elements of the coin." you have "design" twice in this sentence, and also right at the end of the previous sentence to boot. You could probably also drop "of the coin" since it's clear from context what design elements are being changed
  • "but ultimately held by the large number of separate design elements" - I cannot understand what this phrase means. Is it missing a word?
  • "...distributed through Texan banks, available at a price of one dollar per coin,[6] on sale throughout the state beginning on December 20, 1934" - lots of redundancy here, suggest simplifying to "...sold through Texan banks at one dollar per coin, beginning on December 20, 1934"
  • "and on December 1, the San Angelo Standard-Times reported that all but 30,000 remained unsold." Normally I'm quite fussy about repetition, but here I think the use of "X remaining unsold" is awkward and somewhat confusing. Better to just say "only 30,000 sold".
  • "continued to be used as a fundraiser for the museum. Low sales continued" - repeat usage of "continued"
  • can we explain "whizzing" for those who don't know the term? Or just sub it out?

That's it, mostly nitpicking. Sorry to have taken this long to get to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Okay, implemented! Thank you so much for going over this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good to me! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Despite their relative lack of sales, the issue has proven popular with collectors, and have gradually appreciated in value." Since "issue" is singular, "their" sounds odd. "Despite the coins' relative lack of sales, the issue ..." would fix it.
  • Per WP:NPOL Temple Harris McGregor is probably worth a redlink.
  • "Opposition to commemorative coinage due to counterfeiting concerns led to various failed commemorative coinage bills": suggest "had led to".
  • "A more favorable climate was found under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration": suggest "The climate under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was more favorable".
  • "While based in Texas, his main studio was located in": if his "main" studio was in New York, in what sense was he "based" in Texas?
  • "By May 1934, Coppini completed": suggest "had completed".
  • "accepting adjustments to specific elements": do we know (and is it interesting enough to mention) what these adjustments were?
Lawrie wrote, "minor changes in the figure of Liberty, and in the claws and a wing of the eagle". Judgement call, but I don't think it's worth spelling out especially since Lawrie doesn't get into the specifics of what the changes were (he had met with Coppini personally).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dim" and "dimmer" appear; it's a fairly memorable word in this context since it's pejorative and slightly colloquial. Perhaps change one to something like "negative"/"more negative"?
  • "Adair had suggested that coins with that year's date": I don't think we need "had" here.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except as noted, done. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see you changed both "dim" and "dimmer"; it's fine as you have it but I rather liked the usage -- I only meant that it would be best not to repeat it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from me. Just one comment, which won't affect my support either way: as "in 1936. A. Garland Adair ..." looks rather odd, with the floating 'A.', could we use 'Anthony Garland Adair' instead - or put his description first? Just a suggestion and I'll leave it to your discretion. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the technical details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Why do some Bibliography entries include locations and others not?
  • Congressional Record citations have all the data entered into |title= - these should be split
  • Fn15 is missing work title
Thanks, all those are fixed now. Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • As Nikkimaria asked, why do some Bibliography entries include locations and others not?
  • "the six flags over Texas" or "the Six flags over Texas"?
  • "the issue has proven popular with collectors, and have gradually appreciated in value." If the last clause refers to "the issue", it should read 'has', not "have", but tweaking the wording may be preferable.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed a couple of locations ... I just don't think the onetime location of a publisher to be useful in an internet age. I've standardized the Six Flags and rephrased the end of the lede. Thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Add

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 August 2024 [32].

1858 Bradford sweets poisoning

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 1858 a mix up over two barrels of white powder led to twenty deaths and over 200 ill with arsenic poisoning. Food purity laws had not been thought of and arsenic was readily available over the counter, which was a recipe for tragedy - and all for a few sweeties. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "The adulteration of food had been practised in the UK since before the middle ages" I might add something like "with chemicals" or some such to state what they were adulterated with.
    I've outlined that in the following sentences. It's not always chemicals: leaves were added to tea and flour to mustard, for example. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The extent of the arsenic-related deaths was such ..." I assume we are talking about accidents AND murder here. Why not start with "So many people died of arsenic poisoning ..."?
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anything said about the taste of arsenic trioxide?
    Added (thankfully without the need for OR!) - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information about where the arsenic comes from? Is is a by-product of some process?
    We've got in there that arsenic trioxide is industrially produced: is anything more needed for this article? - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medical historian James C Whorton" Anything after the C?
    Oops. . added
  • I don't know if this would help you or not.
    Thanks for that. I read that one when researching; the core of the important information is all in The Times too, which is the one I cited.
  • In the references I see The Daily Telegraph unitalicised.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorted - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Wehwalt - much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

I'll get to this soon. Apologies for not being able to get to Elinor Fettiplace in time. joeyquism (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on chemistry myself (it was one of my lesser-attended subjects), so I will not be able to comment on accuracy. I am, however, keen on good writing and candy, both of which are certainly featured in this article. I've noted a few things below for the sake of being thorough, some being nits - feel free to refuse with justification:

Lead

Background

  • I believe the following sentences would flow better if merged with a semicolon: "Cost was the reason adulterants were used. Sugar, for example, cost 6½ d per pound; the adulterant cost ½ d per pound."
  • Same with these: "So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced. It was the first piece of UK legislation to attempt to control the sale of a poisonous substance."
    Both done - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak

  • As a Yankee, I was initially confused by "7½ d" (perhaps I just lack numismatistic knowledge) - I now understand this to mean pence, though I could be wrong and be actively embarrassing myself right now. Would it be worth it to write it out, or include a link to £sd?
    It's linked in the above section (when we discuss "6½ d per pound;")

Investigation, arrests and court case

  • "On the Sunday morning the local police" - Should this be just "On Sunday morning"/"On the following [Sunday] morning", or is this a grammar variance thing? In America it's usually just "On [day of the week]", but I recognize that this is a British-specific article, so if this is considered proper British English, feel free to chastise me for my ignorance.
    This is fine in BrEng (both are acceptable, but this makes a little more sense in this instance). - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal's wife also admitted that she had found other fragments and thrown them on to the fire" - May have missed it in context, but I'm not seeing any prior mention of a fire; in this case would it be clearer to say "thrown them into a fire"?
    The definite article is a little more widely used in BrEng than AmEng, and while both are usable here, we'd probably prefer it here as there was one fire in the location. If there were multiple, we'd use "a". - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of Wednesday, fifteen people has been reported dead" - "has" should be "had"
    Yep, good spot. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "The deaths led to calls for legislation to stop similar events occurring" - Add "from" between "events" and "occurring"
    I think both are correct in BrEng, but this way feels/sounds more natural to my ear. - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The medical historian James C. Whorton considers the Act 'was next to useless'" - Should this be "considered"? Also not sure of the inclusion of "was" in the quote.
    Not only is Wharton still alive, but his text, with his opinion, is also still in existence, so "was" is correct". - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this article (though not to say I endorse the subject matter's happening). I do question my own critiques at times here, particularly those related to grammar, so if I've made any faux pas or caused any offense, please let me know. Looking forward to your replies, and I hope you're having a wonderful beginning to your week. joeyquism (talk) 08:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks User:Joeyquism. All sorted, except where commented on above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! I have no further comments; glad to support. joeyquism (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:The Great Lozenge-Maker A Hint to Paterfamilias.jpg - PD (but needs US tag)
    Now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Arsenic trioxide.jpg - PD
  • File:As4O6-molecule-from-arsenolite-xtal-3D-balls.png - PD
  • File:Bradford,1863.png - PD, with US tag
  • File:West Yorkshire UK location map.svg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:John Henry Bell (1832-1906).jpeg - I think this needs the UK PD tag too (and should be ported to commons TBH)
    Transferred, source and licence updated - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Generalissima; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me - Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - I realized I actually had one prose question. I have no idea at all what a lozenge is in this context; I'm familiar with throat lozenges but I doubt that's what these Victorian children were eating. I assume it's a sort of hardy candy? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the sources don't make it too clear (although I'll go over them again to check there are no little hints I can include). I think, much like throat lozenges, these were a boiled sweet, much in the line of humbugs, but that's a bit of OR. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a little googling and according to this history of candy, lozenges originated as a type of gummy fruit-flavored medicinal candy, and the name mostly referred to their diamond shape. As time went on, they seem to have stopped being gummy and many have lost their traditional shape and medicinal nature, but they remain mostly fruity. So basically - fruit candy, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've gone back over the sources, I suspect you're probably right, although two sources refer to them being humbugs, which is a hard-boiled sweet (literally boiling the sugary syrup and letting it dry into a hard sweet. The description we have of the manufacturing process (it's in the article in the last paragraph of the Background section) doesn't mention boiling the sugar at all, which would suggest a more 'gummy'-style sweet. All this is OR, unfortunately, so I think we may be best just leaving the description in place as the only explanation, rather than trying to 'translate' it to a modern type of sweet. - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by RoySmith

[edit]
  • I don't know if I'll do a full review, but one thing jumped out at me. In File:As4O6-molecule-from-arsenolite-xtal-3D-balls.png, there's six oxygens, not three, as the name "arsenic trioxide" would indicate. Presumably this is a dimer. I don't think there's any need to do a deep dive into the chemistry, but this obvious (to anybody trained in chemistry) discrepancy needs to be at least be mentioned. Oddly enough (and that's an understatement), Arsenic trioxide, which is the deep dive, doesn't mention this either, but that's somebody else's problem. RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a chemist by any stretch, so thanks for that. Caption now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chemist Arthur Hill Hassall was prominent in the field of food analysis and the first person to systematically study food through a microscope. The source says "Hassall became well known as the first food chemist to make a systematic use of the microscope to detect fraudulent additions to food." That's not quite the same thing. Over at DYK, we've learned to be wary about claims of somebody or something being a "first", since those claims so often turn out not to be true. In this case, there's a couple of issues. One is "being well known as the first" is not the same as actually being the first. The other is that the source talks specifically about food chemists, but you expanded that to all people. For all we know, there was somebody doing this kind of investigation earlier but they weren't a food chemist. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded. - Many thanks for your comments, and I'd be delighted to hear more, if you have any. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    arsenic trioxide is the common name for the substance and the As4O6 is the molecular form it takes at standard conditions. So the caption was OK to start with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've put it back to the original. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a read-through now...

  • highly poisonous arsenic trioxide I think we need a source for "highly poisonous". https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MMG/MMGDetails.aspx?mmgid=1424&toxid=3 says "Arsenic trioxide ... is one of the most toxic and prevalent forms of arsenic" but that's a relative measure. Later on it says "When arsenic trioxide is burned, it releases ... arsine gas ... which is highly toxic" which implies that the unburned substance isn't.
    "highly poisonous" is hyperbole. I would just say "poisonous". Substances that kill in milligram quantities could be called "highly poisonous".
    Went with just "poisonous" - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • practised in the UK since before the Middle Ages the UK didn't exist in the middle ages, so that's a bit of an odd statement.
    Changed to "Britain", which both did and didn't exist - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • harmless additions, such as chicory, I think you want a semicolon after chicory, not a comma? On the other hand, this is a monster sentence; maybe break it into several? Something like "First were harmless additions such as chicory (full stop) Alternatively, adding flour to mustard ... tea leaves (full stop) And finally, toxic additions such as ..."
    No, it needs a comma, as it's a list of three things that were the first category of 'harmless additions'. The rest of the sentence (also a list, split by semi-colon) comprises explanation and examples of what is in the other two categories. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see that now. But I still think breaking this up into multiple sentences would improve readabiltity. I did a little research about commas vs semicolons and found this bit of advice: "There is no rule limiting the number of independent clauses in a single sentence, however, the reader’s ability to comprehend the sentence will certainly decrease if a compound sentence “rages on and on,” even if the conjunctions and punctuation are correct." I think that applies here.
    It's not just the two-level list, there's constructs like introducing alum, gypsum or chalk into white bread or tree or shrub leaves into tea leaves. I had to read that several times to figure out that it needs to be parsed as "introducing [(alum, gypsum or chalk) into white bread] or [(tree or shrub leaves) into tea leaves]" RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reworked a little now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those adulterating foodstuff used nicknames to hide the practice it took me a few readings to figure out that "those" refers to "the people doing the adulterating" and not "the foodstuffs". Some rewording might clarify this.
    Good point, tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cost 6½ d per pound I see you've already discussed this with Wehwalt, but the use of "d" can indeed be confusing for those not familiar with historical British coinage. I know you linked "d" to Penny (British pre-decimal coin), but a single-letter link isn't easy to notice, so I suggest something like "cost 6½ d (pence) per pound" and link "pence".
    Let me think on this one - it's a rather non-standard approach and this format hasn't been an issue in other articles I've written, so I want to have a look round at other examples. - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • soft furnishings what are these?
    I believe Americans call them "softgoods". - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps link to Consumables? RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not right (it includes stationery etc too). I've linked it to the Wiki dictionary, which should cover things. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • coloured with soot or indigo t Link to Indigo dye
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I suggested earlier the use of "dimer", but I'm not actually sure I gave correct advice. I've asked for help from a SME.
    It may be a dimer, but that is not so important in the context of this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used as a wood preservative... Chromated copper arsenate would be a better link target.
    I think that would be an WP:EASTEREGG - SchroCat (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was thought that the cause of the deaths was cholera I would establish context by mentioning that this happened during the 1846–1860 cholera pandemic.
    Interestingly none of the sources mention the cholera outbreak, so we'd be possibly guilty of SYNTH or OR if we connect the two, but I'm going back through the sources to see if I can find a connection. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not OR to observe that 1858 is between 1846 and 1860 :-) But, yes, you are right that it is OR to infer that "the reason people suspect this was cholera was because of the ongoing pandemic". Perhaps "The Halloween sweets that poisoned Bradford". bbc.com. which says Initially, the doctor who saw nine-year-old Elijah Wright in the early hours of Halloween 1858 thought the boy had died from cholera. Surgeon John Roberts thought the symptoms - vomiting and convulsions - were consistent with the disease, which had been rife in England. is what you need to connect them? RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, now added. I found some information about the similarity of symptoms between the two as well, so that all looks much stronger now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all my concerns have been addressed, so adding my support. As an aside, when I saw this listed, what draw my interest was thinking about the scene in It's a Wonderful Life where the pharmacist Mr. Gower accidentally mixes poison into some pills he is making, killing a patient. That scene takes place around 1920 or so, 60 years after this event. Apparently such accidents were still commonplace enough that it would be believable to movie audiences. RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks RoySmith. Funnily enough, even though Wonderful Life is one of my favourite films, I simply hadn't made the connection, but it's a very interesting thought that they happened within a lifetime of each other. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium

[edit]
  • Three men were arrested—the chemist who sold the arsenic, the sweet maker and the market seller who sold the sweets - That doesn't line up with the rest of the article, which goes on to tell me that the three people were put on trial, the sweet maker, the chemist and his assistant.
    Good spot - altered. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image shown for arsenic trioxide structure seems like it is the structure of arsenolite, the crystal mineral (with a formula As4O6) rather than arsenic trioxide. Maybe that be noted somewhere as a footnote since it's somewhat confusing to read "trioxide" and see 6 oxygen atoms.
    There's been quite a lot of back and forth on this, so I've just taken the image out altogether. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also used as a poison for murder. So many people died of arsenic poisoning that legislation in the form of the Arsenic Act 1851 was introduced; .... I think the phrasing here is confusing, was the arsenic poisoning cases deliberate, accidental or both
    Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corollary to the above, can the previous statement be more rigorous, "many" seems a bit nebulous, are there numbers of how many peeps died of arsenic poisoning in 1850 that can be cited as a reason, or was it just public opinion ?
    There are no figures in the sources to back this up, just an acknowledgement by the authorities that there was a problem that needed dealing with. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • for people to see them in the morning.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and in 1862 three children died at Christmas after eating sweets containing arsenic. That's a specific example the book cites to illustrate the fact that adulteration happened even after the passage of the mentioned act, it's not part of the actual reason why the Act was ineffective which is how it is portrayed in the article.
    I've taken it out - it doesn't add anything to the point. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Sohom, now all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM, I can't find much else to critique, I'm interested in supporting the nom. Sohom (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Graham Beards

[edit]

The map is rather dark. I improved it but the Commons has tightened it's rules regarding overwriting of files: only the original poster can do so. Thoughts? Graham Beards (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Graham, That's a bit annoying of them! I can email you if you're happy to send me the file and I can upload? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes let's do that and if you think it's not an improvement, no problem. Graham Beards (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect - thanks Graham. New image uploaded (although you may need to clear you cache to see it in place). Much better. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I improve a commons image, I generally upload the new version under a new title, i.e. File:Washington Square by Matthew Bisanz (adjusted).jpg. No worries about overwriting the original. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and I am happy to add my Support. Thank you for all your work on the article. Graham Beards (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Loving your current tear through British food history. I read Swindled a few years ago and immediately thought of it when I opened this; delighted to see it in the refs already. Comments within the week, throw popcorn if I don't make it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn thrown! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the sweets produced in Bradford, powdered gypsum was supposed to be purchased" passive voice here
  • "firstly were harmless additions, such as chicory, adding flour to mustard and watering down milk." the last two are self-explanatory, but what chicory does or is isn't clear from context.
  • "cheese with mercury salts" - should be "mercury salts added to cheese", since it's the salt that's the additive not the cheese
  • It may be too much detail for this article, but it's not clear from the text if all of the things mentioned as adulterants (ex. salts of copper and red lead) were known to be dangerous and were being illicitly mixed in instead of safer ingredients, or were added for their useful effects ignorant of actual danger
  • "Cost was the reason..." I might move this sentence up to para 1; I think it fits better there logically.
  • "Sunday, Police Constable Campbell, was sent to investigate" - rm second comma
  • Why is Police Constable capitalized but chief constable isn't?
    Because our MOS is counter-intuitive and second rate. The use is correct as far as MOS:JOBTITLE instructs. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair
  • "Eventually up to twenty-one people died..." it feels odd that this sentence ends solely with the footnote. Do the refs in the footnote cover the ~200 ill as well? (imo the 20 vs 21 thing could be in-text vs in a footnote but I won't insist)
    Yes, both the refs support it, but I've lifted the footnote into the main text for you, so it's cited inline now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Quite an interesting little tragedy - I find myself feeling a little sorry for everyone involved. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC - all sorted. As always, thanks for your suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! I'm a support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Three minor points, none of which affect my support:

  • "Sulfuric acid" – seems a work of supererogation to take the stuff all the way to America and back when they could just add sulphuric acid at home.
  • "Joseph Neal, who made the sweets on Stone Street" – next time we lunch at my flat look out for what I'm slipping into your pudding: "in", not "on" in the King's English, for the umpteenth goddam time!
  • "Mary Midgley, a seven year old girl" – I'd shove a couple of hyphens in here.

That's my lot. Happy to support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Glad(ish) to see SchroCat following in the beloved Brian Boulton's footsteps in regaling us with death and destruction on all sides. Be that as it may, I support the elevation of this article to FA, Tim riley talk 13:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. I always try to leave in at least one 'on x street' for you. It's all part of an experiment to see what your breaking point is: I sense I may be close! - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

This is a really toothsome article, despite the dire subject matter. Just a few quick comments, the resolution of which—as with PMC above—won't affect my vote to support.

  • An inquest was opened the following day. - Perhaps link to inquest?
  • ...the Food Adulteration Act 1860 was passed into law... - Since the Act itself has no article, would it be possible to add just a single sentence about what it did (or purported to do)? Reading that the poisoning helped motivate its passage and then immediately reading that it was considered ineffective makes me curious about what its contents were.

Cheers. — Penitentes (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Penitentes, Many thanks for these: both now enacted in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! — Penitentes (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce review

[edit]
Books are all from reputable publishers and scholarly authors; all nice and modern sources (although of matters of arcane local history, older sources may be OK too: historiographical fashion changes like it's á la Milanese). Why are the ISBNs inconsistently laid out. With Davis Kindle ed., what does 487 denote. The journals are an excellent selection of blind peer-reviewed articles, except for History Today. Contemporaneous newspapers are used sparsely but wisely—always a tricky tightrope!—and are all absolute papers of record. And the BBC  :) As for websites, ODNB is generally reliable (joke: just don't tell Iridescent!).
This is a good fun, readable, but educational article of the kind you excel in Schrocat. Just reading it gave me early-onset diabetes, I think! By the way—nothing to do with the source review of course—but when you talk about the uses of Arsenic in Victorian England, it might be worth mentioning the prevalence of Arsenic eating? (And that's a redlink?!)[1][2][3] ——Serial Number 54129 21:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

  1. ^ Moon, Jina (2016-04-26). Domestic Violence in Victorian and Edwardian Fiction. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4438-9207-0.
  2. ^ Haller, John S. (1981). American Medicine in Transition, 1840-1910. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-00806-1.
  3. ^ Burney, Ian (2021-01-26). Poison, detection and the Victorian imagination. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-5863-5.
Many thanks SN. I've tweaked the ISBNs, so they should all be consistent. For Davis, it's the location in the e-book (older versions of books had no page numbers, but a location 'address'), so I've used that, which I've done in a few other FAs. I'm a bit surprised that's a red link - German WP has a page on it (Arsenikesser), but I think it may be a possible step too far away from this page. Thanks for the review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2024 [33].

Bonn–Oberkassel dog

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonn–Oberkassel dog is one of the oldest known examples of a domestic dog that modern archaeology is pretty sure about. We've found more late Paleolithic dogs since it was discovered in the 1910s, but what's most important about this little pup is the evidence of early veterinary care, and how ancient humans cared for this creature, seemingly out of compassion alone. I hope you enjoy reading, and I hope I can make any changes needed to bring this article to the best state it can be. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Good catch, fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • while the other bones from the dog were placed into the ==> "while the dog's other bones were put into the"
  • 40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height and weighed add a comma before "and"
  • Osteoarthritis, alongside signs of enamel defects, missing teeth, and gum disease indicate add a comma before "disease"
  • it may have been due to effects of its illness ==> "it may have been due to the effects of its illness"
background
  • populations of gray wolves ==> "populations of grey wolves"
  • A number of prehistoric dog burials are known ==> "(Several/numerous) prehistoric dog burials are known"
  • A large number of Magdalenian dog ==> "Many Magdalenian dog"
discovery and research history
  • On 18 February, 1914, workmen at remove the comma after "February"
  • A number of other animal ==> "Several other animal"
  • grouping a number of other bone ==> "grouping other bone"
  • in 1993 specified this age to slightly later than originally thought ==> "in 1993 specified this age as slightly later than originally thought"
  • and grouped a number of other ==> "and grouped several other"
  • created a catalog of the ==> "created a catalogue of the"
  • Finds of domestic dogs prior to this are ==> "Finds of domestic dogs before this are"
physical description
  • identifiable bone fragments are known from the ==> "identifiable bone fragments known are from the"
  • closes at an age of 7 months i'd remove "an age of" since the reader would probably know that you're talking about age
health
  • a behavior potentially ==> "a behaviour potentially"
  • prior to the end of the Iron Age ==> "before the end of the Iron Age"
  • falling down without control. remove "down"
  • from the vomit and diarrhea caused by ==> "from the vomit and diarrhoea caused by"
  • if it was killed in order to bury it alongside ==> "if it was killed to bury it alongside"
second dog
  • differed in color from the other teeth ==> "differed in colour from the other teeth"

Whilst reviewing I was a bit confused as to whether we were using British or American English, as it is a German dog. Feel free to refuse the British English suggestions if the latter's the case. Fine work overall. 750h+ 13:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Made changes and added explicit english variant tag. Thank you for your review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 750h+ 16:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

I've been wondering if this one would come up here for a while. Greatly enjoyed reading -- comments below which are, as ever, suggestions rather than demands. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would try to get the dog's rough date into the first paragraph, if not the first sentence: I know we give "Late Palaeolithic", but most readers won't know what that means beyond "a really long time ago".
    • Done. - G
  • The Bonn–Oberkassel dog (German: Hund von Bonn–Oberkassel) is a Late Paleolithic dog: I think we would say was, wouldn't we? In the same way as "Christopher Wren was an architect who is buried in St Paul's Cathedral"?
    • Good point. - G
  • put into the university's Geological Collections: I think we should decap here, unless that name was used in a very formal sense (for the British Museum, for example, we would talk about its Roman collection, or the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities)
    • Done. - G
  • 32 identifiable bone fragments have been attributed to the dog: MOS:FIGURES discourages starting a sentence with a number in figures.
  • It was around 7.5 months old at death, 40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height, and weighed 13–18 kg (29–40 lb), suggesting a slender build similar to the Indian wolf or some modern sighthounds.: again, I would be tempted to promote this to the first paragraph, as this is pretty fundamental information as to what readers are picturing to be the subject of the article. The current final sentence of the first paragraph could then be "demoted" to the second, as that information becomes useful and interesting once we know what this animal is that we're talking about.
    • Good idea, done. - G
  • 40–50 cm (16–20 in) tall at shoulder height: this isn't quite idiomatic: you've done it much better in the body with tall at the shoulder.
    • Done. - G
  • the Bonn–Oberkassel dog suffered from a canine distemper infection as a puppy: for humans, admittedly, but most medical style guides (including the MoS) discourage "suffered from (WP:SUFFER). Could do "survived", and rework the next sentence slightly?
    • That works. - G
  • It might be a nice touch to do a double-image in the lead, with the second image being a modern dog(s) of similar build (e.g. an Indian wolf and a sighthound?).
  • Expansive human care: "Expansive" means "over a wide area"; I think we mean "extensive" ("very thorough").
  • suggests significant compassion towards the dog: or, more cynically, that the dog was very useful?
    • This is an interesting point, and I see you raise it throughout the review so I'll put it here; the Janssens et. al source makes the point that the disease would have prevented proper training, and none of the other sources really make the cynical argument here — though now that I'm thinking about it, they really should. I guess I should lean on the training thing a bit? - G
  • I've got no problem with foregrounding the compassion argument (though I'd suggest keeping it attributed -- "Janssens et al have argued that...") -- but I do think we should do so in a way that doesn't claim to rule out other or complementary explanations. Interesting point about the training, but we could still have, for example, "that dog had a seizure as a puppy, so it must be inhabited by the spirits, and they will get out and haunt us when it dies". Mentalising people in the far past is a very dangerous business. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A dog molar belonging to a separate, older dog: I would cut the first dog: it would be surprising for the dog to have owned some other animal's molar.
    • Good point, lol. -G

"Second" might be a more natural word here than "separate"?

