Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2021

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) 28 December 2021 [1].

---

Socrates Nelson

Nominator(s): TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The year is 1848. The California Gold Rush is on, and America expands westward. In its northwestern-most territory lies the fledgling logging village of Stillwater, Wisconsin Territory. Situated near the St. Croix, pioneer lumbermen send white pine from this wilderness down the river. Little did these pioneers know that this small town would become the epicenter of the creation of a new territory, known as "Minnesota" for the region's longest river. An ad hoc convention is formed in Stillwater to petition Congress for territorial independence, and among these men is Socrates Nelson.

Born in 1811 in Massachusetts, Nelson moved westward at the young age of 25 to prospect and sell furs. As an early settler of Stillwater, he became a general store owner, a log boom and lumber mill operator, a real estate speculator, and an incorporator of numerous businesses. He quickly became involved in local politics and, in 1848, co-authored a successful petition to Congress to make Minnesota its own territory. He soon also became a founding member of the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota Democratic Party, and the Minnesota lodge of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, as well as a member of the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents. In 1859, he became a one-term state senator, and in 1864, he voted for George B. McClellan as a delegate in the 1864 Democratic National Convention. In 1867, during his twilight months, he all but donated a block of land for what is now Minnesota's oldest standing courthouse – not out of generosity, but to spur development near (and, by proxy, sales of) lots he owned. Nelson died of tuberculosis in 1867 with an estate of over $100,000, and his death resulted in the closure of most of the city's businesses in observation.

I found this article through the 'Random article' function last December. It had thankfully been created by RFD, and I decided to expand it a bit; eventually, it became a passion project that got way out of hand. Sorry for the middle-school-tier book report; I just wanted a hook to grab your attention.

PS: I've spoken to the executive director of the Washington County Historical Society, and he has doubts to say the least that a picture of this subject exists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

• What sort of alt text? If I feel the captions are descriptive enough, should I add something like "See caption for more information"?

• Alt texts are designed for people who can't see the image, whether because of a visual impairment or because their device doesn't load images. Telling the former group to "see" the caption would not be helpful; if you feel the caption adequately conveys the contents of the image, "refer to caption" may be appropriate. See WP:ALT. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd meant "see" as in the encyclopedic sense, but I agree that "refer" works better for sensitivity toward its target audience.

• @Nikkimaria: I added alt text to all of the images used in the article. Please let me know if you think it's too detailed, not detailed enough, etc. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Probably on the too-detailed side, but not going to fuss over it. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size

• Done.

• File:Stillwater,_Minnesota_-_15645910519.jpg: what's the copyright status of the plaque? Ditto File:Washington_County_Courthouse-Historic_Marker.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• 1) CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr; 2) CC-BY-SA 2.0 from Flickr. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Those are for the photos. I'm asking about the plaques themselves. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: The plaque was erected August 26, 1948 by the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, so the copyright of the plaque itself is technically unknown. The MTCC seemed to be working under the Minnesota State Bar Association. The marker was erected by the Minnesota Historical Society, and the MNHS took the picture and licensed it under CC-BY-SA 2.0. So literally no issues with the second one (the same people who erected it and would own the copyright uploaded a picture of it to Flickr under CC-BY-SA 2.0), and the first one seems to be at least fair use insofar as it's a) just large enough to be able to make out the text written thereupon and b) not replaceable by some other work. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any way of determining status? If no, what would be the rationale for including as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I suppose we could email the Minnesota Bar Association and ask them if they have any copyright on it; if not, then nobody should own the copyright, and the work would have lapsed into the public domain. If not, fair use rationale is as follows: image is small enough that much lower resolution would probably detract from readers' abilities to read parts of the text on the plaque (namely the bottom); image of the plaque commemorating the Stillwater convention is the only one of its kind; the use of this media contributes substantially to the article, as Socrates Nelson was at the center of the Stillwater convention – most importantly, he co-authored the petition to Congress. I've been in touch with Brent Peterson of the Washington County Historical Society and may be able to ask him if he thinks the plaque is copyrighted in any way. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: As it turns out, I didn't need to go through any of that rigamaroll (thankfully, I didn't). The MTCC was formed by the Minnesota Legislature, who appropriated $150,000 in funding. So the MTCC—this plaque included—was a state-funded endeavor. There should be no problem with the copyright of this plaque. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Typically in the US state works - as opposed to works by the federal government - are not in the public domain by default. I'm aware that there are some exceptions - does one apply here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Is "god, I hate how nebulous and confusing copyright law is" an exception? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• In all seriousness, though, I can't find any statute saying that public works are copyrighted beyond the fact that statutes are copyrighted. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Unfortunately not ;-). My reading of this page is that the Minnesota government asserts copyright over its eligible works. However, this particular work may be PD due to its age - do you happen to know if there was a copyright notice associated with the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: I agree with your interpretation. A requester can do whatever they want with it for personal use, but redistribution isn't allowed should the Minnesota government assert copyright. The MTCC erected the plaque on the centennial date of the Stillwater convention: August 26, 1948. So it's not old enough to be inherently in the public domain, but at the same time, I can find no copyright associated with the plaque. Also, since I just realized that I said "Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee" before, I believe they were under the MTCC. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• See WP:HIRTLE - that age plus no copyright notice does give a path to PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ayy. So would you say that all of the media check out copyright-wise? Like I said, I've found no notice whatsoever of copyright on the works of the Stillwater Territorial Centennial Committee, let alone this specific work. If so, I can add alt text and then move on to finish addressing Wehwalt's comments. If you'd like to read through as well and add feedback about the prose, I'd say it's worth it if you enjoy super obscure US history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Since there is no visible copyright notice, you should use {{PD-US-no notice}}. I've taken the liberty of adding it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this

• Ref#2 — link — 5 instances
  1. Infobox children: "Emma A. Nelson" — OK
  2. "On September 22, 1848, Nelson and Betsey had two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson – but Ella later died in infancy on October 23, 1849." — OK for first part. Rest is sourced to other references.
  3. "Months after the Panic began that August, Levi Churchill died in St. Louis on December 24, ceding his estate to Elizabeth" — OK
  4. "Demoralized by deflated land prices, Slaughter and Hancock forfeited their claim to the lots." — OK
  5. "Owing to development sparked by the courthouse, the lots began selling for sometimes upward of $1000 apiece" — Which part of the source cites this?

• @Kavyansh.Singh: "Father Michael Murphy paid the astronomical sum of $4,000 for three of the best lots in the city".

• Ref#4 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Infobox children: Hettie Carson (adopted)" — OK
• Ref#5 — link — 6 instances
  1. "Infobox education: Deerfield Academy" — OK
  2. "Nelson lived in nearby Greenfield and attended Deerfield Academy, taking a partial course before returning to his hometown to become a merchant." — OK
  3. "There, he met his future business partner Levi Churchill and his wife Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)." — The source supports that Nelson met Churchill, but does not state that Nelson also met Elizabeth.

