Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2020

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) 30 December 2020 [1].

Imaginative Tales

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another minor science fiction magazine from the 1950s; all the significant magazines from the era are now FA, so we're down to the also-rans. I've dug up everything I can find on the magazine, including a minor anecdote about Hugh Hefner. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • How do you know that copyright was not renewed on the magazine?
    If you go here and click on the post-1978 link you can search for renewals. Searching for "Imaginative Tales" shows that some individual stories were renewed, but not the covers; searching for "Space Travel" and sorting by date shows that nothing was renewed from the three issues with that title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table is wide enough and sandwiches with the infobox, it would probably display better with non-inline formatting. (t · c) buidhe 04:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The caption at the bottom of the table doesn't wrap, so you have to add carriage returns manually otherwise the table just gets wider and wider. Another user removed that carriage return not long before you looked at it, making the table unnecessarily wide. I've restored it, with a <br />, so it should be narrower now. Is that good enough? If not, rather than making it non-inline, I think I'd swap it with the second image, since that's narrower. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • Would it be possible somehow to link this part, American science fiction (sf) magazines, from the "Publication history" section to science fiction magazine since it is the first time it is mentioned in the article? I like that you put the acronym in parenthesis, and I would not want the link to disrupt that. Would something like science fiction (sf) magazine of science fiction (sf) magazine be possible or is that just more distracting? I think the parenthesis is more valuable than the link, but it was something I noticed when looking at the article, and I wanted to raise it to your attention.
    Done; it's linked in the lead but I usually link again in the body and I think this is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the edit. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend including some ALT text for the images, but I do not think it is required. I know ALT text has been the subject of some debate, and as someone who does not use a screen reader or has a visual impairment, I cannot really comment either way on it.
    Done for the body image; is it required for the infobox? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure if there is a hard-and-fast rule about it (or really ALT text in general for FA/FACs). I usually add it just to cover all of my bases, but I will leave that decision up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a link to fantasy comedy be helpful for the phrase, humorous fantasy, in the lead? I'm on the fence about it since the target article is not in great shape and I would not want to add too many links to the lead, but just wanted to get your opinion on it.
    Sure; one day someone will improve the article. I did it through the redirect for "humorous fantasy" since I think it's likely that will be the main name for the article one day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. And having an article linked to more and more places throughout Wikipedia will hopefully encourage more people to see and ideally improve it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, should Space Travel be in bold since it is another name for the magazine? I am only asking because the alternative names are bolded in Saturn (magazine).
    Yes, definitely; can't believe I missed that. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is an easy thing to miss, especially since it seems that this title was not around for very long lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, In Hamling's announcement of the magazine, in an editorial in Imagination, would it work to say "as an editorial in" instead? I am just trying to think of a way to avoid having "In. . . in. . . " in the same sentence.
    I found another way to avoid it -- I think "as an editorial" wouldn't be a natural way to say it, but you're right that the repetition needs to be avoided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. I was struggling to think of a good alternative. Your wording is definitely better (and more correct lol) than mine. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the term paperback is used in the body of the article, I think it would be better to use that instead of pocketbook in the lead. It might just be me, but I more so associate pocketbook with a bag or purse (and then a very silly Jennifer Hudson song lol).
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this edit. I would be curious if pocketbook was some sort of regional/cultural difference or possibly something that just fell out of style. Either way, that is a tangent lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know any years for when Robinson suggested the Caravan title change or Hugh Hefner meeting? I was just curious because the timeline becomes a little murky for me, especially since the lead mentions the Space Travel name change before the Rogue parts, but the reverse happens in the article itself.
    It is definitely murky. Note 1 in the article points out the discrepancies in Robinson's account; I thought it was worth including anyway but I can't put a date in because Robinson doesn't give one, and per the note, some part of his recollection must be wrong anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I appreciate that you are direct in your note about him being mistaken. It could just be an instance of someone forgetting or mixing up the years that something happened. I have been guilty of that in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article as always, and I hope my comments are at least somewhat helpful. Most of them are just questions about potential improvements. I was drawn in by the cover in the lead lol. You do inspire me to one day work on an article about a magazine, as it is both a good and informative way to document this kind of history. Have a wonderful rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; you spotted some things I'm embarrassed to have missed! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I could help. That's the fun part of these FAC reviews, although I have definitely made much sillier mistakes than you lol. I support the nomination for promotion based on the prose. I am not too fussed on whether or not the infobox image has ALT text or not. I think it is nice to be consistent, but it is not a dealbreaker imo. Aoba47 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties, just a light copyedit from me -- not a big article but I think appropriate detail given the subject's relative obscurity and its coverage in the sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Four weeks in and only one support. I wouldn't want this to time out, but it seems to be heading that way. Perhaps you could see if you could call in some payback for all of the reviews you do? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK; I'll take my chances. I don't like to nag people for reviews, and maybe it's my turn to have a FAC archived for lack of reviews -- it's actually never happened to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well we wouldn't what to break a tradition. I'll add it to urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I'll have a look soon. Though I don't have a personal relationship with these old magazines, I very fondly remember an interview with Forrest J. Ackerman where he mentioned many of them in a Danish TV show. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give the date for the first cover shown, how about the second one?
  • Link people mentioned in image captions?
  • "Debut issue of Imaginative Tales, September 1954" Shouldn't the title be in italics here?

Thanks; all done -- I was surprised to see Malcolm Smith already has an article; I was expecting that to be a red link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant spell out Amazing Stories... FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done or responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 22 December 2020 (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) 30 December 2020 [2].

New Romantics (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though it failed to enter the US top 40, "New Romantics" by the pop star Taylor Swift has proved to be a critical darling over time. For a song that received little press coverage like this one, I believe the article has done a great job covering the subject matter comprehensively, and that it satisfies the criteria of a Featured Article. I am open to any and all suggestions to improve the article. Thank you, HĐ (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Aoba47

[edit]

I will leave a few comments here as a placeholder. I have actually never heard this song and am only vaguely aware of its existence. I will try my best to post a full review in the coming week, but if for any reason I do not put up further comments by next Wednesday, please ping me as a reminder. Here are some quick comments.

  • This is a clarification question, but I am guessing that Swift (or Martin or Shellback) did really discuss the writing and recording process or any of their takes on the song?
  • To my knowledge, no... Martin has a reputation of not discussing anything regarding his songwriting, and Swift only PR'ed the standard edition of 1989. As this song was originally a "bonus track" on the deluxe edition, it received little coverage from critics when 1989 was first released (except for Rob Sheffield, who was obsessed with this song), HĐ (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part in the lead, was released as a promotional single through Big Machine Records on March 3, 2015, and was released to US radio stations, avoid having "was released" twice in the same sentence.
  • In the Jessie Morris sentence, I am not sure if "partnership" needs to be in quotes.
  • The Seventeen article was not the focus of my comment as it was more of a suggestion. I was more so focusing on the fan backlash to the music video's limited release, and I think that could be a useful bit of information to briefly add to the article to show that the criticism about the release was not just from journalists. If this information is already covered in the Sydney Morning Herald article, then that citation should be fine by itself. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I'm not sure how to include this... While the fans might have been disappointed, as a temporal response, there is no quantifiable method to "measure" how exactly it impacted the situation. Unlike, for example, the backlash regarding Swift's squad during "Bad Blood" era, which was covered in public/academic discussions as well, this fan backlash mostly circulated within Swift's fanbase, so I'd consider it rather trivial, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the follow-up, and I understand and appreciate your explanation. It was just something that I noticed while reading the article, and I wanted your opinion about it. I agree with you that in the larger scope of things, it is very trivial after looking at it again. Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the "Live performances" section is so small, could it be combined in the "Release and commercial performance" section?
  • I would strongly recommend that you archive your sources to prevent link rot and death. You could try using the IABot. It used to work great for me, but I have been having issues with it lately where it sometimes works and sometimes gives me an error screen. Aoba47 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understandable. I used to love IABot, but I actually am starting to dislike it now because I am getting so many errors. It may be more worthwhile (yet more time-consuming) to go to Internet Archive and do it all manually. I will of course not let that hold back my support for this FAC, but it would be useful to preserving this a FA whenever it does get promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Aoba47 for your comments! I believe I have addressed your concerns accordingly. Hope you are having a great time, and as the end of this year is near, I hope you are safe and sound and ready for a fresh start ahead, HĐ (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would specify in the lead that the music video was an Apple Music exclusive, especially since this received a lot of attention from journalists.
  • It was only available for a week, so I don't know how to put it effectively... Would something like It was available exclusively on Apple for a week before being distributed elsewhere work? HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, Swift and the two producers also served as songwriters., sounds a little weird to me. I would specify that you mean in the context of this song.
  • I have a clarification question about this part, To this end, she cut ties with former longtime producers in favor of prominent mainstream pop producers. The "cut ties" part seems a little strong to me. Was there any animosity between Swift and her country producers to the point that she cut them off completely? I had assumed that Swift just decided to work with pop producers, but did not actually "cut ties" with country producers (if that makes sense).

I think this covers everything. Once these comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments once again. Please let me know if the article is okay by now, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review and for all of your responses and work. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. I think you have been doing a lot of great work with the 1989 articles so congrats with that. I hope you are also staying safe and sound (pun intended) and you have a great end to your year. 2020 has definitely been an experience lol. Aoba47 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by TheSandDoctor

[edit]

Some comments that I anticipate turning to a support

  • "...seven out of 13..." - this mixing of literal numbers vs words seems odd to me. Shouldn't it be one or the other? The rest of the sentence is all in word form.
  • "For PopMatters's Corey..." - I know that this one is more personal taste and both are (somehow) technically correct, but "PopMatters's..." really doesn't look right to me. I strongly prefer "PopMatters'..."
  • "The chorus starts..." is a disambig link. What you probably want is refrain (Chorus (song) redirects there)
  • The lyric "The best people in life are free" -- having a capital "The" in the middle of the line seems rather odd. Would it not be better to have it lowercase?
  • "...exclusively on Target..." -- that doesn't read right. Wouldn't "at Target" be more preferable?
  • "They favorably likened the song to the works of Chvrches" -- I think "Baesley likened" would be better here.
  • labeling it as "this work of genius,... -- I think cutting out "this" from the start of the quote and going with labeling it as a "work of genius..." would better fit the flow here
  • "...the magazine commented..." - reads kind of funny to me here. Would it not be better as ", with Rolling Stone commenting that..."?
  • The critical reception section uses "lamented" or its synonyms throughout the critical reception section. Could this be reasonably consolidated?

(edit conflict) --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, TheSandDoctor. I have revised the article accordingly. Please let me know if the article needs further work, HĐ (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thank you for the tweaks. Support --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_New_Romantics_(Official_Single_Cover).png: source link is dead

Source review (passed)

[edit]

If it is not proper to do a source review alongside a prose one, then please let me know. I thought I should help with this one since I'm reasonably experienced with music articles on Wikipedia (although I am still learning a lot still). My comments are below:

  • Spot checks not done as the nominator is an experience FA writer
  • Citation 15 leads to an "Internal Server Error" message. I have tried Googling the article in question, and I still get this error screen. I would mark the link as dead so the archived version is the first one presented in the citation. I get the same error screen for citations 2 and 16.
  • Citation 19 says Pop Songs, but leads to the Mainstream Top 40 page. I would use the title from the article to avoid potentially confusing readers that click on the link.
  • Thank you for doing so. I forgot that this was an automated link so I know you do not have a lot of control over it. It should be fine. I was just a little confused when I first clicked the link because I thought I was sent to a different chart. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 27 is still alive, so I would mark it as alive. I think the citation is just missing the "url-access=alive" bit.
  • The publication date for citation 29 says April 14, 2016, but the article has April 13, 2016. I honestly was not paying that much attention to this when looking through the citations, but I notice this one day difference again for citation 30, where the citation says April 7, 2016 but the article says April 6, 2016. Do you know if there is a particular reason for this?
  • I'm pretty sure it can be attributed to time zone differences... Mine is UTC+7, so it probably goes a date sooner than the U.S. time zones. I have retrieved the sources you cited one more time, and my screen still reads April 14 and April 7... HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In citation 40, the "New Romantics" entry is signed with the initials B.S., which I am assuming is referencing Brittany Spanos who is named as one of the article's writers.
  • In citation 44 , an author is given in the article (i.e. Jane Song), and since the initial J.S. are listed after the "New Romantics" entry, I think it is safe to say it was written by her.
  • I get an error screen for citation 53.
  • I would consider all of the citations to be from high-quality sources which are appropriate for a music article.
  • The following source (The Words and Music of Taylor Swift) from ABC-Clio has a whole page on the song that may be useful. The writer talks about the song's "coolness" and actually says the song is more reflective of 21st century pop than 1970s and 1980s pop.
  • That is strange. The preview is available on my end, and I can access the page on "New Romantics". I will put in a direct link to the page from the book (here) and if you still cannot access it, I can try taking a screenshot or something so you can see it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, since you have access to the page, I would really appreciate if you could add some bits of info. Or, you could attach a quote from the source, and I'll incorporate it myself, HĐ (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is interesting how Google Books preview can vary so wildly from region to region, but I've also had some inconsistencies where sometimes a book has the preview option only for it to be absent a week or so later. I will email you screenshots of the text so you can incorporate it in as you see fit. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: I do not think you have email active on your Wikipedia account so if possible, could you send me an email so I could send you the screenshot from the source? Thanks in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I can safely omit the source since it mainly discusses about probability in poker, which is referenced in the lyric "I'm about to play my ace". As that is something remotely related to this article, it may qualify as Trivia (However it does seem interesting!) HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Please let me know if anything requires further clarification. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review. I believe anyone can review sources regardless of whether they have reviewed the prose or not. Your help is much appreciated, HĐ (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses, and I am glad to help. I have responded to your points above and once some relatively minors things are ironed out, this should pass my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Hey, just to let you know that I have removed Bustle per WP:RSP, as there is no consensus on whether it is reliable or not. HĐ (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Homeostasis07

[edit]

Lead

  • "New Romantics" was made available for digital download as a promotional single on March 3, 2015, by Big Machine Records. It was released to US radio as the seventh and final single from 1989 on February 23, 2016, by Republic Records in partnership with Big Machine.
I see another review mentioned the original sentence above, but maybe what they were suggesting was to just remove the repetition of "was", as it's quite awkwardly worded here. How about: ""New Romantics" was released digitally as a promotional single on March 3, 2015, by Big Machine Records, and serviced to US radio as the seventh and final single from 1989 on February 23, 2016, by Republic Records in partnership with Big Machine.
  • Many critics lamented that the song did not make the cut of 1989's standard edition; they hailed the song's energetic and lively atmosphere, ranking "New Romantics" among Swift's best songs of her career.
"make the cut" reads a bit too "album reviewer"-ish to me, and "among Swift's best songs of her career" is a bit jarring. How about a more formal: "Many critics lamented that the song did not feature on the standard edition of the album; they hailed the song's energetic and lively atmosphere, ranking "New Romantics" among the best songs of Swift's career."

Production

Music and lyrics

Release and commercial performance

  • Pretty info-heavy with not much editorializing, so not much to complain about here. But I think the sentences in the 3rd paragrph beginning "Laura Bertens, a scholar in art history and cultural studies, ..." could be moved further up the paragraph, since her commentary relates exclusively to the actual music video, and not the sequent Apple Vs. Spotify commentary. How about adding Bertens's commentary to just before the sentence beginning "Complex's Jessie Morris deemed this release part of Swift's "partnership" with Apple Music, ..."?

Critical reception

  • Upon the release of 1989, Corey Baesley from PopMatters deemed "New Romantics" and the other two deluxe edition bonus tracks more "compositionally daring" than the standard edition. → "than any track found on the standard edition."
  • I'm not sure Glamour (magazine) is a "high-quality" reliable source. This can be excised to no detriment of the article as a whole.
Happy to support once most of these are addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Homeostasis07: Thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I have responded to your concerns above. Hope you are having a great week, HĐ (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made a minor edit to the article's lead to fix an "of" repetition that my review inadvertently caused. Feel free to rephrase that if you want. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with the changes you've made. Happy to support this for promotion. Hope the rest of the nomination goes well for you, HĐ. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Heartfox

[edit]
  • Rolling Stone in 2019 included the track on their list of the 100 best songs of the 2010s decade. A few others were not as impressed, deeming the song forgettable. I would switch these sentences
  • Martin maybe "the former"?
Sorry, I meant including Swedish hitmakers Max Martin and Shellback; Swift also recruited Martin as co-executive producer — I think it could flow better with the second "Martin" as "the former" instead of repeating his name twice in the same sentence
Thank you. Done, HĐ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • among the few songs "songs" is redundant
  • the song entered the US Billboard Hot 100 chart dated March 21, 2015, at number 71. did it chart after that date? what happened after that?
  • which required paid subscription which required a paid subscription (?)
  • is there a citation that shows the image is of her performing "New Romantics" and not another song or something?
In the caption maybe change "performing" to "performed" then to be accurate.
Good idea! HĐ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My only comments above :) Heartfox (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article :) HĐ (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HĐ: I've replied above. Heartfox (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response. I've addressed your concerns accordingly, HĐ (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, great work! Heartfox (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment

[edit]

@Nikkimaria: have your image concerns been addressed? And I'd love to see someone outside the pop culture editing sphere look this over also ...Ealdgyth (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "The lyrics are about Swift reigniting her hopes and energy after the heartbreak she had endured." This seems to be a key claim and I would expect it to be cited to a consensus of knowledgeable commentators. I can't see that it is cited at all. The next cite is Jagota, and I can't find this supported there.
  • That is the result of me trying to paraphrase what the writers said. For the Jagota source: After a certain amount of pain, sometimes your best defense is to channel the burning energy of your big hopes and desires ... . The Stuff source also said of the theme as celebrating the heartache and joy of being young. The Carl Wilson review wrote: So many of Swift's older songs are marred by the way she portrays herself as the victim in all the relationship dynamics, a passive way of getting revenge. That pattern has all but vanished on 1989 (he later cited "New Romantics" as an example). I hope my paraphrasing was close to the original's meaning, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the Wilson quote above supports any of the sentence in question. I could quibble as to where "the heartbreak" comes from, but if you could put cites to Jagota and The Stuff immediately after the sentence I shall be content.
Added. Hope it's fine for now, HĐ (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Sydney Morning Herald's Karl Quinn labeled the release a "cynical move", through which Swift implicitly encouraged her fans to subscribe to Apple Music to balance the competition with streaming platform Spotify, which she had been critical of regarding its free streaming services that provided low royalties for artists." I think that this sentence is trying to cover too much ground. It could do with being split.
  • "Credits are adapted from liner notes of 1989." A picky point: shouldn't that be 'from the liner notes'?
  • "writing that "she can do it better than anyone else"." Is "she" Swift or Chvrches?

As someone new to pop music articles, not to mention modern pop music, I found this well written, readily comprehensible and MoS compliant. If the quibbles above could be resolved I would be happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to your concerns accordingly, HĐ (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And me. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2020 (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) 30 December 2020 [3].

Buruli ulcer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ga speakers in southern Ghana have two words for skin wounds: fla for "normal" wounds that heal in weeks to months, and aboabone for "abnormal" wounds that linger and sometimes never heal. More recently we've taken to calling these "abnormal" wounds Buruli ulcer. What begins with a bacterial skin infection can become an enormous yet painless open ulcer. The FARC at Chagas disease earlier this year got me interested in neglected tropical diseases, and this is the first one alphabetically. After a GA review by Tom (LT), extensive commentary from SandyGeorgia and Spicy, and a coat of polish from Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I think it's ready to shine. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is compliant with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. I have not done a copyvio check, because Ajpolino does fine work at WP:CCI and knows how to paraphrase :) This is a short, readable and interesting medical article that I hope non-medical editors will engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and comments on sources

[edit]

ALT text, captions and other aspects are fine. At first glance the article's sourcing is properly and consistently formatted. It seems like all sources except as noted below seem to be WP:MEDRS compliant. No spotchecks done, though. Vincent 2018 is a primary source but using it to elaborate on a case that is mentioned by another, MEDRS-compliant sources seems OK for me. MacCallum 1948 is 70+ old but the way it's used in the article seems like an acceptable use of ancient sources. Röltgen and Pluschke 2020 is in a publication by Frontiers Media, which is a somewhat dodgy source - are folks OK with it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I can find alternative references for the material currently backed up by the Frontiers article. So if folks feel Frontiers publications are generally untrustworthy, I'm happy to replace. I'll keep that in mind going forward. Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes Frontiers is dodgy; when it is a freely accessible source to things well backed up by other reviews, I have no problem using it, as frequently the authors are well-established and published within their field. Individual evaluation of articles applies ... it can be justified in cases like this. Alternately, you could add an additional source, but I like the freely available for our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review (ec)

Comments Support from Spicy

[edit]

I'll read through the article again and post my comments here over the next few days. Full disclosure: I was involved in the pre-FAC review for this article, and I've made a few edits to it, mostly image changes and minor copyediting. Spicy (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider linking muscle and tendon. Muscle is debatable but many readers might not be quite sure what a tendon is.'
    • Done.
  • Once in the skin M. ulcerans grows and releases the toxin mycolactone which blocks the normal function of cells, resulting in tissue death... - I would have put a comma after "mycolactone" (possible this is an ENGVAR thing)
    • Done.
  • may involve the bite of an aquatic animal The body of the article seems to say that aquatic insects are more commonly implicated
    • Changed to "aquatic insect".
  • Buruli ulcer occurs in rural areas near slow-moving or stagnant water This feels a bit repetitive since the previous paragraph says "The bacteria live in aquatic environments, particularly in slow-moving or stagnant water." I get why you're reiterating this since it's not always safe to assume there's a one-to-one relationship between where the bacteria live and where cases occur, but maybe this can be rephrased a bit so the wording doesn't duplicate that of the preceding paragraph.
  • Is it truly always painless? For example, UpToDate (not the most authoritative source, granted) says "Patients with an initial edematous lesion... tend to have associated pain and low-grade fever". Yotsu et al. (2015) says "no or limited pain".
  • with the ulcer a few centimeters wider underneath the skin than the skin wound itself - is it necessary to specify skin wound, or would just "wound" be okay?
    • Changed.
  • can be replaced by inelastic scar tissue - could "inelastic" be replaced with a simpler word such as "stiff", or would meaning be lost?
    • Removed "inelastic" instead. I think the "immobilizing the body part" bit immediately after should get across the idea that the scar tissue doesn't move well.
  • Might be worthwhile to link contracture somewhere.
  • Despite sometimes large ulcers, people with Buruli ulcer tend to remain in otherwise good health - I have some issues with this sentence. I get what you're trying to say - that people rarely die from it or develop life-threatening complications - but there's a large grey area in between "dying" and "in good health". I am not sure "otherwise good health" is a great representation of the sources, which say, for example "Buruli ulcer is a disabling skin infection...leading to functional disability, loss of economic productivity, and social stigma" (UpToDate), "it leads to contractures that cause disfigurement and long-term disability and has a high social stigma" (Guarner, 2019), and "Buruli ulcer, caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans, is a chronic debilitating disease" (WHO factsheet). I would be more specific about what you mean by "good health".
    • I was hoping to get across that folks with ulcers don't tend to have systemic symptoms, which is surprising, since they have a huge open wound. I changed the wording of that sentence. Any better? I'm trying not not to use the word "systemic" since I'm not sure it's broadly understood and Systemic disease isn't very helpful.
  • Category I describes a single small ulcer that is less than 5 centimetres (2.0 inches). Category II describes ulcers that are larger and can be up to 15 centimetres (5.9 in). - Does having multiple ulcers place you in category II or category III? It's not entirely clear from the phrasing
    • Category III. Clarified.
  • Sec61 inhibition prevents cells from signaling to activate the immune system, resulting in ulcers that lack infiltrating immune cells. - the "resulting in ulcers that..." phrasing seems a bit awkward because, if I've understood the article correctly, the inhibition of signalling causes immunosuppression but doesn't cause the ulcer itself
  • poor wound care is associated with a higher risk of acquiring Buruli ulcer.[13] Wearing pants and long-sleeved shirts is associated with a lower risk of Buruli ulcer - phrasing is a bit repetitive, could be varied
    • Rephrased. Any better?
      • Yes, that's better.
  • Link mycobacteria
    • Done.
  • This method correctly detects M. ulcerans... In practice microscopy correctly detects M. ulcerans in just... I think "correctly" should be removed here, because someone who is not familiar with the concepts of sensitivity and specificity could get the wrong idea from the way this is phrased. The sources are talking about sensitivity, and (as you know) sensitivity evaluates the test's susceptibility to false negatives, not its susceptibility to false positives. But by saying "correctly detected", you raise the possibility that it could be "incorrectly detected", which implies a false positive result. The sentences already say "...in infected people" which means the positive results are correct.
    • "Correctly"s removed.
  • to biopsy tissue from the ulcer - this may just be personal preference but the use of "biopsy" as a verb feels awkward to me. You could say "to take a tissue sample from the ulcer" instead
    • Changed.
  • Injections of M. ulcerans caused ulcers in... bare past tense seems odd here - why not "have been shown to cause ulcers in"...
  • I wonder if the "Other names" section wouldn't fit better in the "Society and culture" section, which is currently pretty thin. I also have to wonder why the opening sentence of this nomination, which is very interesting, isn't in the article... :)
    • Moved "Other names".
    • I'm glad you liked it! It's a fascinating tidbit that stuck in my head through all of this. It is just one of many, many ways folks have understood Buruli ulcer (and have drawn lines between the natural and supernatural). Best I can tell, this framing isn't particularly common and is hardly written about. I pulled that example from this paper which covers just one sub-district in southern Ghana. But I haven't seen a normal/abnormal wound classification mentioned elsewhere, and so I don't have any context to put it in. I've got my eyes peeled, so if someone reviews cultural understandings of BU, I'll be ready to add more to the article!
  • Link Mycobacterium bovis

Overall the article is very clearly written, concise, and easy to understand - an impressive achievement.

Spotchecks

[edit]

Since this is a first-time nomination it will need a source spotcheck. I'll consign myself to doing this as I have first-hand experience of how hard it can be to find someone willing to spotcheck a medical article :) Stay tuned. Spicy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Here we go:[reply]

  • 1 (Bravo 2019, p. 122) - the figure checks out, but the source doesn't explicitly say the cases are reported to the WHO. The frequency in the infobox is different from that in the lead section, any reason for this?
    • Mea culpa. Changed lead to the 2018 number after Hog Farm and SG's suggestion. Forgot to do the same to the infobox. Now synchronized to 2018 number citing [9].
  • 2 (WHO 2019) - [a] checks out (see comment above), [b] checks out, the "insect bite" thing is supported by the other source, [c][d][e][f][g] all check out
  • 4 (Guarner 2018, pp. 3-4) - [a][b][c][d] all check out; [e] I don't see where the article explicitly mentions scar tissue, [f] not sure the article is saying this only applies to large ulcers, [g] it seems that plaque and edematous lesions are category II by default - shouldn't this be mentioned? [h][i][j] check out.
    • [e] - I'm attempting a layperson-friendly description of the contractures mentioned in "or the ulcer could extend widely, creating deformities, contractures, and amputations that lead to major disabilities." Perhaps I've over-inserted my own thinking though. I'll look around to see if one of the sources spells things out in more detail.
    • [f] - Not really sure how "large" got in there. Fixed.
    • [g] - Added.
  • 10 (Yotsu et al. 2018, p. 251.) - checks out
  • 16 (Vincent et al. 2018, p. e0006429.) - content checks out; as noted above, this is a primary source, but it's only used as a supplement to information from a review article. I don't understand "p. e0006429" though. This seems to be a document number as far as I can tell, not a page number?
    • The text is cited to the whole paper, i.e. the claim of that sentence is the central finding of the paper. The document number thing does seem fairly inelegant. Perhaps pp=1–17 is better? Changed it to that for now.
  • 20 (Guarner 2018, pp. 4–6.) - [a][b][c] all check out
  • 25 (Guarner 2018, pp. 6–7.) - [a][b][c][d][e] all check out; [f] strictly speaking, the article says that it's recommended but not that it actually works; [g] checks out
    • [f] Earlier the article states "several studies have documented lower odds of acquiring the disease when using cloth barriers (long pants and long-sleeved shirts), using rubbing alcohol or washing minor wounds immediately after these occur, and using insect repellents". Must've got my wires crossed with the page numbers. Fixed.
  • 30 (Zingue et al. 2018, pp. 30–31.) - the article is talking about African countries specifically; I would clarify that
    • Tweaked the wording and swapped to a source that makes the broader claim. Now cited to Yotsu 2015 which notes "However, there are limits to the data collected by the WHO, mainly for the following three reasons: (i) lack of health care and reporting system to the national level where BU is most endemic; (ii) large areas with limited or no control activities for BU resulting in lack of understanding of its true distribution; and (iii) lack of awareness and limited knowledge about BU among community members but also among health practitioners."
  • 33 (Suzuki et al. 2019, pp. 87–88.) - checks out
  • 38 (Bolz & Ruf 2019, p. 159.) -[a][b] both check out
  • 44 (Röltgen & Pluschke 2019, pp. 1–2.) - [a][b][c][d] all check out
  • 51 (MacCallum et al. 1948, pp. 95–98, 103, 117–118.) - primary source, but only used to supplement secondary material. I can't seem to access this one, do you mind sending me an email or posting quotes of the relevant section?
  • 55 (Yotsu, Richardson & Ishii 2018, pp. 6–7.) - [a] and [c] check out. On [b], strictly speaking, "0 to 2%" includes 2%...
    • True! Frankly I hadn't noticed. For anyone following along the source says "recurrence rates reportedly decreased substantially to 0% to 2%", and I have "reduced the rate of ulcer recurrence to fewer than 2% of cases." Since those two are substantially the same, and I prefer my wording, I'm inclined to keep it as is.
  • 57 (Bolz & Ruf 2019, pp. 160–161.) - [a][b] both check out
  • 61 (Bolz & Ruf 2019, p. 163.) - [a][b] both check out.

Random thoughts:

  • Guarner (2018) discusses osteomyelitis at some length; some of the other sources I've checked mention it too. I think it would be worthwhile to mention this in the article.
    • Added to Signs and symptoms (wikilinked as "Bone infection")
  • I think it might be helpful to point out that mycobacteria are also responsible for other diseases of poverty like tuberculosis and leprosy. Most readers won't automatically draw that connection when they see the term "mycobacterial infection". Guarner (2018) mentions "Together with leprosy, BU is one of the most frequent skin mycobacterial diseases worldwide" and a couple of the other sources mention tuberculosis IIRC
    • I've so far stubbornly avoided explicitly linking BU to tuberculosis as I feel authors often do so as a cheap shot to make their favorite mycobacterial disease seem more important than it really is. Comparing BU (thousands of cases) to leprosy (hundreds of thousands of cases) or tuberculosis (billions of cases) seems somewhat unfair. Ditto for the moniker of among the "most frequent skin mycobacterial diseases". It's among the only mycobacterial skin diseases! I realize this falls into the category of "things I have feelings about, but really ought not to". So if folks feel it's important, I can take a chill pill and add mention somewhere. But my preference is to leave it out.
  • I'd link enlarged lymph node.
    • Good idea. Done.
  • The Frontiers source was brought up above, I'm not too concerned about it as the same authors have published on the same subject in more reputable sources.

I haven't fully reviewed the citations for consistency because I'm not any good at that, but I did notice that while a lot of the sources are open access, only a few have the open access icon. I believe you're required to be consistent on whether you use that icon or not.

...I'm not sure where those open access icons even came from. I guess someone added some "free" parameters into the reference templates at some point? I'm agnostic on the value of the lock icon. If folks feel it's useful I'm happy to add it throughout. If not, I'm happy to remove.
That is an ever-changing bot issue ... I am happy to leave it to the bot people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns. Spicy (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time! Ajpolino (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support this article for FA status. I will say that I thought the article seemed a bit brief at first, but I've compared it against recent reviews on the subject and found it to be suitably comprehensive for a general audience; I didn't see anything that ought to be covered that wasn't. This is an impressively clearly-written article on an important topic. Many thanks to the nominator. Spicy (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks 2

[edit]

For what it is worth, I checked 5 or 6 cites while completing my review and found no issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jfdwolff review: SUPPORT

[edit]

My comments and suggestions organised by section. I think it is a well-written and organised article with good referencing. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Introduction:
    • I would start off by saying that this condition is specific to certain geographical areas. The average reader will want to know early on that this is rare in most Western countries. I know this slightly risks systemic bias.
      • That makes sense. I made a somewhat minimal change. Let me know if you think it still flows alright, or if I should do some more hands-on reorganizing of the intro.
    • "Orally" could be changed to "by mouth"
      • Done.
    • Is PLoS authoritative in designating NTDs? Is WHO insufficient?
      • WHO's authority is by far the more substantial here. I've removed mention of PLoS from the lead but left it in the History section (since I do think PLoS NTD's role in popularizing NTDs is important).
  • Signs and symptoms
    • Would recommend using "limbs" rather than "extremities" (second paragraph)
      • Done.
  • Cause
    • Not essential, but perhaps something on the classification of Mycobacterium spp.? How closely related is it to the pathogens for tuberculosis and lepra?
    • Under "Genetic susceptibility", does the GWAS data suggest why these genes in particular might be required for protection against Buruli ulcer? Similarly, perhaps a few words on the role of beta-defensins?
      • Egads! I mislabeled which genes came from the GWAS study; shame on me. Fixed. I've added just a bit of text to contextualize the gene list. Also added a few words on beta-defensins per your suggestion. I could add more on the individual genes named if you think it'll help. Some (iNOS, IFNG, NOD2) are extensively studied immunity-related genes. The others less so. Ajpolino (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis
    • "Diagnosis is then confirmed" - presumably only in settings where PCR is available so worth clarifying
  • Treatment
    • Can anything else be said about wound care? Is it generic or are specific measures needed for a Buruli ulcer? Specialist dressings may be costly.
      • Added the WHO recommendation for generic wound care. One review mentions that specialist dressings have been tried and cites a couple of primary reports, so I added mention of that as well. Ajpolino (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can anything more be said about indications for surgical debridement?
      • I haven't seen any specific guidance. WHO's treatment guideline for healthcare workers says only in vague terms that debridement may be used to speed healing (pg 6 of the linked document). I tweaked the wording to specify that this would be debridement's purpose, and I'll keep my eyes peeled for anything more specific. Ajpolino (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prevention
    • It might be worth pointing out that the BCG vaccine is used to prevent tuberculosis but that there is some cross-protection of other mycobacterial conditions; can anything be said about the level of protection and whether it wanes in adulthood similar to the anti-TB effect?
      • Clarified a bit in the text. If protection exists, it probably wanes as for TB. Reviews are basing their text off the studies listed in this systematic review, and mostly end up with some variation of "BCG may offer some protection, though it is short-lived." No one seems bold enough to extract more specific conclusions on magnitude and timeline of protection. Ajpolino (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other animals
    • Are there any sources discussing the veterinarian treatment of animal Buruli ulcers?
      • Not that I can find. Ulcers are fairly common in some possum populations, but I don't see any record of attempted treatment. Domesticated animal infections have been reported, but are rare enough that no patters or recommendations of treatment have been written up yet. Ajpolino (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Society and culture

@Jfdwolff: I think that's everything. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment. Your feedback is much appreciated. Please feel free to add any additional thoughts and I'll get to it asap. I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing from coordinator duties to review this.

  • The lead seems a little long. Possibly partly due to some repetition. Eg, "The disease is limited to certain areas of the world, with most cases in Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia" and "Cases are concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa and Australia with fewer in Japan, Papua New Guinea and the Americas." Do we need both of these?
    • Removed the second sentence.
It is still, IMO, too long. That duplication was by way of more obvious example, rather than the only issue I had in this respect.
  • "Buruli ulcer is caused by skin infection with Mycobacterium ulcerans. The bacteria live in aquatic environments ..." I think that it should be stated that M ulcerans is a bacteria in the first sentence in which it is mentioned.
    • Done.
  • "Ulcers are most common on the lower limbs (62%)" I think that at first mention the % needs explaining; 62% of what, and, possibly, according to whom?
    • I've expanded a bit. If you feel it deserves further explanation, I can rephrase the sentence instead. The "according to whom" is the source at the end of the sentence. The review authors calculated those estimates from 10 studies from various locations. I felt it was worth including to give the reader a sense of where ulcers appear, but I don't have a clear way of explaining the source of the numbers without muddling the section. I don't feel the numbers are essential, so if you (or others) feel they're hinky, I'm happy to fly without. Ajpolino (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it needs to go in. It is fine now.
  • "a pathological stress response that results in cell death by apoptosis. This results in tissue death" Optional: Could "results" twice in eight words be avoided?
    • Reworded
  • "Immune cells that do make it to the ulcer". Optional: "make it to" is not (IMO) very encyclopedic. Possibly 'reach' or similar?
    • Switched to "reach". Thank you for the suggestion.
  • "Other ulcerative diseases can appear similarly to Buruli ulcer at its various stages." Should "similarly" be 'similar'?
    • They ring the same to my ear. Not sure if that's regional English, or the fading of my grammar school lessons. Changed to "similar".
  • The lead states that rifampicin is taken orally, while the main article states "The most widely used antibiotic regimen is rifampicin plus twice daily oral clarithromycin" suggesting that it isn't. or at least leaving this unclear.
    • Poor wording on my part. Clarified: rifampicin is taken orally once per day; clarithromycin orally twice per day.
  • "Buruli ulcer can be prevented by avoiding contact with aquatic environments in endemic areas; however, for those living in endemic areas, this may not be possible." Possibly replace the second "endemic" with 'these'?
    • Done.
  • "drives many to seek traditional healers as primary care". "as primary care" → either 'as primary carers' or 'for primary care'.
    • Done. Went with "for primary care."
  • "a bifurcated approach" Would it be possible to rephrase this in more everyday terms?
    • Done: "... with two simultaneous approaches".
  • "and occasionally ineffective, with ulcer recurrence in up to a third of cases" I am not sure that a third of cases can be described as "occasional".
    • Good point. Changed to "often".
  • "the World Health Organization recommended an eight-week course of daily oral rifampicin and injected streptomycin" How does this 8 weeks match with the "temporary worsening of symptoms 3 to 12 weeks"?
    • Both are true. The eight weeks of antibiotics kill the bacteria in the wound (we hope). Typically the wound slowly but steadily heals up. But sometimes the immune system recovers from its mycolactone-induced hangover with ill-temper and causes the ulcer to get worse for a bit before allowing it to return to healing. That immune wakeup can happen while you're still taking antibiotics, or it can happen after. Am I understanding your question correctly? Perhaps I can improve the wording so it doesn't lend itself to misunderstanding? Ajpolino (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! OK. Feel free to tweak the wording if you wish, but the confusion was probably as much my preconception as the prose - I withdraw any objections to the current wording.

A very neat article. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to review! Apologies for the slow response. Work has gone from busy to crazy this month, largely keeping me from my (more enjoyable) work here. I'm hoping to carve out a few hours this weekend to get to your comments and JFW's above. If anyone else is considering a review, feel free to pile on the comments and I'll get to them asap. Thank you again! Ajpolino (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ajpolino, glad to see you've been able to get a breather. I have been hesitant to tackle any of this myself, not wanting to mess up your article, but there are some parts I may be able to do considering your sudden real life busy-ness. Please let me know if you want me to dig in on any of the easier parts, flagging them to my attention, if that will save you time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Sandy. I've got a few quiet hours right now and am working through these. Will let you know if there are any less savory ones I can dump on you. Ajpolino (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Done. Happy to address any further comments as well. Thank you for taking the time to read and review. Apologies for the slow responses on my end. I hope you're well and you've had a restful holiday. Ajpolino (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you. Looks good. Just the relatively minor issue of slimming the lead a bit, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did some further lead slimming. Happy to slim further if you feel it would help. Thanks again. Ajpolino (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine to me. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Nearly five weeks in and only one support. No action at all over the past week, despite unaddressed reviewer comments two weeks old. I am aware of "Ask me for anything but time" and that even FAC nominators have lives; nevertheless, the coordinators are going to be getting a bit twitchy and it would be a crying shame for this nomination to be archived after all of the work which has gone into it so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I hope it is only the current perils of working in the health care field that have delayed Ajpolino; I have emailed him. I will be a support as soon as JFW's comments are addressed. I also could address your commentary mostly myself, but did not want to get in Ajpolino's way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all caught up. Further commentary from anyone is most welcome. Thank you all. Sorry to be the trouble nominator for the month. Ajpolino (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drat! Thanks. I noticed them when I first reviewed this - I wondered why I hadn't already put a request in. Too much water under the bridge since then; I focused on Jo-jo's comments at the top and didn't read any further. It looks as if this is close to done then. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: because this affects Australia, perhaps it will interest you in terms of branching out beyond MILHIST content reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SG, but with three supports and Gog still to decide, this has probably had enough attention for a first-time nom unless the coords think it needs more. Despite the fact that I am a complete duffer when it comes to anything medical beyond immediate first aid for battle casualties, I am happy to be re-pinged and give it a look if that is the case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Support

[edit]

Planning to start in once Ajpolino has finished addressing Gog's comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have followed the development of this article since GAN, and because of my nitpicking MOS fixes, figure as one of the three top editors. Medical editors have reviewed medical content, sourcing is good, all the usual things I check for re MOS are good: date formatting, endashes/hyphens, two duplicate wikilinks which are not problematic, image captions and punc good, alt text and accessibility dealt with by RexxS, convert templates good. I did some minor overuse of however and also redundancy reducing, citations are consistent, clear prose digestible to layperson with no excessive or unexplained jargon, as of dates employed where needed, WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS compliant. This fine effort is ready for promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 December 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2020 [10].

2018 EFL League Two play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC), The Rambling Man[reply]

It's another play-off final for your perusal, this time the match to decide the last team promoted from League Two (the fourth tier) up to League One (the third tier). This one featured Coventry City, who had been relegated in 2016–17 (despite their win in the 2017 EFL Trophy Final - see my other FAC nomination, further down this page!). And they were playing against Exeter City, who were in the final for the second season in a row. I was at the game as a Coventry supporter, and it was a happy day for us, as the team raced into a 3–0 lead after half time, eventually winning the game 3–1. Unfortunately for Exeter they are still trying to get out of the division and they lost yet again in the same final this season. This is a co-nomination by myself and The Rambling Man, we both already have one solo nom open each but I think that's allowed. Looking forward to hearing feedback!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe thanks! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Coventry wore a one-off kit commissioned for the match as the club had run out of their regular season home strip. This was bizarre enough for me to go looking at the sources. Per this (the "cynical" comment), this, which talks about minimum order numbers, and this, with the sarcastic comment about washing machines, I think a lot of fans suspected Coventry decided to cash in on the fact that fans would buy a special edition shirt, but would feel no need to buy another standard shirt. I don't think there's quite enough in those three links to justify adding anything to the article, but if you can find more than that it would be good. Something like "though some commentators speculated that this was a ploy to allow them to sell commemorative editions of the shirts" would be enough, if it can be sourced.
    @Mike Christie: there do seem to be quite a few media sources simply detailing the kit swap, but I haven't found too many mentioning controversy, other than those you mention. There is [11], which says "The move was criticised as a scheme of making money from the end-of-season spectacle" but it doesn't say who criticised it, and that source can't be used anyway per WP:DAILYMAIL. And this from the Kidderminster Shuttle: [12] which mentions "reaction to the announcement on social media" as being "decidedly mixed". Given this, and your comment above, I suspect there isn't enough to warrant amending at this point, but do say if you find anything else. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four minutes into additional time, Stockley's header was saved by Burge before the Exeter strike went wide of the Coventry post. This doesn't quite make sense. What Exeter strike?
I addressed this latter point. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's a suggestion above remaining, but there may be no sources for it, so I'm not going to hold up support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open a while and attracted little attention. I shall add it to urgents and ask for a source review, but unless it receives more interest quickly it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ON my list, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]
  • Promotion is linked in the second half of the first paragraph in the Route to the final section, but is used earlier in the paragraph.
  • "bottom tier since the 1958–59 season", does "the" need to be included in the link here? It's the only usage like this I can see in the article.
  • Could link Director of football?
  • "when Chris Stokes was forced to leave the pitch for medical attention when he was", the double use of when is perhaps a little repetitive. Change the second to after?

A couple of minor points, but I'm nitpicking at best really. Kosack (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack all addressed, many thanks for taking a look! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Support)

[edit]

Don't understand the first thing about soccer, so consider this a jargon check.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done.
SandyGeorgia thanks, all addressed and/or responded to. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just noting we're still awaiting a source review, per Gog's note above and request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose like Brexit, we're done. Now for the sprouts. Cheers, happy time of the year to you! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • spotchecks not done, though I have no doubts on the verifiability here
  • thank you for consistent retrieval dates and archive links
  • Since you're linking works/publishers when avaliable it looks like you can link Perform Group,
  • it looks like ref 13 & 18 are the same – assuming 18 should be "3 of 5"
  • ref 26 missing author
  • Formatting looks good otherwise
  • I see no reliabillity issues Aza24 (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 thanks for the review, I think I've addressed your comments. Cheers, and happy holidays etc. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes – looks great. Pass for source review; happy holidays to you as well! Aza24 (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2020 [13].

Portsmouth War Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh from my success with the Royal Artillery Memorial, I bring you another war memorial featuring the realism of Charles Sargeant Jagger. This one was written almost on a whim after I visited Portsmouth in the summer. I found the dedication on it moving, and although I knew of it in passing, I was surprised that such an impressive memorial had no article at all. So here is the result of my research! It's had a very helpful A-class review at MilHist and I believe it's of the same standard as my previous nominations, but of course I welcome any feedback! Thanks you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great to see you pumping out memorial articles again, Harry. This is in fine shape, and I only have a few comments:

Lead
  • should it be "and decorated toon the sides"?
    • Sure, why not.
  • comma after Strathearn
    • Now moot; I omitted the title in the lead.
Body
  • suggest "Portsmouth iswas and remains"
    • Done.
  • suggest "the Battle of Jutland in 1916,"
    • Done.
  • move the last sentence of the first para of the Background section to immediately after "naval base"
  • in general, the structure of the first two paras of the Background section need work, they jump around quite a bit, suggest putting the information in rough chronological order then the para on Jagger
  • say when the Treaty of Versailles was signed
    • Done.
  • suggest "It consists of a semicircular sunken recess, known as an exedra,"
    • Done.
  • can anything be said about the design/elements of the WWII memorial monument?
    • The sources only mention it in passing (I did check a book about WWII memorials but no luck). I suspect if it wasn't right next to the WWI memorial it wouldn't even get a mention. I've added a brief description but there's next to nothing in any of the independent sources.
  • be consistent about counties for locations in the Bibliography
    • I've only included them for tiny out-of-the-way places like Kirstead but they can go if they're a problem. Personally I don't think locations are of much value for modern books but maybe that's just me.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back tomorrow to get to the rest. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One minor suggestion, but nothing to hold up support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done.

  • "Portsmouth was a major port in the early 20th century" - source?
    • This has been reworked since but it's sourced in the body.
  • Corke: as far as I'm aware, Shire only started publishing out of Oxford after 2007 - can you double-check the location?
    • Corrected.
  • FN1: Historic England should be in |publisher= not |author=
    • These citations are done through a template ({{NHLE}}). I don't control its output, though it's worth noting that it's used in dozens of featured articles (probably every FA on any important building or structure in England, including my 18 previous war memorial FAs).
  • Fn27: date is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typo, I think. Corrected.

@Nikkimaria and Peacemaker67: Thanks for your comments. I think I've addressed everything. Apologies for the delay. I'll respond to any follow-up as quick as I can but I might be incognito for a few days at a time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusal from coordinator role to look at this.

  • "The First World War memorial is a grade II* listed building." Not for actioning - does that mean that the WW2 parts aren't?
    • Yes indeed. They're separate structures and the WWII memorial is too new to be listed (besides the focus being on WWI in recent years.
  • "unprecedented casualties" - is that the scholarly consensus?
    • Yes. It's not in doubt that nothing on that scale had ever been seen before, which is part of the reason for the wave of memorials.
  • "In 1914, 15,000 people were employed in the naval dockyard, a number which had more than doubled since the turn of the century as a result of the Anglo-German naval arms race." This is chronologically in the wrong place. It would work better at the end of the previous paragraph.
    • Re-ordered.
  • "he largely established his artistic reputation on his designs for war memorials." Would "on" work better as 'with'?
    • No strong feelings, so done.
  • "To mark the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, which officially ended hostilities in June 1919, the Royal Navy fired a 101-gun salute off the Portsmouth coast." Again this seems randomly located. It is the second sentence in the paragraph, which ends in December 1918.
    • It didn't feel random to me. It contributes to setting the scene immediately post-war and the mood in which led to the memorial.
Let me phrase it another way. Is there any reason why the last sentence of that paragraph couldn't be moved to immediately after the first? And so just before the 101 gun sentence? And if not, why? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Geoff Archer, described the memorial as ... though described Jagger's flanking statues". Optional: Is it possible to avoid "described" twice in one sentence?
    • I considered this when I wrote it. I've changed it but I don't love the new version either.

And that is all. Fine work as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Eddie891

[edit]
  • you never provide a cite for "City of Portsmouth War Memorial" as the official title as the official name, although that's clearly what it is
    • Done.
  • ditto for "Guildhall Square War Memorial" as an alternate name-- in fact, Guildhall Square War Memorial is only mentioned once in the whole article
    • Done.
  • "Around 6,000 Portsmouth residents were killed in the war." maybe add the cities total population? 6,000 out of a 20,000 pop. would be an incredible amount, 6,000 out of 60 million not quite so much — this is in part because you mention "significant losses in the First World War." in the lede
    • Added some stats from the 1911 census. The percentage looks to be in line with or slightly above the UK average, though that appears to include colonies.
  • a date for the wwI declaration of war would be beneficial-- also, which declaration?
  • "Local estimates are that in " what is a local estimate?
    • An estimate by local people? Rephrased.
  • " Several local churches proceeded with their own commemorations and each " suggest splitting at 'and' I don't see the connection here
    • Split later on to avoid jarring prose.
  • Odd to me that we get background of Jagger but not Gibson & Gordon, is there anything worth saying about them?
    • I agree but there's ... basically nothing to say. They appear to have made their careers by winning competitions rather than standing on their reputations.

I think that's everything from me, really nice overall, not very much-- only minor suggestions. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eddie891: Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM. Support. Thanks for your contributions-- Eddie891 Talk Work 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Support)

[edit]

I'll review (tomorrow?) so you have a non-Milhist reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commons link in the wrong place: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Links to sister projects
    • I'm aware of this but, frankly, it looks awful floating next to the references and it bunches up the text there. Is there a reason to put it in the references section (it's clearly not a reference) other than "the MoS says so"?
  • War Memorials Online looks like a Wiki ??? (I see you have double-cited there ... what comes from them?)
    • The condition reports are public submissions but the rest isn't. It contains a brief description of nigh every war memorial in the UK and it's cited by Historic England (among others). It's used for the brief description of the WWII memorial.
  • I wonder about most of the uses of the word also as redundant; please review (see User:Tony1 exercises).
    • Culled two uses. Two remain, which could be replaced with another word but not eliminated.
  • Ditto for total ... Around 6,000 Portsmouth residents were killed in the war, out of a total population of around 200,000
    • Gone.
  • Not sure if "sunken" is redundant to "recess" ... semi-circular sunken recess ... a recess is sunken, no ?
  • On which are panels is awkward ... what about ... The names of the dead are listed on a screen of bronze panels in a semi-circular recess (exedra) ... or ... The memorial consists of a semi-circular recess (exedra) with the names of the dead listed on bronze panels on a screen.
    • Re-worded
  • No casualty number for this ? The first local casualties of the war came from the sinking of the HMS Amphion by a German mine within hours of Britain's entry into the war in August 1914.
    • Difficult. Although the ship was Portsmouth-based, not all the crew would have been Portsmouth natives.
  • Don't use "the" in this construct ... sinking of the HMS Amphion by a German mine ... HMS stands for Her Majesty's Ship, we can't say "the her"
    • Done.
  • with soldiers stationed there both for the defence of the south coast and en route to other stations in the British Empire. ... cumbersome ... if you are en route to station are you stationed?
    • Addressed. But if you can think of a better synonym for "station", please let me know.
  • See User:Tony1 exercises ... with a 20-foot high screen wall is missing a hyphen ... it should be 20-foot-high screen wall, but this becomes convoluted with the convert. So, re-cast the sentence ... It consists of a semicircular recess, known as an exedra, with a separate precinct created by a screen wall that is 20-foot (6-metre) high ... or something to that effect ... then "high" is not part of the modifier of the noun wall.
    • You're right, this is difficult to do with the convert. Recast.
  • This has a problem (dangling modifier or something grammatically off is going on): As well as the cenotaph, funds raised by the war memorial committee were donated to the Royal Portsmouth Hospital.
    • Hmm. The meaning is clear, but you might be right. Re-phrased.

Some of these are nitpicks, but some significant; leaning support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: All addressed I believe. Apologies for the delay. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, Support, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 20 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [14].

John Young (astronaut)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle-era astronaut, John Young. This article just passed its GA nomination, and I hope to continue its improvement to FA status. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passing comments from Spicy

[edit]

Nice work on the article. I am not feeling up to doing a full review at the moment, but here are a few things I noticed while skimming.