    • Yeah. -G
  • I would link "domestication" on the word "domesticated".
    • Done. - G
  • place the origin of dogs to a population of East Asian wolves c. 39,000 BP.: you place something in or with something, not to it.
    • Done. - G
  • Numerous prehistoric dog burials are known, spanning from ritualistic and symbolic burial to simple corpse disposal out of hygienic concern: I think we need to be a bit careful about motives in this article; we often speculate about religious, compassionate, hygenic or so on motivations, but the honest truth is that we have no idea what far-ancient people were thinking when they carried out death practices. In particular, I'd need a lot of convincing that we can trace a meaningful distinction between "we should bury that dead thing because it's dirty" and "we should bury that dead thing to avoid religious pollution/the anger of the spirits that comes from being around dead things", or indeed that people in the Paleolithic would have drawn one themselves.
  • There are quite a lot of "many", "some" and similar words in the Background section. Can we give a ballpark for these numbers?
    • Sadly, these are not given by the sources and I can't find more firm ones. - G
  • "rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf": when quoting in italics, we don't use quote marks, but what's the rationale for the German here at all?
    • No clue what I was trying to do here, removed. - G
  • While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves were put into storage in the Rheinisches Landesmuseum Bonn, animal remains from the site were split into two groups: I would cut themselves and put human before Oberkassel, as the dog's remains are, strictly, a skeleton.
    • Lol, good point. - G
  • In the late 1970s, a student studying the Oberkassel site rediscovered the separated material within the university collections: can we name-check them?
    • Name added. - G
  • Use a lang template for words like Landesmuseum, with |italic=no, so that screen readers handle them correctly.
    • Done. -G
  • A 1982 study: similarly, can we name and, ideally, cite it? In general, when we refer to a specific work of scholarship directly, it's good to be able to cite it and, if possible, direct interested readers towards it.
    • Done. -G
  • dating to 15,000–13,500 BP: this needs a circa.
    • Done. - G
  • Finds of domestic dogs before this are tentative and disputed: in the Background section, we gave 17,000 BP as the terminus ante quem for dogs being "well-established" in the Magdalenian.
    • Ope, realized that's ambiguous. Cleared it up: dogs begin being found during the Magdalenian, not at the end. - G
  • This made the dog the earliest known example of a domesticated animal.: do we mean the Oberkassel dog specifically, or the dog in general? Would clarify. Might be nice to add a footnote to say what the next couple are?
    • Good idea. - G
  • I would link premaxilla and coronoid process in the footnote; we have generally done similar in the body text.
    • Done. - G
  • dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction: firstly, I would give the BP/BCE equivalence the first time we use BP, and then not again. Secondly, are you sure about "estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction"? That's more precision than I'd expect in an estimate that far back: it's more usual to write something like "15,000 BP ± 200 years", which means that the tools involved are only precise enough to give a reading that's accurate to within about 200 years either way, not that someone thinks it's 15,000 BP, someone things 15,100, and so on.
    • Ooh, yeah. ± is what I meant, thank you. - G
  • The cranial growth plate of the lumbar vertebra is closed: can we explain, without unduly bothering the reader with details, what it means for a growth plate to be open or closed?
    • Gave it a shot. - G
  • The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, resembling cage biter syndrome. However, since wrought metal only emerged in the Chalcolithic, this wear was likely due to compulsive stone chewing: I think we could make this a bit tighter and say something like "The dog's remaining canine tooth showed heavy abrasion and enamel loss, probably caused by compulsive stone chewing". The Chalcolithic is a long way away from the Paleolithic, so any talk of cages is just going to confuse people.
    • Fair point. - G
  • Osteoarthritis is extremely rare in dog remains before the end of the Iron Age; one of the only other known cases is a buried dog from the Anderson site in Tennessee, c. 7000 BP: slightly devil's advocate, but how many specimens are we working with here (OK, I know there's quite a lot from the Bronze Age, but how many really comparable examples have we got?), and how many of them were old enough to get what is usually a disease of old age? How visible is it on a skeleton, anyway (I notice we're diagnosing it by a proxy here, which isn't perfect -- just ask Donald Trump).
  • Most typical causes of elbow osteoarthritis in modern young dogs are unlikely to have created the bone spurs seen in the Bonn–Oberkassel dog: similarly, I would explain this by outlining what these causes typically are.
  • in a study of 544 wild dogs and wolves, not one had the horizontal enamel damage typical of the disease in puppies: I don't know whether it needs to be said that all of those animals died (or were killed) in adulthood?
    • Elaborated on this a bit. - G
  • Caring for the dog would have had no practical purpose for humans, as the prolonged disease required significant effort and likely prevented training.: again, I want to believe this but have to be a little cynical: the humans may well have considered it possible that the dog would recover, and therefore become or remain valuable. Compassion isn't the only possible motivation here.
  • It is unknown whether the dog died from its past illness or other natural causes, or if it was killed to bury it alongside the two humans.: do any of the studies note signs (or absence thereof) of cut marks on the bones? I'm particularly interested in the possibility of butchery here.
    • Sadly not; though Janssens et al. 2018 says that cut marks on Paleolithic dog bones are rare. -G
  • One estimation, extrapolated from the diameter of a left diaphyseal humeral fragment, estimated the height at shoulder level as 46.8 cm: this isn't really extrapolated in a strict sense (you can't extrapolate from a single data point, or from apples to oranges): based on? Suggest linking the technical terms and converting the cm value.
    • Done. - G
  • When Dogs and People were Buried Together: Were is a verb, so capitalise.
    • Done. - G
  • The Oldest Case Yet Reported of Osteoarthritis in a Dog: an Archaeological and Radiological Evaluation: in title case, capitalise the first word after a colon or similar. Likewise for Morrey 2006.
    • Done. - G
  • Can we use |trans-journal= for the two German-language journals?
    • Done - G
  • Some journals have ISSNs, others don't: advise consistency.
    • Done - G

FM

[edit]
  • I somehow missed this when first glancing the nominations page, I guess because of the long placenames, but seems right up my alley. Will have a look soon, probably after UC's issues are resolved so we don't tread the same ground. FunkMonk (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems extremely close to the diagram, well spotted! I think that could be linked as a possibility in the photo's Commons description to avoid copyright claims. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add a note of this on Commons, Generalissima? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Done. :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the "rechter Unterkiefer vom Wolf", 'the right lower jaw of a wolf'" Why do we need a seemingly random snippet of German text here? I think it would make more sense to include the German nickname for the specimen in the article body if anything.
    • Removed this. - G
  • Do we have any other images of artifacts from the site that could be shown for flavour?
    • There's one at least! - G
  • Perhaps a location map of the site?
    • I don't really have room to put that here - I feel it might be better suited for a future article on the double-burial itself. - G
  • "While the Oberkassel skeletons themselves" Specify "human", the dog is also a skeleton.
    • - Fixed. - G
  • Link the term canine.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Link Domestication of the dog instead of just the general domestication article.
    • Done. - G
  • "later supported by separate radiocarbon dating taken by Kiel University" Give year?
    • Done. - G
  • Is this supposed to be UK or US English? I see both paleo (US), palaeo (UK), archaeo (UK), catalog (US), color (US) etc., should be consistent.
    • US; corrected "palaeo", though archaeology is correct in US spelling.
  • Link Radiocarbon dating.
    • done. - G
  • Not sure how important this is, but you use Latin plural for vertebrae, but common English plural for scapulas and ulnas (should also be "ae" if you go the same way).
    • Dictionary I used says vertebrae is the only correct plural, but scapulas/ulnas are both okay. - G
  • "Modern scholarship dates the dog to c. 14,000 BP (c. 12,000 BCE), with estimates ranging about 200 years in either direction." Why is this under physical description?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "as 46.8 cm" Give conversion as you do for other measurements.
    • Done. - G
  • The article body says "comparable to the Indian wolf and some breeds of sighthound" while the adjacent caption has more detail "similar to West Asian wolves (such as the Indian wolf), or some modern sighthounds, such as the Saluki", which could be repeated in the article body, which is where the main unique info should be.
    • Fixed. - G
  • This image[36] has no description template on Commons and only German text; it should have a template and English text as well.
    • Done. - G
  • Could probably briefly explain in-text what pica is.
    • Done. -G
  • Link University of Bonn in intro.
    • Done. - G
  • Any more info about the buried humans and their culture for context?
    • Added. - G
  • There's a nice close up of the skull material[37], a bit of a shame not to use it.
    • Done. - G
  • @FunkMonk: I think that's everything! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a little fix. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Sources are all of good quality. The few instances of old / primary sourcing is supplemented with modern secondary sourcing.
  • Source are roughly formatted consistently. Some journal papers have the month included, others don't. I would exclude it everywhere for simplicity.
    • Removed these. - G
  • I imagine dog domestication is a heavily studied field (but not at all an expert here). 2018 is not that old, but have there been developments since? In particular, are the dogs from the Aurignacian still debated?
    • Still debated, yeah. Dogs, Past and Present: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (2024) mentions a general archaeological consensus of ~14,000 BP domestication, except for some "intriguing sites" from the Aurignacian. - G
  • I have spot checked the prime numbered citations, and did not find any issues with text-source integrity
  • I have not been able to find any sources that may be missing, or any contradictions in more general sources about background information. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]


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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2024 [38].

Forever (Mariah Carey song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From September 1995 to May 1996, Mariah Carey spent six months at number one on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart with three singles from Daydream. Columbia Records released "Forever" as the fourth US single and fifth overall. No other Carey song would surpass "Forever"'s peak of number two on the adult contemporary chart in the US until "Oh Santa!" some 14 years later, perhaps showing how making this type of music did not last "forever" for her :P Thanks for any comments about the article, Heartfox (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""Forever" was related to Carey's past work." - I think maybe ""Forever" was compared to Carey's past work." would work better
  • In the reception section, there's a bit of a mixing of tenses. You have "Pitchfork writer Jamieson Cox said it shows" but "Cleveland.com writer Troy L. Smith said it paled"
  • "thought it was one of her best singles that did not reach number one" => "thought it was one of her best singles not to reach number one" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All should be addressed. Thanks for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: nudge. Heartfox (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - apologies, I didn't realise you had replied last weekend. Always best to tag me as I regularly forget I have even reviewed articles so don't come back to check for replies :-D -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from brachy0008

[edit]

Hi there! Thanks for your help on So It Goes.... I decided to do this article, and it’s my first FAC (got some advice from an experienced FA nominator, ZKang123). I’ll try to dig up as much content as possible.

Image review
[edit]
  • Image checks out.
Thanks for checking this.
Prose review
[edit]

Since "Forever" was promoted to GA status in 2010, I think it may need more brushing up. I would also focus a bit more on wording than my GA reviews.

Anything specific you noticed? The article has been completely rewritten since 2010.
I'll try to find some comments on the prose. However, given the comment you addressed, I would mainly focus on the wordings.
Lead
[edit]
  • The lead is a bit relatively short... You can try expanding it a bit more.
As the article is less than 2,500 words a two-paragraph lead aligns with MOS:LEADLENGTH. @Brachy0008: thanks for your comments so far. Heartfox (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
[edit]
Release and commercial performance
[edit]
  • Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap. Smith said it showed how Columbia was "trying to milk the success of Daydream". Critics from music magazines predicted the song would become a success. seems a bit choppy. Just a concern.
    • Combined the first two sentences: "Unterberger consequently described the release as a victory lap and Smith said it showed how Columbia was 'trying to milk the success of Daydream'." Heartfox (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (minor)
[edit]

I would mainly focus on the source formatting (I would be pissy about it, that's the tea) because I would be confident that the sourcing is verifiable.

  • FN 27: Since Penske Media Corporation runs Rolling Stone (which is reliable in culture), I’d assume that Gold Derby would be reliable as well. But best double check it. Also missing archive link.
  • FN 31: Was RPM reliable?
  • FN 49: Is KQED reliable?

And that should be all the points I have. So, first reviewer has done all his points, now address the ones I have put out so far, and wait for the next reviewer to come by and review it.

@Brachy0008: does everything look ok now? Heartfox (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yup. you passed my review. good luck for the second one ;D. brachy08 (chat here lol) 08:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Brachy0008: Thanks for your help! If you support the article to be FA, you can always add a "support" in bold text. Heartfox (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alr. i support its promotion to FA brachy08 (chat here lol) 09:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would slightly revise this part, (Described as referencing music of the 1950s and 1960s), to say "Described by critics as" to attribute who is describing the song in this manner.
    Revised
  • This is more of a clarification question, but has Mariah performed this song at any point after the Daydream World Tour? I would imagine that you have exhausted all coverage on this song, but I was more so just curious about this.
    Haven't found anything
    That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and the article mention how the song references music of the 1950s and 1960s. Would links to 1950s in music and 1960s in music be helpful or would they be too broad?
    Linked
  • I was initially a bit confused by the Nick Krewen of The Spectator quote (i.e. "into the real world of human emotion with truly soulstirring performances") as I was uncertain of the comparison that the critic was making (i.e. moving in "the real world" from what and where). In the source, he specifies this transition from as moving "beyond the Barbie Doll plasticity of her debutant existence". To be clear, I am not saying that you should add this quote, but the critic is discussing a transition, and the article only mentions one part of it so a bit of its original context is lost.
    Restored full quote
  • For this part, (suggested it was worse than "One Sweet Day" and "Open Arms"), I think it would be beneficial to say the years that these songs were released as it is not directly clear in the prose that these are the other singles from the same album, which is more so implied from the sentence placement.
    Added years
  • This is more a matter of personal preference, but I am not sure about the need for File:Tokyo Dome (52480559907).jpg, particularly if the clear template is needed to avoid issues with it running into the next section heading. That and I am just not sure that an exterior shot of the venue is particularly helpful for readers. Again, it is up to you though.
    Prefer to keep as it's better than nothing I guess
    That is fair. As I said above, it is more of a matter of personal preference, and I can see the value of keeping the image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have there been enough covers that were notable enough to mention in the article? I remember Kristy Lee Cook performed it during her season of American Idol, which did get coverage in the Times Herald-Record, The Oregonian, Ledger-Enquirer, and Time (magazine). I'd say there's enough coverage to mention it, especially given Time has a solid paragraph on it.
    Added a paragraph about the cover version
  • I think that the Macintosh link should be shortened to Mac. I believe that Mac is the more commonly-known name for the computer. I honestly was uncertain of what this was referencing until I clicked on the link. I do not really think of the computer with that name. The target article also does not use that name either.
    "Macintosh" is given in the liner notes and the article notes it was the official name of the hardware until 1999, after "Forever" was recorded.
    Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. I agree that it is best to stay true to what is in the liner notes. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that these comments are helpful, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once everything has been addressed. I have always really enjoyed this song, but that could be because I happened to watch that season of American Idol while it was airing back in 2008 (and that makes me feel ancient thinking about it lol). I hope you are having a good start to your week and are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the review! 20 days in and only now is there an acknowledgement from Wikimedia that Newspapers.com access is messed up, so I wasn't able to search there for the Idol performance, but I did go on Google and ProQuest so I think the new paragraph is hopefully as good as can be anyways. Heartfox (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I am glad that there is at least an acknowledgement of the issues with Newspapers.com and although it is frustrating, hopefully a solution is being worked on and will be implemented soon. The new paragraph looks good to me as it focuses on the main points. I was debating on whether or not other details should be included, specifically Mariah Carey being a mentor in the episode and this being Kristy Lee Cook's elimination, but that seems more about the show than the song. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Wonderful work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Update: Didn't find anything new on Newspapers.com). Heartfox (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking. I think the current version does a very good job with summarizing what the reader needs to know about the performance. Aoba47 (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
  • You don't need to link decades per WP:OVERLINK
    Unlinked
  • "1990 debut album" should also be unlinked when you already have a Mariah Carey (album) link earlier in "Background and composition", and I'd replace "Background" with "Production" or "Development" when this doesn't really talk about what affected the song's content
    Unlinked.
    Replaced with Development
  • "the latter country" → "the lattermost country" (save uses of "former" and "latter" when describing one of two items)
    Changed
  • "Ineligible to chart on the Hot 100" should probably have "at the time" or something similar when such requirements were discontinued near the end of 1998
    Added "at the time"
  • Is the recording featured on Fantasy: Mariah Carey at Madison Square Garden supposed to be the song's official music video? I somehow couldn't tell for certain which concert it refers to when first reading through this page.
    The Tokyo Dome performance is the music video. This is noted in the lead ("Her performance at the Tokyo Dome in Japan was released as the music video"). Added to the section sentence "Filming for the official music video occurred five months later".
  • As far as I can tell, "Hit Tracks" was Canada's primary chart for 1996 (at least until 2000 when RPM went out of business), so that's worth noting in the lead and should get more emphasis than other listed Canadian charts.
    Personally I believe there is a unjustified bias toward RPM on Wikipedia simply because it has an online archive. But yes, it would be the most notable chart at the time as the song was not commercially released in Canada. Added RPM to the lead. Note that the main RPM chart was airplay-only from 1988, not multi-metric. The Record and SoundScan were the sales charts after this.

The article isn't quite at FA level, but can definitely reach it before long. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thank you for the helpful comments, replied to all. Heartfox (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and not sure how I overlooked the Tokyo Dome part, but regardless am happy to now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "The label serviced the song to American pop and rhythmic radio stations for airplay on June 18, 1996. It also promoted the song to adult contemporary outlets." 1. Is it known when it was promoted to adult contemporary outlets? 2. Is it known if the adult contemporary outlets were (like the pop and rhythmic stations) exclusively American? 3. Was it ever released to any non-American outlets? If so, when?
    Added "at the same time" as is listed as a "new release" to that format. I don't know of any sources that support non-American dates here.
  • "reached number nine on Billboard Hot 100 Airplay in the US". Should that be 'reached number nine on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay in the US'?
    Reworded to "reached number nine on the Billboard Hot 100 Airplay chart in the US"
  • "It achieved the most success on adult contemporary stations in both countries." I suspect you mean 'It achieved the most success in both countries on adult contemporary stations' (?) Or 'In both countries it achieved the most success on adult contemporary stations'. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded to latter.

Thanks for your comments, Heartfox (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 August 2024 [39].

Hensley Henson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an English bishop who was not averse to ecclesiastical fisticuffs. I'm not sure how comfortable he would have been to know personally, but I have much enjoyed reading about him and writing him up here. I have a particular soft spot for the article as ten years ago it was informally reviewed by the late and still painfully missed Brian Boulton and shortly after that was reviewed for GAN by one of our leading lights on church history, Ealdgyth. I've added to it since then, and I look forward to comments from anyone kind enough to look in. Tim riley talk 12:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]
  • What a pleasingly alliterative name!
  • As you don't begin the article with his full name, both Herbert and Hensley are technically unreferenced!!
  • "Henson undertook their functions himself." which Henson are we referring to here?
  • "akin to that of an alien" are we able to say why this was the case?
  • "his researches"?
  • "October 1885" repeated year
  • "after being ordained deacon" my religious knowledge is very poor, but I was under the impression that one would be ordained a deacon of a particular church/diocese. Is this the case here?
  • No. An ordinary C of E deacon is a deacon anywhere in the C of E. It's like a lance-vicar, as it were. (I think there are other kinds of deacons, more specialised, but HH wasn't one such.) Tim riley talk 15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's Salisbury's original connection to Henson? His patronage seems to come out of nowhere!
  • Salisbury was associated in a lay capacity with St Margaret's, Barking, but I think it would be going into rather too much detail to expand on this, though I'm willing to negotiate. Tim riley talk 15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chadwick writes that it was said of Henson"
  • Paragraph ending "Few of his colleagues agreed with him, even those dismayed by the parliamentary vote." is uncited
  • "Henson retired from Durham"
  • There is no requirement, as far as I can see, in the MoS to use a name at first mention in any para. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does, in fact, pretty much do so in its article on Henson, but doesn't do so systematically for other subjects, and personally I like to keep the surnames under control and use pronouns whenever they convey the intended meaning.

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some smashing points there – thank you so much, Pickersgill-Cunliffe! Tim riley talk 15:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from MSincccc

[edit]

Placeholder for now. MSincccc (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead
  • While there, and as Dean of Durham (1913–1918), he wrote prolifically and often controversially.
  • In 1920 after two years in the largely rural diocese of Hereford,...
  • ...; because of this some members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England accused him of heresy and sought unsuccessfully to block his appointment as Bishop of Hereford in 1917. Dropped the comma before "and".
  • He campaigned against prohibition, the exploitation of foreign workers by British companies, and fascist and Nazi aggression. He supported reform of the divorce laws, the controversial 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and ecumenism. Can these two sentences be strategically combined for a more concise sentence?
    • In my view it would be cumbersome to attempt to cram three things HH campaigned against and three things he campaigned for into a single sentence. Would you care to suggest a form of words? Tim riley talk 08:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tim riley You can use this- Henson campaigned against prohibition, the exploitation of foreign workers by British companies, and fascist and Nazi aggression, while supporting divorce law reform, the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer, and ecumenism. MSincccc (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • But that would not be true. He did the six different things at different times, not simultaneously as your wording says. I don't in any case think replacing two sentences of 17 and 19 words with a single long one of 33 words does the reader any favours. Tim riley talk 10:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSincccc (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Life and career
    • His father was a zealous evangelical Christian who had renounced the Church of England and joined the Plymouth Brethren, whereas his mother shielded her children from the worst excesses of what biographer Matthew Grimley describes as Thomas's 'bigotry.' However, in 1870, she died, and, in Henson's words, 'with her died our happiness.' Provides for a smoother flow given that we know who his father and mother were from the previous lines.
    • ...allowed him either to be baptised or to attend school. Dropped the "a" before "school".
@Tim riley Last years
  • Henson died on 27 September 1947 at Hintlesham at the age of eighty-three. His body was cremated upon his wish; his ashes were interred in Durham Cathedral.
  • Could the sub-section heading be changed to Final years?
@Tim riley That's fine. Even I prefer Last years in this case. What about the suggestion above it? That one seems fine as it provides a smoother flow (mentioning the date before the place). MSincccc (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim riley Most articles in British English, including FACs like that of Liz Truss, Elizabeth II and others, mention the birth date prior to the place of birth under their respective early life sections. Looking forward to your response.
  • There is no prescribed order. Sometimes place is first, sometimes date. Sometimes the date is only in the lead of an FA, sometimes it is in the text. Tim riley talk 11:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tim riley I would not force you to make an edit then. It's fine as it is. Should I make a similar edit to the other articles as well?
    • I would return with other suggestions later. To be honest, the article has been well written. Do you think, @Tim riley, that my comments have been constructive? Looking forward to your response. Regards.
  • I think your suggestions have been well meant, even though I have adopted few of them. If you are seeking to learn about reviewing I recommend studying the contributions of Wehwalt, UndercoverClassicist and other editors here, whose suggestions I have been able, and very pleased, to adopt much more widely: they help clarify, avoid ambiguity, correct inaccuracies, and challenge my interpretation of the sources, rather than putting forward tweaks to prose on the grounds that "I wouldn't phrase it like that". Tim riley talk 15:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a great time reading the article, @Tim riley. I have nothing more to add here and eagerly anticipate our future collaborations. Support. MSincccc (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will let you know of my verdict after I have gone throught the article again. Looking forward to your response. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thomas Henson was against the idea, partly because his financial means had declined, but was talked round by his wife and gave his consent. Do we need to mention his full name here; will either "Thomas" or "Henson" not do?
  • We discourage the use of forenames alone as too chummy and using the surname alone here would be ambiguous.

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • The date of birth is unsourced. Suggest mentioning it in first line of the body of the article.
  • "an annual stipend of £200" While I'm dubious about inflation templates, it might be worth some consideration.
  • Can anything be said of his duties as a Fellow of All Souls? I take it the six-months absence was with their blessing (so to speak) since they appointed him a vicar.
  • "In doing so he addressed many nonconformist gatherings; the historian Owen Chadwick suggests that this may have commended him to David Lloyd George, who became prime minister in 1916." Perhaps a few words as to way this is so.
  • "Lloyd George told him that he would have preferred to offer him a see with "a large and industrial population", and hoped to transfer him to one such if he succeeded at Hereford.[59]" Consider cutting "such".
  • "coal in the years after the war" War? What war? You haven't mentioned a war. (and is there anything worth saying about his wartime activities?)
  • " the Head Master of Eton" Headmaster or headmaster or head master or Head Master?
  • "And to which of those epithets does your Grace take exception?" Should "Your" be capped?
  • During the time of the debates in parliament in the late 1920s, was Henson in the House of Lords as a bishop?
  • The Bishop of Durham was and is one of the three bishops who automatically have a seat in the Lords. (The other two are London and Winchester; the rest have to wait their turn till they get in in order of seniority of their consecration, there being 21 other Lords Spiritual seats but 42 dioceses.) I don't know that Hensley's contributions in the Lords need mention, though. Tim riley talk 16:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Saving a space. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the same year he was elected as a fellow of All Souls College, Oxford and: needs a comma after Oxford per MOS:GEOCOMMA (there are one or two other examples).
  • He was tolerant of a wide range of theological views; because of this some members of the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England accused him of heresy: is this the bit about the right of clergy to express doubts about key points of doctrine? I don't think it's explicitly spelled out in the body that his critics called him a heretic (as opposed to just disagreeing with him, calling him a wimp/wrong 'un or something distinct but equally bad).

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • MOS:NEE: the word should be linked on first use -- there's a template for this purpose.
  • what the biographer Matthew Grimley describes as Thomas's "bigotry": can we be at all specific about what/whom he was bigoted against? Anglicans? Is there anything in the Plymouth Brethren's doctrine that would point anywhere?
  • I must tread carefully here. Peart-Binns gives no specific examples of Thomas's bigotry but writes, Their beliefs and structure were a world-denying pietism with the Bible as their supreme rule; an interest in prophecy and the Second Coming; believer's baptism; weekly breaking of bread; no set liturgy; no ordained ministry though many full-time evangelists; a congregational polity with no co-ordinating organization. ... Thomas Henson's bleak outlook on the world ... increased a feeling of urgency to be prepared for the Second Coming. Is it any wonder that the darkness at home become all-pervading? In view of their father’s contempt for the wickedness of the world, life at home for the children was purgatory. They were not to be tarnished by attending the schools where corruption was rife. The undercurrents in Herbert’s early life were never completely expunged. Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could do something with "contempt for the wickedness of the world" and the sense that he considered mainstream schools to be rife with corruption? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his father's fundamentalist views were anathema, ... "an enduring hatred of protestant fanaticism: similarly, I think it would help here to identify, at least in broad strokes, what the PB believed that was so upsetting -- we have the word "zealous" further up, but plenty of very committed, zealous believers are unquestionably lovely people.
  • Emma Parker, widow of a Lutheran pastor, filled the role of stepmother with sympathy and kindness, mitigating the father's grimness: the tone is slipping slightly here, I worry -- a little subjective, a little emotional, a little Dickensian, perhaps. On a more concrete note, isn't "widow of a Lutheran pastor" a false title?
  • It isn't a false title when used predicatively as here or (random example from the ODNB) "His work as broadcaster mirrored much of his work as author and editor." As to the wording I'm blest if I can remember which source prompted it and I've redrawn based on Chadwick and the ODNB. Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henson was fourteen before his father allowed him either to be baptised or to attend a school: this might be clearer as "His father did not allow Henson to be baptised or to attend a school until..." -- in theory, he could have turned fourteen before being baptised, and then turned fifteen, and then turned sixteen...
  • the young Henson undertook their functions himself: how did that work? Isn't the point of the godparents to guide and advise the baptised person -- how could he advise himself?
  • This puzzled me and still does. It looks to me as though the rector was bending the rules to breaking point. The BCP has an order of service for the baptism of – lovely phrase – "such as are of Riper Years and able to answer for themselves", and though the baptisee renounces the devil and all his works on his/her own behalf, the BCP says The person to be baptized shall choose three, or at least two, to be his sponsors, who shall be ready to present him at the Font and afterwards put him in mind of his Christian profession and duties. How it was that this requirement was waived in HH's case I cannot discover. Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Broadstairs Collegiate School he derived little educational benefit: not totally sure about the at here (you derive a benefit from something, but just swapping the words leads to a stilted tone). I'd push back against the idea that being widely read means that there's no value in going to school -- school do more than just put a lot of books in front of children! More seriously, I can't actually find this in the ODNB article.
  • We can agree to differ about the preposition, which seems fine to me. I've added a citation for the limited educational benefit. Chadwick says: Of this school the boy thought little. But no school is well adapted for boys who have read adult libraries by the time they are fourteen, can recite from memory long chunks of famous sermons from past centuries out of Blair’s Lectures on Rhetoric, and think games a sinful waste of time. The other boys were amused to find that the odd creature knew, in some subjects, more than their headmaster. Henson was shocked to find such adult ignorance and held his headmaster in contempt. Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no use of "benefit at" in Google Books which means what we want it to (only phrases like "this would benefit at-risk children"). Not a perfect measure, but could you perhaps reassure me by finding it in print somewhere? As I read Chadwick's quotation there, it says clearly that Henson thought he derived no benefit from it, but stops short of endorsing that opinion -- after all, it's predicated on the assumption that games [that is, sports] are "a sinful waste of time", which most educationalists at the time would have quite strongly challenged, and I'd take the "in some subjects" as decidedly double-edged: in other words, C. seems to be saying that Henson had a very narrow range of interests, knew a great deal about them, and was too single-minded, young or naïve to appreciate that there might be value in learning or doing anything else. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You surprise me. He was at the school and derived no benefit from it. Whether he ought to have benefited from games (a num question if ever I heard one) etc is neither here nor there: the fact is that he didn't. Tim riley talk 20:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing otherwise, but I don't think that's a defensible reading of what Chadwick says in the quoted passage. Is tehre another source that puts it differently? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peart-Binns: When he was fourteen his stepmother ... successfully persuaded her husband that Henson should attend Broadstairs Collegiate School. He went there on 18 November 1877 but there were few benefits. Apart from learning Latin and Greek, any formal education was too late. ... He found the school detestable ... Almost to the end of his life he could not bear to mention this school. Henson called the place "a privately run establishment of no great merit" and said that all he learned there was "a smattering of Latin and Greek". He wrote, I have often reflected on the difference which would have been made in my life if I had been so fortunate as to grow up in the neighbourhood of a good school. Had I been within reach of such a school as exists in Westminster, Birmingham, or Manchester it is probable that I should have gained an honourable entrance into the University, and enjoyed the inestimable advantage of what is described as "a regular education". Tim riley talk 07:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it were me, I'd say it was wisest to write something like "Henson saw little benefit in the education he received there", or similar -- the sources are very clear that he thought it was all pointless, and in many ways I think it says something about his character to frame this very much as his view of things. Whether, for example, learning Latin and Greek, or indeed mixing with people from outside his family and community, were of any benefit to him is something of an abstract question -- however, it's absolutely a matter of fact that he thought they were not. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lightly redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there's room to get Grimley's comment that "Henson's Kentish childhood ... could have come straight out of the pages of Charles Dickens" in somewhere?
  • I think we do need some mention of Parker's role in Henson's early education -- we've presented her as providing kindness, but Grimley is clear that she was also responsible for introducing him to literature and, in his words, "ensuring that [Henson] received an education".
  • Well, I think the existing words in the text, "ensured that the children were properly educated" covers this. The sources differ on whether she "persuaded" Henson senior to let HH go to school or whether she "insisted". Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I more mean what came before: how Parker gave him copies of classical texts and modern literature -- she seems to have been a major part of his education before he actually got a formal one, and therefore, one assumes, a large part of the reason he was in any position to take advantage of going to school. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll add a sentence. Tim riley talk 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're inconsistent about whether "fellow" [of All Souls]" should be capitalised. Generally speaking, my reading of MOS:CAPS is that the answer is usually "no" when there's any doubt.
  • the university's post-graduate research college: describing what All Souls is is a challenge, but I'm not sure 'postgraduate college' quite gets the point across -- the key thing is that it has no students, only fellows (normally, a "postgraduate college" is one inhabited by MPhil, DPhil etc candidates). I'm not sure it really needs a detailed introduction here, but some alternative phrasing would be useful.
I'll think on it. It's a tricky one, and I must admit I don't totally understand the position of Examination Fellows, who have to (initially) follow a university course but practically have that as their secondary 'job', as far as All Souls is concerned -- and I'm not sure they lose their initial college affiliation (so, for example, a DPhil student in Archaeology at Exeter College also holds an Examination Fellowship at All Souls). On another note, it's not (any longer) the only college without undergraduates; I'm not sure whether that was true when Henson was there, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henson made substantial contributions to his family as his father's financial affairs deteriorated to the point of bankruptcy: does "as" here mean "because" or "contemporaneously with"?
  • I formed friendships which have enriched my life.: anyone important later on who could be name-checked here?
  • Nobody is named in Henson's memoirs. His contemporaries included Lang, but whether he counted as a friend we are not told. Henson wrote, rather movingly I think, "I loved everybody from the Warden to the Scout's boy, and even now, after more than half a century, I never enter the college without emotion". Tim riley talk 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henson's first paper, on William II of England, marked him out as not only a fine scholar but a gripping speaker when he delivered it to an audience: perhaps getting a bit subjective: we would be on safer ground talking about how it was received, or how somebody or other has assessed it.
  • Lyttelton–Hart-Davis: the usual form would be "Lyttelton and Hart-Davis", but given that this is presumably a letter by one or the other, can we find out which?
  • It was GWL to RH-D (letter of 26 February 1958), but I am reluctant to follow the full bibliographical form, as RH-D edited the letters (after GWL's death) as well, of course, as writing half of them, and the conventional bibliographical details would, in my view, be cumbersome. If you haven't read their letters, permit me to recommend them. Desert Island reading for me. (Now I look again, I see that GWL quotes Henson in his very first letter, dated 27 October 1955, though I'm blest if I know what HH meant by "that state of resentful coma which scholars attempt to dignify by calling research".)Tim riley talk 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about something like "Letter from GWL to RH-D, in RH-D ed. (Year)"? I can see the arguments either way, but I think it's important to clarify who is, at least theoretically, "speaking" here, even if that's not as clear a distinction as it could be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to God and the Church: worth adding "Anglican", given that we've just said he was a little wobbly as to which religious camp he truly belonged in?
  • Charles Gore and the Puseyites: suggest adding a brief indication of what these people believed in, for those of us not fully versed in the different flavours of Anglicanism.
  • Tricky. They were high church early Anglo Catholics, of the type known in my youth as "tat queens" - lots of vestments, bobbing and bowing, and theatrical carrying on. But we already say "high church" and "Anglo Catholic" and I think on the whole it is best to let those phrases and blue links bear the weight. Tim riley talk 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can get behind that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • proposed by politicians such as Joseph Chamberlain and Charles Dilke.: would it be accurate to add Liberal (large or small L) here?
Sounds reasonable. So it was just them, rather than any substantial wing of the party? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so, yes. Tim riley talk 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • St Margaret's, Barking, in east London, a large, working class parish, with a population of 12,000, and increasing: lots of commas here. Worth splitting the sentence or bringing in some bigger pauses to give it more shape?
  • An All Souls colleague Cosmo Lang, himself on the brink of a Church career: I know we have different ideas about commas, but I think this really needs one after colleague -- alternatively, stick the name first and put a comma after it?