Bah. I hate it when I miss nagging little technicalities like this; fixed. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me being too nit-picky, but thanks for fixing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• 1. "That same fall, Nelson took a steamboat farther north to the recently settled town of Stillwater and opened its first general store, known as Nelson's Warehouse," — OK
  2. "Note c: located near the St. Croix by the intersection of modern-day Nelson Street and South Main Street." — OK
  3. "With the Churchills remaining temporarily behind in St. Louis, the two parties would exchange goods through the Mississippi River – Nelson's furs for Churchill's merchandise." — OK
• Ref#8 — link — 1 instance
  1. "to Socrates Nelson and Dorothy Boyden," — OK
• Ref#15 — link — "Note a: but US census data from 1850 records her given name as 'Betsey D.'" — OK (for 'Betsey D')
• Ref#23 — link — 1 instance
  1. "and another calls both Nelson's and Walter R. Vail's the first" — OK
• Ref#33 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Nelson entered the lumber business in earnest on February 7, 1851, as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." — OK for some part, rest supported by other sources.
• Ref#46 — link — 1 instance
  1. "and the Minnesota Western Railroad Company" — OK
• Ref#47 — link — 1 instance
  1. "In 1854, a stock company consisting of Nelson and others published Stillwater's first newspaper, the St. Croix Union – a Democratic-leaning, weekly periodical which was printed until 1857." — OK
• Ref#54 — link — 1 instance
  1. "In April 1867, hoping to spur development and drive demand for nearby lots they owned," — Perhaps, OK.
• Ref#63 — link — 1 instance
  1. "That fall, Nelson was appointed master in chancery for the county by Territorial Governor Henry Dodge." — OK
• Ref#79 — link — 1 instance
  1. "As part of the committee on railroads, Nelson co-authored a report with Lucius K. Stannard on February 4, 1860, recommending the expungement of Article IX Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution – known as the Loan Amendment – which was introduced in 1858 to expedite the development of railway infrastructure and authorized a total of up to $5 million (equivalent to $144,000,000 in 2020) in loans for railroad companies." — Perhaps, OK. But please break the sentence. Its a long one!

• Yeah, looking at it here, it's a complete mouthful; I'll break it up into two or three sentences. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ref#88 — link — 1 instance
  1. "Reiner won the election held on November 6, 1860, defeating Nelson as part of a string of legislative gains for Minnesota's Republican Party." — OK
• Ref#97 — link — 1 instance
  1. "having been ill for several months and bedridden for several weeks." — OK
• Ref#100 — link — 2 instances
  1. "Four years later, Emma married attorney Fayette Marsh, a former engineer and chronic alcoholic who had studied law and moved to Stillwater to co-found a firm." — OK
  2. "before Emma died on November 23, 1880, at age 32 of what was described by her obituary as "a short but painful illness"." — OK for death date. The quote is from another source.

I review this article for GA, and also during the peer review. The spot-checks look very good. Clarification in needed on just few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up everything. Pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot check! Your peer review helped me find some inaccuracies as well, so I think thanks to you, this article is now 100% factually supported by RSes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• A one-paragraph lede seems rather short. Can it be expanded at all?

• Possibly, but I'd have to really brainstorm for that. The intro was originally created by RFD, drastically expanded by Howcheng in light of new information I'd gathered, and then expanded by me after more new information became available. It may require a complete rewrite to expand it to more than one paragraph, and I do really like how concisely it conveys the gist of the article right now. I could try drafting a rewrite and see if you think it's any better.

• @Wehwalt: Sorry for taking so long on this. I've expanded the lead out somewhat, but I did want to give you an example of an FA with a lead approximately the size of this one. The lead section for Socrates Nelson was 135 words long, while James A. Doonan – an article of approximately the same length – has 148. The lead for Socrates Nelson is now 201 words (I didn't mean to push it just over 200; that was a coincidence). Beyond this, I think I'm pushing it as far as lead length goes. Kavyansh.Singh and Nikkimaria, your thoughts as well? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "as one of the incorporators of the St. Croix Boom Company organized by the Minnesota Territorial Legislature." I suspect the term is "chartered", not "organized".

• Easton (1909) describes it as "organized", so that's what I went with.

• " He would use it scarcely over the next ten years," Perhaps, "He would rarely operate it during the next ten years"

• I prefer "scarcely" simply because I think it conveys "very rarely" or "basically not at all". The text states he "operated [it] but a portion of one or two seasons for the next ten years". In essence, I think "scarcely" in its connotation more strongly conveys how rare something is compared to just "rarely". I did, however, change "use" to "operate", since that's more descriptive. However, this is another instance of my "would [do thing]" addiction (see farther down), so please tell me if you think that needs fixed.

• The 1857 real estate activity sounds like they were trying to create a townsite. If this is true, can it be more clearly stated?

• I couldn't find anything about them creating a townsite. Zion's Hill, where the lots were, borders entirely on Stillwater (if you look at the sketch used as media, you can see the hill), so I think they were just trying to expand Stillwater. It's just that nobody wanted to build on lots up there because the trek to the top of the hill was way out of the way. Nelson donated land for the courthouse to spur development of infrastructure that would make getting up there easier.

• "On January 27, 1867, during his twilight months," Twilight sounds a little too poetic. Is the fact that Nelson died soon after really relevant to this?

• "twilight years" is a common turn of phrase for somebody's final years alive; I don't think it meets the standard for MOS:EUPHEMISM or MOS:CLICHE. As far as relevance, I just like to occasionally keep readers grounded as to where they are in the person's life (like, for instance, the near-tautology "in 1839 on a prospecting tour at age 25"). I feel like doing this sparsely, while very slightly extraneous, helps keep readers better grounded than just "in 18xx this, then in 18xy that".

• While it's conventional to use "would" to indicate passage of time in the past, it isn't always necessary, as, for example, the account of the trustees under Nelson's will. I would change that to past tense.

• Done. I think I need some sort of rehab clinic for using "would [do thing]" in the past tense.

• "$1000" should be "$1,000", plus any others that may be similar.

• MOS:DIGITS states: "Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped [...] with consistency within any given article." It's just a personal preference thing.

• You should make it clearer if the area around Stillwater was at one time part of the Wisconsin Territory, that it became part of the Minnesota Territory.

• I actually just realized that the only indication I gave was "St. Croix County, Wisconsin Territory"; I'll figure out a way to fit this in, since it's crucial context for unfamiliar readers.

• @Wehwalt: I tried with this one. The best I could come up with was: "On November 26, 1849, Nelson was elected to serve as treasurer for the newly formed Washington County, Minnesota Territory, into which Stillwater would later be incorporated [as the county seat]." (Bolded indicates new text; brackets indicate extraneous text that could still be added in.) I have a source for the new text, but it just feels long-winded to me. Your thoughts?

• I see his nomination for state senator. Can anything at all be said about the election?

• I don't recall seeing anything about this election specifically. There may be raw numbers I can find (and I think there are), but certainly nothing about debates or campaigning or anything. I'll be able to find these more easily in a couple days when I can get to my desktop and access the MNHS' newspaper collection.

@Wehwalt: Update: those numbers were for local elections, not the state senate. The numbers for the local elections are pretty much extraneous (we're talking a few dozen votes), and I can't seem to find anything for the 1858 election. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• There should be some mention of Minnesota statehood in the political narrative.

• As it turns out, our featured article on the History of Minnesota doesn't have a single mention of the Stillwater convention; I'll have to change that! As far as this article goes, I can say something like how he was elected in 1859, "three years after Minnesota was admitted as a state to the Union, but I'm really not sure how to fit it in super organically. Maybe "In 1858, two years after Minnesota was admitted to the Union, Nelson organized Baytown Township..."? The problem is that Nelson had literally nothing to do with statehood. If he'd served in the first state legislature instead of the second, it'd probably fit in more organically.

• Minnesota, I assume, at some point here went from two representatives per district to one. Can some brief mention of that be included between Nelson's two legislative elections?

• I actually have literally no idea why Minnesota went from 37 senators to 21. I can research this and get back to you.

• Several times, Nelson's estate is alluded to, and mentioned as continuing into the 20th century. Why?

• I could just address it up until November 1880. I just thought it was a noteworthy way to end 'Business ventures' — namely that Nelson's son-in-law basically squandered everything he'd built up through said ventures. I don't personally see it as distracting from or is extraneous to the overall article. As far as the 'Later life and death' mention, Nelson's estate is mentioned because of very severe disagreements between Nelson's wife and his son-in-law that are prominently discussed in Empson (2002).