CollectSPACE is edited by Robert Pearlman, who is a recognized space historian. I think it's been discussed at one of my Apollo FACs, favorably, but I'd have to poke through.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good then - to be clear I wasn't implying that these sources are unreliable, just that it wasn't entirely obvious to me that they are RS from a quick look. Spicy (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned by the article's heavy reliance on Forever Young: A Life of Adventure in Air and Space, which is an autobiography and not really an independent source. Have all possible sources been consulted?
    I'll see if I can find more sources about the missions, as well as anything else about his life. Information about his pre- and post-spaceflight careers was surprisingly sparse (or my Google skills are lacking) and I relied a lot more on his autobiography than I wanted to. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely realizing that I was lazier than I should have been regarding multiple resources (including some that I had either as a PDF on my computer or a book on my shelf) and am working my way through improving the refs (and the content) of the mission sections. Not finding much more about Young's early life or his time in management. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spicy: Did what I could to reduce the use of Young's autobiography; could I get your thoughts on it now? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spicy: Would you be able to return and provide further feedback for the review? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I gather ref improvement is in progress so I'll hold off on reviewing until I'm pinged. Some of the books by Burgess or French contain short bios of some of the astronauts, I'll look through what I have and see what I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a thumbnail bio, a page or two, in Colin Burgess's Moon Bound: Choosing and Preparing NASA's Lunar Astronauts. If you send me an email I can email you a copy or alternatively tell you where you can download one if it's too big to send.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Completed the ref improvement (famous last words)! Looking at the info in the Burgess book, is there much additional info about Young's early like/late career in the provided bio? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will let you know. Meantime, I'll proceed.
  • I think his selection as an astronaut, which group/year would be usefully in lede.
  • " He completed a Pacific deployment as fire control and division officer in the Sea of Japan during the Korean War." Presumably this was aboard the Laws and I would say so, it reads oddly to describe him as in the Sea of Japan with no mention of ship.
  • "In 1962, Young was assigned to fly with Fighter Squadron 143 (VF-143) until his selection as an astronaut candidate in September 1962" Astronaut candidate? As I understand it, when they were selected by NASA, they became astronauts.
  • "Young was assigned to work on the environmental controls system and survivor gear. Young's group selected the David Clark G3C pressure suit," I might say control rather than controls. The word "group" could be taken to refer to the Group II astronauts, or to the people he was working with in his specialty at NASA.
  • "On the third orbit, Young fired the retrorocket " singular or plural?
  • Is it worth mentioning that Young was reprimanded over the sandwich?
  • Could you clarify what you're asking? Do you think the sandwich description/subsequent investigation is too long and its not worth mentioning, or do you think there should be more info about Young getting reprimanded? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mention the reprimand. I'm asking whether it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any sources about any sort of official reprimand for Young, only that it became a bit of a scandal and reflected badly on him and NASA. Any additional info on this? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Try this.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is to leave it out, since all that source says is that Young was reprimanded, but there's no specifics about the reprimand itself (was there any sort of punishment or just Young getting a stern talking to?). I think putting it in there implies some sort of negative consequences for Young, which will seem unexplained because the next section talks about his subsequent crew assignment. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It apparently was in written form since the NYT profile of Young before Apollo 10 mentions he kept it on his desk next to the plastic-encased sandwich remains. I'd tend to agree with you. There were no regulations against what he did (in fact, this seems to be what caused Slayton to require prior approval of items to be flown) and it certainly did not hold him back in his career.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After Gemini 3, Grissom and Young were assigned as backup commander and pilot for Gemini 6A" I guess if you want to be technical, when they were assigned, it was for Gemini 6. That was changed to 6A after the mission did not launch when it was supposed to.
  • "The primary mission of Gemini 10 was to dock with an Agena target vehicle and use its engines to maneuver, which had been a failed objective of Gemini 8 and Gemini 9. " The maneuvering failed, yes, but Gemini 8 did dock with an Agena. I'd be clearer.
  • "At 3:39 PM, the Agena target vehicle launched and successfully entered orbit. Gemini 10 launched as scheduled at 5:20 PM on July 18, 1966 from LC-19," I'd mention the date early on.
  • "PM" Don't we lower case am and pm?
  • "After 18 hours into the flight," This is odd phrasing
  • I really question whether tears need a link.
  • "due to irritation from the anti fog compound in their masks. Masks or helmets?
  • "After the crew was recovered aboard the ship, flight controllers completed several burns on the Agena target vehicle because putting it in a 352 kilometers (219 mi) circular orbit to be used as a target for future missions.[7]:350" You use "because" but never give a reason.
  • "On November 13, 1968, NASA announced that the Apollo 10 crew would be commanded by Stafford and with Cernan as the Lunar Module Pilot and Young as Command Module Pilot." Shouldn't this be in order of rank?
  • "To get realistic training, mission control linked the Command Module and Lunar Module simulators to work with the crew in two spacecraft simultaneously." I'm not sure you're making your point. Maybe "to get realistic training, Young in the Command Module simulator, and Stafford and Cernan in the Lunar Module simulator, were linked with each other and with mission control." That's probably not perfect, but it gets the point across.
  • "Apollo Program manager" Apollo Program Spacecraft manager. The Apollo Program manager was Sam Phillips.
  • "Duke exposed both the primary and backup crews to the German measles, causing Swigert to replace Ken Mattingly, who was not immune to German measles, two days prior to the launch.[10]:88[11]" I would suggest the passive voice, so "causing the replacement of Ken Mattingly by Swigert", as it is it sounds like an usurpation. I might identify Mattingly as the prime crew's CMP.
  • "To prepare for their EVAs, Young and Duke participated in field exercises to prepare for the geological research." I'd avoid the double use of prepare.
  • "Young tripped over the cables to the heat flow sensors, which broke their communication link with Earth.[12]" I'd make it clearer these were the sensors' communication links, not the astronauts.
  • Check capitalization of "crater" for consistency.
  • I suspect you have the wrong Christmas Island. I think you want the one in Kiribati.
  • "SRBs" and these are?
  • It might be worth mentioning that Young and the other three early Space Shuttle astronauts were cited in the award of the Collier Trophy to NASA and others, although they didn't get it themselves.
I've made a fair number of hands on edits. Give it a careful read please. I will do the same once you're done with this.
Thanks for your edits; definitely not surprised but a little embarrassed with how many silly errors I managed to put in this article. I'll address your comments in the coming days; thanks for them! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will reproduce some text from Moon Bound on the talk page of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ready for me to give it a re-read?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: That would be much appreciated; thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
  • What is your capitalization method for spacecraft (and for that matter, military) ranks? You have him as Commander (Apollo 16) but then as command module pilot (Apollo 10), and yet again, commander (Apollo 16, still in lead). In passing, Apollo 16 is double-linked and the info somewhat repetitive.
  • I'm talking about the lead. "He became the ninth person to walk on the Moon as commander of the Apollo 16 mission in 1972. " vs. "He was the commander of Apollo 16, and walked on the Moon's surface." I would change the second one, perhaps "After that, he commanded Apollo 16, and spent three days on the lunar surface with fellow astronaut Charles Duke, exploring the Descartes Highlands." Or something. The point is, if you return to the subject, and probably you should, make it about something a little different.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why VF-103 vs. VFA-103?
  • You still haven't lower-cased all the "PM"s (Gemini 10, for example).
  • "both at the Manned Spacecraft Center and at Cape Canaveral" Was the place where they trained called Cape Canaveral in 1968/9?
  • I'd mention that Apollo 10 was the dress rehearsal for the lunar landing. As it is, the significance of the mission is not stated.
  • Capitalization of Command Module and Lunar Module not consistent, please check throughout.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming back to provide more feedback; hopefully it can get to FA before the review times out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from an exterior camera" Was there only one in the SIM bay? Apollo 15 had two.
  • I think it's worth mentioning from the source I gave you that Young remained on astronaut flight status until his retirement.
  • I think that will be a little confusing to the reader to explicitly say that Young never came off flight status, because then the question comes up of why he didn't fly for the final 21 years of his NASA career if he was on flight status the whole time. I think it's sufficient to say that his position became managerial, and the article doesn't say anything about him coming off flight status. Also, I'm not sure what source to which you are referring; do you mean the Burgess book with Young's bio that you mentioned earlier? If so, I do not have the book/bio. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 10, 14, 27, 30 and 41 (and any more I may have missed that cite an entire book) are page numbers available?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Think I addressed everything. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

[edit]

Lovely images; the NASA-related articles make me so glad that US gov't images are in the public domain. Just a few small things to fix:

That's all! Ajpolino (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: Think I addressed all of your comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, and the new images and alt text look great. Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino: If you have the time, would you be able to further review the article? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly, just give me a few days to find the time. Ajpolino (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I'm still looking forward to reviewing this article, but am temporarily swamped with real life. I hope to get to this over the coming weekend. Sorry for the sluggishness. Ajpolino (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update Gog the Mild. I'll ping the editors who have left comments already. Fingers crossed we can get this FAC across the finish line! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in. I'll do a text review this week. --Neopeius (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text Review by Neopeius (Support as of 12-11-20)

[edit]

Lede

Early years and education

Navy Service

NASA Career

Gemini 10

*"Gemini 10 used the rockets on the Agena to maneuver and rendezvous with the Gemini 8 Agena, and set a new altitude record of 764 kilometers (475 mi). "setting yet another new altitude record" (deletes comma and makes clear that two records were set consecutively.

Apollo 10

Apollo 16

Speaking as the resident authority on the postal covers scandal, there was no "potential" about the sale (not resale). They had agreed to sell 100 of them. And technically, once Slayton found out that unauthorized covers had been flown, he got Irwin to retire, which let NASA choose an entirely new backup crew since the crews were supposed to fly as units (the replacement of Mattingly by Swigert was a special situation, since Duke of the backup crew was also compromised), but what is said here will do for the reader more interested in Young. I'd just say (if it's necessary to say anything) that they had agreed to sell some of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: "potential" could be deleted. That said, an agreement to sell is not a sale. (also, thank you regarding "re-sale" vs "sale" -- I had thought they had purchased the covers and then were going to resell them after they got back) --Neopeius (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scott arranged through someone at NASA to have the envelopes printed, though Al Bishop paid for them. Scott said they paid for the stamps themselves and I've found nothing to contradict that. They're not "covers" until they are stamped and canceled, so either way it's sale rather than resale. Sorry to hijack the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased this to remove Deke Slayton and also to explain what the incident was in the link. However, I decided not to include the names of the Apollo 15 crew. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Shuttle Program

STS-1

STS-9

  • " Young would routinely sit in the simulators" Young routinely sat
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and flew the Shuttle Training Aircraft" ", and he flew..."
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to reentry, Columbia had two of its four primary General Purpose Computers (GPC) fail, which caused a delay in landing as they had to reset them and load the Entry Options Control Mode into an alternate GPC. After the GPC was repaired, Columbia successfully reentered the atmosphere and landed at Edwards AFB on December 8." "Prior to reentry, two of Columbia's four primary General Purpose Computers (GPC) failed, which caused a delay in landing as the crew had to reset them and load the Entry Options Control Mode into an alternate GPC. After the GPCs were repaired, Columbia successfully reentered the atmosphere and landed at Edwards AFB on December 8."
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NASA Management

Personal Life

Awards and honors

  • "In October 2018, Northrop Grumman announced that the Cygnus spacecraft for their tenth cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station would be named S.S. John Young.[49] Cygnus NG-10 successfully launched on November 17, 2018," As written, it is not clear that Cygnus NG-10 was actually named after Young.
    Added the Cygnus NG-10 naming earlier; hope the new take clears it up. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Running into a few minor delays IRL on this one, but I want to acknowledge this review. I'll get to the changes soon! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Not a problem. :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neopeius: I think I have addressed all of your comments! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Your pushbacks were all reasonable. I made a recommended change above per your request. With that, you have my enthusiastic support :) --Neopeius (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Support)

[edit]
  • See MOS:SANDWICH, images go after links.[15]
  • External links are good, punctuation in image captions good, no duplicate links, no excess of however, also and the ilk.
  • Can this image caption be improved? Young following his Gemini 10 flight ... a bit general relative to the image
    Updated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can install this script to keep your WP:ENDASHes vs. hyphens in order[16]
  • Template:Rp is an odious referencing system, creating unsightly clutter, but if that's what you use, so WP:CITEVAR it is.
    I personally prefer it, but I know it's less popular than using Template:sfn. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check MOS:LQ throughout, sample: changed its setting from "attitude hold" to "automatic."
    Corrected the one you pointed out; not seeing other violations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally good use of WP:NBSP on the spacecraft and times, but sporadic ones are missing ... and they aren't really needed at the beginning of sentences or other places where they aren't likely to wrap.
    I added quite a few; especially where in would say something like "in 1993" to to keep the year from being the start of a new line. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check use of hatnotes. My understanding is that the main template is used when the content of this article is a summary of that article. If it is not, something like {{further}} or {{see also}} is called for. As one example, this article is not a summary of Gemini 3, as in ... Project Gemini --> Gemini 3 --> Main article: Gemini 3 and in fact, probably a link suffices.
    I would prefer to use {{further}} instead of just linking it in the article. I know it's already linked, but I think it's nice to have a special shout-out for that mission's page to find further info. Changing the hatnotes now. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing publisher, check citation completeness throughout: Volz, Brianna (January 6, 2018). "Astronaut John Young, who grew up in Orlando, dies at 87". Retrieved October 19, 2020.
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the "class 23" have to be in the lead? A non-military person is at first inclined to think that might have meant to be 1923, and then has to read back to realize no, the classes are numbered ... so not sure it is helpful to have that in the lead, which is most-read.
    Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheesh, this guy is a real under-achiever. :) :)
  • If there is more detail, it would be interesting ... motivation, selection process, what led him to this ... until his selection as an astronaut in September 1962
    I found surprisingly little information on him as a person, even from his own biography. It was surprisingly difficult to find any sort of personal side of things. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Chaikin's book, if you have it, has some discussion of Young, especially at pp. 463-464, and his post-Apollo career beginning on p. 572 that may be worth looking at, if you haven't already.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked through those pages to see if I had missed anything. The description at 464-464 is interesting, but it just feels like an anecdote describing Young as smart, which I think is already communicated in discussing his engineering background. Regarding page 572-575, it's mostly about his criticism of NASA post-Challenger, time in NASA management, and advocating for colonization of the Moon. Thanks for the ref, but I don't think these expand the Young narrative for Wikipedia. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout his career, he flew for more than 15,275 hours ... awkward ... During his career ??
    Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that there is an autobiography, the article seems to have a wealth of information about his career, but little information about the person. They vacationed with the Bush family is leaving me, the reader, unsatisfied as there must be more to say about the life and motivations of such an underachiever. Do the sources permit you to tell us more about him?
    Even with his autobiography, there was a lack of personal info about him. The Bush family vacation felt like I was grasping at straws. There are pages in his autobiography about selecting Space Shuttle abort landing sites, and a scant few paragraphs about his two marriages and his children, and no mention of his grandchildren. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the review! I think I have addressed all of your comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I addressed your comments. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still concerned that the article ignores the criticism of Young's performance as Chief of the Astronaut Office. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: The only source that I have seen that criticizes Young's performance as Chief of the Astronaut Office is Riding Rockets. While I don't mean to discount the opinions of Col Mullane, I don't want to give undue weight to one astronaut's opinions and make it seem like it was widespread criticism. This article discusses Young's belief that his reassignment was the result of his post-Challenger criticism. Do you have a good place to look for further evidence of criticism of Young? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hawkeye7, would you be able to undertake a source review for formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll do it tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aarrgh. I haven't got Hansen and Young here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: I have it with me; what information are you looking to verify? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Added locations to 11 and 25. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • fn 30 missing location

Added location. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are high quality. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 23 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [18].

2006 Football League Championship play-off Final

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the world's most valuable single soccer match. This one was pretty one-sided but interesting nevertheless, with the added spice of the losing team having been managed by the winning team's manager. The Londoners triumphed with a header, an own goal and a penalty. As ever, thanks to everyone who participates in a constructive manner, and I'll do my utmost to get to all points raised as soon as humanly possible. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

Very few issues I could find really. A few minor points above to look at. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks for your review, I think I've addressed all your points? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can see I think. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]
  • Not an issue for this article, but in reviewing this I looked back over the other play-off finals that have made it to FA, and I noticed an oddity: the article on the 1998 final says winning was worth 5-10 million pounds, but the 1993 final was apparently worth 20 million. Seems odd that it went down that year, though I suppose you're just following the sources.
    Yes, I'm just using the sources as you noted. I'll re-check them, but at a cursory glance (and during the FAC source checks) nothing untoward was uncovered. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    AHA, Mike Christie, you were spot on. I checked the paper source (Foster, p. 112) and I had mis-typed, so that should have been £5m not £20m...! Great spot, thank you!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Mike Christie, it appears that while the contemporary estimates for the 1998 final were 5 to 10 million, the Foster source suggested up to £20m, so I've incorporated that in the 1998 article too. Thanks again, I'm annoyed at myself for the error. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made one copyedit, changing "noted" to "commented", since "noted" implies that it's true; I think it should be avoided when quoting opinions. There's another use at the end: Eurosport noted that Watford had switched from their "normally attractive footballing principles to use the long ball into the channels" as a direct result of the condition of the playing surface at the Millennium Stadium. This is a bit harder to replace (you already have "suggested" and "commented" nearby) but I think it would be worth finding another word.
    I've made a change here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet; straightforwardly written and nothing wrong with it that I can see. I'll read it through again tomorrow to be on the safe side and I expect to support then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie thanks. I didn't think it was that short, but it's certainly sweet, but I would say that. Cheers for your interest, let me know if you find anything else that I need to address. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can't find anything else to complain about. And you're right, it's not short for an FA. I came to it from biblical criticism so I think I just meant it was not a long article. Have read through again and made a couple more copyedits; please revert anything you disagree with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. And almost literally holy moly, that biblical criticism article is way too long, should be split!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks not done since I've spot checked this nominator in the past & they are an experienced FA writer
  • All reliable sources
  • Consistent linking, publisher/website inclusion
  • (Suggestion) You could archive ref 14 as the only one without the an archive link
  • Since the one point above is not required, I've found no issues – in short, the sourcing is TRM standard :) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, thank you. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon

[edit]

Happy to review. Just a few minor comments:

  • The top two teams of the 2005–06 Football League Championship season gained automatic promotion to the Premiership --> any chance of telling the reader who they were?
  • Watford ended the season in third position ... the losing semi-finalists. --> from the lead I can't tell who beat whom in the semi-finals. Is there no way to rephrase all this so that this is clear yet doesn't take more space? Something along the lines of "Third-placed Watford defeated fourth-placed Preston in the first semi-final, while fifth-placed Leeds beat sixth-placed Palace in the second semi."
  • The 2006 final was refereed by --> not sure we need the 2006 here
  • The last paragraph of the Route to the final section has 7 occurences of Watford. Any chance of reducing that?
  • but it was rejected by Mike Dean --> I guess if the players' names are reduced to last name only on subsequent mentions, then the referee's name should too?
  • The second paragraph in the Summary section is using the "before" construction a bit too much I think
  • saying: "We won't go down ... "I think the best --> looks like a stray "
  • and we won't go down". --> Move the . inside the " as per MOS:INOROUT
  • they will bounce back". --> same thing. There are a few more like this that need fixing.
  • He added: "we're --> capital W
  • BBC --> link
  • they had failed to deal with Watford's "high-tempo approach" nor with their threat from set pieces --> that "nor" strikes me as odd. I'm not a native speaker, so it may be fine, but I would expect "and" here.
  • Derry had not seen the footage of game --> the game
  • when, in 2016, he commented on it --> perhaps remind the reader somehow that he had caused the penalty, before giving the quote

That is all from me. As I said, just very minor points. It reads well and seems to cover all the key aspects of the event. I have not looked at the sources. I trust Aza24's judgment. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon thanks, I'm just heading to bed so I'll take a look tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon thanks again, I've addressed all of the above besides the "nor" comment which reads fine to me. Let me know if there's anything more I can do to secure your support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One day I will get the hang of double negatives in the English language, but it won't be this year. All looks fine to me, so I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Amakuru

[edit]

Route to the final section:

  • I've done a couple of very minor tweaks, but otherwise no issues with this section.

Background:

  • "Watford had also previously participated in one play-off final" - does this mean that Leeds had also played in just one final previously? We are told about the last one, but not sure if they were in any others before that.
    Reworded to address this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boothroyd was the first-team coach at Leeds United until he left in March 2005 to take the Watford manager's role" - are "first-team coach" and "manager" the same thing?
    No. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boothroyd had been promoted from academy football by the Leeds manager Kevin Blackwell, who himself had experienced failure in the play-off final three years earlier when he was assistant to Neil Warnock whose Sheffield United team lost 3–0 to Wolverhampton Wanderers" - this sentence feels slightly long to me, with a few too many diversions as it makes it way from Boothroyd to Sheffield United's defeat to Wolves. Also, you could argue that the "whose Sheffield United team" bit could refer to Blackwell too, as he was the assistant there.
    Split sentence, but unclear what you mean about Blackwell, that 2003 defeat pre-dated Blackwell as a coach there and post-dated his time as a player there. What am I missing? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well what I mean is that even when he was merely the assistant, you could still say "his Sheffield United team", just as you would for a player or any other person affiliated with the club at the time. It could, for example, be rephrased to "he was assistant to Neil Warnock as their Sheffield United team lost 3–0 to Wolverhampton Wanderers". No biggy if you don't agree though.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Already re-phrased. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had been hosted by the Millennium Stadium the previous day" - you could just say "the stadium", as we name-droppped Millennium Stadium in the prior sentence to this one.
    Repeat removed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was estimated to be worth up to £40 million to the successful team" - the source does not qualify it as "up to", it just gives says it's an estimate: "a match estimated to be worth £40m to the winner"
    Two other sources repeated, one of which says £20m, other says £35m so "up to £40m" is now just dandy. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leeds' starting eleven". MOS:POSS advises to use 's rather than just ' - unless you deem that "Leeds's" is difficult to pronounce, in which case the manual of style suggests rewording...
    Fucking modern times. There are two instances of it actually, in the prose, and one esteemed newspaper uses the s' too. I don't think Leeds's is difficult to pronounce, I think it's shite styling though. Adding it creates a problem which doesn't exist in the first place, Leeds' is completely unambiguous, understandable and pronounceable. Tsk. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watford were considered narrow favourites to win the match by bookmakers" - unsure if this is really an issue or not, but the source does not actually directly say that the bookies had Watford as favourites, it simply quotes Marlon King as saying "Whatever the bookies say, we are underdogs". It's possible that the King was actually mistaken about that, and maybe the Guardian didn't bother checking whether what he'd said was accurate?
    That very source says "Odds: Leeds 17-10, Draw 21-10, Watford 8-5" so I'll stick I think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru cheers, awaiting tranche numero deux. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match:

  • "Boothroyd [...] was circumspect" - according to the dictionary, circumspect means "wary" or "careful not to take risks". It then quotes him as saying "We won't go down", which sounds like quite a definite statement, and perhaps not very circumspect?
    Merriam-Webster says circumspect means "careful to consider all circumstances and possible consequences" and that's what he's doing here. And the circumspection relates to his first comment rather than he second. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eurosport observed that..." - per a comment at my previous FAC, I gather that we're not supposed to describe an organisation as saying something.
    Well if there's no author named I don't see a problem with this at all. It meets attribution requirements and is true. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This ensured the club finished the season bottom..." - just wondering if "ensured" is the correct term here. Presumably it was still possible for them to avoid finishing bottom, if they had scored more points, so I don't think the points deduction on its own could be said to have ensured that outcome.
    But the points deduction happened at the end of the season and per the source "The 10-point deduction - in accordance with Football League rules - means Leeds will finish the season at the bottom of the Championship. so I don't see an issue with this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • "the clubs placed from third to sixth place in the table took part in play-off semi-finals" - this fact is not directly stated in the body of the article (although I suppose technically you could infer it if you combine the league table with the information on which clubs took part in the play-offs... probablyt better to just state it directly though).
    We're getting into Sky is Blue territory now, with all the references, including the league table ref. To crowbar this into the prose would really detract. Unless you have an elegant suggestion, I think this is cited enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing else really. That concludes my review. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru cheers, all comments addressed and/or responded to above. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, you have an answer for everything... All done and dusted then, and happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for over four weeks and needs more reviews. I shall add it to urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I think this is "oven ready". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Burnt to a crisp. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2020 (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) 20 December 2020 [21].

Warner Bros. Movie World

[edit]
Nominator(s): — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. Movie World. Hollywood on the Gold Coast, with a distinctive Aussie lilt. The only place on Earth where you can blast ray guns at 3D Starros in a Cyborg simulation, drop backwards into stark-black from a Scrappy-Doo huff, and catapult out of the Metropolis tunnels on a Superman punch, all in a single day. Over a near-thirty year tenure since its star-studded 1991 opening, Movie World has grown into one of Australia's premier theme parks and most popular tourist attractions. Those old enough will recall the good ol' days when "experiences" that captured the magic of cinema were sought over high-octane scream machines. Five year old me still revels in awe at the studio backlots along the tram tour, and screams in garish delight as I plummet down the Wild West Falls and zip through the veins of Gotham on Batman Adventure. Throughout the 2000s, the park's status as a thrill-seeker's playground burgeoned. Today, its skyline is dominated by arguably Australia's strongest coaster lineup, including the crown jewel, DC Rivals HyperCoaster. The menacing 60 m near-vertical drop in the backwards-facing final row should be on every enthusiast's bucket list, and one I can't wait to experience again (when us south of the border are allowed across it).

Spurred on by a number of visits over recent years, I decided this article deserved an overhaul from the ground up. Save for a couple of cleanup edits in early 2019, I first started work in May this year and I'd like to think I've taken it a lot further than before I started. My work was conducted with almost no FA's to model on, as no modern theme park article has yet reached this standard. I'm relieved to finally be at a point where I can take this no further on my own. A quick note on sources: many news stories were accessed via archives and eLibrary databases hosted on ProQuest. Please Wikimail me if I can assist with spot-checks. Another note on images: there are hundreds available in the commons, so please note I am flexible with adding to or replacing the current selection. It would be an honour to have written Wikipedia's first Featured Article on a large, modern theme park. Thank you in advance and I greatly look forward to a spirited FAC commentary. — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spicy

[edit]

A couple passing comments:

  • It recorded 1.3 million visitors in 2007 and was the third highest attended theme park in Australia, behind Sea World and Dreamworld. - Why are we citing 13-year-old figures in the lead? I thought at first this might be the peak of its popularity, or the most recent figures available; but this isn't the case since we later learn that in 2013 it "recorded more than 2 million visitors for the first time in its history".
  • The word various appears 12 times in this article. Most, if not all, of these uses are unnecessary and could be removed - e.g. Various costumed characters regularly roam the park -> "Costumed characters regularly roam the park"; It was variously described as the world's first "movie-based theme park" built outside the United States[26] and the first "American-style" theme park -> "It was described as"...
  • Warner moreover recognised the value proposition in the theme park than in the studio. - seems like there is a "greater" or similar missing here? or should that be "recognised the value proposition moreso in the theme park than in the studio"?
  • Between 400 and 500 new jobs were created upon its opening.[25][18] - check that ref numbers are in order
  • Opening attractions at Movie World focused on education about and involvement with the behind the scenes of filmmaking - I find this sentence very awkward, primarily because of "education about and involvement with" and the use of "behind the scenes" as a noun... perhaps this could be rephrased to something like "focused on educating guests about the behind-the-scenes aspects of filmmaking" etc
  • Linking "tour" to "tour guide" seems odd, and I'm not sure it needs to be linked at all per WP:OVERLINK
  • In 2003, the Harry Potter attraction closed and was in September by The Official Matrix Exhibit - missing word?
  • Hollywood Stunt Driver closed and was replaced by its sequel on 20 February 2014, a revamped show that featured Showtime FMX motocross riders who perform more thrilling stunts than before. - tense shift
  • The Roxy Theatre off Main Street screens Yogi Bear 4-D Experience. - does it only screen this one film? I find the sentence structure in this paragraph a bit repetitive - every sentence except the final one opens with "[Attraction] [verb]s..."
  • Guests use RFID wristbands to help the villains destroy the area - how does this work exactly? I would think RFID wristbands would be used for tracking purposes
  • Superman Escape catapults from 0 to 100 km/h (62 mph) in 2 seconds up a top hat - I know it's linked, but you might want to explain in the prose that a top hat is a roller coaster element because it gives a very weird mental image to someone who is not up to speed on rollercoaster terminology!
  • with sales of about 2.6 million units of stock across its 25 outlets generation $17 million in revenue - generating?
  • By 2000, about one third of park tickets were sold via the "Super Pass" deal, although a 20% decline in attendance that year was attributed to Y2K hysteria - not sure the the use of "although" is appropriate here. An overall decline in attendance doesn't necessarily contradict the fact that a different method of ticket purchase became more popular
  • The only notable incident at Movie World occurred on 15 March 2015 - do the sources state that it was the only notable incident?
Sources

Overall the article seems quite comprehensive and easy to read. Nice job. Spicy (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two reviews in less than 24 hrs! Didn't expect a niche topic to pick up commentary that early, so thank you! I've actioned per above. Some follow-up:
  • 2007 was the first and only instance in which exact attendance numbers were published specifically by Village Roadshow. They otherwise combine figures across all properties in their Theme Parks division. We have figures from other years either coming from RS or being cited by park executives. Just to clarify why 2007 was being given. The last specific yearly number given was 2 million in 2014 (which is so far the apex), but there was an "average" figure of 1.4 million given by Gold Coast Bulletin in 2016. Which figure do you think would be the most relevant to cite in the lead/infobox?
  • I don't see that "various" is being over-used per se, however I've struck 7 examples. Let me know if you think more could go.
  • reopened on 15 July at 50% guest capacity with various social distancing and sanitisation policies, DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed displays various DC supervillain statues amid criminal acts. what purpose does the word "various" serve here? Spicy (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It used to say "moreso", however this is not considered a standard English word, so later on I substituted with "moreover". I checked Merriam-Webster and, that I can see, the grammar was correct here. However, I've recast and hopefully this is clearer.
  • You have no idea how many times I've spot-checked to make sure refs were in chronological order. =P Text/cites have been moved around many times throughout editing, so I must have missed this. If you find any more, please let me know.
  • I previously tried different syntax structures for the "behind the scenes of filmmaking". I've reworked per your suggestion.
  • I'm still bothered by the use of "behind-the-scenes" as a noun. This seems informal at best; I've only ever heard it used as an adjective.
  • Yes, this is the only current screening at the Roxy. Afraid I'll have to differ with you on the prose throughout here. I've opted for great economy of words and think the prose flows well. The attraction-verb structure negates artificial connection from one attraction to another, and alternating per your comment may cause confusion. If you insist, I could introduce more variation, but am still concerned we'd be losing concision and flow as a result.
  • Haven't used the RFID interactive feature myself, so am only 90% sure. From what I know having watched other patrons use the wristbands (and from reading the source) it's an upcharge experience where the statues are activated by wristbands and "come alive". There's one statue (I think it's Killer Croc) that sprays patrons with water. I can furnish this as an example if it helps to clarify however, in having said this, I kind of like the ambiguity in the text here.
  • I don't mind the "weird mental picture" (again, I think the ambiguity piques reader interest), but I added "element" at the end so perhaps it's clearer. If you want me to go further, let me know.
  • Don't know how it ended up as "generation". I blame auto-correct! (That's a cop-out, I fixed it! =D)
  • Here's the direct quote from the Amusement Business article: "Warner Village Theme Parks is having good luck selling its three Gold Coast, Australia, theme parks in package deals, despite this year's 20% decline in attendance attributed to Y2K concerns. About a third of park passes sold to Australians are under a "3 Park Super Pass" deal that includes a ticket for Warner Bros. Movie World, Sea World and Wet'n Wild Water World, plus an extra ticket that can be used for a fourth day at any one of the parks". They're sort of making this connection, however I've tried to rephrase accordingly. Let me know what you think.
  • The source does not state that it was the only notable incident, however it was the only notable one (so far—touch wood). Everything else was just ride stoppages that were sensationalised by journalists as being more serious. However, I've rephrased accordingly to keep attribution with the sources.
Really appreciate your insight on sources and the last four should be easy:
  • RCDB has been vetted, is highly valued by WP:APARKS for its accuracy and has been cited in multiple FA's and GA's (see SheiKra, Millennium Force, Steel Vengeance, El Toro etc). They've been highly scrupulous with maintaining an accurate coaster database for the past 20 years.
  • Theme Park Review is only being used for coaster POVs to verify ride experiences. Further, the site is run by highly notable enthusiast Robb Alvey and has also been used similarly on FA's and GA's before (ie Millennium Force above). Can't speak to TPR articles, but again they're not being cited here.
  • You can read my case for finder.com.au at a related discussion here, but to reiterate, they have stated editorial oversight, content policies etc, and Chris Stead is a veteran journalist who has written for multiple RS.
  • The TCI article being cited is an academic journal published by the college itself, not by students, and is clearly written as such. If you'd like to check yourself, please Wikimail me and I'll help with access. No author is credited for the article.
My apologies—authors were credited. They were buried in the blurb. Added just now. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have access to ProQuest and have looked this up. First I'd like to say that not all journals are created equal and I'd be extremely skeptical of an academic journal published by a for-profit technical college. However this isn't listed as an academic journal in ProQuest but as a trade journal - which is actually a good thing since IMO a trade journal is an adequate source for this sort of information...
  • My next question is, how did you determine that this journal is published by the TCI College of Technology? The name of the journal is TCI but if I look at the scan of the front cover (available on ProQuest) it indicates that TCI stands for Theatre Crafts International, not Technical Career Institutes (and the article is marked as "Copyright Theatre Crafts Aug 1994")... Spicy (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this was an oversight on my part. When I added the source, I didn't check the front cover as you did. First, I looked up the ISSN, which was unclear as it didn't give a publication name, then searched for TCI New York. TCI College of Technology was the top result and the logos appeared to match. Really appreciate your clarification here and I've corrected the reference. — CR4ZE (T • C) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's the easy ones. Now it's a little trickier. I'll do my best.
  • Had a feeling Parkz would be questioned. I opened discussion about Parkz at RSN some months ago, which didn't really build much consensus as there was only one respondent. If you have the time, I ask that you please read through the relevant discussion here to avoid me restating a case for it again. However, what I have already done across multiple revisions is reduced Parkz citations to a bare minimum and used them mainly for opening/closing dates. Locating replacements for these dates was exceptionally difficult: Gold Coast Bulletin aren't exactly going to publish a news story every time a kids' ride moves or closes. I'll state for the record that if you have a hardline case against Parkz, I will concede and replace them wherever possible. However, replacing all will not be possible, and there will inevitably be gaps in the article about opening/closing dates that cannot be filled.
  • So, there is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page stating The content of this website is provided for information purposes only. No claim is made as to the accuracy or currency of the content on this site at any time. This doesn't speak well to the site's reliability. Similarly the page on their editorial policy (which says that they accept user-generated submissions, but fact-check them before publication) says we make no guarantee that the information in the database is up to date and/or correct. If the site is not even willing to describe itself as a reliable source, I unfortunately don't think we can use it on Wikipedia, let alone in a FA which should use not just reliable sources but high-quality reliable sources. Spicy (talk) 17:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReviewTyme was also broached in the finder.com.au discussion linked above. Admittedly, I can't see myself building a strong case here but the critical commentary about the park was quite valuable to the article. I believe ATT would be the relevant policy here as opinions are being cited, not facts. Naturally, if you think ReviewTyme needs to go, again I will concede, but the article will be losing something as a result.
  • Sure, it's an opinion and not a fact, but per WP:DUE we should not include just anyone's opinion. According to their about page the website founders' qualifications are that one of them runs a popular Youtube channel and the other worked at Disney World for a year... I don't think this is the sort of expert knowledge indicated by the guidelines at WP:SPS. In that discussion you mention their sizeable audience and quality of their YouTube content but that doesn't really relate to any of the WP:RS criteria - by analogy, the reception sections for, say, video game articles stick to reviews from established outlets with strong editorial control; they don't include what someone like Pewdiepie has to say about it, even though he has a huge audience and makes (according to some) quality videos. Spicy (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale here seems fair. I've removed the ReviewTyme source in question. If you happen to find any critical commentary from RS about the park, please do let me know, as this was one thing I wish the article had more of. (I've exhausted various databases, journals, search engines etc.) — CR4ZE (T • C) 22:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful commentary, please keep it coming! — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spicy, following up here as inline comments can get convoluted. Pleased to confirm that I've actioned on all of your recent commentary. Your assessment of Parkz is understood and appreciated. Though it wasn't easy, I've struck every Parkz reference from the article (by extension, had to cut some info about openings/closings etc as well). Added a pinch to the lead as well. Let me know what you think of my changes! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicy, I was wondering if you have formed a view on this one yet, or is there more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicy and apologies for pinging you again, but I wonder if you are able to answer my query immediately above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  • MOS:ALLCAPS ... "DC Rivals Roller Coaster REAL Front Seat & BACKWARDS POV! Warner Bros Movie World Australia"
  • Concerned about reliability of sources as covered by Spicy.
  • There are items in See also that are already linked in the article hatnotes.
  • MOS:CAPTIONS, sentence fragments have no final punctuations, full sentences do. Hollywood Stunt Driver relaunched in 2014. sent fragment.
  • You can use these scripts to fix dates and dashes yourself.[22]
  • In 2020, Fright Nights was cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions,[168] however White Christmas is scheduled to go ahead.[169] ... was scheduled to go ahead as of <date>
  • Redundancy, see among other properties all operated by Village Roadshow. See User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing
  • Why is the lead telling us about attendance in 2007? It recorded 1.3 million visitors in 2007
  • WIkilinking: Warner Bros. is not linked on first occurrence in the lead.

I haven't read further because it doesn't appear the prose is yet FAC ready, and I am concerned about the reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful commentary. To follow-up:
  • Didn't realise per MOS that journal headlines needed to be rewritten in title case, but I've happily done so. Let me know if you spot any others (I found one you hadn't mentioned).
  • Does this mean I could remove the See also section? Happy to do so. There were more article links in previous revisions although their relevancy was questioned at GAN.
  • Respectfully, linking to a WPian essay isn't giving me much to action on. If you find specific examples of prose that raise a concern, please do let me know.
  • The point of linking you to essays and writing exercises is so that YOU can search for prose redundancies etc rather than having others do it; that is, I am more interested in teaching you to fish than cooking dinner for you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead was reshuffled during GAN and I must've forgotten to move wikilink.
  • Other comments covered in response to Spicy as above.
  • Concerned about your understanding of WP:SPS and reliable sources. It is irrelevant how many articles use a source and how many FAs use a source, and what a WikiProject says about a source. You need to demonstrate that the source is reliable per SPS, that is, by demonstrating that this is met: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. We need to see a list of reliable independent publications that have published the work of these SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, appreciate the time you've put in to leave feedback. Please keep the comments coming! — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, me again. I note that you seem to have some qualms about this nomination. It has recently passed a source review and I was wondering if that helps you to move towards a formal position re promotion. Fine if not, this is just a heads up. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog the Mild, both Sandy and Spicy were pinged at the latter's talk here some time ago. Spicy suggested that input from members of projects relevant to the topic would be helpful here. I have already asked at AWNB and APARKS for feedback, with little success. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I seem to be constitutionally incapable of tracking pings, and need to be bugged on my talk page if you really want me to revisit :)
I'm not comfortable with the prose.
  • Italian-American film producer Dino De Laurentiis visited the country in 1986, aware of industry buzz over the film Crocodile Dundee and having worked with industry alumni in recent years.
What industry alumni and how do they related to Australia? --> After working with X, de Laurentis became aware of industry buzz and visited the country ? More straightforward? I can't get the point of this sentence.
The next sentence is again less than straightforwrd:
  • With De Laurentiis Entertainment Limited (DEL) and aided by a AU$12 million Queensland Government investment,[b][3] he commissioned and constructed a film studio in Oxenford, near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
He obtained a AU$12 million investment from the Queensland Government (give the details here rather than in a footnote). With De Laurentiis Entertainment Limited (DEL), he constructed a film studio in Oxenford, near Surfers Paradise on the Gold Coast, Queensland.
Similar in next sentence:
  • However, amid financial jeopardy caused in part by several box office bombs (such as Million Dollar Mystery), De Laurentiis left the failing DEL in December 1987, production on Total Recall halted and $3.4 million worth of studio sets were dismantled.
After the company's finances were jeopardized by several box office bombs (such as Million Dollar Mystery), De Laurentiis left the failing DEL in December 1987. Production on Total Recall halted and $3.4 million worth of studio sets were dismantled.
This is perhaps an Australian English thing ... should who be which?
  • Village Roadshow, who had an established partnership with Warner Bros.
Skipping to the next section:
  • Opening attractions at Movie World focused on educating guests about the processes behind filmmaking.
How do attractions focus? I don't know what this says/means. The first attractions focused on educating guests about filmmaking? I dunno ...
Why are Reception and Incidents grouped in one section-- what is the relationship?
A subsequent investigation revealed a design flaw ... the investigation could not have been anything other than subsequent, a redundancy.

These are samples only, bouncing around. I don't think the prose is ready yet, and think an independent set of eyes could be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia (do you want me to continue pinging?) and, certainly, a fresh set of eyes is always helpful.
  • Yes, some of your commentary is predicated on AmE vs. AuE differences. We use plural relative pronouns in the Australian nomenclature, similar to BrE (ie the Beatles were an English rock band, not was). Note spelling as well: (jeopardise).
  • I've flipped around a couple of sentences per your suggestion. Industry alumni refers to Australian film industry alumni... the Australian industry is literally stated in the sentence prior so I can't see how readers would be confused. Your suggestion doesn't quite match the procession of events according to the source. Nonetheless, tweaked a little.
  • Couldn't see the issue with the QLD Government bit, but I opted instead to roll this into the footnote instead.
  • The source describes the box office bombs as the main factors contributing to DEL going under, but not the only ones (hence the "in part"), but I'm comfortable with your wording.
  • Suppose you're right that reception and incidents don't tie together so well, so I've flipped to level-twos for now. This leaves the incidents section quite small; if you prefer, I could integrate the two notable ones into the history prose.
Keep it coming. Thanks again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will circle back as I have time, but I intended those as samples only ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but it gives the implication that I haven't done the work to prepare for FAC, which is untrue. Across multiple revisions both prior to and during, I've made improvements that weren't even brought up here. Please let me know when you have time to continue your review. — CR4ZE (T • C) 03:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy: several additional editors have reviewed this one since you last looked at it, so I was wondering if you felt able to make a call? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Several of the alt texts are quite similar to the captions - either improve the description or just refer to caption
  • File:Bugs,_Daffy_%26_Yosemite_-_Movie_World.jpg: given the details at commons:COM:DW, I'm not convinced images like this would be free by Commons' standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Please see diff provided in response to Spicy above. I've commented out the image in contention for now and raised this at commons. As noted above, there are plenty of possible replacements—do you like any of these (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)? Admittedly, the alt text was sloppy but I've made an effort to improve it across all images. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added one new image. Do you have any further comment to make on images? Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest posting your query at Commons' Village Pump rather than the DW talk page, as you'd be more likely to get a response. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the replacement I've made, so a response to the query makes no difference. Are you able to clear images/alt text now or is there more to come? Thanks again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Doing now, btw you have a few dup links. Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Standardize your ISBNS to ISBN 13 in refs 5 and 6 (use the converter)
  • You're inconsistent with retrieval dates. Really all web/news refs should have one (SMH and Proquest probably don't need them) and at the moment only a few do, with seemingly random consistency
  • I'm unsure why there's sometimes a red lock vs the text "subscription required" – one should be chosen and standardized. And the "registration required" should follow accordingly (the words vs the grey lock)
  • the reliability script I'm using is marking "Theme Park Review" in refs 117 and 121 as generally unreliable. Would think for an FAC they should substituted for higher-quality, reliable sources.
  • Formatting and reliability looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Aza24, thanks for taking the time to do a source review. Just some follow-up:
  • I'm satisfied retrieval date usage is within policy but happy to listen if you could explain otherwise. To quote {{Cite web}} documentation for |accessdate= parameters: "Access dates are not required for links to [...] news articles with publication dates". That's why they're not being used on almost all refs (in fact, they used to be but I removed them manually). The archiving on all online refs should cover the functionality of accessdates, as we have an exact date and time to verify the text back to. Hence why even non-news refs don't have the parameters. In essence, all the reasons for using access parameters are redundant if the refs are archived. As for the 18 instances where accessdates are given, this was done because the sites couldn't be archived (ie GCB articles are paywalled) and are used simply as a courtesy. If it's consistency you're needing here, I could remove those parameters altogether, although I don't see the necessity.
  • The red/grey locks occurs when |url-access= is being used. It was my understanding from reading the documentation that this would be the correct parameter to use for url links. The Proquest articles don't use url paramaters, so that's why their access notice is given as a text, not icon. Happy to substitute url-access for {{pay}} if you'd prefer.
  • Where is this script by the way? I'd be keen to use that in my own editing, if you'd care to share. To speak specifically to "Theme Park Review", sure, I could find replacements if you'd like. However, as outlined above, if not a high-quality RS, TPR at least meets WP:SPS and is being merely used for ride POV videos. To my mind, linking to a notable channel's video of the ride itself would actually be better verification-wise than a news article describing the ride. Happy to replace though, if you do insist.
Really appreciate you taking the time, again. Please let me know your thoughts re the above. If you'd like to conduct some spot-checks and need help with access to any refs, please do let me know or shoot me a Wikimail. Thank you again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 09:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well the main thing I'm getting at here is consistency – I don't want you to think that I'm nitpicking based on my personal preferences :) Aza24 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of the exception for news sources, I suppose I assumed otherwise because it seemed to be common practice to include them, but no issues there. However, I would think that web (but non-news) sources such as the Roll Coaster database would require them per "Access-date is required for online sources, such as personal websites, that do not have a publication date"
  • Once again here, I'm looking for consistency. The issue I see is having "subscription required" template but in other places the red lock, which means the same thing. I'm looking closer now and it looks like the "subscription required" is generated by the SMH template so (I think?) the only solution here is using the {{pay}} template for all as you suggested
  • The script is User:Headbomb/unreliable – a very well made tool. I'm looking closer at the information that the Theme Park refs actually cite (which I should have done before) and I would agree that in this case there doesn't seem to be an issue here.
  • Spotchecks are probably unnecessary since you have a couple of FAs under your belt, but would be happy to if you would insist, or the coords requested them. Do let me know - Aza24 (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, and any insight based on your preferences would be welcomed as well. =D Yes, it's common practice to use them but I don't mind colouring outside the lines. Just to reiterate, I can't see that access dates serve a purpose that archiving cannot, even for sites that don't have publication dates (ie RCDB). The purpose behind it is to say when the information was verified to be true, but if we provide a permanent snapshot that will never rot, that's even better. I can put access parameters back on those non-dated sites if it's a contention. Though I wonder (going outside this FAC) if this is a good point for debate at WT:CS1, as I would argue that the documentation should be updated to the effect of: "accessdate are redundant if refs have been archived". Yes, I've got some FA's hanging on my wall, but I'm human and we can make mistakes. I recently reviewed a GA submission for this year's WikiCup winner and did have a couple of small gripes over some spotchecks. I'll leave the verdict as to whether any are needed here up to you and/or the coords. I've substituted the url-access parameters per your suggestion; it was misbehaving but I worked it out. Thanks again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 10:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I was pinged, my opinion on access-dates is that is when it was verified. Archives are often not quite the same as that of what was viewed, and could theoretically be destroyed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But if the text can be verified from the archived snapshot provided, how is that different? Anyway, that's a rhetorical. This wouldn't be the right forum for a debate over the minutiae. I've added access parameters to the non-dated refs per above. If I've missed any, please let me know. — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No expectations here, just gratitude for your commentary on sources. Thanks again. — CR4ZE (T • C) 08:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again Aza24, wanted to ask if you'd be able to take a run at the prose. Any further commentary would be greatly appreciated, especially as this is now in urgents and running out of time. (Good-faith offer of qpq if needed as well—always happy to repay debt for considered review. If more is needed here, I could take a look). Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thank you for pinging, my schedule has recently cleared up so I'd be glad to help out. Give me a day or two. The Leonardo is nearly there so don't worry about qpq (just waiting for one user to finish his comments, then I think Gog will promote it), unless of course, you stumble across something terribly wrong with it. :) Aza24 (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24

[edit]
  • I wanted to start my comments before I addressed yours that you so kindly brought to my FAC:
  • Oxenford, Queensland in the infobox but just Queensland in the text? Imo Oxenford, Queensland would make sense for both as Queensland by itself is a huge place. Oops now I'm coming back to see and seeing that it's actually Gold Coast in Queensland vs Oxenford, Queensland?
  • Seems weird to have both italics and quotes for the slogan (in the infobox), but I'm not sure what the standard is
  • I love the use of "annum" but I feel that its not worth the (likely) possibility of confusion for our readers – "year" may be a safer bet here. Alternatively, you could link to the wikitionary article on it, not sure how but there is a way to do it without an external link I believe
  • Would think that the action film link should be action film
  • Gosh this place sounds so cool
  • Whats with the redirect in Batman Adventure – The Ride?
  • Why is the Young Einstein Gravity Homestead... to the end of that paragraph before the Marvin the Martian in 3D opened in December 1997... several new rides. part? It is a little odd to mention the 3d movies that began in 1997, go back in time, and then go back to the 3D movies imo.
  • Got to the Park layout section couldn't find anything else before then. I'll get to the rest later today or maybe tomorrow. The prose reads beautifully... I'm not a huge fan of theme/amusement parks but this one is certainly sounding appealing Aza24 (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would highly recommend a visit should you ever holiday on the Gold Coast. If you're not a big "thrill ride" person and/or have kids, Sea World and Dreamworld are fantastic as well.

  • Oxenford is a suburb of the Gold Coast. I assume per Template:Infobox amusement park we would specify suburb if using all three location parameters, although it's not clear. (Coincidentally, Movie World is cited as an example template on the page, with "Oxenford, Queensland, Australia" given.) The article used to have "Oxenford, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia", which I again assume was redundant. Not 100%, but I think it's good the way it is.
  • Good catch re italics/quotations (this has been left as is for years). I believe slogans should have quotations only.
  • I'll do you one better and change it to "yearly average": more concise.
  • The action film link was deliberate and per SEAOFBLUE I'd like to keep as is. Same for other examples like "Premier of Queensland". This was raised during GAN.
  • No idea why I used the redirect there...
  • Young Einstein was a walk-through attraction at the back of the park (replaced by Harry Potter, then Matrix, then bumper cars, and currently vacant). The Marvin the Martian film opened at the Roxy Theatre along Main Street, replacing Adventures in the Fourth Dimension. Different attractions.

Thank you for your insightful comments, please continue when you have an opportunity. — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getting back to this now. I didn't really articulate my query on the "Young einstein and following sentences" clearly at all above lol, I was referring to the line The Roxy Theatre screened 3D films and then Marvin the Martian in 3D opened in December 1997 at the Roxy Theatre as the world's first animated 3D film" a paragraph later – it just seemed odd say "the first animated 3D film" when a paragraph earlier you say they "screened 3D films" – not a major issue though of course
  • You have some dup links still, this script may help find them quickly
  • DC Comics should be linked earlier ("Built on the former Boot Hill Graveyard, the DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed") and not where it is at the moment (" DC Comics Super-Villains Unleashed and...")
  • It seems like the virtual reality is a new thing compared to the Arkham Asylum as a whole, "optionally in virtual reality" doesn't really make that clear unless you look at the source's date (which no one will); perhaps rephrase to something like "with a virtual reality option since 2017" or something
  • Not much to comment on, got to Attendance and performance, will get through the rest later today. Aza24 (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning!

  • To your first point (and thank you for clearing this up), I'll check through the sourcing and see what I can do here. I'm pretty sure the first film that opened at the Roxy (Adventures in the Fourth Dimension) was either live-action or at the very least not animated. Marvin the Martian was the first 3D cartoon film, as noted in sources. I'll come back to this later today and see how/if I could clarify.
  • Installed the script (good idea!) and checked through. Was happy to address these but wanted to comment. The duplink for dark ride was piped with the text "ghost train". Readers may be unfamiliar with what a "ghost train" is, so it could be helpful? (The scope of the dark ride article covers a variety of attractions.) S&S – Sansei Technologies has gone through a few name changes: it was S&S Power when Batwing opened, and S&S Worldwide with Green Lantern. Similar with Arkham Asylum – Shock Therapy, which used to be Lethal Weapon – The Ride: it was an extensive retheme/rename hence the duplink. All three duplinks gone for now, but there may be a case for putting at least some of them back.
  • Good point about Arkham VR. I'd prefer to keep the park layout prose as tight as possible, so what I did instead was mention the VR addition in history first. Note that VR was added in September 2016, not the date of the source. Direct quote from the article (it requires library access): "Last September, we launched VR onto the Arkham Asylum Coaster at Warner Bros. Movie World and it has been really well received." Hopefully this is enough to solve the problem.

Look forward to your continued insight. — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick follow-up. I checked through the 1991 sources and none of them mention Adventures by name; searched ProQuest as well and found nothing. I'll do another dig later today and see if I can clear this up. Also to note, the prose on Arkham in park layout is on borrowed time anyway: Arkham's been SBNO for nearly a year, and just in the past few weeks they've been taking it down. Forum thread if you're curious. Still no formal announcement about its (long-overdue) closure yet, but when this happens it will be removed from the text anyway. — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey if any dup links are on purpose, that's cool with me, I was just making sure you didn't have an extra unintentional ones. The other things you responded to seem fine. Aza24 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was impacted by the September 11 attacks" – presumably this was a negative impact, but you may want to state that clearly for the reading then letting them assume
  • "over the respective financial year" may just be me but I had to look back and see what the "respective year" was – it may be better to have just "throughout the financial 2006" or something, not a huge deal though
  • "154 ha Oxenford" – what does the "ha" mean? If this is "hectare" I would say a safer bet is spelling it out (didn't even know that was the equivalent abbreviation myself...)
  • Read through the rest, that's all I have. The research is all there and my comments here (and earlier) are mostly nitpicks. Thank you for effort here. I will preemptively support as the issues here are about as minor as it gets. Happy to discuss anything further though of course. Aza24 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the support! I'm cool to just leave links as are. Yes, "ha" is the standard abbreviation for "hectare" but it was just as easy to remove this, as precinct size is already given in park layout. Good thing you noted the financial year thing, it was actually financial 2007 so I clarified the year and moved accordingly (spot-checked the other years, with no issues that I could see). I did check again to see if I could make the 3D film thing clearer, but the sources don't get into the specifics that I need to state that there were no 3D animated films at the Roxy prior to Marvin the Martian. It should be okay as is, but I'll come back tomorrow and see if it could be tweaked. Thanks again for the time given to this review, it is appreciated. Look forward to crossing paths again in the future! — CR4ZE (T • C) 11:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. I was a little worried that the slowness of reviews for this nomination would discourage your future activity, but it sounds like that isn't the case – which I'm glad to hear. Aza24 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This nomination is approaching four weeks old and has not yet attracted any supports. I have added it to Urgents, but it needs to attract several substantive reviews over the next week or so if it is not to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Just wondering if there's anything else I can do on my end. Is there another forum that I could ask at to attract interest in review? I've already tried the relevant WikiProjects to no avail. Would be a shame to see this archived because of minimal input (even opposing commentary would at least give me something to work on). — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest pinging anyone who has previously reviewed or commented on the article to see if you can get a review out of them. Plus calling in any Wiki-favours you can. And try a polite request on the FAC talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I already did the first thing a while ago (happy to try the other ideas later, too). Good news though, just today someone from APARKS has kindly gotten back to me and plans to leave some commentary within the next couple of days. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adog

[edit]

Hello, I'm Adog. Participant from WP:APARKS, will be commenting through the coming days. Some things I can point out this time around...

  • The lead prose may be extended a bit to cover more of the entirety of the article's content. For instance how many total attractions (including roller coasters) does the park currently host, any milestones or achievements that are significant (GTA or Australian-related), or operating seasons.
  • Usually the denotation for RCDB is placed as a reference in the "publisher" category because of its extensive use as a database.
  • I feel as some of the notes could instead be placed in the prose as they aren't lengthy and do provide relevant information. These points include that of: h, j, w.

These, of course, are passing. More extensive to come in the latter. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to leave commentary, and all are fair points. Can definitely see a need for the lead to be expanded, so I've had a go (not 100% happy, may tweak later). Let me know what you think so far and if I need to go further. I substituted with |publisher= fields on not only RCDB refs, but also the first-party sources. Left note j as is for now, as I do think jumping forward in time would disrupt the flow of the main prose and that the November staff count is superfluous to the text anyway. Do let me know if you disagree. I look forward to more of your helpful feedback. — CR4ZE (T • C) 01:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again Adog, is there a time-frame for when you can revisit? Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CR4ZE: Yes, things ended up getting in my way. Most likely by December 3 and 4. Adog (Talk・Cont) 14:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay. As for the comprehensive side, going through the article several times I believe the contributor has made a great effort in responding to feedback and improving the prose significantly over the past months, and during this current FA review. The only thing I spotted was a MOS:DUPLINK for Boxing Day's second instance. I would be happy to endorse of support this article for the higher quality status. Adog (Talk・Cont) 06:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adog, FYI, if you want to support a FAC candidate for promotion, the usual way to do it is to put "support" in bold somewhere in your comments. Many people put it at the left side of the text to make it easier for the coordinators to spot it. If you don't bold it the coordinators may assume you are not formally supporting the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I must've missed it! Mike, perhaps Adog was waiting for me to fix the duplink before a formal support? (If not, bolding as suggested would be good). Thanks for the feedback! — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie and CR4ZE: You'd be both correct in your assumptions. Wanted to see if someone would say something about bolding and for final corrections to be made on my end. Great job and hoping for the best on this article and for the contributor! Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! Just a note for the coords; Adog previously gave helpful input at the peer review as well. — CR4ZE (T • C) 16:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adog, and apologies if I am being a little slow, but are you feeling able to support or oppose this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Support most definitely. Adog (Talk・Cont) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • by July the newly cemented Warner Roadshow Studios had opened: I'm not sure what "cemented" means here, and this is the only mention of "Warner Roadshow Studios". I see from the link that they are apparently the same as Village Roadshow Studios, mentioned in the lead but that should be clearer to the reader.
  • Footnote [f] mentions three other Warner Bros. parks, but the lead only mentions two others, omitting the one in Germany.