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks so far and looking forward to more. Tim riley talk 17:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his relentless work at Barking put a strain on his physique: Is physique the right word here? Cambridge have it as "the shape and size of a human body" (e.g. "he had a very slight physique, so found the work difficult") -- I'm not sure it's a direct synonym for the body itself. "On his body" or simply "on him"?
Works nicely. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1895 he accepted an offer from Lord Salisbury of a less arduous post, the chaplaincy of St Mary's Hospital, Ilford,: was Salisbury PM at the time (he became so in June)? In either case, do we know what he was doing handing out minor clerical appointments? The "Westminster" section says that it was a personal gift, but that only makes me more confused as to why it was Salisbury's to give.
  • Salisbury had – wait for it – an advowson – the right to appoint a clergyman to a particular living. This was in his private capacity. He was associated in a lay capacity with the Barking parish and knew of HH's work. You're the second reviewer to query this point and I've added an explanatory footnote. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful in so many ways. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur Winnington-Ingram, Bishop of London and Lang, now Bishop of Stepney.: Bishop of London is parenthetical, so needs a comma on either side (it took me a minute to realise that he wasn't the bishop of a place called "London and Lang".
  • From his pulpit, Henson spoke against the view that ecumenism was, in W. E. Gladstone's words, "a moral monster",: is this in 1902? Gladstone had been dead for four years by that point -- I'd suggest contextualising a) who Gladstone was, briefly; b) when he said this, and c) why Henson still cared what he thought.
The Times, reporting HH's lecture, thought Gladstone's phrase worth repeating. Gladstone coined the phrase back in 1874, but it clearly still resonated with some in 1906. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can see this one either way -- there would be value in contextualising that, but there's also value in sticking to the point. Will defer to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lightly tweaked. Tim riley talk 17:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the "Putumayo atrocities": why the quote marks -- "for what he called..."? At the moment, they read as scare quotes, implying that this label was overblown.
  • St Margaret's Henson neither received institution from the Bishop of London: what does received institution mean?
  • Most vicars/rectors are formally installed in a new parish by the local bishop. The OED says this: Ecclesiastical. In Episcopal churches, the establishment of a clergyman in the office of the cure of souls, by the bishop or his commissary. In the Church of England, the investment of the presentee to a living with the spiritual part of his benefice, which is followed by induction n., admitting to the possession of the temporalities of the benefice. It's rather an impressive service, but neither "institution" nor "induction" has a relevant WP article for me to link to. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be clearer as something like "Henson did not undergo the ceremony of institution, by which the Bishop of London would have formally installed him in his parish" -- I'm not quite clear (if it matters) whether this was a Henson thing or a St Margaret's thing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. The point is that the Bishop had no locus there. Henson had no boss to call him to heel. But I like your phrasing. Tim riley talk 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now tweaked. Tim riley talk 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Defender of the Faith. It's a good quote. I would also link destroyer in the quote that follows, as non-native or non-maritime readers may not immediately pick up that he means a warship (rather than just something destructive).
  • The Bishop, Handley Moule, hoped the prime minister would appoint Henry Watkins: we've inconsistently applied MOS:CAPS here, and somewhat throughout. The rule on paper is that if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be. Of course, consistency is king, so I'd have no objection to decapitalising all of them, but we can't have both Bishop and prime minister here.
  • two colonial bishops: might give them as the bishops of Mombasa and Uganda, both to be more specific (the British Empire was a big place) and to clarify the quote later: at the moment, we have to infer that he's talking about the same people.
  • In the academic sense, symposium should link to Academic conference, but it's only really the right word if there was a physical conference as well -- was there? If so, you would normally say that he presented the paper at the symposium.
  • Well if you read Plato, a symposium is where you get legless and end up with a hangover, while engaging in activity that would get you in trouble under the Sexual Offences Act, 2003. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, but unless the CofE is more interesting than I gave it credit for, we should make the link to the article about the academic rather than the Hellenic meaning of the term. After all, Symposium begins with a hatnote This article is about the social custom in ancient Greece. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what the C of E is like now, but you might be surprised at the goings-on when I was young, but be that as it may, my and your types of symposium, above, are respectively the first and second definitions in the OED, but the third is "A book consisting of essays on various aspects of a subject contributed by a number of different authors". Symposium is rather a chameleon term, like "classical music" which is broadly taken to mean the stuff they play at the Proms, but which specialist musical scholars confine to music of the late 18th and very early 19th century – basically Haydn, Mozart, early Beethoven and Schubert. If we restrict "symposium" to the OED's second definition it would be as if Bach, Verdi and Tchaikovsky didn't write classical music. Tim riley talk 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite right (and I was quite wrong): symposium can mean the book as well as the event, so our framing is fine if there was no physical conference. As for the link, though -- Symposium (disambiguation) says that readers looking for the ancient Greek event should go to symposium, while those looking for something in academia should go to academic conference or academic journal. I'd suggest changing the link to the last of those, but in any case it needs not to point to symposium. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Church in Wales, and give a date for when it was disestablished (in law 1914, in practice 1920)?
  • in general lay people supported his appointment: maybe I'm being incorrigibly modern, but how many lay people actually knew or cared? It would be a bit like saying "in general, most people support the Under-Secretary of State for Pigeons": if she's got an approval rating of 75% among the four people who have heard of her, that's a little misleading.
  • During his brief time at Hereford: brief drip-feeds the idea, only really brought home in the last paragraph, that he didn't last long there -- I think we should either let the cat out of the bag the first time, and say that he remained there only until 1920, or else keep mum until we get to his transfer.
True, but under MOS:LEAD, that's generally considered a slightly separate thing to the body -- after all, we always start the body with the subject's full name, even though that was in both the lead and the infobox. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right ho. Done. Tim riley talk 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Henson's Freemasonry ever controversial? It would seem a gift for opponents who wanted to paint him as unorthodox and/or heretical.
  • As far as I can make out, being a prominent Freemason was uncontroversial in the C of E of those days (though it ain't now!) Henson's contemporaries in the dioceses of London (and later Canterbury), Norwich and Lincoln – Geoffrey Fisher, Percy Herbert and Nugent Hicks – were among the bishops who were Freemasons. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Welldon ... [was] given to making public statements that Henson found infuriating: we imply almost that Henson just disliked his speaking style, and give prohibition as an example of their disagreement, but was there anything more substantial to this conflict?
  • Well, Welldon was given to making public statements that went against the pronouncements of his diocesan superior, as illustrated by the example of his criticising HH's liberal view of alcohol. (What Welldon imagined Jesus was doing at Cana in John 2:11 I have no idea.) Peart-Binns says of Welldon, "And he was found, in the experience of colleagues, to be radically untrustworthy, not deliberately or consciously, but because he could never resist the appeal of the Gallery. He would never fail to sacrifice a friend to a cheer!" Tim riley talk 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah: I think it would then be useful to amend or add to "found infuriating": as currently expressed, I realised that Henson found his speeches annoying, but it wasn't clear that he was actually saying anything objectionable or insubordinate (as opposed to being an annoying speaker, self-promotional, or generally not to Henson's tastes). Your explanation here that the prohibition pronouncement is an illustrative example of Welldon contradicting his boss clarifies things tremendously, but I didn't pick that up from the article itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relations between the deanery and Auckland Castle, the bishop's official residence: a common metaphor, especially in journalism, but I think the gloss pulls it the wrong way -- it sounds as if we mean relationships between two buildings rather than the people who worked in them. One way to get around this would be to introduce Auckland Castle a little earlier, or to say something like "Henson's staff at..."?
It's not quite the construction that's the issue, it's the zeugma: we have to simultaneously understand "Auckland Castle" as metonymy and not-metonymy: for it to work with the first clause, it has to carry one meaning, but the second clause can't be understood with that meaning. Most style guides advise avoiding zeugma, unless a) trying to show off and b) creating some conscious effect, and I'm not sure either is really the case here. As for Shakespeare, I shall bring that up next time I write an article in iambic pentameter! With all that said, you're right that there's no real chance of misunderstanding or concrete grammatical error here, so this does ultimately come down to de gustibus. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can do iambic pentameter. I shall be more impressed if you do an article in terza rima. Tim riley talk 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would name Eton College in full on first mention; we normally do for schools, universities and so on, and Eton is also a town.
  • It might be worth moving the explanation that "in gaiters" meant "bishops" to the main text -- but is that quite right? Admittedly, I'm remembering this from notes on The Dead, but there gaiters are shorthand for being well-heeled and a bit fancy-pants -- not necessarily being a clergyman. Put another way, all of his bishop guests would be, metaphorically, in gaiters, but not all of his gaitered guests would be bishops.
  • Henson denounced the Jarrow March in 1936: reads more naturally as of 1936 to me, given that we've already used a temporal phrase for the denouncing at the start of the sentence.
  • the suffragan Bishop of Jarrow, James Gordon: can we do anything about the WP:SEAOFBLUE -- three in a row?
Swapping the name and title helps you a bit: "James Gordon, the suffragan Bishop of Jarrow", but I think that's probably the best we can do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. Done. Tim riley talk 16:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Henson, the Church's principal concern was each individual man or woman's spiritual welfare: in this day and age, would advise each individual's... -- Henson probably didn't intentionally mean to throw children or non-binary people to the dogs, or indeed know what non-binary people were. As it's not a quotation, we should use modern, inclusive language unless we have good reason to think he consciously meant to do otherwise.
  • "the publication of this Book does not directly or indirectly imply that it can be regarded as authorized for use in churches: just checking that the Oxford English -ize is original?
  • Oh, yes! In those days, the OUP, CUP, The Times and Fowler held fast to the idiotic superstition that ize should always be used where the verb has been formed by using the suffix equivalent to the Greek suffix -izein (which retained its z when Latinised), but that ise should be used for words formed in a different way. Who knows, one day the OUP may catch up with the mid-20th century. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • damage limitation measures: a bit of a cliché, but a compound modifier in any case, so hyphenate it if it's staying. Likewise Prayer-Book debacle.
  • Dwelly's biographer Peter Kennerley considers it ironical that Henson,: not ironic? I understand ironical to mean "intentionally suffused with irony": so "he gave an ironical smile at the ironic situation".
  • Suggest outlining that Dean Dwelly was Dean of Liverpool, not just some bloke giving out invitations to cathedrals?
  • "there can be no compromise or patched up peace": as it doesn't affect the pronunciation, MOS:CONFORM would advocate for a hyphen in patched-up.
  • After becoming ... After overcoming: can we vary the structure here?
  • He occupied a considerable part of his retirement writing a substantial work of autobiography: I'm not sure the two adjectives really work for prose: advise cutting substantial, as the next clause does a perfectly good job of setting out just how substantial it was. There's also a potentially awkward double-meaning here: does substantial mean "really long" (fine) or "full of wisdom" (not so fine for WP:V)?
  • the posthumous publication of Henson's edited letters were a better legacy: as written, needs to be was, but we might rearrange to make the letters, rather than the publication, the subject.
  • Henson's isolation from contemporary fashions had not diminished his influence: "Its secret lay in things far deeper than contemporary fashions: perhaps look at the repetition?
  • I find it odd in the "Reputation" section that such a controversial figure appears to have nobody willing to say a bad word about him after his death. Is that the case?
  • It seems so. Even the people he battled with such as Gore liked him personally. I daresay that if Welldon had outlived HH he might have struggled to say something complimentary, and some Durham miners probably retained a lasting grudge, but on the whole HH was liked as well as respected. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lloyd George was an agnostic, but was from a nonconformist family, like the majority of Welsh people: needs a slight rephrase (suggest shifting the agnostic bit to the end, and probably dropping the article) -- most Welsh people were not agnostic.
  • Grimley writes that the friendship between Henson and Booker was the basis of a 1987 novel by Susan Howatch, Glittering Images, in which Henson is portrayed as Alex Jardine. In the novel Jardine's friendship with the companion is more than platonic, but Grimley emphasises; suggest cutting as indicated: the part that's opinion is already attributed to Grimley, and we can be more concise in what is a long foonote.
    Done. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely work -- as ever, impressively stylish, learned and readable. I hope the above is useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you – also as ever – for superb contributions. Tim riley talk 12:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your support. Greatly valued. Tim riley talk 13:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

Glad to see this. I'm enjoying reading HHH. As I explained on my user talk page, I've made most of my (off the top of my head) comments at user:Fowler&fowler/HHH FAC. Eventually, I'll write a short paragraph here. I expect to support it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're enjoying the article. I've responded to your comments on your tlak page, and look forward to more. Tim riley talk 11:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion by Fowler&fowler: This is a story, as I see it, of how an unusual kind of religious prodigy was shaped by the economic and social urbanization associated with the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Henson's father, Thomas, had run away from the farm, prospered in London, and then retired to pursue a kind of religious passion or ideal that brought some others, equally passionate, to America. He and his wife had raised six children, all cloistered with no social or scholastic outlets except some home schooling and a library full of cranky religious books. Then his wife died. Thomas remarried three years later, but during the traumatic motherless years, one child, the fourth, aged seven, had become a voracious reader of the library's books and taken to preaching in his nightshirt. His precocity came to be recognized, at first by the stepmother and then by the outer world into which she was to nudge him. This is a story, essentially, of that kind of a boy.
When Tim riley first approached me, I had no idea what I was getting into. I had never heard of Hensley Henson. The last FAC bishop of Tim I had reviewed was a few years ago—an Archbishop of Canterbury. At first sight HH didn't seem that glamorous. But I took the plunge. Helped along by Tim's explanations, both thoughtful and when required humorous, his judicious sense for what material to include and what to not, and strikingly concise and supple prose, I am where I am now. On the basis of what has transpired at User talk:Fowler&fowler/HHH FAC between 16 July and now, I am delighted to to offer support for the article's promotion to an FA. This article is a winner. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler – It's hard to find words to express my gratitude for the work you have put in and for your perceptive and helpful comments. They have led me to rephrase many sentences and add more than 500 words, greatly to the benefit of the article. For that, and for your support here, thank you so much. Tim riley talk 08:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks not done; please ping me if you want them completed.
  • Refs all formatted properly and consistently
  • Additional searches showed no gaps in the references consulted.

A solid pass. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat. I hate doing source reviews and am much obliged for your doing one here. Tim riley talk 13:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pbritti

[edit]

I don't really have the time to do a more in-depth review, but I want to throw my two-cents in considering my background with the 1928 prayer book. If you're interested, Jix's book The Prayer Book Crisis (1928) includes details on Benson's book in support for the Deposited Book (see pages 147 and 148 of Jix's second impression). If you don't have access, I can send you images from my copy. I also have any of the sources you see in articles on the prayer books, should you want to check them for additional material. Having reviewed only the Durham section, I am positively inclined towards this article's promotion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, that's most kind. What I feel would most benefit the section is a footnote summarising what new wording the low-church lobby felt was "popish". If you had time and inclination I'd be glad of some pointers from someone with your specialist knowledge. Jix's book is in the Internet Archive, but the site is playing up at present: I'll certainly have a look later. Thank you so much. Tim riley talk 09:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at addressing the popish question sometime today. Glad to see an outstanding article on a bishop of this period; I hope to give Walter Frere the same treatment someday. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thank you. I've tentatively drafted this, but won't add it unless you think it's OK. Additions, deletions and amendments most welcome:
Evangelicals objected to, among other things, an epiclesis (calling of the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine), and the continuous reservation of consecrated bread and wine.(ref name=s241)Spinks, p. 241–242</ref> Other objections included the wearing of chasubles, prayers for the souls of the dead and changes to the communion service repositioning the Prayer of Oblation, and cutting down the prayers for the sovereign.(ref name=s241/)
I'll consult my copy of Oxford Guide, but from memory, Spinks's chapter supports all this. Because "cutting down" can idiomatically mean "totally annihilate", perhaps swap in "reducing". I'll reply here ~22:00 UTC once I'm back home; currently on an adventure that's seen me on 1, 2, and 3 different train lines, with a scheduled four-hour drive to undo it all this evening. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief! Sooner you than me. And there is no rush whatever - please proceed at your preferred pace. Tim riley talk 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just glanced at my copy. The portion "calling of the Holy Spirit on the elements of bread and wine" is a direct quote from Spinks 241, so feel welcome to slightly adjust it with a wording like "invokes the Holy Spirit to descend upon the communion elements of bread and wine". Otherwise, a fine summary of a ludicrously complex set of theological issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great! Thank you very much. Tim riley talk 09:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

Good evening Mr riley, I trust I find you well? "becoming chaplain of a medieval hospice in Ilford in 1895." Tim, I find the use of "medieval" confusing here. It causes me to think of a type of hospice, rather than one founded or built in a particular period. Which causes the link to be something of an Easter egg. When clicking on it in search of illumination I was surprised to be linked to a specific establishment. I initially thought that I must have mis-clicked. Is the use of the word helpful, or even necessary? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been my fault. What was meant was that the hospice had existed since the Middle Ages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, would "12th-century" do instead? Tim riley talk 06:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would serve splendidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 11:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2024 [40].

Charles William Fremantle

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... one of the most important figures in the history of the Royal Mint. If you're looking for the Charles Fremantle for whom Fremantle, Australia is named, you've come to the wrong place, that was his uncle. But this Charles Fremantle did quite a lot, enough to distinguish himself in a family where there are an amazing number of notable people. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe

[edit]
  • My hopes were raised and dashed for Charles Fremantle!
  • We generally include the "Sir" in bold text in the lede, and don't include The Hon at all (in infobox, but not lede)
  • Royal Mint isn't linked anywhere! Suggest adding in lede and main text at first mention
  • You've a mixture of including "Sir" in name links and not including, suggest standardising by always including it
  • "Hon Sir Henry Brand" per above cmt about "Hon"
  • "appointed deputy master of the Mint" This is the first mention of the Mint, so using the full name and linking it here would be appropriate
  • "from without its walls" interesting phrase! "outside" would be simpler
  • "G.P. Dyer and P.P. Gaspar" note who these people are - historians?
  • Would Sir John Craig deserve a red link?
  • "submitted 6 November 1869" unnecessary repeated year
  • Provide a conversion for the £1,500 salary, and later figures?
  • " from May to July 1870" repeated year
  • "required the deputy master to submit an annual report" a report on what? you say it's helpful but don't really explain why or how
  • "were sent out" not wording I've heard before - would not "contracted out" work?

Craig says, "All but the lightest running repairs had been sent out until that date." I've adopted your language.

  • "gentleman of cultivated taste" according to who?
  • "the coins of earlier in the Victorian era" > "earlier coins of the Victorian era"?
Done, slightly differently.
  • Link Numismatic Society of London
  • "He served as a British delegate" beginning a paragraph with "He" rather than the name is awkward
  • Link Civil Service
  • "and was the boss in a position described as "none too arduous""
A large part of the wonderment at his resignation was that he was the boss, with none to contradict him, since the master of the Mint was busy elsewhere.
  • Do we know when he was appointed JP?
No. I looked.
  • A word or two on what the Charity Organisation Society actually does, if Fremantle is one of the movement Fathers, would be useful
Do you have some thoughts on phrasing? Our article on it is not wonderful.
  • Link Sloane Street
  • "Fremantle's retirement ," accidental space
  • Some discrepancies in your referencing style. Ref. #2, #46, #48 (which should also include the page number used), #50, and #51 would do better as short form references with longer entries in the Sources section
Done, except for the two that go to the ODNB online. I don't think those need page numbers.

That's all I have for now. Will take another spin through later in the process. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've gotten everything except as noted. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pickersgill-Cunliffe, anything further? Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I found this a hugely enjoyable article and look forward to supporting its elevation to FA. A few minor cavils and carps first, more meo:

  • "Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Master of the Mint Thomas Graham" – we could do without the false title
  • "and then entered the treasury as a clerk in April 1853" – if we're capitalising "Royal Mint" (rightly, I believe) we ought, I think, to give H. M. Treasury its caps too.
  • "and Hon Sir Henry Brand, later speaker of the House of Commons" – whether you contract "Honourable" to "Hon" or not it needs a definite article.
  • "and that the Royal Mint would benefit from an infusion of new blood" – I suggest a pronoun instead of "the Royal Mint" would help the prose along here.
  • "someplace closer to the City of London" – "somewhere", rather than "someplace" if we're in BrE.
  • "every Continental mint had updated its equipment, even that in Constantinople, making the Royal Mint the least efficient in Europe" – not clear why Constantinople is singled out here.
From the source, "... the Royal Mint's machinery was more obsolete and inefficient than that of any other mint in Europe, Constantinople included." I don't have access to the memorandum by Fremantle which seems to be the original source. Probably the view of the Turk as somewhat decadent and not very competent.
  • "tied up in treasury and parliamentary red tape" – a good phrase, which I like very much, but I suspect some sobersided editors will think it a little colourful for our ever-so-serious encyclopaedia.
It's difficult to find a phrase which so succinctly sums up the matter, so I'll let it stand for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "De Saulles would go on to design the coinage of King Edward VII before dying in 1903" – reads a little oddly, as though he might have designed it after dying. Something on the lines of "shortly before dying in 1903", possibly?
  • "interdepartmental committees relating to the Civil Service – should the civil service be capitalised if chancellor of the exchequer is not?
It's how I interpret JOBTITLES but would be happy to be wrong as the lower case rendition of such titles looks very strange to me.
  • "Hasegawa Tameharu, who he had met" – "whom", please.
  • "Fremantle's father, Sir Thomas Fremantle, was ennobled as Baron Cottesloe in 1874, entitling his sons to preface their names with 'The Honourable'" – glad to see this bit: I'd been wondering from the outset where the "Honourable" came from. Would you consider adding "later Baron Cottesloe" in the first para of the main text? Just a thought.
  • "Fremantle wed Sophia Smith – the current edition of Fowler calls the use of "wed" instead of "married" "irretrievably naff" in serious writing, and I concur. Fine for tabloid headlines, of course.

That's my lot. Shall look in at the Texas Centennial half dollar article later. Tim riley talk 13:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. All done but for as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley anything more? Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! I grow old, Master Shallow, and forgetful. No, nothing more. Supporting. Tim riley talk 13:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSincccc

[edit]

Lead

  • Sir Charles William Fremantle KCB JP FRSA (12 August 1834 – 8 October 1914) was a British government official...
  • Educated at Eton College, Fremantle entered the Treasury in 1853 as a clerk and served as...

Dropped comma after "clerk".

  • Disraeli's appointment of Fremantle as deputy master of the Royal Mint excited some controversy but was supported by his political rival William Gladstone. More concise version.
  • Fremantle began his time as deputy master under Thomas Graham, the master of the Mint, but Graham died in September 1869, and the Treasury decided the mastership should go to the chancellor of the day, with the deputy master the administrative head of the Royal Mint. Could this sentence be shortened or rephrased for greater accuracy and conciseness?
  • He died in October 1914 months after his eightieth birthday. "Soon" should be omitted in any case from this sentence given that August and October are two months apart.
I've split the sentence you've flagged and I think done the other things you've asked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSincccc, anything more? Wehwalt (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt Apologies for having delayed my decision. I have nothing more to suggest for the time being after having gone through other users' suggestions. Support MSincccc (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Dugan Murphy: pass

[edit]

I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source list

  • I see that two items in the source list have no listed author and that they are alphabetized between themselves before the alpha-first listing with an author name. I think I always see those integrated alphabetically into the rest of the sources, but I also can't find any policy saying that is necessary. Have you thought about this explicitly?
I went back and looked at the last time I remembered having sources that lacked an author, which was New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal. Although all the sources that lacked an author were published by the state, I had alphabetized them and put them before the sources that had an author. That's what I often do, see what was found to be acceptable before. That way you aren't constantly trying to reinvent the wheel.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Journal of the Royal Society of Arts: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume (62) and issue (3230) numbers.
  • Charity Organisation Review: I think it would be appropriate to include the volume number (36).
  • Craig: I think it would be helpful to write out the whole title like it is listed here on WorldCat.
  • I see Cambridge is in the UK and Llantrisant is in Wales. I think either Cambridge should be in England or Llantrisant should be in the UK. London is listed without a country. For consistency, I think that should be added, though I wouldn't stand in your way if you want to leave that one be.
I've added "United Kingdom" after Wales. My understanding is that there is no need to disambiguate major cities such as London.
  • Elliot: I think it's appropriate to include the volume number (45). Also, the publication year doesn't match what's in the link.
It says 1916 on the first page near the bottom. I have to assume that it means what it says. As for the volume number, the title says it's the Forty-fifth annual report, so it might be redundant.
Similar as for the 45th. The title says it is the Twenty-fifth and the first page of the book says 1895 as the publication year.
  • The source list is pretty heavily weighted toward publications over a century old, particularly from the time of Fremantle's death. You can't find more contemporary sources?
No, and that's often the case in such biographies. Contemporary biographical sketches, news mentions, and obituaries often provide detail which later sources lack.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on this list longer than a page is specifically about Fremantle. Have there been no book- or article-length treatments of his life?
No, or I would have obtained and used them.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see every item in the list of sources includes a ref= parameter. Do the in-line citations not work without them? My impression is that this parameter is for sources with no listed author.
I've probably done it this way with well over 100 articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have for now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done as you suggest for each or explained why not.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have! I would consider the above comments resolved. I just have a few more below. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations

I'll do this in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Wikilink for Bristol Evening Post appears to be a newer paper.
  • Royal Mint Museum: Recommend adding an archive link in case the link dies. Same for Debretts.
I just added url-status=live to the archived citations so the original link is featured first. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Telegraph 2024 should be 1914.
  • Shouldn't Debrett's have an apostrophe?
  • I don't see a publication date on Debretts. Where'd that come from?
Similar text is found here. Since there's no doubt about the reliability of the source, I'd rather cite to the more easily verifiable page. Google Books is not available in all countries, and previews may vary.
According to this Google Books link, this ebook was published April 19, 2016. The citation says it was published June 24, 2021. I still don't see where the 2021 date comes from. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that. Not sure how that got in.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laughton/Morriss and Seccombe cite the same publication but are formatted quite differently. I think both should have the publication date and the retrieval date.
  • Liverpool Daily Post: The listed publication date and page number don't match the link.
  • What I said in the above section about the age of the items in the source list I could say about the items listed as in-line citations only, except that these ones tend to lean even more toward primary sources from Fremantle's life. There aren't newer sources for that info?
I did a newspapers.com search since 1950. A few articles mention him in passing in connection with one of his sons, who died in 1952. Every other reference to Charles Fremantle has to do with his uncle.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source check issue

  • "City" is inconsistently capitalized. My feeling is that the only appropriate capitalization is the direct quote.
The capitalizations are to "City of London", which our article on same capitalizes. When used in connection with the Australian place-name, it is lower cased.
I had no idea London was commonly referred to as the City! Never heard that before. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The area known as the City of London is a district of London itself. The financial district, I believe.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

The items in the sources list are all legit-looking journals or books that WorldCat says are held at reputable libraries. I didn't do much of a spot check, but I'll say that in the few instances where I looked at a source to confirm a claim, it was there. I'm not excited about the number of primary sources, but I don't see any being used inappropriately. Save for a few minor issues raised above, the sources seem to me to be consistently formatted. I can't find any obviously comprehensive, book-length treatises on Fremantle's life, so I would have to take it on faith that these sources represent a comprehensive survey. There certainly are plenty of different sources and none of them are unreliable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a most thorough review. I would say that if you are going to have a high-quality article on a person who no one has seen fit to write a book about, then there's an extent to which you have to rely on contemporary sources. The heart of the article is about the Royal Mint, and that is reliant on secondary sources, the two histories of the Royal Mint. I've done the other things you suggested or given my view as to why it is not necessary. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the use of primary sources. My basic internet search didn't bring up anything newer or more scholarly to replace them, but I figured I would ask in the spirit of the review. My only unresolved comment is the one about the date on the Debrett's link. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's done now, many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. This source review is a pass. These were all minor issues. If you have the time and the will, my current FAC nomination could use more eyes. Thank you in advance if you are able to look it over. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to, hopefully this weekend. I'm a bit backed up at the moment and RL is interfering. Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
IB
  • You've got three instances of "U.K.": these should be "UK"
Lead
  • "Whilst" -> "while" (x2 and elsewhere in the article)
Appointment
  • "G.P. Dyer and P.P. Gaspar": spaces between the initials?

That's my lot: scant fare in what is an excellent and interesting article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat, anything more? Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Incoming. 750h+ 12:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • of the work had to wait until 1882, when the Royal remove the comma
  • Fremantle sought to beautify the coinage, and, believing remove the first comma
  • Fremantle began his time as deputy master under remove "his time"
early life and career
  • Charles William Fremantle was born 12 August 1834 add "on" before "12"
  • several officials, successively, Sir William Hayter, Sir William Hylton Jolliffe remove the comma after "successively"
deputy master
  • stating that Fremantle had been chosen for his youth ==> "stating that Fremantle was chosen for his youth"
  • the Royal Mint had been reorganised in 1851, ==> "the Royal Mint was reorganised in 1851,"
  • reductions of staff, and of salaries, proposing i'd remove the comma after "staff"
  • European mints in scientific researches and ==> "European mints in scientific research and"
  • parliament had required the deputy remove "had"
  • These contained detailed information and statistics regarding the Mint's activities. beginning a series that Dyer and Gaspar described as "long and extremely helpful", that would continue for more than a century. the start of the second sentence is incomprehensible; beginning is not capital, and it, despite that, still does not make sense
  • These were published as parliamentary papers, and contained lengthy appendices by Roberts and others. remove the comma
  • for more than a century ==> "for over a century"
  • could be built up prior to the commencement of work ==> "could be built up before the commencement of work"
  • Fremantle, "it is hardly possible to over-rate the advantages ==> "Fremantle, "it is hardly possible to [overrate] the advantages"
  • was George T. Morgan of Birmingham, in response to a remove the comma
  • the Jubilee coinage of 1887, that saw new designs for a number of denominations ==> "the Jubilee coinage of 1887, which saw new designs for several denominations"
  • which bore Boehm's portrait of Victoria and which were engraved by Wyon remove the second "which"
  • He had the Royal Mint's collection catalogued, and the catalogue published. remove the comma
  • that brought a number of members of ==> "that brought several members of"
retirement and death
  • Fremantle retired as deputy master in September 1894, and was succeeded by Horace Seymour. remove the comma
family and honours
  • Order of the Bath (CB) in 1880, and a knight commander of that order (KCB) in 1890. remove the acronyms, as they're not used again; also remove the comma
assessment
  • no problems here.