That's all on first reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: I'll address these as best I can over the next couple days and see what you think. I know you said you didn't have much time for new commitments, so I appreciate you taking time to perform this analysis. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi TheTechnician27, have you addressed all of Wehwalt's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll just cut to the chase and Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Wehwalt. I appreciate the support, but I did want to let you know that I researched the part about the Minnesota Senate shrinking. I couldn't find anything, unfortunately, so if that changes your answer, then so be it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This nomination has now been open for a while, with little sign of a consensus to promote beginning to form. Unless it attracts further reviewer attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Understood, Gog the Mild. Wehwalt, your thoughts on the new lead? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I know it's not your responsibility to save a stagnant FAC review, but I really would like the article to be the best that it can, so I was wondering if you had any comments or concerns about the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I am almost certainly not going to have time to do a proper review, but in passing:

• "University of Minnesota Board of regents". Either lower case b or upper case R.

• Done, and in doing so fixed an issue brought up by Kavyansh.

• The Bibliography and the Further reading should each be in alphabetical order of lead authors' surnames.

• Is it alright to leave them in chronological order? I can change this really easily; I just think chronological order is more intuitive. Just making sure before I change them.

See WP:GENREF "are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor." Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't familiar with GENREF; I'll have that fixed shortly. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Done now. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:04, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• The main article opens as if it were a continuation of the lead. It should be a stand alone coverage of the topic of which the lead is an independent summary.

• True; done. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I've put this on the list for a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kavyansh.Singh

Note that I had reviewed this article at GAN and also during the peer review. Will look once again to find anything else which needs to be fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and was a member of the University of Minnesota Board of Regents before being elected to the senate" — Per MOS:SOB, try to avoid placing two links next to each. Will "and was a member of Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota before being elected to the senate" work?

• I'm not sure how compliant this is with SOB since they're still somewhat close, but I used "University of Minnesota's board of regents" to fix this.

• The length of the lead is just fine in my opinion but the lead should summarize the article. Currently, there is nothing from "Legacy" section. Just a line or so would suffice.

• True. Added information about the plaque on the courthouse and the Nelson School as organically as I could. Hopefully it flows well.

• "attended Deerfield Academy" → "attended the Deerfield Academy"?

• Our article on Deerfield Academy refers to it without a 'the', thus I followed the same convention.

• "(née Proctor)" → ({{nee|Proctor}})

• Neato. Didn't realize that was a template. Fixed.

• "In spring 1844," — MOS:SEASON discourages the use of seasons to refer to particular time of the year.

• "Fixed" all instances of this, but I think it makes the article very marginally worse, since ironically it removes precision. Still, guidelines are guidelines.

• "Nelson's estate was valued at over" — the word 'estate' has been used before unlinked.

• Come to think of it, I feel that was a WP:OVERLINK to begin with. Fixed.

• "He was on the University of Minnesota's first Board of Regents" — 'Board of Regents' linked in the lead, but not in the prose ...

• Fixed. Also gave a more specific wikilink.

• "wherein he voted for George B. McClellan." — the current linking makes it appear as WP:EGG.

• Hadn't seen this part of the MoS before. Fixed.

• "Nelson died of tuberculosis in Stillwater, Minnesota," — can removed 'Minnesota', already mentioned before.

• True enough. No idea why I felt the need to specify here. Fixed.

That is all from me. I think this was my sixth or seventh time reading the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now. Strangely, this review also helped me find a typo I made in the alt text, since it was right next to the word "spring". I really appreciate having another pair of eyes on the article, and I think you've easily done the most work in that regard. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 – Thanks for your work on this article, and for resolving these comments. I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments for Draft Eisenhower movement at its peer review page would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll have a look and probably do some minor copy-editing. I'll let you know if there are any moderate-sized issues to address. It may take a few days to get around to a full, proper review after a first reading, since I'm a bit busy this week. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping

Putting this here instead of their talk page so there's complete transparency. Kingsif, a GA reviewer, looked at this a while back and so is somewhat familiar with the article's subject. I was hoping that, should they have some spare time, they could look at the article and leave criticisms that could be resolved. I am not attempting to WP:CANVASS in any way with this; I want to a) keep the discussion alive and more importantly b) get the article to the best quality it can be within the span of the FAC review – while there are still eyes on the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda

Thank you for the invitation on my talk a while ago. I'll comment as I read, leaving the lead for last.

General

• I have a problem with women being called just by first name, - please try to avoid it. Sometimes it's necessary to distinguish, but there many ways to avoid constructions such as "Nelson and Betsey" which just read unfair (to me).
  • I would refer to them as "Socrates and Betsey", but convention has it that I can't use first names for the subject of the article. I can't exactly refer to Betsey Nelson by "Nelson", and calling her "Betsey Nelson" every time feels just a bit too verbose. I could refer to her as "Nelson's wife, Betsey" or "his wife Betsey" on occasions when they're in the same sentence together, but that frankly feels demeaning compared to just using a first name. As examples of this, the article Abraham Lincoln refers to Mary Todd as "Mary", John Adams refers to Abigail Smith as "Abigail", Grover Cleveland refers to Frances Folsom both as "Frances" and as "Frances Folsom" basically interchangeably, Calvin Coolidge refers to Grace Goodhue predominantly as "Grace", Rutherford B. Hayes refers to Lucy Ware Webb as "Lucy", Benjamin Harrison refers to Caroline Scott predominantly as "Caroline", etc. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton frequently refers to Bill Clinton as "Bill Clinton", and C.D. Howe refers to Alice Worcester predominantly by her married name. I think the former has less to do with any sort of double standard and more with the fact that Bill is a former POTUS, but it still reads to me as overly verbose. In effect, the only ways I see to avoid "Nelson and Betsey" are "Nelson and Betsey Nelson" (weird) and "Nelson and his wife, Betsey", which is needlessly giving the reader information they already know. As there's already plenty of FA precedent for referring to a subject's spouse by their first name, I really don't see it as unfair so much as a drawback of the fact that we're not allowed to call our subject by their first name to disambiguate between their spouses. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

    First: indenting. Please, when replying to an asterisk, repeat that asterisk. (There's an essay on top of User talk:Drmies). Secondly: thank you for going into much detail. You are probably a man ;) - There was a discussion on Talk:Josephine Butler, and following the reasoning, I worked hard on Clara Schumann to avoid calling her just Clara, - double hard because biographies do it. Please consider to use "the couple" sometimes, or find other ways. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd prefer fewer commas, fewer brackets, and fewer clauses within hyphens. Due to American date format, sometimes there's a a comma after every word, which I find hard to read. No reason not to support in the end, just what I notice.
  • Since this is MDY, I can't really sacrifice those commas without losing precision. Regarding brackets (I assume you're refering to parens), outside of two exceptions, they're really only used for unit conversions and inflation. Regarding en-dashes, I tend to think they cut down on verbosity (while being distinct from commas), but I can take a look and see what can be rearranged to still flow naturally.