-- Stopping there for the moment; I should be able to pick this up later today or possibly tomorrow. Looking good so far. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stepping in! I'm happy with basically all of your changes so far, so I encourage you to continue as you were.
  • I changed "The studio was producing" back to "The studio was to produce", although we could tweak again. The source indicates that Total Recall production never went into full-swing and that De Laurentiis left while studio sets were still being built.
    I see your reasoning. I changed it because it made it sound like no work had started, and I thought it was better not to imply that. We can leave this if you like but if you can come up with another way to phrase this that would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked a couple of grammar changes in the first 2000–2008 paragraph. The abbreviated Harry Potter film names are written in title case, thus "the" should be lower-case.
    I'd drop "the" altogether in that case. Either way I don't think it should be inside the link; if it's in the link it's implicitly part of the title so would have to be upper case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you did move it outside the link. Rereading I am still finding this very jarring. When referring to any movie by its full or abbreviated name one doesn't say "the" before the movie title (I watched the Westworld today); but if it's inside the link, and italicized, it can only be part of the title and must be capitalized. The only two options that read naturally to me are "the release of Chamber of Secrets", or "the release of The Chamber of Secrets". The latter is certainly what many people would say in casual speech, but if it's unacceptable to use "The" unless the title is not abbreviated, dropping "the" altogether seems to be the only natural alternative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried a couple different approaches here, even using each film's full title. I'm happy with full title-case (The Chamber of Secrets) so that's what I've gone with. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Newly cemented" simply means "newly opened"/"reopened" etc; the studio construction was finished and opened under a different name. If you think it's too colourful/colloquial, am happy to change.
    To me "cement" is figuratively used for things joining together, not opening, so I think it would be good to change. In fact I think you could make it just "by July the new Warner Roadshow Studios (now Village Roadshow Studios) had opened", or even cut "the new" as well -- "opened" implies it's a beginning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Warner Roadshow Studios" was the former name and in previous revisions I had this noted in parentheses, which I simplified for concision's sake, but to clarify I've put them back in. The former name should be noted as that's what's written in the source. (Option B, if you like: I could roll this into a footnote?)
    That's fine the way you have it; a footnote would be fine too if you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can see why you're raising the question but let me clarify as I action. Warner Bros. Movie World Germany was renamed Movie Park Germany in 2004, when it was acquired by a new owner and withdrew its Warner Bros. licensing. Madrid and Abu Dhabi (and of course, the Gold Coast) still hold branding licenses. I've included this now in the footnote. If you need me to tweak further and/or find a source that better covers this, please let me know.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look forward to more of your helpful insight and thanks again for your efforts! — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should be able to post more this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • who performed more thrilling stunts than before: "thrilling" is a little too adulatory to be said in Wikipedia's voice.
  • and incorporated world-first animatronics and 3D projection technologies: this is a bit vague. What was "world-first" about these?
  • The image caption says Hollywood Stunt Driver was relaunched in 2014, but the body text says it was closed and replaced by a sequel. I can see how these might not be in conflict but the wording isn't ideal.
  • Its main attraction was Doomsday Destroyer, a Suspended Twin Hammer thrill ride: you often link to a ride type (e.g. Space Shot (ride)) to avoid an inline explanation to people like me who know nothing about these ride types. In this case, since there's no link to either the ride itself or the ride type, I think you need either a parenthetical explanation or a footnote.
  • remains the single largest ride investment: needs an "as of 2020" or whatever the source date is.
  • With Tower of Terror II's 2019 closure, DC Rivals remains Australia's tallest, fastest and longest coaster: "remains" isn't right, since it did not have that status before Tower of Terror II closed. Perhaps "Since the closure of Tower of Terror II in 2019, DC Rivals has been..." though that would really also need an "as of 2020" note. Or "When Tower of Terror II closed in 2019, DC Rivals became..." which would not need an "as of".
    I see you've improved this, but I still think an "as of" is worth it. If another park builds a taller, faster, or longer coaster in 2021, this statement won't be true any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be beating a dead horse, but I still don't see the point. If a new coaster gets built that is taller and faster, then this article can be updated when that happens, but the information is correct per the cited source at the time it was retrieved (and RCDB databases are known for their regular updates and accuracy). If the text is still verifiable with a current source, do we need to state in the prose that it is so? Anyway, knowing the Australian theme park industry the way I do, this is unlikely to happen any time soon (all major 2021 coasters in Australia are known now, none of them come close, and the industry isn't characterised by the race to be taller and faster that it used to be). — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to oppose over this, but I'll leave it unstruck in case others want to comment. See WP:ASOF for the reasoning, but the short version is that at some point -- perhaps next year, perhaps twenty years in the future -- the statement will be out of date, and it won't be apparent to anyone that that's the case. It's usual to use an as of or some equivalent phrasing to fix this. If it were up to me I think I'd make it "became", since that will continue to be true and wouldn't need an "as of". But it's a minor point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several times you use "the Gold Coast" rather than "Gold Coast" but our related articles don't do this. Just checking: are those articles wrong? Or are both usages colloquial? See Oxenford, Queensland, for example, which says "Oxenford is a suburb in the City of Gold Coast"; you have "Movie World is located in Oxenford on the Gold Coast".
    I'll take your word for this, so striking; it does look like the incorrect usage is in more than one other article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hollywood Stunt Driver's crew perform daring motorcycle and rally car stunts daily.[95] Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster careens down corridors of eerie projections and booby traps before its elevator lift drops riders backwards into tight, unbanked turns. I'd cut or replace "daring", "careens", and probably "eerie"; they are more advertising than informative in tone.
    See my reply to your note below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrons cruise through Junior Driving School's miniature park replica[96] and embark the Road Runner Rollercoaster. I see you're trying to vary the language, but I don't think this works: patrons don't necessarily "cruise", which is again not quite the right tone; describing the layout doesn't require you to mention the patrons at all. And "embark" would need to be "embark on", but that problem also goes away if you avoid phrasing the description in terms of the customers. It's difficult to mention the customers in describing the rides without sounding like a brochure.
    See my reply to your note below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same problem with Guests use RFID wristbands to help the villains destroy the area or hang upside-down on Doomsday Destroyer. Plus it's not clear what the RFID wristbands do; if you want to mention them I'd put them up in the "2011-present" section where the Super-Villains precinct is first described.
  • The rest of the paragraph needs similar attention: "plunges", "propels up" (propels needs a direct object, but shouldn't this be in the description of the ride, not here in the layout section?), "hurtles", "blasts", perhaps "catapults", and what does "courses" mean? Generally I think this section should just describe the layout but you're trying to make it do more.
    See my reply to your note below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as of August, White Christmas is scheduled to go ahead: Can the as of be updated, since we're now very close?
  • During its first operational year, Movie World received 1.2 million visitors: since it opened in the middle of 1991 it's not clear if this means the year ending in mid-1992 or the calendar year 1992. I would have thought the former, but later in the paragraph you cite an attendance figure for a calendar year. Similarly you mention the financial year without saying what this is in this case; a footnote would be enough.
    I think just changing it to "year of operation" would do it; the slightly non-standard phrasing led me to think it was referring to some standardized period that didn't necessarily start on opening day. It's a minor point and if you don't want to make the change that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the comments attributed to Mark Germyn in the 1991-2008 section: I don't have access to that source, but it looks like a trade journal; that sort of source is unlikely to exercise strong editorial control over self-promoting comments from significant figures in the industry. I think that means we need to be careful about repeating positive claims. The quote is probably OK, because it's a quote and because there are supporting numbers. The "strong retail performance" looks less useful to me: we say "noted", which implies agreement in Wikipedia's voice, so I would change that if you do keep some version of this; but beyond that do we have any objective measure that this is "strong" retail performance? Without an objective comparison I don't think the sales figures are all that useful.
  • Reiterating a point: if you search for "noted" you'll find half-a-dozen uses. I would look at each one to be sure it's an objective statement of fact -- I think at least a couple should be substituted.
  • A 20% decline in attendance during 2000 was attributed to Y2K hysteria: I find this hard to believe. Once 2000 dawned with few problems, everyone promptly forgot about Y2K. Is the source neutral and definite about this? If it's the company themselves making excuses I'd be very sceptical.
  • I've changed a couple of instances of "visitation" to "visits" but there are more; it doesn't mean "visits" so the rest should be changed too, but you might want to vary it from just "visits". You use it so much that I am starting to wonder if perhaps the trade journals use it in this sense, but even if they do it's industry jargon which readers won't know.
    Sorry, I wasn't being clear here. Am I right in thinking that sources you're using use "visitation" to mean the total number of visits by customers in a given period? The problem is that this is not a usage most people are familiar with; visitation has several meanings (here is a concise list of the ones I'm familiar with, plus a couple I wasn't); the usage in the article is not in the list. I don't think you can use "visitation" at all in the article unless we define the term, perhaps in a footnote, citing the trade sources. I don't think it's worth doing, and I'd suggest completely replacing it with "number of visits", "visits", "attendance", and so on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I'm with you now! The term "visitation" was my own wording; as stated above, I wanted to vary the language and I thought this would be an appropriate substitution. If the meaning of "visitation" is unclear, then I'll concede. All instances of "visitation" have been struck. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response, operations were staggered on several rides over a daily rotating basis. I had to read the footnote to understand this. How about: "In response, hours of operation for several rides were reduced", which is unambiguous. The footnote gives a specific example which is still useful.
  • If the Q150 pass was introduced in April 2009 and extended later that year, it's not a measure taken "during the financial crisis of 2007-2008". Of course the reverberations from the crisis were long-lasting, but a rephrase to avoid the apparent contradiction would be good.
    Looks like you skipped this one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "promotional efforts contributed to increased profitability and attendance over the 2010 financial half-year" (which half-year? First or last? And we don't know what the financial year is) then there was no "hardship", mentioned in the first sentence of the paragraph.
    The link to the financial year section on Australia addresses part of the issue; can we make it "over the first half of the 2010 financial half-year", or, better "over the second half of 2009"? After all, does the reader care that the analysis of that calendar period was done in the context of a financial year? It's a lot easier to parse the second way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They probably don't, no. I've rephrased similar to your suggestion (just said "over the following year" because, again, readers probably won't care enough about specificity), although if you spot any other instances where simplification is needed, do let me know. I spot-checked references to "financial" year through this section and can't see any other issues with clarity. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the scale and grandeur of American muses Disneyland and Universal Studios: I think "muses" here is a bit too figurative; just "inspirations" would do.

That's it for a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mike Christie, just a quick note to say thanks for leaving such extensive commentary here. I look forward to working through this however I am a little tied up this week. I will get to this as soon as I can, hopefully within the next couple of days—do you want me to ping again or are you watching? Thanks again! — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching, so no need to ping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience and I'll come back again tomorrow to spot-check all of my changes against your comments. Responses below (I usually don't reply inline, although of course you may if you like):

  • Checked on Total Recall carefully again. I can see the rationale for your suggestion, but the wording I had was actually closer to what the source says. It's worded that production was due to start when the studio sets finished construction, but this never happened, and De Laurentiis left in December 1987. There's no date given for when Total Recall production was announced or due to start, so we can't claim that this was also in 1987.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed "thrilling stunts" to "complex stunts": I think this is better tonally, but let me know if you disagree. Tweaked image caption as well.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a note on what Doomsday Destroyer is. Believe I had Suspended Twin Hammer redlinked at one stage as it could be notable; if I get around to it one day and if meets N, this could be a solution for the future.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't see the need to state an "as of" for DC Rivals as this is still true and a verifiable claim. Seems redundant to "clarify" when because it's cited as fact from the date given but if you prefer, we could go for something like "at its time"?
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolled ToT II into a note and cleaned up this statement.
    See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Gold Coast" is correct; if articles are saying otherwise, they are doing so colloquially or in error. The "City of Gold Coast" is the local government area but the Gold Coast is the official name of the city—unless the sentence is structured differently, it's always preceded by "the". Also note, we say "on the Gold Coast" not "in the Gold Coast" (this is not just colloquial consensus among Aussies, it's actually what RS say as well).
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Just to note re your copy-edit, there are other properties at the Oxenford precinct, including a TopGolf facility and the film studio. The source only lists those mentioned, but if you want me to modify this at all, then I can. I'm fine with it as is, just a query.)
    No problem either way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked for White Christmas updates from RS and there are none usable after August yet, but someone (ie Gold Coast Bulletin) will likely have an update on the event soon (the event actually starts tomorrow, 4 December). We'll have to leave as is for now, but indeed, floats for the Christmas parade are already on-site and everything else is ready to go.
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it helps, I've got another source available for the first-year 1.2 million figure, which was published in September 1992 (three months earlier than the current source). Naturally, we have to assume this refers to the first 12 months of operation (ie 3 June 1991–3 June 1992), not to the end of 1992. I can't rephrase without straying into OR, but I can't see that readers would be unclear/questioning this.
    See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for differences between financial/calendar, the distinction between the two does need to be made, and switching between the two was tricky to navigate. Australia's financial year runs from 1 July to 30 June. Also (responding to your comment further down), the financial half-year refers to 1 July–31 December: financial results published at the end of the "second half" of the year are given as end-of-year. I've piped the "financial year" link further to the "Australia" section. I know this explanation may seem convoluted, but I think the link here should be enough to clear up ambiguity. I could find some RS to cover a footnote explaining what our FY is, but the link would serve the same purpose.
    See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just removed "strong performance", which should solve the concern. Reduced use of "noted" throughout.
    OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might sound like a reach, but it does seem Y2K had an impact. How significant this really was is difficult to measure without straying into OR. The park was already on a high during 1999 with Wild West Falls. Peak trading season for Movie World is the Christmas–New Year period (this is also our long summer holiday) and people weren't on the roads then in 1999 like they were in previous years. Obviously, things quickly turned to normal when everyone realised the world wasn't ending, but tourism was down over that period. You're welcome to check the source and judge for yourself; feel free to Wikimail me and I'll help with access. Am happy to massage the prose here but having checked the source, I think it's ok as is.
    The point about traffic on the roads being down makes a good deal of sense. I'm happy to take your word for the source supporting your phrasing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to vary the language by switching between "visitation" and "attendance", although the latter is actually used more frequently. I looked at recasting some of the statements here but I couldn't see a way to to this without losing clarity. Would "numbers" be a substitute?
    See reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything not mentioned has also been actioned and I've saved my response to your comments on park layout for last, as this is where we'll differ the most:

  • I appreciate where your commentary is coming from and I'm not hardline against a change. I've actioned where clarification was needed but unfortunately I will have to differ elsewhere. Informative language can also be colourful, and I think I've struck the balance here. If your feelings are strong enough, perhaps we could get a third opinion? Some of the other reviewers could weigh in (Aza24 has recently !supported on prose and perhaps could share some insight). The prose here has been revised multiple times. Here's what I had at GAN: it's serviceable, if monotonous. I opted to cut this down with economy of words, and contextualising the guest experience was the most concise way to do this. To me, a slightly in-universe descriptor of the guest experience is suitable and engaging. A bit of colour to the language ("plunges", "catapults" etc) reads better than simply "this ride does that", and I don't think there's anything overly hyperbolic or adulatory here. Merriam-Webster allows "courses" as a transitive verb, and "blasts" is literal (could be subbed with "shoots"?).

Eager for more discourse and very grateful for the thorough commentary so far. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the language is hyperbolic, but it's not in the register I aim for in encyclopedic writing. I agree other opinions would be helpful. I'll post a note at WT:FAC after I've finished responding here, just pointing at the specific paragraphs I baulked at, and we'll see what others think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to go through and strike my comments where you've addressed them; this is just a note to say that I would be fine with you interspersing your comments with my notes -- in fact it would make it a bit easier to respond, since at the moment I'm having to scan up and down to assemble the conversations on each point and see what's been addressed and what hasn't. If you'd prefer not to, that's OK too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I generally avoid inlines as they can make the discussion convoluted and hard to track who said what. Given there's only the two of us commenting here, I'll respond inline from now on. I usually have two windows open when I'm commenting. =) — CR4ZE (T • C) 00:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that would certainly help me. You're within your rights not to do inline responses, but I have to say they're almost universal at FAC and it's a bit of a disincentive (for me, at least) to review if I see a nominator doesn't reply inline. So thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, re: your request elsewhere, I've only glanced at this, but I like the writing, so long as it's the editor's own words, e.g. "Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster careens down corridors of eerie projections and booby traps before its elevator lift drops riders backwards into tight, unbanked turns." Assuming it is, I think it works well. SarahSV (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping CR4ZE, I had indeed noticed the "colorful" language used when I read through earlier. Imo this adds to the readability and I don't see it as un-encyclopedic. I think normally I would be against such a style, but I could tell that careful consideration was used as to make it engaging but not like a promotional pamphlet. Aza24 (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Mike. I think I've responded (inline this time!) to everything—obviously we're in disagreement over the park layout prose but I'm happy to wait for more input from others if you want to see more consensus, or not. Look forward to more of your helpful insight and hope you're getting closer to forming a view on this one. — CR4ZE (T • C) 13:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everything above is either struck or minor. I think your language changes are fine too; I was interested to see the comments about "careen" being unfamiliar in this usage; checking revealed that it's listed as "North American" in the non-sailing-ship sense, which is a good enough reason to find a substitute in an article that's in Australian English. I'm mid-Atlantic myself so am often unable to tell whether something is US or UK usage or both. The only remaining word I'm not keen on is "courses", which I think is a pretty obscure usage, though I have seen it before. It was obscure enough to make me wonder if it was from a half-completed edit. However, everyone's active vocabulary differs, and I don't like it when someone tells me to remove something from an article because they aren't familiar with it, so it's not a sticking point.

I expect to support, but want to do one more read-through first -- tonight if I get time, otherwise tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through again and I see just one minor wording issue: you have "paid host"; is this a typo for "played host"? If not I don't know what is intended. Other than that it looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarassing—I've misused this expression without realising. Wish I could blame this on Australian English. ;) — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right on "courses": I checked Merriam-Webster and Cambridge, and it works as a verb but not particularly well in this context. I like "traverses" better (checked it was suitable), especially as the ride travels right through the middle of the scenes described. Although I'll differ on the need for "as of", I don't have strong enough feelings, so I've happily followed your guidance here. Please know there is no rush to get a verdict either way: I'm keen to hear more suggestions, but I think we should be on the same page with everything listed above now. — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize on "paid host"; I've made similar unwelcome discoveries about my own usage over the years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think the article is in very good shape now; thanks for making those last fixes. CR4ZE, please consider reviewing some more articles; I see it's been a while since you reviewed much, and we always need people who can engage with prose. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, although I have done two in the past couple months. I enjoy reviewing but, other than checking here, I won't be around much until January—I note you've got one up currently so I'll do my best to have a look before then. I must say you've gone above and beyond the call of duty here with both the insightful commentary and careful copy-editing. I can't thank you enough, and know that your efforts are greatly appreciated. See you round! — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CR4ZE: A note on one source: the "Flashback Feature" source appears to be subscription required, so the citation should reflect that, and the archive.org link should be removed as it doesn't work, presumably for that reason. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! It was public access when I archived but it's since been moved behind a paywall. Shame, it was a fascinating article with lots of pics from opening day. (I still have access if you need it for anything.) — CR4ZE (T • C) 14:15, 12 December 2020 (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) 18 December 2020 [28].

Scorpion

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and Chiswick Chap 20:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about scorpions, an iconic group of deadly predators. We've been working on this article for a couple months and it is already a GA. We now feel it is ready. LittleJerry (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
  • File:Scorpion Photograph By Shantanu Kuveskar.jpg —isn't there a better quality, higher-res image for the infobox?
Would File:Asian forest scorpion in Khao Yai National Park.JPG be better? LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe? LittleJerry (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That image is better, although tall images aren't ideal for infoboxes either. (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Scorpiones distribution.png — needs a verifiable source in the image description for this being an accurate projection of scorpions' distribution
Its does. Didn't you see the link to the Scorpion Systematics Research Group? LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some sandwiching in "Morphology" and "Biology" sections, against MOS:IMAGELOC
    • Addressed.
  • I removed some images from galleries where it wasn't clear to me whether they were adding value to reader understanding of the topic
    • Noted.
  • The images in this version of the article are verified to be available under a free license[29]
    • Noted.

(t · c) buidhe 20:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

Comments by Esculenta

[edit]
  • "More recently, thirteen families and about 1,750 species and subspecies of scorpions have been described.” This is sourced to a 2009 publication. Is there nothing more recent with updated numbers? In fact, one of your citations (Howard et al. 2019) mentions over 2400 extant species. I added up the species numbers given the taxonomy section and got 2274, which is at odds with what’s stated earlier (and also in the lead).
Updated taxonomy section, list, and lead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”In addition, there are 111 described taxa of fossil scorpions.” This is certainly out of date, as many fossil taxa have been described since 2009. This source (2018) might have more current information, as might Howard et al. 2019.
Fixed. This book gives 121 species. Neither of the source you posted give numbers of fossil species. I changed the numbering to "over 100" such my new source is from 2012. LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order Scorpiones was named and created by Koch in 1837. I think this should be mentioned in the article text, and perhaps include a link to the protolog if it is available. What was his original circumscription like?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only 25 species have venom that is deadly to humans; most of those belong to the family Buthidae…" The first cited source claims that all (not "most") of these belong to the Buthidae; the second cited source looks like it's written by students and doesn't look reliable.
Fixed, and removed the second source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have some basic information on what the characteristics of each family are?
Added brief descriptions for the families in 'Taxonomy'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fact that the article doesn't use Stockmann & Ythier's 2010 Scorpions of the World is a major drawback, as it is considered to be one of the most comprehensive and informative scorpion books out there. I think the article would have trouble meeting FAC criteria 1c based on that alone ("it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature"). I think there's also an issue with 1b ("it neglects no major facts or details"), which would become apparent if you were to look through this book. A single example: there's no mention of keeping scorpions in captivity (even though books have been written about this topic). Based on this, I would oppose promotion of this article in its current state. Esculenta (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck through my initial opposition, as some important sources have been included and the article has been expanded. Esculenta (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, we'll work on those things. I've added a brief section on keeping scorpions in captivity, and further details of behavior cited to Stockmann & Ythier 2010. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
pinging Esculenta. LittleJerry (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Esculenta you're not being fair here, that book has only one copy left and costs $95. We are already citing "Introduction to Scorpion Biology and Ecology" by the same author. If anything that book is more recent (2010 vs 2015) and more updated. I think you are jumping the gun here. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does price and availability of a source have to do with meeting FAC criteria? Are there no libraries where you live? The 2015 source by the same author is a single chapter in a multi-authored book, so not the same thing. Also, please cite specific page numbers when using the 2015 source (currently a range of 34 pages), to make it easier for users to verify information. Esculenta (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added page numbers for Stockmann (2015). LittleJerry (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from Esculenta:

[edit]
  • Assuming the article in written in British English, the following words need to be audited: maneuver, center, meter, molt(ing), paralyze
It's supposed to be US English. LittleJerry (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the etymology section is quite short. Does it need a stand-along section, or might it be better integrated into taxonomy?
We can't put it into taxonomy since the origin of common names has nothing to do with it. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first sentence of etymology is sourced to American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.). 2003. Retrieved 14 April 2010, which suggests that no-one checked this link (nor the link for the following citation) during the preparation of this article. It now suggests it be cited as American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. 2016.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • links: Wisconsin, Myriapoda, taxon, Thysanura, introduced, lamellae, chitin, immune system, metabolic rate, gestation, Scorpion sting, sucker, peat, folk medicine
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • why are there two years listed after Family Microcharmidae Lourenço?
The family was created, then merged, then recreated. Mainly a matter for the Family article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what’s the rationale for using the French “et” instead of ampersand (&) when giving the authorities in the taxonomic ranks?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • you might consider wrapping the authority names in the “small template” so that the font is slightly different and stands out better from the taxon name (e.g. compare Family Hormuridae Laurie vs Family Hormuridae Laurie)
It's possible but would prefer not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the abbreviations sp./spp. must have periods after them
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Vaejovis janssi, are versatile and are found in every type of habitat in Baja California,” I don’t think they are in ‘’’every’’’ habitat
The source states "on Sorroco Island (California) there is only one species of scorpion, Vaejovis janssi, which can be found in all habitats; in the jungle either in trees and other vegetation, on the ground, in the sand, among the rocks, and on the seashore.". LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Scorpions range in size from the 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) Microtityus minimus in the Buthidae,[33] to the 23 cm (9.1 in) Heterometrus swammerdami in the Scorpionidae.” must use adjectival form (use |adj=on in the convert template), or recast sentence to avoid
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”This may be a "primitive" trait.” I don’t think scare quotes are needed here
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”called "keels" or carinae on the pedipalp segments” quote marks or italics for MOS:WORDSASWORDS?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”these are useful taxonomically.” suggest “these are useful as taxonomic characters.”
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the scorpion anatomy diagram should indicate whether it’s the dorsal or ventral view. Why are some of the terms italicized?
Said dorsal and removed italics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have to ask why some terms are capitalized and some aren't! Esculenta (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the mesosoma is called the pre-abdomen in the text, while in the diagram its just called the abdomen
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The ventral side of somites 1 has a pair” should this be the singular “somite”?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Morphologically the pectines are a pair of limbs that function as sensory organs.” Morphology deals with shape, so would a better introductory word be “Physiologically” or “Biologically”?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The 7th and last somite does bear appendages or any other” -> should this be “does not”?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The parts do not grow back, leaving them unable to sting and defecate” I would imagine the latter consequence would severely reduce life span; is this the case?
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • several species are not linked, presumably because they don’t have articles yet. But redlinks are ok.
Linked several. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is mentioned that instars have fully-developed trichobothria, but this word is not linked nor mentioned elsewhere in the article. Soon after, it mentions the hardening of the tegument, another word not linked nor used elsewhere.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”which may not occur until it is 6 to 83 months old” is this a typo?
Nope. The source states "The period before maturity is extraordinarily long, lasting from 6 to 83 months." LittleJerry (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My copy of this book does not say this on page 161, which is claimed by the citation. Please check. Esculenta (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We used the physical copy. You're using the online copy which is way off. LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • how many people are stung by scorpions yearly? How many die? (see doi:10.3390/healthcare8030325
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m surprised that there’s no link to Scorpionism; should it maybe be in a {{main}} template in the “Stings” subsection?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Fried scorpion is traditionally eaten in Shandong, China” Ok, but is it eaten anywhere else or only here?
Pretty much only there. It seems that in Thailand, a street clientele used to fried insects is now trying fried scorpion as a novelty; cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stockmann and Ythier, 2010 (p. 147) also gives West Africa and Myanmar as locations where they are consumed, as well as the most edible popular species/genera. Esculenta (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • please give common names for the two species pictured in the taxonomy section
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments from Esculenta:

[edit]

I read the German (featured) version of this article and found some information that is covered there that I think should also be in ours:

  • where is the highest biodiversity of scorpions found?
The articles already states "The diversity of scorpions is greatest in subtropical areas; it decreases towards both the poles and the equator". LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Especially Mexico, added refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in an older study (McDaniels 1968, PMID 5745746), he divided scorpions into four basic types: psammophilic, lithophilic, borrowing, and wandering. Is this categorization still useful and should it be mentioned in this article?
More recent stuff seems to classify habitat differently. "scorpions may be ground-dwelling, tree-living, rock-loving or sand-loving" is broader. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in diet and feeding, it is mentioned that some scorpions “may be highly specialized” in regards to diet, although none are mentioned. Might it be worthwhile to mention one of these specialists; for example Isometroides vescus, which feeds exclusively on a few burrowing spider species.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in what country (-ies) do most scorpion envenomation deaths occur?
It already states "Scorpion stings are a public health problem, particularly in Central and South America, Africa, the Middle East and India". LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added more detail and refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • anything to say about social behaviour? Are scorpions mostly solitary? Do they winter together in the same shelter? Do any species form family groups that hunt together?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • how long does the mating dance occur?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there any scorpion species classified as endangered by the IUCN?
Conservation issues are generally not important for small invertebrate groups. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s a shame that the reader will not be able to learn from this article the four Pandinus species listed in CITES due to overexploitation for the pet trade, nor the three species assessed for the IUCN Redlist (Lychas braueri CR, Isometrus deharvengi EN, Chiromachus ochropus VU). Esculenta (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting quite far off-topic. Perhaps it's a 'see also' item. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article should mention the high-elevation record holder, Orobothriurus crassimanus , found at 5500m in the Andes (Pollis, p. 125). These kinds of interesting factoids are (IMO) appropriate for an overview article like this one. Esculenta (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use Polis anymore. I no longer have access to the physical copy (had to borrow it from a library hours away) and the pages for the online version are way off. LittleJerry (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could cite Stockmann & Ytheir (2010), p. 151, which says the same. Esculenta (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Website vigorous. Repaired URL. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still more comments by Esculenta

[edit]
  • the infobox image should include its common name, and then the over-specific location could be omitted
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Scorpions range in size from 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) to 23 cm (9.1 in).” since a range from smallest to largest is insinuated, perhaps the upper size of the smaller species should be omitted?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fossil images in the Evolution section are a bit dull and the captions unimaginative. Perhaps include in the caption who found them and in what year? Brontoscorpio.png might be a more interesting and informative replacement for one of them, as the size perspective shows the reader how large these creatures might have been.
This is a bit nitpicky. Who discovered it and when has zero relevance for a caption and no other FAs have this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for the image of the stinger, I propose that File:Pandinus-imperator-5041tagged.png is a more informative image than what is currently being used; it depicts an equally impressive stinger, but has a better view of the rest of the tail, with labeled parts that can be depicted in the caption.
The image chosen highlights the stinger itself. We've covered general anatomy elsewhere. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Centruroides limpidus; where was that image taken?
Linked. Date isn't relevant for photos of extant species. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the uninformed reader is going to read the caption of the chlorotoxin image and assume that it looks like that, which it does not. It should be clarified that it is a ribbon diagram depicting the three-dimensional structure of this peptide.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article implies that Microtityus minimus (which should be linked) is the smallest scorpion, but another one of your sources (Earthlife) says that Typhlocactus mitchelli is even smaller
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They may live up to 25 years." Not all them, surely? Is there a specific species this advanced age refers to? (Earthlife suggests Urodacus yashenkoi)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • earliest-known terrestrial scorpion? (maybe Palaeopisthacanthus from upper carboniferous)?
I see nothing on it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding phylogeny, the Earthlife source says that “… others claim they are actually the only living relatives of a distinct class called the Merostomata” - this opinion is not mentioned in our article
The "Merostomata" is a disputed clade including the Xiphosura (horseshoe crabs) and the Eurypterida (sea scorpions). The 2019 cladogram we've used shows that the clade would include the scorpions, ticks, and spiders as well, i.e. it'd be paraphyletic and there'd be those other living relatives. I think we're better off not discussing that abstruse and now-outdated point as it doesn't help the reader any. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding courtship, our article implies that courtship is always initiated by the male – is this always true? (Earthlife says female sometimes initiates)
Females doing it didn't seem common enough to mention. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • clubbing is left out as one of the behaviours in the mating dance, but should be mentioned, as it occurs in almost half of observed courtship displays.
In Polis but not Stockmann. And I don't have the right page number. The behaviors mentioned in the section are highlighted the most by Stockman and appear to be the most common. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are two type of embryonic development in scorpions (apoikogenic and katoikogenic), but this distinction is not mentioned in this article (see doi:10.1002/ar.21219 for more info)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • no mention of the “birth basket”
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • how many instars do most species generally have to go through before maturity?
It already mentions the number of molts which are the instars. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earthlife suggests that females are generally larger than male, which is not mentioned in our article
More reliable sources are not clear on this. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flat-weave" is hyphenated in the article text, but not the figure caption
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • need a page number for the Erbek, Güran (1998) source
Added a location, the "Motifs" pages are not numbered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • meed a page# for FN 33 (Huber & Bradley 2005); title case; publisher, location
Replaced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Title Case, Publisher, Location have been fixed per item below.)
  • FN 70 (Azmilumur et al. 2017) is a really odd citation for this article: it is a primary research paper (a conference abstract, actually) from a computing and engineering conference. Isn’t there a more appropriate source that can be used to say that meerkats like to eat scorpions?
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the citations, books should consistently give publishers and locations (or not)
All the books now have publisher but not location. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • journal titles/book titles need to be consistently in sentence case/title case
Title Case it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta, are you finished with your review? LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Esculenta (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]
  • Is it worth mentioning that similarly named invertebrates like the scorpion fly and scorpion wasp are not related to the true scorpions?
No, since they have "fly" and "wasp" at the end. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • back, ending with a venomous sting—perhaps and ending?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • woven into kilim carpets for protection—add from their sting
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • pulmonate—not linked or explained
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit underlinked, I’d link at least sea spider, horseshoe crabs, harvestmen esophagus, gonad, pharynx
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • German arachnologist Carl Ludwig Koch classified the order Scorpiones—created the order
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five colonies of Euscorpius flavicaudis have established themselves in Sheerness... while Paruroctonus boreus lives as far north as Red Deer, Alberta, at 52°N.[28]—When did these colonisations occur?
Added. Alberta one is native. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • armoured—armored in AE I think
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 7th and last somite do not—does not,
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In caption Bird predator: Indian roller eating Indian red scorpion—I’d lose the first two words, or rephrase as Indian roller, a scorpion predator, eating Indian red scorpion
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexual cannibalism after mating has only been reported anecdotally in scorpions.—move only before anecdotally?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • wavelengths of ultraviolet light such as that produced by a black light—black light is broad range, wavelength ranges perhaps
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 25 species have venom that is deadly to humans—You give the impression that scorpions are either deadly or harmless, I’m pretty sure, as with snakes, that there are species with an unpleasant but non-lethal sting
Deadly means able to kill. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fried scorpion is traditionally eaten in Shandong, China... They are used in Vietnam to make snake wine (scorpion wine)—Any particular species used for eating or for the wine (sound delicious)?
Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources, formal or informal, go so far as to name the species used. Very likely it is a mix of species as caught. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FemkeMilene

[edit]

Always excited to see articles about basic topics making their way to FA: thanks for working on it.

I'll be focusing on the first paragraph in light of WP:EXPLAINLEAD. Note I'm unburdened by any topic knowledge. I'll be underlining those words that I think should be avoided or if that's not possible explained, and give an attempt at an easier an first paragraph I would understand.

  • Scorpions are predatory arachnids of the order Scorpiones. They have eight legs and are easily recognized by the pair of grasping pedipalps and the narrow, segmented tail, often carried in a characteristic forward curve over the back and ending with a venomous sting. Scorpions range in size from 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) in Microtityus minimus to 23 cm (9.1 in) in Heterometrus swammerdami. The evolutionary history of scorpions goes back to the Silurian period 435 million years ago.
  • Scorpions are predators of the order Scorpiones. They have eight legs and are easily recognized by the pair of grasping pincers and the narrow, segmented tail, often carried in a characteristic forward curve over the back and ending with a venomous sting. Scorpions range in size from 9–12 mm (0.35–0.47 in) to 23 cm (9.1 in) . The evolutionary history of scorpions goes back 435 million years.

The rest of the lead is understandable, except the word spermatophore. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed some but we can't just label them "predators". It is too broad a term. The average reader is familiar with "arachnid". LittleJerry (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also wikilinked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll be taking a look at this. From a quick glance, this looks to be in good shape. Hog Farm Bacon 06:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Book lung is linked at the second usage, move the link to the first. It's then overlinked in the mesosoma section
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Myriapoda
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scorpions are found on all major land masses except Antarctica." - How are you defining land masses? Because they don't seem to be in Greenland, and Greenland could be considered a major land mass due to its size.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the biology section. I'll pick this back up later, looking good so far. Hog Farm Bacon 16:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "while others make slower, more circular strike which can" - Strikes, not strike?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Leiurus quinquestriatus can whip its tail at 130 cm (51 in)" - I am incredibly confused as to what this is trying to say. Maybe it's a comprehension issue, but I'm not sure what this is suppose to mean. 130cm seems rather large for any measurement involving a scorpion. By any chance, would you mean 130 degrees?
Well spotted, it's the speed of a defensive strike measured in cm/s. Edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "squirt venom in a narrow jet as far as 1 meter to warn off potential predators" - Give the meter to feet conversion, maybe? I'm not sure that we can assume that everyone knows that. Especially since this is the type of topic that schoolchildren are likely to use this article for assignments.
Converted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides HMS Scorpion, there is also USS Scorpion. Maybe use a more generalized reference to state that it is a common ship name, without pointing out one navy over another?
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Good work on this one. Hog Farm Bacon 05:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (support)

[edit]
  • You can install this script to keep your dashes in order (I ran that to fix a few dashes here).
Noted.
  • You can install this script to keep your dates in order (I ran that and several citations were not in the date format indicated at the top of the article).
Noted.
  • There are quite a few duplicate links, but some may be justifiable; you can install this script to check them.
Fixed; I've left a couple of intentional overlinks in the cladograms for clarity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Table of Contents (WIAFA 2b) looks good, there is no MOS:SANDWICH, image captions have correct punctuation, and I did not spot any MOS:LQ issues.
Thank you.
Mmm, perhaps, but packing has the odd effect of making the landscape-format images much larger than the portrait-format ones. We've arranged this gallery symmetrically and the images are all in proportion. Guess packing works best with a group of images all of the same shape really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some very wide page ranges on the sources, which could make it hard to verify text. What scheme have you used in deciding when to include a specific page number, and when to go for the broader range? Some of them are more than 10 pages ... Also, check your ps and pps throughout.
Fixed ps and pps and broad page ranges for books. I can't really do anything about journal articles. Though the quote Arata Takeda is on the first page. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mythology, religion, and folklore"; I am terrified of the things to this day (and I took dozens out of my house in Venezuela) because of John Steinbeck's The Pearl (novel), which left an indelible impresison. Is that book worthy of a mention in "Mythology, religion, literature and folklore"? Unsure, just asking ...
Why not. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 12 uses of the word also; please doublecheck that they aren't redundant (see User:Tony1 writing excercises)-- they usually are, or can be replaced with something better.
Reduced to four. LittleJerry (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now to start reading:

  • Should vertebrates and invertebrates be linked on their first occurrence?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is unclear to me why "the" here instead of "a" ... and the narrow, segmented tail ... presumbably that relates back to the taxonomy? So if that is the case, "the narrow, segmented tail" that defines the ... ???
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ending with a venomous sting ... but that links to an article about "being stung" ... rather than a piece of the critter. And in that article, the thing the tail ends with is called a stinger, not a sting, which refers to the action. If the body part is called a sting instead of a stinger, something needs fixing at the linked article. Later in the article, it is called a stinger ... Since classical times, the scorpion with its powerful stinger has been used to provide a name for weapons.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement is begging for some time-related context ... Their taxonomy is being revised in the light of genomic studies. ... 21st-century genomic studies? genomic studies facilitated by the advent of X in year Y ??? Something so that date relevance is established ...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oldest found to date is ... the oldest found as of date ... MOS:CURRENT
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many clauses, too many thoughts, I ran out of breath reading it, find a way to split? The Scorpiones are a clade of pulmonate Arachnida, those that have book lungs, within the Chelicerata, a subphylum of Arthropoda that contains sea spiders and horseshoe crabs, alongside terrestrial animals without book lungs such as ticks and harvestmen.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link phylogeny ? Link cladogram? (Please recognize that this is all jargon to a non-biology-type.)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide as of dates on IUCN text (when we are checking this article ten years from now as in WP:URFA/2020, that's the kind of thing we need to watch for updates) ... A few species are on the IUCN Red List; Lychas braueri is classed as critically endangered, Isometrus deharvengi as endangered and Chiromachus ochropus as vulnerable.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure we can "between" and "to" ... where the temperature remains between 11 to 40 °C (52 to 104 °F) ... where the temperature remains between 11 and 40 °C (52 to 104 °F) ... I suspect the convert template chokes on that so another way to do this needs to be found (manual convert if necessary)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yikes ... give me some help here as a layreader ... a scorpion can tolerate high osmotic ion concentrations in its hemolymph.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, now I know how I imported a Venezuelan scorpion to Italy, and found it in a moving box months later ... Some are able to survive 6 to 12 months of starvation ... thank you, thought I was crazy ... should that be six to twelve per WP:MOSNUM ?
See next. LittleJerry (talk) 02:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSNUM consistency with a list of numbers ... pick one ... digits or spelled out ... from three to over 100.
Fixed to digits. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a relationship to color ? ... but only 25 species have venom that is deadly to humans ... living in Venezuela, I was told (folklore?) that the black ones were deadly.
Didn't see any mention of that. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all, these are mostly nitpicks and I don't see anything preventing me from supporting once addressed (or not as needed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I corrected a few typos that were introduced while addressing my comments, returned one instance of additonally (sic) to also, and restored one correct application of WP:MOSNUM (digits vs. spelled out).[30] If you should come across something in sources (I find plenty specific to Venezuela, but have not looked in general), it seems that infants and toddlers are more likely to suffer severe consequences of a sting, and that might be mentioned. It was certainly my fear, when I lived in an area where scorpions were common, one never took off their shoes unless in bed, and shoes were always checked before you put your foot in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, Ealdgyth or Gog the Mild, anything more needed? LittleJerry (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the ping, I think we're good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2020 (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) 18 December 2020 [31].

Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, an English composer, music critic, pianist and writer who is perhaps best known as the author of piano epics lasting anywhere between two and nine hours, and for having gone into self-imposed obscurity for some four decades. Sorabji's life and music have long been shrouded in myth, but this situation has improved considerably in recent years. The article draws on the recent scholarly writings that have addressed the myths, misconceptions and sensationalism that pervade much of the non-scholarly discourse on Sorabji, and presents a more thorough, objective portrait of him as a person and artist. The entry is coming fresh off a peer review and I look forward to this FAC (my first one in my nearly ten years on Wikipedia). Whatever its outcome, I believe the text presents one of the most fascinating and colorful biographies and creative legacies, musical or other, of the 20th century, and I hope reviewers derive at least some enjoyment from it. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ajpolino

[edit]

Hi Toccata quarta, I've no particular knowledge of Sorabji, or the finer points of music, so I'll be reviewing the prose from the perspective of a non-expert who stumbled upon the page. Making notes as I read:

Otherwise, an excellent article and an engaging read. I read it in one sitting. After seeing your thoughts on the above, I'll be happy to support. Thanks for the read! Ajpolino (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks; I hope the changes I have just made to the article have adequately addressed the issues you listed above. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Moved to support. Thanks again, and I hope you're staying well. Ajpolino (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the vote of support, as well as for your wishes, which I can only echo. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Smerus

[edit]

I contributed to the peer review. Am happy to support this for FA but I think it may need an image review (an area where I lack any expertise) to make sure they are all in order - e.g. the book jacket illustration looks as if it might be dodgy - @Nikkimaria:? --Smerus (talk) 08:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the endorsement (and, belatedly, for your feedback at PR)! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hi @Nikkimaria: Apologies if I am losing track, does that wrap up the image review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once the Busonis are swapped. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this; I have just made the swap. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

I took part in the peer review, and liked the exchange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discuss two minor points, being happy with the detailed article, and ready to support already: the lead and the TOC.

In the lead, I'd mention the lifelong tendency to seclusion in the very first paragraph, a summary, and begin the second with his birth and parents. Compare other composers such as Frédéric Chopin and Percy Grainger.

I am happy that "Ban" left the TOC since the peer review, but find "Ups and Downs" and "Admirers" not a perfect replacement. How about a level 3 header "Seclusion", or something else to describe the full long period of withdrawing from the public, with level 4 subheaders? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, many thanks for the support. I quite like your suggestions above; I have incorporated these into the article and hope they are to your liking. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24

[edit]

Will continue with the music section from where I left off at PR later today. Aza24 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

As is your first FAC I'll have to do some spotchecks below as well Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs
  • Would you mind if I submitted a request to get archive links for the online refs? While of course not required, I figure if we can, we may as well
    You mean "In case they go offline one day"? No objection from my side, assuming such a request isn't considered a big favor. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah it shouldn't be a big deal, since the article is so long I've had to submit a bot request. Although I'm not sure if it'll work correctly since you have to manually input that you want it to archive non-dead links (I'm not sure if the bot will do this by default) but no big deal
  • Surely the Washington post should be included somewhere for ref 348?
    Fixed. That was a surprising omission on my part... Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anon. (n.d.)." is a little odd for ref 33. If it was a news article without a listed author and date it may make more sense, but as a random web page it seems unnecessary
    Fixed all such cases. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • p./pp.s look good
  • Seems to be all sources of reasonable reliability here
    Good to know! Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Would be nice to get more identifiers for some of these refs, Abrahams has an OCLC at world cat
    I have added OCLC numbers and further details for all the ones for which I could find such information. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Anon. (1930) is listed as by Sorabji on JSTOR. It also has a different volume number there. Would recommend adding the JSTOR=916600 or doi=10.2307/916600 – or both :) – to the ref
    Fixed all these issues. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OCLC for McMenamin and one for Owen
    Done. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles should be in title case, even if in all caps originally (e.g. FEATURE REVIEW)
    Fixed. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two Ullen refs are confusing me, they say "In Derus, Kenneth; Ullén, Fredrik (2004)" but don't give what the title of the publication they're "in" is – since the way it's formatting currently implies "Transcendental Studies" is the chapter. Also please an identifier of some kind (ISBN, doi, ISSn); if it's a book you can look it up on World cat for an OCLC
    These relate to Derus, Kenneth; Ullén, Fredrik (2004) and Derus, Kenneth (2009); Ullén, Fredrik (2010), multi-author items that appear earlier in the sources (right after Bechert) and have ASIN identifiers. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I see, I would say that for ease of access you may want to move these under their coresponding items with a "**" indentation – but I'll leave that up to you
    I tried this possibility but it didn't quite appeal to me, and I can imagine readers looking for the source would expect Ullén to appear near the end of the alphabetical listing. It's probably not a major issue either way, since there are only two Ullén references in the article and it's one of the less prominent sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks good
    Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for addressing the issues thus far, will get to the spot checks this weekend at some point. Aza24 (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! Incidentally, as far as the sources used in the article are concerned, most of the major ones can be accessed free of charge (and legally) on the internet: Abrahams can be viewed here, Roberge's book can be downloaded from the following page, Owen's oral biography is available here, etc. The only major source that does not exist in this form is Rapoport, but you can at least get page previews and check selected pages of his Sorabji book at Google Books. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks – Pass
[edit]

Soon to do Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Roberage 2020: 120, 138, 90b, 337, 215, 250, 41, 9 - good
  • Roberage 2020: 90a not seeing "and destroy his extant manuscripts" or "which comprises 1,001 pages of orchestral score"
    • For the destruction of scores, the relevant statement from Sorabji is, "All I have written since June is a matter of less than two dozen pages and it's quite on the cards that not more than that will be in existence by this time next year!" For the page count, I have just added a ref. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • McMenamin 16 is good
  • more soon
  • Owen: 127, 257, 73, 241 – good
  • random: 238, 365 - good
  • 201, I only see 5 themes at most?
    • As the entry for Third Organ Symphony (1949-53; 305 pp.) in the source mentions, the work has one fugue and six fugal themes. Opus clavicembalisticum and 100 Transcendental Studies have more themes, but these are spread across several independent fugal movements. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once that final comment above is addressed that should do it; I have no doubts over close paraphrasing or improper citations Aza24 (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Toccata quarta (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you so much for your efforts with this article. Pass for source review & spotchecks Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24: You are welcome, and many thanks for this! (And, if I may take the opportunity to say so, congratulations on bringing Portrait of a Musician to FA status.) Toccata quarta (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Support

[edit]
All of my concerns are resolved. (Putting this comment at the top to avoid a collapse template per the template limit problem.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged at the peer review, so may not have much to add on the prose. Starting my section (not a musician).

  • The following MOS items all check out: consistent date formats, no faulty dashes/hyphens, no image caption punctuation issues, no sandwiching of images, no logical punctuation issues that I can detect (without having access to sources), good use of NBSPs, and ps and pps in order within the limits of my eyesight. No HarvRef errors. No citation overkill. External links are appropriate. One WP:WAW adjustment made.
    Thank you. Concerning WAW, I think you meant MOS:WAW. I saw WP:WAW in your edit summary and clicked on it before checking the diff, so I was horrified to contemplate that I might have screwed up in that area. :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical me, sorry :) Will look in later when not iPad typing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of duplicate links, which can probably be justified: they can be checked by installing, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, but are not a concern.
    I think these are the ones that were discussed at the peer review (Consonance and dissonance and Part (music)), articles that cover multiple concepts, so my rationales probably remain the same. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On WP:WIAFA, crit 2b, is it possible to tighten up or leave off "and other" here: 1.3.1 Ups and downs, musical and other
    Would "Ups and downs in life and music" work? The word "instability" is coming to mind but is a bit POV. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems preferable to "and other", but as you wish, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I have changed the heading to this one. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure why you repeat page ranges in the Sources section, when they are given in the References section, but as long as you are consistent, that is fine.
    I followed the citation styles I was exposed to (in part in these sources), though I suppose an online encyclopedia will probably not insist on the page numbers as much as printed sources. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doublecheck that all citations are in ascending order, sample: Sorabji did not wish to be seen and there was just one brief shot of him waving to the departing camera crew.[101][100] --> should be 100 followed by 101. The way I check these is to do a ctrl-f on ][ to pull up and scroll through every instance of multiple citations).
    Ha! Now this is awesome! I saw the following edit years ago and checked only the diff, which made me believe that refs with names had to precede those without them. I guess such are the limitations of not checking the outcome of a diff from the point of view of a reader, and though I often rely on the "Preview" function, I assumed ref order could do without that. Of course, the reason for this was that I had been careful with the ordering and repeating of the refs and use of the "name" parameter, so I ended up inferring a non-existent policy/practice from an existing one. :-) Anyway, fixed (and thank you). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure some clever techie person can teach me a better way to fix these :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the period after Ellis belong? To Dr. Havelock Ellis.—in respectful admiration, homage and gratitude ... it looks odd.
    That is how it is reproduced in Roberge's book. I know the MOS allows for silent typographic emendations, but at the very least, it gives the reader some flavor of the peculiarities of Sorabji's prose (just like some of the images in the article illustrate the difficulties involved in deciphering his manuscripts). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem then, but I will add an inline comment so that future (subsequent :) editors won't inquire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take my prose suggestions with the grain of salt (not my strength):

  • No overuse of the dreaded however, subsequently, overall, in total, and their ilk.
  • I do suggest that some of the 29 uses of also might be redundant and could be reviewed. (See the writing exercises at User:Tony1)
    I have just removed a few that I identified as redundant; the others all appear to establish a (necessary) link to what appears earlier in the text. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • who set up a trust fund that freed him from the need to work ... that freed his son from the need to work ... to avoid ambiguity on "him"?
    Change "him" to "his family". The failure to refer to his wife in this passage might raise some eyebrows and WP:WAW could even be moderately applicable here (though at least there is "that would provide his family with a life income" later in the article). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All set, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CURRENT, it's always good to avoid the word "recent" when possible and give specific context to time frames ... but interest in it has grown in recent years --> has grown in the 21st century? has grown since year X? has grown since his death ? something for context
    Changed to "since then" (i.e. since the early 2000s). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is perhaps stylistic, and is not as overdone and unnecessarily cluttered as I've seen elsewhere, but is it really necessary to include the birth to death range on Trew? Thus, from the early 1910s until 1916, Sorabji studied music with the pianist and composer Charles A. Trew (1854–1929). We have a timeframe and context for when he lived already in the sentence, so does the reader really benefit from that? Examine others similar throughout ... I'm not fussed if you want to keep them, because again, they aren't creating as much unnecessary clutter as I've seen in another FAC.
    I have removed several instances of this but kept the years for his parents and Reginald Best (his probable partner). Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this passage:
(1) Thus, from the early 1910s until 1916, Sorabji studied music with the pianist and composer Charles A. Trew (1854–1929). (2) For unknown reasons, Sorabji was not conscripted during World War I, and though he later praised conscientious objectors for their courage, there is no proof he tried to register as one. (3) Around this time, he came to be close to and exchanged ideas with the composers Bernard van Dieren and Cecil Gray, both of whom were also friends with Warlock.
(1) discusses his musical associations, (2) has him not going to war, and (3) comes back to his musical associates. (2) seems out of place, and when reading, I expected (3) to somehow relate to (2), as if they had something to do with conscientious objectors. Not sure how you might fix that ... just odd. Can (2) be placed after (3) ?
Reordered. The documentation is a bit of a mess, but it appears Sorabji had met them by 1920 at the latest. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear ...
In connection to this, Sorabji joined the Parsi community
... expat presumably, in England? And one wonders why he wasn't always part of that community, considering his father's ancestry. Maybe a better word than "joined" can be found ... engaged ... grew increasingly part of ... ?
Unfortunately, almost no documents concerning the event or his father's involvement in it survive, but I have added a bit about how Sorabji came join the community. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • huh ??? In the mid-1920s, he befriended the composer Erik Chisholm ... They first met in April 1930 ???
    The article previously stated, "In the mid-1920s, he began correspondence with and befriended Scottish composer Erik Chisholm", but this was changed by GOCE. It probably sounds odd to us, but I guess it wasn't so unusual in the pre-internet age. (Roberge says, "Besides Philip Heseltine and, later, Frank Holliday and Alistair Hinton, Erik Chisholm was Sorabji's closest friend. As with other such acquaintances, contacts were mostly epistolary.") Anyway, would you like the previous version to be restored (and possibly reworded)? Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Something akin to previous better ... no need to feel constrained by GOCE, volunteers like all of us :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored some of the earlier version and, much to my surprise, improved the flow of the passage a bit in so doing. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the ambiguity around "he" (lived with his family) again (father or son), also suggest sentence might be split from the previous ? ... but he did not want his son to become a musician and there is little evidence that he lived with his family.
    I raised "this" issue at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2020 September 25, but not much came out of the conversation. The problem is that MOS:SAMESURNAME isn't really equipped to deal with this case ("Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji and his father, Shapurji Sorabji"). Sorabjian literature deals with it by calling the composer Sorabji and his father Shapurji Sorabji, but it would be only a matter of time before someone complains and tries to "correct" the text. References to "family", "wife" and "son" are further complicated by Shapurji Sorabji's three marriages (of which at least one was bigamous). I would prefer to invoke WP:IAR and use "Shapurji Sorabji", but it's not an easy decision to make. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    see below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, we are going backwards chronologically to talk about his father, so add "he had returned" ... ? ... After his marriage in 1892, he returned to Bombay ... actually, in this paragraph I am losing track of what is father and what is son, so some tightening would help.
    I tried to avoid ambiguity by assuming that the reader knows Sorabji was active in the field of music, and his father was an industrialist and businessman. Another thing that probably helps is that post-1932 events can be (generally) taken as referring to Sorabji, as his father was no longer alive. I may make further changes depending on your reply to my previous comment. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A major factor in Sorabji's change of attitude was his financial situation. Sorabji's father had returned to Bombay after his marriage in 1892, where he played an important role in the development of India's engineering and cotton machinery industries. He was musically cultured and financed the publication of 14 of Sorabji's compositions between 1921 and 1931, although there is little evidence that he lived with the family and he did not want his son to become a musician. In October 1914, his father set up the Shapurji Sorabji Trust, a trust fund that would provide his family with a life income that would free them of the need to work.
    Absolutely! I have changed the text according to your suggestion, though I switched "his father set up" to "Sorabji's father set up", as the former could be ambiguous. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, we have already been told earlier that he had a stroke and died so this is repeat info ... Sorabji suffered a mild stroke in June and died later that year; their ashes are buried beside each other --> Sorabji died later that year, and their ashes are buried beside each other.
    Fair enough; I have removed this. Roberge makes the point clearly when he writes, "Best's passing on 29 February 1988 was obviously a blow to Sorabji, who suffered a mild stroke in June." The paragraph quotes Sorabji on how highly he valued Best, so I suppose this is OK. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ah, ha ... I see that you are making a connection between his stroke and Best's passing, so perhaps that could be more clear, by bringing in the "obviously a blow". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a short comment on Sorabji being impacted by Best's death and restored the passage about the stroke (as I understand your comment as saying that this information can be reintroduced into the text in that case). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me: I anticipate supporting once these nitpicks are dealt with, and the sourcing/spotcheck review is complete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All good on my end ... please ping me when Aza24 is done with the source review, so I can formally support (or the Coords can consider me a support once the source work is completed satisfactorily). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 12 December 2020 (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) 17 December 2020 [35].

Laguna del Maule (volcano)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a volcanic system in Chile, which consists of several calderas, lava flows and lava domes around Laguna del Maule lake in the Andes. This volcanic system has had a number of eruptions during the last 10,000 years and satellite observations have shown that the volcano is deforming, presumably due the entry of new magma into the volcanic system, raising worries that a large eruption may be imminent.

This was already at FAC a few weeks ago and was archived due to lack of input. I got some (not much...) advice at a peer review that I actioned and I'd like to repropose that this article become a featured article. Also pinging the folks from the PR and the previous FAC: @HJ Mitchell, Mike Christie, Gog the Mild, Buidhe, SandyGeorgia, CPA-5, Fowler&fowler, Iridescent, Factotem, Beyond My Ken, DoctorSpeed, WereSpielChequers, MONGO, FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Nikkimaria, and Spicy: @Aza24, Lee Vilenski, Jonesey95, and Ceranthor: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done.

Hi Nikkimaria, is that a pass on the sources? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

Non-expert comments here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I was able to turn up. Hog Farm Bacon 20:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

This is very well-written and I'm not finding a lot to criticise. Just a few things, mostly for the sake of thoroughness:

  • You have a couple of "however"s, which are sometimes frowned upon at FAC. Both are used mid-sentence without the necessary commas, but I would replace both with an "although" earlier in the sentence.
    I've just cut one mention and replaced the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of ", with" to join two parts of a sentence is discouraged in professional writing. The example that caught my eye was did not affect the volcanic field, with the rate of uplift remaining unchange.
    Replaced most of them with split sentences or semicolons, but I couldn't come up with a good replacement for the single instance that is still there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an inflation of a sill Can we have a layman's explanation of "sill" so the reader doesn't have to click the link?
    Sure, added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • long term magma supply rate "long term" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • beneath the volcanic field that is 5.2 kilometres (3.2 mi) deep The sill is 5.2 km from top to bottom, or it's 5.2 km below the surface/mountain top?
    The latter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea what the timescale might be on a future eruption? I know precision is impossible but are we talking about tomorrow, months to years, or potentially centuries?
    I don't think we know. That SERNAGEOMIN declared a yellow alert a few years ago probably reflects the possibility that it might be in "months", but currently it's at green level. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, easily FA material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. More than happy now that my minor quibbles have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has now been open for five weeks and has only gained two supports. I shall add it to Urgents and see if it attracts some further reviews before it times out. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:I'll ping the participants of the previous FAC again and the two WikiProjects to see if anything can be done. I don't like that this is going to fail for the second time due to lack of input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it has three supports? FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. Sorry Funk. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, you can consider me a Support as well, although I am careful to note when I was considerably involved pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Is a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology and User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus acceptable? They are perhaps more trafficked but a little remote from the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, that is entirely up to you. With SandyGeorgia supporting, I am thinking that the nomination could do with one more thorough review. Obviously, more wouldn't hurt. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Spicy would take it on, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Put these two notifications out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per comments at last FAC. Will run through ASAP to fix minor quibbles. Nice work. ceranthor 19:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Keeping this reasonably short, as I'm pressed for time:

Hi Lee Vilenski, is this one going to be a support, an oppose, or a sitting on the fence? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Been all over the place moving house. Fine to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

[edit]

Mostly looks good to me. As per one of Jo-Jo's other FACs on an Andes volcano, I ran this article past a geologist friend of mine, who mostly approved of the article. The one part he called out was this, one of the sentences right in the lede:

Many of the volcanic centres in the Laguna del Maule volcanic field formed during postglacial times, after glaciers had retreated from the area.

With postglacial a link to the Holocene era. This is either misleading or else a strong claim that is probably wrong. The Holocene is a flicker in geological time: just ~11,000 years or so. This field has allegedly been active for 1.5 million years. There's no reason given in the article to think that there was some strange uptick in volcanic activity in the past 10k years (although such activity is probably more detectable), so "many" implies a misleading conclusion here (akin to "Many Americans live in Springfield, Ohio" - maybe, but not in comparison to the whole). I'll just quote his comment rather than attempt to paraphrase it myself:

As the Pleistocene fluctuated between interglacial and glacial periods, there would have been mountain glaciers retreating and advancing over that area. There might be more volcanic activity during interglacials (e.g. if you don't have the mass of a glacier on top, there is less pressure weighing down on a magma chamber), but sub-glacial volcanism is a thing. There is no particular reason to think the Holocene interglacial would see more volcanic activity than any other interglacial in the past 1.5 million years - although the more recent volcanic activity (even the ones that had no eyewitnesses) will be easier to spot the traces of.

Anyway, if this statement really is saying there was an uptick of activity in the Holocene, it should say so explicitly in the main body of the article with a reference. If that's not what this statement was intended to say, then it should be rephrased and maybe moved to the next paragraph. Maybe something like this, in the second paragraph?

About 130 volcanic vents belong to the field. The field's volcanic activity began 1.5 million years ago during the Pleistocene, colloquially known as the Ice Age; such activity has continued into the postglacial Holocene era after glaciers retreated from the area.