Fine work, @Wehwalt:. Feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification. 750h+ 12:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done all those or rephrased to avoid except I would leave the acronyms, or postnominals really. KCB is mentioned in the lede and in the infobox and actually in the infobox picture, and since KCB is stated it would be odd not to also say CB.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting 750h+ 16:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Who is the author of File:Horace Seymour.jpeg? Only a few images have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
  • "as deputy master of the Royal Mint. As the chancellor of the exchequer was ex officio master of the Royal Mint beginning in 1870, Fremantle was the executive head of the Royal Mint for almost a quarter century." Is it possible to avoid saying "Royal Mint" twice in the same sentence? And three times in 28 words. Maybe 'Fremantle was the executive head of the organisation ...' or similar? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2024 [41].

Album covers of Blue Note Records

[edit]
Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since its inception in the late 1930s, Blue Note Records has been an influential force in jazz music, with major releases from genre figureheads such as John Coltrane, Miles Davis, and Thelonious Monk under its belt in the mid-20th century. Its presence still stands strong today, with Norah Jones and Robert Glasper taking home Grammys for the label in the 2000s and 2010s. Music aside, Blue Note has also attracted attention for their wonderful album covers, some of which have been noted for their unique Bauhaus-esque compositions and labeled by some writers as being the definitive "look" for jazz as a whole. This article chronicles the history of those covers from the early 1950s to the present day, with commentary revolving around their designs (Andy Warhol did a few!) and their respective designers, particularly Reid Miles.

Courtesy pings to Roy Smith and SchroCat, who kindly left remarks on the article's peer review listing, and Tbhotch, who was the reviewer for the good article nomination. joeyquism (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • Quite an unusual subject around here, but looks interesting (I've just been listening through my old collection of jazz CDs, some Blue Note among them). Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for so quickly taking to reviewing this nomination, FunkMonk! I've addressed your comments below, though I may have also been quite quick to reply, so I apologize if I'm causing any merge conflicts here. Looking forward to reading anything else you may have to say in the future! joeyquism (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One concern I had was whether there are sources that cover this as a single subject, or if it was just stitched together from disparate sources about individual covers, but it does seem there is some wider coverage.
    • Yeah, this is something I initially believed to be the case as well; however, I was elated upon my discovery that there have actually been entire book chapters and articles written about this topic, lol
  • I see a few WP:duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[42]
    • I've installed the script; however, I'm not sure that it's working right now (for me, at least). If you could point me out to what you've seen so far, that would be much appreciated, though I should note that I intentionally double-linked some things in accordance with "Link a term at most once per major section, at first occurrence."
    • Never mind; I only now realized that it's off to the side. I've since resolved the duplicate links, which I now see were inappropriate.
  • Images of people should preferably be aligned so the subject "faces" towards the text, could another Andy Warhol picture be used, or could it be right aligned?
    • Personally, I dislike when every image/piece of media is aligned in the same way, so I'll get to looking for another Warhol picture I just found the mirrored (potentially original?) image on Commons (Andy Warhol1975.jpg). I've replaced it in the article.
Even better if that's actually the original! FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first footnote you only give lastname of the person mentioned, but in the second you give the full name, could be consistent. Talking strictly about the people mentioned earlier in the article already, Hermansader and Miles.
    • Adjusted so that the full name appears in both footnotes.
  • "covers of first eight 12-inch" The first eight?
    • Ah, yeah. Fixed.
  • " by German-Jewish immigrant Alfred Lion.[1] The label initially comprised Lion and American writer Max Margulis" Are their nationalities really necessary here? You don't give it for most other people mentioned in the article. Doesn't really seem relevant to the story either.
    • I feel like indicating where Lion emigrated from is relevant here as it establishes a bit more context, though I do agree that "American writer" is redundant. I've removed the latter, though I may ease up on removing the German-Jewish designation later.
I won't press the issue, but if the Bauhaus connection had some relation to the German origin, I could see a point in it, not so much when it has no significance to the story. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Lion's origin is rather important to the history of Blue Note; many sources emphasize this point as being something unique to Blue Note itself (e.g. Cook p. ix calls the label "little other than two German guys putting out music they loved", Havers p. 22 states that the (fairly obvious) circumstances in Germany during the 1930s "played a significant role in the creation of Blue Note Records", etc.) I think this should be included in the background section, which serves to establish some context for the essence of Blue Note. This might just be a bit of impassioned writing on my part, though I understand your concern here. Nevertheless, I'll keep it in unless others prod me to leave it out. Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the scope of the article is all covers by this label, it seems an oversight that nothing is said about covers from before the late 1940s, if the label produced records already from 1939, which I'm sure must have had some sort of covers? I think something about this is necessary under background at least, how were the pre-late 1940s albums packaged?
    • Unfortunately, I struggled with this issue while writing the article as well. The earliest Blue Note release with an album cover I could find was Sidney Bechet's Jazz Classics Vol 1, which was recorded in 1939 but released in 1951, around when Paul Bacon joined the label. However, while researching in order to address this concern, I've found that prior to September 1950, Blue Note releases were packaged in "plain, mass-produced... paper sleeves" according to page 79 of the Richard Havers book. Not sure of where to include this information as of right now, but if you have any suggestions, feel free to let me know; I'm not exactly looking at this with the freshest of eyes just yet.
Yes, the info you list is exactly what I'm asking for, and could fit well before you introduce Wolff in the Background section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, upon a second read of the excerpt, I'm not sure that this information is applicable, as it makes no explicit mention of Blue Note actually using those paper sleeves; I may have paraphrased it incorrectly while in a drowsy stupor. Here's the part of the text I'm concerned with:

The new format brought with it the additional cost of creating individual album sleeves. These were more expensive than the plain, mass-produced, 78-rpm paper sleeves that were a one-size-fits-all solution. (Havers 2022, p. 79)

I've prepared a revised sentence in the History section that would look something like Prior to September 1950, Blue Note had packaged their records in plain paper sleeves; however, the growing popularity of 10-inch (25 cm) LP records in the late 1940s and early 1950s...; if this information were to be included, I think that the Background section would be a strange location, as to my knowledge such sections should be (within reason) some sort of elaborative text on a topic that encompasses the article's subject rather than the subject itself, akin to the background section of a monument or an album. Let me know your thoughts on this, and I will prune further based on those comments. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think this info could be worked in without "falsely" implying that this is what they necessarily did before. This is my last comment for now, and by coincidence, I'm currently listening to a Jimmy Smith Blue Note album... FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revised as However, with the growing popularity of 10-inch (25 cm) LP records in the late 1940s and early 1950s came an increased demand for detailed album covers with graphics and information, replacing the plain paper sleeves that were previously common. As a result, Wolff's photos would be featured on more of Blue Note's covers after the label began issuing 10-inch LPs in 1951. joeyquism (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was some problems with this which I chimed in on[43], but shouldn't Genius of Modern Music, Vol. 1 be linked at first mention? Pinging Eugenia ioessa as to how this should be done.
  • You don't need to spell out full names after first mention, now you do it at least for Reid Miles and Alfred Lion, could be checked throughout, because now it's inconsistent anyhow.
    • Yeah, it gets a bit hard when it's a barrage of names - I've removed what I saw with regards to duplicated artist first names. I do feel that the style and composition section is a bit weird starting off with "Miles is credited..." rather than "Reid Miles is credited..." because the former makes it sound as if the article is about him (to me, at least). I've removed "Reid" for now, along with other first name duplicates.
  • "and Blue Note founder Alfred Lion" Not sure about presenting him again the second time around, but maybe ok since it's a bit after his first introduction.
    • I feel like this is fair to include.
  • "while the title "Genius Of Modern Music" is written" Not sure, but since this is still the title of the album, shouldn't it still be in italics?
    • I think that since it's more of a reference to the words themselves rather than the work, this should be fine. If that makes sense? Removed this altogether - see below re: "There seems to be some overlap..."
  • "with a then-unknown Andy Warhol" While famous, could still be presented by occupation like most other people you mention.
    • I think "with then-unknown artist Andy Warhol" reads a bit strangely, given that most people in tune with art within the past century would have some idea of who or what Andy Warhol is? However, I also understand that article writers should generally assume that people are reading them to learn everything (at least that's my philosophy to a degree), so I think that this revision can stick, at least for now.
Yeah, you can't be sure that everyone, especially of the younger generation, necessarily know who Warhol was. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Lion's departure, Miles also left" and "After Miles left Blue Note in 1967". I think the date should be given at first mention. As it reads now, the reader first gets the impression that he left the same year as Lion, until reading the following section.
    • I believe that I've covered this with "This frustration, coupled with heart problems, prompted his retirement from the label in 1967. Following Lion's departure, Miles also left...", though if you are referring to a different aspect, please let me know.
This was a mistake on my part, I thought their departures happened different years, but seems they didn't. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, and I apologize for any confusion I may have caused here. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are often supplemented by the photography of Francis Wolff, whose candid black-and-white photographs of musicians at recording sessions appeared on hundreds of Blue Note album covers" This seems to repeat info already stated in earlier sections (except for the photos being black-and-white), could be summarised further or somehow consolidated.
    • Reduced to just "which appeared on hundreds of Blue Note album covers", and added the information about the candid and black-and-white qualities of the photos to the 1951–1956: Early years section.
  • There seems to be some overlap in how you describe styles used between the History and Style sections, which feels kind of repetitive. It seems a bit arbitrary that the styles of some individual covers are described nde rHistory, but others under Style.
    • I'll admit that I didn't like this either, even while writing the article. I've since removed the longer style descriptions of individual covers in the History section.
I'm not sure if all the info should be wholesale removed, but could perhaps be moved to the Style section, if it hasn't already been. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've written it, the style section focuses more on articulating the techniques used on the covers rather than in-depth descriptions of the covers themselves; unfortunately, I feel as if honing in on a few covers more than the others seems a bit unfair and awkward? I tried rewriting the sentence beginning They are generally characterized by their use of bold colors like ochre, vermilion, and indigo... as They are generally characterized by their use of bold colors like ochre and vermillion, as seen on the covers of both volumes of Monk's Genius of Modern Music (1956); however, that would warrant the omission of the mention of indigo, which I feel adds a little more to the idea of "bold colors". Regardless, I will certainly take this comment into consideration for future revisions. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things I'm left wondering are how do the covers of other jazz-producing labels of the time compare to those of Blue Note? Were they different, or did they later mimic the Blue Note style, considering it is here described as "definitive of the visual identity of jazz"? Looking at my Columbia album covers, for example, shows little resemblance to the Blue Note style.
    • I didn't really look too much into the covers of other jazz record labels, as the labels themselves were seldom brought up at all in my research of Blue Note. I would have assumed some apt comparisons would be made had there been any notable covers among the other labels, though I didn't seem to find any.
Alright, if any kind of comparison can be found, it would be nice to add. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly keep an eye out. Hopefully I can find something comprehensive, but if not, I would say "it is what it is" applies here. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In an interview with the Kennedy Center, Blue Note president Don Was noted" You could give date for this and other retrospective statements for context. Especially since you suddenly mention another president of Blue Note.
    • I've added the year of the interview, though I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of this. I apologize.
I basically mean all the retrospective views discussed under Reception and impact, would help their context if you added years to when the statements were published. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my hand at doing this à la the critical reception section of Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion. I think it looks alright; however, I'd like to know your thoughts on this as well. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artist Logan Walters reimagined the album covers of Wu-Tang Clan in the Blue Note style." In what context? An art project? Re-issues of those albums?
    • Revised to "A project by artist Logan Walters featured the album covers of Wu-Tang Clan redesigned in the Blue Note style." Do note that I could not find a single date from a reliable source anywhere; this guy's website states that the project was featured in the New York Times, but after some odd hours scouring the web for this alleged NYT recognition, I couldn't find an article even mentioning his name. Odd, but I think it's still worth a mention.
  • Candid photography should also be linked in the article body.
    • Done.
  • "photos by label executive Francis Wolff" You don't mention that occupation in the article body.
    • I've revised this as "pictures by photographer Francis Wolff". Wolff was a label executive for Blue Note, though I think his role as a photographer is more pertinent here, at it was his profession prior to joining the label and a sort of side-role during his tenure there too.

Hi FunkMonk, thank you for your comments. I've addressed all (or at least I believe I have - it's late where I am and this was my winding-down-before-bed activity) of your comments above and my edits should be reflected in the article. Hope to hear back from you soon. joeyquism (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I've added some answers above, and I should be able to support after your next round of replies. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Hello again! I've addressed your comments above; apologies for any pushback that could potentially be the source of contention. Looking forward to what you may comment next. joeyquism (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me, nice someone is tackling subjects like this. Would of course also be great if some of the for now unsolvable issues might be resolved down the line. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the wonderful comments and your support! Apologies that I wasn’t able to get to Laysan honeycreeper before its promotion; if any of your nominations come up in the near future, I’ll be sure to return the favor of making some hopefully helpful critiques over there. joeyquism (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will take a look at this soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for forgetting about this. Here are my initial comments.
Lead:
  • Para 2: "Miles made approximately 400 to 500 album covers" - I think it may be appropriate to just say "Miles made 400 to 500 album covers" without any loss of meaning (the reader would assume that it's approximate anyway). Ditto for the last paragraph in the 1956–1967: The Reid Miles era section.
  • Para 3: "after his departure, Forlenza Venosa Associates" - You mean after Miles's departure?
Background:
  • Para 1: "Blue Note Records is an American jazz record label, founded in March 1939" - This is relatively minor, but the comma isn't necessary. You could remove it without any loss of meaning.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Epicgenius, thank you for your comments here. I've addressed the ones you've listed so far; looking forward to what you may comment next. Hope you've had a great weekend! joeyquism (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeyquism, thanks, and I hope you're having a good weekend as well. I'll leave some more comments tomorrow, most likely, but so far I'm not seeing too many issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1951–1956: Early years:
  • I noticed this section uses "would" a lot, e.g. "At almost every Blue Note recording session, Wolff would take candid photographs", "the black-and-white photographs would be used infrequently". Is this a conditional "would" (for example, Wolff would take photos if something else didn't come up), or a future-tense "would"? If it's the latter, then I would suggest rephrasing these as past tense. It's not a big deal, but the essay WP:WOULDCHUCK somewhat explains why the future-tense "would" isn't optimal.
  • Thank you for pointing this out to me; I was kind of stubbornly leaving these in because I thought it read a little better, but I see the issue now. I've cut these and replaced with the past tense save for the last sentence, which I feel uses "would" in a way that serves as a lead-in to the next section quite smoothly. Of course, if I'm mistaken here or you have other thoughts on the last matter, please let me know. joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "the textual information and designs featured on the covers were prioritized over the inclusion of images" - So in other words, the images were cut if there wasn't enough space?
  • The source used as a citation for this claim states that "At first, Wolff's photography was used only sparingly in both advertising and on record sleeves. The dictates of design came first, and artists' names, tune titles and whatever else jockeyed for position on the front of an album jacket." There's a bit of a wrench thrown in with the ambiguity of "whatever else" here, but I would assert that your inclination here is correct. I believe I mentioned it earlier in this thread, but one of the first covers I could find was the re-release of Sidney Bechet's Jazz Classics from 1951, which was designed by Paul Bacon - notably, no photography is seen on this cover, but rather an illustration supplemented with some text about the artist and the release itself. Probably original research here, but I hope this at least helps your understanding a bit more. I'll do some rewording if requested by yourself or another reviewer. joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I don't think the info needs to be reworded at this point—I was just wondering about whether they cut the images if there wasn't enough space and if they were prioritizing textual info and designs. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1956–1967: The Reid Miles era:
  • Para 1: "Miles, a fan of classical music, was not interested in jazz, and relied solely on Lion's descriptions of the music on the albums in order to design their covers." - Two things here. "In order" seems redundant here, and the comma before "and" doesn't seem necessary either (the essay WP:CINS explains why).
  • Fixed. I also don't like using "in order" for the reason you mentioned; perhaps the "hit the word count" mentality I subscribed to when writing essays in high school came back to me here. That'll be my excuse here, lol. joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Following Lion's departure, Miles also left, as Liberty's marketing team became more involved in the design process" - Was Miles's departure due to the growing involvement of Liberty's marketing team? Or did they just happen at the same time?
  • Cook states that "Reid Miles, too, stepped away from his design duties as the Liberty marketing people took a larger involvement" - you may also be picking up on the fact that there exists some annoying ambiguity in this source. I understood it to mean that Miles left as a result of Liberty's growing involvement, as the previous paragraphs in the book established that there was already some irritation with Liberty among the higher-ups at Blue Note and I think it would be strange if that somehow wasn't a persistent theme throughout the excerpt, if that makes sense. I'm not sure of a way to more clearly demonstrate causality, but I'll ponder a way of rephrasing it. If anything comes to mind, I would also appreciate your input here if possible. joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1967–present: Post-Miles era
  • I suppose Blue Note didn't use Wolff's photographs anymore by this point.
  • Wolff's photographs were used on some of the covers for re-releases (as briefly mentioned in the style and composition section), but were not extensively featured by any means. Wolff died in 1971 (something I actually contemplated adding, but ultimately gave up on at some point because I felt it to be out of place as this isn't so much a chronicle of the history of Blue Note itself but rather one of the designers and their achievements), and of course you can't take pictures if you can't move your finger to press the shutter button, so by this time photography was mostly outsourced to other people. I'll look around to see if I can find more covers that use his photography from this period, though. joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, do the covers designed after 1967 have any specific themes (like how the 1951-56 covers mostly use photographs by Wolff, for instance)?
I'll comment more on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments, Epicgenius. Looking forward to the rest! Hoping that the next few days are nice and restful for you. joeyquism (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, quick courtesy ping. Hopefully I'm not being too bothersome here. joeyquism (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem @Joeyquism, i actually forgot about this. I'll take a look later today. Epicgenius (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Style and composition:
  • Para 1 - "His covers have been described as belonging to the Bauhaus and Swiss Style movements" - Out of curiosity, which of the sources described his covers like that? I see that the footnote immediately after this sentence cites "Cuscuna, Lourie & Schnider 1995, p. 18; Heller & D'Onofrio 2017; Cook 2003, pp. 88–89." However, it's not clear which source says which.
  • Heller & D'Onofrio describes Miles' body of work as being partially composed of Swiss Style designs, while Cuscuna et al. calls it Bauhaus. Not sure what I got out of Cook; I think I had something in there about Miles not explicitly adhering to one style or system, which evidently I have removed as Cook doesn't really quote Miles on that claim in the book (what's written is "Miles never settled into a particular typeface or system", which is to me simply an assumption made by the author; for all I know Miles could have been fawning over Bauhaus lookbooks). I've since removed the Cook reference there. joeyquism (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1 - "The typography varies between" - Would it be appropriate to say "The typography alternates between", or are the uppercase and lowercase letters used pretty much arbitrarily?
  • I don't think "alternates" is the right word, as it would perhaps suggest that it lOoKs LiKe ThIs, which is not the case; I believe your characterization of the casing being arbitrary is correct. There are instances where it'll look like "EXAMPLE ARTIST NAME example title" (as seen on the covers of Genius of Modern Music, Vols. One & Two), which is mostly what I meant by "varies"; this should be supported by the Cook source that's cited at the end of the sentence. joeyquism (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look at the final section shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it! joeyquism (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had a look at the "reception and impact" section and don't see any major issues. Since everything else in my review has been addressed, I will support this FAC. Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Just a couple from me:

  • You could add the Blue Note logo as an image in the lead. Your call.
  • In the Early years section, “did utilize Wolff's photography”: just “used Wolff's photography” would suffice

Nice piece. It’s a shame the copyright restrictions don’t allow more of the covers to be shown. - SchroCat (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (Addendum: I did most of my heavy lifting at the PR, but these comments are based on a fresh read through at FAC - SchroCat (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Hi SchroCat, thank you so much for your comments! I've gone ahead and implemented both suggestions; let me know what you think about the inclusion of the logo as the lead image. And yeah, I'm bummed out about the copyright too - how much more colorful the article would have been had it not been for fair use limitations. Hope to hear back from you soon, and hope you've had a great week so far. joeyquism (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "In the early 1950s, the LP record format gained popularity, necessitating album covers with graphics and information. " Well, the body of the article seems to say that such covers became popular, not that they became necessary.
Revised to In the early 1950s, the LP record format gained popularity, increasing the demand for album covers with graphics and information. joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second lead paragraph is long, detailed and contains much information. It might be easier on the reader if it were divided.
Agreed; I've split it into two paragraphs. This may be a violation of MOS:LEADLENGTH, though to my understanding those divisions are just suggestions, and the lead itself does not seem that long to me to begin with, even when divided in four. joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blue Note Records is an American jazz record label, founded in March 1939 in New York City by German-Jewish immigrant Alfred Lion.[1] " Why is religion relevant here?
I've cut it down to just "German". joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increased demand for detailed album covers with graphics and information, replacing the plain paper sleeves that were previously common" Would it be helpful to state what the covers were made of? I know it may seem obvious but some people today have never seen an LP.
In the list of relevant sources, I'm unfortunately not seeing any mention of what the newer LP covers were made of. I would say they're usually made of paperboard or cardboard, but I have a feeling that would be OR. If I happen to come across any sources that corroborate this, I'll be sure to add it. joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One of the first noted appearances of Wolff's photographs on a Blue Note album cover was on Wynton Kelly's album Piano Interpretations (1951), which was designed by saxophonist Gil Mellé." What is a "noted" appearance?
A bit of silly and over-elaborative writing on my part. Removed. joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Graphics featuring US president Barack Obama have emulated the designs of the label's covers.[34] " This seems to be a bit unclear. What graphics?
The source used describes them as "portraits", but I am apprehensive about describing them as such because 1. the portraits are only a component of the designs (as seen here) and 2. I have been grilled for the semantics of the word "portrait" in the past. I've chosen to rewrite it as Designs featuring portraits of US president Barack Obama have emulated those of the label's covers; feel free to let me know what you think about this. joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the comments, Wehwalt; I've addressed them above. Looking forward to what you may comment next, and hope you're having a great weekend. joeyquism (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Lead image is missing alt text
  • Generally speaking, the more non-free images are included, the stronger the rationale required for each. At the moment, all have the same stated purpose of use: "The image of the album cover is necessary in order to illustrate the style of the covers of Blue Note Records". This doesn't make it clear why multiple non-free works are required for this purpose (WP:NFCCP#3)
  • Alt text has now been added.
  • Apologies for that; that was sort of a boilerplate purpose statement. I've provided the explanations that I've since appended to each non-free file; please let me know if anything else is needed:
  • For Piano_Interpretations.jpg, I've explained that "The cover of Piano Interpretations is one of the first appearances of Francis Wolff's photos on a Blue Note cover; this cover will be used to provide a visual reference for the early covers of Blue Note and, when displayed alongside other covers, demonstrate how the style of Blue Note's covers evolved over time."
  • For UnaMasDorham.jpg, I've explained that "Designer Reid Miles occasionally arranged typography around the artists in the photographs featured on Blue Note covers; this cover will serve as an example of this technique."
  • For both JoeJacksonBodyAndSoul.jpg and Sonnyrollinsvol2.jpg, I've explained "The cover of Joe Jackson's Body and Soul was inspired by the cover of Sonny Rollins's Sonny Rollins, Vol. 2; this cover will be used to demonstrate the similarities between the two covers."
  • I couldn't find where Andy_Warhol1975.jpg was first published, so I've opted to include a different image (Andy Warhol at the Jewish Museum, gtfy.00025.jpg), this time from the Bernard Gotfryd collection from the U.S. Library of Congress. To my knowledge, the LOC's ownership of this image makes it free from copyright restrictions, and thus makes the image public domain. I'm not sure if this image was used anywhere else prior to 1980; however, the PD designation should cover for this. For reference, here's the new image's listing at the LOC: [44]
Thank you for the review, Nikkimaria. Looking forward to what you may comment next. Thanked. joeyquism (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I think #24 should be pp if it cites more than one page number. I don't think that newspapers need ISSNs. Is there anything to say about what makes the books reliable sources? Are these major publishers? Otherwise the sourcing seems sound, with a caveat that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to pp.
  • Removed ISSN for newspaper sources. I'm curious: is there a specific reason why newspapers don't need an ISSN in citations?
  • I wouldn't classify some of the publishers as major per se (though HarperCollins, Abrams, T&H, and Rizzoli look good to me), but I do acknowledge that all of them are independent of Blue Note Records and, at the very least, not self-published. Regarding reliability, the only potential issue could be with the book co-written by Michael Cuscuna, who himself worked for Blue Note as an archival discographer; however, I didn't find the content to be excessively promotional or biased.
Thanks for the source review, Jo-Jo Eumerus; looking forward to what you may comment next. joeyquism (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am more wondering whether these publishers have a known reputation for quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'll give a run-down of what I've found on each publishing company. I'm not sure what you're looking for in particular with regards to quality, though I've tried my best to justify their reputations (albeit at the cost of conducting some OR, perhaps):
Apologies for the confusion on my end; again, I wasn't entirely sure what quantifies "known reputation for quality" here. I'm hoping that these descriptions at least helped somewhat - if they didn't, please let me know what I did wrong so that I may rectify it. joeyquism (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if Ealdgyth has anything to say about the publishers. Regarding ISSNs, my understanding is that they are for journals and the like, not newspapers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation and calling on Ealdgyth for a second opinion. Hope to hear from you both soon! joeyquism (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ealdgyth: Any further comments here? Apologies in advance for the hurried ping; I just wanted to potentially get some motion on this review. In any case, please do not feel pressured to rush yourselves. joeyquism (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more to say, sorry. These arguments about the publishers seem mostly good for me, with some remaining wondering about the defunct publishers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 August 2024 [45].

Henry Macandrew

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most successful cavalry commanders of the First World War, Sir Henry Macandrew would probably be more widely known if he hadn't accidentally killed himself in a pyjama-related explosion a year after the war ended. A British Indian Army officer, he fought in the Tirah campaign and Boer War before making his greatest impact commanding a division on the Western Front and in the Middle East. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from SC

[edit]

This breaches a few parts of the MOS without seemingly good reasons for doing so, and it would be best if you ensured it's MOS compliant before the reviews start rolling in. The points that caught my eye on a very quick look include:

  • A five para lead (MOS:LEADLENGTH says four at most and an article of this size, is suggests, should be two or three): Four would be acceptable, but not five.
  • Shortened.
  • WP:CITEBUNDLE is probably advisable for the places with four citations, and probably those with three
  • I couldn't figure out how to bundle, something I haven't done before, without breaking a lot of ref templates. I've split out the groups of 3 and 4 references instead.
  • There are two block quotes in the Post war section that shouldn't be block quote – they should be inline as they are less than forty words, but ...
  • Changed.
  • ... they should adhere to WP:ELLIPSIS in regard to the spacing.
  • Changed.

I'll try to return with a full review later. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Added.
  • File:Henry_John_Milnes_MacAndrew.png: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
  • Author died in 1952.
  • Ditto File:Major_General_H_J_MacAndrew_mounted.jpg
  • File:Palestine-WW1-3.jpg: source link is dead
  • I have added the archive link.

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Shortened lede looks good.
  • Macandrew was awarded the India Medal with two clasps and mentioned in despatches This reads as if the medal was mentioned in despatches, which I don't think is the intention; I think was mentioned in despatches and awarded the India Medal with two clasps. would be more clear
  • Done.
  • Macandrew continued in India I know this is technically correct, but it made me think a word was missing. "Continued serving" might be better.
  • Done.
  • Serving in Kitchener's Horse, from February he operated in the Orange Free State. This sentence seems like it'd be clearer if the clauses were reversed; Beginning in February, he operated in the Orange Free State with Kitchener's Horse.
  • Done.

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "the Inverness College". The link here is something of an easter egg, since I don't see the words "Inverness College" in the article linked.
  • I have added a sentence in the article to make the connection.
  • "On 22 November 1889 he was admitted to the Bengal Staff Corps, having completed his probationary period, as a lieutenant and continued with the 5th Bengal Cavalry.[1][4]" I would move "as a lieutenant" to after "Corps", otherwise it seems a bit ambiguous (given he was already a lieutenant).
  • Done.
  • "Macandrew served as brigade transport officer to Brigadier-General Alfred Gaselee's 2nd Brigade" Can we cut the first "brigade"
  • Done.
  • "when he travelled to South Africa to fight in the Boer War." This implies a choice on his part, that he chose to do this rather than being sent. Is this right?
  • The sources don't stipulate one way or the other, it is likely this was an order rather than voluntary. I've changed the wording to make it a bit less wishy washy.
  • I notice time is expressed in this article are given as a.m. and p.m. Given this is a military article, should that be on the 24 hour clock?
  • Liable to confuse some readers I think; the sources also use this format.
  • "surrounding of Damascus " Is "surrounding" the proper term, or something like encirclement?
  • Changed to encirclement, which is what the source actually uses.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Hi, thank you for the review! I've responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, my comments: I was one of the reviewers at A Class and found the article to be very well written. The only issue I have is the presence of a Dates of rank section. The images of the badges of the ranks can cause issues, since the British Army has presumably not released copyright over these. The other problem is that we already mention his promotions in chronological order in the Career section, so adding a Dates of rank section is just a summarization. You already know this, and you included such a section on a trial basis, so you should see what the other reviewers have to say on this. Ian Rose and Zawed can best help out on this, you can tag them and check out what they have to say. The article overall is in a very good condition, and I can support for promotion to FA class after we have comments from other reviewers on the aforementioned issue. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: Hi, I've removed the offending section; if any other reviewers have opinions on it then I'd be interested to hear them, but this isn't a hill I'm even vaguely interested in dying on! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you need to add a link for the Belfast Newsletter reference. Would this link work fine: [46]? I think it will. I took it from the discussion with Dumelow you had linked on the A Class review. Matarisvan (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation from the ACR is still true. The link would need to be provided by someone with a BNA subscription, which I do not have and has lapsed for the editor who added it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you check out the text of the URL? I don't think the link for the article given by a BNA subscriber would be any different from the one posted here. You could ask someone with a BNA subscription to open this link and check out if it loads correctly. Otherwise the URL text reveals as much. Matarisvan (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're probably right. Added link. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support for promotion to FA class. Congratulations on the great article, once it gets promoted it will be the 3rd FA from the Indian milhist category after a long time. Matarisvan (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, setting this up as a placeholder, will do the review tomorrow if that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe Here goes:

  • Suggest adding archive URLs for:

Refs #2, #12, #16, #24, #26, #29, #46, #100, #102, #104, #105 and Robbins 2001.