Infobox

• Do we need relatives without articles? ... a cemetery without article?
  • Up to you. My philosophy on infoboxes is that, in a climate where most people stop at the first couple lines of a Wikipedia article viewed from a search engine, let alone reading the article, having a robust infobox with plenty of information is more useful than ever for a lot of readers. I acknowledge that precedent is against me on this, so what I could do is remove 'Parents' and condense children down into '2 biological, 1 adopted' to make it better conform with other featured politics and government bios. Basically, I don't think having it there is hurting anything, but I don't have really strong opinions on it either.
    • It doesn't hurt, but also doesn't focus. If this man was the son or brother of someone famous, a reader might recognize, or link and see. Names with no apparent significance don't enlighten, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Done.
• can we have the Democratic party somewhere?
  • I'm a bit confused here. Nelson's affiliation with the Democratic Party is mentioned several times throughout the article.
    • Yes, but not in the infobox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
      • It's between 'resting place' and 'spouse'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• please devote a sentence in prose to the adopted girl --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I actually really wanted to, but the only thing I could find on Carson are that mention in Folsom (1888) and this irrelevant mention in The Stillwater Messenger. It's clearly worth it to me to mention that Nelson adopted a daughter, but I have no idea where to mention her outside the infobox, since I have no idea where she fits in chronologically. Do you think "The Nelsons would also adopt a daughter, Hettie Carson" after noting the birth of Emma and Ella? I'm somewhat afraid to put it there, since while it's not time-specific, it could imply that he adopted Carson around that time, something I have no way to confirm or deny. Also, this gave me an idea, so I went ahead and changed "Nelson and Betsey" to "the Nelsons". I would've used "the couple" like you suggested, but unfortunately, the last couple mentioned in the prose was Nelson and Levi Churchill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

TOC

• Isn't death part of later life, without mentioning?
  • I renamed it from 'Later life' to 'Later life and death' as Kavyansh pointed it out as an idea in a peer review. On the one hand, it does make the header longer, but on the other, it does immediately stick out to a reader who just wants to find out how a subject died. So I could go either way on this.

Early life

• This is much more substantial than the typical school and education, - perhaps a different header?
  • I could go for "Early life and Stillwater", or something to that effect. Frankly, I can't really think of another header besides that (which just reads weirdly) that isn't overly verbose.
• "Levi Churchill – married to Elizabeth Marion Churchill (née Proctor)" - probably no need to repeat "Churchill" for her?
  • Went ahead and changed this.
• "at a site – maintained for several years but since washed away – known as Nelson's Landing or Nelson's Point" - perhaps say known for first, then washed away?
  • Done. Let me know how you think it flows.
• "two children – twins Emma A. and Ella Nelson" - I'd say "twin girls, Emma A. and Ella".
  • Always a fan of reducing verbosity while maintaining detail. Done. I'll get around to the rest of these; I just like doing them in parts. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Business ventures

• "operated from 1853, the year which saw Nelson's departure from the mercantile business" - why let the year see? - Could be simply "... when Nelson departed from ..."
  • But how else am I going to to express my narrative flair? Nah, just kidding; done.
• "Robert F. Slaughter, half of which he deeded in turn to Hilary B. Hancock" - I'm not sure who "he" is here.
  • Didn't think of that. Done.
• "practical worthlessness" - what's that
  • Kavyansh asked as well, and I'm just going off what Donald Empson states in his report: "City lots became virtually worthless". Therefore, I don't have an exact figure; just that they were worth basically nothing. The Stillwater Democrat describes it as "land depreciated from fifty to seventy-five per cent", and Empson does remark that what was described here was "also true of Stillwater", so I could write "the value of the [...] land plummeted by 50 to 75%." However, the reason I don't have that included is because it feels too much like WP:SYNTH to me.
• "and as of 2021, the building is the longest-standing courthouse in Minnesota" - do we need the 2021 clause? ... it will be true until it collapses, no?
  • It will be. I only put that there because of convention that we date all "current" statements, but I'll be keeping a close enough eye on this that it being outdated shouldn't be any real issue for more than maybe a couple weeks at most should something happen to the courthouse
• I am not happy with what follows - tellings after his death - before he actually died.
  • Pretty much the only reason I do this is because it's relevant to his business affairs. However, I could move the post-mortem information back over to 'Later life and death'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
    • (Having changed some more indents: may I ask once more to please reply to an asterisk by repeating that asterisk?) Yes, please consider moving what happened after his death to later, perhaps a new section - it's not really legacy, nor his life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• I'd distribute the three images over the article. Especially the courthouse pic would be good where that house is mentioned. The marker could just go to the courthouse article, as the print is too small to read the story.
  • So you're suggesting having the image of the courthouse under 'Business ventures' and the Nelson School under 'Legacy'? Unthinkable! (Actually, that's a really good idea. I'll change it, and you can let me know what you think.) TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

See also

• I'd not need that at all. Better link to the 2 items in context.
  • Done. I just removed "Economy of Minnesota" altogether, since it's frankly really lacking in any information about the early pine industry that would be relevant to those reading about Nelson. I put 'Territorial era of Minnesota' as a 'See also' atop 'Political career'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now, - thank you for an unusual article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• It really would be a weirdly obscure subject to have an FA about, wouldn't it? TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  I love weirdly obscure subjects. I finished the formatting of replies, but otherwise am too tired now, - will hopefully get back to your replies and the lead after sleep, then my morning routine including a DYK article and a long watchlist (which I'll prune to 50.000 tomorrow, promised), then the article of the day (a recent death so can't wait), - patience please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

  Back, Christine Haidegger on the Main page.

Lead

• "He was involved in the community of early Stillwater, being a founding member of the first Independent Order of Odd Fellows lodge in Minnesota as well one of the earliest members of the Minnesota Historical Society." - for me, it would be helpful to first read about his trade, business and politics, and then the fellows and society So Stillwater yes, perhaps "early community of Stillwater", perhaps with a start year, but the details much later?
  • I switched it to "early community", but I just feel like having the early community part flows better. I moved the 'early community' line below the 'As a businessman' one for a couple days, and every time I read it, it just felt very off. I feel like this order works best within the chronology of the overall article, even though some aspects of his business ventures are in 'Early life'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• "before being elected to the senate. As a senator"- I suggest to close the previous sentence with a full stop and begin "He was elected to the Senate ..." + year
  • The reason I don't include the year he was elected to the Senate there is that I already state a paragraph beforehand that he "served one term as a Minnesota state senator from 1859 to 1861", rendering that redundant.
• "As a senator, he helped to repeal the Loan Amendment – intended to expedite the creation of railroad infrastructure – from the Minnesota Constitution." - how about first the link to the constitution, then the railroad purpose?
  • I'm not sure what you mean, sorry to say. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• I don't see the slightest reason to combine the Democratic convention and the land donation in one sentence, - I'd perhaps even begin a new paragraph for the latter.
  • Done.
• same - no connection - for his death and the plaque, better connect the plaque to the house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Also done.

The questions where I didn't reply again are solved, for me. Thanks for the changes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for more action, I'm happy now and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Assuming that spot-checks aren't needed. Sources are consistently formatted although I don't understand what the bolded numbers are supposed to mean. For historical laws such as #41, aren't there better online sources than Google Books? Are W.H.C. Folsom, Joseph A. A. Burnquist, Joseph R. Brown, Boyden, Wallace C.; Boyden, Merrill N.; Boyden, Amos J. and Lucius Frederick Hubbard reliable sources? Their credentials don't scream "reliable high-quality source" to me. Lots of local news sources, on whose reliability I cannot vouch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Bolded numbers are volumes. This is the automatic formatting when you place a number under the 'volume' parameter. Folsom was heavily involved in the early politics of Minnesota. Burnquist, having been governor etc. of Minnesota, is used to attest to positions such as Territorial Auditor and the UM board of directors and – given his offices – is quite qualified to do so. Joseph R. Brown was the territorial printer and was merely a publisher of the source on behalf of the territorial legislature and supreme court. The Boyden source documents Boyden genealogy, and I've seen no reason that the source shouldn't be trusted. Hubbard is one of four editors for the series 'Minnesota in Three Centuries'; Hubbard's writing contributions are limited to chapters covering the Civil War which do not pertain to Nelson. The local news sources are from Brent Peterson, the executive director of the Washington County Historical Society. He's exceptionally knowledgeable in the region's history. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

OK then, if no spot-check is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2021 [2].