Would something like that that work? SnowFire (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:One little problem with that formulation is that in the context of Laguna del Maule "postglacial" begins 23,000 years ago per the sources, which is earlier than the official start of the Holocene ... but then the current article text has the same issue. I've implanted a rewrite along these lines; how does it look? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, but would it be possible to remove / shorten / clarify the earlier line, then? The "Many of the volcanic centres in the Laguna del Maule volcanic field formed during postglacial times, after glaciers had retreated from the area." one, which hopefully should be explained by your recent edit? (Unless we're misinterpreting "volcanic centres" here...) SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Um ... what needs clarification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that I raised above? I don't know what to say that wouldn't be repeating myself. Is it really true that "many" of the volcanoes are from the past 22,000 years? Why, if so? The argument is that this is unlikely - that volcanic activity should be mostly constant over 1.5 million years, so it's not really true that any substantial portion of it is from the last 1%. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "many" volcanoes in the area are post-glacial. Based on the maps I'd say about half. It's definitively not true that volcanic activity is steady over 1.5 million years - Kilauea and Mauna Loa didn't exist back then at all and Mount Etna was a sporadically active volcanic field that long ago, to pick two very well known examples - and I don't remember sources discussing preservation bias. So I think we need to take these assertions at face value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that if you look at a map, lots of the volcanoes on the surface are "recent". So if the sentence is clarified to say exactly that, then fine. The assertion is that there's surely a bunch of sub-glacial volcanoes and eruptions from ages ago that are just layers beneath the surface now. A 1,500,000 year old volcanic field is not going to have "about half" of its volcanoes only form in the last 10,000-20,000 years.
The comparison to the Hawaiian volcanoes is not quite relevant here if I interpret your comment correctly - the idea is that once volcanic activity starts, it should be constant-ish without an intervening event / reason for the change. Those are younger volcanoes, absolutely, but once they got going they've had a roughly constant amount of activity. In other words, if somebody claimed that half of Kilauea's activity came in the past 2,000 years despite being active for 250,000 years, that's a very suspicious claim that requires a lot of evidence. If activity at Laguna del Maule started 1.5 million years ago, it's a very strong (and interesting!) claim if volcanic activity has actually sharply increased recently, and merits direct sourcing and probably talking about in the body of the article! If it's just talking about stuff visible from the surface, it should say that. SnowFire (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is twofold. One, there isn't any source discussing uncounted pre-glacial volcanic vents so we can't assume that there were a lot of them. The second problem is that it's not true that once volcanic activity starts it stays steady - as this article discusses in the context of Mount Etna the last 15,000 years have seen a magma production rate about 10 times larger than the average of the last 330,000 years. Kilauea's activity has also increased over time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I should have been more clear - I meant "constant" in the sense of "slow changes", so yeah, Kilauea increasing in activity is known, but it's a slow-and-steady increase, not a sudden spike, at least in geological time. And the claim here (possibly unintentional, but if so, then the wording should just be updated?) is of a massive, unprecedented spike, so 2x or 3x activity is still "constant" compared to what would be required for half the activity to have been in the Holocene to be true. Fine, let's say hypothetically that Laguna del Maule's activity is 10x normal "recently" (if this is really true, it should be directly cited), similar to Mount Etna. Because the Holocene is still so short, 10x normal activity in the last 1% of its lifespan means that ~9% of the total volcanic activity happened in that last period. Which is still far less than half. Volcanic activity would have to be 100x the usual rate lately for half the volcanoes to be so recent. Again, maybe this is actually true, but then the "Eruptive history" section should say so - "Eruptions occur about every 1,000 years during the Holocene but once every 100,000 years earlier" or the like, with source.

Anyway, I am going to oppose on accuracy concerns for the moment - something doesn't add up here. Like I said, I'm willing to believe that what you say above is true, but in that case the article is incomplete and needs to discuss this recent uptick in activity. Alternatively, it is not really accurate that there was a massive surge of activity recently, and then that lede statement should be rephrased. SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:Well, that activity has increased is actually discussed in-text This rhyolitic flare-up is unprecedented the history of the volcanic field,[91] and it is the largest such event in the southern Andes.[26] in the paragraphs discussing post-glacial activity. I've put "several" instead of "many" in the lead but I am only tepidly convinced that it's an improvement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delayed response. Struck the oppose - but I don't want you to write something you disagree with or are unhappy about. The reason that I'm thrown is that you seem to be self-contradicting a bit by indicating there really was such a massive surge. That claim seems to be something stronger / more interesting than your quote - I couldn't get access to that journal article that references your quote above, but I did read https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/24/12/article/i1052-5173-24-12-4.htm , and I see what you were saying about the concentration of events in recent eras as well as the recent uptick. Just not sold that this means quite what your sentence implied, and the article (to me at least) didn't seem to explicitly make a claim like was made in the lede anyway. While "several" is better, I'd suggest (optionally, of course) that you just describe the uptick in activity in the Holocene to the amount that sources agree it occurs. This is an interesting fact! You can also be explicit rather than implied here, so that you don't accidentally sound like you're implying a "gigantic" uptick rather than a "large" uptick. SnowFire (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Hmm. I admit that even after re-reading your reply here I am not sure what you are recommending. Should I say in the lead that the rhyolitic flare-up occurred, or rewrite the sentence that mentions it? "Flare up" might be a misleading word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry about the delayed response - I think that the material in the sentence in the lede is already accurately covered in the second paragraph now, so doesn't need to be there at all and can be safely removed. If you want to, adding a sentence on the increase in activity in the Holocene to the lede (doesn't have to be in the exact same spot) gets across the sense of what it is you're trying to say. Maybe something like remove that first paragraph sentence, and adjust the second paragraph:
Postglacial volcanic activity has included eruptions with simultaneous explosive and effusive components, as well as eruptions with only one component. In the postglacial era, volcanic activity has increased at Laguna del Maule, with the volcanic field rapidly inflating during the Holocene.
Would that work? Feel free to adjust however you like or to decline entirely, I'm just throwing out a suggestion. SnowFire (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems good. Cut the sentence from the first paragraph and added the proposed text to the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks! Support. SnowFire (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Okay, I'm back with the volcanoes.

Lead

  • Laguna del Maule is a volcanic field in the Andes The article uses volcano instead of a volcanic field?
    In this context, they are equivalent: A volcanic field is a type of volcano and Laguna del Maule is a volcanic field. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the volcanic field is in the Talca province --> "The bulk of the volcanic field is in the Talca Province" The province is a proper name.
  • The volcanic field covers an area of 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) and features at least 130 vents Link for vents?
  • which is also the source of the Maule river --> "which is also the source of the Maule River"
  • About 130 volcanic vents belong to the field I assume here is the link of the vents?
    Deleted as it was mentioned before already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • eruptions in the volcanic field took place 2,500 ± 700, 1,400 ± 600 and 800 ± 600 years ago Link the first "±" since I always forgot what it means.

Geography and structure

  • belongs to the Maule Region,[1] of Talca province in the Andes mountain --> "belongs to the Maule Region,[1] of Talca Province in the Andes mountain"
  • and the city of Malargüe is located about 140 kilometres (87 mi) east from the volcanic field Per MOS:UNITNAMES All the km who are written fully should be abbreviated.
  • In which English style is this article written? I see northwest which is mostly American but I also see the word centre and km is also written with a "-re".
    BrEng, but since I am ESL some non-BrEng may have slipped in which needs to be corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see me either. It's hard to keep track of one style of English. But since I'm an Anglophile I kinda know and see the differences easily.
  • field covers a surface area of 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) This is the second square kilometres thus chang it with km². This also applies to all the other square kilometres except the first one used in the lead and body.
  • The volcanic field lies at an average height of 2,400 metres (7,900 ft) Per MOS:UNITNAMES short units should be written fully only a few times I assume few means not more than three times. Since this is the fourth "metres" it should be "m". All the metres after this should be "m".
  • with a volume of about 0.82 cubic kilometres (0.20 cu mi) This is the second time "cubic kilometres" is used change it into "km³" This also applies to all the km³ after this sentence.
    Given that this is a more exotic unit than the 1D and 2D versions, I am actually inclined to spell it out throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saying what MOS:UNITNAMES if you think it should be included at the exceptions then please you always can request it on the talk page but I stay with MOS.
  • I'm sadly not expert in copyright I sadly cannot help you after so many years being active on Wikipedia I still haven't learnt how copyright on Wikipedia works. If I ever have the motivation then surly would learn but now I'll wait for that moment.

That's anything for now. Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5:Actioned, unless stated otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local

  • later dacitic dykes that were emplaced 3.6–2.0 million years ago Remove the nought since it's unnecessary.
    The 0? I think it needs to stay as it's a significant figure Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faults such as the Troncoso Fault lie within the southwestern sector American Southwestern?
  • Northeast of Laguna del Maule is the Cerro Campanario Same as above?
  • high and was active 150,000–160,000 years ago --> "high and was active 160,000–150,000 years ago"?
  • Also west of Laguna del Maule lies the Tatara-San Pedro and Rio Colorado caldera "Also" doesn't sound encyclopedic.
    I've recast that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of erupted rocks

Magma genesis

Obsidian

  • In pre-Columbian times Link pre-Comubian time.
  • important source of obsidian for the region Is there a link for obsidian?
  • Finds have been made from the Pacific Ocean to Mendoza Unlink Pacific Ocean since it's MOS:OVERLINK.
  • as well as at archaeological sites of Neuquén province --> "as well as at archaeological sites of Neuquén Province"
  • Obsidian has been found in the Arroyo El Pehuenche, Laguna Negra and Laguna del Maule localities No link for these locations?
    No, they are too minor to deserve their own articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have some problems with my monitor and my eyes hurt because of it so I prefer not to be online that much. Since Black Friday has passed and Cyber Monday is coming I'm not sure when I will get a new one. This year is gonna be a busy sales. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have you addressed all of CPA-5's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Yes, except for the "American Southwestern?", "Same as above?" and "American wind directions?" points as I am not sure what the issue is - CPA-5? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and vegetation

  • Annual precipitation reaches about 1,700 millimetres per year (67 in/year) --> "Annual precipitation reaches about 1,700 mm/year (67 in/year)"
  • during which 80 km (50 mi)-wide ice cap covered --> "during which 80 kilometre-wide (50 mi) ice cap covered" This is a compound adjective.

I'll be back later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5:Done, but I am not sure why it says "a" rather than "year" in the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops didn't know that.

Eruptive history

  • extending about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) away from it --> "extending about 13 km (8.1 mi) away from it"
  • dimensions of 12 km × 8 km (7.5 mi × 5.0 mi) Is it possible to round the nought here?
  • presumably located below the northern part of the lake.[100][72] Re-order the refs here.
  • centre became active circa 14,500 ± 1,500 years --> "centre became active c. 14,500 ± 1,500 years"
    Not sure if that is compatible with nowrap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101]-2,000 years ago. Why is the citation here first?
    Somewhere a number got lost, I've recovered it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhyolitic unit rcd.[104][7] Re-order the refs here.

We're getting there. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Ah screw it let's go for a whole review.[reply]

Possible future eruptions

  • The section is huge can you split it with sub-sections?
    Added some subsections, I wonder if a rename of the head section is called for too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of "centimetres" written fully can you abbreviated them?
  • Measurements in 2016 indicated that the uplift rate was 25 centimetres per year (9.8 in/year) --> "Measurements in 2016 indicated that the uplift rate was 25 cm/a (9.8 in/year)"
  • 31,000,000 ± 1,000,000 cubic metres per year (1.095×109 ± 35,000,000 cubic feet per year) between 2007 and 2010. The rate of volume change increased between 2011 and 2012.[128] As of July 2016, 2,000,000 cubic metres per year (71,000,000 cubic feet per year) --> "31,000,000 ± 1,000,000 m³/a (1.095×109 ± 35,000,000 cubic feet per year) between 2007 and 2010. The rate of volume change increased between 2011 and 2012.[128] As of July 2016, 2,000,000 m³/a (71,000,000 cubic feet per year)" they are the second and third time we see "cubic metres per year".
  • the inflation is about 0.05 cubic kilometres per year (0.012 cubic miles per year) --> "the inflation is about 0.05 cubic km³/a (0.012 cubic miles per year)" Second time we see this unit around.
    This should be correct now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • increasing the hazard of an explosive eruption.[144][108] Re-order the refs here.

Okay, I'm done here let's have another look before I finish them.

  • be of volcano-tectonic origin, while fluid flow is less important --> "be of volcano-tectonic origin, while the fluid flow is less important"
    I think that incorrectly implies that we have already defined what the "fluid flow" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as scour, in the down-valley gorge.[31][16] Re-order the refs here.
  • Laguna El Piojo on the Chilean side in the southwestern sector --> " Laguna El Piojo on the Chilean side in the south-western sector" American southwestern.
  • of rhyolite and 1.0 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi) of rhyodacite --> "of rhyolite and 1 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi) of rhyodacite" Please round the unnecessary nought.
    It should be correct now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • magmas on average consist of 5-6% water by weight --> "magmas on average consist of 5–6% water by weight" En dash instead of hyphen here.
  • during which 80-kilometre-wide (50 mi) ice cap covered the volcano --> "during which an 80-kilometre-wide (50 mi) ice cap covered the volcano"
    It is already in this form? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • extending about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) away from it --> "extending about 13 km (8.1 mi) away from it"

Jo-Jo Eumerus Okay that's everything now I will have a look to your replies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done unless commented otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's ready to go. The only issue we have are the "cubic kilometres" with the MOS:UNITNAMES however it's not a big issue and I better discuss this on MOS' talk page itself rather than now rushing over or holding this back just because of this small issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kent G. Budge

[edit]

My first time to review a FA nomination, so I won't duplicate previous checks on citations, hatnotes and so on.

  • The fourth paragraph of the "Geography and structure" section starts by describing the Quaternary fields around the lake, which flows naturally from the preceding paragraph. But then we abruptly are talking about the volcanic field as a whole, which seems like information that ought to have been in the very first paragraph. It seems a bit awkward. I'm not quite sure how it should be reorganized, though.
    Yeah, this one's a tough one. The order currently is human geography-regional geology-lake-volcanic field; would human geography-volcanic field-lake work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If already fixed, great. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are nits. The article seems generally well-written and impressively thorough. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the changes, make it fully support. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small update

[edit]

I've used some new (2020) sources to expand some parts of the article; my edits are here. Also, if folks want a geological map of the volcanic field (unfortunately just for its lacustrine part) it's here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love maps. Go for it. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, courtesy ping to Nikkimaria for the copyright review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is fine, though I'd be careful about providing an alt text since that map is a bit of an accessibility concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be a hard thing to do given the level of detail. I've done a bit but it's not much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moisejp

[edit]

I don't know much about volcanoes, but the prose is very solid and the article seems at least to be comprehensive. I made number of minor edits to clean up small grammar and consistency issues. Moisejp (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2020 (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) 13 December 2020 [36].

Sonic the Hedgehog

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sonic. Sonic the Hedgehog! – Sonic
Not that irritating hedgehog again! ATTACK!! – Doctor Eggman

— Sonic the Hedgehog (2006)

Even if you don't follow video games, there's no way you've never heard of Sonic the Hedgehog. It's the series that single-handedly ended Nintendo's monopoly on the market, the franchise that turned Sega into a corporate behemoth and industry leader, and the brand that proved how effective youth marketing can be. Maybe you played the games in the '90s, when Sonic was more recognizable than Mickey Mouse. Or the 3D games of the early 2000s. Or maybe you or your kids watched the TV shows. Or you know about the memes and bizarre fanbase. Sonic's been a huge part of pop culture for almost 30 years, and I think it'll be staying around for a lot longer. This article chronicles the entire history of the series, through all of its greatest accomplishments and most devastating embarrassments.

I began working on this page around October 2019 and finally finished up the bulk of the work in early March. It was not an easy task—I essentially had to blow up the whole thing and start from scratch. Compare October to now: there are almost 500 references, a testament to how I had to cover essentially every aspect of a franchise that's seen so many ups and downs. These references ranged from old magazines to books to recent online retrospectives. It took a lot of time. But it was a labor of love and I'm extremely satisfied with how it's turned out. I hope you'll enjoy the article. Before starting, I'd like to thank Indrian for giving the article a thorough GA review, and Red Phoenix and Darkwarriorblake for participating in a peer review. My goal is to get this on the main page for the 30th anniversary on June 23, 2021. Now, I've got to go—I need to find the computer room. JOEBRO64 23:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - at 286,991 bytes, this is way larger than the longest article I think I've reviewed, Maya civilization, which was on the border of being too long. I wonder why this article has to be so long when most of the info should alreayd be covered in the spin of articles. See WP:article size. Especially the intro seems bloated, could be summarised much further. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FunkMonk: the vast majority of the bytes are taken up by the references. The actual article itself is "only" 62kB, whereas the article you linked is 95kB. As this is one of the largest Japanese media franchises, I think it's sort of expected that it'll be a big article, but I'm willing to trim some of it down. Is there anything in particular you think should be trimmed? (I'm not opposed to trimming the intro as well, though I do think it's proportional to the content of the article.) JOEBRO64 13:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the intro should be shorted, see WP:lead length. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: how does it look now? JOEBRO64 17:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me. I'm not exactly an expert on this kind of article, but I'd like to review once someone more familiar has had their say. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GamerPro64

[edit]

Going to try my best at reviewing this nearly 500 referenced article so this will be a slow process. Will start by saying that Ref 12 has a date error with it. GamerPro64 00:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After going over the article, I feel comfortable in giving this nomination a Support. GamerPro64 02:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TarkusAB

[edit]

I'll do a review. If I don't get to it by October 6, ping me. TarkusABtalk/contrib 20:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the first paragraph in Saturn era, you go from mentioning Sonic Team's reform in Japan, to 3D Blast, then back to Sonic Team with Nights, then back to 3D Blast. I think it would be better to introduce 3D Blast after all the Sonic Team/Nights info.
  • The Development section might be better titled History. That's how it felt to me. It's not just development, as it does talk about critical and commercial reception too. I suppose it doesn't touch on the history of the franchise, only the games. So maybe Games history or something like that. But even just History would be OK. Readers will know where to look in the article for info on other franchise elements.
  • OK, the Story section. Before I went into this section, the heading made me think it would be an explanation of the overall series story elements. I finally got that in the last paragraph. The first two paragraphs about abandoned story drafts for Sonic 1 dragged on and feel like they belong in the Sonic 1 article and not this franchise article. Those abandoned drafts have really no relation to the franchise as it's known now. I think the one last paragraph for Story would be OK, though if you feel differently, it could be combined with Characters.
  • Crossovers section. Take out the Rad Mobile and Flicky pieces and put it into the Development/History section if wanted there, then I think the rest would be better served as a Legacy subsection. It feels weird in the middle here, like you didn't know where to put it.
  • Music section. I feel there's a problem with undue weight here. The first three paragraphs go into incredible detail on the music production for the first three games. Despite the hatnote and picture for Crush 40, Jun or his band are not mentioned until paragraph 4. The final two paragraphs glaze over the music compositions for the remaining games. If the music for the first three games were that important, it needs to be demonstrated why. Maybe they were better received and more well known, maybe they built a foundation upon which later soundtracks built upon.
    • I actually moved most of the information to a separate article called Music of Sonic the Hedgehog, which is certainly a notable topic on its own. The main reason there was an imbalance was that the franchise didn't have a consistent musical direction until Senoue came with 3D Blast and Adventure. JOEBRO64 13:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rest of the article looks good.
  • (Edit): One other thing. Regarding the video of the Macy's day parade. It would be better to screecap the moment Sonic transverses the screen and use it as an image. Requiring the reader to play the video and wait 40 seconds for him to zip by is not very helpful.
    • I did what FunkMonk suggested below. As for copyright concerns, Sonic is not the subject of the video (the parade is) and the file was kept in a 2017 deletion discussion, so while I'm not well-versed in Commons rules I think it's alright. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TarkusABtalk/contrib 21:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just use the thumbtime parameter, as for example here:[37] I wonder if there might be copyright issues with the file, though, the uploader of course doesn't own Sonic's likeness. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: responded above. JOEBRO64 14:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article is looking really great, I support promotion. As someone who has edited extensively in the Sonic sphere (and written 6 GAs on Sonic games), I think the page is worthy of a star. TarkusABtalk/contrib 14:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ProtoDrake

[edit]

I've looked through this article, and it seems no worse than many another recent FA with that star. It's an interesting read, even for me who isn't that into the Sonic series. I Support the promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Masem

[edit]

Again, noting my VG bias but reviewing on other points.

  • On the history, and I left this as an option, would it be worth while to briefly summarize that Sega was trying to break into America and had been stymied by Nintendo's popularity at this point, hence why developing a mascot to compete? You sorta mention this with SMB3, but I think you could state a bit more with a leading para (2-3 sentences at most). Kent's Ultimate History had sufficient details to back that up. This also might give you a good way to better introduce Katz and Kalinkse. (Sadly, we don't yet have a good article on the actual "console war", this would be perfect to link to, and I'm trying to create that)
  • I don't know if there are better subsection titles than "Seventh Generation" and "Eighth Generation Consoles" for the history, particular as in the last that includes games with PC versions. I mean, it fits, but maybe there's something better that's more inclusive?
  • I would specifically name the 2006 game in the article as the colloquial name Sonic '06 to be clear its distinguished from the original game. It is needed to be discussed enough (due to how poor it was received) but I think its far too easy to confuse with the same name.
  • Does the sales table account for any rereleases? I'm assuming it doesn't but a footnote may be needed to be clear on this. On the same lines, it may be worthwhile to briefly mention that many of the early games have seen rereleases through Sega's various software/hardware releases (you don't need to fully document which games appear where though).
    • There are two rereleases counted in the table—Sonic 1 mobile and Sonic Mega Collection Plus—BUT they're grouped separately from the original. I can combine them if that's OK. JOEBRO64 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is probably no way of providing a common point of reference for aggregate review scores for the games listed in the table I'd presume, right? (That is, older games won't be in MetaCritic). I would not mix and match aggregators if this was the only option, but if it was possible for the bulk of the games (80% or more) then this might be an option to help summarize the critical reviews quickly.
    • Yeah, there isn't really a way to do this. There was once a table with all the GameRankings/Metacritic scores in it, but I removed it because there were a number of problems with it: (1) it was massive, (2) it was not easy to read, (3) it was hard to keep up-to-date, and (4) I found it redundant to the main game articles, where the scores would be present. I think the commentary section provides enough of a general overview to understand how Sonic has fared critically over the years, I think an interested reader can go to the individual games' articles to find the scores. JOEBRO64 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref #368 ("High Score!") probably doesn't need the book wikilinked as its a red link.

Otherwise, this seems overall comprehensive across the series, and no major omissions or issues that I can see. --Masem (t) 15:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: responded above. Thanks for taking the time to review! JOEBRO64 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changes all look good, and the intro feels ready once I can prep the console war article (eg a seealso link from Sonic to there). Everything else is fine with the changes, with the previous fixes from other commenters, so I support this as featured. --Masem (t) 19:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix talk

[edit]

Sorry I'm late to the party - I took a new job about a week ago, and it's just been all chaos the last couple of months. I will note to the FAC coordinators I've had a cursory look before at the peer review, and I did give some research to TheJoebro64 for this article, but that's pretty much the extent of my hands in this. Full credit to TheJoebro64 for some fantastic work on this subject.

I'll get some comments down here hopefully within the next couple of days. I will say, since I've looked already, that this is looking quite excellent. Red Phoenix talk 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do a full source review as I'm probably "too close to the fire" as someone who does a lot with references related to Sega and I've used a lot of these sources myself, but I'll point out inconsistencies that need corrected. I promise I'm not trying to be too picky, but having been source-reviewed before on an article with hundreds of citations, I'm going to be up front about it:

  • Ref 1: 1Up.com should be italicized, as with the names of websites.
  • Ref 4: "M. Thomas, Lucas" - is the indication that his last name is "M. Thomas"? If it's actually his middle initial, it needs to be "Thomas, Lucas M."
  • Ref 5: I know it's helpful, but ditch the external link to the Shmuplations translation. There's no evidence that Shmuplations received permission from these Japanese sources to publish English translations, and in FAs there should not be any chances taken on linking to sources that could be copyright violations.
  • Ref 6: Location of publisher? As all of the other book publishers so far have location of publication listed as well.
  • Ref 9: That's actually two references nested into one, so I'd separate them to remove possible confusion. I'd also see if whoever does the source review wants to keep the quotes or not. I've had mixed feedback on that in the past.
  • Ref 11: Large quote; refer to 9 on that one but this is an internet source, so I'm even more skeptical on if it should be there, as it's easy to pull up.
  • Ref 12: "Brian Ashcraft" - why not "Ashcraft, Brian"? Inconsistent.
  • Ref 13: Not so much on 13 itself, but be consistent with ISSNs. Either all of the magazines have them listed, or none of them do. Personally I'd go with none as it'll be a lot easier that way.
    • I actually couldn't find the ISSN for Sega Visions. I think it's the only magazine cited here that doesn't have one. Given that I used ISSNs for all the other magazines, I don't really feel comfortable with removing them all just because of one. JOEBRO64 18:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • For now, I've added the OCLC so it, like the rest, at least has an identifier. Ultimately, it doesn't bother me any, but I'll let someone else chime in if they feel they must. I just know FAs have been grilled for a lack of sourcing consistency, past ones of mine notwithstanding.
  • Ref 16: IGN is neither italicized nor linked. It should always be italicized as it's the name of the website. Linking, you have one of two options: either link all of them, or just the first reference and don't link the rest. Again, I'd personally link all of them for ease, as if you have to move refs, changing the links can be a real pain.
  • Ref 17: Again, Sega-16 is the name of the website and should be italicized. Same thought on the quote as above.

For now, I'll stop there. I'm hoping this will at least illustrate some of the things I'm seeing so far. I'll try and tackle as much as I can in bits, but if someone with experience has the time and can do a full source review, since I don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll defer to their opinion if they differ. Red Phoenix talk 20:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on as I can:

  • Ref 18: same as 16 above. It's okay if you want to have each page its own separate source, and it would be okay the other way too, with just one reference for all the pages, but IGN does need to be italicized, and I recommend linked.
  • Ref 19: italicized and linked "Nintendo Life". I'd also remove "Damo" from Damien McFerran's nickname - it's not used in later refs further down, and McFerran writes for more than just Nintendo Life and his general name is recognized. If you disagree, then use it consistently in later sources.
  • Ref 22: I would remove Ziff Davis as the publisher. Be consistent with websites on when you use publishers - again, either use them for all of them or none of them (unless a website name doesn't make any sense to use and then you would use the publisher instead of the website, i.e. I wouldn't use sega.jp as a website, I'd just use Sega as the publisher).
  • Ref 33: This is the only place we have a publishing location for Retro Gamer.
  • Ref 36: Hardcore Gaming 101 is the website, so it should be italicized.
  • Ref 38: Website name linking consistency
  • Ref 58: Does not include Retro Gamer's publisher, while the other occurrences do.

I'll come back for more later. Red Phoenix talk 20:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: just wanted to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. I'll get to these comments soon. JOEBRO64 23:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm still working a new job and trying to find adequate time in my schedule for Wikipedia, so I'm not stressing about it. I'll keep going through the references as time allows me to do so. Red Phoenix talk 01:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: got through all those (finally!) JOEBRO64 14:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. My computer was out of commission all weekend and I’m editing from a mobile phone at the moment, so I’ll try to get back with more as soon as I can. If anyone does want to wrestle away source formatting from me, though, I have no objections. Red Phoenix talk 17:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Here are a few more to keep things moving:

  • Just in general, for now I'm going to skip mentioning every occurrence of a web site publisher and would recommend you skim all your website-based cites for consistency on this facet. If we go a while and that's all we have to come back to, I'll call them out again.
  • Ref 52: Link website, remove publisher
  • Refs 53 and 69: Missing an archive, but it's doable. You may need to manually archive it and add the link (go to the Wayback Machine and tell it to archive that URL).
  • Look at refs 55 and 56 together. Are they the same template? Why is one formatted differently than the other if they're both magazine cites? I know it would take a while, but I'd make sure you're using the same formatting across all refs of the same type - otherwise, it's just an oddity that looks a bit unprofessional. Note that WP:FACR criterion 2c is consistent citations, whether or not templates are used.
  • Ref 67: PressReader is not the publisher of this source; that would be Future Publishing. I'd cite the magazine itself: Retro Gamer issue 189, December 2018, pages 18-27. You can still use the text link, though; keep the url and fill in PressReader in the via parameter in the ref template.
  • Ref 76: GameSpot should be linked.
  • Ref 78, 93, 95, 96, 103: IGN should be linked.
  • Ref 88: 1Up.com needs linked
  • Ref 82, 100, 116: Satisfy my curiosity: Why is there a bulleted list of references under one footnote here? It seems to be an odd feature. It's also worth noting that I find it unusual ref 100 has a ref on the main line with the rest underneath, but neither 82 nor 116 has a ref on the main line - they're all bulleted. Edit: I've come to find by reading the MOS that the list in a footnote is an acceptable format. That's okay, but I'll still be looking for consistency.
    • Similarly, if we're going with the bulleted list structure, how come 115 is going its own way separate from 116?
    • I've fixed the main line issue—it was because I forgot to press enter after the ref template began. If you're talking about the Sonic Genesis/Sonic Riders MC citations (which are 117 and 118, not 115 and 116), that's because they're separate games, whereas the other ones were for singular games/singular developers. I can still bundle 'em if you want JOEBRO64 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my next batch. Red Phoenix talk 02:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: thanks for leaving more comments! Responded above. JOEBRO64 19:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. I haven't forgotten about this, just barely had time to edit lately. I'm trying to get that resolved. I'll see what I can do to get another batch soon, and reiterate to editors reading that if anyone wants to take this out of my hands in doing a proper source review including reviews for reliability and possibly spot-checks since I'm too involved with these sources myself, I invite and welcome that. Red Phoenix talk 12:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: A little more time, so some more review:

Red Phoenix talk 21:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: all done. JOEBRO64 01:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Next batch:

That'll take us through 300 for now. Red Phoenix talk 03:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: And because I have a commitment to finish...

  • 7: If we're using Game Informer as a magazine source, it should have a publisher like with the rest of your magazine sources.
  • 29: Needs an archive link
  • 301: Link Jetix as the publisher.
  • 306: So I'll admit, I don't use YouTube references for any editing I do. Because of that, I'm unfamiliar with the formatting here, namely the redundancy of YouTube (YouTube). This doesn't seem right, why is that?
  • 307: "C. Esteves, Ricardo" - much like all the M. Thomas, Lucas as above.
  • 308: "Kate Dale, Laura" - as I read this and look at the author profile on the source, I get the impression that it's "Dale, Laura Kate". For instance, her author page URL ends in /lkdale, which tells me it's just Dale that's her last name.
  • 319: Link /Film as the website
    • Actually, I went and did this one myself. I found it odd to be redlined, so I did it in the article space and it worked. I guess in Wikipedia-space pages it links to whatever subpage of said page, which doesn't exist here, but it works in article space. Red Phoenix talk 12:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 329: Link Business Insider
  • A lot of missing archive links in later references: 337, 343, 349, 350, 351, 355, 356, 358, GamesRadar+ source in 364 bundle, 444, 445, 457, 468
  • 367: Includes a publishing location; I would remove for consistency.
  • 379's bulleted list formatting has a similar issue to the note on ref 100 far above; a ref on the main line, inconsistent with the rest of the sources.
  • 399: Couple of issues here. First of all, I keep getting "unauthorized" issues trying to access it, so I can't even read it to verify what it says. Missing an archive, of course. Bigger issue is this: For who's LinkedIn this is and what it's being used to source, for it to have any value as a reliable source, it needs to specify that Sega or this person is claiming the sales numbers, as it's clearly not published by a "neutral" source. Part of NPOV means if someone who could have a conflict of interest on the matter is stating something, it can't be stated as absolute fact though that doesn't mean it has to be completely disregarded.
    • A quick addendum here, too: LinkedIn is very restricted on what is acceptable use according to WP:RSP. I think this strengthens the argument to just remove it.
      • I've removed it and added what Sega said the sales were. Another editor (who, from the looks of it, seems to have had issues with misrepresenting sources in the past) added it, not me. JOEBRO64 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 404 and 406: We're missing some information here. Not listed as via YouTube, with GameTap as the publisher. Needs to be consistent with how YouTube sources are handled above.
  • 405: Okay, so we have multiple issues here. For starters, a text copy of this being posted on an Internet forum and used as a source is linking to a copyright violation. But let's take it a step further here: the material pasted here is actually a press release, which means it's a primary source and what Sega claims, not a third-party source. Let's go even further: this is all by the start of 1994, and without precise figures, the source just says "including blockbuster titles each selling over one million units in 1993". Spinball came out at the tail end of 1993, so I can't imagine we're done there at a 1 million estimate. Nor is it directly stated that Spinball was one of these such games that sold a million copies by the end of '93 - the way it is phrased avoids stating that, especially given the press release's promotional tone. If you can replace it, great. But I'd just strike Spinball off the list, remove the figure, and don't stress about it. I don't think you lose anything by simply not having a figure if one is not available.
  • 407: What makes The Magic Box a reliable source?
  • 408: What makes Garaph a reliable source?
  • 410: I would make use of the language parameter to inform users the source is in Japanese.
  • 413: Missing a publisher
  • 424: Capitalize and link Joystiq. Also adjust to reflect this is a dead link; it doesn't come up as dead now because it just redirects to Engadget, but for all intents and purposes, it is a dead link.
  • 429: Link Kotaku
  • 432 and 433: Clicking these links comes up with some kind of account suspended message? In any regard, was this a reliable source? I have to wonder now because "account suspended" is an odd message that makes me curious what kind of website this was.
    • Huh. That's bizarre, because the archived version works fine for me. I've chopped them both, since they didn't seem to be reliable. I didn't really add any of the sales chart stuff (that was already there when I rewrote the article. JOEBRO64 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 436: Okay, so a general note on the quotes here: Personally, I would axe all of the quotes to web-based sources where people can open and read, aside from videos. Otherwise it looks extremely inconsistent when we're quoting and when we're not. Any quotes we keep, we need consistency on when the person speaking is identified or not. The person is not identified in 436, but is identified in 372. Used in 218 but not in 299, with a quote in Japanese characters, no less. Please address.
    • I've removed the quotes in the web cites. As for identifying speakers: I identified them when they're not the author of the source, so I was being consistent. I will remove them if you disagree. JOEBRO64 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 449: Is PALGN the website or the publisher?
  • Due to copyright-violation concerns of using retrocdn.net, which likely does not have permission to reprint said materials, the URLs for these sources need to be discarded. They could be replaced with ones from the Wayback Machine if they exist there.

That'll wrap up a first pass on sourcing consistency alone. As you address, I'll come back and take a couple of sweeps to ensure nothing's been missed - it's tough catching everything in almost 500 sources. That being said, while other than the questions I raised above I feel pretty confident in source reliability, I would certainly appreciate a second set of eyes to verify this. I will also respectfully decline to do any spot-checks, not as a time-based issue but actually on a material familiarity issue. Working with the same materials as used here actually hurts my ability to do quality spot-checks because I don't have fresh eyes to recognize inconsistencies, so I'll leave that up to a FAC coordinator to figure out if they will require that or not.

I know it's a lot, and sourcing consistency is never the fun part in an FAC, much less one with so many citations. Hopefully, though, we can make this process as easy as it can be. Let me know if you have any questions or when you are done; I know my time for Wikipedia has sucked badly lately, but I'll do my best to get back to you in a timely manner. Red Phoenix talk 03:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the thorough review, Red. I will get to this sometime today/tomorrow. JOEBRO64 17:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to finish up the last set of comments by Thursday/Friday. JOEBRO64 03:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this has been open for ages, are we done here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: thank you for the reminder. I have been terribly busy, but this will all be done tonight. I'll ping both you and Red when it's done. JOEBRO64 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Red Phoenix: I've done it all. Red, thank you so much for your review. That was truly a Herculean task. JOEBRO64 02:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome job, Joebro. Ian, I'll wrap up tonight: with Joebro done with my comments I want to do a final pass for any items missed or outstanding. I also looked through and while there were a couple of comments about images I didn't actually see an image review, so I'll conduct one of those as well, as I know those are required at FAC. I apologize about how long this has taken; I know my activity level lately hasn't been conducive to getting this done quickly, but I assure you it's worth the wait, and we're almost there. Red Phoenix talk 03:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I go through a final pass, I'm finding a lot of little things but I addressed them myself to try and save time, since we're in a rush to finish. Some of them, though, I need some help with:

Here is my review of the images:

  • File:SonicSeriesLogo.png - PD-Text, and trademark. Looks all right to me.
  • File:Yuji Naka' - Magic - Monaco - 2015-03-21- P1030036 (cropped).jpg - Seen a few variations of this pic around. CC-3.0, appears to check all the right boxes.
  • File:Naoto ohshima gdc 2018.jpg - CC-2.0, uploaded by a respected member of the community. Checks all the right boxes.
  • File:Sega-Genesis-Mod1-Bare.jpg - I would recognize an Evan-Amos work when I saw it anymore. Definitely all good.
  • File:Sega-Saturn-JP-Mk1-Console-Set.jpg - Same as above
  • File:Dreamcast-Console-Set.jpg - And same as above again
  • File:Sonic2Gameplay.gif - My only concern here would be if others agree that an animated GIF meets the minimal-use parameters of the fair use criteria. I think it does, as it demonstrates the gameplay in a way a still pic alone would not, so I am satisfied. FUR looks good here.
  • File:Crush 40.JPG - PD uploader. Looks like it checks the right boxes, and from my working on the Crush 40 article, this isn't one I've found on the internet other than here. That suggests to me it's good.
  • File:JaleelWhiteDec10.jpg - Uploaded via OTRS, CC-3.0.
  • File:Tim Miller by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg - Originally uploaded to Flickr by the creator and verified as Creative Commons, so reuse should be fine here.
  • File:Time lapse Macy s Thanksgiving Day Parade 2012 New York hd720.webm - Viewing the source confirms that the video is Creative Commons licensed.
  • I had to add ALT text to three images. The rest looks okay.

That being said, I do have a couple of actionable items from the image review:

  • From the precedent we set at Sega a few months ago: Would not an image of Sonic the Hedgehog himself be warranted? If it is placed next to the section on Sonic's character design, an image of Sonic would be completely acceptable as it describes the character in ways words alone cannot, and would meet NFCC. I would personally go with File:Sonic 1991.png, as it encapsulates the original design, and expand the FUR on that page. However, I suppose any image of Sonic would probably do as long as it's not something totally misrepresentative, like the Sonic Boom design, for instance.
  • Would just like to ensure there's no objections to the animated GIF of the gameplay. As I mentioned, it appears to meet the criteria by my views.

@TheJoebro64: Very nicely done with this article. If you can finish these last couple of things, I will be happy to sign off on the image and source reviews for the article. Red Phoenix talk 06:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: addressed the ref issues from above. As for an image of Sonic, I definitely agree that it'd be helpful. I added File:Sonic modern and classic designs.png under the "Characters and story" section. I think it'd be useful to show both designs since the redesign is discussed in the article (and has been in place for most of the character's history). JOEBRO64 15:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Everything looks good, and I made a couple more minor tweaks just for consistency's sake. And now for what I know you've anxiously been waiting for for quite a while: Support on sources and images. Red Phoenix talk 18:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Unless you require anything else of this review, I think we should be good to go. Red Phoenix talk 18:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]

I picked out this article due to having limited background knowledge about video game production - hopefully this provides the viewpoint of a casual, uninformed reader. I have just left a few comments which will hopefully help to make the article even better.

  • I like how the infobox is shortened with links to lists.
  • In the lead, "speedy gameplay" (mentioned again later) doesn't sound encyclopedic enough, could this be explained or expanded? In that same line, "locations" (as a recurring element) is very broad - what does that mean?
  • "Catch on" is an informal phrase.
  • Sonic Riders... was designed to appeal to Sonic and extreme sports fans - does it need to be noted that a Sonic game was designed to appeal to Sonic fans? Or you could state "extreme sports fans as well as regular Sonic fans".
  • so Sonic Team refocused on speed and more traditional side-scrolling - could this change to something like "refocused on more traditional side-scrolling elements and fast-paced gameplay"? "Speed" is broad.
  • Do Wikipedia articles typically note (see Crossovers section) in the middle of prose?
  • "Culture of the 1990s" is linked in Commentary, but it appears earlier in Characters and lore - link the first appearance. Can "environmental themes" link to a related article?
  • In Music, swap the [256][5] references so that they are ascending. Check for others but I haven't seen any more.
  • Sonic X tells a single story that spans the series' run. - could you add "single serialized story" or similar?
  • In May 2020, Sega brand officer Ivo Gerscovich said that Sonic Boom reruns would continue but there would be no new episodes. In terms of TV, reruns typically always continue - so it might only be necessary to say "Gerscovich said that no further episodes of Sonic Boom would be produced".
  • The production team used Ted... - this seems like trivia and takes away from the surrounding sentences about the backlash.

The article is very well written and interesting, and I will be happy to lend my support. Best of luck with the FA nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SatDis: thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above. I'll try to make some time to get to Bluey later this week. JOEBRO64 12:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, I'm glad you were able to take on the suggestions. Best of luck with your review and thanks for making time to visit my article. Happy to support this nomination. SatDis (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]

A titanic article, well-written and fully comprehensive for a topic so important to video game canon. I know I've come to this late and much has been clarified above but will try to leave some comments soon. JAGUAR 12:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay as I have been held up with university. I've took the time to read through the rest of the article today and can't dredge anything up that is worth noting this late into the review. The prose meets the FA criteria, and the sources all look good. Will happily lend my support. Really good work with this one! JAGUAR

Comments from SG

[edit]

This article is too long. All of the "other media" could be split to a sub-article and summarized briefly back to here using tighter summary style so that this article can focus on the video game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I’m not opposed to splitting that section, but I disagree that the article is too long; the vast majority of the kB is taken up by the references. The actual article (readable prose size) is 58kB, which WP:PAGESIZE says doesn’t necessitate a split. JOEBRO64 21:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know how to measure prose size; it is 9,500 words :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to @SandyGeorgia: for jumping into her conversation, particularly since it was from a while ago now, but I am curious on why you are against a split? This article will only continue to grow longer as more Sonic games and related media are released, as I do not see this property going away anytime in the near future. For instance, the first film has a solid three paragraphs, and the sequel, which is only two years away now, will likely take a similar sizable space. A spin-of article about the "other media" section does not seem unreasonable to me. My primary concern is less about the current prose size, but more so about how it will only undoubtedly keep growing as more and more Sonic media is released. I hope that makes sense, and again apologies for posting in someone else's review. Aoba47 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this message is not intended to take away from the support this FAC has already received, and it seems like it is in prime form for promotion. I was just curious about this part in particular, especially since I thought about posting a review in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I'm a little confused by your comment; it looks like SandyGeorgia is favoring a split, and JoeBro's not opposed to it but doesn't agree that the prose size is too long. Personally, I think it's fine as it is for the moment with a spinout later, but I don't think this article should focus on just the video games; it's about the franchise, so I see TheJoebro64's point pretty well. If it gets too unwieldy, we can always spin out later, but I disagree that doing so to focus on the video games is a good idea since there's so much more to Sonic than that (as evidenced by this article). Red Phoenix talk 14:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: My concern was that the article will eventually become too long as the franchise continues so I was wondering why a spin-out article could not be done more preemptively to prevent that. Even if there was a spin-out article, there would still be a summary in this article, which would show that Sonic is more than just a video game franchise. So a spin-out in no way would make the article 100% focused on just the video games as you say as there would still be smaller section present about the other forms of media. I just wanted to ask because I had that question, and I thought the FAC space was the space to ask these kinds of questions about the article. I never said that it should be done to focus on the video games so I have no idea where you came up with that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Focusing on the video game was SandyGeorgia’s comment, was her rationale on how to reduce the article size and why, and was still outstanding and needed addressed. Could a spin out be done pre-emptively? It could. Should it be a concern that affects this FAC? No. If this is the most complete article at this time and it still fits within the prose size limits, and we’re talking pre-emptive concerns, it has no bearing on this discussion. I also happen to know TheJoebro64 does have plans for an article on Sonic fandom down the road, in which case a lot of that will take care of itself in due time. Red Phoenix talk 16:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I am more so concerned the article likely could look very different if spin-out articles are ever implemented, but I guess that is unavoidable for an article about a continually evolving topic like this. I agree that the article should focus on the Sonic franchise as a whole and not just the video games. I think my question is fair in the context of a FAC (since it is a space explicitly intended for reviewers to ask questions and comment on an article), but I will not press this matter any further as I do not have any intention of doing a review for this. Thank you for the responses, and feel free to collapse my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here

@Lee Vilenski: responded above. Thank you for taking your time to review! JOEBRO64 11:11, 4 November 2020 (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) 12 December 2020 [38].

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, this article was nominated for FA-Status and not approved due to its length and some flaws in the coverage of the First World War period. Since then, the article has been split. This article covers the division's history between 1920–1945. The article has also been reassessed, and recently passed a new A-Class review. During the inter-war years, the West Lancashire Division was transformed from a three-brigade infantry division into a two-brigade motor division. As the Second World War loomed, it helped form the second-line 59th (Staffordshire) division. Then, during the war, the 55th was assigned to home defence duties and remained in the UK. While it was raised to the higher establishment in 1944, indicating potential combat duties, it was stripped of its assets for use in other formations. The division was maintained as a deception formation, assisting Operation Fortitude, before being demobilized at the end of the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I reviewed the original article at GAN and Milhist ACR, but haven't looked at it in its current reduced form. I have a few comments:

Lead
  • I suggest the following tweak to reduce the confusion with the two different articles and the bolding/hatnote:

    The 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division was an infantry division of the British Army's Territorial Army (TA) that did not see combat during the Second World War. It was initially raised in 1908 as the West Lancashire Division, part of the British Army's Territorial Force (TF). It fought in the First World War, as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division, and demobilised following the fighting. In 1920, when the TF was reconstituted as the TA, the division was reformed as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division.

I don't think the WWI "55th (West Lancashire) Division" should be bolded, as it is not a significant alternative name for this formation. Bold the final one as it is a significant alternative name for this division. I know, pedantry, but still. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated what is bolded, as well as a change to the intro per the comments below.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The was part→This was part, and drop the comma after change
Body
  • I don't think "broken-up" is right, shouldn't it be "broken up"?
  • suggest "fought during the Battles of the Somme, Passchendaele, and Estaires, and took part in the Hundred Days Offensive."
  • "the 164th (North Lancashire), the 165th (Liverpool), and the 166th (South Lancashire and Cheshire) Infantry Brigades" as they are proper nouns, and drop the brigade link here and move it to the next instance
  • for reviewed link military parade
  • suggest "During the interwar period, TA formations and units were only permitted to recruit up to 60 per cent of their established strength"
  • move the division link to first mention in the first section
  • suggest "The reform started the process of removing infantry and artillery elements from the division"→"This resulted in the removal of infantry and artillery elements from the division"
  • "around which the new divisions could be expanded"
  • "The 55th provided cadres to create thea second line "duplicate" formation"

Down to Second World War. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy down to here except for the lead bolding tweak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't clear to me on what basis the division raised the 164th Brigade prior to the war when it was supposed to be a two-brigade motor division and it already had the 165th and 166th. What was it going to do with it? Transfer it to a new or existing division?
    The sources outline the duplication process going from division down to battalion level i.e. the 55th helped form the 59th; the 166th Bde cast off a cadre that became the 177th Bde etc. The process was supposed to start when the TA was officially expanded, but differed by division. The early 1939 Army Lists show the 164th Bde disappearing from the OOB, and not being there right through the August 39 security edition. Joslen states the 166th was used to form a cadre for the 59th's new brigade, and was then was then transferred itself to give the 59th its second brigade (it was a motor division too). The 55th apparently keeping the newly raised 164th, which Joslen does not state anything about. An additional note under the 176th and 177th is that they were administered by the 55th, until the 59th was able to function as a separate formation. I wasn't able to find the 164th's Bde CO in the London Gazette to state when he took command (and implied reformation of the bde), although he is not the same as the one who held the command when the brigade disappeared from the OOB in early 1939. Prior to the outbreak of the war, per the August '39 security list, he was the GSO1 for the 5th division.
    With all that said and done, any advise on how to best word this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, can I ask, when does the 164th Brigade reappear on the Army List? Because if it wasn't in the August edition, that calls into question Joslen's contention that it was raised before the outbreak of war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, after a little extra research, I have found that the from about mid-1939 though to the end of the war, the monthly lists were printed as two versions: those for wider distribution (publicly?), which omitted information such as OOBs etc; and security editions, which were more limited in distribution and contain OOBs (for example, see: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44222863?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents). The security editions of the monthly, quarterly, and semi-annually army lists, during the war, do not appear to be available. The ones that are just list names. I was unable to locate mention of the 164th's GOC as a brigadier, so I was unable to point to a potential promotion date.
Everything in Joslen starts 3 September. The September Army List for September is potentially a security edition(?), as it lists an OOB. It only details a two-brigade 55th, and doesn't mention the 59ths or the 164th, 176th, and 177th Brigades. The impression to me is that either this is not the security edition, or the monthly lists are slightly off by a month or so?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be pedantic about such a minor thing, but can you quote what Joslen says about the 164th being raised before the start of the war? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, so each brigade starts with a title and then key dates:
"164th Infantry Brigade
September 1939 A First Line territorial Army Infantry Brigade"
That is literally all he has to say about the origins of the brigade. This is the same for the 165th. For the 166th, that first line includes "A First Line territorial Army Infantry Brigade in 55th Division, which on embodiment was reorganized as a Motor Division. On 4 September the Brigade was redesignated 176th infantry Brigade and ceased to exist."
For contrast, the randomly selected 223rd Brigade, with its first line entry: "17 October 1940 Formed for service in the United Kingdom"
Anything formed prior to 3 September starts with essentially the same blurb, that they already existed. He doesn't state when. This is why I have kept the wording as "by the outbreak" in the article, since there is nothing to really to point to a date (such as the Army List for an OOB or Brigadier date of employment, or the Gazette for the chap's promotion date).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then can I suggest you use the following wording "By September 1939, the 55th Division had also reformed the 164th Brigade." and move it to after "59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division"? That way you are conforming more closely to what the source says. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved that piece of info, per your recommendation.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Royal Air Force Handley Page Hampdens bombers"
  • link General (United Kingdom)
  • "providing mobile detachments to hunt downrespond to any German airborne landings"
  • "This freed up the 199th Infantry Brigade and an artillery regiment to be transferred to the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division" unless its name had already changed, and if so, please insert this name change in the appropriate spot
    199th Bde was with the 66th Division, until it was broken up. The bde did not change its name to the 166th div until 15 August 1944. There is a brief mention of this in the wind-down section. Would you suggest being more specific in the latter section, with a date?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no I mean that at the time the 199th Bde was transferred the name of the division was presumably still the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division, not just the 55th Division. And on what date did it change name to the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this is pretty nitpicky, but given the division changed names, I suggest you use the full name of the division (at the time) throughout the article rather than calling it the 55th Division in several places, as well as (if you can) add what date the division changed name from the 55th (West Lancashire) Motor Division to the 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through the article and updated the name throughout, per your comment. As for the name change, probably 23 June when the 199th Brigade became part of the division. Joslen just states the reform took place in June: "June 1940 Reorganized as an Infantry Division".
  • link Military reserve for reserve formation
  • drop the comma after "The intention of this deployment"
  • rather than link to Belgian Army, what about Free Belgian forces#Belgian Army in the United Kingdom
  • "The division remained within the United Kingdom and was drained of manpower to a point that it was all but disbanded"
  • for deception formation link Military deception#World War II
  • I'm finding it hard to follow the deployment of the division as part of Operation Fortitude. When did the division move from North to South?
    I have made some tweaks to that section, and added a little extra info. Do these changes make things more clear?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • should it be West Lancashire in the final sentence?
  • in Footnote h, "Infantry Divisions" not "infantry divisions"

That's me done. I haven't checked the sources or spotchecked the content, I'll leave that to the source reviewer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your review. I have attempted to address all of the majority of your points above. I have left three small notes as reminders for myself; those points, I will attempt to tackle later. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just a couple of additional outstanding comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good now, supporting. Well done with this. It has been quite the process. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Aza24

[edit]

Should be able to review later today or tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well that ^ was a lie... apologies, first batch of comments below:
  • You link WWII but not WWI; also the hatnote links to the wrong war?
    Thank you for that catch! I have updated the link, and also added one for the First World War into the main article text.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • definitely link cadres, most lay readers will not be familiar with the term, I see it's already linked in the text anyways, just not the lead
    Link added to the ledeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's weird to me that "German" links to Nazi Germany, seems like an unexpected link. Maybe the German occupation of Czechoslovakia should just be linked with it's full name, or it should be switched to "Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia..."
    I would have to hunt it down, but there was consensus at MILHIST (at least a while ago) to avoid using the term "Nazi Germany" as the country was just called Germany, the Nazis being a political party etc. With that said, i have removed the extra link so it is just 'German occupation of Czechoslovakia'.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you just worked on this with Mike below, but I'm still really confused by parts of the lead, the fact that 55th (West Lancashire) Division is bolded but when searching redirects to a different article is telling in itself. I think it's this line "In 1920, the 55th (West Lancashire) Division started to reform." that's confusing – although I understand the discrepancies here, I'm really not sure how to clarify them in the text. Given that both Mike and I have brought this up I wonder if Peacemaker67, who reviewed above, could see if they might have a solution here
  • Looking at the interwar period section maybe "Liverpool" in the infobox should be tweaked to something like "Liverpool and throughout Lancashire" or maybe "Primarily Liverpool" – maybe this suggestion is too much detail for the infobox though?
    The infobox was reflecting a piece of information that appears to have been edited out, and I have just reinserted. The division was headquartered in Liverpool. I updated the interwar period section, so it now reads "The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was headquartered and primarily based in Liverpool, although it had units throughout Lancashire."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first quote by David French, it may be better to add a specific page number, from what I've seen it's common practice to make direct quotes as easily verifiable as possible
    I have moved the first cite back a sentence, as it summarizes what is referenced across those pages. That leaves the rest of paragraph and quotes cited to the exact page, as referenced by the last cite. Does this work?
  • Again I find it weird that Germany links to Nazi Germany, it may be better just to spell out Nazi Germany
    Per above commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As an FYI, these appear (unless there is something else out there) to be the main discussions on the subject: 2007 consensus, 2016 RFC consensus, and 2017 consensus.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, didn't know there had been talks about this!
  • "In April, limited" – presumably this was April of the following year, but it may be better to just spell out "In April 1940" to minimize the risk of confusion.
    1939 (yes, conscription started before the war), I have added the year.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got to the Second World War, will get through the rest later – and with no where near as big of a delay as before! Aza24 (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have tried to address all, but the one where you have sought additional feedback from our colleagues.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the double parentheses are a little confusing to read imo, maybe use en dashes? (e.g. "...and the 165th Brigade – with the 5th Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool), and the 1st and the 2nd Battalions, Liverpool Scottish (Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders)"
  • I don't think the parentheses at "(with the 9th Battalion..." ever closes? Perhaps en dashes could be used here too...
    I have reworded this opening paragraph to address both of these points. Does this change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division's initial duties included deploying guards..." you started the sentence before this one with "The division" I would think changing one of them may make it less repetitive
    I have reworded the former sentence, rather than this one. Does this change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 6 September, the division fired its first shots..." is this the next year or a typo? If neither the chronology would seem a little odd considering two sentences before there was a "On 15 September, the 166th Infantry Brigade..."
    We are talking about 1939. I have split that para in two. I do not believe that sentence should be moved further up, just because the now first paragraph is discussing the contents of the division and the duplication.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could link Julius Caesar and add quotes "Julius Caesar" so it's clear the link goes to the person not an article on the plan but eh maybe not...
    AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than coastal defence, the division was also responsible for providing mobile detachments to respond to any German airborne landings, guard Ipswich Airport, and construct roadblocks inland from potential invasion beaches may flow better if the list is in increasingly long phrase order, if that makes sense, like "Other than coastal defence, the division was also responsible for guarding Ipswich Airport, constructing roadblocks inland from potential invasion beaches and providing mobile detachments to respond to any German airborne landings" – either way I believe it should be guarding and constructing
    Reworded per your suggestionsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On paper, an infantry division was to have seventy-two 25-pounder field guns. this sounds like you're setting up to say something like "but in reality it only had..." or "in reality in had more, ..." but the next sentence doesn't seem to say this, or am I misreading the intention here?
    So that is the intent. I have made a couple of tweaks, but nothing major here. It was supposed to have 72 of those guns, and it only had 8.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get through "Wind down and deception" later today Aza24 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1944, the war establishment – I would think the year is not need since you just had it, surely "However, the division did not increase in size; the war establishment..." would suffice
    I have dropped the year, per your suggestion. I have made a slight change to the sentence, as the establishment changed throughout the war.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else looks good. I'd say that since PM and Mike were fine with the lead – and Gog didn't say anything about it, it's probably fine. My remaining point is nothing big so Support - Aza24 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, thank you for your review and comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • I'm not at all clear from the first paragraph of the lead at what date this article starts and the article about the previous incarnation of the division stops. 1920? Late 1930s? For example, 55th (West Lancashire) Division in bold implies that's the subject of this article, but that's the first unit, not this one. I think it must be 1920 but that's not clear.
  • The lead says In 1920, when the TF was reconstituted as the TA, the division was reformed as the 55th (West Lancashire) Division but the body says In April 1920, the division began reforming in Lancashire, as part of Western Command. In 1921, the TF was reconstituted as the Territorial Army (TA) following the passage of the Territorial Army and Militia Act 1921. Assuming the body is correct, the lead should avoid implying the TA came into being in 1920.