  • #27, #47, 83, #98, #106: all ok.

Only archive URLs are needed here, once that is done then the source review is a pass.

Would you consider using Cite journal or Cite news instead? Then you can use archive URLs. I understand it would take some time and the London Gazette website will never go down, but prudence never hurts. Matarisvan (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't believe that to really be necessary, but will do it if you think it essential! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, as I said before, the London Gazette website will never go down. The source review is a pass then. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "Macandrew was given command of the 5th Bengal Cavalry, in 1914". Is the comma necessary?
  • Nope, not entirely sure why I put it there!
  • "leading it during the Battle of the Somme and Battle of Cambrai". Should there also be a definite article before "Battle of Cambrai"?
  • Done.
  • "including at the Capture of Damascus and Battle of Aleppo." Similarly.
  • Done.
  • "... as General Staff Officer Grade 1 of the 1st Indian Cavalry Division. Soon afterwards he was promoted to become Brigadier-General General Staff for ..." Per MOS:JOBTITLE, both ranks should have lower-case initial letters.
  • Had caught these in the main text but apparently not the lede! Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, thanks for helping me clean up those errors! Responses above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2024 [47].

Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fourth nomination, following the Aston Martin DB9, Aston Martin Rapide and the Lagonda Taraf; the former two have both been promoted whilst the latter is awaiting its promotion. This article is about the 2012 Aston Martin Vanquish, a gorgeous car based upon the now 20 year old platform of the DB9. I believe this article is well written and well sourced. Enjoy the read! 750h+ 08:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Arconning

[edit]
  • File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish, skyfall silver.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:2015 Aston Martin Vanquish, rear left (Lisbon).jpg - CC-BY-SA 3.0
  • File:2014 Aston Martin Vanquish Volante 5.9 V12 (52055905516) (cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
  • File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato VH319Z.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:2017 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Rear.jpg - CC BY-SA 4.0
  • File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, front left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:2019 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Shooting Brake no 73 at Greenwich 2019, rear left.jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, front right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • File:2018 Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato Speedster in Golden Saffron, rear right (Greenwich 2019).jpg - CC BY-SA 3.0
  • All images have good alt-text and are relevant to the article.
  • The six images under the section of "Vanquish Zagato" seem formatted well.

Support on image review. Arconning (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review, Arconning. 750h+ 12:58, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, anytime. Arconning (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse, with adequate justification.

  • Is the promotional quote at the start of the History section necessary?
removed
  • Much of the first paragraph of the history section seems tangential: a succession of "at [date] [car show], Aston Martin unveiled the [car]" isn't very useful. What do they have to do with the 2012 Vanquish?
its background. Ive split that off.
  • "At the 2012 edition" month?
added
  • Is the Concorso's location needed?
removed
  • There seems very little discussion of the original Vanquish
its a completely unrelated car; in the car industry, same nameplate does not equal related car
  • "Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept. In June 2012, the company announced that the production version of this concept" lots of "concept"ing going around; prose should be tighter.
fixed
  • "and succeeding the DBS." succeeding as what?
it replaces the DBS. ive specified that
  • "The Vanquish debuted at several events" I was under the impression that a debut happens once.
changed to “showcased”
  • " of the coupe" the WP:ELEGVAR isn't helpful, especially as the car hasn't been called a coupe yet.
changed to “car”
  • A rather abrupt jump between "manufacture began" and "production ended", six years apart. Also seems like the variants would be better suited as subsections of "History"
I have moved this. It is a short section though. Not much is available on the convertible, so i don’t believe the latter suggestion is necessary
  • "the fourth generation of the vertical/horizontal platform" this platform has been linked before, and I still don't know what it is (MOS:NOFORCELINK)
is this better?
  • "which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter...was enhanced by 25 per cent" compared to?
fixed
  • There are four occurences of "The Vanquish features...", including two at the start of paragraphs, which makes the section feel slightly too promotional.
removed
  • WP:NOTSTATS says: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing". This is the case for too much of the "Design and technology" section. Can you explain the necessity of the following statistics, and how do they compare in context with other cars:
    • The length and piston-number of the callipers
removed that
    • The ... something of the tyres (I have absolutely no clue what "255/35R20" is supposed to mean)
removed that too, really isn’t necessary
    • The individual fuel consumption ratings for city driving, highways, and combined (shouldn't the last be sufficient?)
agreed, removed the other two
    • The engine's power/torque output
every article on a car should have those stats
  • Is there nothing about the visual similiarities/differences with other cars? This source takes that line.
comparisons with other cars generally aren’t helpful. Plus, the source provided just includes its predecessor and its concept
  • "hand-stitched leather and Alcantara" where on the car
explained via footnote
  • The tenses need a look: see e.g. the switch in "Its maximum speed remained unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds.
  • "Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) more massive more than its predecessor, the DBS Volante." Fair few points: the Vanquish is ... heavier than the Vanquish? "more massive more"? what's the difference between heavier and more massive? My understanding was that they were the same on Earth.
mistype; fixed
  • "The convertible top of the Volante ... operates in fourteen seconds" this is annoyingly imprecise: obviously you mean that it takes fourteen seconds to open and close, but instead the article just says it "operates", which could mean anything.
specified
  • "The car's boot space has been significantly increased over the Vanquish coupe, with a capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft)" the article doesn't actually say what the Vanquish coupe's boot space is, only that its cargo space is nearly 100 litres larger than the convertible.
done
  • It would be better to move the sentence talking about dealing with added weight to immediately follow the sentence talking about said extra weight.
(refer to above)
  • Tenses again awry in the "Vanquish S" subsection
fixed
  • "an optional "graphics packs""?
removed
  • Is the Palmer quote needed?
I think its a nice add-on
  • Nothing about what differentiated the Zagato edition, aside from it being a collaboration?
Ive added some characteristics.
    • It is also the first and only section which talks about units produced. Is there nothing in the sources about corresponding figures for the other models?
Nope, unfortunately
  • Why does the "Variants" section talk about when "deliveries began", while the "History" section mentions when "manufacture" began and "production" ended? Are they the same thing?
Manufacture/production means when the first units rolled out of the production line. Deliveries is when the cars got delivered to the customers
done
  • "Reviewers and automotive publishers mostly praised the Vanquish's opulent exterior and interior." gives the impression that the following paragraph is going to be about the opulence, but this is not the case. See WP:RECEPTION for how to better organise a section.
removed.

For the current state of the article, I'm going to note a weak oppose. The lack of preparation for FAC is clearly evident through the varying levels of focus, prose issues, and general absence of polish. The good news is that it's not a bad article by any means, and is fairly short, so not hard to improve. To the nominator: if you want me to have another look, ping me when you're sure all issues (including ones not mentioned) have been fixed, and I'll have another (final) look. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will need some time to fully address the comments; might be a small wait 750h+ 14:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I believe I have addressed all your comments. I hope we can strike that oppose! Personally I don't think it's as bad as thought, I just think there's a lot of car jargon which may be confusing to non-car people. 750h+ 15:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: ? 750h+ 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: we’ve had another reviewer support; I hope now the article looks better 750h+ 23:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the above and a request on the WP:DISCORD, the article looks improved, but for me the prose, especially in the "Design and technology" section, remains too stilted and stop-start for my liking. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think I see much wrong; I don’t think differs from my previous works. Any specific examples? 750h+ 12:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did do a light copyedit, if that helps improve the natural tone 750h+ 12:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS

[edit]

I'll have a look!

Lead

  • "a presentation to a group of guests at the London Film Museum" → this is the only one of the three events in the sentence that doesn't have a month - recommend mentioning July as you do in the body
done
  • "with deliveries initiating in late 2013" → simplify wording, change "initiating" to "starting" or "beginning"
done
  • "performance, whilst a more significantly" → recommend eliminating "whilst" and breaking this sentence there (especially since "whilst" implies simultaneous events and these two events happened two years apart)
done
  • "comprising" → doesn't really fit with "various body styles" so I'd recommend using a different word there
fixed

History

No notes.

Design and tech

  • "Its structure" → the car's structure or the VH platform's structure?
fixed
  • "from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide" → serial comma is used earlier in the article but not here; either way is fine but this should be consistent
fixed

Variants

  • "Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance Aston Martin" → add comma before "Aston"
done
  • "maximum speed remained unchanged," [past tense] "but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds" [present perfect continuous]
fixed
  • "which is crafted of triple-layer fabric" → sounds a little advertisement-y, maybe "made of"?
done
  • "The transmission response time was improved. The Vanquish S also features" → another tense shift
fixed
  • "composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres" → another instance of no serial comma
fixed
  • "At the 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May" → maybe "At the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este" for simplicity?
done
  • "deliveries were also initiated in 2017" → for simplicity and changing the passive voice, maybe "deliveries also started in 2017"
done
  • "of the series—the" → recommend comma rather than dash
done

Reception

  • "bewitchingly beautiful always"." → since the whole sentence is in quotes, you can move the full stop inside the quote marks
done

That's what I've got, nice work as always. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: thanks for the comments, appreciated as always! 750h+ 23:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PCN! 750h+ 23:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Mike Christie

[edit]

I know a spotcheck isn't technically needed, but I thought I'd check a few since I found some spotcheck issues in a recent GA by 750h+. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FN 54 cites "In August 2014, Aston Martin introduced technical updates to the Vanquish model. The modifications included a new eight-speed automatic transmission, known as 'Touchtronic III', and an upgraded engine. The upgraded engine produces 424 kilowatts (576 PS) and 630 newton-metres (460 lbf⋅ft) of torque, sufficient to give the car a 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds; its maximum speed remained unchanged." Some of these details don't appear to be in the source: the August date, for example, and the power and torque figures. The 3.6 seconds time is for accelerating to 60 mph, not 62 mph. The maximum speed did in fact increase according to the source.
  • FN 65 cites "Its power output was increased to 595 horsepower (444 kW) whilst its torque output was increased to 630 newton-metres (465 lb⋅ft). Aston Martin improved the response time of the transmission. The Vanquish S also features a new body kit composed of exposed carbon fibre, diamond-turned alloy wheels and carbon bonnet louvres. The seats are upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." The source says the torque was unchanged. A couple of phrases are repeated: "a new bodykit in exposed carbonfibre" is in the source -- I don't think I know what a bodykit is, but if it just means bodywork then this could be rephrased a little more. Some of the phrases that are repeated would be pretty hard to reword -- e.g. "carbon bonnet louvres". However, if I understand the source correctly, some of the items listed are options, so we shouldn't phrase this as though they were standard -- e.g. the Bridge of Weir Caithness leather.
  • FN 29 cites "Compared to the DBS, the torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent due to the incorporation of a carbon fibre subframe and a large, extruded cross-member." Verified.
  • FN 62 cites "Its maximum speed remains unchanged, but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds. Weighing 1,844 kilograms (4,065 lb), the Vanquish Volante is 105 kilograms (231 lb) heavier than the coupe and 34 kilograms (75 lb) heavier than the DBS Volante. The convertible top of the Volante, which is made of triple-layer fabric, can open in fourteen seconds. The car has a boot space capacity of 279 litres (9.9 cu ft). The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight. As with the coupe, its standard three-stage adaptive damping system offers normal, sport, and track modes, which also adjust the electronic stability control and throttle response." Verified.
  • FN 31 cites "The Vanquish features anti-roll bars and double wishbone suspension supported by coil springs." Verified.
  • FN 73 cites "Aston Martin debuted the roadster version—called the Vanquish Zagato Volante—at the 2016 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance". Verified, but the source says "convertible" rather than "roadster"; can you confirm that the two terms are interchangeable in British English?
  • FN 27 cites "The car's structure, which is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, is composed of aluminium whilst its bodywork is made of carbon fibre." The source has "the aluminium structure is clothed in an all-carbonfibre body (30% stiffer and lighter too)". This is difficult to rephrase, so I'm not to concerned about the similarities here, but can we be sure the "stiffer and lighter" refers only to the alumninium? It seems it could be referring to the carbon fibre, or even to both.

A couple of problems identified; I think this will need another spotcheck after these are fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GA you reviewed was from a while back (the reason i opened the GA was mostly to see the results), not even i thought it was a good article. Anyways here are my responses
  • 54: I removed “August”. 0-60 is about the same as 0-62.
  • 65: a bodykit is not the same as bodywork. other concerns should be fixed
  • 73: convertible is more understandable, so i have changed that.
  • 27: the DBS, the Vanquish’s predecessor did not use carbon fibre in its construction, so it would most likely be talking about the aluminium. I’ve reworded this.
You can do another spot check if necessary. 750h+ 15:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's reassuring to hear that the GA wasn't characteristic of your work, though I think most GA reviewers would prefer it if the nominator checked any old articles reasonably thoroughly before nominating them. Anyway, I agree these issues are not so concerning. I've struck out most points above, but I think there are still issues with the first one -- please take a look. When that's done I'll do another spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed 750h+ 23:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article still says the maximum speed remained unchanged. Yes, 60 and 62 are very close, but I don't think we can use one to cite the other. Those are the only two points remaining from this spotcheck. I'll go ahead with the second spot check, probably first thing tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed 750h+ 02:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second spotcheck. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • FNs 75 & 76 cite "At the 2017 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance, Aston Martin unveiled the Vanquish Zagato Speedster; 28 units were manufactured." Verified; optional, but you might move FN 75 to the end of the sentence. FN 76 does verify those last four words, but it's going to be easy for that citation to get detached since it's after the following sentence.
  • FN 45 cites 'John Simister of the newspaper The Independent criticised the car's two small rear seats, describing them "largely pointless", but he noted that the engine sounded "magnificently crisp and rich"'. Verified.
  • FNs 17 & 18 cite "At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 Concept." Verified, but should "Concept" be capitalized? It doesn't seem to be in the sources.
  • FN 4 cites "The car's aluminium structure remains largely unchanged from the DBS, DB9 and Rapide, except for a redesigned front-end that is significantly lighter. This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS." The source has "the aluminum structure remains largely the same as the DBS’s (and DB9’s and Vantage’s and Rapide’s), the front-end structure is significantly lighter and is redesigned to allow the engine to mount 0.7 inch lower than in the DBS". I think this is too close a paraphrase.
  • FNs 55 & 56 cite "The Vanquish's interior incorporates a tilt-telescoping steering wheel, bi-xenon headlamps, LED tail-lights, hand-stitched leather and Alcantara, power front seats with memory, and cooling and heating systems. Its connectivity features include Bluetooth, satellite radio and compatibility with USB and iPod. Other standard features include a thirteen-speaker Bang & Olufsen sound system." I don't see that it says "hand-stitched" anywhere on these pages, and I can't see any mention of iPod connectivity, though I might easily have missed both.

I'm going to stop there and not pass or fail this spotcheck; I'll leave it up to the coordinators to decide if they want to pursue this any further. The close paraphrasing I found this time is not terrible but I think it could be done better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"hand-stitched" and "iPod" removed, "Concept" decapitalised and close paraphrasing fixed too. 750h+ 12:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: (in response to Mike Christie’s comment) 750h+ 13:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the issues don't seem to be too grave, the article still needs to be free from any discrepancy for it be considered for promotion. 750h+, I recommend that you go through the entirety of the sources again and once you're done, another spot-check should be done (by Mike if he's up for it or by someone else). FrB.TG (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Will do. 750h+ 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie: i’ve gone through all of the sources. (If you’d like) another spot check can be performed or I can ask another editor. 750h+ 15:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken on quite a bit of other work and would rather not add this, so I suggest adding it to the request list on WT:FAC for someone else to pick up. Might be as well to get a different pair of eyes on it anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will look at this later. The nominator asked me to take a look on my talk page, but the comments I'll be leaving shortly are entirely my own. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish is a grand touring car produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin." - This wording makes it sound like the second generation is a grand touring car (whereas the first generation isn't), even if this is not the case. I suggest rephrasing to "The second generation of the Aston Martin Vanquish, a grand touring car, was produced between 2012 and 2018 by the British automaker Aston Martin."
  • Para 2: "previewed by a concept car called the "Project AM310"" - I don't know how it is in British English, but in American English that would be a very strange way to use the word "previewed". Usually we'd just say that the Vanquish's prototype was the Project AM310.
  • Para 2: "The Vanquish is based upon the same architecture of the DB9," - I would condense to "The Vanquish is based upon the DB9's architecture," since "same" is redundant here.
  • Para 3: "A more significantly modified version, called the Vanquish S, was launched in 2016" - Could you mention a few examples of these modifications?
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all addressed. 750h+ 15:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History:
  • In general, there are a lot of sentences that begin with "In [Date]". E.g. " At the 2005 edition", "In 2007", "At the 2012 edition", "In June 2012". If there aren't any other historical details that you can add, then I suggest mixing up your sentence structure. For example, you can put the date at the end of the sentence (such as "Aston Martin unveiled the DB9, a model initially designed by Ian Callum and completed by Henrik Fisker, at the Frankfurt Motor Show in 2004"). Alternatively, you can rephrase to avoid unnecessarily repeating the year. For example, "In June 2012" can be "That June", since the previous sentence already mentions June.
  • Para 1: I notice that the DB9, Vantage, and DBS are mentioned, but the Vantage isn't further elaborated upon in the text. How does the 2012 Vanquish relate to the Vantage?
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both addressed. The Vantage relates to the Vanquish in the way that they are both based upon the VH platform. The VH platform is used by the Rapide, DBS, DB9, Vantage, Vanquish, and a few others. Using this platform means that the cars share a significant number of their parts. I didn’t mention the Vantage later because there wasn’t need to. 750h+ 03:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Design and technology:
  • Para 1: "The torsional rigidity of the car was enhanced by 25 per cent in comparison to its predecessor" - Why not "The car has 25 percent more torsional rigidity than its predecessor" or something like that?
done
  • Para 1: "This allows the engine to be mounted 0.7 inches (18 mm) lower than in the DBS" - Out of curiosity, does this contribute to the weight or stability of the car at all?
didn't find any sources, most just gave the height change.
  • Para 2: "It is a two-door coupe available in both two and four-seating configurations" - I would add a hyphen after "two", since this is short for "two-seating". I.e. "two- and four-seating configurations".
done
  • Para 2: "a convertible version, known as the "Volante", was also produced" - Also in two- and four-seat configurations?
done
  • Para 2: "according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi)" - I'm thinking this could be split out into its own sentence. When I first read this, I accidentally read it as "fuel consumption" rather than "fuel economy"; splitting the sentences would make it clear that these are two separate figures.
done
  • Para 3: "give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration of 4.3 seconds" - As an American, this is worded strangely. Usually we say "allow the car to accelerate from 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) in 4.3 seconds" or something similar. However, I know this might be different in other parts of the world.
I don't think it matters too much
  • Para 3: The above also applies to "sufficient to give the car a 0 to 97 km/h (60 mph) acceleration time of 3.6 seconds".
above
  • Para 4: "power front seats with memory" - Does this mean that the car will automatically adjust the position of the front seat, based on where it was positioned previously?
yep
More shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All done; thanks for the comments! 750h+ 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Epicgenius: hope you didn't forget about this! 750h+ 11:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @750h+, I was unable to take a look over the past two days because of real-life work. I can look at this soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay. Thanks 750h+ 13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanquish Volante:
  • "deliveries began in late 2013" - Perhaps this could be split out into its own sentence. Alternatively, you could reword this as "Aston Martin debuted the Vanquish Volante—the convertible version of the Vanquish—at the 2013 edition of the Pebble Beach Concours d'Elegance,[59][60] and it began deliveries late 2013." As it is, the phrase "deliveries began in late 2013" seems like it doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence, especially since this is passive voice, whereas the rest of the sentence is active voice. However, this is just a recommendation.
done
  • "The suspension system was adjusted to accommodate the added weight." - I feel like it would be better to place this sentence directly after the sentence about the vehicle's weight, rather than three sentences afterward.
done
Vanquish S
  • "The seats can be upholstered in Bridge of Weir Caithness leather." - For clarification, this is a modification offered by Aston Martin themselves, right?
yep
Vanquish Zagato
  • "Introduced at the May 2016 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este, the Vanquish Zagato Concept was a collaboration between Aston Martin and the coachbuilder Zagato." - The end of the sentence has a MOS:SOB issue. I would reword it so it's clear that "coachbuilder" and "Zagato" are separate links, e.g. "the coachbuilding company Zagato".
done
  • "On June 21, 2016, Aston Martin announced plans to produce the Vanquish Zagato in a limited series of 99 units ... deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced" - Depending on how this is interpreted, it's either confusing or repetitive.
The former were Aston Martin's initial plans, the latter were what actually gave to fruition
@750h+: Okay, in that case I would make it more clear that the original plan differed from what actually happened. Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like Aston Martin initially wanted to produce 99 Vanquish Zagatos, but ultimately produced 99 Vanquish Zagato Volantes, 28 Vanquish Zagato Speedsters, and 99 shooting brakes?
yep, and also 99 coupes
  • Also, is there a difference between these three?
body styles (as pictured in the multiple images template)
Discontinuation:
  • This is a fairly short section. Is it possible to merge it with one of the sections above, e.g. History?
Airship said that it went a bit quickly from production commencement to discontinuation, so I think it's best left like that
I will review the Reception section shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: ? 750h+ 11:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the reception section and don't see any major issues. I had one minor issue.
  • Per WP:WHYCITE, I would recommend that you add a citation at the end of each quote, even if multiple quotes are cited to the same source. For example, the first two sentences of paragraph 2 contain two quotes from Mike Duff. I would put the reference after both sentences 1 and 2, instead of after sentence 2 only. Same goes for the first two sentences of paragraph 1.
That is a relatively minor point, and other than that I support this FAC's promotion. Epicgenius (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for the review! 750h+ 23:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck by Phlsph7 - pass

[edit]

I saw that this article needs one more spotcheck since the first one by Mike Christie was inconclusive.

  • ...and an appearance at the Monterey Car Week in August.[26] supported by Jurnecka 2012
  • The Vanquish's aluminium structure is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor, and its bodywork is made of carbon fibre.[27] supported by Pollard 2012
  • ...according to the Sunday Times, the car has a fuel economy rating of 298 grams per kilometre (16.9 oz/mi).[48] supported by the Sunday Times.
    However, is "fuel economy rating" the right word or should this say "CO2 emission" or something similar instead? My knowledge of car metrics is quite limited so it might be good to check which technical term is correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fuel economy rating is usually used 750h+ 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly asking because our article Fuel economy in automobiles uses the units "kilometer per liter" and "miles per gallon" for fuel economy while we use "gram per kilometer", which confuses me. Is there a different sense in which the term "fuel economy rating" is used to measure CO2 since the source says "CO2: 298g/km"? My background in the relevant terminology is weak so I might need your help to untangle this confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try explain this best I can. The term "fuel economy rating" typically refers to how efficiently a vehicle uses fuel, measured in units like kilometers per liter or miles per gallon. On the other hand, CO2 emissions are usually measured in grams per kilometer. In the Sunday Times article, it seems they are referring to the car's CO2 emissions when they mention "298 grams per kilometer". I have changed it to CO2 emission-rating if that makes it more understandable. 750h+ 12:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...The vehicle was initially available exclusively with a six-speed 'Touchtronic' automatic transmission manufactured by ZF Friedrichshafen.[53] supported by Siler 2014
  • Aston Martin introduced the Vanquish S, an updated version of the Vanquish, at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November 2016.[63][64] supported by both The Verge and Los Angeles Times.

More later. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Andy Palmer, the chief executive officer of Aston Martin, stated that the Vanquish S "[took] things a step further, confidently asserting itself within the Aston Martin range and distinguishing itself from the new DB11".[67][68] supported by both The Irish News and Kingston 2016a
  • deliveries were also initiated in 2017 and 99 units were produced.[75] supported by Kingston 2016b
  • Jeremy Clarkson, a prominent automotive journalist and television presenter, appreciated the car's styling, noting that "it's a lovely car [...] flowing and smooth when you want it to be, raucous and mad when you don't and utterly, bewitchingly beautiful always." Clarkson also praised its "delightful" interior, though one of his colleagues, A. A. Gill, disagreed, complaining that "it's like being in one of those executive-desk drawer dividers [...] I feel like I’m a roll of Sellotape".[81] supported by "2015 Aston Martin Vanquish". The Sunday Times
  • Mike Duff of the magazine Car and Driver stated that the interior of the Vanquish S features "beautiful materials and [an] elegant design[,] mostly distracting occupants from the reality that there really isn't very much to play with". Duff also held concerns with the Vanquish's usage of the VH platform, noting that "there's plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price]".[84] supported by Duff 2016
    For the second quote, I would suggest including the last part of the quote (without the initial "there's") to make it clearer to the reader that he is talking about things missing, i.e., ...noting that "plenty of the stuff you'd find on a mainstream car costing a tenth of the [price of] a Vanquish S just isn't there"
done
  • At the 2005 edition of the Geneva International Motor Show, Aston Martin debuted the Vantage, a sports car designed by Callum and Fisker.[12][13] the part about the motor show is covered by "Global convergence under way in the automotive world" The Los Angeles Times, the part about the design is covered by Vale 2022, p. 444.

More later. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the 2012 edition of the Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este in May, Aston Martin revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 concept.[17][18] supported by Kozak 2012 and Lindberg 2012a
  • The Vanquish, designed by Marek Reichman,[28] supported by "The brains behind the world's most beautiful cars". The Windsor Star.
  • Length 4,720 mm (185.8 in)[4] supported by Gall 2012.
  • Model code AM310 supported by "Aston Martin reveals AM 310 Vanquish". Calgary Herald.
  • The first vehicles were delivered in early 2017.[73] supported by "Aston Martin Vanquish Zagato coupe is go". Bangkok Post.

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spots checks look fine. There is only terminological doubt to be resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be addressed. 750h+ 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for this Phlsph! 750h+ 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "The Vanquish's aluminium structure is thirty per cent stiffer and lighter than that of its predecessor," The predecessor being the DBS?
yep
  • "but its 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) acceleration has been changed to 4.2 seconds" Is there a reason not to say "has decreased"?
changed
  • "Jeremy Clarkson, a prominent automotive journalist and television presenter," Is this how the source describes him?
nope, i've removed that
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, Wehwalt, all have been addressed! 750h+ 17:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! 750h+ 01:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request; I see Mike Christie's comments above but I'll do one on request only. What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none? Also it doesn't seem like the article titles are shown consistently. What makes the books cited and Edmunds.com reliable sources? "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive" is throwing a "not used" error. If Car and Driver is a magazine, why is it in the websites section? Road & Track, Motor Trend, Car (magazine) and Autoweek too seem to be misplaced there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "What is the logic behind giving some page numbers in the "References" section a link to Google Books and others none?", the ones with Google Books links are actually books, whilst the ones with page numbers that don't link to Google Books are magazines. Edmunds is reliable; it has been used by other FAs and has been used by the New York Times here and here, and the books are reliable; James Taylor is a journalist who has written for Car and has also written various books; Andrew Noakes has written for several car magazines; and Matthew Vale has written many books and magazines like Classic & Sports Car. All of these books were reliably published. I have removed "Aston Martin Vanquish S Volante 2017 first drive". The magazines listed in the "magazines" section are print magazines; the others are online magazines. 750h+ 15:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, is this one done? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda question whether online vs not online is an useful distinction for magazines, but that's a knitpick. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed "Websites" to "Online magazines and websites" and I've changed "Magazines" to "Print magazines" if that helps. 750h+ 09:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Number 54129

[edit]

Oppose on principle  :) Mike Christies' spot check was holding me off reviewing, but since that and the lesser source review seem to be satisfactorily resolved, I'll comment. I can understand Jugleman's point up there, and looking at that version, I'd probably say much the same. But—and possibly reflecting my own view of great writing—it is now greatly improved; smoother, less repetitious, and more flowing. Just a few suggestions, then.

  • Why is the VH platform in "double quotes"? Per MOS:DOUBLE. The main article doesn't use them.
removed
  • Could "revealed a concept car called the Project AM310 concept" be tweaked to "revealed a concept car called Project AM310"? It's tighter and loses the 'concept' repetition.
done
  • Again, quotes? "Vanquish"
done
  • Warks doesn't need mentioning with Gaydon again.
done
  • "is based upon Aston Martin's "vertical/horizontal" platform" > "is based upon Aston Martin's VH platform", as it's already been fully introduced under the long name.
done
  • "the Sunday Times" I think "The" is part of the title: the general rule is to follow the name of the publication as it actually appears on the masthead. Same with "the Boston Globe" later.
both done
  • Purely to help those using AmEng and BrEng, could "boot be linked to Trunk (car)?
done
  • "Aston Martin debuted the Vanquish Volante—the convertible version of the Vanquish—at" > This has already been mentioned back there; perhaps that first mention was superfluous, and this is the place to introduce the Volante.
done
done
  • So there were three different versions of the Zegato produced, all in limited batches of 99? Could these sentences be melded together somehow? ATM, they all seem to say more or less the same thing with a different car name.
i don't think i can meld them all together, but i added a sentence at the start if that makes it more understandable
That's pretty much it. On a second read, I see even less issue with the prose. It's neutral, sufficiently critical to swerve fandom neatly, and very readable even for those of us who don't know their gasket from their overflow. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 17:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, all i believe have been addressed 750h+ 23:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great article, obviously support. SerialNumber54129 08:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! 750h+ 09:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 August 2024 [48].

Susanna Hoffs

[edit]
Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Hoffs is probably best known as a member of popular music group the Bangles; she co-wrote their hit "Eternal Flame". Her cinematic career has been less successful than her musical endeavours, which have included several solo albums and collaborations. In 2023 her novel This Bird Has Flown was well-received by critics. All suggestions for improvements to the article are appreciated. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • Considering, as per the "Early life" section, her middle name is "Lee", why isn't this mentioned in the lead ("Susanna Hoffs (born January 17, 1959) is an American singer, guitarist," ==> "Susanna Lee Hoffs (born January 17, 1959) is an American singer, guitarist,")
  • Following tensions and resentment of Hoffs's perceived leadership, the band split in 1989, reformed in 1999 and released albums in 2003 and 2011. add a comma after "1999".
  • and formed the faux British 1960s band Ming Tea, with Mike Myers and Matthew Sweet comma unneeded
early career
  • with sisters Vicki and Debbi Peterson, and shared a house should there be a comma?
the bangles
  • recounted that she had been looking at selected members of the crowd, to counter is the a comma needed?
  • He attended some of the group's concerts, and occasionally comma needed?
solo career
  • Prior to leaving Columbia Records, Hoffs Change "prior to" to "before" for conciseness
  • Hoffs's fourth studio album, was release on Baroque Folk Records in 2021. change "release" to "released".
  • The album includes interpretations of the Rolling Stones, Squeeze, Lesley Gore and received should have an "and" before Lesley Gore.
other collaborations
  • The trio made a number of club and TV... change "a number of" to something like numerous/several/many

that's all from me. solid work. 750h+ 10:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, 750h+. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 750h+ 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • Per MOS:ROLEBIO, we should only use her most notable roles, which I think is American singer-songwriter and actress and the other sundry roles can be listed in the infobox (which they already are).
  • and number one "Walk Like an Egyptian" -- and number one single
  • included the US top-ten hit -- we should avoid using terms like "hit"
  • and released albums in 2003 and 2011. -- perhaps the albums can be named here, as it appears that have wiki articles.