---

Robert Howard Hodgkin

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Howard Hodgkin is best known not for what he accomplished during his career, but for what came at its end. After spending more than a generation writing it, he placed one of the first histories of Anglo-Saxons into the hands of both general and academic readers. Two years later (and five days into retirement), he reemerged to take on the role of provost at Queen's College, Oxford, after the previous officeholder died in a plane crash. In his second retirement, Hodgkin produced his second book: a six-century history of the college. And so did Hodgkin—son of a banker-cum-historian, father-in-law of a Nobel winner, uncle of another—etch his name in the annals of his family's so-called "Quaker dynasty."

This article was created in 2017; a green circle graced its top right corner two years later, following a review by J Milburn. Since then, and thanks in large part to an obscure but comprehensive book on Hodgkin, the article has been expanded nearly threefold. It is now ready for its turn here. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Some minor points about the prose:

• Lead

• "historian of modern history" – the repetition of historian/history is infelicitous. And are the Anglo-Saxons regarded as "modern history"? (Question asked from the standpoint of my complete ignorance.)

• Good point, completely missed that. I've deleted the "of modern history". According to the relevant article, modern history began well after the time of the Anglo-Saxons. This is explained, I think, because while Hodgkin taught modern history, his research into Anglo-Saxon England reflected more of a side interest; a number of reminiscences of him mention how his work on the Anglo-Saxons was mostly a rumor before his book was published. (e.g., Hodgkin et al. 1955, p. 66: "As undergraduates, most of his pupils knew little of his private studies and historical work. There were rumours of 'the Anglo-Saxons' being in the background, but for us they were very much in the background, and became part of the legendary activities which pupils associate with dons. When his History of the Anglo-Saxons appeared we realised how much more there had been in the background than we had dreamed.") --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin was the son … Hodgkin matriculated … Hodgkin volunteered" – a pronoun or two might relieve the repetitions of the name.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "ultimately led to him being forced to leave the Society of Friends" – is it painfully pedantic to observe that this fused participle ought to be "his being" – a gerund with the possessive?

• Nope, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1904, he was made a fellow, in 1910 a tutor, and from 1928 to 1934 he held the post of" – the AmE-style comma after a date is becoming regrettably common in English usage, but if you must use it, oughtn't it to be used three times in this sentence, for the sake of consistency?

• I prefer no year-following commas to three of them, so removed it. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• "B. H. Streeter fell ill, then resumed teaching" – it's asking a bit much of "then" to press it into service as a conjunction in formal English.

• Reworded, but what's wrong with using "then"? --Usernameunique (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Most of us, I think, use words like "then" and "so" as conjunctions in informal speech, but in encyclopaedic prose it is better, in my view, to stick to traditionally recognised conjunctions, adding "and" or "but" or suchlike before a "then" or a "so". I am, however, an old codger and younger editors may disagree with me. The latest edition of Fowler is fairly relaxed about "so" used as a conjunction, though it doesn't give "then" the nod. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• "for two significant works" – Gowers has these wise words on that adjective: This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?

• "important" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Early life and education

• "In his first year at Bamburgh, Hodgkin's father became acquainted with Arthur Smith" – I don't think this says what you mean it to say. It was presumably RH's first year, and not his father's.

• Fixed: "In Hodgkin's first year at Bamburgh, his father..." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "once per fortnight" – on the generally sound precept "prefer good English to bad Latin" it might be well to make this "once a fortnight".

• Done, though what makes "per fortnight" "bad Latin"? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Per diem" or "per mensem" is good Latin for daily or monthly; I don't, to be honest, know what the Latin for "fortnight" is but it certainly isn't "fortnight". (I've now looked it up and it seems to be "quindecim [dies]"). But why use Latin at all when a shorter, crisper English alternative is to hand? Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Second Boer War

• "due to his military service" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

• Changed to "because of". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Career

• "On May 19, 1904" – unexpected date format in a BrE article. Not wrong, by any means, but rather strange looking, and you use the more familiar form "On 6 August 1908" later on.

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" – not sure what the empty square brackets are for.

• They're to indicate an alteration. The source reads "His method as a tutor was thus suggestive rather than purely instructional, and, having signposted the roads and tracks, he would often leave his pupils to explore for themselves." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever run across that exact usage before. It makes perfect sense now you explain it, though I'm not sure how many of your readers will be familiar with the construction or understand its - dare I say? - significance?. Tim riley talk 09:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• First World War

• "watched the college population gradually dwindle as people were accepted for service" – men are undeniably "people" but the latter looks a bit odd in the context of an all-male college.

• Changed to "as its members were". I take your point, but its possible that there were female staff/faculty members who also left to serve, hence the initial use of the gender-neutral "people". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• "his four years of service was primarily spent" – plural subject with singular verb

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in coastal defense" – why use the American spelling rather than the English "defence"?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Return to Queen's College

• "who joined Queens" – Queen's or Queens?

• Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Due in large part to the sabbatical" – another "due to" pressed into service as a compound preposition.

• Changed to "Owing in large part to". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin had spent around two years looking for a retirement home, such that" – "such" seems strange here. For an adverbial use like this one might expect "so that".

• Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Provostship

• "who likely saw his office as a trusteeship" – although a plain "likely" in this sense is good AmE it is not good BrE. "Probably" is the idiomatic form. (Curiously, as The Guardian's style guide points out, when modified by an adverb, "likely" becomes normal English usage.)

• Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• References

• Ref 35 is in need of first aid.

Those are my few comments on the prose. The content looks fine to me: well and widely referenced, balanced and easily comprehensible. – Tim riley talk 15:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim riley. I always enjoy your reviews, not least because I inevitably walk away having learned something. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the criteria. It is well written, well and widely sourced, balanced, and, I suppose, as well illustrated as possible (though couldn't a picture of Queen's be found? It wouldn't tell the reader all that much about Hodgkin, admittedly, but would break up the prose; I do not press the point). I look forward to seeing the article featured on our front page. Tim riley talk 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt

• "In 1894, meanwhile, Hodgkin and his sisters Lily and Ellen were taken by their father to Italy, where they spent time in Milan, Florence, Rome, Naples, Ravenna, and Vienna.[19]" This makes it sound like Vienna is in Italy.

• Good point, fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• " Saint Petersburg before travelling down the Volga and exploring the Caucasus," Would it be preferable to say "up the Volga" as they were going upstream?

• Changed to "along the Volga". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can it be made clearer why he was not called upon to serve in South Africa if he joined the service in 1900? Was this regiment eligible to serve outside the UK?

• I've been able to find next to no details of his Second Boer War service, except that it forced him to leave the Quakers. Given how he seemed to have plenty of time to pursue his other interests, however, it may have been something more akin to his time with the Ilmington Home Guard than to his World War I service. Some searching (1; 2), however, suggests that not many from the 1st Volunteer Battalion Northumberland Fusiliers went to South Africa, and of those who did, most or all volunteered to do so. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• I know the Volunteer Force were not required to serve outside the UK before the Army was reorganised in 1907. It may be that what he served in formed part of that. Our article on his regiment mentions volunteer battalions, and I note a V.B. in what you wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• " and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" I have the vague impression that footnotes are to go outside of parentheses.

• I would think inside, since the citation supports only the material inside the parentheses, but am happy to be proven incorrect. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bradmore Road is linked on second usage.

• Took out the first mention of Bradmore Road. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Does Oliver Franks need a second link in the final paragraph?

• Nope, removed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review

I didn't do a thorough spot check except for some of the sources cited in the bibliography. Source #107 says that Betty was 11 not 12 as the article claims and I am not sure what information #112 supports in the sentence cited to it. Is #101 a reliable source?