Can't see anything else; the prose is workmanlike but perfectly sound. I made a couple of minor copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The changes to the lead make it much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review this. I seem to remember looking this over last time round. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some copy editing as I went, which you will want to check.

I looked through the edits you made, and I am quite happy with them: thanks :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link 55th (West Lancashire) Division in the lead.
    This link can be found in the following sentence, although it is piped at present: "It had originally been raised in 1908 as the [[55th (West Lancashire) Division|West Lancashire Division]]"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1920, the 55th (West Lancashire) Division started to reform." What does "started" mean?
    Would this just be easier, worded as "reformed" rather than started to reform?
    This section, in part, is paraphrasing the information from Becke: "...demobilization proceeded, and the division gradually dwindled. ... the strength of the division had shrunk to 158 officers and 2,192 other ranks. Its war service was over; and in April, 1920, it began to re-form in the Western Command at home." I believe "started" refers to the division reorganizing/recreating staff, brigades, and getting battalions up to the strength etc. I was unable to find anything that points directly to that, for example from battalion histories. I know that Cowper providers a somewhat detailed account of the interwar period (from what I can remember), and I feel like her work would be able to provide the "personal" touch to what this all meant, but I no longer have access to it. The November 1920 Army List (the earliest I could locate that is accessible) basically provides the same info as the 1921 ones: same brigade layout etc, showing if anything the reformation had already taken place by then.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is fine as it is then. Or, optionally, you may wish to consider 'started the process of reforming'.
  • "the division had been drained of much of its assets" As assets are countable, perhaps "much" → 'many'?
    Tweaked per your recommendationEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Fortitude, the deception effort that supported the Allied invasion of France". "the deception" → 'a deception'?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "codenamed "Julius Caesar" . Wikilinking Julius Caesar seems spurious.
    Added and removed, all in one FAN :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1920, the division began reforming in Lancashire". Is it known when this reformation was complete?
    Same as the above. Not a whole lot to work with source wise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division was reformed with the 164th (North Lancashire), the 165th (Liverpool), and the 166th (South Lancashire and Cheshire) Infantry Brigades." When? Which may duplicate the last question.
    The November 1920 Army List does show one Brigade CO assigned in April, and the other two in June. Based off other snippets of information I have read of the brigades being disbanded when the division demobed, this would seem to indicate when they were refounded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "up to 60 per cent of their established strength". Is "established" the correct word? (It may be, but I am more used to 'establishment'.)
    You would be right, so it has been tweaked.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The British Army began implementing lessons learnt from the campaign in France in mid-1940." Is this suggesting that the campaign in France was in mid-1940, or that lessons were implemented them?
    A bit of both. The campaign ended in June 1940, and the Army started reorganizing its forces soon after. I have removed the latter part of the sentence, and can make further alterations if you have suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The division remained in Essex until 1941". Is the approximate date it left Essex known?
    I have made several edits in this area. It would seem to be closer to November 1940.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the rear of potential landing zones". 1. Does this mean sea-landing, air-landing, or both? 2. Why only to their rear?
    I re-reviewed the source, and have reworded.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1947, the division's insignia was temporarily adopted by the 87th Army Group Royal Artillery." The sentence suggests that it was abandoned by them the same year. Is that correct?
    Unknown. The IWM states that the insignia was adopted on 1 Jan 47, and "At some time, date unknown, the badge was changed" and the unit was disbanded in 1955.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps something like '... but this ceased on or before this unit being disbanded in 1955.'?

That's all from me. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and comments, and have done some work on the article to address them. I have left comments above for you as well.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. A couple of follow ups above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a couple of tweaks per the follow-upEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass

[edit]

Can do-- will conduct a few spotchecks but not many, given the nom's history of producing high quality content. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources are consistently (well) formatted, minor quibbles:
    • Coop 1919 is published by "Liverpool Daily Post Printers", which I think is sufficiently different from the paper to merit changing
      Printers, addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cite publishers "Pen & Sword", "Pen & Sword Military", " Pen & Sword Books" -- are they the same publisher?
      Yes, they are the same publishing house. I just went and looked the three titles up on the OCLC to double check the wording, two use "Pen & Sword Military" and one uses "Pen & Sword" as the publisher. I have tweaked them accordingly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • sources seem to be reliable, just a few questions
    • I'm unfamiliar with several of the publishers and couldn't find anything indicating they were reputable: "Sherwood Press" and " Ray Westlake – Military Books"-- what makes the books they publish reliable sources?
      Re: Sherwood Press, Norman Litchfield produced several specialty books about the artillery, with this one being in part to help fund the RA historical trust. This work was also reviewed here in the Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research
      The 1989 edition of Becke's work is a reprint of the original. The original being published by Her Majesty's Stationary Office, commissioned by the The Historical Section of the Committe of Imperial Defence, basically an official history.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does the usage of Newbold 1988 align with WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
      Used as a source in the following published secondary sources:
      • Place, Timothy; Military Training in the British Army, 1940-1944: From Dunkirk to D-Day
        Todman, Daniel, Britain's War: Into Battle, 1937-1941
        Operation Sea Lion; Beckett, I.F.W, The Amateur Military Tradition, 1558-1945
        Forczyk, Robert, We March Against England: Operation Sea Lion, 1940–41
      Used as a source in the following thesis:
      • Jones, Alexander, Pinchbeck Regulars? The Role and Organisation of the Territorial Army, 1919-1940
  • Spotchecks to follow Eddie891 Talk Work 23:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 38 [a] [b] good
    • 97 good
    • 107 good
    • 108 good
  • not checking any more because nom has proven record of high quality work. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and review. I have attempted to respond and action each point that you have brought up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response, I'm satisfied with the quality of sourcing pass Eddie891 Talk Work 19:00, 7 December 2020 (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) 12 December 2020 [39].

Battle of Powick Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Powick Bridge was pretty normal battle for the First English Civil War. Neither side seemed to know what the other was about, the stumbled across each other, fought largely ineffectively, and then one lot ran away. The engagement is probably most notable for enhancing Prince Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander. The article has been through a Good article review and MILHIST A-class review. Although I am playing in the WikiCup, that concludes at the end of this month, and so this is not a WikiCup nomination. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is beautifully written, a pleasure to read, well organized, well prepared for FAC, and I can find only two nits to pick. 1) Awadewit used to go nuts about not having images looking off the page; is it possible to move the image of Sir John Byron, and the image of the dragoons, from the right to the left, so they will be facing the text? 2) Were it not for how much I hate collapsed navigational templates in articles at all, much less in the leads, I would be a Support, but that's just one of my little personal pet peeves :) When MILHIST starts placing navigational templates horizontally at the bottom of articles, I'll be tickled pink and more inclined towards supporting! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review and comments by Jr8825

  • Excellent article, I completely agree with SandyGeorgia about it being a very enjoyable and informative read. I found the contextual information particularly useful. I fixed two minor issues, a missing comma and a mistake with a single-page ref format (pp. instead of p.).

I spot-checked Gaunt (refs 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, 19, 22, 27, 31)

  • fn 1 Gaunt writes "many contemporaries [believed] civil war became possible or likely; many historians agree with these views" – the article's wording "made civil war inevitable" seems quite a bit stronger than this to me.
  • fn 2 The article says commissions of array "had not been used for almost a century", while the source text says it "had largely fallen into abeyance after the mid sixteenth century, though it had been revived and employed by the king only a couple of years before, during the Bishops' Wars."
  • fn 27b doesn't support the sentence it's attached to and should be moved to the previous sentence, perhaps the structure was changed while writing or editing.

The only other issue I came across was that Scott, Turton and Gruber von Arni describe Worcester as "staunchly loyal to Charles" (p.14) which contradicts the article's description of the city as "predominantly sympathetic towards the Parliamentarians" (I haven't got access to Atkin). Once these issues are cleared up the article has my full support. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 20:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not unusual, irritatingly. The literature is often split on which side a place favoured. While I think Atkin has this right, I have removed it completely. Worcester became known as staunchly Royalist later in the war, but from everything I have seen, it leaned towards the Parliamentarians until this point. But as I say, safer to remove it given the ambiguity. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and the minor fixes Jr8825. Harrias (he/him) • talk 20:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those changes. The rest of the sources look solid and it's a pass for the source review. I'm happy to support the article for promotion. Jr8825 • Talk 22:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

If it merits it in size I shall be claiming points in the WikiCup for this review.

I gave this a thorough, FAC style, review at ACR. At Harrias's request. Let's see what is left for me to pick at.

Confrontation? Differences?
  • "arms and equipment collected for the earlier Bishops' Wars" Optional: add ', between England and Scotland'?
    • I'm not keen on making it seem like a national issue; the Scottish Royalists sided with Charles during this, and there was far from unanimous support for it in England. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir John Byron's convoy" section. Perhaps clarify that Byron's cavalry regiment accompanied/escorted the convoy. Assuming that it did. If it did, what happened to it subsequently? Was it involved in the battle?
    • Clarified to "Byron's regiment left with a large convoy..". I'm pretty sure the regiment didn't take part in the battle, but the closest to confirmation I can find is in the ODNB: "The relief was provided on the 23rd by Prince Rupert, who routed the enemy advance guard at Powick Bridge and gave Sir John time to get his convoy clear." Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "either the internal or external threats". Er, what internal threats?
    • This made more sense before I removed the preceding sentence. Have further trimmed to "Aware that he would not be able to hold the city, Byron awaited reinforcements." Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It did, yes. :-)
Are you trying to say something like 'According to a report written by or for Nathaniel Fiennes, a Parliamentarian officer who was an eyewitness, Colonel Edwin Sandys – another of the Parliamentarian officers present ..."?
  • Ummm, yes, sort of. How is "According to a report written by or for one of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, Colonel Edwin Sandys – one of his fellow officers – argued that they should continue..", which I have now changed it to? Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "argued that they should continue towards Worcester" Would 'return to Worcester' not flow better?
    • I see what you're getting at, but given they would hit the city walls at a different point, approaching from a different direction, "return" doesn't seem right to me. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, I think you need a bit of prose to explain what they were doing.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild, some replies above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 13:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And replies to replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: And some replies to your replies to replies. Thanks. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blast from the past. That all looks good to me.Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

Support this impressive article, mostly direct edited as reading, feel free to revert, but have a few non-deal breaking quibbles:

Cheers, I reverted one change: [40] as it was Rupert who had the time to prepare his men (which they needed, as some were unarmoured), do you think this still needs to be made clearer? Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it makes perfect sense, but for thickos like me, can we give an estimation of how long it took to suit/tool up? Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Haven't looked at this before, so have a few comments:

Lead
  • explain in the lead that Byron was concerned about the proximity of the Parliamentarians, and that was why he sought refuge at Worcester and called for assistance
  • the use of covered and covering in the lead isn't ideal. Perhaps describe Brown's stand as a rearguard, and I'm not sure what is meant by "covering the Royalist move"

Just getting started, placing a marker. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Body
No, I have self-administered an uppercut. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know a fair bit about military drill formations, and I don't see how putting a formation into files creates a greater frontage than one in ranks, or how files are shallower than ranks
  • Fiennes' article says he distinguished himself in this battle, cited to Encyclopædia Britannica. Could this be worked in somewhere?
    • I'll have a look at this, but that claim will almost certainly be based off Fiennes' own account of the battle. I could rephrase "Fiennes said that he managed to control his cavalry and hold fire until the charging Royalists were close enough.." to something like "Fiennes said that he alone managed to control his cavalry and hold fire until the charging Royalists were close enough..", but I'm not keen on going much further than that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • same point about the rearguard as in the lead
  • link Puritans
Sources
  • Lost Battlefields of Britain by Martin Hackett has some additional detail, as does Britain in Revolution: 1625-1660 by Austin Woolrych.
    • Added some content from Woolrych. I'm not convinced by Hackett: he is a generalist rather than a Civil War specialist, and seems to have accepted at face value some tall tales that I suspect come from the romanticism surrounding Prince Rupert. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done, not a full source review, just looked for sources that have not been used that add useful detail. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Peacemaker67, I think I've responded to each point above, let me know. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Will do this later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Battle of Powick Bridge was a skirmish Do the sources say skirmish or battle? If it's skirmish why is the article called with "battle" instead of "skirmish"? If it's a battle then replace skirmish with battle.
  • fought on 23 September 1642 just south of Worcester Per MOS:OSNS maybe add a note here which calender this article uses and what are the difrences?
    • None of the sources I have for the battle have anything about this. Do you have any? MOS:OSNS says that further information is only needed "Where it's not obvious that a given date should be given in Julian alone or in Gregorian alone" However, it says that the Gregorian calendar was only adopted in "the British Empire from 14 September 1752", and so I don't see the need for clarification here. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:OSNS also says "If there is a need to mention Old or New Style dates in an article (as in the Glorious Revolution), a footnote should be provided on the first usage, stating whether the New Style refers to a start of year adjustment or to the Gregorian calendar (it can mean either)." so why not add a note with the explanation of the calendar England used?
  • That's true but I'm not confident that there's no note to it. Maybe that's just me, a continental European but for people who knows both calenders is a thing that could be misleading to them. But whatever I don't think we're getting there; I don't think it would, need or have to be changed since in all documents of the UK it is written in Old Style and this probably would be the case in other former colonies. Thus for almost all native English speakers, it wouldn't be a problem. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe also add the 10-day difference since probably not a lot of people would know about these? Also, I was just saying my point. I almost had the feeling I was manipulating or boycotting you with my POV which is not the case I just wanted to say my fair point and if you still disagree then I still would support it since I don't really care about this with the exception of the continental European thing of course. Anyway, cheers just wanted to say this disclaimer. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5: I'm not inclined to add anything else. For those that are aware of the Julian/Gregorian OS/NS calendar, the information provided is enough. For those that aren't aware, but are interested, the note has links. For most, the difference is small and irrelevant, and the more information provided here, the more likely they are to get confused. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean the year?
  • in April and July, by the Parliamentarian governor Who?
  • Sir John Byron was a strong supporter Add here a note which states "He would later become known as the John Byron, 1st Baron Byron."
  • reinforced early that day by Prince Rupert Introduction or note like above is maybe needed since his link goes to the "Prince Rupert of the Rhine" which makes it a MOS:EGG.
  • army of the Dutch Republic which was the preeminent force in the early 17th century Per Ngram pre-eminent is a little bit popular than this one.
  • Per MOS:COMMONALITY "When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized"

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CPA-5. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: How is it looking now? Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Replied. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720

[edit]

Here are suggestions on the prose. A lot of my comments are about the use of too many commas; sometimes it is a concern about the number of commas in a sentence and other times it is a comma before "and" or "but" (but not concerning Oxford commas and lists, I think). Although commas are great for pausing a sentence and increased clarity, I find too many make the prose choppy. I totally understand if you disagree but please make a note under each suggestion below if you don't like the restructuring. Please ping me when you have finished the comments so I can take a second look.

Hi Z1720, Harrias is temporarily unable to access Wikipedia and so has asked if I would address your comments, giving me a free hand to alter the article. We are currently collaborating on a Civil War article, and I gave this article a pre-GAN copy edit so I am familiar with it. It is even possible that the surplus commas are mine. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I hope everything is alright with Harrias. I'll address your responses below. If I didn't respond to a comment, consider it "fixed". Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully they will live.

Lede

  • The Royalists sent reinforcements under Prince Rupert, while the Parliamentarians sent a detachment, commanded by Colonel John Brown, to try to capture the convoy. This has lots of commas and feels choppy. Maybe try, "The Royalists sent reinforcements under Prince Rupert, while the Parliamentarians, commanded by Colonel John Brown, sent a detachment to try to capture the convoy."
I think that there is too much information attempting to squeeze into a single sentence. So I have split it: "The Royalists despatched a force commanded by Prince Rupert. Meanwhile, the Parliamentarians sent a detachment, under Colonel John Brown, to try to capture the convoy." How does that flow?
  • "Their route took them up narrow lanes, and straight into..." Remove comma?
Harrias is clearly a disciple of the Oxford comma. I am not. It has gone.

Build-up of the First English Civil War

  • "In anticipation of a likely conflict, both sides began preparing for war, attempting to recruit...." Change to "both sides prepared for war and attempted to recruit..." to remove extra verbs and the comma.
I have replaced the comma with "and". (Your suggestion didn't reduce the number of verbs.)
About the verbs: whoops. My bad. Thanks for the change.
  • During the first Siege of Hull, Charles was twice refused entrance into the city, in April and July 1642, by the Parliamentarian governor. There's lots of commas here that make this sentence choppy. Maybe try, "During the first Siege of Hull, Charles was twice refused entrance into the city by the Parliamentarian governor in April and July 1642."
A slight variant on your suggestion, with still but a single comma.
  • North of England, the East Midlands and Wales... then south-east of England, had plentiful arms, and controlled the navy WP:Oxford comma doesn't care if you use it or not, but there should be consistency.
Oxford commas removed.
  • armies did not begin to significantly manoeuvre Remove "begin to" as redundant.
Done.

Sir John Byron's convoy

  • with a large convoy of gold and silver plate I am confused by this, and I'm looking at the disambaug page for plate and am still confused. Is plate supposed to be plural? Is this a dinner plate or a construction plate? Is there a different definition that I'm missing?
Used in the sense, from Wikionary, of "[s]ilver or gold, in the form of a coin, or less often silver or gold utensils or dishes".
Already done in the mass extermination above.
  • On 16 September, he stopped at Worcester, a large town on the River Severn, which was surrounded by medieval city walls, though they were in poor condition. Sentence is choppy. I would say, "On 16 September, he stopped at Worcester, a large town on the River Severn, which was surrounded by medieval city walls in poor condition."
Done.

Prelude

  • a parallel path, through Coventry and towards Worcester... Remove this comma.
Gone.
  • According to a report written by or for one of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, Colonel Edwin Sandys – one of his fellow officers – argued that they should move closer... This sentence sounds very choppy because of the commas and hyphens. I don't know if you need "one of his fellow officers" as I assume from the sentence that Sandys is a Parliamentarian officer.
Good point. How is this, which I have changed the article to: "One of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, wrote or had written a report; in it he stated that one of his fellow officers, Colonel Edwin Sandys, argued that they should move closer to Worcester to prevent the convoy from escaping."?
I think this sentence is still confusing, as wrote or had written a report sounds like you are saying the same thing in two different verb tenses. Maybe, "One of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, either wrote a report or had one written for him about the convoy. In this report, it was stated that fellow officer Colonel Edwin Sandys argued they should move closer to Worcester to prevent the convoy from escaping."
I have gone with "One of the Parliamentarian officers present, Nathaniel Fiennes, either wrote a report or had it written for him. In this, it was stated that fellow officer Colonel Edwin Sandys argued they should move closer to Worcester to prevent the convoy from escaping." Does that work?
It works!
  • Unknown to the Parliamentarians... This sentence has lots of commas (but is not a list) so I think it should be broken up into two sentences.
Done.

Battle

  • ...Sandys's men, and forced... Remove the comma.
Already done.

Aftermath

  • which was carried away in the flight. This part is ambiguous. Do you mean that the Lifeguard joined in the retreat?
Yes. I am not seeing the ambiguity. What is the other possible meaning.
I think my confusion is because I've never heard the expression "carried away in the flight." I am OK with the expression staying in the sentence but I would like it worded to remove the excessive commas.
2 of 3 commas removed. I have also linked "carried away" to rout; it is a duplink but sems permissible in this case.
  • established Rupert's reputation as a cavalry commander... I think you should say "established Rupert's negative reputation" to make it clear to the reader sooner that his reputation was negatively effected.
It wasn't. It did what the article says, established his reputation as a (leading/good/inspired/aggressive/whatever) cavalry commander.
When I read "rendered the name of Prince Rupert very terrible" I thought it was saying the Rupert was a terrible commander. Maybe put "established Rupert's reputation as an effective cavalry commander"?
Ah. It is a quote, so I can't tweak it. It means, in the speech of the day, that he struck terror into his opponents, I have changed the earlier part of the sentence to "The battle established Rupert's reputation as an effective cavalry commander".
  • The Parliamentarians took a less direct route to the capital, but still arrived there first, and after further battles at Brentford and Turnham Green, Charles withdrew to Oxford to establish winter quarters. I would split this into two sentences, "The Parliamentarians took a less direct route to the capital but still arrived there first. After further battles at Brentford and Turnham Green, Charles withdrew to Oxford to establish winter quarters."
Good point. Done.
  • the Third English Civil War, the Battle of Worcester was a.... Add a comma after "Worcester"
Done.

That's it for the first round! Z1720 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised this is still outstanding; had completely forgot about it, and only have limited access at the moment. Will try and get it done ASAP. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias, there's no rush for me and we are all volunteers. Please ping me when finished so I can add supplimental thoughts. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Z1720, some excellent stuff there. See my introductory note above. All of your comments have been addressed above and I await with interest your further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My responses are posted above. Sorry for the delay. I will do another look-through of the article in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, thank you for that. I have, I think, clarified all of the areas which you were not content with. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All of my prose concerns have been addressed.

Mini-Source Review

Why do " Edgehill: The Battle Reinterpreted" and " Decisive Battles of the English Civil War" have links to Google books, but the other sources do not?

I could only read the Woolrych book online, but the quote and info are in there.

That's it from me. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias may well have a perfectly good explanation for that, but as I don't know what it might be I have standardised things by removing them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All my comments have been addressed. I support this promotion. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [41].

Portrait of a Musician

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is about Leonardo da Vinci's only known male portrait, and the first of his three famous black-background portraits. After many months of leaving and coming back to this I am confident I have created a comprehensive and well written article. If passed this will be my first FA and the first Leonardo da Vinci related FA – hopefully the first of many. I've long been fascinated with Leonardo's works, and this one caught my eye to the point where I felt I had no choice but to improve its article. A big thanks to CaroleHenson who gave a thorough GA review and Ceoil, whose continuous suggestions, copy edits and encouragement was invaluable. Leonardo holds a special place in the art world, not just for his immense fame and prestige, but for the endless heated debates over attribution, dating, intent and subject matter – more so than arguably any other artist. I've worked hard to go through a lot of scholarly sources and neutrally but accurately summarize the modern consensus for these issues. Any and all comments, suggestions or criticisms would be much appreciated! Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "is an unfinished oil[n 2] on walnut panel portrait painting widely attributed to the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, dated to c. 1483–1487.[n 1]" I might move "portrait panel" a bit earlier to avoid the slightly opaque "walnut panel portrait painting". Possibly "... is an unfinished portrait panting in oil on walnut panel".
  • "Franchinus Gaffurius was the most convincing suggestion throughout the 20th century and in the 21st century scholarly opinion shifted towards Atalante Migliorotti. " Maybe "but" for "and"?
  • Footnotes should be in numerical order if multiples are used, except if you are saying that the first footnote is the main source for the passage.
Ah yes, I've gone through this now.
I've been doing some copyediting, feel free to revert any you don't like.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Modern scholars, including as Syson and Marani, have observed that it could have not been completed much later than 1487." But it wasn't completed. Maybe "composed"?
  • " It is possible that it may have been given to the Ambrosiana in 1637 by Galeazzo Arconati [it], but this is unconfirmed.[8]" the last four words seem unneeded.
  • "and it may be that the subject was anonymous.[36]" What does this mean? If there was a subject, surely he had a name?
  • "and the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in his mid thirties at the time.[43][44]" Perhaps not tactfully phrased. Some may consider the mid thirties to be young. Perhaps "in the first years of adulthood".
  • "Additionally, in a 1482 inventory from the Codex Atlanticus[n 8] Leonardo listed "a portrait of Atalante with his face raised".[18][n 9]" Codex Atlanticus probably doesn't have to be linked again, and likely needs a comma.
  • " self proclaimed ideology " likely a hyphen is needed here. Please check for similar usages.
  • "This theory suggests that the sadness in the young man's eyes is due to this proposed idea that music simply disappears after a performance.[52]" "proposed" probably isn't needed.
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except the anonymous line. I'm not sure what the solution here since the source is equally as unclear: "Some think the subject is simply anonymous...". I would guess that this is either referencing the possibility that Leonardo drew someone from his imagination, or went out in the Milan and drew a random person he – as he so often did – but then turned the sketch into a painting, which would be more unlikely. Perhaps I should just take it out? I didn't see any other scholars consider this, even though Pooler says "Some think..." Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A direct quote is a possibility if you think it's worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Reads well, but art is not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to a direct quote, many thanks for your review! Aza24 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby by Indopug

[edit]

Driveby comment the three notes in the very first sentence of the article are jarring and distracting, especially since they happen to display in reverse order (first n3 then n2 then n1). I don't believe either the materials note or the dates note need to exist in either the lead sentence or even the infobox, since you have a discuss it more in detail in the article body. I also think "unfinished oil on walnut panel portrait painting" is a bit confusing for the lay reader; maybe hyphenate it "oil-on-walnut-panel" or remove some of the descriptors.—indopug (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug fair points, I've opted to remove the notes and I rephrased the first sentence - best Aza24 (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "it is his only known male portrait" - don't see this in the article text, what's the source for this claim?
    • Done – Added this in the second paragraph of Background section, it's nothing controversial anyways, he only has around 20 surviving works.
  • "The portrait's intimacy indicates a private commission, or by a personal friend" - I see the text supporting the personal friend claim, but not the private commission?
    • Done – Added this to the second paragraph of background as well
  • "praised for its ... ephemeral atmosphere" - don't see this in the text
    • Done – Yes this was a little editorial of me, altered to support some stuff in the description
  • Check for consistency in publication locations
  • Why is Kemp in Sources when other Grove publications, even ones cited multiple times, are in References alone?
    • Done – Not sure why it was like this...
  • FN47: don't see that author credit at the source?
  • Fn48: title here doesn't match that at source
  • Pedretti 1982: link provided doesn't match source details shown. Ditto Clark. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done – Yes I must be using different editions (mine are print), removed them.
  • Nikkimaria, thanks for your review. I seem to have taken some liberties with the lead, likely because it doesn't have citations, but I believe ever thing is cleared up now. Aza24 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry Nikkimaria I seem to have forgotten about our last outstanding point here. I've gone with "City, Country" for all locations except the US where I've done "City, State, US" since I feel like a lot of the city names don't mean much in the US without the state, does this solution work? Best - Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks—pass

[edit]

Aza24 as this is your first FAC, would like do do some spot checks re backing up claims on the refs, close paraphrasing, etc. Although my involvement is noted in the nom, it was more moral support and gentle pushing - have not added any content, and anyway this review will be a pass/oppose rather than a support/oppose exercise.

If you still have access to the books, can you pls scan and email the following pages, or post here links to online repros....

Thanks for taking this up Ceoil

Working through...

  • Clark 1961, p. 55 checks out in each of the 5 instances it is used.
  • Marian 161 - ok.
  • Fagnart 2019, p. 73 - ok in both instances.
  • Syson et al. 2011- Re above clarified requested via email ....p.86 which checks out...and is very interesting re a flat black background as per Early Netherlandish artists.
  • Pooler 2014, p. 31 - ok in both instances.

Passing this on basis that references provided back claims, & no evidence of close paraphrasing. Ceoil (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Support)

[edit]

A very fine start, glad to see you here! Not an artist, so please overlook my dumbness :)

  • We usually refer to people by their last names after the first occurrerence; why do we refer to him as Leonardo rather than da Vinci?
    • Yes, you're not the first person who has mentioned this to me, so its a common misonception. "Leonardo" is the academic standard and as such the one that all my sources used, as well as our WP article on him (which even has a little notice at the top). Essentially a) referring to him as "da Vici" is the equivalent to referring to Joan of Arc as "of Arc" b) its part of the longstanding tradition of referring to the Italian old masters by their first names, "Raphael", not "da Urbino" :) Aza24 (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Silly me, I knew that (lived in Milan) ... was thinking in Wikipedia speak rather than Italian :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fwiw, it's not just an Italian thing, but a feature of the jerky medieval/Renaissance/Early Modern transition to everyone having surnames, common to most European countries, certainly including England. Raphael, a generation later, is rather different - like Michelangelo he had a perfectly good surname, which his father used, but he ended up being branded by his first name. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that you lined up the image in the "Background" section with da Vinci facing off the screen to match the lead image, which you can't move to the left. If that is not the case, would you be able to juggle the images so that the Background image is not looking off the screen, or are you wanting to intentionally line it up on the right to compare to the lead? Images looking off the screen still cause me to go eeeeeeek!
  • Would rather keep it there for the parallelity to the lead that you mention. It is a little eerie but I suspect that there's a similar effect when looking at it in person, as I'm sure the man is eyeing down some unsuspecting painting on his right in the Amborsiana...! Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the images in the multiple image at section Identity of the sitter be reversed so they face each other rather than one facing off the page?
    • Sure, also nicer to have the Leonardo one "first"/on the left now
  • See MOS:DATERANGE, I interpret it as saying that this should be two digits: Portrait of a Musician before it's 1904–5 --> 1904–05. I could be wrong :)
    • And in the article text, you usually use 1904–05, but here you use all four digits ... Art historians have assumed the sitter to be a musician since its 1904–1905 restoration ... consistency throughout needed.
      • Good point, switched them all to the full years.
  • Why is da Vinci relinked in the image caption at the Identity of the sitter section?
    • Good question... removed
  • Must you use "small" in the image caption at the Atalante Migliorotti section? Very hard on old eyes :)
    • Removed
  • THANK you for the interlanguage links ... getting editors to use those in FAs has been a long time coming :)
    • I absolutely cherish ill links. The German, Italian and Chinese WPs have so many articles we're missing; if I'm not going to make them I should at least give others who are a link to build off of!
  • Punctuation issue here: Alternatively translated as: "a portrait of Atalante with his upturned face". or "a head portrayed from Atalante who raises his face".
    • Fixed
  • I suspect the section "Musical score" is underusing italics on MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Sample, Latin for "angelic song"; although art historian Martin Kemp notes that it could be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for "angelic singer". --> Latin for angelic song; although art historian Martin Kemp notes that it could be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for angelic singer. Interpreting "words as words" is often tricky, though, and I could be wrong. Also, proper nouns in non-English language are not italicized (just a note ... have not yet seen this article doing that).
    • I checked out that link, and found another, MOS:SINGLE, as such I opted to put in language templates for the Latin/Italian (which italicized the words), and changed the english translation to single quotes... I think this is what MOS wants?
  • Just a personal preference ... the use of the "respectively" construct always causes the reader to have to read backwards to see which refers to which ... Attribution is based on stylistic and technical similarities to other works, notably the face of the angel and St. Jerome from Virgin of the Rocks and Saint Jerome in the Wilderness respectively.[2][9][16][n 4] ... And then to wonder which source refers to which piece. Can this be split to avoid the respectively, and attach the specific citations to each piece. In fact, I am not sure what is "respectively" here at all ...
    • I agree and definitely see an unnecessary lack of continuity now that you mention it. Changed.
  • I have always wondered why the French can't call the man by his name ... and the 2020 Louvre exhibition, "Léonard de Vinci" ... but not your problem :)
  • Refs in ascending order, sample, check throughout ... This is thought to have been a study or an early attempt to create Portrait of a Musician.[19][18]
    • These should be good now
  • The writing is just beautiful ... these art history articles are always one of the great pleasures of participating at FAC. That said, Mike Christie's essay at WP:RECEPTION might be helpful in terms of things like "mixed" and "praise".
    • Thanks for the essay; (thankfully) Syson says that critics have offered "mixed opinions" so no risk of OR in this case...

I look forward to supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and comments! Aza24 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

Final quibbles having followed this page's dev for months and read several times;

  • The first certain identification was in 1672; "Certain" isn't right as you say nobody still knows. Maybe "claim"
    • Changed to "The work is first securely documented in 1672..." – does this work? I just wanted to make it clear that the first two years are uncertain while the 1672 is when it was the earliest it was for sure known to be at the Ambrosiana
I would drop "securely"...either there are records or there are not. Its attribution is a different thing. Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... removed Aza24 (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to mix up half profile, three-quarter profile and frontal in places.
  • It's implies that Northern Renaissance painters "came up with" flat dark backgrounds. Was not one of van Eyck's major innovations that he moved beyond this. Although Francis Bacon would be pleased.
    • I think they did? The earliest ones at least – I can't imagine who else would have. van Eyck seemed to have slowly departed but still has 5 or 6 black background portraits himself
      • Yes but they were his early works...one of his innovations was moving beyond. Will look back at sources shortly. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a world of difference between this and this. Did Leonardo previously have detailed backgrounds? Would would remove, or tone down, the claim. Ceoil (talk)
          • Leonardo only has Ginevra de' Benci before the Musician but I've seen no direct connections/anaylsis between the two other than noting their similar hair! I've specified to "predated by Netherlandish artists, who often set their portraits..." since I agree that surely many paintings were not set as such, but portraits alone seem to be regularly against black backgrounds, all of van Eyck's portraits for example. Aza24 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see now its rephrased as "predated by Netherlandish artists" Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that may have been you lol
  • the subject's face is not raised as in the 1482 note - "mentioned" rather than "raised"...otherwise "not raised as described in the 1482..."
    • Went with the latter
  • Dont like "Therefore, since"
    • Agreed, kept it as just "Since..."
  • Cant parse this as written, though I know what you are getting at a major difference lies in the figure not facing the viewer, opposite of not only almost all of Messina's portraits,[34] but Leonardo's other portraits as well - change 'opposite' to maybe in contrast to, drop 'as well', and rephrase 'major' and 'lies'.
    • Changed to "While art historian Daniel Arasse suggests that while Portrait of a Musician is the most similar of Leonardo's portraits to Messina, the figure is facing the viewer, in contrast to not only most of Messina's portraits, but Leonardo's other portraits." – which I think works now?
  • I have no doubts as to the quality and breath of the sources used....ie its comprehensive and meets 1.b of the criteria[42]
  • Confident of 1.d given the diligence and stewardship of this disputed and contentious work (mention as is a first time nominator)
  • Leaning support on 1.a if above are resolved. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query from nominator

[edit]

So I've been thinking and I was wondering what the reviewers think about this idea: (pinging Wehwalt, SandyGeorgia and Ceoil) I'm consider adding some extra images (in a mini gallery) to the background section, in order to appropriately give the visual context of the work. It would look more or less like this. I think that such an addition helps the reader understand the work's inspiration and place in art history but I don't want to go overkill here; insight would be appreciated. I could also add an Early Netherlandish portrait (say Portrait of a Man (Self Portrait?) or Léal Souvenir) to give the full background, but that, in my mind, is unnecessary. Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In favour of adding this, yes defiantly. For another thing, have though for a while that you are missing a trick by bunching all the images into a composite. Not so sure re the ENA paintings; would they add much Ceoil (talk)
I also think the sandbox sizing of widths="220px" heights="180px" is about right. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I stole those sizes from Honan :) Aza24 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've always felt that the reader is well served by showing them. If there is a wealth of images available, use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK – I've added them. Sandy hasn't said anything, but if she has any further insight, it is welcome of course. Aza24 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ham II

[edit]

Fantastic to see this, and I can appreciate how much work has gone into condensing all the sources. I've got copies of Clark 1961 (and a 1993 edition of the same), Syson et al. 2011 and Zöllner 2019 (as well as loads of other books on Leonardo not in the bibliography), and have been checking the article against these. I've also done some copyediting work on the article over the last two days, so please let me know if you disagree with any of my choices there, Aza24.

  • "Sometimes known as Portrait of Young Man" – presumably Portrait of a Young Man?
    • Done – good catch
  • "in oil-on-walnut panel" – pace Indopug, there shouldn't be hyphens here, because "oil on walnut" isn't a compound modifier describing the painting's support. This also slightly contradicts the statements elsewhere that the medium might be oil and tempera, but I appreciate that adding "(and perhaps tempera)" would overstuff the sentence. I'd suggest leaving the medium out of the opening sentence (as well as the statement that it's a portrait, which should be obvious – see WP:POSA) and instead simply calling it "an unfinished painting widely attributed to the Italian Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci, dated to c. 1483–1487."
    • Done – normally I would disagree but the chance of confusion in that it might have tempera seems like a good reason to take it out of the lead. I had listed "portrait" to link to "portrait painting" but I can alter just "painting" to link to that
  • "Stylistic resemblances to other works by Leonardo, especially in the sitter's face, have secured at least a partial attribution." – worth adding "to the master" at the end of this sentence, to clarify that an attribution to Leonardo is what is meant?
    • Surely, especially since I'll take every opportunity to call Leonardo a "master" :)
  • "Inspired by Antonello da Messina" – is this proven? Later on you've got "Leonardo was likely influenced by Antonello's style".
    • Changed the first to "likely" – both Syson and Marani don't seem to present it as a certainty, merely a likely influence
  • "such as Virgin of the Rocks and Lady with an Ermine" – in the literature definite articles are usually added, thus: "such as the Virgin of the Rocks and the Lady with an Ermine". Similarly, "but Portrait of a Musician [...]" should be "but the Portrait of a Musician [...]". Arguably, the article should begin "The Portrait of a Musician [...]".
    • I checked some sources and I would agree... changed all the instances I could find
  • "Franchinus Gaffurius" – All the sources I've got refer to him as "Franchino Gaffurio". I can see, though, that his entry in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and his English Wikipedia article are titled "Franchinus Gaffurius", so there must be one convention for the musicologists and another for the art historians! What are your thoughts on this? I can see the argument for being internally consistent with our own article titles, but also for following the sources discussing the painting, not the composer.
    • Hmm while I don't think there's an obvious reason for one over the other, I think I'll stick with the current, since I suspect that the art historians are using a more Italian spelling and the musicologists an English spelling. That and the fact that he's a music theorist/composer so it may be better to stick with the musicologists on this one
  • "the most convincing suggestion" – possibly "the most favored candidate"? Rephrasing would prevent the following sentence's "suggestions" from being a repetition.
    • Done – good call
  • "detailed face" → "the high level of detail in the subject's face". The current phrasing is a bit too vague IMO and could be misread as referring to the surface of the painting.
    • Yes, definitely
  • "a small 44.7 cm × 32 cm (17.6 in × 12.6 in) walnut wood panel" – I can't say I'm a fan of measurements appearing in prose like this; it seems like the kind of thing infoboxes are made for. I haven't checked whether this is ever done in art-historical writing, but it seems unlikely.
  • "The museum which has held the painting since at least 1672, the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana,[4]" is an unnecessary detail for a note discussing the medium; simplify it to "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana", linking to the webpage with the relevant information. The text that follows this would read better if the instances of {{Harvnb}} were changed to {{Harvtxt}}.
    • Well the point I was trying to make is that the musuem would have had plenty of time to analyze the painting, perhaps I should simplify to something like "The painting's current location"? I changed to harvtext, looks a lot better. I'm hesitant about using the external link, mainly because the risk of the page needing to be archived.
      • @Aza24: I don't see how the length of time the Ambrosiana has owned the painting would give it a head start on understanding the materials – surely the most reliable scientific analysis would be the most recent? (Which has reminded to check the 2014 Leonardo da Vinci's Technical Practice edited by Michel Menu; turns out it's got a chapter on the Musician.)
I would also add that apart from this being an unnecessary detail, it makes it look as if the citation is for the portrait's having been at the Ambrosiana since 1672, a date which doesn't appear in the source. (The citation for that date comes later, in the "Attribution" section.) I see your point about the external link in my suggested text "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana", so I'd now suggest "the Pinacoteca Ambrosiana[5]" instead.
  • Is "Chiesa" the right surname for Angela Ottino (d/D)ella Chiesa? There seems to be a preference for "Ottino Della Chiesa, Angela" here.
    • I wasn't sure about this, so I'm glad you could do some research, I've changed to what you recognized as the most prominent.
  • "Latin for 'angelic song'; although art historian Martin Kemp notes [...]" – should the semicolon be a comma?
    • Probably comma
  • "Angela Ottino Della Chiesa identified eleven scholars who supported an attribution to Leonardo; eight attributions to Ambrogio de Predis; two undecided and one to another student of Leonardo, Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio." – again, semicolons or commas?
    • Sticking with semi colon, since it's interchangeable here and better separates from the comma before Boltraffio, if that makes sense
  • Should "A Venturi" be "Venturi", or does he need to be distinguished from someone else? If the latter, "A. Venturi" follows MOS:INITIALS. Tooltips might be a good idea for the remaining art historians' names without links in this note, i.e. {{tooltip|Carotti|Giulio Carotti}} and {{tooltip|Castelfranco|Giorgio Castelfranco}}.
    • Done – great point. For Venturi I followed what Ottino Della Chiesa did, which I'm assuming is to avoid confusion with Lionello Venturi.
  • "the face of the angel in Virgin of the Rocks [...] and St. Jerome's face from Saint Jerome in the Wilderness" – the angel's face looks different in the two versions of the Virgin of the Rocks. I assume this is a reference to the Louvre version? I'd suggest "the face of the angel in the Louvre Virgin of the Rocks [...] and that of the titular figure in Saint Jerome in the Wilderness".
    • Changed – I would agree your phrasing is better/clearer

More is to come. Ham II (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far Ham – just glancing at them you seem to have provided some extremely useful insights and critiques. Unfortunately my schedule is getting rather busy but I'll be sure to get to them in the next day or so and look forward to your future comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II just to keep you updated, I've addressed all of your comments thus far. Aza24 (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Sorry for the delay; here are some more comments from me:

  • The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, this filename and our article on Greek love are all under the impression that the portrait is of Marsilio Ficino. Is there any evidence to suggest that art historians have ever seriously thought he was the subject?
  • The two sets of numbered footnotes would be more distinct from each other if the explanatory footnotes used letters instead of numbers; "[n 1]" presumably stands for "note 1", but isn't "[1]" also "note 1"?
    • Not really following; this seems to be a common system on other articles.
      • @Aza24: I wasn't aware of the classical music featured articles using this. It's not my favourite style for the reason I gave (and to clarify, by "letters" I meant a, b, c, etc., as opposed to n preceding numbers), but it's clearly an acceptable style. Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many Italian musicians and politicians have been proposed as the sitter" – is "politicians" the best way to describe Ludovico and Gian Galeazzo Sforza? What about "noblemen"?
    • Ah good point
  • "the music is not by him" → "the musical notes are not by his hand", for the avoidance of ambiguity.
    • That seems to change the meaning, since the musical notes are certainly by his hand, by the composition is not. I changed to the "this musical composition" although I'm not sure if this is better
      • @Aza24: In that case I misunderstood; the previous sentence reads as if it's about the visual appearance of the notes. I've looked at the Bambach article and would now suggest changing the paragraph's final two sentences to the following: "Leonardo's surviving drawings of rebuses with musical notation do not resemble the score in the painting. It is therefore unlikely that he composed the music, meaning that its composer and significance are unknown." Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a counterpart to the Portrait of a Lady – worth adding "in the Ambrosiana" after this as the title is such a generic one? I'd also suggest "pendant" instead of "counterpart".
    • Both done
  • "reminiscent of Ginevra de' Benci" → "reminiscent of Ginevra de' Benci"
    • Oops yes...
  • "the musician's pupils" → "the pupils of the musician's eyes", again to avoid ambiguity.
    • Done
  • "suggesting their collaboration" – Suggesting the collaboration of either Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono with Leonardo, or both artists with Leonardo, or both artists with each other?
    • Uhhh both artists separately, I believe it's clearer now
  • "Leonardo's First Milanese period" – why the capital F? Later, in a footnote, you've got "first Milanese period".
    • Good question... changed
  • "Leonardo engaged in a study of human anatomy, especially the skull, in the late 1480s." – This point seems a bit underdeveloped. Looking at the source (Syson et al. 2011, p. 95), the argument there seems to be that in the Musician the attention to detail is all at surface level, and doesn't yet show an understanding of the structure of the skull.
    • Well yes, by "Leonardo engaged in a study of human anatomy, especially the skull, in the late 1480s" I mean like 1488–1490, which is part of the reason the detail in this one isn't up to par, since it's from 1483–1437. Not sure how I can make this clearer in the text but further insight would be appreciated
  • I'd combine [n 6] and [n 7] – and why does [n 7] appear first in the article body?
    • I've removed those notes here, probably unnecessary
  • "The Portrait of a Young Man (c. 1490–1491)" – add "in the Pinacoteca di Brera"? (Again because of the generic title.)
    • Agreed
  • "black overpaint", "a layer of black paint" and "layers of black paint" – Judging from the pre-restoration photo, it looks as if it wasn't just black paint that was removed, but also paint the colour of the stole.
    • Yes I suspect this is part of the larger restoration as a whole. No sources have specified this, from what I've seen, so there seems to be little we can do here...
      • @Aza24: I see that "a layer of black paint" is accurately quoting Fagnart, although the visual evidence suggests otherwise. What if that were changed to "a layer of overpaint", which to my mind is still an acceptable paraphrase of the source? Ham II (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly
  • "The man may have appeared in other works" – add "by Leonardo and his studio"?
    • Done
  • "He was known to have befriended Leonardo" – "is" not "was"?
    • Yes...
  • "the subject of the painting is a young man; Gaffurius would have been in the first years of adulthood." – These two statements are not mutually exclusive.
    • Changed
  • "ideology of the superiority of painting over other art forms" – Worth working in a link to Paragone somehow?
  • Looking at my own 1961 edition of Clark, Penguin Books was then based in Harmondsworth, so is "City of Westminster" right?
    • Certainly
  • The style "London, UK" (etc.) appears throughout the "Sources" section, but the footnotes in the "References" section have "London, England". Ham II (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Apologies, I missed that, or I wouldn't have harassed you.
@Ham II: ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I've still got more comments to come, but I'm afraid I can't give this my full attention until the weekend, as has been the case for the last few weeks. Sorry to hold things up. Although it's not obvious from the way the comments are arranged here, I did post more on the morning of the 22nd, as promised. Ham II (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II: Ah. Apologies. I missed that, or I wouldn't have harassed you. So long as the review is progressing, that's fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Here's some more (and I've also replied above about the chapter in Menu 2014):

  • "It is his only known male portrait" → "It is his only known male portrait painting"; NB the Portrait of a Man in Red Chalk. Similarly, "Leonardo's only known male portrait" → "Leonardo's only known male portrait painting". The source (Syson et al. 2011, p. 95) does say "his only surviving painting of a male sitter".
    • Good catch, changed this
  • "the profile portraiture that predominated in Milan at the time" – This is my own phrasing, but I wonder if "Milan at the time" should be "15th-century Milan"?
    • Sure, I'm unsure about this but I don't see any harm, only an extra level of security against any misterpretation
  • Re proper left and right, "but his right eye far more than his left – something that is not actually possible" would be enough IMO.
    • I think the fact that I mixed it up mean that there is enough risk for confusion for the extra clarity :)
  • "Some defend Leonardo, claiming that" → "Some have argued that", per WP:CLAIM.
    • Definitely, changed
  • "stiffly-folded" → "stiffly folded" per MOS:HYPHEN: "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb".
    • Removed
  • "The Portrait of a Lady [...] by Giovanni Ambrogio de Predis was originally thought to be by Leonardo" – Change "originally" to "formerly".
    • Good point
  • "a Duke of Milan at the time" – "At the time" is confusing here as the date 1672 is given at the beginning of the sentence.
    • Good catch, changed to "during the painting's creation"
  • "uncharacteristic of Leonardo's usual paintings" – Is "usual" necessary here?
    • Would say so, only because the Annunciation is rather rigid – at least in my opinion...
  • "the eyes" appears in a list of Leonardesque characteristics, with no further explanation; what specifically about the eyes does Kemp think is typical of Leonardo?
    • He calls them "sensitive eyes" – have added, I'd be hesitant in detailing this more as it's the attribution section, not the description and the description already discusses the eyes sufficiently imo
  • The "Provenance" section would more accurately be titled "Provenance and exhibition history".
    • Agreed
  • The portrait was also in the 2015 Leonardo exhibition in Milan, Williamsburg and Boston. I'd suggest italics for exhibition titles – I don't think our Manual of Style has anything to say about this, but the Association of Art Editors recommends italics.
    • Thanks for both links, I don't think the ones in Boston and Williamsburg had the musician at them, at least the article doesn't make it clear that they do. I searched around and couldn't find anything that suggested they did. Have added the Milan one though. Wasn't sure about exhibition names so if they recommend that, that's good enough for me.
  • "Sforza, Gaffurius, Josquin and Galeazzo (Left to right, Portrait of a Musician center) have each been proposed as the subject" – "Left to right" isn't totally clear as there are two rows of images; what about Clockwise from top left: Ludovico Sforza, Gaffurius, Gian Galeazzo Sforza and Josquin have each been proposed as the subject of the Portrait of a Musician (center). To save space "Ludovico Sforza" could be "Il Moro", except that this name for him isn't used anywhere in the article.
    • I like your version better, have switched
  • "a study or an early attempt to create the Portrait of a Musician" → "a study for, or an earlier version of, the Portrait of a Musician"? Is this what the sources say?
    • Have just checked both, yes they both suggest this.
  • "The intimate feel of the portrait makes a personal friend as the sitter even more likely" → "The portrait's intimate nature makes it especially likely that the subject was a personal friend"?
    • Probably better, yeah – have added
  • Any idea what "Cantuz" means?
    • It means "Cantus" which was the uppermost part in Medieval/early-Renaissance music have added, although we don't have a WP page for it
  • "Leonardo declared in the beginning of his incomplete A Treatise on Painting → "Leonardo declared at the beginning of his incomplete Treatise on Painting". The second link to the article on the treatise in this section is unnecessary.
    • Have changed and unlinked

Thanks for your patience with my comments. Ham II (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Thanks as ever for your patience; this should be my final set of points.

  • The Musician isn't Leonardo's only painting still in Milan, as there are murals in the city by him, most famously the Last Supper. So I'd suggest changing "the only one remaining in the city" to "his only panel painting remaining in the city" (moving the link from the earlier "on a small panel"), and "his only one to remain in Milan" to "his only panel painting remaining in Milan" – if the cited source supports this.
  • You've got "the work is painted in oil", "executed in oils" and "[...] list only oil" (× 2). I'd suggest "oils" plural for all of these.
    • Agreed, changed
  • Possibly references to Kenneth Clark, Carlo Pedretti, Daniel Arasse and Eugène Müntz should be in the past tense, as they have all died?
    • Sorted this I believe. I also opted to change all the other historians comments to past tense, for consistency and that I suppose it's a little silly to have to update their comments when they die – probably better all in past Aza24 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luke Syson is referred to as a "Museum curator", which to me reads like a bit of a put-down when other scholars are called "art historian[s]".
    • Lol, fair point – changed
  • "a passage in Leonardo's notes suggests that the portrait illustrates this observation of his" → "a connection has been noted to the following passage in Leonardo's notebooks"?
    • That flows much better, thanks – changed
  • The date of the London exhibition was 2011–2012 and the Louvre exhibition was in 2019–2020. The Milan exhibition was subtitled Il Disegno del Mondo.
    • Thanks for finding this out – have adjusted
  • "negative comments have often led to the hesitation or rejection of a full attribution to Leonardo." → "scholars have sometimes been reluctant to grant it a full attribution to Leonardo"? Syson talks of a "substantial minority" who have taken this view, which is why I've picked "sometimes" over "often".
    • Probably better, yeah
  • "Zöllner considers its pose inferior to that of Ginevra de' Benci. [...] Eugène Müntz disagrees" – This is an odd sequence, considering that Zöllner is still alive and Müntz died in 1902.
    • Good point, have adjusted
  • I'm not too keen on the construction "art historian Kenneth Clark", "Biographer Walter Isaacson", "Flemish singer Giovanni Cordier" and so on. In many cases adding a definite article would be an improvement – and indeed you do this for "The architectural historian Luca Beltrami", "The art historian Laure Fagnart", "the Tuscan musician Atalante Migliorotti" and a few others, so there is currently an inconsistency. I also think that in at least some cases it's clear enough from the context that the person is someone with art-historical expertise, and the descriptor could be dropped altogether – an example might be "Leonardo specialist Angela Ottino della Chiesa", which would shorten an already complicated sentence. I find the "Critical opinion" section a bit of a jumpy read between the already introduced "Zöllner", "Marani", "Syson" and "Kemp" on the one hand and "French art historian Eugène Müntz", "art historian Jack Wasserman" and "Art historian Alessandro Vezzosi" on the other.
    • I've added definite articles to every case I believe. I think it's helpful to let the readers know why someone has the authority to give an opinion on these various things – this is not ideal in the critical opinion section since (as you recognize) some people have been introduced earlier and others haven't but I don't think it's a huge issue. The main hesitancy I have is that dropping some would result in a lot of inconsistency and it would be difficult to determine which ones to drop and which to keep. Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that should be it... Ham II (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: Many thanks for your insightful comments. They should be all addressed now - Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ham II, do you think you're comfortable supporting, or is there perhaps more we need to discuss? Best - Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Just one final follow-up to the point about the exhibition dates. The links I gave to the National Gallery's website and the Louvre's have the dates but don't mention the Musician. For exhibition reviews which mention both the dates and the painting (and which could therefore also replace Searle 2011 and Nicholl 2020), try "Barone, Juliana (November 2013). "Review of Exhibitions". Renaissance Studies. 27 (5): 738–753. JSTOR 24423435." (p. 738 for the dates, 739 for a mention of the Musician) and "Bambach, Carmen (22 November 2019). "The Big Review: Leonardo at the Louvre". The Art Newspaper" – reformat these as you see fit. Ham II (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ham II, have done this. Aza24 (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aza24. I hope that last point wasn't too nitpicky; it was also about avoiding using primary sources (museums writing about their own exhibitions). And with all that out of the way...

It gives me great pleasure to support this article! Very well done, and here's to many more Leonardo FAs in the future (if you can stomach my reviews)! Ham II (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A very interesting read, especially as it's not long ago that I did my own first painting FA. This has been well picked over by others, so the following are really just suggestions

  • male portrait x 2—portrait of a male?
    • Normally I would agree, but in this case it may be better to use "male portrait" since "portrait of a male" sounds weirdly similar to Portrait of a Musician I think
  • but is in good condition overall with—comma after "overall"?
    • Definitely
  • Author Walter Isaacson—His biographer Walter Isaacson would be more helpful
    • Agreed
  • The light dilates both eyes x 2—surely pupils of both eyes?
    • Done
  • author Angela Ottino Della Chiesa—again, "author" gives us no hint why her views matter, also it’s normally lc “della”
    • Changed this, and lowercased all around
  • Leonardo would engage in a study of human anatomy—engaged does the same job
    • Done – good catch
  • catalogued—is this correct for AE? I thought that "catalog" was the AE version of our catalogue
    • Yes... lol
Otherwise all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for you time and comments Jimfbleak, I believe I've addressed the points above. Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with all the above, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Comments from Johnbod

[edit]

Just a few quickish points. I haven't read everything above.