Started looking at the lead for now. Will endeavor to complete over the weekend. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the lead per the points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes on the lead looks good. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • She is the couple's only daughter; they also have two sons John and Jesse -- I think a colon is needed after sons
  • and noted that while her mother was religious and kept kosher, -- and said that while her mother...
  • Her maternal grandfather Ralph Simon was a rabbi in Chicago and her maternal uncle Matthew Simon was rabbi emeritus -- Her maternal grandfather, Ralph Simon, was a rabbi in Chicago and her maternal uncle, Matthew Simon, was rabbi emeritus
  • she and then-boyfriend David Roback (a former schoolmate from Palisades High School) -- I think you can remove the parenthethical and use commas instead
  • She said that the first real performance was with the Bangles -- I would link this first instance of the Bangles, and remove the link from "The Bangs" section
  • the text has been amended by another editor; I've added the link in the Bangles section but let me know what you think.
  • Meanwhile, Annette Zilinskas joined as the bass player -- link bass
  • In 1983, the group signed to Columbia Records -- the group was signed to Columbia Records
  • The Bangles released their first full album All Over the Place in 1984 on Columbia Records -- The Bangles released their first full album, All Over the Place, in 1984 on Columbia Records
  • Their breakthrough hit was the 1986 single "Manic Monday" -- I would probably use an alternative wording in place of "hit"
  • This single was released as a track on the album -- The single was released
  • and went double-platinum -- and was certified double-platinum
  • and was their first American gold record single -- unlink "gold record" per MOS:DUPLINK
  • Dickerson wrote that "Manic Monday" and "Walk Like an Egyptian" "open the door to a new audience of female fans" -- suggest maybe paraphrasing "open the door to a new audience of female fans" instead.
  • In the video for "Walk Like an Egyptian" -- music video is more appropriate I think
  • Writing in the same paper a few months later, Richard Williams also compared Hoffs to Nicks, writing that Hoffs's "dark eyes -- maybe an alternate wording for the second instance of "writing" to avoid being repetitive
  • The Bangles had another US number two hit with a cover of Simon & Garfunkel's "A Hazy Shade of Winter" -- maybe had another US number two single instead of hit"
  • indicating "Generally favorable reviews". -- I think this can be in lower case

I've read up to "The Bangles". Will continue with the rest soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • on Rainy Day's album Rainy Day (1984) -- suggest changing to Rainy Day's 1984 self-titled album
  • worth linking - A-side
  • New York Times critic Janet Maslin panned the movie as -- The New York Times critic Janet Maslin panned the movie as
  • The album received a negative critical reception and did not sell well. -- perhaps we can say the album was a critical and commercial failure
  • the album was rated as a "dud" by Christgau. -- Should be capitalized since it looks like the quotation that precedes it ends in period. Alternatively, we can use "It" was rated, since "the album" is mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • Before leaving Columbia Records, Hoffs recorded tracks with producer Matt Wallace for a follow-up album in 1993–94 – including some songs written by Mark Linkous of Sparklehorse – but the album was not released.[85] -- this standalone sentence could probably be merged into the paragraph it follows.
  • Billboard reviewed the single, -- Billboard should be in italics
  • Hoffs contributed vocals to "One Voice", the end credits song for the film A Dog Named Gucci (2016), a track also featuring Norah Jones, Aimee Mann, Lydia Loveless, Neko Case, Brian May and Kathryn Calder. "One Voice" was released on Record Store Day, April 16, 2016, with profits from the sale of the single going to benefit animal charities.[98] -- this can also be merged into the paragraph before it, since it is two sentence long.
  • Hoffs cowrote songs for the Go-Go's -- co-wrote songs for the Go-Go's (only because you used "co-written" with a hyphen in a previous instance)
  • about the book included Mark Weingarten in the Los Angeles Times, -- including Mark Weingarten
  • character he'd created -- needs to be written in full he had created
  • Fleetwood Mac, Carly Simon, Rod Stewart and others. -- I think it's better to state it as Fleetwood Mac, Carly Simon, Rod Stewart, among others
  • For some time her main instrument was a borrowed Fender Telecaster -- comma after For some time
  • wrote a paean -- I would link paean for those who may be unfamiliar.

That should be everything from me. Great work on the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Pseud 14. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing the comments. Changes look good. Support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

File:Hoffs-2006.jpg has a weird EXIF - was it cropped from another file? Image placement and ALT seem OK to me. Is AllMusic a reliable source? The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles can probably be linked. "Film: Susanna Hoffs Stars In 'Allnighter' by Her Mother" and "Mazzy Star: Shining Brightly" does it lack an online version? What is #23, #56, #77 and #95? I think in #31 "Forward" should be in italics. Is "Chris Hunt" a prominent interviewer? What makes ultimateclassicrock.com, Earwolf, RockCellar, Magnet Magazine, Vintage Guitar, Red Roses and Petrol and Stereogum a reliable source? #94 should probably not have Publicity.vanguardrecords.com as the name. #144 is there no better source than an Imgur image? What is #155? #164 is a search link, not really a good source for anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hoffs-2006.jpg -Appears to be a different version of File:Susanna_Hoffs_2006.jpg, which was uploaded in 2017 by the same user; the 2017 data has further structured data available. I'm not sure whether I need to do anything here.
  • AllMusic - I've replaced the instances where this site was used for biographical details. It's now only used for attributed reviews and uncontroversial info such as releases. (WP:ALLMUSIC refers)
  • The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles - link added.
  • "Film: Susanna Hoffs Stars In 'Allnighter' by Her Mother" - I only have access via the Wikipedia Library, which I don't think is a helpful link for the majority of readers.
  • "Mazzy Star: Shining Brightly" - added link to a clipping of the relevant page.
  • 23 - I added "Official website for Stony Island movie" as the website. It's used to confirm what are I believe are uncontroversial details.
  • 55, 56 - added The Times and it's publication location.
  • 77 is from Q.
  • 95 - added the missing "American Songwriter"
  • Amended the citation for Forward from publisher to website
  • Although Chris Hunt's article is rather lacking in citations, I believe he is a suitable source. I couldn't find the original of Rage Magazine.
  • ultimateclassicrock.com - A 2023 disussion at RSN failed to attact interest. Gary Graff has written for The New York Times, Billboard, The Boston Globe, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the San Francisco Chronicle so seems a suitable authority.
  • Earwolf - I'm not sure this is a suitable source. As I couldn't find info about her unreleased collaboration with Mark Linkous in other suitable sources, I removed it. The contribution to the Talking Heads album seems to have been as one of several backing vocalists on a single track, so I also removed that as not very significant.
  • RockCellar - the interview did attract at least one piece of secondary coverage. It seems to be a fairly small scale operation, but given that official sites such as those for Bryan Adams, Chicago, Jimi Hendrix and Brian May have linked to interviews, surely they find it a faithful source.
  • Magnet - established as a print magazine in 1993. I don't have info about it's editorial team beyond the editor's name; there's a 2014 article in The Philadelphia Inquirer about it, though.
  • Vintage Guitar - has been published as a print magazine under that name since 1989. It has editorial oversight (see [49])
  • ''Red Roses and Petrol - is the official website for the movie, used to confirm what are I believe uncontroversial details.
  • Stereogum - has been running since 2002 and has editorial oversight (see [50])
  • 144 ARIA charts - removed; I don't think this was particularly valuable info for readers.
  • 155 - it's Sight & Sound - I added a link.
  • 164 - Sorry, I'd missed that, somehow. Swapped for an MTV source.
Sorry it has taken so long, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I've responded above. Let me know if I need to take any further action. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else needed, although I'll qualify that this is a field where I don't have much expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for 9 weeks and is at a standstill, lacking support for promotion. If that doesn't change in the next few days, it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp

[edit]

Hi, I just saw this. I'll review it. I'm a Hoffs mini-fan, including enjoying her novel and her covers recordings with Matthew Sweet, as well as being a very casual fan of the Bangles' work in general. I'm happy to see this nomination here. I'll try to start the review within the next day. Moisejp (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments as I go along:

  • In the paragraph about When You're a Boy, I was surprised to see "one upbeat assessment" (Globe and Mail review) then two negative reviews, then another positive review, then more negative reviews. Moisejp (talk) 07:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I finished my first read-through (making some small edits along the way) and am expecting to support. I'll do another read-through hopefully in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to finish this review this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead says, "Following tensions and resentment of Hoffs's perceived leadership, the band split in 1989" (suggesting that was the only or main reason) but in the main text several reasons are given for their break-up. Moisejp (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated to my comment above but the following feels slightly out of place to me, and I might consider removing it if it was me. But if you disagree and prefer to keep it, no worries: Larkin wrote: "The Bangles folded in 1989 partly because Susanna Hoffs was being touted as the 'star' in a previously egalitarian band. It is ironic, therefore, that her solo career failed to come close to the success enjoyed by her old band." Moisejp (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed this article and think it is well written. I was especially surprised to find out she sang on "Wild Wild Life" (the regular single studio version we all know and love?). If you address my five comments above I'm pretty sure I'll be ready to support promotion. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and edits. I was also dubious about her singing on "Wild Wild Life", but she is listed as doing that at the AFI Catalog - I didn't use that as the source because its not easily citable because of collapsed pages. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moisejp: I've replied above. Please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look good. I'm happy to support now. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet

[edit]

I'm not seeing exceptional prose here, just facts delivered in a clunky fashion. I would not vote to promote. Binksternet (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for taking the time to review, Binksternet. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman

[edit]

Oppose. This article fails on summary. It feels both very short and very long at the same time. It's nice there's a section on her equipment, but I wondered what some aspects of her artistry were. I see stated influences here and there, and that's another issue I have. This article could also really benefit having her discography spun off in it's own article. 웃OO 03:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, 100cellsman. Have you got some examples you could share of articles that better cover these aspects of their subject?. I guess you also think that the filmography should be split off, is that correct? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own work Jamiroquai, other recently promoted examples I could find are Regine Velasquez, Pierre Boulez, Neutral Milk Hotel, Meghan Trainor and Leah LaBelle. Her filmography doesn't look too big to me, so maybe no need to split. 웃OO 19:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in (hi all), I would prefer always that substantial discographies / filmographies are spun out, but its certainly not something that would warrant an oppose at FAC. Ceoil (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My oppose is still standing for the lack of summary, mostly lack of subheaders that make the article appear very long at a glance and there isn't a place for her artistry or influences. I gave the nominator some promoted FAs to look at for reference. 웃OO 15:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this objection is vague, badly articulated and not actionable. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder....I think Mosie's review has lead to a good improvement in the prose, but there are some issues yet. Leaning support but would like some time to run through. Ceoil (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't think acting in her mother's films is worthy of the first sentence in the lead's second paragraph...ie would cut Hoffs appeared in the films Stony Island (1978) and The Haircut (1982), both written by her mother, Tamar Simon Hoffs. She starred in the comedy movie The Allnighter (1987), directed by her mother. This seems to diminish her musical achievements. Ceoil (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above that the filmography sect should be spun out; its long and takes up a lot of space, but unsubstantial.
  • Similarly, the lead seems lobsided as to why she is actually notable; and gives too much space to later albums, acting, and cover versions...none of which would be reasons for a keep on notability in an adf if she had not been in the Bangles. I would trim this severly, and focus more on her career before the band broke on MTV...they were HUGE in the UK music press as jangle pop darlings and that to me is more notable. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Benny, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I've made some notes after re-reading MOS:LEAD, and should have something in the next day or two. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil I've taken out the films from the lead, and expanded on the Bangles section. Please let me know if you have any further advice about what to include/exclude. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through again. I'm still not happy that the article presents her as an instant pop star and later legacy artist, whereas in reality she came up through the Paisley Underground, had a brief moment of fame and retreated again to the underground where she remains highly respected. The article doesn't mention the tie to Opal or the influence of Love or Big Star! Trying to place my finger on how to structure and fit in so that this becomes clear. Also, the equipment section seems to be confused in places as to tense...ie had/has. It does seem close to FAC standard, so hang on for actionable suggestions please. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justifications.

  • The only part of 100cellsman's oppose I agree with is that the "Solo career" and "The Bangles" sections could use level-3 subsection headers, otherwise we have (in my opinion) too many paragraphs of uninterrupted prose. Dulls the eye, you know?
    • By contrast, the short "Early career" section doesn't need any subheaders (MOS:OVERSECTION).
    • It is also odd that "The Bangs" is not part of the Bangles section. I would suggest the following layout: putting the "The Unconscious" subsection (without header) into "Early life", and having ==The Bangles==, ===The Bangs: first releases and name change===, ===Critical and commercial success===, ===Disbandment and aftermath===.
  • I would however disagree that the discography/filmography needs to be spun out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
  • "including resentment Hoffs's" ->'at' or 'of' before Hoff's
  • "comedy movie" -> "comedy film" (movie to too slangy)
  • "songs for movies" -> ditto
Early life
  • "Maryland—he marched": jars a little bit. Slightly smoother as "Maryland who marched", but your call
Bangles
  • "since the Different Light;" – either drop "the" or add 'album' after
  • Sort of agreeing with the previous comments about maybe sub-dividing this, (1982-1989, then 199? to 2011 would be a possible one)
Matthew Sweet
  • "Pretenders" should be "the Pretenders", particularly as it's following 'the Smiths'
refs
  • FN38 p -> pp
  • FN73 "p. c08" -> "p. C08" (consistency with others)
  • Support. In terms of the above oppose, I've seen disc, biblio and filmographies both included and excluded from biographies, and there's no set rule for it, except what works best in that specific article, and in this article, I don't see the need for it. I would suggest the sub-division of the longer sections, which I think would be an improvement, but, again, this isn't the basis for an oppose in my book. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

[edit]

My comments on prose:

  • "US top-ten charting" + "the Top-40 hit" + "a US top 10 hit" + "the Billboard Top 40 single" seems to lack consistency
  • at the King David Hotel --> may I suggest to add "in Jerusalem"?
  • Hoffs learned ballet ... school, learning --> perhaps avoid repetition of learn by replacing learned ballet with something like "took ballet classes"
  • co-written by Hoffs's mother --> co-written by her mother
  • but in a 2012 interview Hoffs said --> but in a 2012 interview she said
  • Meanwhile, Hoffs played a --> that's 3 times meanwhile in short succession. Perhaps reword
  • reached number one in the US in December 1986 --> what is missing here, and for Manic Monday as weel, is a global view. They did well in other countries as well
  • What you have is good, although my link above is not for Newspapers.com, it's for various music-chart sites including this one [[52]]. If you decide what you already have is representative enough, that's fine, or if you want to add more, you can find a bunch of sourced chart positions at Manic_Monday#Charts (my link above). Moisejp (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • writing that Hoffs's "dark eyes, dangerous pout and fancifully sexy costumes match her sultry voice" were reminiscent of the Fleetwood Mac singer --> not sure this is gramatically correct: maybe if you drop "match her sultry voice"
  • (which also charted in the UK at number 44) --> why parentheses?
  • it reached number 56 in the UK album charts and number 83 in the US album charts --> now the UK comes first. This is inconsistent with earlier approach.
  • its AOR clichés --> what is AOR?

Otherwise, I have no problem with the structure of the article. I don't think the tables at the end are too long. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Edwininlondon. Hopefully I've addressed your points, but let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just the Nicks comparison. Otherwise all looks good to me.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I've had another crack at it, Edwininlondon. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I Support this nomination on prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

Nice and well-written article. I'm tending towards supporting but I have a few questions and suggestions to make.

  • The second paragraph in the Personal life section isn't about her Personal life at all. This could be split into another section but it would leave the section very short. Is this really all we know of her non-professional life as an adult? More to come... John (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, John. I added a little about Hoffs's relationships. I couldn't find anything else relevant. I take your point about that second para, but I don't have a good idea about how to handle it. I thought about retitling the section to something like "Personal life and influence" but that didn't feel right. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the short Legacy section, ideas for beefing it up a bit, could you look for sources that may describe Bangles songs she co-wrote, like "Walk Like An Egyptian" or "Eternal Flame", as important songs of the 1980s, or the Bangles as an important or influential band of its era? If it was me I would look in Newspapers.com and/or NewspaperArchive, which you should be able to access here [[53]] and you can filter by year to look at more recent sources. Hopefully there won't be an overwhelming number of hits. I will be too busy in the next week to help you, but if this nomination is still open early next week, I may have time to jump in and assist looking. Moisejp (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A while back I had problems accessing Newspapers.com, but when I purged my cookies it worked again, which someone had suggested here [[54]]. Yeah, Newspapers.com does seem to be working for me even now. Try emptying your cache of cookies and logging in again. Let me know if it works. Moisejp (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moisejp I haven't had much joy with Newspapers.com, even with downloading a new browser. (I can see my own clippings, and get to previews, which is better than nothing.) I managed to get some decent sources via other WikiLibrary sources and my access to The Times Digital Archive. I've added to the legacy section, but didn't find much about The Bangles, or anything about Hoffs specifically, being influential. I've added in a couple of recognitions, even though these aren't really top tier. Apparently the Bangles have been eligible for the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame since 2007, but haven't yet made it. See what you think about the additions. Thanks, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 3 August 2024 [55].

Ethics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. It examines competing theories about how people should act in general and in specific domains while considering the assumptions on which the theories rest. Thanks to 750h+ for encouraging this nomination and all the helpful suggestions during their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hurricanehink

[edit]

Big fan of the subject matter, so I thought I’d review it, especially as I have an ongoing FAC - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Hilary/archive1 - so it would only be ethical to review this.

Hello Hurricanehink, thanks for doing the ethical thing and reviewing this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now! Thanks for all of the fixes and/or explanations, that all makes sense. Happy to support now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement ideas and your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • I’m sure others are gonna mention that an image at the top-right would be nice for the page, like Aristotle, but at the same time I get not having one.
    I agree, it would be nice to have an image but I'm not aware of a representative image of ethics in general. Using an image of a philosopher for a general topic article can be tricky because it may favor a specific tradition. Maybe we could use the scales of justice but this is not that typically used for ethics per se. The image in Ethics#Basic_concepts was used earlier as the lead image but it was stated in the peer review that it was too complicated for the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena.” - thats a bit self referential. Philosophical study could probably just be “study”, but I’m not a fan of just linking “moral” and letting the wiki link do the lifting. The second sentence of the lead is better, since that’s a better Explain-it-like-I’m-5 description for the topic.
    I moved the part about "moral philosophy" to the next sentence to make it less self-referential. I kept the "philosophical" to distinguish ethics form the non-philosophical study of moral phenomena, like moral psychology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”It is usually divided into three major fields: normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics.” - the “usually” sticks out to me (as does “fields”). Perhaps something like “The primary branches of ethics include…” I think “branch” is better than “field”, since that’s used in normative and metaethics articles.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, for example, by exploring the moral implications of the universal principles discovered in normative ethics within a specific domain.” - not sure if I’m reading it wrong, but is the “for example” needed?
    This corresponds to the top-down methodology which is useful to establish the connection with normative ethics. With the "for example", we are on the safe side since some theorists also use a bottom-up methodology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Moral psychology is a related empirical field and investigates psychological processes involved in morality, such as moral reasoning and the formation of moral character.” Three mentions of “moral” plus “morality.” Is there any way you could rewrite a bit to not use the five letters “moral” so many times? Like, could moral reasoning and moral character be piped to just “reasoning” and “character”?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definition
  • The fourth paragraph seems like a repeat of the lead and what comes later, so it seems pretty redundant to mention normative/applied/metaethics again, particularly since you don’t go into the definition of “normative” or “meta.”
    I shortened the passage and merged it into the first paragraph. I don't think we can fully remove it since the lead section is supposed to summarize sourced text in the body of the article and the other sections don't discuss this division. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was briefly looking for the etymology, and I think that should be higher up in the definition section.
    I moved it up as the third paragraph, which fits well since the following paragraph also discusses terminological issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normative
  • ”For example, given the particular impression that it is wrong to set a child on fire for fun, normative ethics aims to find more general principles that explain why this is the case, like the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent, which may itself be explained in terms of a more general principle.” - eek, well, of course! As for why I brought this up, is the “for fun” part needed? Like, I’m not sure if it only applies as normative ethics if the argument is whether it is wrong to have fun doing that, or if it’s just wrong in general. Also, “given the particular impression that it is wrong” feels a bit off, but I’m not sure a better way to word it. Maybe it could be shorter and carry the same message? Like, “For example, the principle that one should not cause extreme suffering to the innocent explains why it is wrong to set a child on fire.” I feel like it has the same message, but it’s clearer and more succinct.
    The example is taken from Kagan 1998 p. 1, which explicitly mentions that it is done "for the mere pleasure". The difficulty here is probably to find a concrete example where everyone agrees. Without the "for fun", there could be cases where it is acceptable, possibly if it is not done for pleasure but to prevent a highly contagious supervirus in child from spreading. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”One difficulty for systems with several basic principles is that these principles may conflict with each other in some cases and lead to ethical dilemmas.” Such as the Trolley problem? I feel like it’s one of the best known ethical dilemmas, but maybe that’s just because I watched The Good Place. I see it appears later under “moral knowledge”, but it might be useful earlier in the article.
    I usually try not to repeat examples in the same article. The prime example for this one would be David Ross and his prima facie duties. I'm not sure if it's necessary, but if we wanted, we could include an example along the lines of the second paragraph of The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Different theories in normative ethics suggest different principles as the foundation of morality.” - try rewording to avoid saying “different” twice
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”A more recently developed view additionally considers the distribution of value: It states that an equal distribution of goods is better than an unequal distribution even if the aggregate good is the same.” - recently as of when? 2020s? 20th century? After the fall of the Roman Empire?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you to for “very unlikely” and “very limited knowledge” under the types subsection? The “very” feels borderline opinionated.
    Mainly to emphasize. I removed them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image caption: “Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are the founding fathers of utilitarianism.” - is there a source calling them the founding fathers? It feels a bit opinionated right now. A more neutral caption would be “Portraits of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who developed the field of utilitarianism.”
    I added a source. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Utilitarianism was initially formulated by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill.” - some date reference might be nice. Was this randomly out of nowhere, or part of a broader philosophical trend of the 1700s?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Some critics of Bentham's utilitarianism argued that it is a "philosophy of swine" whose focus on the intensity of pleasure promotes an immoral lifestyle centered around indulgence in sensory pleasures.” - few issues here. First, you should attribute the quote, if it’s even necessary at all to refer it to swine (I’m guessing an oblique reference to pigs having long lasting orgasms?) It feels a bit out of place without the context. Also, could you avoid saying “pleasure” twice in the same sentence?
    I removed the reference to swine and reformulated the passage to avoid the word repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Today, there are many variations of utilitarianism, including the difference between act and rule utilitarianism and between maximizing and satisficing utilitarianism.” - I’m not a fan of using “today”. Is that going to change to yesterday in 24 hours? I’ll have to Chex back and find out :P Alternately, perhaps something like “In the centuries since Bentham and Mill, variations of utilitarianism have developed, including…”
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”For example, according to David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it.” - maybe provide some context for who Ross is? You did that for Bentham and Mill, so that would be helpful. Also, maybe get rid of “for example” if you add something like “According to Scottish philosopher David Ross” (or however you think he needs to be introduced)
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don’t get into the difference of agent vs patient centered. Is that patient, like, having patience? Or a doctor’s patient?
    I tried to clarify the relevant passages. They now read Agent-centered deontological theories focus on the person who acts and the duties they have ... Patient-centered theories, by contrast, focus on the people affect by actions the rights they have. Should we add a footnote to clarify the differences between patient as being affected vs having patience vs a doctor's patient? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth adding a pic of Kant?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Divine command theory sees God as the source of morality.” - as an atheist, I’d rather not have “God” used here so matter of factly. Could you reword it to make it more neutral? God isn’t even linked here, and it’s written as if it’s an accepted fact that God exists.
    I reformulated the passage to not imply God's existence in wikivoice. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Metaethics
  • ”Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other” - how come these are italicized?
    This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we refer to them as terms. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”This position can be understood in analogy to Einstein's theory of relativity, which states that the magnitude of physical properties like mass, length, and duration depends on the frame of reference of the observer.” - idk if this is needed. I thought the previous sentence made complete sense already, and then when I got here I was wondering why it was here.
    I moved it to an explanatory footnote. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”An influential debate among moral realists is between naturalism and non-naturalism.” - you don’t really get into the debate, so is “influential” appropriate?
    I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Cognitivism and non-cognitivism - what do you mean by “truth-apt”? I don’t think you used that term before.
    This is explained in the next sentence. I merged the two sentences to make this clear. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Another thought experiment examines the moral implications of abortion by imagining a situation in which a person gets connected without their consent to an ill violinist. It explores whether it would be morally permissible to sever the connection within the next nine months even if this would lead to the violinist's death.” - ok this needs way more context. You should probably mention that the thought experiment is that it’s a pregnant ill violinist apparently? I was quite confused for a bit why it suddenly turned musical.
    I added an extra sentence to clarify that this is an analogy about the relation between mother and fetus without any fetuses present in the imagined situation. The musical turn is indeed confusing. This is part of the original formulation of the thought experiment but it's not essential that it is a violinist. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applied ethics
  • Why is military ethics bolded in the middle of the paragraph?
    This is because of the redirect per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. I added a corresponding comment
Related fields
  • ”For instance, the question of how nurses think about the ethical implications of abortion belongs to descriptive ethics.” - why nurses and not doctors who would actually be administering the procedure?
    Because that's the example of descriptive ethics used in the source. With a corresponding source about doctors, we could also change it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Some of this is covered elsewhere in the article, which makes me wonder, perhaps this should be the second main section, after “Definition”? The article on philosophy, for example, starts with “Etymology” and has a history section before getting into the branches.
    In principle, it could be done. Many overview works on ethics focus on the branches, concepts, and schools of ethics rather than the chronological development of the discipline. This indicates that the history is not the most important part of this article and should not come right at the beginning. Another difficulty would be that the history section uses various concepts that are explained in the other sections. If we wanted to have the history first, we might have to include a more detailed discussion of them already there, which could lead to various repetitions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One last comment. It’s a long read, at 8,941 words. Considering that this is an overview of the subject, and the many many links to various topics, I feel that the article should be condensed wherever possible. Perhaps remove redundant examples. Or, like the stuff in the history section that’s repeated elsewhere, you could trim it by having the history section first, and then removing the duplicate mentions of certain people.

Given the scope of the topic, I think we are not doing too bad length-wise. For a comparison, we are still below the 9000 mark of WP:SIZERULE. Except for the big names like Kant and Bentham, I don't think there is much overlap between the history and the rest. I'll keep a lookout for opportunities to condense the material as I respond to other reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated your work on the article, and I enjoyed the read, so it’s my ethical duty to finally wrap up my review that I’ve been working on for… several hours. So here it is. Lemme know if you have any questions, @Phlsph7:. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for your indepth review and the helpful suggestions. I implemented most and I hope I didn't miss any. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke

[edit]

Amazing you've tackled this article! First impressions are good. Except for a small module on morality among primates at uni and failing to read the The Ethics of Ambiguity, I know nothing of the topic, so feel free to disregard anything you're not sure about / disagree with.

  • In the lead, the order is applied ethics before meta-ethics. Would it make sense to follow this in the article too? Metaethics is a more scary difficult subject, so we may want to start easier in the body too.
    There has already been some discussion on the section order on the talk page and the peer review. Initially, meta-ethics was first to go from abstract to concrete. Then, because of the difficulty of its topic, it was moved to come after applied ethics. Then it was requested to have it before applied ethics since it "deals with much more general issues likely to be of interest to more readers". I don't feel strongly either way since there are good arguments for each approach. The order in the lead section was mainly chosen because it's easier to present the topics this way in a single paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note: I'm moving in the direction of a support, but do want to do a second read to see if I can come up with more ideas on how to make the article understandable to a sufficiently broad audience. In particular, the bits around Kant are tough to explain, and not quite there yet in my view. I'll be on holiday, busy with work, and then hosting parents, so I might not come back till the 8th of July. I don't think I'll forget, but ping me if I do. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to hear that the article is moving in the right direction. I hope you enjoy your small wiki holiday. In the meantime, I'll see what I can do about the subsection "Kantianism" and I hope we can overcome this stumbling block. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second read
[edit]

Have been listening to In Our Time over the holidays and their episodes on moral philosophy over the last years. They were all about individuals of the wartime quartet (embarrasing red link, but Philippa Foot, Iris Murdoch etc), so hope I can say slightly more sensible things on the second read on the topic of language and virtue ethics.