It seems like the sources are reasonably formatted - save for Ferry 2014 which has no page numbers, and Magoun 1954 which JSTOR has 1952 - and have the necessary information. Andy Croft is being used as a source for some lightweight claims but are they a reliable source?

Is it just me or are there more sources about his book than about him? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed age of Betty Hodgkin. She was 11 years and 11 months (per Wolfers, she was born on 8 October 1915 and died on 8 September 1927).
• Source #112 (namely footnote 17 therein) supports the fact that the poem was about Betty Hodgkin, which is not obvious from the face of the poem.
• The above two are the only sources for which Croft is used. The first is backed up by Wolfers (who has the specific dates), and the second is I think reliable given that Swingler was the specific subject of Croft's research, and the source is being used simply to identify the subject of Swinger's poem.
• #101 doesn't support any information in the article, it's just a nice link to follow for someone looking to see what the house looks like.
• Ferry 2014 is a placeholder—I'm trying to get my hands on the physical book, but have just seen the Google Books version so far, which (as it's formatted from the e-reader version) doesn't have page numbers.
• I'm not seeing where JSTOR lists Magoun as 1952; JSTOR 2853872 gives it as January 1954.
• There are definitely a lot of reviews cited—pretty much every review I could get my hands on. But Hodgkin et al. 1955 is a 99-page book with information on Hodgkin by 19 separate people, and there are a number of works on Hodgkin's family members (e.g., Wolfers's 2007 book on Thomas Lionel Hodgkin) which contain a lot of information on him as well.

Thanks for taking a look, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

ROBERT HOWARD HODGKIN, A History of the Anglo-Saxons. Third edition. Oxford University Press, 1952. Two volumes. Vol. I: pp. [xxxiil+[1I, 381i; Vol. II: pp. xii, 383-796, with plates, figures, and maps. Cloth. is the part of the JSTOR that says 1952. The reason why I wonder about the reviews is because if the book is better known/more frequently described than the author, an article about the book seems to be warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, the book is from 1952, but the review is from 1954. The book could no doubt sustain its own article—it probably meets both criteria 1 and 4 of the notability standards for books—but that is a project for another day. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Mike Christie

• "Following preparatory and boarding school": if you're not going to name them, I don't see the point of saying this in the lead -- of course he had schooling before college.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "a role he would reprise": "role" seems the wrong word for a military career.

• Changed to "which he would rejoin during the First World War". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a possible link for "pro-provost"? I'd never heard the term. A Google search gave me a very specific definition for UCL's pro-provost but I doubt that's what this means. Later in the lead you describe him as provost, rather than pro-provost, so I wonder if the term just means interim provost.

  I'm not sure what pro-provost would link to, although I've added a clarifying citation to the statutes of the college. Pro-provost appears to be a temporary role, bringing with it the powers of the provost, used only when the provost is unable to exercise his duties. According to the 1877 statutes of the college, "The Provost shall be required to reside in the College seven calendar months at least in each year, whereof seven weeks at least shall be in each Term ...: Provided that in case of the Provost's sickness, or for any other urgent cause, it shall be lawful for the Visitor to dispense with the Provost's residence for such a period as the case may appear to the Visitor to require: Provided also, that if the Visitor dispenses with the Provost's residence for a period of one or more Terms, of if the Provost being resident shall be through sickness temporarily incapable of performing his duties for one or more Terms, the Provost and fellows may nominate one of the Fellows to act as Pro-Provost, who shall during the absence or sickness of the Provost perform the functions and exercise the powers of the Provost." While Edward Armstrong was pro-provost for well more than a decade (1911–1927), this appears to have been a special circumstance, and not one that the college was keen on. Per Armstrong's obituary, this occurred because "Dr. Magrath in 1911 resigned his functions as Provost, though not the title". And per the article on Magrath, "Having been reclusive for the last ten years of his provostship, seen only by the servant that brought him his meals, Magrath's refusal to participate in college affairs led the college to seek to get rid of him". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps a footnote then? Saying something like "The college's statutes allowed for a pro-provost to be appointed, to act as provost when the holder of the position was unable to perform their duties", and cited to the statute? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Added a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would suggest moving at least some of the contents of note 1 into the body text, since you later quote his sister referring to him as Robin, without explanation.

• I'm not sure there's an elegant way to work it in, particularly since the attribution ("Per his wife") would introduce yet another person (not to mention one from much later) into a paragraph already filled with names. But "[note 1]" is fairly noticeable already, and the nickname "Robin" is given in bold in the lead. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'd avoid using "matriculated" for entering Repton -- I think most people who even know the word think it refers only to entering university, so as you phrase it it sounds like Repton is a college.

• Changed to "enrolled". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "one sister speculated, was possibly": seems redundant to have both "speculated" and "possibly".

• Changed "speculated" to "wrote". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "at the end of 1893, the family sold Benwell Dene": the article on Benwell Dene says it was donated, not sold; just checking that your source specifically says it was sold.

  I'd noticed that discrepancy too, especially as some sources also say it was donated. But the source used is both close to Thomas Hodgkin (it's largely a book of his letters), and specifically says the house was sold. It's possible the considerable grounds were donated (they became a park), or that the house was sold cheaply, given the intended use. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Struck; your source is much better than the one in the article on the house. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "was proxime for the Stanhope essay prize": suggest glossing "proxime".

• Now "In 1899, Hodgkin was proxime, or runner-up, for the Stanhope essay prize". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "For years, Hodgkin spent vacations working at the history of Anglo-Saxon England": since this is the first mention in the body, I would avoid "the"; perhaps "working on a history" or "writing a history".

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin and his wife were then only a month removed from the death of their daughter": since we haven't mentioned any children at all to this point, I would mention the death before giving the information about the sabbatical.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin finished his first major work, A History of the Anglo-Saxons, in 1933": we've mentioned the book earlier in this section so I think it would be natural to make the connection here. Something like this might work" "Hodgkin finished the book he had been working on for so long in 1933: titled A History of the Anglo-Saxons, it was his first major work", though I'm sure that could be improved.

• Changed to "Owing in large part to the sabbatical, Hodgkin finally finished A History of the Anglo-Saxons, his first major work, in 1933". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Much of the first two years was spent with committees, guests, and socialising": suggest "and in socialising".
  • "in socialising" sounds off to me, though I've now read it and "with socialising" so many times that both just sound weird. Tim riley, do you have any thoughts on this? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Grammatically the sentence is fine as it stands. Adding "in" before socialising would be fine too, but you'd need to change "committees, guests" to "committees and guests", I think. Whether the acquisition of "in" is worth a repeated "and" is for you to say. Tim riley talk 08:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Tim riley. I think I'd prefer to stick with it as is. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        Tim, what I was concerned about was that it implies "was spent with socialising", which isn't a construction I've ever seen used -- it would normally be "it was spent in socialising". Are you saying that "with socialising" is acceptable in British English, or that the construction doesn't require parallel application of the preposition to each of the terms in the list? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        What sounds most correct to me (AmE) is "was spent socialising". This construction adding with does not seem correct to me. I would rephrase: "was spent socialising, with guests, or in committees". (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

        buidhe's wording looks good to me. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. All minor points, and I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Mike Christie. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie, further comments addressed. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Not to rush, but just a friendly heads up that all issues have been addressed. Cheers, --Usernameunique (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

HF - support

Recusing to leave some comments here, I don't expect there to be many

• ""signpost[] the roads and tracks"" - something has gone wrong here with the brackets

• See comment beginning "They're to indicate an alteration" above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• This makes total sense after reading that explanation up there, although I don't believe I've ever seen this usage before, either.