  • First sentences. You can't leave essential details to the infobox. On my settings the text there isn't even visible in the first screen. The most basic details should be in the first sentences, including location, size and technique/support (I see there was some argy-bargy over the last above). On my screen the location only comes in line 14 of text. Btw, MOS:VA deprecates "housed in", though at least it doesn't say "currently". After argy bargy you have " [[portrait painting|painting]] in the first line - avoiding the Easter egg & just having [[portrait painting]] would be better, even if rather stating the bleeding obvious.
    • Ok, I've changed the portrait painting link. I don't see the "housed in" as one of the specific deprecated phrases but I assume it falls under the "similar phrases" category, I've removed it accordingly. I've added the technique/support in the second sentence, I would prefer to keep the museum later in the lead since it flows well where it is but am happy to discuss further.
  • I'd be inclined to split the current 3rd para at "Over the centuries", and move "Until the 20th century it was thought to show Ludovico Sforza, a Duke of Milan and employer of Leonardo." to the start of the new para. It's been a long time since anyone believed this.
    • Good point, have done this. I'm worried others will object to the 4 paragraph lead but each one is so short individually I think the seperation for continuity makes sense.
  • "... have secured at least a partial attribution to the master. The hesitation for a full attribution is due to the stiff ...." reads lumpily, and doesn't convey to me a summary of the good section on this below. Wouldn't "partial attribution" suggest LdV did some of the work, but somebody else the rest? This seems a somewhat minority view. Is "The hesitation for a full attribution" grammatical? I'd be inclined to go for something like: "Based on stylistic resemblances to other works by Leonardo, most current scholarship attributes at least the sitter's face to him. Uncertainty over the rest of the painting is due to the stiff ....". Or something.
    • Yes Ceoil made a comment about this a long time ago but I wasn't sure how to adjust, your solution works nicely.
  • "The sitter has curly shoulder-length hair, wears a red hat..." Do any of the sources give a name to the hat style? I think "cap" is the more usual term for these (and other brimless styles) . They were especially associated with Florence, especially a few decades earlier, & we could do with an article on the style.
    • Yes Syson says Cap; I think my ignorance changed it to use varied wording without realizing that they are different things :)
  • "and therefore likely representative of polyphonic music". Is "and therefore probably show polyphonic music" better? I think so.
    • Definitely
  • "Drawings from the Royal Library of Windsor " a made-up name. In fact we have Print Room, Windsor, which is where they actually are.
  • "containing Leonardo's music notational style" confusing - reword
    • Rephrased although I'm not sure how successful I was
  • "Doubts on ascribing the work to Leonardo" - reword - "about"?
    • Done
  • "While its first appearance in a catalog in 1672 listed it as by Leonardo,[26] a 1686 inventory attributed it to Bernardino Luini,[8] which was quickly crossed out and changed to "or rather by Leonardo".[5] Again in 1798 it was attributed to the "school of Luini" but was soon relisted as by Leonardo.[5] " - doesn't read smoothly, & you should make it clear all these are Ambrosiana listings, which hasn't yet been covered.
    • Rephrased
  • " X-ray testing" - there a link for this re paintings somewhere.
  • "The sitter's three-quarter profile was predated by.." reword to lose "predated"
    • Changed to precedented, although I don't really see an issue with "predated"
  • "by the cardinal Federico Borromeo" - should be "by Cardinal Federico Borromeo" - you might mention he founded the Ambrosiana.
    • Certainly
  • Galeazzo Arconati - you might mention the two LdV codices he owned (including the Codex Atlanticus you mention twice).
    • Added with a ref
  • I'd split the "Background" to create a "Provenance" section. You might call the remaining "Background" "Portrait style" or something.
    • Split into "Historical context" and "Provenance" – this is similar to what it used to be actually. The only issue is that the restoration is discussed in Provenance, is this ok or should it be changed to "History"?
  • "Likely inspired by Antonello da Messina and reminiscent of Early Netherlandish painting," - is this better: "Perhaps influenced by Antonello da Messina's introduction of the portrait style of Early Netherlandish painting to Italy...". Inspired seems over the top, & we don't know how many actual EN portraits were around in Milan for LdV to see.
    • Changed, I suppose it is a subtle line between "likely inspired" and "perhaps influenced" – it is hard to gauge the precise exposure Leonardo would have had to Antonello but I'd like to think it is very likely, scholars seem to be far less certain though
  • The 2nd pic of the portrait should be on the left, to face into the page (we don't normally do this for lead images)
    • Was suggested by Sandy above, I disagreed but with a second suggestion it seems worthwhile
  • "The work is first documented in 1672 when it was catalogued by Pietro Paolo Bosca into the Ambrosiana" - just "in the Ambrosiana" ? I'd put that at the start of the para myself.
    • Done – agree with both
  • The recent exhibition history should be its own para, & maybe a sub-section.
    • Done
  • "According to historian Richard Shaw Pooler, "some think the subject is simply anonymous".[37]" - What does this even mean? Never intended as an actual portrait, but some kind of genre painting? Seems pretty unlikely. Is Pooler really an RS - do any of your other sources support this?
    • Have removed this and all Pooler refs. Had some doubts about him before but looking into it further even if it is reliable I wouldn't call it "high quality" as the FAC guidelines ask
  • Giving dates to the various contenders would be useful for readers.
    • Agreed, added
  • "This theory has since been disproven as the iconographic evidence does not match Gaffurius to the sitter.[30] Kemp notes that the letters "Cant" and "Ang" could just as easily be "Cantore Angelico", Italian for 'angelic singer'.[2] Also, the subject of the painting was not depicted in a clerical robe, which would have properly identified him as a priest, and the subject of the painting is a young man (Gaffurius would have been in the first years of adulthood)." A bit of a rewrite needed? "disproved". The cap is also non-clerical , and perhaps the hair. The age bit is just confusing - distinguish between "young man" and "in the first years of adulthood" more clearly.
    • Rephrased this I think. Would be hesitant to add on the cap and hair since the sources don't specify them
  • The "Critical opinion" is mildly disappointing, after the depth of coverage of the various straw-grasping identifications. Is there more in sources?
    • Not much more although I added some. This is probably due to the overlapping of critiscm/praise between scholars, they mainly talk about the same things, pose, stare and lighting. Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For once, a good use of a multiple image, which I normally don't like at all.
    • Yeah I was happy with how it turned out as well.
  • Don't any of the sources say that the dress is rather too middle-class for a portrait of a Sforza?
    • Not that I've seen, I guess scholars focused more on the attribution than sitter before the 20th century.
  • That seems to it for now. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ok, thanks, all these sorted, except I like "precedented" even less than "predated". Can't you just say "already common/usual in... " (which it was)? Perhaps not the moment, but if it was me I'd take the opportunity of Portrait of a Musician (Pontormo) to move this to Portrait of a Musician (Leonardo), with a disam page. Not important though. Nice work! Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by CR4ZE

[edit]

Although I'm late to the party, I did offer to give some input if needed here. I just took a run through the prose and, if it's okay with the coords, I'd have a couple of comments. I'm running off irl now but I will have something to you within the next 12 hours. — CR4ZE (T • C) 02:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Cr4ze, looking forward to any comments. I'll be sure to have a look at your article soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a brief list, but here it is:

Description
  • Very thoughtfully-written descriptor of the work opens this article well. I kept flicking back to the image as the intricacies of the work were discussed. As a casual reader, I was fully engaged with the text here, so well done. My only query (and it is merely that): isn't it his right pupil that is notably more dilated, not the left? (We're looking at him so our orientation is reversed.)
  • Yes thank you for catching that. I checked the source, and you are of course correct, not sure how I missed it! Also thanks John for the link/term, have included it. Added the image as well, looks much nicer. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The stiffly folded piece of paper" shouldn't this be hyphenated?
    • Certainly
  • "hypothesizing as to what" could you lose "as to"?
    • Agreed yes
Attribution
  • Would the introductory clauses "In 1798 the Ambrosiana" and "When first listed in 1672" need a comma? (Further down: "The work is first documented in 1672".)
    • Hmm I'm not sure about the first one but I would think so for the second.
  • "In the mid-20th century, Leonardo specialist ... another of Leonardo's students" just clarifying here as I may be misunderstanding: eleven scholars agreed the work was Leonardo's, but two were undecided and one thought it was someone else? Would "and one proponent of" read better as "and one a proponent of"?
    • Yes and eight to Ambrogio de Predis. Good point with the "a", makes more sense that way
  • "Other characteristics typical of Leonardo's style ..." Just on grammar, are semicolons needed to list these off or would commas serve better? Could "which seems to have just closed or is about to open" be separated from the main clause with parentheses or em-dashes?
    • Agreed, have adjusted
  • "the most cited frequently candidates" should "cited" and "frequently" be flipped?
    • Oops, definitely
Provenance
  • "No record of a commission exists" you've already said as much in the second para of Attribution. Perhaps this does need to be restated here? Just checking.
    • Good point, have removed
  • Can the single-sentence paragraph be avoided at all?
Franchinus Gaffurious
Critical opinion
  • "Zöllner says it the pose is" typo?
    • One would hope so :)
  • "Syson say it is dramatic and compelling; while Isaacson criticizes the shadowing but lauds the lighting of the eyes" seems a little fragmented. Is the semicolon needed or would a comma be better?
  • My apologies, I re-read this and realise it's listing off different critical opinions (either commas or semicolons work here, up to you). In either case, there is a typo here. It should read: "Syson says". — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation
  • "A number believe" a bit indiscriminate. What about just "some believe"?
    • Sure yeah
  • "Leonardo famously declared" seems dubious: Leonardo famously said many things.
    • Have changed to "boldly" though perhaps that is too editorial
      • It was more a question of whether an adjective was needed at all. I'm okay with "boldly", but you can change it to something else if you're worried?
  • "The painting has also been seen to be" a little clunky
    • Rephrased this
General remarks

Overall, this is a fine piece of work and a wonderful prospective addition to WPVA's best articles. I enjoyed the reading here and I've learnt something about a work I was hitherto unfamiliar with. Not much else to note. I recognise that some of this is nit-picky, so feel free to push back if you disagree with anything. Thanks! — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

Interesting topic, or I'd go away, after you have so much support already. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "most current scholarship attributes at least the sitter's face to him" - why "sitter's"? ... "subject's"? ... "musician's? - may be just my lack of English, - curiosity.
"Sitter" is a pretty normal, and technically correct, term for the subject of a portrait (even if they are standing). Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that using different ones would be ideal for variation in the prose but perhaps WP:VAMOS will reach a different conclusion. Aza24 (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe VAMOS says anything about the subject. Feel free to vary, but I think it already does, no? Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, learning. I am aware that it is a correct term, only raised the question if it is the best term in that sentence - I'd rather use it for someone anonymous, such as posing for a class of students, not a person whose personality plays a key role even if we don't know his identity.
That's just not the idiom, Gerda. If you're posing for a class of students, you're a model. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, learning. - Probably it's that I learned "babysitter" (a German word) early, - ignore me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

  • "In fact, the art historian ..." - what does "In fact" add?
    • I used it to connect to the previous line better, I think it flows better with it's inclusion
  • "biographer ... notes" - here it's present tense, sometimes past tense, - and I wonder until when it's present? - Will it still be present in ten years? - Perhaps better past with a year if it matters when someone noted?
    • Ah good catch, should certainly be past tense – changed

Musician

  • I am no friend of an image under the header, and pushing the next header "out", but he should look "in", so I have no solution.
    • Agree but yes I am not sure how to fix either...
  • A lot of detail is given to the eyes, but a blind person would not know the shape of the face, the nose, the lips.
    • Agree completely but alas my sources don't comment on those things – I suspect this is because of the rather "normal" shape, nose and lips
  • I am blind for the "smile" hint, and the "singing" - he looks plain serious to me, - that's probably again just me.
    • I could see it either way smile-wise – the singing comes from the small space between his lips I'm assuming

Musical score

  • To me, a score would rather be a book, and this looks like a sheet.
    • Fair point – changed
  • "This suggests that this musical composition is not by him" - not sure who is meant by that "by him".
    • added "by Leonardo"

That's it, I learned a lot, thank you, support. Do with the comments what you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Gerda, have addressed the above I believe Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks to all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2020 (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) 10 December 2020 [43].

Apollo 7

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the first Apollo crewed mission to enter space, famous at the time but soon overshadowed and almost forgotten today except for the "mutiny" aspect which led to it not only being the last hurrah for Wally Schirra (who had already announced his retirement) but for the other astronauts as well.Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

[edit]

Is the lead image really the right one? The television aspect is just barely mentioned in the lead. Many readers don't read past the lead and so it seems to me that a more representative image might be something else, such as an image of the rocket. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the rocket.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree The most representative image of a space flight is not necessarily the launch rocket, but rather an image of something for which the flight is iconically notable. For instance, Apollo 11 is known for the first human landing on the Moon, and so our lead image of the featured article is the picture of Buzz Aldrin standing on the lunar surface. Apollo 7 is known for being the first crewed Apollo flight after the Apollo 1 fire, and the public at the time probably remembered it for the first live telecast of the astronauts in flight. The rocket just makes the article run-of-the-mill. Please put the TV photo back in the lead. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JustinTime55. While I do like launch pictures, I think the television photo is a better choice for the lead image. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy

[edit]
  • I think the background section should lead the Crew/Mission Control section. As the article stands, the first part of the body immediately goes into listing the astronauts, and then the subsequent section discusses their selection.
I've merged the sections. I feel you have to introduce the astronauts before you discuss them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the test that had taken the lives of the Apollo 1 crew" should be rewritten (my take is replace the bold text with "killed") per WP:EUPHEMISM
OK--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and when he departed the spacecraft area as the pad was evacuated prior to launch, after Cunningham said, "I think Guenter's going," Eisele responded "Yes, I think Guenter went."" This doesn't make much sense. If I remember correctly (I think it was Schirra's bio) the joke here is that Wendt was in the capsule until he absolutely had to leave prior to launch, and Cunningham was making it seem like he's actually coming along for the mission. It's a pretty inconsequential detail about the mission, especially since Wendt didn't get trapped in or overstay the time he was supposed to be there, and doesn't need to be included.
The joke is Guenter Wendt/Guenter went sound the same. This is a well known incident (as such things go), though sometimes Schirra is incorrectly given credit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the Apollo 7 CSM have a name? I can't find any listed, but it's an abrupt end to the paragraph that Schirra wanted to give it the name Phoenix and NASA denied him.
I've filled this out some.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "used on all subsequent Apollo program missions" As stated later in the page, the Saturn 1B was used again on the Apollo-Soyuz mission and the Skylab flights. While it's true that it was never used again on another Apollo program mission, I don't think this is a necessary detail, as it's splitting hairs between Apollo missions and other missions flying almost identical hardware.
OK. I've massaged this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It differed from its predecessors in carrying less telemetry" As far as I know, telemetry is the data itself, not the machines measuring it. I'm assuming this should be "less telemetry equipment." That being said, it still had an enormous number of sensors that provided flight data, so unless the unmanned missions carried a significant amount more of the equipment, it doesn't seem like a relevant detail.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the all-important engine that would place Apollo into and out of lunar orbit" remove "all important", as there are plenty of other important components whose failure would have resulted in a mission cancellation, and maybe rephrase it to say "future Apollo CSMs" to eliminate any confusion on what part of Apollo is being discussed, and why they care since they won't be going to the moon on this particular mission.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had been fired only on a test stand, and although the astronauts were confident it would work, were concerned it might fire in an unexpected manner, necessitating an early end to the mission" This seems like a bit of a run on sentence. Also, isn't this the case for almost all the engines on a given mission (minus some redundancy in the first stages)?
I think the RCS engines could not get them in a mess the SPS engine could not get them out of, but the reverse was probably not true. Sentence split.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisele remembered being startled by the sudden violent jolt they received upon first activating the SPS, leading to Schirra yelling "Yabba dabba doo!" in reference to The Flintstones cartoon." I know it says Eiesele remembered because his book is being referenced and that Schirra yelled because of the jolt, but this currently reads like Schirra yelled "Yabbba dabba doo" because of Eisele remembering something. I would just rephrase it to say that the RCS caused a sudden jolt, which caused Schirra to yell.
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • "within perhaps 150 feet (46 m) of the S-IVB" I'm guessing it says "within perhaps 150 feet" because that is what the source material says, but I don't think an exact number should be given if the question is also being asked if its accurate. If there is nothing definite about how close they station kept, I would just leave it as "close" and let the picture of the rendezvous demonstrate that they were close by.
Fair enough. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schirra, a captain in the Navy, liked his coffee" While military people stereotypically drink coffee, I think saying that Schirra was "a captain in the Navy" implies that he only liked it because he was in the Navy, or that non-Navy folks wouldn't be so enthusiastic to drink it. It makes just as much sense to say that "Schirra liked his coffee..."
In this case, Schirra says, 'Oh, no. This is terrible. You're asking a Navy guy to give up coffee. You're crazy.". I think that's something more than "Schirra liked coffee.".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand the point Schirra was trying to make, I can say from firsthand experience that other service branches also enjoy their coffee and the Navy as an organization doesn't have ownership of coffee drinking. Maybe rephrase it to something along the lines of "Schirra insisted on bringing coffee on the flight, despite..." to highlight that it wasn't just that he enjoyed the occassional cup of joe but that he really wanted to bring it along. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the insisted part but I otherwise went along the lines you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One difficulty that was encountered was with the sleep schedule, which called for one crew member to remain awake at all times; Eisele was to remain awake while the others slept." I'm assuming there were also times when Cunningham and Schirra were the only crewmember awake? This reads like it all fell on Eisele to be up by himself and everyone else could sleep.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the quotations around "Mutiny" or rephrase it (maybe with "Crew protests") per MOS:QUOTEPOV. I know it's often referred to as the "mutiny in space", but the quotes make it seem like the article is implying doubt on if it was actually a mutiny.
  • "Cunningham heard the rumors and confronted Kraft in early 1969; Kraft denied making the statement "but his reaction wasn't exactly outraged innocence." Kraft commented in his memoirs, "it was like having a ringside seat at the Wally Schirra Bitch Circus." Rephrase "the rumors" as it's not clear to what rumors it is referring to, since the previous sentence just says that by some accounts Kraft spoke to Slayton, and doesn't make it seem like it was a rumor going around. I'm assuming Kraft is calling the mission the "Wally Schirra Bitch Circus," but this reads like that is his name for when Cunningham confronted him, which doesn't make much sense. The quote describing Kraft denying the statement doesn't really have a neutral point of view. It presents both sides of the argument but then makes it seem as if Kraft can't be trusted, when that is really just Cunningham's opinion of Kraft's response, and I don't think the accuser can be seen as a fair judge here.
I've removed the bitch circus. Remember that NPOV can be the result of giving several very partisan points of view. There is no certain truth here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just say that that Cunningham confronted Kraft, but he denied making the statement? It's already a questionable denial, as the previous sentence says that Kraft did say it, according to some account. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that's incomplete. Cunningham's opinion of Kraft's denial is germane.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove "messy" before divorce as that is tough to judge objectively, and also find a way to work in the part about him being the first astronaut to divorce without the use of parentheses, as it is an abrupt statement in the sentence
Yes, I've edited it, but there are several books that indicate that it wasn't just the divorce. The Astronauts Wives Club sympathized with Harriett, and their husbands were uncomfortable with Eisele's new wife Susie, who knew too much about what they got up to in Cocoa Beach. Worden subsequently got a divorce with very little blowback and it wasn't just because Eisele had broken trail for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better was to describe Eisele's performance as backup CMP? Casual doesn't really state how he acted; maybe "laziness?"
Changed to "indifferent'.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include when Eisele resigned from the Astronaut Office and military
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To keep the section chronological, move the Exceptional Service Medal paragraph up before the paragraph starting with "None of the Apollo 7 crew members flew in space again"
I've rejigged the paragraphs somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article states that Eiesle and Schirra died before receiving their Distinguished Service Medal, there death years should be put in there, rather than at the end of the section.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on your definition of "at" vs "next to," but I would just state that the Frontiers of Flight Museum is at Love Field, since its parking lot connects to the taxiway.
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very biased here, but I like the photo of the command module
I will let the reviewers settle it. I don't have a strong view.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was kidding to some degree (but I am glad to see it in the article). I took that photo a few years ago at the museum! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations
[edit]

I know in my previous reviews of your nominations I have been critical of the use of direct quotations. The direct quotes that I address below are ones that I believe should be paraphrased, most of which aren't direct quotes from primary sources. I understand the importance of quoting first hand descriptions and communications, but I don't believe that secondary sources should be directly quoted, as the quoted material is itself a paraphrase and rewriting of what occurred.

Many of these touch on the mutiny and can't adequately be dealt with using primary sources such as the Mission Report and the voice log. There is no real mention of it in the Mission Report, other than veiled references in the pilots' report. There are some things that can be gotten from the voice log, but we're going to have to be guided by the secondary sources there to tell us what is significant. A lot of this is how it was perceived, both by the astronauts and by those on the ground. Quotes from the participants (astronauts, Kraft, others) tells us how they perceived this, and the secondary sources tell us how historians have viewed what is, after all, what Apollo 7, to the extent it is remembered, is remembered for. Maybe it's me as a lawyer, but I tend to view letting the sources speak for themselves as superior to me paraphrasing and possibly misinterpreting or losing nuance, to say nothing of the potential POV pitfalls of speaking in Wikipedia's voice.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that these opinions are important and that its important to use secondary sources to get a historical viewpoint, I maintain that some of the quotes should be paraphrased. I understand it's up for interpretation on what should and shouldn't be rewritten, but using MOS:QUOTATIONS as a guide makes me think there should be more paraphrasing, and direct quotes should only be used from the participants themselves. While I understand the threat of your own POV when rewriting it, I think any editor's POV is going to come through in what they do and do not chose to include, including quotes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've paraphrased some but not all. I get it, you would do it otherwise, I've read several of yours. But there are multiple paths to the same object, and I don't see policy or MOS against having quotes from secondary sources. Indeed, it seems routinely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to confirm the livability and safety of the redesigned command module over the length of a lunar mission, prove the reliability of the module's big rocket engine needed for entering and leaving lunar orbit, test the navigation and guidance system's ability to direct an orbital rendezvous, and execute a precise reentry and splashdown" As far as I can tell from the Tom Jones article, these objectives aren't directly quoted from any official document for the mission. This should either be put into new words or quoted from the source material.
I've paraphrased this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schirra stating it was "riding like a dream"" I think this is unnecessary, as it's not an opposing view from Schirra, just his term to describe the smooth ride
I cut this.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eisele called it "a real boot in the rear"" Similar to the previous quote, this is just an additional quote supporting the previous sentence, but it doesn't add to it. It's just Eiesele using a euphemism to describe the sudden jolt.
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to authors Francis French and Colin Burgess, "The redesigned Apollo spacecraft was better than anyone had dared to hope."" This secondary source material should be paraphrased or removed. If how it performed is going to be compared to the expectations, those should be compared (did they do extra tests, did expect backups not need to be used, etc.)
I think this is something that requires interpretation, and cannot be gotten from the primary source materials, these are experts in the field of Apollo, and their opinion is worth telling the reader about.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as later in the article there is discussion from primary sources (Gen Phillips, Kraft, etc.) that the mission conducted everything it should and outperformed expectations, I think this is redundant, as those quoted individuals down below are likely the "anyone" that French and Burgess are discussing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is more as a way of discussing the extensive testing that went on without having to catalogue it all, by way of a summary. I think it is better done as a quotation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was not the happiest guy in town ... I was angry, and with good reason. The mission pushed us to the wall in terms of risk." While I like this quote's message, I think it should be rewritten per WP:EUPHEMISM, as phrases like "not the happiest guy in town" and "pushed us to the wall" are figures of speech.
I don't take the position that the guideline applies to quotations. I feel that the participants should be allowed to speak for themselves, in the terms they use, and the reader can judge for themselves. By the time Schirra wrote this, he knew the mutiny was a blotch on his record, and I'd rather not paraphrase away his defense to history.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that MOS guidelines don't necessarily apply to quotations, I think readers unfamiliar with American figures of speech might be left asking what it means to be pushed to the wall, and not understand what town Schirra is currently in. Why not just say that "Schirra later acknowledged that he had been angry during the mission because he felt they were accepting unnecessary risk." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've shortened the quotation. I think the remaining idiom is clear from context and from the discussion of the launch and Schirra's concern. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jones noted, "This prelaunch dispute was the prelude to a tug of war over command decisions for the rest of the mission."" This Jones quote is directly lifted from the 2018 article, not any document or source from the mission itself.
It is a useful means of putting in context what the conflict was to be about, who was to call the shots. I don't think any primary source would really serve here. Schirra discusses it some in his book, but I think a more balanced approach is to quote a neutral party.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would either use the Schirra or Eisele quote to describe their frustration during the mutiny, but not both, as they share a message. My pick would be the Eiesele quote.
The Schirra quote is what he said from space. I think the reader should judge for themselves its appropriateness. Eisele's was written later and is more retrospective. They serve two different purposes.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French/Burgess quote that starts with "When this point is considered..." says similar things to the previous Eisele and Schirra quotes. It should be paraphrased if its left in, but it's seems excessive since it says the same thing as the previous sentences about the crews frustration over perceived misprioritization by the ground personnel.
The quote provides a historical viewpoint, showing the reader how the incident has been judged by historians of the Apollo Program.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Slayton gave in to Schirra, "flight controllers were startled by Schirra’s abruptness."" I would just remove this quote, as it's a non-sequitur, stating that Slayton gave in and immediately jumping to flight controllers being surprised. If the info is left in, it should be paraphrased as it is not a quote from one of the flight controllers.
I've paraphrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eisele quote right after the splashdown info is unnecessary, as there is already a description earlier in the text about the success of the mission, and there is a lot in the subsequent section. As it is Eisele's description of the mission after the fact, not something he said at the time, it's out of place recapping the mission right after the landing is described.
Good point. I've moved it to assessment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraphrase the McQuiston quote; it's a secondary source that describes the mission in Eisele's obituary
It seems more or less the same either way and McQuiston is probably not a space expert, so I've done this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's really good info in the Jones quote that starts with "Three weeks after..." but it should be paraphrased rather than directly quoted, as it is a secondary source.
Assessment sections are to show how the subject of the article has been judged, and quotations are routinely used. In this case, the quote carries some factual information as well. I think I've made reasonable use of it. We are of course a tertiary source and secondary sources are freely made use of.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with Gen Philips is made up entirely of quotes that all, more or less, describe Apollo 7 as being a success. The Phillips quote belongs in the previous paragraph describing the mission as a success. As much as Lovell benefited from the success of Apollo 7, his quote is out of place, as he just talks about it being a success without any mention of how its success allow Apollo 8 to conduct its ambitious mission. The Kranz quote should either be later in the article, as it is his retrospective on the entire mission, or removed. I can't tell from the referenced article when Kraft made his statement; if it was at the time it should be grouped with the Phillips quote, but if it is from his memoirs it should be later on in the section. It doesn't make sense to have quotes about Kraft and Kranz praising the crew years later and then jump straight to how they got in a lot of trouble with Kraft right after the mission.
I've rearranged this some and removed the "bitch circus" comment. I can dig deeper into Kraft's and Kranz's books if desired, but I think the reader should have the gist of the dispute as it stands.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work on this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind words. I will keep your concerns in mind for the next Apollo article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I hope you've been well. I'll do the image review.

In their respective Commons pages, the Source link for the following images seem to be dead. Is it possible to track down whether some of the source images may have been moved, or maybe some are available in Internet archives?

  • The Apollo 7 Prime Crew - GPN-2000-001160
  • Apollo 7 Launch - GPN-2000-001171
  • As7-3-1545
  • Apollo 7 and 8 Crew in the White House. - GPN-2000-001686
  • Apollo 7 photographed in flight by ALOTS (68-HC-641)
  • Saturn IB Second Stage with open LM adapter
  • Apollo 7 Florida
All done except the last, which I've swapped for another image.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons page for the following image doesn't use the Description/Date/Source/Author template that the rest of the images have. (I'm not sure whether this is an FAC requirement, but it would be nice to be consistent.)

  • As7-3-1545
That's done. That's everything I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the image captions look good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks for the changes. Wow, Apollo 7 photographed in flight by ALOTS (68-HC-641) is an especially impressive shot. Moisejp (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They did good work back then.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aza24

[edit]
  • Will get to this in the next few days or so. Just glancing through the review thus far, I would agree that the TV picture is preferable to the rocket – otherwise such an argument could lead to every Apollo article with a rocket as the lead image, which is surely not ideal. Aza24 (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the delay, been getting distracted, comments below:
  • You have some dup links, including Launch Complex 34 which is not marked by the link checker because of a redirect
I think I've caught them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added to lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead image caption and lead itself mention how it's the first crewed American spacecraft broadcast – just checking, can this be changed to "crewed spacecraft" or did the Russians do this first or something?
The Russians had done it on Voskhod 2 in 1965, the mission that Leonov spacewalked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there something "Block II" can link to?
I don't see anything. The Apollo command and service module discusses all this but not with a separate section.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused by calling Cunningham "a civilian" – does this just mean he didn't have prior astronaut experience? If so, having it before his birthdate is odd placement, almost makes it seem like he was a civilian when he was born, and well, everyone is
Clarified. He was not on active duty in the military like most astronauts of his group.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the triple apposition in "He learned later that the astronauts' supervisor, Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, another of the Mercury Seven, who had been grounded for medical reasons, planned..." really works, or flows well. I would say that maybe something like "He learned later that the astronauts' supervisor, former Mercury Seven astronaut and Director of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton, planned" (is the "grounded for medical reasons" even necessary?) Happy to discuss this further
I've cleaned that up some. Introducing him as the astronauts' supervisor is needed to explain his discussions with Schirra in flight. I would keep the medical. I'd rather explain stuff to the reader than leave it unexplained.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that include the middle name or a middle initial for everyone but Ed Givens?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice to gloss Tom Jones
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure what "water egress training" is, is there something this can link to? Although I'm guessing it is some underwater simulation akin to pressure in space or something
I've explained it, finding no obvious link.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pad Leader" vs "pad leader" – not sure which is correct but both are used at the moment
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would think that the specialty of fiberglass may warrant linking
Done.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • "Schirra wanted to name his ship "Phoenix". However, NASA refused him permission." seems redundant since you just said that NASA forbade this, perhaps rephrase? This may just be me so feel free to disagree
I've massaged that a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you want to link "Cape Kennedy Air Force Station" in the text
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing a word in "would work, were concerned it might fire "?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead, I've converted into miles as well as km.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the logic in using GMT for the landing but EST/UTC for take off? Would link GMT like the others as well
Changed to UTC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kranz can have just their last name used the second mention
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the kind words and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. And thank you for your great work here (as always). Support - Aza24 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Ajpolino

[edit]

Hi Wehwalt, I have no particular knowledge of the American space program – or indeed anyone's space program – so I'll be playing the part of "uneducated reader" and reviewing prose. With that in mind, thanks for the interesting read! Feel free to disregard some suggestions as uneducated:

  • Lead - "Determined there would be no repetition of the fire, the crew spent long periods of time monitoring the construction of their Apollo command and service modules (CSM)" - this sentence hits my ear odd, and I had to read it twice to understand your meaning. I might rephrase to "Fearing a repeat of the Apollo 1 fire, the crew..." or "Determined to prevent a repeat of the fire,...".
Done the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "mission was a complete technical success" → "mission was a technical success" (I don't think readers will doubt the success' completeness)
The problem with that is the connotation of "technical" alone. For example, saying it was technically a success argues it really wasn't much of a success.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that readers would misconstrue "was a technical success" as "was technically a success". But as you wish. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "In part because of... after the flight." has a lot of ideas in it and slows me down. I'd omit "which broke out in irritable words from the astronauts." Folks will get that information later.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - I think there's a bit too much information on the astronauts' backgrounds here. Is it relevant to Apollo 7 that Schirra was born in Hackensack in March? I'd trim out the birth and hometown stuff (interested readers can find that at the astronauts' articles) and just mention their experience that was relevant to selection.
I've cut out the hometowns but I think the dates of birth are relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding birthdates, I quite like how you set it up at Apollo 14 where you give the age at the time of flight. I realize that's basically the same information as birthdate, but not being much gifted with mental math, I find the age-at-the-time a bit easier to digest. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've made that change.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "Cunningham, a civilian... joined the U.S. Navy in 1951..." - pardon my ignorance. I thought "civilian" meant not part of the armed forces? Is there a different meaning intended here? If so perhaps that should be clarified...
This was altered per Aza24's comments to make it clearer that he was a civilian at the time of Apollo 7. I did not think it was worth mentioning he was the second civilian in space, after Neil Armstrong, as that seemed name-dropping with no good reason for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "He learned later that... if he gained medical clearance" - this is another choppy sentence that is challenging to parse. Perhaps you could cut the "He learned later that the astronaut's supervisor" part and just say "Deke Slayton, Directory of Flight Crew Operations and another of the Mercury Seven, planned, with Schirra's support, to command the mission if he gained medical clearance."
This has also been altered per Aza24's comments. I do consider it important to establish Slayton as the supervisor given his role in the flight.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is an easier read. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "The mission would... the lunar missions." it's a bit weird to read "mission" twice in one sentence. Can you reword one?
Reworded.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - "to reduce and eliminate..." seems redundant?
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - Seems there's no need for a paragraph break between "prime crew of Apollo 10" and "Ronald E. Evans, John...".
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and personnel - I don't know what "Block II" means. Perhaps there's a wikilink you could add?
Aza24 made a similar comment so I've added some info.--Wehwalt (talk)`
The new context makes it readable even if I don't know the term (is it a generation of spacecraft? Block I came first, Block II is its successor?), so that's good.
  • Preparation - "Schirra had originally had" → "Schirra originally had"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Once the simulators... 12 or 14 hours a day" - long sentence leaves it unclear if the support crews or the original crews are the ones working 12 or 14 hours a day. Perhaps you could split it into two sentences? Second sentence: "Even with the help of..., they often worked 12 to 14 hours a day."?
I've split it a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still find it confusing for the same reason. But perhaps that's just me. I'll leave it up to you.
I've taken another shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "They often had to... spacecraft testing" the last clause reads a bit choppy. Perhaps flip to "They often had to remain through the weekend to participate in training and spacecraft testing, rather than returning to their Houston homes"?
Again, done a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "... 2018 article on Apollo 7, Schirra..." → "... 2018 article, Schirra..."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "One of the reasons the... this was one of the thing changed..." → "One reason the... this was changed..."
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Fires were set aboard... pre-launch procedures." Can you split this into two sentences. I'd suggest "... within the CM at launch. This would be..."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Guenter Wendt had been leader of the... → "Guenter Wendt had led..."
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparation - "Wendt remained... Guenter went'" - could this be split into several sentences as well? It's a bit confusing. Perhaps "Wendt remained... Apollo program. When he departed... launch, Cunningham said, "I think Guenter's going." Eisele responded "Yes, I think Guenter went." Also I'll admit I wouldn't have caught the joke if I didn't read it above. Nobody likes an explained punchline, but I think you'd be forgiven if you pointed it out in a footnote. Your choice, of course.
Split and footnoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardware - Could you move the wikilink for S-IVB up to the first (non-infobox) use? I had to scroll down to figure out it's a rocket stage (I think).
OK. I have, but I've kept the existing link since the new link is before the S-IVB has really been described to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardware - Could we get another wikilink for Saturn IB at the first use in the article (there's currently just one in the infobox)? By the time I got to this section, I wanted to know what it was without scrolling back up...
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hardware - "The Saturn IB was used after the close of the Apollo Program to bring crews to Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project." sounds like a factoid unrelated to Apollo 7? Or I'm totally misunderstanding it. Could you clarify or remove?
Since Skylab and the ASTP used the Apollo CSM, I think it's relevant enough to include. We aren't really discussing the 1B a lot so I think it's not trying the reader's patience.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - SPS is used in the first sentence, but defined about six paragraphs later.
Massaged.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - no need to wikilink Launch Complex 34 again, you just told me about it 1.5 paragraphs above.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - "Apollo 7 was still equipped..." → "Apollo 7 was equipped"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - "enter space, and, as it proved, the only astronaut..." → "enter space, and the only astronaut..."
I prefer the existing phrasing because your suggestion makes it unclear if Schirra was the only one ever, or the only one as of Apollo7.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - "Although the astronauts were confident it would work, were concerned it might fire in an unexpected manner," - looks like there's a "they" missing in there?
That has been changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - you define the acronym "RCS" but then don't use it again.
Now used again.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - Is there any more context you can give on what led to the day 8 complaints ("On Day 8, Eisele radioed...")? Did a test fail? Did this relate to too many things being scheduled (as the quote above hints)?
I've explained a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights - same with the following day. Do we know what went wrong with the test to prompt Schirra's outburst?
Here too.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both are much clearer!

Done. All-in-all, an interesting read. After a bit of prose cleanup, I hope to see it with a shiny bronze star. Ajpolino (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I've had another read through. I left a couple more comments above, but I'm happy to support this FAC regardless. Ajpolino (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am looking at your further comments and will consider them and possibly post more/make changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Guerillero

[edit]
  • Note b should probably not have the brackets around here
Polished.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • Can we get a better source for "From the Earth to the Moon"? The fios source gives me IMDB vibes
I didn't see anything wonderful on this, but it's really being used for very little, very basic information.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Log of Apollo 7 needs more information about the source
I am looking for a reliable source on this--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a legitimate documentary, and may be independently notable, produced in 1968. So as to be consistent with Flight of Apollo 7, produced by one of the networks, I've moved it to EL.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for the creator's name, the date, etc. in the citation but this works too. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kraft (2001) is unused
Removed, it had been used but the material was removed per a comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • ibooks, inc is probably not the publisher of a 2003 edition of a book
The copyright page says in relevant part "An ibooks, inc. Book/All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. Distributed by Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020/ibooks, inc./24 West 25th Street New York, NY 10010"--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is bizarre --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christine Toomey is redlinked
Unlinked.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The press kit is in both the bibliography and external links
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Doing now - Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC) Spotchecks not done – although I see no need to for a trusted editor[reply]

Biblio
  • I've updated the ISBNs myself in light on the odd ISBN conversation at FAC talk :)
  • There's some weirdness going on with Fallen Astronauts: Heroes Who Died Reaching for the Moon, there's no 2017 edition I suspect you meant the 2016 one, which definitely does exist. If so then "Bibson books" (which should be "Bison" books btw) is an imprint of the University of Nebraska Press so (and the In the Shadow of the Moon... is actually published by Bison too) I checked google books, amazon and world cat which just say University of Nebraska Press so I suspect that's the safer bet.
I think the 2003 edition? Changed in all cases to U of N Press and linked--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at my copy. The title page says "Springer/Published in association with Praxis Publishing Chichester, UK/Praxis" with "Springer" and "Praxis" being logos. The copyright page says "Copyright, 2006 Praxis Publishing Ltd." which I suspect is what I went by. I'll change it to Springer Publishing, and will go back to the other Apollo articles when I get a spare moment and change them.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the weirdness with some publishers above I checked the other books on Worldcat/googlebooks/amazon and found no issues
Refs
  • Just a minor thing, in your four National Air and Space Museum refs (4, 7, 9 & 86) you have "Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum" vs just "National Air and Space Museum" and "airandspace.si.edu" in one but not the others
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • nasa.gov in 87 but NASA in 3?
Standardized too.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to have them. I think I've got them all above.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (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) 10 December 2020 [44].

Battle of Vrbanja Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small-scale skirmish between French UN peacekeepers and Bosnian Serb forces in Sarajevo in May 1995 in the middle of the UN hostage crisis. I usually steer away from Bosnian War articles because I am probably too close, having served there in 95-96 with the Brits, but this one, being French, seems at arm's length from my experience, although we did discuss it during pre-deployment training as it occurred just before we got there. Notably, the young captain that led the French assault is currently the French Chief of Defence Staff. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

Formatting and consistency

Quality and coverage

  • All sources used appear to be good quality, reliable sources.
  • There are many additional newspaper sources that could be used, but scanning through some of the more prominent papers omitted, I can't see any significant details or opinions that have been missed.

As a frequent and trusted nominator, I have not carried out any spotchecks. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias, all done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good from my side. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
Thanks as always, buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support by Z1720

[edit]

Here's a prose review.

Background

  • prompting the Commander, Bosnia and Herzegovina Command, British Lieutenant General Rupert Smith I assume Smith's title was "Commander, Bosnia and Herzegovina Command" but I had to read this sentence a couple of times to figure that out. Can it be replaced with "Commander of Bosnia" or would that be inaccurate?
It was his title, but put "of" instead of the comma. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • EF-18A EF-18 is wikified but the A is not. The whole model name should be linked.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

  • As the UN RRF deployed in June and July, it became clear that the UN was moving towards a peace enforcement stance rather than a peacekeeping one, with the British sending artillery and an air-mobile brigade including attack helicopters, and the force not painting its vehicles white or wearing blue helmets, as was usual on UN missions. This is a long sentence and I would split it.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the VRS commander, General Ratko Mladić that... Comma after Mladic
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alain Juppé and by Defence Minister Charles Millon Remove this "by"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 30 August, at the commencement of NATO's Operation Deliberate Force, a combined air and ground campaign against the VRS, the UN RRF... The use of commas and asides in this sentence are confusing and I would restructure. Perhaps, "At the commencement of NATO's Operation Deliberate Force, a combined air and ground campaign against the VRS, the UN RRF fired 600 artillery rounds on VRS artillery positions around Sarajevo on 30 August. The UN RRF played an important part in ending the siege and in forcing the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table later that year."
Great suggestion. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2017, now Army General Lecointre, Was Lecointre made an Army General from this event? If not, I would just remove "now Army General" as it is trivia information that doesn't pertain to this article.
One of the reasons he became pre-eminent was this battle, and providing his rank now is pertinent information to his current role. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my first round of comments. Please ping me when you are finished. Good luck! Z1720 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done thus far, Z1720. Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prose, Round 2

  • I'm struggling with understanding how In 2017, Lecointre, now an army general, was appointed French Chief of the Defence Staff is relevant to this article. Was this battle cited by someone (the PM, scholars, etc?) as a reason he received this promotion in 2017? If so, a short blurb should be included in the lede and in the body of the article to clarify this.
The France 24 article make it clear he became recognised as a "hero" with the French Army because of this battle, obviously his fame contributed to him rising to the top of the French military. Do mean I need to state this explicitly? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the force did not painting its vehicles Change "painting" to "paint"
Mike fixed this when he did the c/e. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review

  • You have FREBAT4 all capitalised, but reference 1 only has the first letter capitalised. Any reason for this?
It was the standard acronym for all UN battalions in the former Yugoslavia, KENBAT (Kenya), BRITBAT etc. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • six protestors were shot on the bridge by Bosnian Serb snipers. Two women, Suada Dilberović and Olga Sučić, died as a result pg 221 of Ref 2 doesn't mention Sučić, nor could I verify how they died. What is used to verify this information?
Dropped this source, introduced Maksić and changed the content to match. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vrbanja Bridge was located in no-man's-land between the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine; ARBiH) and the Army of Republika Srpska. I couldn't find mention of a "no-man's land" in the source. What in the source is used to verify this info?
Added ref and cited. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • prompting the Commander of Bosnia and Herzegovina Command, British Lieutenant General Rupert Smith, to request NATO air strikes against the VRS. Rupert Smith is not mentioned in the cited document (although there is a Leighton Smith.) What information from the source verifies the quoted statement? Are these "Smith"s the same people?
No they are not, one is a Brit, the other a Yank. Added an additional source to cover this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • With bayonets fixed I couldn't find info in the sources that verified this. What is the sentence used for this statement? For the rest of the sentence, I verified the info in ref. 1 while some of the sentence's info is not in ref. 9 (like the soldier's name) so why is ref 9 cited here?
Cited the bayonets to the France 24 article. fn9 says that the French infantry platoon stormed back and recaptured one end of the bridge, which is a partial verification of "the French marines overran a bunker held by the VRS, at the cost of the life of one Frenchman, Private Jacky Humblot". We already know that there were bunkers at both ends of the bridge. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UN hostages were released two days later ref 14 is used for this statement, but I couldn't verify it in the source. What did you use to verify this information?
Replaced and slightly reworded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other internet sources, as well as the Corwin book source, were also checked and no problems were detected. I could not find online copies of the other books, but I will keep looking. Please ping me when you are finished. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I'm finished, Z1720. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article's promotion to FA. All my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

I'll take a look at this. Hog Farm Bacon 23:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak French? That translation for the Biegala looks a little weird, and Google Translate suggests "The Day the French Peacekeepers Fought Back" for me. Hog Farm Bacon 23:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only understand basic German and Serbo-Croatian. I'm not sure I did that translation, but mine says ""The day when the French peacekeepers rebelled" or possibly the last word might be "balked", but I'm happy to go with yours. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the French assault, elements of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ARBiH) opened fire on the VRS-held observation posts, accidentally wounding one French hostage" - Not clear from the lead if ARBiH was acting independently or in concert with the peacekeepers
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2017, Lecointre, now an army general, was appointed French Chief of the Defence Staff" - Is this really particularly relevant to the lead?
Definitely, it was a defining incident in his career, and he is now the head of the French armed forces. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with if you're designating times by am/pm or the 24-hour system.
Whoops. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 05:20 on 27 May" - Is there a way to rephrase this? The current wording almost makes it sound like it's a different day, but it's really less than an hour after the sentry posts were taken, so it seems to me that calling out the day a second time isn't necessary
Quite right, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNPROFOR is never glossed in the body
Doh. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so that they would be harder to attack and so that it would be more difficult to take UN personnel hostage" - Nitpicky, but can this be rephrased to avoid two "so that"'s in the same sentence?
Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Sandahl really belong in the infobox? The prose doesn't mention him taking a particularly active role in the fighting.
I figure he was the CO of the troops that were taken hostage and that did the assault, and that he must have given the orders for the operation even if he didn't do any fighting himself. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass. Hog Farm Bacon 05:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, all done thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • The first paragraph has "It began after the VRS seized ..." followed by "Upon seizing the bridge, the VRS took...", which is a bit repetitive. I think you did it this way because the long clause in the middle means that ", and took ...", which would be a natural way to start the second sentence, is a little hard to parse. How about moving the location -- "crossing of the Miljacka river in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina", to the first sentence? That might shorten the second sentence to the point where you could join it to the third without the repetition.
Great idea, see if what I've done is an improvement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the VRS took twelve French peacekeepers hostage, two of whom remained held at the bridge as human shields: suggest "were held" or "remained at the bridge, held" or "were kept at the bridge, held" -- it took me a moment to realize that "remained" without the comma didn't imply that the other ten were also held at the bridge for some period.
Tweaked, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the first paragraph of the background should tell an uninformed reader which of the two combatants was the besieger and which the besieged.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French responded by sending a platoon...: Suggest qualifying "The French" since we've just talked about Chirac's reaction; perhaps "The French command in Bosnia" or whatever would be natural.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the ARBiH snipers hit a French hostage but hit no VRS soldiers? No change needed if so, or if it's not known; just checking.
Yes, it wasn't helpful, but I doubt it is clear who shot who. In most cases during the siege, "sniper" is a euphemism for some guy with a rifle taking potshots at civilians. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account of Amaru's death seems out of place chronologically; wouldn't it make more sense to mention it before we talk about the conclusion of the firefight?
Good point, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • asked for a truce and under the threat of killing the French hostages seems an incongruous pairing; perhaps "negotiated" or "obtained" or "forced", rather than "asked"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second French soldier held as hostage: suggest "held hostage at the bridge", since there were ten other hostages.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The UN hostages were released two days later: all 377? Or 387, I guess, counting the additional ten French hostages?
There was actually a series of releases, and this was just the last one. I've reworded this since you looked at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the commencement of NATO's Operation Deliberate Force, a combined air and ground campaign against the VRS, the UN RRF fired 600 artillery rounds on VRS artillery positions around Sarajevo on 30 August. It's a bit awkward to have the date so far from the thing it dates ("commencement"). How about "On 30 August, at the commencement..."?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything in the sources about French public opinion or reaction?
Good point. I couldn't find anything about this battle specifically (that may be buried in some French newspaper), but found a source and added a para on French public opinion about military intervention in Bosnia and its relationship with French official policy. Will that do? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Mike. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The fixes all look good. Concise, clearly written and informative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: , this now has three supports (two of which are from non-Milhist members), image and source reviews. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom once Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana is promoted? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Peacemaker67, go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Next in line - back soon! Pendright (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings PM! My comments here are minor; some might even border of the nitpicking side. Anyway, here they are.

Pendright (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Lead:[reply]

  • The Battle of Vrbanja Bridge was an armed confrontation which occurred on 27 May 1995 between United Nations (UN) peacekeepers from the French Army and elements of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) at the Vrbanja Bridge crossing of the Miljacka river in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the Bosnian War.
You night wish to breakup this long 53 word sentence. In any case, consider these changes to the sentence. ->
The Battle of Vrbanja Bridge was [the] an armed confrontation which occurred on 27 May 1995 between [the] United Nations (UN) peacekeepers[,] from the French Army[,] and elements of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) at the Vrbanja Bridge crossing of the Miljacka river in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the Bosnian War.
Broke up the sentence and added some punctuation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VRS seized [the] French-manned United Nations Protection Force
Consider adding [the] definite article.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A platoon of 30 French peacekeepers led by then-Captain François Lecointre subsequently re-captured the bridge with the support of 70 French infantrymen and direct fire from armoured vehicles.
"then-" and "subsequently" don't seem to add anything essential to the meaning of the sentence?
then- foreshadows the information that he is now an army general, removed "subsequently". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • VRS casualties were four killed, three wounded and four captured. Following the battle, VRS forces were observed to be less likely to engage French UN peacekeepers deployed in the city.
  • VRS -> here the abbreviation is not preceded by the definite article, but it is previously?
It varies depending on how specific I am being. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • Vrbanja Bridge was located in no-man's-land between the besieged Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Armija Republike Bosne i Hercegovine; ARBiH) and the surrounding Army of Republika Srpska (Vojska Republike Srpske; VRS) during the 1992–1996 Siege of Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • To be consistent, add the definite article to begin the sentence.
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semicolon after Hercegovine -> For what it's worth, a comma is generally used in this situation.
OK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a comma between ARBiH & and.
I think I've done this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semicolon after Republike Srpske -> same as above?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In March 1995, while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was planning a new strategy in support of [the] United Nations (UN) peacekeeping
in support of [the] United Nations (UN)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the UN hostages taken by the Bosnian Serbs, 92 were French.
Would the ethnicity of the remainder be of interet to readers?
Maybe, but they were of a lot of nationalities, there were dozens of countries in UNPROFOR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French:

  • The first evidence the French UN troops received that something was wrong at [the] Vrbanja Bridge
Add [the] definite article as above
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 05:20, [the] company commander[,] Captain François Lecointre, unable to make radio contact with the posts,
(a) Add [the] definite article as above (b) Add a comma after commander to set it off.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

  • as were the four VRS soldiers captured at [the] Vrbanja Bridge
add [the] definie artile as above
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 30 August, at the commencement of NATO's Operation Deliberate Force, a combined air and ground campaign against the VRS, the UN RRF fired 600 artillery rounds on VRS artillery positions around Sarajevo.
(a) Change the "a" to "the. (b) The first clause does not transistion well into the second one?
Not sure what you mean, artillery fire is part of the ground campaign? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the battle, [the] VRS forces were observed to be less likely to engage [the] French UN peacekeepers deployed in the city.
Add [the] definite articles
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I've got all of these Pendright, just wasn't sure about one or two. Thanks as always! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: In the interest of time, I’ve made two copyedits to clear up the items to which (I think) you refer. Please feel free to undo or substitute. In any event, consider this my support for the nomination. Regards! Pendright (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2020 (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) 10 December 2020 [45].

John Neal (writer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A child laborer cheating backwoods customers on the waterfront of a bustling New England city and later smuggling contraband blankets during the War of 1812 grew up to be a productive, athletic, outspoken, and quarrelsome lawyer with remarkable influence on 19th-century literature, art, and feminism. His is a truly unique story. I addressed every issue raised in this article's first FA nomination, but it got archived for lack of any support or opposition. After the first nomination was closed I made considerable changes to the article for clarity, flow, and comprehensiveness, so I'm curious to hear from reviewers. I now bring it forth once again. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review the article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Images are either so old that they are in the public domain, or else released under an appropriate free license (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • The "Firsts" section includes noteworthy accomplishments but it would be better to cover them in prose, in the relevant section (i.e. when discussing the rights of women speech, mention that Neal was one of the first to advocate women's rights, in section on art criticism mention that he was a pioneer, etc.). Otherwise it comes across as WP:TRIVIA (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially after perusing WP:TRIVIA. All of the firsts are already included in prose elsewhere in the article, so I deleted this section. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Thank you for finding that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24

[edit]
  • Marking my place, will get to this in the next week or so. Some initial drive by comments:
  • I would link diction and colloquialism, especially if he was so important to their use
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few duplinks – you may want to install this script to easily identify them
Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed duplinks except in cases called for by WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Repeated links. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your citations are inconsistent, Fleischmann 1983 and Neal 1869 have years in the citations but Lease and Lowell do not for example (thankfully this can be quickly fixed by going to "advanced" near the top of the source editor screen, and then clicking on the magnifying glass on the far right, and doing search for "{{sfn|Hawthorne|" "replace with "{{sfn|Lease|1973|}}" although it may be more tedious for bundled refs...) now that I'm looking closer it looks like you're putting the author and year in the same sfn instead of {{sfnm|Pattee 1937b||1p=22|Lease||2p=70}} really it should be {{sfnm|Pattee|1y=1937b|1p=22|Lease|2y=1972|2p=70}} Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do here, so I need a little more help if you can afford it. I had been following the citation format you recommend until I found that citations like the one you picked out causes errors when written as you wrote it out. It seems the problem may be in having two works by one author in the same year. What I could do is change each citation like "{{sfn|Lease|p=1}}" into "{{sfn|Lease 1973|p=1}}". Would that meet FA standards? I've combed through Template:Sfn and Template:Sfnm and can't find any solutions there. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado suggested I break out all the sfnm citations into multiple sfn citations in the "{{sfn|Lease|1972|p=1}}" style. This would unfortunately create pileups of 2 citations in 69 places, 3 citations in 14 places, and 4 citations in 1 place, but it would allow me to be consistent in the author-year appearance of the citations. Any thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common issue so no worries. The easiest and standard solution is to create an "a" and "b" year, so like "{{sfn|Lease|1973a|p=1}}" and "{{sfn|Lease|1973b|p=1}}". This should solve the issue if I understand it correctly? Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that hasn't solved the problem. As you can see in the example you copied and pasted into your original comment above, one of the sources in that sfnm citation already has a year letter (Pattee 1937b). All of my sources have a ref= parameter that matches the citation, which is the way I've found to work around the problem of including year letters in sfnm. For authors who have only 1 work in my sources list, I use just their last name as the ref parameter, as in "Lease." For authors who have more than one work in the sources list, I use "last name year" as the ref parameter, as in "Fleischmann 1983." For authors who have multiple works in the same year, I use letters, as in "Pattee 1937b," or for magazines, "Neal December 1824." I like to think it is consistently inconsistent, which to me is consistent. Plus it is the only way I've been able to get all sfnm citations to link to my sources. If you still think I should change it, what do you recommend? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the issues and have fixed them accordingly, let me know if I messed up anywhere... Aza24 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed. Thank you so much for not only figuring out the problem I kept experiencing but for going through the article and making the complete update yourself. I really appreciate it. When I checked, every citation still links to the appropriate source. Let me know if you see other issues with this article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking, if I may) Yes, excellent work, Aza24. I have made a further edit to use the simpler sfnm syntax for concatenations of multiple single-author+year callouts. --Mirokado (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! I just checked all the sfnm citations and they all still link to their sources appropriately. Thanks for simplifying the code, Mirokado! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Do you have any more comments to share? It looks like the sfn/sfnm issue is resolved. I appreciate you bringing that up. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe it is and thanks Mirokado for spotting that simplification. I see below this review has received much attention and rather than nitpick on the prose I think I can help more by doing a formal source review. I'll do spotchecks as well since this is your first FA. My schedule has finally cleared up so I'll be able to do both in the next few hours. Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Doing shortly - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks mostly good formatting wise, two main issues
  • ISBNs should be consistent, ISBN 13s are prefferable (they begin with a 978) and should either have all dashes or none have dashes (with is preferable). You can convert ISBN 10s (ones that do not begin with "978") to ISBNs 13s with the converter; the converter does the dashes to, though if you need to convert ISBN 13s to ISBN 13s with dashes you can just convert them to ISBN 10 and back again.
I like consistency. I just converted all ISBN10s to ISBN13s and removed the dashes. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locations are inconsistent, sometimes you have "City, State" and other times "City, [abbreviation of state]" should standardize to one of them.
I like consistency. I spelled out all state names, though I left Washington, DC as-is since it is so seldom referred to as Washington, District of Columbia. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiorelli has an OCLC here
Good point! Added. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for combing through the sources! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - Pass
[edit]

Doing shortly - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 306 is good but if you look at the google book there is actually more than one page 29 so perhaps this should be better clarified in the reference
The link brings up multiple publications that are all packaged together as one Google book. Two of those publications are in my sources list and both link the same Google book. I just added a postscript parameter to both listings that I think clarifies this. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that seems like a reasonable approach. Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the first American to establish a public gymnasium in the US" having trouble verifying this; note f says he was the second so why is this listed as "first" in the lead?
I just reworded note F for clarity. That note summarizes citation 7. Citation 7 is 4 pages showing that all the gyms in the US preceding Neal's were either established by Germans and/or not open to the public. Hence my wording both in the lead and in the biography section that Neal was the first American to open a public gymnasium in the US. I think the rewording I just did should make that more clear. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, well in any case it looks better now I think
  • 81, 184, 293 are good
  • I want to check more but many of the books don't have urls, would you be able to email me scans or copies of:
    • Lease 1972, p. 159.
    • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152.
    • Sears 1978, p. 93.