  • The main branches of ethics include normative ethics, applied ethics, and metaethics. --> Do we need both "main" and "include" (rather than are). Are there further main branches?
    This is the most common division but some theorists prefer a different approach. Using this more careful formulation avoids upsetting them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their individual desires. --> is individual needed in the sentences? their desires may be sufficient.
    I removed the term. It was added to emphasize the contrast with "universal principles" but it's not necessary. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It asks whether moral statements can be true, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. --> the examples --> I wonder if the first example makes sense for those who have not been schooled in truth tables and with a basic background in logic. Maybe the example of whether there are objective moral statements is more accessible. I find the second example somewhat vague to. What does it refer to?
    For the first example, I used objective moral facts instead. The second example refers to what is discussed in the subsection Moral knowledge, that is, foundationalism, coherentism, and the like. We could use a more specific example, but that would negatively impact generality. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtue theorists see the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. --> A pedantic point, but the episode on Philippa Foot made a distinction between a value theorist (who does the theory) and a value ethicist (who believe the above). Feel free to ignore, as alternative wording may make things uglier.
    I'm not sure that this distinction is generally accepted but it is an interesting point. I changed our formulation to "Virtue ethics" to be on the safe side without introducing verbal gymnastics. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethics is closely connected to value theory, which studies the nature and types of value. --> This feels tautological. Can we say anything concrete about this?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Descriptive ethics provides value-neutral descriptions of the dominant moral codes and beliefs in different societies and considers their historical dimension. --> do we need the word value-neutral here? I don't think pure value-neutral discriptions exists, as most words in language are not perfectly neutral. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the term. Its main point was emphasize that descriptive ethicists try not to pick sides about which moral code is correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks. That's a support from me. Hope that a new reviewer will also look at how to simplify and make the article more concrete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for this in-depth review and the many improvement suggestions to make the article more accessible! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Head of Aristotle.jpg, File:EMB - Buddha stehend.jpg, and File:Head of Laozi marble Tang Dynasty (618-906 CE) Shaanxi Province China.jpg are all CC-BY-SA photos of a PD statue.
  • File:Jeremy Bentham by Henry William Pickersgill detail.jpg, File:John Stuart Mill by London Stereoscopic Company, c1870.jpg, File:Immanuel Kant - Gemaelde 1.jpg, File:Little boy.jpg, File:1914 George Edward Moore (cropped).jpg are all PD photos.
  • File:Philippa Foot 1939.jpg is not PD in the US. I've nominated it for deletion.
  • File:JuergenHabermas.jpg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:Trolley Problem.svg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:Cesarean section.jpg is CC-BY-SA
  • File:Battery hens -Bastos, Sao Paulo, Brazil-31March2007.jpg is CC-BY
  • File:Deontic square.svg is CC-BY

Alt-text is good. Images are directly applicable to the subject. Besides the Philippa Foot image, all seems good here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Thanks for your image review and for catching the problem with the image of Philippa Foot. I removed the image and found a way to include an image of Simone de Beauvoir instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on image review. Looks good, thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive-by: Don't have time for a full review, but saw this while reading the page which stuck out and thought I'd add a comment An exception is J. L. Mackie's error theory, which combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming that all moral statements are false because there are no moral facts - all error theory is an exception, not just that espoused by J. L. Mackie. Maybe Mackie should be mentioned in the history section instead. Relatedly Moral skeptics reject the idea that moral knowledge is possible by arguing that people are unable to distinguish between right and wrong behavior isn't that what they're arguing for, not the argument itself? I guess there isn't room to include questions about our access to moral facts or the (non)explanatory role of ethical concepts, but this could be worded better at least. Shapeyness (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Shapeyness and thanks for taking a look at the article. I moved Mackie to the history section and I switched the explanation in the sentence on moral skeptics around. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Phlsph7, that fixes both of those. Shapeyness (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is there a logic why some page numbers are linked and others aren't, and some references give sections and others page numbers? I don't think that Springer DOI links need archives, and I am not sure that Google Books archives are useful, either. Some books with ISBN links have retrieval dates and others don't. Looks like sources are from prominent university publishers and journals ... but I notice that they seem to be mostly Western sources; even if sources about non-Western ethics are used they seem to be Western sources. Can't speak much about whether the sources picked are representative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I usually use section titles for web sources and page numbers for books and journals. For some books in ebook format, I also use section numbers if they do not have page numbers or if the page numbers depend on the reading device. If I'm aware of a Google Books page offering a preview of the page, I usually add a link to it. But this is not possible for all books, which is why some page numbers have links while others don't.
I removed the Springer DOI archives. Let me know if you think the Google Books archive links also need to be removed. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically, so all the links would be re-added the next time it runs. I count 91 archived Google Books links so removing them by hand each time after IABot runs would be time-intensive.
Some books with an ISBN have a website added in the template, for example, because the website provides a preview of the book. These books have access dates for the website. Access dates are also automatically added by IABot. I included several sources from non-Western publishers before the nomination, such as Sinha 2014, Satyanarayana 2009, Nadkarni 2011, Murthy 2009, Fernando 2010, Dalal 2010, Dalai Lama 2007, Armour 2001, Junru 2019, Ntuli 2002, and Pera & Tonder 2005. High-quality English philosophy sources from non-Western publishers are a little hard to find but I can try to find more in case the current ones are not sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you have more comments? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

I'll leave comments in a bit. 750h+ 12:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Fine work. 750h+ 05:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thanks a lot for your comments and for your earlier GA review! I hope I was able to address the concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy to support 750h+ 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

As ever, kudos for taking on one of the site's biggest and thorniest articles. I am very much not a philosopher, but I hope the below is useful.

  • Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises.: is the duties part of this always true? As I understand it, deontologists believe (and I'd use a word like that, rather than say, which is imprecise in this situation: someone might say something that is not fully in accordance with their beliefs) that the act itself determines its moral value -- granted, that can often (always?) be squeezed into a duty to e.g. obey God, follow key moral principles, promote one's own spiritual health, and so on, but what's the value in making that additional step here?
    Both characterizations are found in the literature and are used side by side. Descriptions focusing more deontology itself tend to talk about duties. Descriptions focusing on the contrast with consequentialism tend to talk about acts being good in themselves. Here are some examples:
    * From [56]: Deontology asserts that there are several distinct duties ... All [deontologists] agree ... that there are occasions when it would be wrong for us to act in a way that would maximize the good, because we would be in breach of some (other) duty.
    * From Crisp 2005: According to deontology, certain acts are right or wrong in themselves.
    * From the entry "Deontological Ethics" of the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy: By the middle of the twentieth century, “deontology” acquired its more specific meaning, which refers to a particular conception or theory of our moral duties.
    * From the entry "Ethics" of the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy: [According to deontology,] some principles of right and wrong, notably principles of justice and honesty, prescribe actions even though more evil than good would result from doing them.
    The last source talks of "principles" rather than duties. We could also use this more general term but it would make the sentence more abstract. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy here, then -- if it's good enough for the grown-ups in philosophy, it's good enough for us. Do any of their formulations rule out e.g. "the duty to maximise human happiness", though? Given that we are making an explicit contrast with consequentialism here, I think it might be helpful to get some form of words that says "it's about the act itself" in here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea about mentioning the other characterization as well: why choose when we can have both? I added a short phrase.
The point about a "duty to maximise human happiness" is interesting because it mixes deontology and consequentialism/utilitarianism. Some deontologists have this principle as one of their duties among others. For example, this is the case for David Ross's duty of beneficence, see The_Right_and_the_Good#The_Right. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that I get a bit lost working through the idea of a deontological duty to ensure the positive consequences of your actions by manifesting a virtue -- that seems to be all three ethical schools at once! -- but that's probably not the sort of thing we want to bother with in the lead. Is there anything to be said further down about "hybrid" philosophies, though, insofar as they exist, such as religious codes -- deontological -- that insist upon certain virtues? Again, I appreciate that I'm coming in with no expertise and that the answer may simply be "no". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would be something to said but I'm not sure that we should say it in this article. We hint to it in the section "Normative ethics": The three most influential schools of thought are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics.[15] These schools are usually presented as exclusive alternatives, but depending on how they are defined, they can overlap and do not necessarily exclude one another. The standard treatments of these schools of thought usually only address this on the sidelines, if at all. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you've handled it well, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest reorganising the second paragraph of the lead so that we don't blur together modes of ethical study (e.g. Normative ethics, applied ethics, metaethics) with schools of ethical thought (e.g. deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics).
    The paragraph currently says:

    Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics examines the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people.

    We could change it something like:

    Normative ethics aims to find general principles that govern how people should act. Applied ethics examines concrete ethical problems in real-life situations, such as abortion, treatment of animals, and business practices. Metaethics examines the underlying assumptions and concepts of ethics. It asks whether there are objective moral facts, how moral knowledge is possible, and how moral judgments motivate people. Influential normative theories are consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics. According to consequentialists, an act is right if it leads to the best consequences. Deontologists say morality consists in fulfilling duties, like telling the truth and keeping promises. Virtue ethics sees the manifestation of virtues, like courage and compassion, as the fundamental principle of morality.

    The main change is that the passage on consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics was moved to the end and one additional sentence needed to be added to reintroduce normative ethics. I slightly prefer the first option but the second option could also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the paragraph as you've written it on second go -- I think making the link between normative ethics and deontology/consequentialism/virtue ethics clearer is a good move. This version is much clearer as to the categorisation of the things we're talking about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a little bit longer but you are right that it makes the organization clearer. I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Ancient Greek word êthos (ἦθος), meaning "character, personal disposition". .... The term morality originates in the Latin word moralis, meaning manners and character. I would pick a lane for how we handle glosses in formatting -- two different styles on display here in the same paragraph.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was introduced into the English language through the Old French term moralité.: can we say (roughly) when?
    Done. It's still a little vague but the source is not sure either when exactly this happened. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link utilitarianism on first use (as classical utilitarianism)?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A matter of taste, perhaps, but I'm not sold on "says" as a verb with an abstract idea as its "speaker": I can wear "the Pope says..." or even "the Bible says...", but I struggle with "Catholicism says...". Suggest "teaches", or alternatively talking about the people who believe it.
    The main advantage of the term is that it is simple to understand and keeps the text accessible. We could use alternatives terms like "affirm", "assert", and "state" if it is an issue. Some of our sources also use the term: from [57]: A consequentialist theory says that ... virtue theory says that ...
  • That's fair enough: I don't really have a concrete, policy-based objection here, and different people have different stylistics tastes -- I wouldn't want to impose mine any more than I'd want reviewers to impose theirs when I've got an article are up for review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A core intuition behind consequentialism is that what matters is not the past but the future and that it should be shaped to achieve the best possible outcome: could this be expressed more concisely thus?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The act itself is usually not seen as part of the consequences. This means that if an act has intrinsic value or disvalue, it is not included as a relevant factor. Some consequentialists try to avoid this complication by including the act itself as part of the consequences.: I need a little more explanation here as to why this is a problem, or a complication.
    I added one sentence to better explain this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any suitable images for the consequentialism section? Perhaps not unrelatedly, I notice that we haven't talked about any concrete people or movements until we get down to utilitarianism (bar a very brief and slightly isolated mention of Mohism). Can we do anything to set the scene about where these ideas came from, and how influential they were (or weren't) until Bentham came along?
    The term "consequentialism" was first introduced in the 20th century by G. E. M. Anscombe. Her image would be a good choice but, as far as I'm aware, we have no free image of her other than an odd drawing. Most of the well-known consequentialists are utilitarians. We could use Henry Sidgwick or Peter Singer but they came after Bentham so it might be odd to present them before him. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would definitely get Anscombe's name and chronology into the Consequentialism section, even if her image is tricky. From the article of the same name, it does seem that most consequentialists are late C19th and later (which, again, I think is worth flagging up), but then we also have Machiavelli mentioned there, and William Godwin. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, I added a short historical clarification. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • utilitarianism, which states that the moral value of acts only depends on the pleasure they cause.: pleasure or suffering, surely, unless we're talking about particularly sadistic utilitarians?
    I added this clarification. Utilitarians sometimes use the term "pleasure" in a wider sense to encompass both the positive and the negative but this could be confusing to the reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Traditionally, consequentialists were only concerned with the total of value or the aggregate good.: not a fan of the word traditionally: we mean, here, "before the 20th century", not that it was a matter of any kind of tradition. I think it's wise to be precise.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are disagreements about what consequences should be assessed.: which consequences.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • . An important distinction is between act and rule consequentialism: this is a case for suspended hyphens: act- and rule-consequentialism, or else for repeating consequentialism. It's not obvious, to a reader who knows nothing about the topic, that the distinction isn't between rule consequentialism and something else called act.
    I went for the second option. Hyphens would also work but we would have to change the spelling of all the other instances as well. The terms are used both with and without hyphens in the literature. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the risk of being terribly boring, this is a special case where you use hyphens irrespective of whether they are "normally" used for that term (so: "I made chocolate- and strawberry-cakes for the party" -- without the hyphens, you only made one type of cake), but it does look pretty weird when you do, so I think trying to rephrase to avoid the need is a good move. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, if not lying is one of the best rules, then according to rule consequentialism, a person should not lie even in specific cases where lying would lead to better consequences: might be clearer in the positive: if telling the truth...?
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going to say that Mohism is early, can we give an idea of how early?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow -- I am very impressed by the clarity of the article so far, and how ably it helps me keep sight of the wood without getting too distracted by the trees. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlike consequentialists, deontologists hold that the validity of general moral principles does not depend on their consequences: again, is that always true? Do any say, for example, "we should always follow the rule of not harming others because doing so leads to the best outcome/avoids us going to Hell?" Or is that when you've crossed the line and become a rule utilitarian? I know we say According to moral philosopher David Ross, it is wrong to break a promise even if no harm comes from it, but Ross means from breaking that specific promise, not (necessarily) from people generally breaking promises. I don't think many deontological theorists would argue that the world would be rosy if everyone broke the/their rules.
    I think you have point here. It's true for the typical forms of deontology and sources often present it this way, including the source of this statement. I changed it to "does not directly depend". This would also cover the duty of beneficence by Ross discussed earlier, so we should be fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • save the life of several others: save the lives, I think?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we give any examples of agent-centred and patient-centred deontological theories?
    Many of the main deontologists combine elements of both, which makes it a little difficult to provide clear-cut and accessible examples of well-known philosophers. The examples often have to be qualified in some way, as in our example later: contractualism is often understood as a patient-centered form of deontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He states that moral action should not follow fixed goals that people desire, such as being happy. Instead, he argues that there are universal principles that apply to everyone independent of their desires.: I'm not sure I've quite grasped the meaning of "fixed goals that people desire", since he does say that people should follow fixed principles, and that wise people should generally desire to follow them. Is "fixed" quite right here, or is he saying that people shouldn't make decisions willy-nilly based on what feels right in that particular moment, but rather should follow consistent rules in every situation?
    I tried to reformulate it to get the idea better across. The main point is that, for Kant, it's not about desires or outcomes but about following principles, even if one does not like the principles and the outcomes they lead to. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd put a date on Kant. I'm not sure what I feel about putting him before divine command theory and the social contract, both of which are much older -- I think the structure works well, and I'm not sure that a strictly chronological one would be better, but it does slightly paper over the fact that deontological ethics, for most of its history, looked nothing like what Kant was talking about.
    I added the dates. The chronological approach is only really found in the history section of this article. One of the reasons for having Kant first is that, as far as deontology is concerned, he is significantly more important. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we have a brief bit in the Kant section about post-Kant Kantian ethics?
    We have something on that in the history section, where it probably fits better. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's true if you wouldn't describe anyone later than Kant as both a) important and b) Kantian -- so I can see, for example, why you wouldn't include Hegel or Nietzsche up here, but has anyone calling themselves a Kantian sharpened or otherwise shifted Kantian thought, in the same way that Mill did for utilitarian thought, or someone like Aquinas did for Christian ethics? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before Hegel, there would be Fichte and Schelling in the tradition of German idealism. There are also Schopenhauer, the Neo-Kantians, John Rawls, and Christine Korsgaard. However, I don't think the relation here is as close as the one between Bentham and Mill. For example, the article "Deontological Ethics" of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has its own subsection dedicated to Kant and mentions him in various other places, but it doesn't mention any of the ones listed above except for Rawls in one instance. Rawls fits better into the paragraph on social contract theory, where our article currently mentions him. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my recurring point about putting names on ideas -- I know that it's perhaps a dangerous game to choose a few out of a huge number, but if Kant gets a mention (and a picture!) for the categorical imperative, should e.g. Rousseau and Rawls get a name-check for the social contract?
    I added a short sentence. We could add a picture but we would probably have to remove Habermas's picture so it doesn't get too crowded. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I think we should put dates on the various schools of virtue ethics: when we say "Eudaimonism is the classical view", what do we mean by classical? Most readers will know that Aristotle was an ancient Greek, but not all will be able to date him beyond "a long time ago", and I think it's helpful to note that practically all of our surviving Stoics are centuries later than he is.
    I reformulated the passage to avoid the term "classical". I added dates for Aristotle and Stoicism. Originally, I mostly tried to have the historical context in the history section and use the remaining sections to focus more on the theories themselves rather than their historical context. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tread very lightly around "Indigenous belief systems" (isn't Greek philosophy an indigenous belief system of Greece?): I think we're on the right side of the line at the moment, but there's a real danger of tokenising or flattening them, or as presenting them as somehow simpler or less serious than "proper" philosophical movements, simply because we haven't found out the names of the people who came up with them.
    I'm not a big fan of the word "indigenous" either but that's the term used by the sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment, I'm happy to grumble ineffectually on this one: I'm not personally a fan of the divide between "indigenous" art/culture/storytelling/philosophy/whatever and "proper" Western equivalents -- where possible, I think it's best to try to handle them together and to place them on equal footing. However, there's a difference between "I would do it differently" and "the way it's done here is wrong": as I said, I think we're on the right side of the line here, and are following a perfectly justifiable approach. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another pause -- down to the end of "Normative ethics". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • is not interested in what actions are right: which actions are right, I think.
    Replaced. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It further examines the meaning of morality and moral terms: do we mean of the word "morality"? If so, should italicise per MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metaethical theories typically do not directly adopt substantive positions on normative ethical theories: it's difficult to avoid sounding abstruse in an article on metaethics, I know, but perhaps this would be clearer as something like "do not generally pass judgement on the quality of a given normative ethical theory" or something like that?
    I used a slightly different formulation to clarify this point. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethics is concerned with normative statements about what ought to be the case, in contrast to descriptive statements, which are about what is the case: this is Hume's guillotine, isn't it? Philippa Foot, in particular, would be quite upset with us affirming it so baldly. Indeed, the article on the is–ought problem has a very chunky section of "responses" dedicated to people quibbling it.
    It's closely related to the is–ought problem or Hume's guillotine, which states that one cannot deduce a normative statement from a descriptive statement. I added a corresponding footnote and slightly modified the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obligation and permission are contrasting terms that can be defined through each other: to be obligated to do something means that one is not permitted not to do it and to be permitted to do something means that one is not obligated not to do it: I'm not really seeing how this definition is any different to the everyday meaning of those terms, and in turn what it's value is in this particular article?
    Maybe I'm underestimating our readers, but I'm not sure that they are aware of this precise relation. If we want to go deeper into it, we could give them the formula in deontic logic: and . But i'm not sure how helpful this would be. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In body text, I think that notation would be unhelpful, though I can see a better argument for it in a footnote (similar to how, for example, we often handle quotations in non-English languages: just give the translation in the text, give the original in a footnote). UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When used in a general sense, good contrasts with bad: italics on good and bad per MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Likewise, in the following, evil and bad.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be morally responsible for an action usually means that the person possessed and exercised certain capacities or some form of control.: present tense here, surely?
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is an objective fact whether there is an obligation to keep a promise just as it is an objective fact whether a thing has a black color: I'd stick a comma after promise for readability. I would also suggest picking a different example: after all, colour vocabulary is notoriously cross-culturally tricky (famously, in Homer, the sea is wine-coloured), and indeed many people have experience of arguing with a partner as to whether a shade of paint is really red rather than terracotta... that's before you ask if someone's skin is "black", which is a famous example of how linguistic categories are socially constructed.
    Good point, I changed it to "rectangular". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It implies that if two people disagree about a moral evaluation then at least one of them is wrong. This observation is sometimes taken as an argument against moral realism since moral disagreement is widespread in most fields: as written, this sounds a bit limp to me. If you give two people a difficult mathematical problem, they are likely to disagree on the answer, but nobody would argue that this means it doesn't have one, only that the problem is hard. In the same way, the fact that people disagree on whether climate change is real or the existence of an afterlife is not good evidence that neither argument has a true answer.
    I think the key point in this argument is that the disagreement is widespread. Personally, I agree with you that the argument is not a solid proof against moral realism. However, it still carries some force. For example, if everyone agreed on all moral evaluations, people would be less likely to doubt moral realism. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're probably covered enough by "has been taken as" -- the structure of the eyeball has been taken as proof of the existence of God, after all, even though it's famously bad evidence for it. It's certainly not unrelated to the point it's trying to prove. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • suicide is permitted: suggest amending permissible: as written, this reads as a legal or a social statement rather than a moral one.
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This position can be understood in analogy to: the usual idiom is by analogy to.
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different explanation states that morality arises from moral emotions, which are not the same for everyone: I would name Emotivism, rather than relegating its name to the link (WP:EASTEREGG might apply here).
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are opposed to both objective moral facts defended by moral realism and subjective moral facts defended by moral relativism: I'm not sure "are opposed to" means "don't believe in": I'm opposed to animal cruelty, but I'm fairly sure it exists. Suggest "they reject the existence both of objective moral facts..."
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral nihilism, like moral relativism, recognizes that people judge actions as right or wrong from different perspectives. However, it disagrees that this practice involves morality and sees it as just one type of human behavior: and/or as filling a social function? As we've written it, it sounds as though moral nihilists all think that making moral judgements is stupid and/or pointless: do any of them say something like "moral judgements are arbitrary, but the fact that we make them is important and interesting for our psychology/how our societies work?"
    I think the more common view among moral nihilists is that moral beliefs/practices are harmful. Nietzsche frequently makes this point. It's quite possible that some moral nihilists see morality as a useful fiction but I'm not sure that the article should get too much into this. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the traditionally influential view of natural law ethics, morality is based on a natural law created by God: traditionally, again -- but is it always "God"? Not, for example, "the gods", "a deity", "a divinely ordained natural law" or similar? To me, with the capital, we're narrowing ourselves to the Judeo-Christian one (and possibly the Muslim one, but not all readers will agree).
    You are right that this is a narrowed perspective. This is mainly because the view was mostly developed in Christian philosophy and is presented this way in the sources. For example, Murphy 2019a says that "the paradigmatic natural law view holds that (1) the natural law is given by God" and talks about "God’s will", "God’s eternal plan", and "God’s choosing". I reformulated the sentence to remove the "traditionally". Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to implicitly case natural law as a Christian belief, we should be explicit about it and say something like "according to the Christian view of natural-law ethics". On the other hand, if we're not comfortable tying it to Christianity, we need to make sure that our framing works for non-Christian forms. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reformulated it. Please see if this works for you. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has this bit about natural law just gone? I'm struggling to find it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence now reads: For example, natural law ethics, an influential position in Christian ethics, says that morality is based on a natural law created by God. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-naturalism accepts that moral properties form part of reality: not sure about accepts that in this kind of phrase (MOS:SAID) -- this implies that the statement is true: "he accepts that she is dead" rules out, in normal speech, the possibility that she isn't. There are one or two other instances. Here, we could solve it by moving "argues" to this position.
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Down to "Cognitivism and non-cognitivism". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cognitivism only claims that moral statements have a truth value but is not interested in which truth value they have: not sure only... but... is idiomatic: it works fine if you cut only, or go for "have a truth-value: it is not ..."
    I removed the "only". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The semantic position of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological position of moral realism: I think the division between semantic ideas and ontological ideas is important to clarify this bit, and it would be worth spending a sentence or so at the outset to outline what makes the cognitivism–noncognitivism spectrum different from the realism–nihilism one. "Position" might be slightly ambiguous: it can mean "placement" (so 'semantic position' means 'where something is positioned in terms of semantics' -- something can, for example, have both a horizontal and a vertical) or, as here, "attitude of mind", where the options are usually mutually exclusive.
    I reformulated it with an expanded explanation to bring in the contrast between the meaning of moral terms and the existence of moral facts. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good, though I think the end of cognitivism is closely related to the ontological theory of moral realism about the existence of moral facts is now awkward for prose and slightly unclear. Suggest a full stop after moral realism; you could then do something like "Moral realists believe that moral truths exist, so moral realists [must? generally?] therefore follow the cognitivist principle that moral statements can be true. However, error theory combines cognitivism with moral nihilism by claiming...."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave it one more try to clarify the relation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good; I've made a minor ce for MOS:IDIOM ("in tune with" -> "consistent with") UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different interpretation is that they express other types of meaning contents: other types of meanings? If "meaning contents" is intentional, I think we need a bit more handholding as to what it, well, means.
    I reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this view, the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses that the speaker has a negative moral attitude towards murder or dislikes it: or disapproves of it? "Dislikes" can mean "derives negative pleasure from it", and we often dislike doing things we have positive moral views of (going for a long run in the rain, for example).
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the statement "Murder is wrong" expresses ... general moral truths, like "lying is wrong", are self-evident: are we capitalising the first words of these compound-noun phrases? It's not consistent at the moment.
    Maybe we can go for the rule: start with uppercase if the text between quotation marks can stand as full sentence. I tried to implement it, I hope I didn't miss anything. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moral skepticism is often criticized based on the claim that it leads to immoral behavior.: again, this isn't a particularly good criticism (atheism gets the same charge levelled at it), particularly as moral sceptics would presumably say that immoral behaviour doesn't exist in any way that human beings can recognise it? However, perhaps we're covered by presenting this as a "some people say...".
    Strictly speaking, we are just reporting what others say. The criticism-section of Sinnott-Armstrong 2019 starts with Opponents often accuse moral skepticism of leading to immorality.
    This is pedantic, but is that our source material? If so, we need a slight rephrase: we can't use that for moral skepticism is often criticised. Conspiracy theorists often say that lizard people rule the world, but that it is not often said, because there are not many conspiracy theorists. Bringing opponents, critics etc back will solve this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth giving Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thompson credit for their famous thought experiments?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • people can act against moral judgments: suggest adding their own moral judgements, so that we're clear we don't mean "people can do things that are disapproved of by their peers".
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • psychopaths or sociopaths, who fail to either judge that a behavior is wrong or translate their judgment into action: the word sociopath is no longer considered meaningful in psychology: psycopathy, on the other hand, has quite a strict meaning, mostly centring around a lack of inhibitions and empathy. These might be philosophical psychopaths in the vein of philosophical zombies, but I'd suggest avoiding the weeds by just going for "people who fail either to judge...". Surely, though, quite a few of those metaethical theories we've just covered would take some sort of issue with the statement "he has failed to judge that his behaviour is wrong"?
    I removed the mention of socipaths. DeLapp, § 5. Psychology and Metaethics explicitly discusses psychopaths from the perspectives of internalism and externalism so I think it should be fine to keep the term. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (How) does Delapp define psychopaths, in this context? If they simply use the word to mean "people who don't believe that (e.g.) hurting others is wrong", that's out of whack with the usual/"proper" meaning. Again, my point about zombies: philosophers will often use the word to mean "imaginary people who look like you and I but don't have any internal life", and that's fine, but we shouldn't do so without explaining that we're doing it, because our readers will take zombie to mean "brain-eating dead people". UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delapp does not define the term, I don't think this is meant as a special philosophical technical term. Rosati 2016 also discusses the relation to psychopaths. I reformulated the passage to ensure that all claims are attributed. An alternative would be to remove the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I may, I think we've got it backwards -- it's not that these philosophers particularly care about applying their findings to real psychopaths, but they seem to be using imagined psychopaths as illustrative examples to craft their theories. How about something like When considering people who consistently break moral codes –termed "psychopaths" by Delapp and Rosati – internalists argue that they must not know that their behaviour is wrong, or else that they feel little motivational force to translate their moral knowledge into action.
    If nothing else, I'm a little uncomfortable deferring to philosophers for a definition of psychopath, which is after all a medical term -- we wouldn't, for example, present a philosophers views of taxonomy as authoritative over those of scientists, if they were relevant to their arguments on bioethics, but we would frame them as "givens" in that argument: something like "the ethicist John Smith believes that Venus flytraps, because they eat food, should be considered animals and so have animal rights". We wouldn't say "Venus flytraps are animals" and cite Smith. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this is the definition Delapp and Rosati use. There are a lot of sources on the relation between psychopathy and moral motivation, such as [58], [59], [60], and [61]. I think we shouldn't assume that they all talk about imagined psychopaths rather than real ones.
    Our sentence currently says: The debate between internalism and externalism is relevant for explaining the behavior of psychopaths, with some moral theorists suggesting that psychopaths do not know that their behavior is wrong while others propose that psychopaths know it but feel little motivational force to translate this knowledge into action. We could replace "the behavior of psychopaths" with the more general term "psychological deviance". The other mentions of psychopaths are all attributed so we state nothing controversial in wikivoice. But given the difficulties in making progress here, it might be best to just remove the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my issue here is: if this is a discussion about actual, diagnosed psychopaths, it's not great to have that discussion entirely among philosophers rather than psychiatrists. If it's simply an attempt to probe the bounds of a theory, and correct a potential objection to motivational internalism ("some people do things that are wrong"), we shouldn't unnecessarily use terminology that has a precise meaning and doesn't quite fit with the way we want to use it. However, if the latter, I'm not sure why we need psychopaths here at all, since psychologically normal sinners would seem to be just as much a problem to the motivational internalists. From a psychiatrist's point of view, psychopaths commit antisocial actions because they have less empathy, less fear and fewer inhibitions than most people, but that's not quite the sort of conversation we're having here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now down to "Applied ethics". UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • it may not be clear how the Kantian requirement of respecting everyone's personhood applies to a fetus and what the long-term consequences are in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number: we've crossed into two different belief systems here: I'd make that clear, and amend to something like "or, from a utilitarian perspective, what the long-term consequences..."
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which may not be universally applicable to other domains: at the moment, a tautology: I'd advise cutting universally, as it wouldn't be nothing if e.g. lessons from medicine could also be applied in sport, but not in romance.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In either case, inquiry into applied ethics is often triggered by ethical dilemmas to solve cases in which a person is subject to conflicting moral requirements: clearer and more concise if cut thus?
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bioethics is a wide field that covers moral problems associated with living organisms and biological disciplines: suggest cutting is a wide field that -- I'm not saying it's wrong, but we haven't described other fields in this way, and I don't think we should give the impression that bioethics is any wider than other fields.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These differences concern, for example, how to treat non-living entities like rocks and non-sentient entities like plants in contrast to animals and whether humans have a different moral status than other animals.: optional, but perhaps more readable with a comma before the final and.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medical ethics ... has its origins in the Hippocratic Oath: I would be careful about giving the oath too much credit, especially early on: it's a big deal in modern medicine but wasn't really in the ancient world. I would be happier saying that this is one of the earliest known texts to engage directly with medical ethics (though exactly how old is a slightly tricky one), rather than claiming it as a fountainhead for everything that came after. There are a couple of Late Antique texts which are much more straightforwardly ethical codes (rather than contracts of obligation), particularly the {{lang|la|Formula Comitis Archiatrorum, much more obviously foundational to what has followed, and which aren't, at least as far as I know, recognisably derived from the Hippocratic oath. One thing that does need to be clear here is that the oath is only the oldest surviving work in its field -- it's almost certain that older discussions of medical ethics have been lost.
    I reformulated it to focus on the age of the text instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One debate focuses on the moral status of fetuses, for example, whether they are full-fledged persons and whether abortion is a form of murder: "one debate" reads oddly, since we already had this conversation a section or so earlier: I think there's value in approaching the same issue from another perspective, but perhaps nod to the fact that readers have already seen it?
    I changed the introductory clause. Do you think we should mention the violinist thought experiment again? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Up to you: I can't immediately think what that would look like, but there might be value if you can put a specifically medical-ethics spin on it here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of life, ethical issues arise about whether a person has the right to end their life in cases of terminal illness and if doctors may help them do so.: could cut at the end of life, and (if you like) broaden this statement: plenty of recent discussion has focused on people who are not, medically at least, anywhere near the end of life, but nevertheless want help in getting there.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • many stakeholders are directly and indirectly involved in corporate decisions, such as the CEO, the board of directors, and the shareholders.: all of these are directly involved in at least some decisions: could we swap one of these for a group that are indirectly involved? Or are we counting shareholders as the latter?
    I think the shareholders fit more in the indirectly-group: they do not make the day-by-day corporate decisions but other stakeholders are often keen on making them happy. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Military ethics is a closely related field: lose the bold here.
    This is bold per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT since Military ethics redirects there. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:BOLDREDIRECT has Terms which redirect to an article or section are commonly bolded when they appear in the first couple of paragraphs of the lead section, or at the beginning of another section (emphasis mine): that doesn't apply here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional topics are recruitment, training, and discharge of military personnel.: I think we want a the before recruitment.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 174 (and any similar): decap section.
    For the sake of consistency, I try to use title case for all titles and the like. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but we use that in titles, not descriptions of parts of a work. Here, the same logic applies as with the "p" in e.g. "p. 4": unless we're going to write "Smith 2024, Page 3", we should decap both. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An entity has intrinsic value if it is good in itself or good for its own sake: is this only entities, or can it be e.g. actions and virtues?
    In philosophy, "entity" is often understood as one of the widest terms. In this sense, it would include actions and virtues. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • axiological hedonists say that pleasure is the only source of intrinsic value with the magnitude of value corresponding to the degree of pleasure: better with a comma before with, but consider and that the magnitude of value corresponds to...
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axiological pluralists, by contrast, hold that there are different sources of intrinsic value: can we give any examples?
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • deontological theories tend to reject the idea that what is good can be used to define what is right: I'm not sure I totally understand this one -- can you give (here or in the article) a case study? Kantians think reason is a good, so can be used to derive what is right; Christians think God is good, so following God's law is right, surely?
    I added an example to the article. This point is often made to distinguish consequentialism from deontology. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good example of a theorist, but I must admit I'm still confused as to what that means in practice. Is this just another form of Hume's guillotine -- the idea that when we say "kindness is good" and "it is right to show kindness", we're making two different kinds of statements, and one can't be used to infer the other? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one way to express it. Roughly simplified, as I understand it: an action can be (1) right and good, (2) right and not good, (3) not right and good, (4) not right and not good. According to consequentialists, we only need to know what is good in order to know what is right. So good and right are not really independent and the options (2) and (3) do not apply. Deontologists disagree. This is a rough simplification so we would probably need various disclaimers but I hope the basic idea is clear. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like an important distinction, especially as far as (2) and (3) are concerned. I suppose that's (for example) the idea that it could be right under religious law to stone someone for wearing mixed fibres, even though not much good comes of it (except abstract ideas like purifying the community and warning off potential sinners?) Any way of getting that into the article without going too deep into the weeds? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We allude to this fact at various places, like the contrast between following duties vs the value of consequences, the example of not breaking a promise even if no harm comes of it, and the recently added footnote. When overview sources mention this fact, they usually do so in passing without going much into detail. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this section would be clearer if we brought back one of those concrete examples (like, for example, the idea of breaking a promise being wrong even if it brings good things as a consequence), but happy to defer to you. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some theorists, like Mark Rowlands, argue that morality is not limited to humans: I find it interesting that Rowlands got a name-check here but nobody got one in bioethics or Just War. Perhaps consider sticking Singer and Augustine/Aquinas up there? We seemed to be channelling the latter in particular.
    The name-check was more of necessity to avoid a weasel phrase. Aquinas is mentioned in the history section. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would put some dates on the different societies in the first couple of paragraphs of History -- we've whooshed through about 3,000 years but given the casual reader the impression that this all took place at basically the same time.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In medieval India, philosophers like: Hindu philosophers? We've given a religion for everyone in this paragraph except these two.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ancient and medieval paragraphs on ethical history are impressively multicultural, but once we get to Hobbes, we don't really have anyone outside the European cultural sphere -- in fact, if you take out Brits and Germans, we've got almost nobody at all. Is there anything we can do to widen the scope?
    If we simply follow the overview sources on the history of ethics, this is roughly the picture we get. We could mention figures like Wang Yangming and Mahatma Gandhi. I could try to do some research to see if we can come up with more but they probably wouldn't be covered in a typical overview of the history of ethics. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neuroethics" is an interesting inclusion in the "see also" -- I assume we don't have any of the other many x-ethics fields down there because we've name-checked them earlier. Should we therefore build some mention of neuroethics into e.g. the bioethics section?
    We could but I'm not sure that it's important enough. For example, Gordon's overview article "Bioethics" does not mention neuroethics. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Must admit I struggle to see an argument by which it's important enough for a "see also" (when no other field, discipline etc is), but not important enough for any mention at all in the text -- but this is a very minor point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the link. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, is the Ethical movement really notable enough to take the top spot in the See also, or indeed any spot at all? It seems like a very small operation.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for a pass through, though I appreciate I've given you a lot to work with -- hopefully, mostly questions and gentle steers rather than a massive set of demands. Greatly enjoyed the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this in-depth review and the thoughtful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist: Do you have the impression that your main concerns have been addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do -- I've made a few tiny copyedits and replies above, but nothing that would forestall a support. Excellent work on a vital article, and thank you for an interesting and collegial exchange on the review points. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and the thought-provoking exchange! Phlsph7 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