• "As a teacher, Hodgkin was remembered for being "suggestive rather than purely instructive", offering signposts for "the roads and tracks" but "leav[ing] his pupils to explore for themselves"" - this is in the lead, but the body attributes this to the opinion of a single student. I'm not sure the phrasing in the lead is appropriate, as we are saying this in wikivoice, when this is only the opinion of a single student.

• Fair enough. It's now "As a teacher, Hodgkin was remembered by a student for being..." --Usernameunique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• " split nearly equally between Northumberland (1915), Herne Bay in Kent (1916–1917), and (from 1917 to 1919[48])" - It's unclear what is supposed to be sourced to what, as ref 48 does not mention Herne Bay or the 1915 or 1916-1917 date ranges

• Put the two cites that support the dates together. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hodgkin was unofficially selected at a meeting on 22 September, and officially elected on 5 October; his six days spent as an ordinary fellow set a record for brevity," - I'm struggling to figure out what these six days are; this seems to be the only mention of ordinary fellow in the article

• His resignation was effective 29 September, so add six days and that brings us to 5 October. Per the source, "The resignation of his Fellowship became effective on September 29th: on October 5th, he was elected Provost, having held an Ordinary Fellowship for six days, a record for brevity." I read "ordinary fellow" not as an official title (the title, I think, is just "fellow"), but as a distinction from, say, "senior official fellow", a title which was presumably knocked down to "fellow" upon retirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can this be explained a bit better in the article? I think even just noting that the resignation was effective on 29 September would help, as where the six days is coming from is more obvious that way. Hog Farm _Talk 14:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Clarified. It's now mentioned twice, but as the first mention is in the preceding section (see the last sentence thereof), I can see how it gets missed. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "It also added the duties of the Ilmington Home Guard" - link Home Guard here to Home Guard (United Kingdom)?

• Done, thanks for pointing that out. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm _Talk 07:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hog Farm. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, replied above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 December 2021 [3].

---

Jim Lovell

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about the second oldest living American astronaut after his Gemini 7 and Apollo 8 crew mate Frank Borman. He also flew the Gemini 12 mission with Buzz Aldrin, who is two years younger. Lovell was part of the Next Nine group of astronauts selected in 1962 that also included Neil Armstrong, and he was Armstrong's backup for the Apollo 11 mission. Today he is probably best known for his unsuccessful final mission, Apollo 13, which was made into the 1995 film Apollo 13, in which he appeared. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

I've made a number of hands-on edits, mostly minor grammatical and such.

• "Naval aviator" Our article on same says "naval aviator".

  De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Can more be said about the astronaut selection process Lovell passed? If I recall, Lovell describes it in some detail, including the interview.

  Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "at Albrook Air Force Station in Panama" I might describe it as being in the Panama Canal Zone.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps something more can be said about Lovell's experience on Gemini 7? From what I recall, the flight was so long that in the final days they were uncomfortable and just counting down the time to the return to Earth.

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• What role, if any, did Lovell have in NASA's recovery from the Apollo 1 fire?

  Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that Lovell led the crew that spent two days in April 1968 in a CM in the Gulf of Mexico testing the effects of seawater on the CM?

  Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps in the Apollo 13 mission material, a bit more about Lovell as an individual, perhaps mention he echoed Swigert's "Houston, we've had a problem" and his comment that NASA wouldn't be returning to the Moon for a while that got him into slight hot water.

  Added the former. Do you have a source for the latter? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's page 323 of the 1998 edition of Chaikin's book. On the chance you have different pagination, it's the episode described as April 16 at 3:21 am Houston time. I think Lovell talks about it in Lost Moon, too. There's brief discussion of it in the Lunar Flight Journal here (search for

"last lunar")--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I retrieved Chaiken from the library, which is open again, and have added a paragraph about this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Two of his classmates were Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra, but Lovell graduated first in the class I think it would be better as "however," instead of "but".

  Dome editors dislike "however". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• He became McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager. I believe this is missing an article after became.

  Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Add a nonbreaking space to the infobox to keep Apollo 8 from going to two lines. Same thing with United States.

  It's a link, so this is included automatically. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I added it in and fixed it. It actually doesn't occur for links automatically when there is a space. Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• achieved Eagle Scout, the organization's highest level I think it would be more appropriate to say rank instead of level.

  Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Upon his return to shore duty, he was reassigned to provide pilot transition training for the North American FJ-4 Fury, McDonnell F3H Demon and Vought F8U Crusader Serial comma.

  Seems okay to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Most of the article uses the serial comma. If this is intended to be in American English, then the serial comma would be required. Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be able to get the rest of the article from Gemini down tomorrow. Noah^Talk 02:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why you are using nautical miles instead of statute miles? Most readers do not understand the unit.

  Nautical miles was the old measurement used for orbits, and was used in the contemporary sources. (After the loss of a spacecraft due to unit confusion, NASA now uses metric only.) For the readers, metric conversions are provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• After the flight this was traced to the fact that they had an old type of laminate in the thrust chamber instead of the new type that had been developed to solve this problem. Comma after flight.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• By day thirteen a warning light was burning continuously and it was feared that the cells Comma after thirteen.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• However tests were carried out in St. Louis that demonstrated that Gemini 7's batteries could sustain it for the remainder of the flight. Comma after However.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Instead Aldrin, who had written his PhD on the rendezvous, Comma after instead.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• and aftwerwards it underwent a series of qualification tests Typo

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• On Christmas Eve the crew broadcast black-and-white television pictures of the lunar surface back to Earth. Comma after Eve.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• In 1999 the Lovell family Comma after 1999.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link Duke of York.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link to Richard Nixon.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "the 1970 Apollo 13 lunar mission" this could be read as if there's e.g. a 1971 Apollo 13 lunar mission. Maybe "the Apollo 13 lunar mission in 1970".

  Changged as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could link Mission control center for "mission control".

  Linked instead to Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Also worth linking night fighter as it's jargon.

  Pravda? Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Class 20. His classmates ... the class" thrice class in quick succession.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "He became the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II program manager." rather brief and without temporal context.

  Added temporal context. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Infobox mentions total duration in space of "29d 19h 03m", where is this referenced?

  Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Interestingly, his occupation in the infobox is listed as "Test pilot" yet that is not listed in the lead, where it says he's a retired "astronaut, naval aviator, and mechanical engineer".

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. To avoid this prospect..." doesn't flow right, "this prospect" appears to be the outbreak of the Korean War.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could link liquid-propellant rocket.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "while they ... While she" quickly repetitive.

  Re-worded. Midshipmen are not permitted to marry, so marriages immediately after graduation were common. Today, there are fewer early marriages, but Naval officers are more likely to be married than the US adult population. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "NAS Pensacola " can we spell out NAS first time?

  Nah, spelt out in full instead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Especially as you subsequently have "at Naval Air Station Patuxent River"...
• "His classmates included Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra.[18] Conrad gave Lovell the nickname "Shaky" could we not reverse the order of Conrad and Schirra in the first sentence and then merge it with the second to avoid these two very short sentences?

  Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "sets.[20][18]" ref order.

  Reversed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "time John Young served " are we supposed to know who that is?

  Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any need to have (USC) when you never actually use the initialism?

  None. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "NASA career", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "NASA test pilot Warren J. North reduced" comma after North.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "finalists.[26][27] The finalists" repetitive.

  Concatenated sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "on September 14.[31] He became" merge.

  Moved the text around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "announcement, but it was" why "but"?

  In comparison with the Mercury Seven. Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and " overlinked and if you want to introduce it (i.e. "in Florida") suggest you do that on its first mention.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "for Gemini 4.[43] This was" merge.

  Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "astronaut Deke Slayton.[43]" overlinked, and do you need to repeat his first name?

  Did a sweep through, removing all duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a United States Air Force (USAF) officer" you've already used USAF before this point.