? (note, I may have to email you back first before it lets you send scans/pdfs/images) - Best Aza24 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have copies of Lease 1972, Fleischmann 1983, and Sears 1978, as well as a scanner, at home, so I'd be happy to send that to you. Let me know how to do that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to Preferences: User Settings, under "Email options" you can allow other users to email you. After this I can send you an email and you can respond with scans of the pages. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Send me an email when you get a chance and I'll respond with PDFs. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lease 1972, p. 159 (ref 95): b & c are good
  • Lease 1972, p. 159 (ref 95): a – not seeing "from the late 1820s through the 1830s"
You're right. I think this is the result of earlier trimming. I just looked back through the three sources cited in the first two sentences of that paragraph, then reworded them and rearranged the three citations to match the rearrangement of claims. I'll look at your other comments below in a little bit. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lease 1972, p. 159 (ref 95): d – eh is a little weird for lack of mentioning the actual books but the implication is there so it's OK
  • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152 (ref 232): a, b, c are good
  • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152 (ref 233): is good
  • Sears 1978, p. 93 (ref 96): a & b – not convinced this page covers an assertion that his "tales were pivotal in shaping the relatively new short story genre"
Agreed. After looking back at Sears 1978 p. 93 while fixing the issue you mentioned above with "from the late 1820s through the 1830s," I reworded the sentences that use refs 96a and 96b. I think those parts of the article are more accurate now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this spot check! The article is more accurate now. Let me know if you find anything else or need me to send you any more scanned pages. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, pass for spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891

[edit]

Will take a look as the week marches forward. drive-by first:

My interpretation of WP:LEDECITE tells me that I should retain citations only for "material...likely to be challenged," which I am interpreting to include only the superlatives, so I have made that edit. What do you think about that interpretation? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's cited in the body, citations aren't needed, but it doesn't technically hurt to have them. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", John Neal is the first author to use "son-of-a-bitch" in a work of fiction" interesting, but you only mention it twice in the body, and once as a quote. Does it merit a mention in the lede?
As a superlative illustration of Neal's pioneer role in colloquialism that also illustrates his nontraditional brand, I think it belongs in the lede. Thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • standardize between US and U.S.
The only uses of U.S. I see are in a quote and a book title, so I consider the use of US the standardized. Is there anything I'm missing? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More in-depth stuff to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a quick look! I look forward to more comments. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 any additional comments? (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hopefully coming tomorrow. I'm not in the right mindset to review prose at the moment, though you will see me editing. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saving the lede for last
  • You can link Portland, Maine on the first mention in the body
Don't mind if I do! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of ""clear intellect, and no little self-reliance and independence of will"" i'd recommend "a woman described by Elizabeth Oakes Smith as having "..."" or something like that
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to financial constraints," left because he couldn't afford school or to supplement their income, or both?
Good point! I think my rewording makes that more clear. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passing off counterfeit money" i'd link
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "magazine's second-most prolific – albeit unpaid" second most prolific unpaid contributor, or just the second most prolific?
Good point! I think my rewording makes that more clear. What do you think? I'll look at more of your comments later. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • o Neal "cast about for something better to do—something, at least, that would pay better; and, after considering the matter for ten minutes or so, determined to try my hand at a novel." I was disoriented when the quote went to "my hand" because I had no idea he was being quoted until that point. That's something I think could be handled better.
I think Neal's characteristically wandering and experimental style is to blame here. I trimmed the quote to make the statement more direct. Do you think the typical reader would have an easier time reading that sentence now? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seventy American novels had been published" what defines an 'American' novel?
Fair. I think my rewording of this sentence clears that up. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and according to him, the catalyst was a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?"" It's still unclear to me where he went to until the end of the paragraph, for a reader (at least like me) it would be better to have that upfront in the para.
I see what you're saying. What I'm trying to get across is that the consensus among scholars is that the Pinkney affair and other tribulations put Neal in a state where he was emotionally ready for relocation and just needed something to nudge him to anywhere in particular. Neal's own recollection doesn't put much weight on the forces driving him from Baltimore, but he and the scholars agree that the dinner party gave him the idea to go to London. I think the rewording I just made clears that up without going into undue detail. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I appreciate the comments! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your changes look good to me
  • "when William Blackwood asked Neal to become a regular contributor" do we have a date?
We do! I just wove that in there. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just did. Thanks for the recommendation! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but the back-and-forth over manuscript " maybe "a back-and-forth over manuscript", because there's not been a mention of it yet, but that's really a cosmetic change, no big deal either way
I like that change, so I just made it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Neal was set adrift in London once again with no source of income" date? Not sure 'once again' is needed, but no big deal if you are wedded to it
Date added. Instead of removing "once again" I removed "set adrift" since the thing that happened again was being without income, not being set adrift. I think this sentence is clearer and more informative after these changes. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet having failed to achieve international fame with the new great American novel" I think this could be clarified a bit, maybe "Yet having failed to achieve international fame and write a new great American novel" to clarify that none of his books yet were "the great new American novel", not sure that's the best phrasing though.
I get what you're saying. What do you think of the rewording I just made? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Residents posted broadsides" how, exactly would they post "the side of a ship, the battery of cannon on one side of a warship"?
Ha! I'm talking about Broadside (printing). Wikilink fixed. Thank you for finding that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and uplift new literary voices" maybe "promote" instead of 'uplift'? I think it sounds more encyclopedic
I went for "encourage" instead to reflect not only the promotion to readers but the encouragement he offered new writers through direct correspondence and published praise. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • looking better
  • "an honorary masters degree" might be worth a link to Masters degree, not really sure*
Sure! I didn't know what one was until I was 22, so if I'm representative at all, there should be more people out there like younger me. Done. I wikilinked honorary degree while I was at it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • :after receiving inheritances in 1832 and 1836 that dramatically reduced his need to rely on writing as a source of income: worth mentioning from who?
Why not? I added "from two paternal uncles." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I Wikilinked both boxing and fencing while I was at it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • did he do anything during the Civil War?
None of the scholarship I've read mentions anything about Neal and the Civil War but a historically challenged public statement from Neal about General Neal Dow's capture and an anecdote about Neal getting angry at a local Confederate sympathizer at a barber shop. Neither fit the focus of this article, I think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are ranked with those of" by who?
Fleischmann 1983 (pp. 144-145) says, "Neal reached his highest literary achievement in roughly a dozen short stories, which critics have ranked with the productions of Hawthorne, Poe, and Melville." Lang 1962 (p. 207) says, "The editor seriously believes that "Otter-Bag" is as good as Kipling (whatever that may mean to those who have their fingers on the feeble pulse of critical judgment), and that of "David Whicher" is even better than "Otter-Bag." He knows no short stories written in America before these two which are equal to them, with the exception of Irving's "Rip Van Winkle" and "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." So the article's current wording mimics the Fleischmann quote but adds Kipling given the Lang quote. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thereby guaranteeing the existence of an American national literature by ensuring its economic viability" can we really attribute the insurance of "an American national literature" to solely Neal himself? I'd be curious to see what the source says here, if it isn't too much trouble.
What I mean to say, and what the source says, is that this was his intention. I reworded that to make it more clear. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice
  • "As an American literary nationalist, he called for "faithful representations of native character"" for this article, I've thrown together a pitiful stub at American literary nationalism that you may care to link here (also a stub that you might be able to improve? A mention (maybe a paragraph) of Neal could probably be added there?)
Thank you so much for starting American literary nationalism! This has been on my to-do list because a good article on this topic could do a lot to summarize much of what Neal was pushing, especially earlier in his literary career, and the context within which he was operating. I will certainly add what I can to improve that article when I get a chance. I Added Wikilinks to the article in the lead and in the body.
Agreed. Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a total number of short stories he wrote?
The closest to a total number I've seen by a scholar is the average of one per year 1828–1846 figure. In published bibliographies of Neal's works, his short stories are always grouped with sketches and/or essays, so it's never super clear exactly how many of his works are considered short stories. Thus I am reluctant to count them and put a number on it myself. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inspired by The Spy" maybe "inspired by Cooper's novel The Spy" to make the connection clearer?
That makes sense. Added "Cooper's." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Neal is the first American art critic" would it be better as "was the first"?
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his immediate geographic sphere was in the 1820s" I'm a little unsure what is trying to be conveyed here
The sentence is a little clumsy. The "geographic sphere" phrase refers to his patronage and guidance to local Portland artists, but since that is discussed three paragraphs later, I decided to just cut that part out and shorten the sentence in question. It should be easier to read now. --23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Neal is also notable in this period for his attempt to raise the status" so was he unique in this?
Yes! I reworded this sentence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reynolds's approach" might be worth clarifying what the approach was to?
Agreed! Added "to art criticism." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an unsourced sentence in the poetry section?
Good catch! I just added a citation for the bibliography from which I pulled those titles. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto for 'drama'?
Another good catch! Citation added here. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and wrote to his friend that it" you should clarify who is being written to, I think
Fair. Done! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the new writers he covered" what does 'covered' mean here? Also, was it him or the periodical he edited?
Gotcha. Reworded. Also broke up that paragraph. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Neal is America's first women's rights lecturer" maybe "was"?
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He supported female writers and organizers, affirmed intellectual equality between men and women, fought coverture, and demanded suffrage, equal pay, and better education for women." unsourced?"
My thinking is that everything in this sentence is elaborated upon in subsequent cited sentences in this section. Should I repeat a sample of those citations here or do you think it is ok to leave as it stands? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a bit of assumed knowledge about the women's rights struggle that I at least don't have. for instance, "crucial in bringing the field back into the mainstream" implies that it was mainstream than wasn't then was again after him-- is there somewhere you can link or clarify somewhow?
I see two issues here. One, "mainstream" is probably not the best choice, so I swapped that for "published discourse." Two, there's the context about the lull in published feminist discourse because of personal attacks leveled against Wollstonecraft and others. It went sort of underground into letters for a while until ushered back by Neal and others. I think the other changes I made to that sentence satisfy this question in a reader's mind without going into undue detail. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But he reached the peak of his influence" ?
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • per MOS:ELLIPSIS: "Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots"
I've replaced all instances of "word.... Word" with "word{{nbsp}}... Word." I also replaced all instances of "word...word" with "word{{nbsp}}... word." I think I am following MOS:ELLIPSIS correctly now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a time when "native American" nativist term referring" Is there a missing word
Two words are missing! Added. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "" forth goes General Jackson—or general somebody else" -> "General [Andrew] Jackson"?
Fair. Done. I think I would prefer "General Jackson," but that Jackson's article is Wikilinked earlier in this one, so I don't want to overdo the Wikilinking. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his childhood Neal adopted personal convictions against intemperate drinking that he maintained throughout his life," I think this could be phrased somewhat better but can't think of a way right now-- any ideas, perhaps "adopted personal convictions" could be expressed a bit more succinctly?
I split this sentence into two and reworded a little so that I think it's less clumsy. Let me know if you think it needs more work. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally! Didn't know this article existed. Decided to link directly to Moral_suasion#Temperance movement. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A really fascinating article, It's clear you've put a lot of effort into it. I think that's just about anything from me, though I may have a few follow up comments. As an aside, I think you should file a WP:REQMOVE to move this article to John Neal, because I think he's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the John Neal's, but that should happen after the FAC is closed. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think there's just one questionable thing in my latest round of replies above that could use one more follow-up from you about a sentence lacking citation. Thanks for bringing up WP:REQMOVEing the article. This article was at John Neal for most of its history but got moved to John Neal (writer) (a year or two ago?). I imagine someone made this decision because the breadth and quality of this one lagged for so long and it wasn't linked from many places for a long time, while over the years lots of other John Neal articles (mostly British soccer/football players) were created with similar primary-topic-indicating stats. In the last few months, this article has gained more indicators of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (most traffic, greatest number of articles linking it, etc.) But perhaps more importantly, this John Neal seems to me to be the one with the most lasting historical significance given the impact and breadth of his work and his significance in both the US and UK. So yes, I think I'll take up a move request after this nomination is closed! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better to me, I'm fine with no citation if it's sourced later. Happy to Support on prose, now. There are things I wouldn't do were I writing this article, but it works, I think, as it stands— and that's part of the beauty of Wikipedia, that people of all different backgrounds can work together. FN #288 doesn't point anywhere, just so you know-- that should be fixed. Cheesr, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that! I just added that citation. Fixed now. And thank you for the thorough prose review. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado

[edit]

I hope to have a look this weekend. Just to get started:

  • Rights of American Indians: please resolve the dab [[General Jackson|Andrew Jackson]]

--Mirokado (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you for finding this. I accidentally swapped the two phrases on either side of the pipe. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childhood and early employment
    • "At seventeen years old ...": this seems clumsy. "At seventeen years of age ..." for example.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and civic leadership
    • "... Neal became less active ...reduced Neal's reliance ...": no confusion of subject here, "his" would be OK for the second occurrence.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we add a sentence or so about his "book-length religious tract, One Word More"? Doctrine, motivation?
Since nothing else is mentioned of Neal's religion aside from his Quaker upbringing, I agree that this context is needed, so I just added that. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is good coverage of the evolution of his own religious faith. If it is also possible to add a phrase about the message or motivation of the book itself, that would also be good. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just added a little more about the book itself. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK now, thank you. Perhaps we can add "One Word More (1854) Full text" to the Selected Works section under Other works? It is an example of a completely different subject area from the rest. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Scholars tend to disregard the work, but I like your idea that including it in that section expands the reader's understanding of the breadth of his interests as a writer. That's why I included Portland Illustrated, which scholars also tend to ignore, though I am partial because I am a Portland native and it's the first of his books I read. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, fine now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Neal died on June 20, 1876 and ...": I think that sentence reads better with the full name: "John Neal died ...".
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Building a career in Baltimore
    • Is it possible to add a phrase about the Delphian Club, in the absence of its own article?
I could do that. I agree that since it doesn't have an article of its own, the club should get a little more context here. I added something; let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novels
    • Capitalise "The" in the title the New Englanders?
The "the" in Brother Jonathan′s title is not capitalized on the book's title page or in the academic bibliographies, so I think I should stick with the way it is now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is OK, the whole title including alternative is italicised as one, I missed that. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Seventy-Six is considered one of Neal's most readable novels to a modern audience" early in the section and "Rachel Dyer: a North American Story (1828) is widely considered ..., most readable for a modern audience": Neither of these are wrong, but when reading the second, I had to go back over the paragraph to check whether I had understood the first correctly. Stylistically, this is a repetition which we should try to avoid by rephrasing. In any case "for a modern audience" is probably better, so the first occurrence should be changed.
I totally see what you're saying here. Upon reflection, I think the first occurrence isn't that important, so I just cut it, which solves the problem. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art criticism and patronage
    • "favoring landscapes over history painting and focusing more on trades painting.": "trades painting" is not a term of art I am familiar with, neither does it appear in a simple google search as a term in its own right. It is reasonable to retain this if it appears in the reference. I think this is an aspect of genre painting so I would suggest linking to that: [[genre painting|trades painting]].
I see how "trades painting" doesn't really stand well on its own as a term, so I replaced it with "sign painting and applied arts," which pretty well encompasses what I meant by the term. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is much clearer, thank you. "I the interested reader" am left wondering what sort of things he was actually reviewing during that latter stage, so a phrase-worth of extra detail would do no harm. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I added a phrase here that I think may satisfy this curiosity about Neal's taste for trades painting. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better, thank you. The sentences have become rather long. I will comment further on this later. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just broke up the long sentence about trades painting and reworded the previous one a little. Let me know if you think this area needs more work. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not happy here, I'm afraid. I should emphasise that I don't quite believe the current content but do not know enough to be sure how to improve it.

  • Timing: "... but less the middle of the decade" is probably missing "by", but what I have been able to see in Orestano suggests that mentioning the late 1820s may be more appropriate: several mentions of 1828 and "by the late 1820s landscape and even still life were being mentioned by Neal. In his manner of doing so, Neal seems now to be capable to discuss and challenge ... Reynolds." (p. 134). This is partly a question of nuance, or the beginning and end of a process, so I may have missed something (the source is not an easy read). Correction or clarification and perhaps extra source references are needed.
You're right about my typo. I'll get that as I re-write this section again for the other reasons we are discussing here. What I interpreted as a mid-20s shift was Orestano's mention (pp. 132-133) of Neal's Blackwood's articles over 1824 and 1825. But Orestano spends many more pages on Neal's essays in 1828 and 1829, as you correctly point out. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genres: The mention of "signs, chairs, furniture decoration" in Orestano (p. 133) is referring to the background of Chester Harding, a portrait painter Neal praises. The mention on p. 141 relates similarly to the experiences of landscape painter Charles Codman. It is clear from that, that Neal appreciated sign painting and so on, but this is in the context of his enthusiasm for landscapes. On Orestano p. 139 there is the "bitter" quote from 1829 criticising portrait paintings. I don't think we get the right idea if we list landscapes, portraits, sign painting, and applied arts all together without any differentiation. I'm seeing a change in enthusiasm from portraits to landscapes and an awareness of the importance of other genres. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate you looking into Orestano's piece yourself. Your comments have prompted me to re-read it myself. This world of art criticism history is on the edge of my focus area and understanding here, so I really appreciate the extra pair of eyes on this section. After the re-read I agree that I was misinterpreting Orestano's mention of "signs, chairs, furniture decoration." Really, Neal is special in the late 1820s for giving so much airtime to portraits (qualified by the "bitter" quote you mentioned and what Orestano called a "eulogy of portrature" on page 141), landscapes, and engravers. That's how I'm reading it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the current version of this section? Aside from the timing and genres issues you mentioned, I reordered two of the paragraphs and reworded a couple other things in that section in the hopes of flow improvement. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is now much better and flows well. Mentioning engravings is a good improvement. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "Neal's approach to art criticism" seems incomplete without a mention of his opinion of portrait painting since he becomes concerned about the honesty of the artist anxious to please the customer rather than the art itself. It seems that he expressed his desire for "unadulterated truth" particularly clearly when talking about portraits. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just added an extra sentence that speaks to the gap you just described. Because the two mentions of Reynolds were so far apart at that point, I broke out his second mention into an extra paragraph. Let me know if you have more thoughts on this section. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very well constructed insertion, avoiding disrupting the narrative or adding undue weight. I changed "wikt:prerogatives" to "priorities". Thank you for your patience during what became a long series of comments! --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your word replacement and I appreciate it. This section of the article is more accurate, comprehensive, and readable thanks to your diligence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style
    • "of his American predecessors/contemporaries": this is bad style :) . Please fix by saying " and " or whatever instead of "/".
I agree. I think "contemporaries" applies well here on its own, so I just removed "predecessors." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By contrast, he felt that "to succeed..., I must be unlike all that have gone before me" and issue "another Declaration of Independence, in the great Republic of Letters"[148] by exploiting distinctly American ...": This sentence conflates the quotes with how he realised his intention. Please split, for example "... in the great Republic of Letters".[148] He did this by exploiting ...".
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! The article is better for it. Looking forward to more. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have copyedited, including using {{"'}} and {{'"}} for typographic spacing of nested quotes, and:

Thanks for the {{"'}}s. First time I've seen that and I like how it makes the article easier to read. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art criticism and patronage
    • "... though he didn't receive this recognition ...": "did not" is preferable for an encyclopedia article.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drama and theatrical criticism
    • "but he never achieved this goal": "... that goal" would be better for something well in the past.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feminism
    • Missing close of quotation, probably after "... I went to work."
Good eye! Corrected. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He cofounded the ... and co-founded ...". One or the other!
Again, good eye. Corrected --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Militia tax
    • please find a suitable wikilink for this or add a brief explanation.
When I looked I couldn't find a good matching Wikilink for the Militia tax, but it is referred to as a poll tax, so I added that link and spelled it out the rest of the way. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, thank you. I think you could repeat the link for militia here, since the other link is along way away and here it is the main focus of the section. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Feminism section, I am very pleased indeed that I started reviewing this article on the day that Kamala Harris was projected to be the first woman Vice-President Elect of the United States! As you quote Neal saying: "I tell you there is no hope for woman, till she has a hand in making the law". I've now got down to Banruptcy law. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. These comments have been so helpful, so I look forward to a few more about the last bit of the article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No further requests for the remaining sections. A good choice of quote box in the Scattered genius section. I will comment about the citation handling and read through the whole article again a bit later. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I love that preface and I think it goes well in the reflective Legacy section. I appreciate you taking more time to consider the citations and to give it another read-through. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about sfn etc to come. Everything else mentioned above here is now OK from my point of view. and I will read through the article again a bit later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sfn and friends are OK now after Aza24's update. While looking at those, I noticed that citation details for (now) Wells & Carson 2012a were repeated for each chapter cited. One way of improving that is as done in another featured article, Carl Nielsen. It is much easier to show by doing than specify in detail, so I did it. You are welcome to revert or change further if you wish. There may be other similar cases. And while doing that I noticed:

I like this change! To be consistent, I applied the same change to the 2018 DiMercurio book. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That handles those citation dates better too. --Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter title for Watts 2012 does not include the chapter number, as for the other citations.
Oops! I just added that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various citations in which the |editor2-* parameters appear before the |editor1-* parameters in the source. Even though the resulting display is still correct, I would change that to avoid confusion. --Mirokado (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Since it looks like all the concerns you raised have been addressed, do you support this nomination or do you want to leave your comments as just comments? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through a second time, I will post again in an hour or so. --Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: "for over fifty years he supported female writers and organizers": did he also support female painters? "writers" here is rather specific. Two female painters are mentioned later, one he courted, the other he sat for.
I haven't seen any evidence of Neal focusing any of his work on female artists, whereas, whereas Fleischmann (1983, p 145) makes a point of showing how his literary criticism in The Yankee disproportionately supported women. So I think that sentence in the lead is appropriate as written on this point. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK, thanks for the confirmation. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal claimed his lifelong struggle with a short temper and violent tendencies originated in public school": perhaps "in the public school" here, since we have just mentioned the particular public school he attended.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two years later he took over as editor for the last issue.": This sounds ominous! Did he know it was going to be the last issue?
The article used to include a longer version of this story, but I trimmed it down during the first FAN. The story is essentially that Watkins, the editor, handed off editorship to Neal before leaving on the army tour described in his article, assuring Neal all he had to do was polish off the copy. Neal was dismayed to find he had to write most of it himself and that the magazine was also apparently on its last legs for many reasons, so Neal successfully released that issue, but was unable to keep it running any further. It's really something I ought to add to The Portico, but I think is too much detail here. So I just changed the wording to "he took over as editor for what ended up being the last issue." Do you think that sufficiently avoids the ominous tone? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is OK now. It would be good if you can update The Portico with that background when you have time. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. There are a few things from my research on Neal that I could add to expand that article beyond stub status. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pierpont's financial success with The Airs of Palestine": "with his poem ...", since the context of the paragraph is novels.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if he was present to negotiate.": subjunctive is better here: "if he were present to negotiate."
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He offered lessons in boxing and fencing in his law office.": So much more satisfying than the modern tactic of last resort: "challenge the law; if that doesn't work, challenge your opponent; if that doesn't work, bang on the table."
Agreed. Makes you wonder how much his law and athletics practices overlapped. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... would remain so for the following twenty years." Perhaps interesting to say what supplanted it? I've no idea.
The full quote is "Not until Cooper's Littlepage Trilogy (1845-1846) did the literature of the United States see a unified work of fiction remotely as complex, ambitious, and demanding as John Neal's expansive Brother Jonathan." There is no Littlepage Manuscripts, though there are articles for the first two of the three novels in that trilogy, but not the third. So I decided that naming the trilogy would not satisfactorily enrich the claim about Brother Jonathan, though I am second-guessing that now, of course. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do need something here, but I agree that our current coverage of the Littlepage Manuscripts does not justify a mention. This can be fixed later during the course of normal editing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it to "Brother Jonathan: or, the New Englanders was the most 'complex, ambitious, and demanding' American novel until Cooper's Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy twenty years later." I think the way I had it worded before just raises the question of what work 20 years later the article was referring to, so I think naming it is worthwhile even though the trilogy is not well covered yet by Wikipedia. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Being a Mainer, I didn't think of it. Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many scholars conclude that nation's most defining authors of the mid-nineteenth-century American renaissance earned ...": Can we omit "nation's"? This construction would need "... conclude that that nation's ..." and it would be better in any case to avoid the forward reference to "that nation" which seems redundant. Thus "Many scholars conclude that most defining authors of the mid-nineteenth-century American renaissance earned ...".
Agreed! Word deleted. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the second read though. All the above are quite minor, I look forward to supporting once they are dealt with one way or another. --Mirokado (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reading it through again. Let me know your thoughts on the two questions I posed above. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well written article about a relatively unknown American author with an astonishingly wide range of interests. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the coordinators: I think this article would be an excellent candidate for TFA on inauguration day (January 20, 2021), considering his early promotion of womens' rights and the inauguration of America's first female vice-president. The quote from Neal again: "I tell you there is no hope for woman, till she has a hand in making the law" --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "public gym" Why gym rather than gymnasium?
Good question. I originally used gymnasium throughout because that's the term used at the time and felt more appropriate here for an old-school Turnen facility. But because gymnasium can refer to many different things and whereas the article for what I'm talking about is under gym, I decided later to use the latter, though now that I'm looking at it, I realize that I have one image caption still using gymnasium. Writing this out now, I'm feeling inclined again to switch back to gymnasium and [[gym]]nasium. What are your thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neal's business failure had left him without enough "money to take a letter from the post-office,"[33]' It might be worth footnoting that in that era, recipients of letters were responsible for postage.
Agreed! I just added a footnote that I think makes this clarification. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal was able to pay his expenses while completing his apprenticeship and independently studying law." Somewhere, the term reading law should be used or piped.
I didn't know this article existed! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I just added the Wikilinked phrase in place of "apprenticed with a lawyer." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that he argued cases before the Supreme Court. Is there no more to be said about that? Like which cases, at the very least and their citations. Plus any known reaction from the justices.
Thank you for bringing this up! Looking further into it, I see that he was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court Feb 1823 and was involved in only one Supreme Court case, which he left to Charles F. Mayer and David Hoffman before he left for England. The case is Chirac v. Reinicker, which seems pretty marginal and doesn't have its own article, though it is redlinked from List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 27. And that is all to say that the current language isn't accurate, so I just changed it. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add the citation, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 280 (1826) after the case name and a comma. Did he argue it? You still say he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the scrutiny here since law is a bit outside my wheelhouse and Neal's law career is obviously overshadowed in the scholarship by his literary and activist careers. The scholarship says he was paid a retainer as one of five counsel on the case but that "little appears to have been done" on it before he left Baltimore. This tells me I should nix the language about the case and focus instead on his more clear status as having been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court as the accomplishment worth mentioning in this sentence. Let me know if you have further thoughts on this. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning, or it might not. It's very common today for a lawyer to be a member of the Supreme Court bar. I am, and I've never submitted a document or argued a case there. Thirty years ago it cost fifty bucks, and it's a nice certificate. Don't know how it was in 1823, I'm giving you this to show it can sound like a bigger deal than it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention that I appreciate your lawyer's perspective here? I can find no evidence to suggest that being a member of the Supreme Court bar in 1823 was a bigger deal than now, except for Neal's indignation that the Cumberland Bar in Maine suggested in 1827 that they would block his membership though he was a "Counsellor of the Supreme-Court of the United States for several years." Given that he earned admission precisely 3 years after joining the state bar, which I understand is the requirement to this day, I am inclined to believe what you suggest that this is not worth mentioning after all. I just deleted that part of the sentence in question. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see they now charge $200!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DUPLINK, I decided to link Quaker on first appearance and then leave it unlinked in subsequent appearances. I decided to keep Society of Friends linked even though it goes to the same place because SOF is a different phrase that many who are vaguely familiar with Quakers may not understand. Do you have thoughts on that? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the next year and a half, Neal made his living writing for Blackwood's." Citation needed.
Good call. After looking up where I got that impression, I decided to reword that language to stick a little closer to the claims made in those sources. I added citations to match. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! Thank you for noticing. I just fixed that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I added a footnote at the term's first occurrence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to Activism, will handle that and the remainder either later today or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm looking forward to more comments. I appreciate you taking the time. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Having just completed an FAC on another writer, I thought I’d take a look at this. It’s certainly comprehensive, but a few nitpicks.

  • I think we discourage refs in lead, since the facts are to be found in the main text. Are yours all necessary there?
Eddie891 raised a similar question (above) and what I said was that my interpretation of WP:LEDECITE tells me that I should retain citations only for "material...likely to be challenged." I judged the likely challengeable material to include only the historical superlatives. But given Eddie891's response to that, plus yours, I think I'll go ahead and remove them all. Every claim in the lead is cited in the body. Funny thing is, I intentionally omitted lead citations until I added them in response to a request in the peer review previous to this article's first FAN. Gone now! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps consider a short gloss for coverture, it seems a pity to have to follow the link to realise its significance,
Sure! It's anything but a household word. I added a short phrase following two of the 5 uses of the word in the article. Let me know if you think more is needed. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's for sure on my plate. But first I'm occupied with preparing a new list article for John Neal's bibliography. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • itinerant penmanship instructor, watercolor instructor— avoid repeat of "instructor"
Sure! I replaced the second instance with "teacher." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • contraband —link?
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • eleven new languages —perhaps lose "new", the languages aren't new, even if he has just learnt them
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tend to follow the old convention of treating England as synonymous with the United Kingdom, which looks increasingly archaic. For example, when you write as derivative of their English predecessors... advance feminist issues in the United States and England... into published discourse in England and the US, are you specifically excluding Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Please consider where England/English could advantageously be replaced by UK/British.
You got me. I blame it on my reading of Neal's 19th-century works. I went through and reassessed every use of "England" and "English," changing as necessary. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virginian, Georgian, Scottish, Penobscot Indian—perhaps link to Scottish English, to avoid confusion with Gaelic?
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need to have the state included in Portland, Maine so many times? No other Portland is mentioned, so confusion seems unlikely
Good question. Being a native Portlander myself, I have gotten in the habit of adding the state name whenever I'm talking to someone not from or physically here because, since Neal's time, Oregon's Portland has come to overshadow Maine's so much in the national consciousness. I went through the article with your comment in mind and deleted ", Maine" in a few places, but I think only instances in which ", Maine" is used earlier in the same section. Let me know if you have more thoughts on this. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholar Fred Lewis Pattee... Scholar Alexander Cowie and others. — this looks odd to me. It's treated as if it's a title or qualification, but we aren't actually told what their relevant expertise is.
I've struggled with this issue a bit as I improve this article. At some point these names stood without any explanation of why their opinion should carry any weight, which seemed problematic to me, especially since so few of them are Wikilinkable. So I added "literary historian," but one of the cited authors told me in a phone call that's not the right phrase for them. So I just replaced "scholar" when used in a title-like way with "American literature scholar." I think that fixes the issue you raise here. Let me know if you have more thoughts on it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to read through the article and make comments! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rachel Dyer bit was just a suggestion, and I refrained from throwing Portland Harbour into the Maine/Oregon mix. All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog the Mild! This being my first successful nomination, I appreciate knowing how the bot works. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [46].

1989 (Taylor Swift album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC) and TheSandDoctor[reply]

With this monster album, America's Sweetheart turned into a fully-fledged pop machine, churning out hits after hits. I tend to dislike manufactured pop, but this album was different: the aesthetics, the irresistible beats, and most importantly, the sharp, witty lyrics that seem to be out of league for the heartless top 40.

After two failed FACs, with the biggest concern regarding thoroughness of research, I have done a(nother) rather exhaustive review of the existing literature and reorganised the whole article. With the help from TheSandDoctor, the article has seen improvements in sentence structures and cohesiveness. I am aware that I have another active FAC at the moment, but I believe that it wouldn't go against the rule since this FAC is nominated by two editors. Hoping third time's the charm, and looking forward to comments and concerns, HĐ (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is there any critical commentary on the album cover? (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info on the album's cover and artwork, HĐ (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. I do not post comments by the end of Saturday, then please ping me. I have participated in the past two FACs and the peer review. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current peer review which is about a very different musician and genre of music. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was initially confused when reading the caption for the "I Wish You Well" audio sample. I would clarify that the "She Drives Me Crazy" sample is what really "exemplifies the influence of 1980s music on the album". I do not think it is entirely accurate to say that for the song itself. Something about the current phrasing seems off to me.
  • I still have a question about the caption. I thought "I Wish You Well" used a "She Drives Me Crazy" sample, but the new caption says that it served as a point of inspiration for the snare drums in the song. I interpret this as two different things entirely. Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Hmm, Swift told Rolling Stone that the song did start as an interpolation of "She Drives Me Crazy", but the end product on the album is (what I think) a completely new song that was only inspired by it. Had the song really sampled "She Drives Me Crazy", it would appear on the credits in the liner notes, HĐ (talk) 04:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I was confused because the prose says Antonoff used the sample for the instrumentation and sent this sample to Swift to re-record. I had assumed the sample remained in the song when I first read this. Would it be helpful to add a brief part about the sample not ending up on the final version of the song? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once this part is resolved though, I will be more than happy to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I've added a brief sentence to clarify, which I hope would clear things up. I'll try my best to reach out to your PR in the earliest time possible, HĐ (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience, and apologies for the back-and-forth about a relatively minor part of the article. Everything has been cleared up for in the article. Take as much time as you need with the PR. I'll be leaving it up for as long as I can because I am trying to be better at using PR as a way to improve an article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this sentence: (The sessions took place at her homes in Los Angeles, New York City, Nashville, Rhode Island, and London throughout September 2014). Do you we know the exact city in Rhode Island? It just seems strange to mostly mention cities except for one state.
  • Hmm, I think that it was held at her mansion in Watch Hill, but the source cited does not mention it... (Funny though, sources for the Reputation secret sessions indicate the location of Watch Hill precisely, while for the 1989 sessions they only mention "Rhode Island"). I'm still trying to find an appropriate source, but if I couldn't then I'd just leave it as that, HĐ (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me, and since the information is not available, then the sentence should be kept as it currently stands. It was just something I noticed while reading the article so I was just curious about it. I agree that a source that explicitly connects a specific Rhode Island city with 1989 would be needed to change this. It should be good as is. Aoba47 (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. I have not thoroughly looked at the images, media, or citations, but I believe that all of the references are reliable and high quality for a featured article. I also think that the article uses an appropriate amount of academic sources. Reading the article made me go back to listen to the album and I had a great time with it so that is always a win lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for reviewing the article! Tbh the album is one of my first CDs that I ever own, and one of the first that made me listen to albums instead of singles, so it has a very special place in my heart. HĐ (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Looks great to me. No issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing the article, Hawkeye7! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from SatDis

[edit]

Have previously left comments on the Blank Space single from this album and was impressed with the quality of the article. Will start leaving comments soon.

Lead

  • I hate to bring criticism, but a couple of sentences in the lead are a bit confusing and I feel they need clarification or simplification.
  • 2014, through Big Machine I don't think the comma is needed here.
  • The comma was added by a GOCE editor. I'm not sure though, having a comma is fine for me but I think I'll leave it to others to consider
  • Swift's long-standing status as a country artist was met with media skepticism. It took me a few reads to understand this. Can it be reworded to express how the media was skeptical that her primary genre or her sound was shifting?
  • ... and named her fifth album after her birth year. I feel the "and" here makes it seem like the two points should be related. Seperate the sentences?
  • Hmm... she was inspired by the 1980s to name it after her birth year. Maybe a comma would do?
  • shaped the album's synth-pop sound characterized by heavy synthesizers, programmed drums, and processed backing vocals Split this as well. Maybe "sound. They added typical characteristics of the genre such as heavy synthesizers..."
  • I don't think the sentence is bloated to begin with. I mean, wouldn't something like "A is B defined by C, D, E" better than "A is B. This B is defined by C, D, E"?
  • Swift wrote the songs inspired primarily by her personal life surrounding past romantic relationships, which had been a trademark of her songwriting. Maybe "Swift's songwriting for the album was primarily inspired by her past romantic relationships. Writing songs about her personal life had become a trademark of hers".
  • I reworded it to Swift wrote the songs inspired primarily by her personal life surrounding past romantic relationships, which had been a trademark of her songwriting.
  • aggressive marketing When I hear "aggresive", I think in-your-face, forceful and uncomfortable. Is that true of this campaign?
  • praised Swift's songwriting, which offers Maybe "Swift's songwriting for offering..."
  • Done
  • huge commercial success Can you replace "huge"?
  • I think it's safe to say it's a huge success. It's the biggest 2010s album by an American artist after all
  • I don't think the line about the cover album is essential for the lead, as I noticed it is mentioned in more detail later.
  • Fair point. Removed.

Apologies for the large amount of suggestions for rephrasing sentences (I'm by no means perfect myself). I would suggest reading it aloud and listening to how the sentences flow. I just think some of them are a bit overcomplicated - aim for clarity. I will be busy with work for the next few days, but if you found this helpful, I'd be happy to continue with the rest of the article soon. :) SatDis (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking your time reviewing the article! I have responded to some of your concerns—and respectfully disagree with some. Either way though, they are really useful to help perfect the prose and I appreciate that :) Looking forward to more comments, HĐ (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...2014, through Big Machine..." -- that comma is technically correct given the date format. It could be restructured to avoid it by splitting and rewording the sentence, but that would become overly cumbersome/choppy in my opinion. The skepticism bit reword looks good to me. I concur with @HĐ:'s comments overall. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with the revisions that have been made; the lead reads better now. I am fine with respectful disagreeance, because it means you both know the article really well and can vouch for it! I will leave some more comments in a few days if you are happy to wait. SatDis (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • The Background section reads really nicely.
  • The note for the ARIA accreditation is looking great.

Just a couple of suggestions but they won't affect my support:

  • It mentions her to be known as "America's Sweetheart" but the source says "she's been called...". Could the article say "Having been called "America's Sweetheart"? "Known as" makes it seem like everyone was calling her that.
  • Reworded
  • Can you make sure sources such as "Taylor Swift's 1989: A Track-by-Track Breakdown" italicises 1989 as it's the album title? And song titles having both quotation marks here "Taylor Swift goes 80s bubblegum on new single 'Sweeter than Fiction'" - "Sweeter than Fiction"
  • I'm not sure if 1989 should be italicised in link titles, and as someone told me, the double quotation marks for singles i.e. "Sweeter than Fiction" should be single quotation marks because the title is in double marks already, HĐ (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to say on the article. Well done, it's a fantastic read. I apologise I don't have more detailed comments, but I can tell the article has been meticulously written and referenced. I especially like how detailed the transformation from country to pop is. I will support the review. I've enjoyed looking at "Blank Space" and 1989 now and I thank you for your review of my FA candidate. Good luck with the FA review. SatDis (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. Good luck with your FAC as well! :) HĐ (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

I made comments during one of this article's previous FAs, and have to say I'm impressed with the marked uptake in quality since then. I've read through the prose of the first 3 sections (lead, 'background', 'recording and production'), and the only thing that immediately jumped out at my was the following sentence in the lead:

  • "Martin and his collaborator Shellback shaped the album's synth-pop sound characterized by heavy synthesizers, programmed drums, and processed backing vocals."
I'm not sure "characterized" is the correct verb here. It just reads oddly to me. What about "Martin and his collaborator Shellback shaped the album's synth-pop sound while incorporating a heavy use of synthesizers, programmed drums, and processed backing vocals."
Reworded. Hope it sounds fine now :) HĐ (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from that, I found a couple of instances of non-numerically-ordered references, which I've fixed myself (suggest searching for more). I'll hopefully be able to review the rest of the article tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • 4 instances of Red in the first paragraph of this section. I think it's obvious to anyone reading the section that all of the first paragraph refers to Red, so consider varying it up a bit with 'the album', 'the record', or even just 'it'.
    Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Swift's lyrical inspirations during the album's conception came from her journal detailing her personal life, which had been a staple in her songwriting process.
A bit wordy. What about something along the lines of: "Most of the lyrical content written during the album's conception was derived from Swift's journal, which detailed her personal life and had been used as a staple in her songwriting process since her debut."
I like that. Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • which prompted her to write satirical songs besides her traditional fairy tale-like fictions.
Can we elaborate here on what's meant by "fairy tale-like fictions"? I'm assuming this relates to songs like "Love Story", but a sentence about how her previous work was inspired by fairy tales might be helpful here.
I rephrased it so that it's simpler and less clunky... because assuming all of Swift's previous songs are fairytale-like is kind of generalising, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

Could be more simply rewritten as: "The first, "I Wish You Would", sampled the snare drum of Fine Young Cannibals' 1988 single "She Drives Me Crazy", one of their mutual favorite songs."
The final song does not credit the sample though, that's why I wrote it that way, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

  • A writer in the 'Overview' sub-section says the album is "devoid of contemporary hip hop or R&B influences popular in mainstream music at the time.", and writers in both 'Critical reception' and 'Legacy' compliment it for its "avoidance of contemporaneous hip hop and R&B crossover trends". But the 'Songs' sub-section here says "Blank Space" is "set over a minimal hip hop-influenced beat". Consider revising one way or the other.
  • Interesting. The general consensus is that the album is pure pop, but "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood" employ (what critics describe as) hip hop beats. I'm thinking that this "hip hop" element is not hip hop per se, but in the veins of hip hop. Still figuring out how to better convey that, HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, fairly sure you can just normalise "[F]unky electronic music" and "[E]very day was a struggle." to just "Funky electronic music" and "Every day was a struggle. ..." You can do so as long as changing the quote's capitalisation doesn't alter the meaning of the quote, which I don't believe this would do.

Title and artwork

Release and promotion

  • Nothing to complain about here.

Critical reception

  • In a 2019 retrospective review, Pitchfork's Vrinda Jagota found the album freed from the dramatic heartbreak on Swift's previous records, which shows that "everything doesn't always have to be so serious".
Not really sure what this means. That the album was free of the dramatic heartbreak found on Swift's previous records? Or that the album freed Swift from the dramatic heartbreak found on her previous records? Those are two very different things. Consider rephrasing/expanding.

Accolades

  • Nothing to complain about here, except for the inclusion of Pitchfork's "readers' poll for the 2010s decade." After researching the list, it seems Pitchfork Staff decided the top 200 albums beforehand, and all their readers could do was pick their top twenty of Pitchfork's predetermined choices. Hardly a comprehensive or even fair method. But, whatever... I won't oppose because of its inclusion.
  • I think there are some entries in the readers' list not included in the publication's selections (i.e. "Style" by Ms. Swift herself), so I'd choose to keep it, HĐ (talk)

Commercial performance, Legacy, Track listing and Personnel

  • Nothing to complain about in these sections.

Will continue this tomorrow, but don't expect to find any problems with the data-specific sections (charts/certifications/release history). Expect to support once all the above have been addressed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! :) HĐ (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding HĐ. I'm happy with the changes you made to the article, and am satisfied with your responses to some of my other points. I checked the rest of article (charts/certs/release dates), and it's all accurate. I noticed some of the latter Billboard references weren't archived. Since Billboard has developed a penchant for hiding most of its charts behind a paywall – example – I took the liberty of running the archive-URL bot. I hope you don't mind, since this has increased the size of the article by some 14kb. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this for promotion. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking time reviewing the article, and I absolutely don't mind the archive URLs :) And also kudos to TheSandDoctor as well! HĐ (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list because I feel quality of writing needs more review. I just looked over the "Title and Artwork" section and it's not a very cohesive narrative—it strikes me as being cobbled together from looking at sources without enough holistic attention. --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to reach out to some potential reviewers in the next couple of days. Thank you for your patience, HĐ (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

This FAC looks quite mature but given Andy's comment above and HĐ's invitation on my talk page I'm happy to happy to look at the prose. And it's an excuse to read some more about the amazing Taylor Swift! I was lucky enough to see her perform some of these tracks on the Reputation tour. Cost me a lot of money but worth every penny! I'll be back with some comments as soon as I can, and by mid-week at the latest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing about lyrics or the significance of the name in the lead? The album was a complete reinvention of herself as a singer, which the lead only touches on.
  • I feel like the name 1989 was a last-minute decision... Swift also has not elaborated in-depth on why she named it that way, but I think "Inspired by 1980s synth-pop" should be justified enough, HĐ (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She did call the album a "rebirth" for her, but connecting that to the title 1989 may be dubious (to me, at least) because apparently she did not explicitly indicate such connections... Either way, how about a sentence like Inspired by 1980s synth-pop to transform her sound and image from country-oriented to mainstream pop? The main inspiration here is 1980s synth-pop, after all, HĐ (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The album incorporates various pop and rock styles Which one? Red (the subject of the previous sentence) or 1989 (the subject of the article)?
  • Does Swift mention any mention any particular songs by Lennox or Gabriel that she liked or which inspired her? Thinking about it, I can sort of see a similarity between "Solsbury Hill" and, say, "Welcome to New York".
  • Scott Borchetta, president of Swift's then-label Big Machine, was initially dubious of Swift's decision. According to Wiktionary, this use of "dubious" is allowable, but I think "sceptical" (or "skeptical" in American spelling) or "doubtful" works better in this context.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This solidified Swift's vision of a coherent record rather than a mere "collection of songs" I think more can be made of this. If it wasn't then, an album as an individual, coherent work has become a key part of Swift's artistry and one of the things that sets her apart from most contemporary pop artists.
  • I think this justifies the cross-genre experimentation of Red mentioned previously. I think coherence is not Swift's strongest asset with some albums, but I'm open to suggestion on how this can be expanded because I'm out of ideas for now... HĐ (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Every few years the media finds something that they unanimously feel is annoying about me. Me, my character, the way I live my life, the way I talk, the way I react when I win stuff." That quote needs attribution otherwise it's just dangling there.
  • Removed the quote
  • The prose gets a little choppy in the "songs" section. To a certain extent this is unavoidable in an attempt to briefly cover the most important tracks without going into excess detail for the album article, but there's some room for improvement. Even just combining short sentences and varying sentence structure can help. (I made one edit here myself.)
  • For the "songs" section, I decided to not group the songs into thematic discussions, but rather follow the tracklist order to discuss track-by-track given that the previous "overview" section already discusses the overall style/theme of the album. Either way, I hope that it is justified, and I've trimmed a bit to make it somewhat more coherent, HĐ (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a lot of citations in mid-sentence which can hamper readability (eg, Swift hints at her desire to reunite with her ex-lover[46] on "How You Get the Girl"). Can some of these be grouped at the end of sentences or paragraphs?
  • Done
  • What does where an ex-lover of hers was staying in mean?
  • Removed and reworded
  • The academic Maryn Wilkinson What is Wilkinson's academic specialty? The reader should know if they're an expert on music or marketing or something else.
    Not 100% sure how to work it in at the moment, perhaps HĐ would, but her research is around film style and politics, with one of her focuses being American pop culture. (source) --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • positive reviews from contemporary critics,[9] with most of them acknowledging This use of "with" to join two parts of a sentence is discouraged.

That's as far as "Critical reception" for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • three million-selling albums within the first week of their release doesn't quite make sense, and "three million-selling" could potentially be confused with selling three million copies, not three albums selling a million each.
  • Done
  • and 1989 became the first album released in 2014 to sell one million copies avoid repetition of "became". "Was" will suffice here.
  • Done
  • the fastest-selling album since 2004 up to that point "up to that point" is probably redundant unless the caveat is that it was soon beaten by another album, in which case be explicit.
  • Done
  • the third highest-selling album of the 2010s decade in the US Do you mean third-highest-selling? Or that it was the third album to be the highest-selling? Also, "highest-selling" sounds odd to me; consider "best-selling".
  • Done
  • scholar Shaun Cullen as with Wilkinson, we should tell the reader Cullen's area of expertise so they can make up their own mind about the importance of the opinion.
  • Done
  • "at the cutting edge of postmillennial pop" following the release of 1989 "following the release of 1989" can probably be assumed from the context, which also avoids having the album name ending one sentence and starting the next.
  • Done
  • Is there anything to add on 1989's impact on Swift herself or its influence on her subsequent albums like Reputation, which continued the pop theme?

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added info on this, HĐ (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, @HJ Mitchell:, thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I believe I have addressed your concerns, and please let me know if there is anything left that needs to be resolved. On another note, I'm quite envious with you attending the Reputation tour. I wonder why Swift has not visited countries beyond the Anglophone countries and Japan since 2013's Red tour, but I hope she will one day... HĐ (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC); pinging @HJ Mitchell: again, in case there are remaining issues that haven't been addressed... HĐ (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay in returning. Support on prose, having tinkered with it a little bit today. I'm not comfortable giving a definitive opinion on comprehensiveness/thoroughness of research. Music is not my area of expertise. I'd be interested to hear from Nick-D if he feels his concerns from the previous FACs have been addressed. The article does now cite some of the journal articles he mentioned, which is a good sign, but there are questions I've asked above and I'm not 100% sure if these can't be answered because the source material doesn't exist or because they haven't been adequately researched. Obviously, if the answers aren't out there, the article is comprehensive (in that it reflects all the knowledge available in the source material). Btw, if you ever get the opportunity to see Taylor live, I'd highly recommend it. Hopefully the opportunity will come up post-Covid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I look forward to comments from other users regarding comprehensiveness and thoroughness of research. Best regards, HĐ (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

Not my area of expertise, but an interesting read. The following are suggestions only, just to show I've read it really. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Swift wrote the songs inspired primarily by her personal relationships, which had been a trademark of her songwriting.— I think that the subject/object relationship is unclear, perhaps Swift's songs were inspired primarily...
    Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she had been known for autobiographical narratives— Perhaps she had included autobiographical narratives
  • I think "she had been known for" is preferable as it highlights that it is a strong expertise of Swift that attracts praise and attention from critics and media alike. "She had included" is rather weak imo, HĐ (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • a publicized feud that received widespread media coverage— publicized seems redundant
    I agree. Done --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision came after talent manager Scooter Braun acquired her masters, which she had been trying to buy for years— Until I followed the link, I thought "she" referred to Scooter Braun, perhaps which Swift had been trying to buy for years
  • Tokyo, Japan —"Japan" seems redundant, at least to a Brit
  • I use a script which highlights possibly unreliable sources, and it picked up the two Medium refs , so I checked these. The Oral History seems OK, but Christgau's page had This account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules. Does this matter?
    Christgau is considered a RS as is cluepoint, so I am surprised about that "under investigation" header...at least we have an archive of it. I don't think it does matter given who wrote it (and the archived copy). What are your thoughts, HĐ? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Christgau had some personal conflicts with the site, but given his reputation as a reliable critic in music, I think the archiveurl should be fine (I'd also change the url-status do "dead"), HĐ (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, @Jimfbleak:! Definitely a messy affair. I second what HĐ says about hoping it all works out in the end and the right thing is done. I have added a couple lines about the subsequent re-sale and stating that she has begun the process of re-recording her first six albums; I think some mention is warranted given that the original sale is already covered in the section. Please feel free to tweak though, Jimfbleak and HĐ. I welcome your input. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Have I missed image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has not received image and source reviews thus far. I wonder how I can request for one. Regards, HĐ (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Top of WT:FAC, you'll see a section... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do the image/media review. The lead image is the album cover, under fair use, which is standard practice for album FAs and supported by an appropriate rationale. Two song excerpts are claimed under fair use; both are supported by detailed rationales and are used to support text that discusses their composition so I'm happy they satisfy the NFCC. All other images are freely licenced (self-published on Commons or verified via Flickr) and used appropriately. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Will do later today. Aza24 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no reliability issues
  • Archive links are much appreciated!
  • ref 234 is "hitparade.ch" while other refs from this site are "Hung Medien" – I would think the latter is preferable
  • The linking is really consistent throughout (thank you!) the only thing I see is that Ultratop and Reuters (168) can be linked
  • ref 117 has a Japanese title w/ English translation – the other "in Japanese refs" just have the english title
  • Unfortunately there's quite a bit of inconsistency with retrieval dates. As consistency is required for sources in FAs and retrieval dates are required anyways for sources without publication dates, I have to present you guys with a tedious task of standardizing them. It may help to do command/control f and search for "retrieved" which will highlight the references with them to make those without easier to spot. If it helps I've tried to collect a list of references missing them (see below), though I may have missed some"
    • missing for refs 2, 8, 10, 11, 17, 22, 26, 50, 77, 87, 89, 91, 92, 97, 100, 101, 105, 107, 116, 119, 122, 123, 124, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136, 139, 140, 143, 145, 146, 150, 161, 166, 194, 196, 206, 209, 214, 215, 227, 230, 231, 232, 235, 238, 241–247, 250–259, 274, 275, 284, 289, 292 + most of the amazon and itunes refs
  • Found no other issues. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Hello, thank you so much for reviewing the sources. I have added retrieval dates (hopefully to all of them) and re-format Japanese refs (with the exception of automatic Japanese ref for certifications). HĐ (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your initiative here, it looks like ref 2 is missing one still but that isn't enough to prevent a pass for this source review. I see this is the third attempt from you both; the can't have been easy, I applaud your dedication and persistence! Best - Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [47].

Candy (Foxy Brown song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above article is about the third and final single from Foxy Brown's third studio album Broken Silence (2001). It was produced by the Neptunes duo Chad Hugo and Pharrell Williams, and their frequent collaborator Kelis performs the hook. The lyrics are about cunnilingus, with one music critic describing the song as "an ode to oral sex". "Candy" was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews, and is the subject of academic analysis for how it represents black female sexuality. Although the song often appeared on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, only reaching number 48 on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart.

I would like to thank @UrbanJE: for their GAN review back in 2018. The article has gone through two peer reviews earlier this year, with comments from @Ojorojo:, @Moisejp:, @Homeostasis07:, @HĐ:, @SandyGeorgia:, and @SatDis:. I am looking forward to hearing everyone's feedback, and I will do my best to further improve the article. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Heartfox

[edit]
  • A minor hit in the US: This feels too vague (is there a particular source that says so?); maybe just say it was a top 10 hit on the rap charts.
  • Fair point. The "minor hit" phrasing is rather subjective as I could see another reader looking at the data and saying the song underperformed instead. I have adjusted the lead to be more objective and hopefully clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Billboard b ref link no longer links to correct page (Billboard is so annoying with all this I don't know why they redo everything every year it seems). You may want to change the c ref as well.
  • That is strange. I should have double-checked those links prior to the nomination. I have replaced Billboard b and c. For some reason, I am having trouble archiving the latter so I left it unarchived for the time being. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason the author isn't given for the Tidal ref? It does say "By Candace McDuffie" after the image.
  • July 2001a ref appears to have incorrect author

That's all. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for catching this. That was a very big mistake on my part. I have corrected it. I am going to re-examine all of the citations again over the weekend to make sure the data all matches up. Thank you again for looking through this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and I don't think the Associated Press is supposed to be italicized? Heartfox (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tables Will Turn" is described as the "subsequent single" from Broken Silence, but it's already stated that "Candy" is its "third and final single"?
  • A music video on YouTube does not necessarily mean "Tables Will Turn" was released as a single.
@Aoba47: you may want to change this. Heartfox (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you catching this. This was a hold-over from a previous draft before I found the source about "Candy" being the third and final single. I have replaced it with album track and track instead. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • single.[6][7][8] and -- supposed to be a comma?
  • I've always been kind confused if YouTube videos are supposed to be via= rather than publisher=. In this case I would personally use via= because YouTube isn't the publisher of the video (the record company is), and it could also be available on other services, and wasn't orginally published on YouTube. I guess technically you could also cite the video itself like liner notes are. Do you know of more discussion on this topic?
  • I have changed it to reflect that the record companies are the publishers and added a via YouTube tag. I would rather use the YouTube link than just cite the video without it so a reader can click on it and see the information is correct. Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was also played -- I think "also" is redundant because the sentence starts with "Along with"
  • The song was a part of -- The song appears on the
  • chart on September 15, -- chart dated September 15
  • in lyrics such -- in lyrics such as
  • the song was "an ode -- the song is
  • I don't believe it's being used inappropriately here but perhaps UDiscover Music has some possible NPOV issues given it's about Foxy Brown who was signed to Def Jam, which is owned by Universal, and Universal operates the website.
  • chart on September 15, -- chart dated September 15
  • The source says "cocky anthems" not "cock anthems" 💀
  • Curriculum professor Nichole A. Guillory likened Brown to a stewardess instructing a lover to examine her body. In the lyrics, "Licking my lips / And adjusting my tits and switching my hips", Guillory said the focus is on how Brown seduces a man with her body -- the lyrics in the second sentence could be combined with the first and the latter half deleted
  • How authoritative are articles by a contributor to Tidal? The text "Critics praised the single and it appeared on several Billboard charts" is eerily similar to the way this article appeared on August 29, 2019 (the date of the Tidal source) with the text "Critics praised "Candy" following its release and in retrospective reviews ... "Candy" appeared on several Billboard charts." I wouldn't mind if it was just sourcing her comments, but there may be some issue with citing hers that summarize others', especially when it looks to be from Wiki. It'd be nice if a more authoritative outlet did so.
  • Thank you for pointing that out. I have decided to just remove the source altogether. I added it in more so because it made a point that this was the third and final single from the album since a previous version of the Broken Silence article listed "Tables Will Turn" as a fourth single and I could find any sources confirming that. Aoba47 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he questioned the song's appeal to some audiences, specifically those of conservative radio stations, due to its sexual content. -- does this matter?
  • I believe it is important because it is a more critical part of the review so I wanted to keep it more balanced so that I am not just cherry-picking the positive aspects from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • went as far as to write that -- this is subjective

@Aoba47: further comments above. I tried to be as critical as possible. Heartfox (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the help, and it is important to be as critical as possible with these reviews (which is something I still need to continually improve upon). Apologies again for the two prior pings. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments (either by editing the article or my responses). Please let me know if there is anything else I can do, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support; just made two slight adjustments. Heartfox (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of the help. You have helped to catch some very silly mistakes on my part and to improve the article immensely. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

[edit]
  • Probably the date for the Broken Silence listening party should be helpful?
  • The song is about cunnilingus, and was described as an "ode to oral sex" by a music critic I think The song is about cunnilingus alone should be enough
  • The production and release section looks great!

Apologize for the delay, below are my further comments after having read the whole article...

  • I think the subject for In comparison to her previous funk-influenced albums, Brown adopted a more pop sound for "Candy" is unclear; probably In comparison..., "Candy" has a more pop sound should work better?
  • R&B category rather than pop I think R&B and pop are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as both genres have found their way to penetrate top 40 everywhere
  • That is a good point. The line between R&B and pop is very blurry, and there has been a lot of recent discussions on it, specifically how it is likely a race issue (at least in the US). Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • new wave and 1980s influences From what I know, new wave is a 1980s genre, so perhaps 1980s new wave influences would be more appropriate
  • I'm seeing quite a few quotes describing the track's lyrical theme. I'd consider rephrasing some of them
  • The Billboard review in the critical reception section is quite lengthy. I'd split it into two sentences
  • that helped to brighten I may be incorrect here, but isn't it supposed to be helped brighten?
  • The para starting with Reviewers have compared "Candy" to music by other artists, specifically Lil' Kim seems to fit better under the "scholarly analysis" section below
  • I can understand your point, but I'm uncertain if it fits there sine a majority of the comparisons are made by music reviewers rather than academics/scholars. However, I will be more than happy to move this paragraph if necessary. I wanted to explain my rationale for its current placement first. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it depends on the context. For example, Stephanie Smith-Strickland wrote that "Candy" and Lil' Kim's 1997 single "Not Tonight" helped to establish a trend in music explicitly about cunnilingus can be moved to the "scholarly analysis" section, HĐ (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: Thank you for the explanation! I understand what you mean now, and I agree with you. I went with your original suggestion, and moved the entire paragraph under the "Scholarly analysis" subsection. Aoba47 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the article reads just well, and I like the reference format used here. Once my concerns are addressed I'm more than happy to place my support! HĐ (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HĐ: Thank you for your review and your kind words. I've addressed everything except for the comparison paragraph placement, which I've left a response to explain my rationale. I'd be more than happy to move it, but I wanted to provide my point of view on it first. I've only recently started to use this citation style, but I prefer it as I find it cleaner and easier to read and navigate. Let me know if you have any further suggestions, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to give my support now. Listening to this song reminds me of simpler times when urban tracks by the likes of Usher or Rihanna dominated the '00s pop scene. Great work with the article!
  • P.s. if you don't mind, I'd appreciate if you could help out with my current GANs for the fourth and fifth singles from 1989. GA reviewers are few and far between these days so I'm hoping these won't take half a year to complete... HĐ (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review and support. I enjoy how this song is a great time capsule of that early 2000s sound. I actually prefer when the Neptunes produced music like this (with "I'm a Slave 4 U" being my personal favorite). I will pick up "Wildest Dreams for a review as it is the least I can for all your help. I'll see if I can get to "Bad Blood" as well, but I'll handle them one at a time. It helps that I'm very familiar with the songs and press coverage at that time period. Whenever I think of "Wildest Dreams", I cannot help but think of a YouTube video where Violet Chachki says she enjoys it even though she does not care for Swift lol. I've not been as active in the GAN space, but hopefully there will be ways to encourage more reviewers (ideally experienced ones) to participate. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07

[edit]

I reviewed this during the PR stage, where I found little to complain about even then. Will go through the prose with a fine tooth comb over the next hour or so, and will post my comments here. I don't expect to find much (from a quick glance at the lead), but figured it's only good manners to see this through to its conclusion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Aoba. I see from your contributions page that you've started one of the aforementioned GA reviews. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, so please feel free to take as much time as needed to complete my mostly minor copy-edits. As suspected, it's a brilliantly written article. Will be happy to support once the following has been changed and/or responded to:

Lead

  • reaching the top ten in the Hot Rap Songs chart.→I'm not sure, but I think "on the Hot Rap Songs chart." is correct usage here?
→"Candy" appeared on multiple soundtracks in the early 2000s; it featured in the television series Dark Angel and the films Friday After Next and The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Production and release

  • Hugo and Williams co-wrote the single with Juan Manuel Cordova and Brown who is credited under her legal name Inga Marchand.→reads like it's missing a comma after Brown.