You're a braver editor than me taking on such a task, and well done for even daring to do it. (I haven't read the likes of Rawls, Mill, Bentham et al since my university days, but I'll struggle through to see what I can find). - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SchroCat, I appreciate you taking a look at the article! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few very points:

Remsense (post facto)

[edit]
Getting in prior to the close here, but congrats and thanks to Phlsph7 and everyone else in the collaboration on this one. These articles are really important work the entire project can be very proud of and take inspiration from. Remsense诉 22:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 3 August 2024 [62].

Ghost in the Machine (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...), Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is primarily the work of PSA, who did a phenomenal job gathering information on this song. They approached me off-wiki last month asking to collaborate on helping to build the article, and we are both of the belief that it is ready for FAC. This song is from SZA's smash-hit album SOS, and while it was never released as a single, it still became the first-ever top 40 hit for its featured artist, the one and only Phoebe Bridgers. Cited by several critics and by SZA herself as an example of the album's experimentation with genres outside of R&B, the song revolves around themes of relationships faltering due to a lack of meaningful connection, with recurring themes surrounding artificial intelligence. I have greatly enjoyed collaborating with PSA on this one, and we both anticipate the community's feedback. (Disclosure: for my part, this is a WikiCup nomination.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Oppose on prose. I was the GA reviewer, and I said when I passed it that "the prose is a little awkward in places but I think this meets the GA standards". FA prose standards are higher. Here are a few examples of wording that I think needs to be improved.

  • "Elsewhere, it appeared on national charts in Australia, Canada, and Portugal." "Elsewhere" is redundant; the list of places tells the reader it's elsewhere.
  • "many praised the two performers as a fitting match despite their discographies' different sounds, whereas a few found Bridgers an unnecessary addition". "Fitting match" is redundant; "discographies' different sounds" is an odd figurative use of "discography" -- it's their music that has a characteristic sound, not the list of their music; "unnecessary addition" is a bit vague.
    • I've replaced "fitting match" with "good fit", "discographies' different sounds" with "the differences between their respective musical styles", and rephrased the "unnecessary addition" bit. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From April to May 2022, SZA told media outlets that she had recently finished the album": strictly speaking this means she did nothing else but say this during that time, which is not what you want to say.
  • "SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album. The roster included artists like": "roster" is not the ideal word; it means a list of people who have a given duty.
  • "Having been categorized as an R&B artist throughout her career, which she believed was because she was a Black woman,[12] SZA sought to prove her musical versatility and combine the R&B sound that had been a staple of her past works[13][14] with a diverse set of other genres and soundscapes." A bit wordy. And we start by saying she thought she was only categorized as an R&B artist because she was Black, and then say R&B was the main genre she had been working in. What does "soundscapes" add here that we don't get from "genre"?
  • "The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was fast." A time is short or long, not fast (in some usages, such as athletic events, you can say "a fast time", but that's not this usage). I really should have caught this in the GA review.
  • "Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that she asks for help even if she feels drained from the romance, which he added was one of the album's recurring themes": a bit hard to parse. Does she feel drained from the romance or not? If she does, why "if"? I think you want "though". And what is the recurring theme? Feeling drained from romance? Or just romance?
    • I've replaced this part with "Time's Andrew R. Chow wrote that there are multiple instances on the album where SZA expresses desire to remain in a relationship despite feeling drained from it, and cited 'Ghost in the Machine' as an example". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are just examples. I'll be glad to revisit if you can get a copyedit and one or two supports on the prose from other reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie, thank you for the constructive criticism. I believe that I have addressed the specific points you have mentioned (replies inline), and will be giving the article a few combs-through to identify other possible issues with the prose. Cheers, Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, a fair few edits and a couple of supports since you last looked at it. Do you fancy having another run through? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through again and have struck my oppose; I don't think I can support, but I no longer see prose issues as concerning as I did earlier. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "The lyrics are written" → try getting this out of passive voice, ie "Written in a conversational style, the lyrics express..."
  • I found it very odd that the songwriters and producers are not mentioned in the lead.
  • "Critics primarily focused on Bridgers's appearance on the song" → "In reviews, critics primarily..."
  • "for their synergy " → get out of wikivoice by converting to "as synergistic"
  • "she ultimately won more awards than any other artist that year" → questionable relevance for the lead given the main artist is SZA
  • "was a speedy feat", "had its live performance debut" → this doesn't feel professional
  • "appeared on the national charts in Canada, Australia, and Portugal" → can't rely on refs in other sections
  • overall I think there are slightly too many references to the album. context is great but I think some sentences could be cut. Like "She posted the album's track list on Twitter on December 5, 2022." is really unnecessary I think.
    • I've tried to trim some of the references to other songs (thinking it over, I'm not sure if "Kill Bill" needed to be namedropped, let alone twice, though I believe at least one of those instances was my error) and extraneous references to the album itself. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a member of Boygenius, she also won Best Rock Song and Best Rock Performance for "Not Strong Enough" and Best Alternative Music Album for The Record" → this level of detail is also unnecessary I think

Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback, Heartfox. I believe that I have addressed your comments. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or 'a little bit of everything' in her words" → seems unnecessary when the paraphrase beforehand already says the same thing
  • "In a Billboard cover story published", "In an interview with Nessa of Hot 97", "In an interview for CBS News Los Angeles", "SZA told Alternative Press" → all this seems unnecessary. I don't care where stuff was said, I care about what was said.
  • "In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit" → Bisel thought Bridgers would fit in an open instrumental section during the middle of the demo
  • "was trying to make the feature happen" → informal
  • "for escapism, for gratification, to assuage" → for escapism and gratification to assuage
  • ", being the most" → rephrasing with a semi-colon would work better

Further comments, Heartfox (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Replies inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support but I do think the article would benefit from more input from other editors. Heartfox (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joeyquism

[edit]

I'll get to this sometime soon (likely within the next few days, I'm a bit burnt out right now). Thank you for the review(s) of Windswept Adan, by the way! Consider this my way of paying you back. :) joeyquism (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Joey, and you're welcome! It was a pleasure to review. Take as much time as you need :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Hello again! I've noted some of my concerns below; feel free to refuse with justification:

  • ...with imminent release being considered a possibility as early as 2019... - Is this clause particularly relevant? I feel that the same information is conveyed or to some extent implied by the preceding clause (After numerous delays). I'd suggest removing it, or rephrasing it to where it does not sit awkwardly in the middle of more pertinent information.
  • While some tracks had an "aggressive" sound, certain others were balladic, soft, or heartfelt. - Would it be worth it to note if "Ghost in the Machine" falls into any of these descriptions? I've noticed the gradual buildup to the mention of the subject, and while I do find it engaging, I feel as if this is sort of extraneous as it stands, as there have been no mentions of the track prior to this sentence. That being said, I recognize that it does provide more context as to how SOS sounds.
  • For A. D. Amorosi of Variety... - I feel like this is a different way of wording "In his opinion, [...]". I'd personally avoid this kind of phrasing by indicating that the following text is something that he wrote, and is not something that readers should take as fact, which is how it reads to me right now (I acknowledge that I cannot speak for others here). Something like "Writing for Variety, A. D. Amorosi wrote that the production..." would suffice.
    • and is not something the readers should take as fact – this is intentional, as I wanted to convey that it was Amorosi's opinion that the production sounded like those instruments (neither of which are mentioned in the credits). Nevertheless, I think your suggested phrasing works better, although I did replace Writing for... with In a review of SOS for... so as not to use "writing" and "wrote" only a few words apart in the same sentence (with respect to your mention of WP:ELEVAR below, which I found enlightening). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bisel worked together with Carter Lang... - Remove "together"(?)
  • The turnaround time for completing "Ghost in the Machine" was short. - This is sort of just my personal preference, but I'm not a fan of short sentences. If they're not at the beginning of a paragraph (in which case, I would encourage them, as they punch a lot harder), they disrupt the flow of the reading experience. I'd suggest conjoining this with the following sentence through a semicolon, or breaking the paragraph it belongs to in two with this sentence being the first.
  • The Alternative Press article states that "SZA wanted to weave in the voice of a 'highly conversational' person, or as she explains, someone with a conversational approach to their music like Mac DeMarco, Connan Mockasin or Kevin Parker of Tame Impala." Do you think this warrants inclusion in the article? This seems like valuable information for describing the conversational style of the lyrics. Let me know your thoughts on this. Do note that I did not do a spot or source check; I initially checked this link out to see if there was more to the quote "I feel like there's so much debate about what's good, what's bad, what's this, what's that?"
    • I think this could be worth including, though I'm not quite sure where. Maybe in §Music_and_production, where Bisel suggests to SZA that she invite Bridgers to feature? The Alternative Press article certainly implies this to be a reason that SZA felt like Bridgers would be a good fit. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your instinct is correct here. I'm thinking perhaps some integration with the sentence In the middle of the demo was an open instrumental section where Bisel thought Bridgers would fit, so he suggested to SZA that she include Bridgers as a feature; SZA agreed.; perhaps before or after would be alright too.
  • SZA, tired of online drama, sings about... - I think this reads strangely, but I'm not sure of how I would amend it. Leave it be for now, but I just wanted to note that I didn't think this phrase flowed very well.
  • ...the song arrived at its peak of number 17... - Can be conveyed more simply as "the song peaked at number 17"; I'm citing WP:ELEVAR here. Not trying to attack, but don't be afraid to use the same term twice within close proximity of each other at the expense of sounding a bit like you're droning; I struggle with this as well at times.
    • As I alluded above, I had not previously considered that "elegant variation" could be a problem, but I totally understand where you're coming from. I've edited the sentene to reuse the "debuted and peaked" wording. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CJ Thorpe-Tracey for The Quietus... - "For" can be replaced with "of", or the clause can be phrased as something like "For The Quietus, CJ Thorpe-Tracey wrote that he felt..."

I have definitely not adhered to the "no style policing" expectation, but I do feel that some of the prose can be improved to further benefit the reading experience; additionally, most of the concerns that I had before were addressed by the other reviewers and corrected. Overall, I think it reads quite nicely; it just needs some touch-ups to really flow. I'll let you know if I have any further comments; as of now, I have no established position on where I stand for support or oppose. As always, feel free to let me know your thoughts with a reply. Hope you're having a great weekend, and I look forward to hearing back from you soon! joeyquism (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback Joey :) I hope you had a great weekend too! I'll start working to address these comments after I get home later today. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Joey, I think I've addressed everything – replies inline! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits, Dylan620! I have left one more comment above regarding the placement of the SZA quote from the Alternative Press article; once that is addressed, I'll read over the article a few more times and likely support. Thanks, and have a great rest of your day! joeyquism (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Joey, hope you have a great rest of your day as well! I've replied to your comment above. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better! Support on prose review. joeyquism (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]
  • So you don't mention anything about the song's chords, which is just two chords - Gb major 7 to Ebminor (sometimes Eb major). Can you find any references to its chords or tempo, as in beats per minute? It feels like a steady tempo throughout the whole song.
    • Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any sheet music uploads by the song's publisher. I did find this at musicnotes.com, but it's an arrangement by a third party, which I assume doesn't pass muster for inclusion (though of course I hope I'm wrong here). Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dylan pretty much said what I was going to say. Musicnotes.com composition is not guaranteed to be the same composition as the original studio version's, so the information was decisively left out. - Elias
  • I guess I gotta ask, where is the sourcing for the credits?
  • The liner notes for the vinyl; I've added a ref. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was addressed at GAN: "credits are assumed to be cited to the album's liner notes, which WP:ALBUMSTYLE tells me usually does not need an explicit citation". I have removed the citation accordingly. - Elias
    • It took some digging, but I've found an image on Discogs where the text is clear enough to be of use for verification.
  • All in all, the writing is pretty good in my opinion.
  • I also used a random number generator to spotcheck references.
  • 37 - I don't know if this reference accurately. It doesn't mention " she believes has been overtaken by self-centeredness and lack of empathy. ", nor does it mention that Sadhguru was "the founder of the Isha Foundation". Otherwise the reference seems formatted fine.
  • I mulled over whether to cite the Isha Foundation tidbit to a Vox article linked in the source, or to remove it outright; I opted for the latter because at the end of the day I'm not sure how relevant it is to the topic at hand. (PSA, feel free to correct me here.) I've also removed the sentence you quoted (partly per your concerns, and partly because I think it might have been a little redundant to the sentence before it) and moved the paragraph break to start the next one at "The song also discusses artificial intelligence". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a WP:SKY/WP:NOTCITE situation IMO. Namedropping Sadhguru without context because the description would otherwise have to be cited is like saying I should cite that SZA is an American singer-songwriter in the prose for GiTM. The articles about those people already cover those descriptors. - Elias
  • 40 - "The lyrics were interpreted by publications as being about her then-boyfriend, Irish actor Paul Mescal" the references more hint it was a breakup. Was it?
  • 46 - this reference doesn't cover the information at all, which is supposed to be about the album being released on 12/9/2022
  • This had been a supplementary reference for the "three years of delays" clause of that same sentence - I've pulled the ref (and a couple more) forward to that comma. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56 - the source says "Versatility largely wins out. Only SZA could find room for Travis Scott on a slow jam ballad, Open Arms, as well as Phoebe Bridgers (Ghost in the Machine)," - I guess "wins out" covers the information, but it seems to be a bit biased in my opinion in its current wording.
  • This was supplementary to ref 57, but I've restructured the sourcing in that paragraph, and separated this ref as citing how the song contributes to the album's diversity. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really? I don't see how "cohesive" is a biased word to use. - Elias
  • I was mostly remarking how " many praised the collaboration as successful" was biased, since I didn't think source 56 would call that praise. The Guardian said "Clocking in at 23 tracks, SOS might well register as a distress signal, with SZA searching for a through line connecting her album’s multiple producers, its grab bag of genres and disparate featured guests," "it treads a fine line between swashbuckling versatility and a lack of cohesion.", and "Better sequencing might have smoothed the bumps." The Guardian review very much read as mixed, not quite as successful. To include it with " many praised the collaboration as successful despite the two artists' different musical styles" feels contrary to the source, and makes me worried that the article might be biased in its point of view. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60 - yea that covers it
  • 68 - that covers it
  • 76 - that works

Thanks, I replied, mostly still the same few concerns, regarding the beats per minute, the credits (mostly want to verify just for FAC purposes), and about the one source being contradictory to what's written in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Apologies for taking so long to reply, but I think I've addressed your further comments. Please let me and PSA know if you have any more feedback. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support now. I can see that there aren't a lot of good reliable links out there about the song's composition, which is a shame, but it's understandable. You've addressed my concerns satisfactorily. Best of luck finishing up this FAC! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Pass

[edit]

To follow. - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the above, all the sources are properly formatted and from good enough quality sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, SchroCat. I've replied inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620 @SchroCat, I am incredibly sorry this is late, but there are some things I have to say: in title case, when a preposition is part of a phrasal verb, the preposition is capitalized (see MOS:TITLECAPS). For "SZA's Out for Blood", "out" here functions not as a preposition but an adjective, which is why I capitalized the word. Wrt the certifications, it is the standard for music articles to use the Certification Table Entry template so that updating certs and certification dates is easier. An inconvenience if you want archive links and consistent capitalization, but the people who regularly update this stuff are probably going to be unhappy this was changed. I might raise the archiving issue at the template talk eventually. For now, I have recapitalized the prepositions and reverted to the templates. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 [please make some noise] 00:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable Elias – hopefully it's okay with Gog (courtesy ping), in response to whom I had changed the certification table. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazilian single certifications ..." etc
@Gog: I attempted to address the capitalizations for the certification refs by replacing the table-generating templates with this, which seemed to work. According to Elias above, it is customary to use the relevant templates ({{Certification Table Top}}, {{Certification Table Entry}}, and {{Certification Table Bottom}}) because they make it easier to update the certifications; the entry template uses sentence case for its refs, which unfortunately contradicts the title case used for the other refs in this article. Is it still okay to use the templates in this case? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

[edit]

To follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No lead image, but also no obvious candidates -- the song doesn't seem to have been yet released as a single, so the standard practice of using the sleeve art under FUR can't be used here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated, UndercoverClassicist. We're on a similar wavelength with our views of alt text. I'm currently working on preparing Timeline of the 2011 Pacific hurricane season for FLC, and have tried to make the track map and satellite photo alt texts as descriptive as possible. A picture is worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes. I'll try to think of something to spruce up the alt texts here. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • References: article titles should either all be in title case or all in sentence case. Regardless of how they appear in their originals.
Yeah, it looksas if cites 79, 80 and 81 are autogenerated to be non-MoS compliant.

Down to Lyrics. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gog—replies inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was motivated to write the song out of exhaustion around the constant fighting between people". Maybe 'exhaustion caused by the ...'?
  • "the perceived lack of meaningful human connections". This seems to hang in space. Do you mean '... on the internet', '... in modern life', or something else?
  • "including "Ghost in the Machine"." Do you mean something like 'including one for "Ghost in the Machine" ? Or perhaps 'including "Ghost in the Machine" for the Best Pop Duo/Group Performance award'?
  • "at the Madison Square Garden". Optional: personally I would delete "the".

A well put together article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog; I think I've addressed everything in this latest batch. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. An impressive article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I would attribute the quote in this part, (while some tracks had an "aggressive" sound), to clarify to the reader who is saying this.
  • In this part, (During the build-up to the album's release, SZA created a list of possible collaborators for the album), I would avoid repeating the word "album". I am unsure what the word "build-up" is referencing, as in promotion for the album or something else? Did SZA actively and publicly reach out to other artists for collaborations while promoting the album? Maybe I am just being dense at the moment, but I would like some clarification about this.
  • The image of Rob Bisel includes the year that the photo was taken while the images of Phoebe Bridgers and SZA do not. I would be consistent with whether or not this information is included in the captions.
  • I am uncertain about "hushed" means in this context, (on hushed electronic production). I think something like "muted" would work better in this context.
    • I'm not quite sure if I agree with this. According to Wiktionary, the definition of 'hushed' is Very quiet; expressed using soft tones, while the contextually relevant definition of 'muted' is Quiet or soft. They're similar, but 'hushed' feels just that little more specific and fitting, especially since the production actually does make use of soft tones. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have just never seen "hushed" used in regards to music, particularly with production, but I could be wrong. When I think of the word "hushed", I more so associate it with voices (i.e. the "hushed whispers" example provided in the Wiktionary entry). It is not a major point, but personally, I just have never seen the word used like this before. However, since no one else has mentioned this, I could just be over-thinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid the use of "meanwhile" in this context, (Meanwhile, Alex Hopper of American Songwriter and Andrew R. Chow of Time). The word implies that this action is occurring at the same time as the events of the previous sentence so it does not really work in this case. I would use a different transition word.
    • That is a very good point and one that I wish I'd thought of myself. Reading it again, I'm uncertain if a transition word is actually necessary here, so I've chucked 'meanwhile' without replacing it with anything. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but I do not think "personally" is needed in this part, (SZA personally contacted Bridgers), as that could be understood without that word.
  • I think a link would be helpful for the "AI Art Generator" quote, like one to the artificial intelligence art article.

I hope that this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure that I have not missed anything. Best of luck with the FAC, and I hope you are having a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Aoba47, I hope your weekend is starting well too! I've replied inline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replies and for the kind words. The "hushed" part is not a major issue and will not hold up my review. As I have said above, I just have not seen that word used in this kind of context, but that could very well just be me. I will look through the article again sometime tomorrow if that is okay with you. I do not imagine that I will find anything further, but I just want to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Yes, that works for me! Please let me and Elias know if you have any more queries. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I do not see anything further for me to comment on. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I am glad that I was able to help with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]

Sources spot check

[edit]

OK, I've done just over a third of the citations. I've been really picky on a couple of these, but I think I need to be, as you seem in a couple of places to slightly over stretch what the source has said, even though you're in the same sort of ball park. There's also the possibility I missed a bit, particularly in those multiple citation points, so I'll let you point out where I've not seen what I've been asking for.

  • FN1-5: What, in the five sources, covers "themes like heartbreak" and the acclaim for "SZA's vocal performance and songwriting and for the musical style"?
    • Ref 1 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's "raw, candid writing" and calls it "one of the high marks of the confessional R&B of the past decade"
    • Ref 2 (at time of writing) calls that album "one of the decade's best" and highlights her voice and songwriting (the latter of which is presumably referred to when the reviewer remarks on "her emotional aptitude for being vulnerable and playful at the same time")
    • Ref 3 (at time of writing) describes the praise Ctrl received for melding R&B with elements of other genres, including "indie, alternative, [and] trap"
    • Ref 4 (at time of writing) implies that Ctrl is "wonderfully experimental" (more specifically, it describes SOS as an "expansion" of this, and, not counting singles, Ctrl was her last major release before SOS)
    • Ref 5 (at time of writing) praises Ctrl's genre malleability and lyricism
    • I will concede that none of these sources verify "themes like heartbreak". My next edit will be to rectify this by incorporating some sources I found on the Ctrl article. Will report back shortly. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As promised: there are five new sources, and I replaced "heartbreak" with "facets of love and identity" roughly in line with the sources. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • So there are now ten sources to deal with three and a half lines of text? We're into Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory here. I think you need to rationalise this by either removing those that are just doubling up on what others say, or using the relevant citations at the end of each sentence. Please try to remember that the text should follow what the sources tell us, we shouldn't be hunting down and adding sources to justify what we think is correct.
          Do these new sources state that the album "received widespread acclaim", or are they just examples of positive reviews? If the latter, they fall foul of WP:SYNTH. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • We're into Wikipedia:Citation overkill territory here. – Right, I was worried that could be the case, but I figured the approach was worth trying. The purpose of the five new sources was mainly to verify the lyrical content of Ctrl, which is not mentioned by any of the original five sources in that footnote. "[F]acets of love and identity" felt like the best way to sum up what those sources said about the lyrics without overloading that sentence with commas. I started making that edit with the intention of using them for a separate small batch of citations immediately after "identity", but found portions in those sources that also verified the other information in that passage.
            I have just made a couple tweaks to the background section in an attempt to resolve your latest comment. I employed both of your suggestions. I took two sources for the lyrical content of Ctrl out of the footnote and placed them where I had originally intended (adding a third in the process). I further reduced the number of sources in the footnote itself back to five by removing three sources that were redundant to the others in the group. I also replaced the Ctrl review sources from Exclaim! and The New York Times with retrospective pieces from NME and The New Yorker, which I believe are more appropriate for a passage that mentions the lasting impact of Ctrl. Courtesy-pinging PSA. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's much better now. The only quibble I would have is the half sentence that CTRL "received widespread acclaim for SZA's vocals, songwriting, and musical approach". While you've given examples of critics who have praised those aspects, that's not the same as saying there was "widespread acclaim". I think you need either a source that says this (a sort of meta review-style piece), or rephrase what you have to follow only what the sources say. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've rephrased this portion as it was commercially successful and received considerable acclaim, as the sources do verify that the album was well-regarded (several Grammy nominations, nods from fellow musicians, "ascended to classic status", "opened a portal", etc.), even though they don't specify that it was acclaimed for those particular qualities. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: OK
  • FN7-9: What, in the five sources, covers that she "sought to prove her musical versatility by imbuing her established sound with elements from multiple genres". The sources all say there are multiple genres, but I think I'm missing the statement that it was a conscious decision to "prove her musical versatility"
  • FN10-11: What, in the five sources, covers that she "envisioned it being an amalgamation of various disparate musical styles"? The two sources say the album has several disparate musical styles, but not that she envisioned it.
    • I've addressed both of the above bullets by removing the statements of intent; I rephrased the relevant portions as SZA imbued her established sound and The album incorporates various disparate moods and musical styles, respectively. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN12: Empire doesn't talk about diversity but versatility, which is a different thing
    OK, that's much better. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN13: OK
  • FN14: OK
  • FN15-16: OK
  • FN11, 17-18: Where does is describe a "hushed" electronic section for SZA's parts?
    "mellow and blissful" is not the same as "hushed". "Hushed" refers to volume, not mood. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair point. I've replaced "hushed" with "peaceful". Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN19: OK
  • FN20: OK
  • FN19,21: OK
  • FN22-23: OK
  • FN24-25: OK
  • FN26-27: OK
  • FN28: OK, although I think you should call it "indie-pop angst", per the source
    Great, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN29: OK

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG and SchroCat: Is it okay if I get to these new comments tomorrow or the day after? I've been working on reviewing an FLC and I promised myself I'd try to finish tonight. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm off to bed but I've begun to work my way through. Should be all set within the next couple days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dylan620. I'm happy with these changes now - all good from me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, FrB.TG, the first third of the refs are all okay now. The issues were limited in nature to only a few of the citations, with a little overstretch on the claims - no huge problem overall. I'm happy to either draw a line under this with a pass, or do some more, if you feel it would merit it. Your call. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Schro. These should be enough, although I do have one last concern of my own. The article says "Bridgers's verse begins with the lyric, "You said all my friends are on my payroll..." but the cited source (43) says "You tell me my friends are on my payroll". Which is the correct lyric? FrB.TG (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: "You tell me" is a typo in the Guardian source; I have added two citations to sources containing the correct lyric directly after the quote. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/August_2024&oldid=1242615521"