Music and lyrics

  • which HipHopDX's Nomatazele further defined as dance-pop.(ref) In MTV News, Shaheem Reid said... → are the source authors here notable enough to have their name included in the prose? You could just rephrase to "which HipHopDX further defined as dance-pop.(ref) MTV News said, etc.
  • acts as stewardess through her instructions to a man to examine her body.→"acts as a stewardess, instructing a lover to examine her body."

Critical reception

  • Some sections use s' while others use s's. Suggest unifying throughout.

Scholarly analysis

  • questioned if Brown was promoting further the stereotype that→"questioned if Brown was advocating a stereotype that"
  • Gender studies scholars Jennifer Esposito and Bettina Love→This is from the third paragraph, but both of these scholars are mentioned in the first paragraph of this section. So maybe add the descriptive term there?
  • Thank you for catching this. The third paragraph was originally in an earlier section, but was moved down. I forgot to moved the descriptive term up to where the two scholars are now mentioned for the first time. This was a pretty big mistake on my part so thank you again for noticing it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I thought this was an informative and well-written article. Will be happy to support soon. Hope you keep well in these troubling times. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Homeostasis07: Thank you for your kind words and your help. You have helped to improve the article a lot by catching some of my silly mistakes. Please let me know if anything can be improved further. I am trying my best. Thankfully, I have not been impacted too much, especially when compared to others. I recently did a COVID test, and got a negative for the virus and the antibodies so I was happy about that. I hope you are staying safe as well. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review

[edit]

Hi Aoba. I hope you've been well. Sorry I missed the second PR, but it looks like you got some good feedback from other editors. I probably won't have time to do a content review, but I will do an image review for you. Moisejp (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I am trying my best, and no worries. You have already helped me a lot, and I am very grateful for all of the feedback I have received in the second PR and in this FAC. I hope you are doing well too. I cannot believe it is already December! Aoba47 (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba. Yes, already December, 2020 is winding down!

The image and media review passes.

  • Foxy Brown Candy.jpg, the cover image, has a proper fair-use rationale.
  • FoxyBrownCandyAudioSample.ogg also has a proper fair-use rationale. At 14 seconds, it is under 10% of the song's length of 3:45.
  • Foxy brown-03-mika.jpg and Kelis.jpg are properly licensed in Wikicommons and captioned.

It all looks good. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shahid

[edit]

Have more to read, but just looking at the reception section now, these are my comments:

  • "Bret McCabe criticized Brown for not having a strong enough voice..." - I wouldn't necessarily call it "criticised" but rather "dismissed Brown as/for not having" or even "argued that Brown's voice was not strong enough..."
  • "Although critics praised "Candy", Nadine Graham said it received a more negative response from the public; she wrote that "the streets hated it" - "a more negative" sounds awkward to me, especially in view of the quote. My suggestion, "Although critically approved, "Candy" did not fare well with (or: was negatively received by") the public; Nadine Graham went as far as to write that "the streets hated it".
  • "she criticized it as shallow in comparison to Broken Silence's more personal songs" - I'd write, "considered it shallow in comparison to the other, more personal songs in Broken Silence."

For now, Shahid • Talk2me 12:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going on (now Production and release):

  • "Cordova has writing credits on five other tracks from Broken Silence..." - why is it relevant here? Well if you think it is,I think the list of songs is a little too much information.
  • I think it is relevant to point out that Cordova is a frequent collaborator with Brown for the album, and not just for this one specific song. I have removed the list though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following its release, 'Candy' was often featured on early 2000s soundtracks, appearing in the films Friday After Next (2002) and The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) - were these two films the only ones where it appeared? If yes, then remove often, or at least change it to several. If no, then add something like "among others" at the end of the sentence, or change "the films" to "films such as".
  • I originally used "often" because the source says the song was an "early-’00s soundtrack staple". However, when doing further research, I could not find any other soundtracks with this song so I have used your suggestion. I wish there was a database to look up a song and find what media it appears in, but I can only find the opposite (i.e. looking up the media to find the song). Aoba47 (talk) 17:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "artists's" - I think the s after the apostrophe is redundant in plural noun possessives.

More to come, Shahid • Talk2me 15:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not really sure what a "Multiculturalism professor" means - looked up Nichole A. Guillory's name and she is an associate professor of Curriculum & Instruction at Kennesaw State University. "Curriculum professor" would be better, although it means that she is a professor of education at the end of the day. Anyway, I'd just call her a scholar as I can't see how her field could be more easily defined.
  • That is a good point, and thank you for bringing it up. I have used "Curriculum professor" instead of just calling her a scholar because I do not think the more general wording would be as helpful to readers since scholar could be used to described a multitude of different people and occupations. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...wrote that Brown acts as a stewardess, instructing a lover to examine her body" - I'd write "Scholar Nichole A. Guillory likened Brown to a stewardess instructing a lover to examine her body". Make sure the comma after "stewardess" is not there anyway (otherwise "instructing" seems to refer to Guillory rather than Brown). Shahid • Talk2me 22:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised with your suggested wording as it is better. Thank you for taking the time to thoroughly read through the article. I really appreciate the time you are putting into your review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid • Talk2me 21:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're very much welcome. I took the liberty of making one small change; feel free to revert it. Otherwise, having read the entire article, I think it meets the criteria and is comprehensive and well sourced. I support the nomination. Shahid • Talk2me 23:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis

[edit]

I reviewed this article during the Peer Review phase, and found only minor suggestions. Looking through again.

  • With as represented in lyrics like "Let, you could replace "like" with "such as". And I'm wondering if the fist word of the quote ("Let") should have a capital letter or lower case, as it is part of the sentence?
  • Also, the colon appears twice in this section before a quote; clarified: "But the. Perhaps a comma or semi-colon would read better.
  • I just caught a 1980's in the sound box - no apostrophe needed.

Overall, the article is looking great! Hopefully those comments help. SatDis (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for addressing the comments, I support this nomination. Unrelated question - do you know if an editor allowed to have different Featured Articles / Featured Lists up for nomination at once? (I know two of the same category is discouraged). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It used to be that you could nominate two FACs if the first one was far enough along in the process and you reached out to the FAC coordinators to get their permission to do so (either on their talk page on the FAC talk page). I am not sure if that is still a part of the procedure or not, so I would ask this to a FAC coordinator. Typically, it is only one FAC and FLC at a time, but you could also have one up and another one active if you are a co-nominator. I hope that makes sense, and again, I would check with any of the three FAC coordinators. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks not done as the nominator is an experience FA writer
  • Whats the point of bundling ref 31 but not other triple (or double) refs? – would think there should be some consistency, eg. all bundled, none bundled – only triple refs bundled would be appropriate too
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I agree citation bundles only really make sense with the triple ones. I somehow just kept reading over the other two instances. I have bundled them. Please let me know if there are any that I am missing. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's retrieval dates in a seemingly random consistency – I would think they should all have them
  • I wouldn't say it was done randomly. I included access-dates for links that are not archived (except for one stray one that I somehow missed and edited out here) as I do not see the need for access-dates for archived urls. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an ISSN for Clover? You can find it here
  • What exactly is "Marcus Raboy (director) (2002). Friday After Next (Film). New Line Cinema." citing? The entire movie?
  • ISSN for Seymour as well? (here)
  • Again, what is "Writer: Robert Doherty. Director: Nick Marck. (November 16, 2001). "Some Assembly Required". Dark Angel. Season 2. FOX." citing? I would think citing an episode as a reference that a certain song was played is less than ideal
  • Please disregard the above message. I looked this up again and somehow I got the episode wrong so I am glad you brought this up. I watched the episode and cited the time-stamp and added a description of the scene in which the song is played to the citation so it is more useable to readers so they can know the exact moment the song plays. I will go back and see if I can do the same for Friday After Next. Aoba47 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks fine
  • @Aza24: Thank you for the review. I have incorporated your notes into the article. I responded to your points about the retrieval dates (i.e. I only use them for unarchived sources) and the film and television episode citations (although I am open to suggestions if you have an idea that would be more preferable). I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, all looks good now. Sorry I should have been more specific about the episode/movie thing, indeed it was less about the format and more about my concern on citing the entire thing; using timestamps is a perfect solution. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review, and there is no reason to apologize. I agree that it is important to make the citations as helpful to the readers possible and you have helped me to correct a rather embarrassing mix-up. I greatly appreciate your help and you have taught me a new thing by recommending the iSN numbers. I will be using that in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [48].

Honan Chapel

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the columniation of a few years work that hopefully conveys the Honan Chapel and its art collection's reputation as a Celtic-Romanesque jewel. The page has been peer reviewed, and was the subject of independent heavy duty reviews by Venicescapes, KJP1, and EEng. My interest is primarily in the Harry Clarke stained glass windows and Imogen Stuart carvings; I am totally a fan, but as ever with Irish and especially Cork related articles, Guliolopez, who wrote the early drafts of the article and established most of the sources, has been watching content and tone, with years, and hopefully neutrality is maintained. Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say that my religious beliefs make it impossible for me to participate in the FA process, but I wish you all the luck in the world. EEng 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sissy. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments (Support)

[edit]
  • Harv ref warning: Ryan, Fergus (2019). "Iconography of the Honan Chapel: symphony of a single idea?". Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Culture, History, Literature. 119C. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRyan2019.
  • Somewhere in the citations there is a missing periodical, because the error category, CS1 errors: missing periodical, is populated. I wish I knew how to find these for you.
  • " It was positioned on a five-legged table, each leg of which was embedded with an Irish crucifix[44]" ... doesn't a crucifix contain the figure of Christ? Should this mention just a cross? Did it have a figure of Christ?
  • Should three-ringed by hyphenated? " ... brightly coloured altar decorated with three ringed crosses"
  • Fifteen pages is a broad range to have to search through: Teehan & Heckett 2005, pp. 210–225.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have it next to me, now trimmed to pp. 210–212 Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • The external link Youtube of Notre Dame at the Honan Chapel is not warming my heart :) The quality is not great and it is not increasing my appreciation for the Chapel.
  • Did something change? MOS:SANDWICH is back in the "Brendan, Declan and Gobnait" section. Can we just not have a gallery of the windows, to put them all in one place? Lots of images of stained glass windows, but nothing of the chancel and altar ... some industrious Irishman should go take one :)
  • Looking good ... are you able to find another location for either the Detail of Clarke's original modello, 1914 image or the Detail of the Gobnait window, 1916 image, which are causing the sandwich? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its a long and troubled saga. Went over there (only 6 miles) a few times in the late summer for more pics, but they were always closed down to the public...cathcing up on the wedding backlog. We are again in lock down with last few weeks, so may be december before get there again. Longer term plan is to have a gallery for each window section, with at least one pic per Clarke window. The current format is a holding position. Meanwhile, yes will do do something re Gobnait; imo the modello is better than the final image so would hate to loose...hold on. Ceoil (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... who provided large donations towards the construction of the chapel --> made significant donations ... generously donated ... ?
  • Don't start paragraph with "she", name her? She wears royal blue clothes and her facial features are based on ...
  • Can we combine this somewhere or say something more about it ... don't most altars have candlesticks? The altar also has candlesticks.
  • Article says ... dedicated to Saint Finbarr, patron saint of Cork and of the Diocese of Cork ... but never explicitly tells us the Chapel is part of the Diocese of Cork.
    Now added to the infobox, with link to the diocese's website. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am ready to support, but want to see the sandwiching resolved. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any sandwiching per WP:SANDWICH. There are images on opposite sides of the article but not starting at the same level which is what SANDWICH is aiming to avoid. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On my laptop I don't see any – I checked a desktop and there is some (I suspect the difference in media is the cause of the discrepancy above) with the "Moulding a the chapel's entrance", St Declan, St Ita and to a lesser extant the sea creature. Ceoil, I would recommend a multi image like the drawings in Portrait of a Musician#Identity of the sitter for St Ita (combining with St Finbarr – would work out nicely with the section name there too); for St Declan perhaps move it to the right and then remove the "{{clear}}" at the bottom of that section? Unsure about what to do about the moulding one, which is probably the most extreme sandwich, Sea creature seems OK to me but maybe Sandy disagrees Aza24 (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 she means in the Brendan, Declan and Gobnait sect only...will hopefully but not defiantly be past lock down early December, so can get there there and take new pics, and switch to a full gallery format. Meanwhile, the half assed and incomplete left/right and 1 gallery format, given I have only a few pics to play with, will have to do. On it. Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Honan Hostel.jpg: what is the pre-1925 published source?
Added...1916 source. Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "A further eight" Would "The other eight" be better? Since you are now accounting for all 19.
  • " In 1911, the Queen's Colleges ceased as legal entities and Catholics were thereafter eligible to attend." Would it be better to say that the charters were voided or some such? The colleges apparently continued so existed in some form.
  • "and was acquainted with several members of the Irish Arts and Crafts and Celtic revival movements." Isn't this implied if not explicitly stated in the previous sentence?
  • "which had overseen the construction of the Eye, Ear & Throat hospital." Should hospital be capped?
  • " on grounds believed to be close to an early Christian monastic site founded by the saint.[34]" and "on a site once thought to contain one of Finbarr's original churches.[27]" seem mildly inconsistent.
  • Check consistency between "St." and "St". Similarly, "molding" and "moulding".
  • "It contained silver ornaments fitted by the Dublin gold and silversmith Edmond Johnson and William Egan and Sons of St Patrick's Street, Cork.[43]' Should the second "and" be "of"?
  • "The western doorway's moldings were carved from lozenge and pellets.[35]" Looking at the links here, they define lozenge as a geometric shape. I understand pellets as particles, but were these carved from a geometric shape?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt; working through these now. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not certain what your linking practice is for the saints in "Patrick, Brigid and Columcille" subsection.#
  • "Following the Easter Rising that year" probably deserves a link.
  • "in praise of God; Clarke depicts this in the depictions of birds on the window's borders.[71]" depicts/depictions.
  • " In the upper panel, the victims of a plague fled to her for sanctuary and protection." Possibly "flee" for "fled"? You use present tense for the other windows.
  • "Ita is sometimes known as the "The Brigid of Munster",[116] her window is dominated by shades of blue, a colour usually associated with Brigid.[118]" The first comma likely should be a semicolon.
  • "Clarke left notes on the window frame how "in the border and wherever possible emblems are introduced symbolising Ita's great devotion to the Holy Trinity."[118]" is there a missing word before "how"?
  • I'm not sure you're consistent in hyphenating "stained glass", even when used as an adjective.
  • In the footnotes, sometimes you use conventional reference footnotes, but once it's "See Rogers (1997), p. 209" Is there a reason?
That's all. I've done some minor copyediting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. Interesting. If I ever get back to Cork I'll make a point of going there.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Great to see this here, Ceoil. I shall certainly comment but am currently away so it will be next week. KJP1 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay - work's been a nightmare. I missed the PR, but took a look at the article post-PR. It was looking good then, and has only improved since, through the comments here, and through another very detailed post-PR review. A few further observations below KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background and construction
  • "acquired the site of St. Anthony's Hall (also known as Berkley Hall)" - the UCC Conservation Plan, p.21, has "Berkeley Hall" which looks right.
Architecture
  • "the Honan Chapel's architectural style is Celtic-Romanesque revival" - the infobox lists the architectural type as Romanesque Revival, and the architectural styles as Arts & Crafts and Art Nouveau. Does the infobox need to reference the particularly "Celtic Revival" flavour of the building which, as the article shows, is perhaps the chapel's most notable feature?
  • "The chapel is located on a hillside overlooking the valley of the River Lee, near a site once thought to contain one of Finbarr's original churches" - this is also referenced at the end of the previous para. The "once thought" leads me to ask - do historians/archaeologists no longer think that it was the site of an early church?
  • "The western doorway's mouldings were carved from lozenge and pellets" - this reads just a little oddly to me. And being super-picky, Keohane also lists chevrons. Perhaps, "The western doorway's mouldings were carved as lozenges, pellets and chevrons"? Related, the chevron you've linked under Altar below, goes to Chevron (geology) whereas I think Chevron (insignia) is more appropriate. That said, you won't need the link if you make the amendment suggested above.
Tabernacle
  • "and shows the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus crucified, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove" - perhaps, "and shows the Trinity of God the Father, Jesus crucified, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove"?
Stained glass windows
  • Footnote D - I'm puzzled by this. If there was fighting in the vicinity of the chapel, surely Purser's windows were as much under threat as Clarke's? I'm assuming that the Republicans didn't take a particular dislike to Clarke's on aesthetic grounds? Does the source explain? And another super-picky point. Footnotes D and I follow the references, whereas A, B, C, E and H precede them. Does the MoS call for consistency on this point? Ignore me if it doesn't.
Harry Clarke
  • "Clarke's windows are all single-light (that have just one opening, or verticle panel)" - is this a Gaelic variant of "vertical"?
  • "in particular the darker, fin de siècle works of Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley and Egon Schiele. In particular, his blending of bold and dark colours has been praised" - the proximity of the two "in particular"s jars a little. Perhaps, "in particular the darker, fin de siècle works of Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley and Egon Schiel. His blending of bold and dark colours has been especially praised.."
Brendan, Declan and Gobnait
  • "Brendan's sore-tired contemporaries" - Just checking that "sore-tired" isn't a typo, "sore-tried" would seem to make more sense?
  • "The upper panels details his return to Ireland from Wales" - either panels or details needs to lose its "s".
Finnbarr and Ita
  • "he is said to have worn continuously since the day he is said to have met with Christ" - you could lose the second "he is said".
Our Lord (Child)
  • "He is set off from the other saints by the window's tone frame the splendour of his crown," - not quite getting this. Is there a missing comma after "frame"? And is it, "by the colour tone of the window's frame, the splendour..."?
Administration and liturgical services
  • "The Honan is a separate legal identity from the university" - "entity" rather than "identity"?

It's a great article, beautifully illustrated, and I look forward to supporting when you've had a chance to review the above comments. KJP1 (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you KJP1 for your time and insight. As this is more in your area than mine, and the article is in part based on, in format and style, earlier FACs by you, especially appreciate. Addressing points now. Ceoil (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking very good and pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]
  • Some random (very minor) comments first Aza24 (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure about including this but is there a reason for the "Population growth and migration" that could be briefly mentioned?
There may be different theory's, some thorny, and not sure its in scope. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Ref 1 missing retrieval date
  • It looks like you have the wrong year for Fennessy, and are missing the "Repercussions of Reform" part of the title – you could probably add the publisher here too since you have it later
  • Would add retrieval date for Wendy Good ref since you have them for the other online refs
  • O'Connell could use an OCLC too (should be on the archive.org page)
  • Any identifier for Wilson 2013? (JSTOR or DOI?)
  • Assuming Wincott Heckett should be marked as a PDF as well
In fact I dont know how to do this - the link does not have .pdf in the address, even though it it is a pdf. Help needed. Ceoil (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed now, I think. Thank you for this most helpful review Aza. Ceoil (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. I added a "format=PDF" which doesn't have the little icon but I think it's the best we can get if the url doesn't have ".pdf" at the end of it. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sound. Ceoil (talk)

Support Comments from TRM

[edit]

Adding a section for me to add some inane thoughts: definitely not an SME but hope that means my comments might be taken in good faith and be helpful to the wider community. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead calls it a "small" church. I'm always at odds with this (it's never called "small" again) as one man's small is another man's XXL. Is it really needed?
  • "wealthy Cork family," don't think you linked Cork itself yet.
  • "the build of the" feels very modern to call it a "build", perhaps "construction"?
  • Just a thought: there are a handful of sentences in the lead with inline references. Is that really needed? Just on a personal level I aim to have nothing in the lead referenced as I know it'll be included and expanded upon in the main part of the article.
  • (It was particularly jarring when I got to "... internationally known[7] for its ...")
  • "Eleven were designed and installed by Harry Clarke.[9] The other eight..." I would merge with a "while" or something here, avoiding that short sentence.
  • "A few years previously": "a few" always jars with me for an encyclopedia.
  • "she left £40,000 to the" it may seem vulgar to some but I've always valued an inflation-related conversion to see what this really meant contextually.
  • You redlink O'Connell in the main body but not the lead, is that an approved approach?
    Need to do an article on him, but link removed for now. Ceoil (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " at UCC[20] and" personal thing, I loathe mid-stream refs especially if not after punctuation, any chance of moving this?
    Yup, moved for your pleasure Ceoil (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "O'Connell was assisted in..." aesthically and flow-wise, this mini-para jars a little, any chance of flowing it into the other paras?
  • "to Donovans road," I can't see the ref but can you confirm it's not "Donovans Road" or even "Donovan's Road"?
  • I always get this stuff wrong but should "the mid 20th century" be "mid-20th"?
  • "O'Connell, who in 1929, after ..." I lost count of the run-ons in this sentence.
  • "which had overseen the construction of the Eye, Ear & Throat Hospital" this appears to be non-notable (i.e. not linked) so it needs context, like why is it relevant to mention it?
  • " principal builder[29] and completed the work at a cost of £8,000.[B][31] The foundation stone, laid on 18 May 1915 ..." feels like we jumped a bit here, the completion didn't happen until 1916 and the next sentence jumps back to the foundation stone.
    Reworded this Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of the Diocese of Cork;[12][33] on grounds " not sure why that's a semi-colon and not just a comma.
  • "Chapel's architectural style is Celtic-Romanesque revival." see above.
  • "The site is located on a hillside overlooking the valley of the River Lee, near a site..." the site ... near a site... repetitive.
  • Would Listed building be an appropriate link for "The building is listed as a protected structure " for those readers who have no idea what a listed building means?
  • "The chapel's interior is given a simple layout," why "is given a" rather than "has"?
  • I would link "nave" (first time).
  • And "chancel" and "nunnery".
  • "relatively simple[27][29] " this is repetitive.
  • " in response to the changed liturgical requirements," this is a complete mystery to me, what does it mean?
  • " the Adoration of the Lamb, with " do you mean this to link to the Ghent artwork?
  • "and have been described as the best" by Teehan? Or in general?
  • "The mosaic flooring was designed and installed by the UK-based mosaic artist" a shame to repeat mosaic so quickly.
  • "is part serpent" hyphenated? etc.
  • Not sure you need to (redirectly) link "planets" to "Solar system".
  • "the imagery more restrained. The imagery depicts " quickly repetitive.
  • Is the "g" of "garden of Eden" usually capitalised as it's a kind of "formal" name?
  • "Four windows depict female saints, each in a deep royal blue colour scheme." seems unreferenced.
    This is noted by a number of sources...hold on...Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[78][E][69][79] " it's perhaps a personal thing but I tend to keep refs and footnotes separate.
  • " a "distinct advance on anything which has been heretofore done in Ireland in stained glass.[40] " missing a closing quote mark.
  • "are all single light" forgive my ignorance, I have no idea what this means.
    It means the number of horizontal frames. Will clarify. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brigid, Patrick and Columcille," all overlinked.
  • "in the late summer and autumn " I think we're advised to avoid seasons as they differ per WP:SEASON.
  • " a grotesque, claw-limbed Judas Iscariot[40] appears " according to whom and again, disliking that awkward ref placement. I'm sure our readers can wait until the end of the sentence.
  • "Declán of Ardmore" appears to have a diacritic.
  • "described as the "most remarkable" of " by whom?
  • Pretty sure we don't need to link Bee.
  • crozier or crosier? Pick one and link it once only.
  • "dedicated to Finbarr, patron saint of Cor" Finbarr is overlinked.
  • "is located on the north wall of " aren't windows normally "in" walls?
  • " met with Christ, who" you link Christ here but I think you've mentioned Jesus beforehand?
  • "ascetic St. Ita was born " St Ita overlinked.
  • "sixth-century" -> "6th century" for internal consistency.
  • Done
  • "She is sometimes " and " Ita is sometimes" in consecutive sentences, a little bit repetitive.
  • "a halo. The upper register shows Mary enthroned " halo and Mary overlinked.
  • "with Ita, a halo.[118] which according to " grammar fail.
  • "symbolizes" not sure on this one, this is clearly written in USEng but the rest of the article is in BritEng, but it's a quote. Just querying.
  • " the Trinity" the doesn't need to be part of the link.
  • " little known eighth century" ->"little-known eighth-century"
  • "and is located on the chapel's" on or in again.
  • " depict Mary and " Mary is overlinked.
  • "openening" typo.
  • "to depict Our Lady of Sorrows.[124] " overlinked.
  • Is it "single light" or "single-light"?
  • "O'Kelly writes that" surely "wrote"?
  • "Her "St. John" window in the only in the" doesn't make sense.
  • Link "register" first time round.
  • "following Vatican II meant" again this is intractable to me, perhaps some explanation is needed.
  • Celtic Revival or Celtic revival again...
  • Caveat: I haven't taken a single look at references yet, that's still to come.

That's my first quick pass. Hope some of it is useful, feel free to disregard any stupidity. I am aware that a certain user has started to "review my review" (on a previous FAC) which I find very uncomfortable so if that particular individual gets involved here, I will not engage in this review at all. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound. Am about half ways through resolving, agree with nearly all, these are a huge help. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man I nether know nor care who that other editor is, but to say I have found your help here most beneficial, actually very much so, by the time we are finished addressing, the article will be far stronger. In other words, you are very much welcome here. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man...all adressed now I think. Phew! Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, I'm far from an SME on this subject, but I enjoyed the article and I'm pleased that my concerns have been addressed so I'm happy to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I watched the article grow, after a beautiful invitation, until peer review, and will look as if I never did. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Why is Jesus linked, but Mary not?
  • "by A. E. Child, Catherine O'Brien and Ethel Rhind of An Túr Gloine ("The Glass Tower") cooperative studio." - I suggest to have sooner that it's a studio, - it comes as a surprise after the brackets.

Background

  • I wonder if all the image caption needs to be there, vs. in the body.
  • I am no friend of a note and 4 refs after one fact. Also perhaps observe ascending ref order.

Architecture

  • "architectural historian and conservationist Frank Keohane as "a little too commonplace and formulaic"" - I'd like to see a hint at when he said so, without clicking to the ref. (Coming from an article where a view 100 years old is presented as if relevant.)
  • Not sure that the listing belongs in Architecture at all, but certainly not between the site and entering ;)
  • "The chapel's interior has a simple layout" is no surprise after the Keohane comment ;) - topped by "The oblong nave is relatively simple"

Altar

  • What do you think of making this and the next headers level 3 under architecture.
  • "The chapel has had two altars." Many chapels have many altars. How about saying one after the other and why in the first sentence?

Tabernacle

  • I don't see God the Father, - may be just me.

Mosaic floor

  • Psalm 148 will be expanded, promised, - just working on a hymn based on it.
  • as said, "saltire" should have a link the first time.

That's it for tonight. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stained glass

  • production - produce (too close in first sentence, no?)
  • I wonder if the long list of windows, with saints and artists, wouldn't be better in a table. I had forgotten that Child was a surname. Linking at present is inconsistent, and in a table, I'd just link all saints. Child appears now without given name and link first, and has initials and a link later.
    Have considered this, but in the end it would be too intrusive (19 rows) in an article that's already, arguabaly, too heavily weighted towards the windows, vs eg the furnishings. Also, have been involved recently in a discussion on the table in this article which leaves me cold re long tables in non-list pages. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke

  • ref order + number
  • "single-light", what's that? - ignore if just me
  • now Mary is linked?
  • delink folklore?

Patrick

  • 3 saints, - treat all equal, all with "Saint" or none, or explain
  • connection of the Judas image to this section?

Finnbarr

  • delink Christ?
  • "Chance's"?

In the end, I'd think it would be good idea to name saints ("Saint" or "St." or "St" or nothing) consistently. Once a name is established, the person could appear with just the name. I confess that for Irish names, I often don't know if man or woman, and some pronoun following a name soon would help. - You gave me a video from a concert there: any information about events? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah re Irish names & man or woman; can be confusing with all those vowels etc. Will address that shortly and drop in pro-nouns to guide the reader. Re st., st, or saint, am aiming to just call them by first name after first mention. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re events, there arnt that many performances / concerts - the venue is very small, though with excellent acoustics, and they seem to be preoccupied with weddings for ex alumni, alas. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per Sandy above, have removed the ext link to the Fauré requiem[49]. Alas its hand held and very shaky, and only of value to nerds (or something!) like us. Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, but think it's worth mentioning that the chapel is used for performing music in concert - if it is, and give the dates of that one as an example of the scope. Thank you for all the fixes, - out now, and busy today anyway, don't expect much more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to dress up something that isn't there. The chapel's admin dept is mostly preoccupied with making ends meet, ie through weddings. Ceoil (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. I think the present use - even weddings - deserved a little mention, but also understand that this is firstly a cultural heritage. Ready to support, and already looking at the next, which - as the last - I recommend to review.
Article says "It hosts an average of 150 wedding services per year for graduates, which are a funding source for the chapel.[146]
yes, I also have Kaikhosru on my to do list. And thanks for review. Ceoil (talk) 09:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Johnbod

[edit]

Clearly pretty much there, but:

  • "is a small Catholic collegiate church..." - is it in fact? "a collegiate church is a church where the daily office of worship is maintained by a college of canons..." - I think this is just a university church. It's owned by a trust, as you know.
  • There are various expressions of the style. The NIAH uses "Hiberno-Romanesque style" for the architecture, which isn't used, but probably should be. I've fiddled a bit with some of these, but not adding H-R.
  • " and interior statuettes, floor, furniture and liturgical collection" - repeated just after
  • " in a traditionally Irish style"
  • "Population growth and migration in " - "urbanization" better? In Ireland "migration" usually means away from the island completely, no?
  • " O'Kelly suggests they evoke "the spirit of the ancient Celt"" - iffy link?
  • more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John. Working through these now. Ceoil (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done to here except Hiberno-Romanesque style - will address shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed, and the Hiberno aspect is discussed later in the page, mostly around O'Connell and his influences and aspirations. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Johnbod, I would like to move this one along. Any chance of your further comments over the next few days? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resuming:
  • There are loads of "St"s and "St."s, which for the actual saints are not usually liked - I won't even look to see what MOS:SAINT has to say.
  • " While a number of the early Honan windows were completed by assistants working from his designs, Clarke solely designed the cartoon, transferred it to glass, and oversaw its installation in Cork." - reword "solely". Not sure what " transferred it to glass" involved. Nor the bit below. Can we have a fuller explanation of the process?
  • more later. I've done bits myself, which I hope are ok. Nearly there now (down to Finbarr). Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sketches are not transferred to glass. Now corrected. Have limited the use of st./st to their introduction, with first names after that. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clarke's depiction of Joseph is based on a 14th century representation of the prophet Zephaniah now in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London." in what medium, do we know?
Unfortunatly not. Teehan doesnt say more, and have spent hours searching the V%A archive, with no firm match. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lower panel illustrates Joseph's death, with Mary, Jesus, Finnbarr, Columcille and a number of other saints kneeling in prayer at his deathbed." you might mention this is a super-rare subject, as he just disappears from the New Testament. I can ref that if needed.
Actually I find it had become not so rare by this time, so don't worry. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is set off from the other saints by the window's tone frame" - something missing? An "s"? I'll assume so.
Rephrased this Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find most notes on the edit screen, but in H "Gibbon describes Clarke's approach to hid depiction as "daring"" - "his"?; Note I: "and described them as welcomely absent of the "foreign abominations"" - not "absent of" - "free from" or something.
Reworded. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, John, can I take your final comments above a support? Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just let me check the changes. Johnbod (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush here. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2020 (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 December 2020 [50].

John Early (educator)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a man who was instrumental in the early years of 3 Jesuit colleges in the United States, one of which he founded. It is currently a GA. Thank you in advance for any feedback. Ergo Sum 03:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

Placeholder for future comments. This one hasn't gotten any attention, so I'll give it a look later. Might claim WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm Bacon 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "because he was unable to gain admission to the seminary in his home country" - There was only one seminary in Ireland? Maybe I'm understanding this wrong.
  • "In 1870, he once again became president of Georgetown University, where the university's first student newspaper, the Georgetown College Journal began publishing" - Commas ain't my strong suit, but my gut tells me there should be one after Journal
Education in the United States
College of the Holy Cross
Layout
  • I get the topical arrangement, but with biographies, it seems that it makes more sense to present the biography chronologically. I'll concede on this, though, if others like the current arrangement.
    • My rationale for going with a topical ordering is that some of the sections aren't that long and his double presidencies at the same institutions were somewhat interrelated, which makes keeping them together convenient. However, this isn't a terribly important point for me. Ergo Sum 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Loyola College in Maryland
Georgetown
  • "The college was occupied for a third time on August 29, as a hospital for the soldiers of General John Pope's army wounded at the Second Battle of Bull Run" - As a Civil War buff, I have two complaints here. One, Pope was officially ranked as a Major General, which is a separate rank than General (United States), which is almost implied from the current phrasing. Second, the chronology makes it sound like this was in 1861, but Second Bull Run was fought in 1862.
  • "On May 22, 1873, Early suffered a stroke,[3] which left him unable to speak and half his body paralyzed. Two days later, he died" - Two days later would be May 24. Both the lead and the infobox say he died on May 23.

That's it from me, I believe. Good work here. Hog Farm Bacon 02:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hog Farm, for your helpful feedback. Ergo Sum 02:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 04:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

I've placed this on the Urgents list in hope of getting more feedback. We're approaching a month on the list with relatively little attention. --Laser brain (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is now seven weeks since this was nominated, and while I am pleased to see it pick up a couple of additional supports it still needs source and image reviews. I have listed it at requests on the FAC talk page, but if you are aware of editors who might be obliging I suggest that you contact them. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copy-edited a little; please revert anything you don't like.

  • His administration encompassed the Civil War, and despite intermittent occupation by the Union Army and dwindling enrollment, instruction endured uninterrupted. The intention here is "The time he was administrator included the period of the Civil War". The current wording sounds odd to me, as if the Civil War were a component of his administration. How about "During the Civil War, instruction continued uninterrupted, despite intermittent occupation by the Union Army and dwindling enrollment."? If you also cut "then" from the next sentence: "Early returned to Loyola College in 1866 ..." there is no need to explicitly say that his administration spanned the war.
  • I'm seeing a harv error on Dodd (1909); it doesn't appear to be used in the citations. Is this deliberate? Should it be in a separate "Further reading" section, or removed completed?
  • You're inconsistent about using locations on books; this is a minor point but it's nice to be consistent if possible. Mendizàbal (1972) and Ryan (1903) have no location given; the other book sources do.

These are all minor points. The article is cleanly written and I expect to support once these nitpicks are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, Mike Christie. Ergo Sum 17:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24

[edit]
  • Loyola College in Maryland and Seminary are linked twice in the lead
  • Would link charter
  • I think the lead is well written, but based on the size of the article as a whole, it seems rather long. Some lines I'm not sure are necessary:
    • "because he was unable to gain admission to his desired seminary in his home country" – a pretty specific detail and explained in a rather elongated fashion, I would recommend deleting entirely and just combining ("Born in Ireland, he emigrated to the United States at the age of nineteen where he enrolled in..."
    • "which was intended to educate the lay former students who attended St. Mary's Seminary and College, which the Sulpicians sought to keep only as a seminary" – how about just "intended to educate former lay students of St. Mary's Seminary and College" ? (would also link lay here, otherwise it might sound like it's referring to lay as in expert vs lay person)
    • "where the university's first student newspaper, the Georgetown College Journal," this journal only has one mention in the actual article text, is it really significant enough John Early himself to warrant inclusion in the lead?
  • Happy to discuss any of the above further – I don't want you to think I'm trying to ruin the lead – just some ideas
  • I'm not sure the lead makes it clear that he was the first president of "Loyola College in Maryland" – it just says he "established it" and "oversaw the early years"
  • consider changing the second "studied" to something like "attended" so their aren't two "studied" in one sentence
  • "but there were no vacancies, and he was not admitted" seems redundant
    • I'm not sure I agree. Without the second clause, the sentence is left hanging without actually saying why that affected Early. Without the first part, it doesn't explain why he wasn't admitted. Ergo Sum 18:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the sources may not specify but is it known what kind of philosophy he studied/taught?
  • "He spent 1847 ministering" this makes it sound like he was only ministering in 1847, do you mean "he began ministering in 1847..."?
  • "On August 29, 1848" is rather choppy consider the last sentence of the previous section (On September 8, 1853) also begins with "On date,..." – I would rephrase one of these
  • commonwealth as in Commonwealth (U.S. state)?
  • Maybe "Early then returned to Frederick Maryland for a year" to make Frederick Maryland not sound like a new place for him
  • I'm confused by "and construction of the new church began in August 1855" – a new church to replace the St. Ignatius Church, a sister church of that church or...? And what does this have to do with Early? If this church being built is St. Ignatius Church itself, they sound like two different things≥
  • link commandeered to Commandeering, you may want to link "intermittent occupation" in the lead to it as well
  • "that students completed their course of study and received degrees" – do you mean "student who complete their course of study recieved degrees"? Otherwise it doesn't make sense – did the pause in the conferral of degrees also result in a pause on students who completed their courses
    • I've rephrased the first clause of the sentence. It's supposed to communicate that after an interruption, he made sure the course of study went to completion and that as a result degrees were conferred again. I'm sure the latter half is grammatically correct, and I think with the rephrase, the sentence is clearer now. Ergo Sum 18:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if Bernard A. Maguire's full name is needed after the first mention, same with Anthony F. Ciampi
  • Not sure about this one but maybe specify who the pope was at the time?
  • "In 1871, the student body once again raised a sum of money to aid the victims of the Great Chicago Fire.[36]" not sure how this relates to Early
  • that's all I got Aza24 (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for your thorough comments, Aza24. Ergo Sum 18:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ergo Sum, thanks for your attentiveness here, the only issue I still have is the line: "At the same time as the college's founding, St. Ignatius Church was founded next door. Early became its first pastor, and construction of the new church began in August 1855. It was consecrated on August 15, 1856." – This sounds like Early became the pastor of a church before the church itself was even built, is this really the case? Aza24 (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

I don't think the licensing of File:John Early cropped.jpg is appropriate. Ulke's death date seems to be known [51], which rules out point #2, it's not anonymous or psuedonymous and there's no proof it was created for hire, so #3 is ruled out, and the whole thing is predicated on unpublished before 2003, but the archived source link includes the text "Georgetown Magazine: September, 1977" under the title, which suggests to me it was published in that magazine in 1977. So I don't think the licensing for that one image is appropriate. Hog Farm Bacon 14:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm:, I've added a correct license tag, which indicates the image should be in the public domain. Ergo Sum 19:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new tag looks alright to me. Image licensing isn't quite my strong suit, but this instance looks straightforward enough I feel comfortable assessing it. Hog Farm Bacon 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The article cites 9 major sources, and two websites that are just used to back up minor facts. All seem like reliable sources (though I can claim no expertise in this field).

Spot-checking sources for accuracy. I asked Random.org to give me 8 numbers between 1 and 39 (the number of citations):

  • [9](a)(b) - Both check out.
  • [11] - Checks out.
  • [15](a)(b) - Both check out.
  • [23](a)(b)(c) - All check out.
  • [28](a)(b) - Both check out.
  • [33] - The sentence is mostly cited to [32] (same book a few pages later). Not sure [33] is necessary here, but it's ok.
  • [36] - Checks out.
  • [37] - Checks out.

The sources I checked are accurately represented in the article, and there's no hint of plagiarism or copyright violation. Ajpolino (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajpolino, I was wondering if you had reviewed the formatting of the referencing, and if so, if you were happy with it. Not a problem if you haven't, so long as I know. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, I tend not to have a very good eye for reference formatting so I did not. I meant to explicitly state that in the above, but clearly forgot. If someone with a more experienced eye wouldn't mind taking a look (there are just 11 sources; hopefully won't take too long!), I'd be much obliged. Thanks for checking in. Ajpolino (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino and Gog the Mild: - Y'all okay with me doing a formatting check? Hog Farm Bacon 18:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Ergo Sum 17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please! Ajpolino (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'll give formatting a look.

  • I have a question about the Catalogus Defunctorum. I don't think the "NUMERICAL RANGE 3.287 THROUGH 5.26" is part of the title; rather it appears to be the chapter. The proper title is "Catalogus defunctorum in renata Societate Iesu ab a. 1814 ad a. 1970" I think per Worldcat, it also has an OCLC. There appear to be other Catalogus Defunctorum covering other years, so it's probably best to use the full title, set the numerical range bit up as the chapter parameter, and add the OCLC number of 884102.
  • the Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1873 seems have an OCLC too, per worldcat. Please add it.
  • the OCLC for the Catholic Church of America source is here.
  • Is there a reason why the Ryan source is in sentence case, while the other references are in title case?

That's it on the formatting, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 05:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hog Farm. Ergo Sum 00:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This passes the formatting check. Hog Farm Bacon 06:07, 7 December 2020 (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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 1 December 2020 [52].

Hitler's prophecy

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most notorious phrase from Hitler's speeches: "If international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, the result will be not the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe." I'd like to thank Ian Rose for the GA review and Tenryuu for the copyedit, as well as everyone who participated in the A-class review. Since then, the article has undergone another round of revisions to make it more concise while retaining all important information. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think this article easily meets the criteria. It is engaging and professionally written. The GA review was exemplary and leaves little to add in the way of suggestions for improvement. I don't like to see red links (especially in figure legends); if you log out and click on one, you will see why, but that's just me. My congratulations to the nominator and everyone else who has contributed to the article. Graham Beards (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • In the lead:
  • These words, which were similar to comments that Hitler had previously made to foreign politicians in private meetings,
Can we date this as in, how early did he start making these similar comments? (I see 1931 in the body, is that the earliest?)
Actually, this refers to the statements he made after Kristallnacht. Clarified. (t · c) buidhe 17:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link leitmotif (lead should be accessible to everyone).
    • Done
  • Check your ps and pps ... Herf 2006, p. 115–116.
    • Fixed. I don't see any other p/pp errors.
  • Don't make the reader click out to know what "SA" means ... find a way to define it in here.
    • Done
  • as an option by SS officials ... ditto, who knows if younger readers remember what SS is ... define all acronyns on first occurrence.
    • Done

I have not read any further. I had to read unpleasantries when it was my job (FAC delegate), but I don't want to read further into this topic lest I lose my breakfast. From what I can tell so far and looking over the article for MOS ... Competent writing, worthy candidate, I don't see any MOS issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]

I'll go through it further shortly, but I noticed there are two headings titled "References" (in the body of the article and then the citations). Would it be possible to change one of them? Kaiser matias (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • There is mention of various historians throughout (Kershaw, Koonz, etc), however there is a mix between noting their nationality ("German historian Hans Mommsen") and not ("historian Ian Kershaw"). It would be good to be consistent, and unless I'm missing something, their nationality isn't really relevant and could probably be dropped.
    • Removed all. I agree with you that for this article it's not relevant.
  • Overall the article is solid, however there is a lot of direct quotations used from other sources. While quoting verbatim is good, I think it leans a little heavily here on that, and feel that some cases could be summarized without quoting directly. That said, I'll also let other reviewers comment on the matter, and will come back to this. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are any specific instances that would benefit from paraphrasing or cutting, I'm all ears. The article has already been through several rounds of editing to reduce direct quotes; this version from a month ago had significantly more. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Let me think it over for the next few days, and like I said I'll let others comment as well. I'll definitely get back to you. Solid article by the way, does a good job of giving one of his most famous speeches context. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having watched the improvements the past couple weeks on the article as a result of other comments, I'm happy to support now. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it! (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Wochenspruch_der_NSDAP_7_September_1941.jpg: the EU tag in use requires "reasonable evidence" be presented of lack of known authorship. Ditto File:Das_Lachen_wird_ihnen_vergehen!!!.jpg, File:Men_with_an_unidentified_unit_execute_a_group_of_Soviet_civilians_kneeling_by_the_side_of_a_mass_grave.jpg
    1. Some of the Wochenspruch posters credit a known author, eg this one. This one doesn't. I have seen it reproduced in several sources, such as Bytwerk's website [53], IWM website[54], and various books. None give an author. IWM states it is unknown.
    2. For this one, I blurred the photographs because I do not know what their origin was. I don't think the design of the poster rises to threshold of originality, at least according to US law. It is mentioned in Herf's book and he does not state the author, nor does California archives[55] or USHMM.[56]
    3. Given the content of this photograph, it would be news if anyone owned up to it. I expect USHMM would know about it.
  • File:View_of_the_old_synagogue_in_Aachen_after_its_destruction_during_Kristallnacht_01.jpg: the source seems to indicate that the archive believes the image to be PD, not that the archive itself has released rights to it
    • It's not clear based on the source why it is PD, but I take from it that both US and German sources consider it to be in the public domain, which seems sufficient to me.
  • File:Naked_Jewish_women_wait_in_a_line_before_their_execution_by_Ukrainian_auxiliary_police.jpg: where was this first published?
    • Removed since I can't find proof.
  • File:Jews_deported_from_Würzburg_march_down_the_Hindenburgstrasse_from_the_Platzscher_Garten_to_the_railroad_station.jpg: EU tag is based on lack of known author, but the source link seems to include an author attribution?
    • As stated by USHMM, "The material was discovered in a barracks at Oberursel/Taunus by Isaac E. Wahler, who was then working in the office of Dr. Robert Kempner, American Deputy Chief of Counsel for War Crimes, Nuremberg. The files were entered into evidence at several war crimes trials, including the Ministries Trial, Case 11 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings (1947)." Wahler did not take the photos, he just found them. The photographer is unknown. If the copyright adhered to Wahler, it would be PD since he was a US govt employee.
  • File:Eisenach_Synagogue;_November_Pogroms_(4408567247).jpg: is more specific tagging available?
  • File:Der_ist_Schuld_am_Kriege!.jpg is currently nominated for deletion - this will need to be resolved before the FAC is closed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ovinus

[edit]
Lead
[edit]
  • I'd suggest splitting up the last sentence of the first paragraph into two because of its complexity.
    • Done
  • "as" in the last sentence of the second paragraph could be interpreted as "because" or "at the same time as". The sentence could be restructured or just use another word.
    • This could really be either and/or both, so I rephrased.
Speech
[edit]
  • "two-and-a-half hours. It dealt" I think these two sentences could be merged, since neither sentence is that important.
    • Done
  • The first quote "Hitler first mocked them, remarking at 'how the whole democratic ... human race'." should probably be paraphrased.
    • Axed
  • Overall I agree with Kaiser matias above about the quotes; this section in particular feels a bit like an overload of them. I think the salient information to use the quotes directly is 1. what were Hitler's reasons, as given in the speech, for wanting to rid Europe of the Jews and 2. the "prophecy" itself (along with what immediately preceded it). The other quotes more serve as a snapshot of the speech's virulent antisemitism than understanding the prophecy, and so are better paraphrased.
    • Thanks for your comment. I have now rewritten to move the quotes that aren't directly relevant to a new article about the speech itself.
  • The last sentence after the blockquote is a bit confusing to me; did this occur in the same speech and after his prophecy?
    • Actually, it occurred before, so I moved it up.
References to the prophecy
[edit]
  • Should wiktionary links to Ausrotten and Vernichten be lowercase? In any case, the link for Ausrotten doesn't work.
    • Done
  • Spurious curly quote in cite note [b].
    • Fixed
  • [c] should use {{' "}}
    • Done
  • "Walter Mattner" is described as a low-ranking Holocaust perpetrator; could this be more specific? (Lieutenant?) Also, should his name be un-wikilinked given his status?
    • Yes, he is a lieutenant. However, a very notorious one whose letters have received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.
  • "On 30 January 1941, in a speech at the Sportpalast, Hitler mentioned the prophecy." → "Hitler mentioned the prophecy at a 30 January 1941 speech in the Sportpalast."
    • Done
  • I think Jewish Bolshevism could have its quotes removed from it, especially since it's juxtaposed with a direct quote rather than quotes intended to imply dubiety.
    • Done
  • "highlight the temporal proximity of this decision" → "highlight the proximity of this decision to the printing of the posters." I don't think "temporal" is necessary, and it's been a few sentences since the posters were introduced, so I think this clarifies things.
    • Partly done: I retained the "temporal" because for me, "proximity" usually refers to spatial proximity.
  • Could the blockquote in "The Jews are Guilty" be introduced with a colon or something?
    • done
Analysis
[edit]
  • "while the Holocaust continued (between 1941 and 1945)" → "during the Holocaust (between 1941 and 1945)"
    • done
  • "Confino argues" → "He argues"
    • Done
  • Overarching idea: perhaps the word "Vernichtung" could be given primarily as a German word, with a parenthetical translation to English, since the meaning of the word is complex and this point is mentioned in the article?
    • Not a bad idea, but the sources all consistently translate Vernichtung -> annihilation and use the English word, so I don't think this change would be helpful to readers.
      • Sounds good.
  • "[i]f" in one of the quotes; what is this from? Maybe just move "if" outside of the quote
    • Removed
  • Spurious double-quote in quote from Herf in Genocide
    • Removed
  • I think at least some of the numerous quotes from historians in Genocide should be paraphrased; it's a lot to take in.
    • Paraphrased several of them.
  • 'directions for action'" should use {{' "}}
    • Done
  • "After the war, Germans claimed ignorance" → "After the war, some/many Germans claimed ignorance"
    • Done

Note that this is my first participation in FAC so please let me know if I'm doing this wrong. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

[edit]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review.

  • Should the third word ("speech") be linked to 30 January 1939 Reichstag speech?
    • done
  • "The prophecy took on new meaning with the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the German declaration of war against the United States that December, accelerating the systematic mass murder of Jews." I am struggling with this. Did the two new foes cause the prophecy to take on new meaning or did they accelerate mass murder? If both, this is not clear.
    • Reworded
OK, that is clearer. But it still comes across as conflating two issues. Maybe "The prophecy took on new meaning with the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the German declaration of war against the United States that December when the systematic mass murder of Jews accelerated"?. Or "... which facilitated an acceleration of the systematic mass murder of Jews"?
Done, using the second option
  • "it is also cited as evidence that Germans were aware that Jews were being exterminated." This may be true and cited, but should the same reasoning not apply equally to the rest of the world?
    • The speech was heavily promoted in Nazi propaganda that was targeted to Germans specifically. It isn't clear that Hungarians or Brazilians would learn about Hitler's speeches and become aware about the persecution of Jews.
  • "According to historian Ian Kershaw" → 'According to the historian Ian Kershaw'.
  • "(paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party)" Perhaps preface with a definite article?
    • Added
  • Perhaps briefly introduce the concept of "Aryan" in the first paragraph of Background?
    • Instead, I've rephrased to remove the word, which is unnecessary jargon.
  • "According to historian Claudia Koonz" → 'According to the historian Claudia Koonz'.
  • Note a: "different" begs the question of different from what? It may also be worth expanding a little on the role of the SS in the 1930s.
    • I don't think this is the article for those details. I have added a bit more information.
  • "blame it on the Jews". I know what you mean, but perhaps 'blame the Jews for inciting it' or similar?
    • I don't think this part is important, so I removed it.
  • "Historian Yehuda Bauer writes" → 'The historian Yehuda Bauer writes'.
  • "István Csáky, foreign minister of Hungary" → 'István Csáky, the foreign minister of Hungary'.
  • "František Chvalkovský, foreign minister of Czechoslovakia" I think that you get the idea re false titles. I assume that you are using them deliberately?
    • I know there are different opinions on this, but I think it's more natural sounding and perfectly encyclopedic without "the". (Then again, I am a youngish American). Copyeditor Tenryuu apparently saw no issue with it. I have added "the" where there's a comma splice.
I don't think that it is entirely a US/non-US thing, although I suspect that you are correct about it being more common in the States in younger age groups. I suspect that it reads oddly to many/most non-Americans. (A bit like "likely" to mean 'probably'; or how "amongst" or "amidst" to mean 'among' or 'in' may read to you.) But you are consistent and it is an acceptable if minority usage of US English, so fine.
  • "Hitler's prediction about the Jews was reprinted in the party newspaper Völkischer Beobachter and in a dedicated pamphlet. The speech was broadcast live on radio." If the radio sentence came first, it would retain the chronological flow.
    • Done
  • "In February, another German wrote of "the inexorable extermination [Ausrottung]... What happened to the Armenians in Turkey ... is, more slowly and efficiently being done to the Jews"." if this is a comment by a random German, I don't see what it adds; if it is by someone of significance, or on behalf of an organisation, could we be told?
    • OK, removed
  • Introduce Moshe Yustman.
    • Done
  • "Police lieutenant and Holocaust perpetrator Walter Mattner wrote a letter to his wife justifying the murder" Do we know when?
    • Added date
  • "a record of following through with promises or threats". "with" → 'on'.
    • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "in the Baltics" This rings oddly in British English. Any reason not to use (the arguably more encyclopedic) Baltic States.
    • They were at the time occupied by Nazi Germany and therefore did not exist as states. Your phrasing could give rise to incorrect implications regarding Baltic collaborationism.
I am not convinced, but so long as you have a good reason for the usage, fine.
  • "According to Goebbels' diary entry on 19 August, Hitler mentioned the prophecy when granting Goebbels' request to force Jews in Germany to wear yellow stars after the invasion of the Soviet Union was not as easy as expected." I think that you are trying to do too much with this sentence. Either some needs deleting or it needs unpacking a little.
    • Split up by moving background on the campaign earlier.
  • "historians highlight the temporal proximity to the posters". 'to the issue of the posters' or 'the display of the posters' or similar.
    • Done
  • "(supposedly responsible for German casualties in World War I and "now again hundreds of thousands")" Is there a reason this is in parentheses rather than commas?
    • Switched to commas since you think that is better.
  • "in Munich to the Nazi old guard to commemorate the Beer Hall Putsch." 'in Munich to the Nazi old guard commemorating the Beer Hall Putsch.' would avoid "to" twice in six words.
    • Done
  • "broadcast on German Home Service" → 'broadcast on the German Home Service'.
    • Done
  • "According to the Security Service (SD) public opinion reports" I am not sure that "the" is appropriate here.
    • Rephrased
  • "ordered newspapers to report on this speech as a front-page story". Maybe delete "on".
    • Done
  • "points to the most direct interpretation"> What is a "direct interpretation"? And which of the two possibilities is a reader supposed to assume Herf is suggesting?
    • I'm not quite sure either and I don't think this sentence is adding enough to justify its existence, so I removed it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


More
[edit]
  • "expressing his expectation for a glorious future" "for" → 'of'.
    • Done
  • "in similar words as Hitler had used" "as" → 'to those'.
    • Done
  • Maybe link "Aryan" to Aryan#Modern usage#Nazism and white supremacy?
    • Done
  • "and adding, "The hour will come" "adding" → 'added'.
    • Done
  • "On 24 February, the anniversary of the founding of the Nazi Party, Hitler was absent but" You need t say what or where Hitler was absent from.
    • Reworded
  • "during Hitler's annual speech for the Nazi party old guard" Should the "p" be upper case?
    • Done
  • "described the statement as a public threat to murder the Jews and declaration of his intention"; 'and a declaration'?
    • Done
  • "of which the first is Hitler's tactical desire". "is" → 'was'.
    • Done
  • "If emigration failed and Western powers intervened in the war" I am not sure that the last bit makes sense. If there was a war, surely the Western powers would already be involved, and so could not "intervene"?
    • I think Longerich is referring to UK/US, intervening in a continental European war: "He was contemplating a scenario in which the western powers, supported by the United States, could intervene in order to prevent him from continuing his expansionist policy in Europe, to which he was totally committed... Thus, if his threats had no effect, if, in other words, emigration did not make much progress, and if, in the event of a war, the western powers were not deterred from intervening, then they would be responsible for the further intensification of Jewish persecution predicted in his ‘prophecy’. Thus, Hitler was keeping all options open for further radicalizing his Jewish policy." Clarified without going into OR.
  • Caption: "Results of the bombing of Hamburg". Possibly add the year?
    • According to IWM, the photograph was taken "between August 1943 and 1945". Exact date not known, or else I would add it.
  • "The Jews were held responsible for each death and would be made to pay in kind." Held responsible by whom?
    • Clarified
  • "At the International Military Tribunal, Der Stürmer publisher Julius Streicher was convicted" Perhaps give the year after "Tribunal"?
    • Done

That's all from me. A wonderful article. Erm, you know what I mean. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Recusing coord duties here, I performed the GAN on this article -- which I think must have been a great challenge to research and write -- treating it as a potential MilHist A-Class candidate and FAC, so at those subsequent reviews I've let others say their piece and then checked the changes since I last read it. I see no reason to withhold support here. I'll add that I spotchecked several citations at the GAN and was satisfied with the result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2020 (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/December_2020&oldid=997250114"