  Abbreviation defoined on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "had a zippered hood" is this referenced?

  Added a bit about zippers to the main text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the Gemini 6 mission" our article calls it 6A? Indeed you switch to 6A later...

  It became Gemini 6A on the second attempt. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the Agena target vehicle that" overlinked.

  Did a sweep through, removing all duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Gemini 7 during the two weeks while Gemini 7 was in orbit.[48] The only change to Gemini 7's " bit "Gemini 7"-centric...

  Removed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "eight were medical" what were the other 12?

  (Has a look at the list) Added a summary. The Gemini VII article should have listed them all, but it is a mess. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "was less exciting." according to?

  Grimwood and hacker. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Drums Along the Mohawk has a capital A in Along.

  Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Gemini 12", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Previous) "... potential astronaut candidates..." overlinked.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "On January 24, 1966, Lovell... " massive sentence, lots of run-ons and repeated phrases.

  Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• " (EVA). EVAs had" repetitive

  Joined sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Lovell asked him if he could change the oil too." I assume this is a joke, so it might be worth saying "jokingly" in front of asked.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "discarded some unneeded items" whaaaaat? He just chucked stuff out into space?

  Correct. Source [4] says: "Aldrin began the second standup EVA which included photography, additional experiments and the jettison of unused equipment." [5] (p. 377) says: "First, he just stood in the hatch, becoming acclimated. Then he cast loose a garbage bag." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "December 24 (Christmas Eve) " etc not sure why Christmas Eve/Day is relevant. This is about spaceflight, not Christianity.

  It is relevant because of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Please be informed, there is a Santa Claus."[78]" I mean this is "funny" but who said that Santa lived on the Moon? He's in the north pole, everyone knows that. Or is it an American thing to think he lives/lived on the Moon?

  In American lore, Santa and his reindeer fly around the Moon. eg [6]

• "the right numbers" -> "the correct values".

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "computer keyboard" that's an Easter eggy link to computer, call it by it's piped link.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Image captions seem a bit hit-and-miss as to the consistency on full stops.

  Removed a couple of full stops. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "prime and backup crews, who trained together" this is very surprising to me. I thought the whole point was to separate the teams in totality. That's not a correct assumption then?

  There was no effect to separate them; prime and backup crews always worked closely together. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "We have a problem here" " comma after "here"?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would put this seminal conversation into a quote box rather than single-sentence paragraphs in the middle of the prose.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• "becoming CEO in 1975. He became" repetitive.

  Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Awards and decorations", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

PS I'll finish up tomorrow, sorry for the delay today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• What makes anecdotes-spatiales.com a high quality RS? It looks like a self-published blogesque site to me.

  Replaced with a book reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "by His Royal Highness the" do we need "His Royal Highness"??

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "1966. It was " merge.

  Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "in 1969. Lovell accepted" similar. This paragraph reads quite choppily to me, could use smoothing out as it's like reading a list of bullet points in prose form.

  Smoothed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Lovell was on " featured on? I mean it's pretty certain that Lovell's image appeared on hundreds magazines/newspapers etc, but I guess these two instances were proper features?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Compare format of ref 11 with ref 116, e.g. linking, location etc, be consistent.

  Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 34, we don't normally do "double quotes".

  Changed to single quotes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 57 vs 62 format inconsistency.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 67, what is Features?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 67 vs 79, NASA format inconsistency.

  Harmonised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 80, you tend to put locations for printed newspapers, but not always. Be consistent.

  MOS:CITE requires "city of publication (if not included in name of newspaper) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why some URLs are archived and other aren't even though they're live?

  No idea how that happened. Removed archive URLs where site is live. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 90, NASA here instead of NASA elsewhere. Check throughout and be consistent.

  Should be consistent now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 91, you tend to link newspapers, but not consistently, suggest you do so here (and consider location too as this is a non-US work).

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 136, Boy Scouts... was italicised previously.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 139 no access-/publication date?

  Added one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 148 no location information

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 150, TIME is just Time and can be linked.

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• I notice that The New York Times has no location information in any refs yet Los Angeles Times does (for instance) so I imagine for consistency all of these should.

  Removed from Los Angeles Times. As noted above, MOS conformance requires inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 133 ISBN has no hyphenation while all those in the References section are hyphenated.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's probably just about it on the first run. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice work, happy to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry

I've read the lead and had a couple of minor quibbles but I'll wait til you've addressed TRM's comments so we're not duplicating each other. Ping me when you're ready for me and I'll get to it as soon as I can. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• through the efforts of the crew and the Mission Control Center Is this really relevant in the lead of Lovell's biography?

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• which included future astronauts Pete Conrad and Wally Schirra Again, doesn't feel like an important detail for the lead

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• They had four children: Barbara, James, Susan, and Jeffrey I don't think we need the names of non-notable offspring

  We normally note children at least to the extent of whether they were daughters or sons, their names are widely sourced, and they do appear later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Usually the top graduate was assigned to Flight Test on graduation, but Lovell was assigned to Electronics Test Is that a proper noun? Also, do we know why? Was it his choice?

  Yes, we do. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• and Conrad for refusing to take the second round of invasive medical tests not relevant to Lovell's biography

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• During which time future astronaut John Young served under him. relevance to Lovell? And during what time? This is a new sentence.

  Young appears later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Borman rejected suggestions that Lovell and Stafford exchange places on the grounds that it was hazardous and likely to jeopardize the fourteen-day mission objective through loss of oxygen I had to read this several times and I'm still not quite sure what's going on. Why was this Borman's decision? Why was the suggestion made in the first place, and by whom? Switch which places? What was the hazard and how did it jeopardise the mission?

  Borman was the commander, so he was in charge of the mission. Try and imagine what was proposed. We have two Gemini spacecraft, each about the size of a car, moving through space in tandem. We tether them together with a nylon rope. All four astronauts don space suits, and we open the doors of both spacecraft, letting out the cabins' oxygen. Then Lovell makes his way across to Gemini 6A, making sure not to fall off and become orbiting space junk, and boards Gemini 6A. Stafford then does the same, moving to Gemini 7. Borman disconnects Lovell's oxygen hose on Gemini 7, and Lovell reels it in and has Schirra re-attach it on Gemini 6A. The process is then repeated for Stafford. Both spacecraft then close the doors and repressurize the cabin. What could possibly go wrong? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• White was laid to rest in the West Point Cemetery, with Lovell serving as a pallbearer the ", with" connector is ungrammatical. Suggest splitting the sentence or, better still, re-casting it to make Lovell the subject.

  HJ Mitchell you've mentioned this in "another place", could you link me to some style guides (even our own one) which suggests this construction is ungrammatical, just for my interest please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, the best we have on-wiki that I can find is User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing (Tony cites the Chicago Manual of Style). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• This did not seem to bother Lovell, Duke regarded it as his worst experience comma splice

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• However, he accidentally erased some of the computer's memory "however" implies a contradiction but there isn't one here

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• There was one more change. Seven days before launch That entire paragraph seems off-topic for Lovell's biography as opposed to the article on Apollo 13.

  We need to introduce Swigert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• The restaurant was sold to son and executive chef James ("Jay") in 2006.[117] The restaurant was put on the market for sale in February 2014,[118] and it closed in April 2015, with the property auctioned the same month. All feels off-topic. Beyond the point where the Lovell family were involved, it should suffice to say that it was sold and later closed.

  The family were involved with the closure and sale. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it. Not much to criticise. I've seen Apollo 13 a few times but hadn't realised that Lovell was the captain! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Now you'll have top watch it again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy with your responses, and I'll look out for Lovell next time I watch the film! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

No issues with licensing found. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Seeing as this one just needs a source review, I will contribute one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• - getting a 404 error, recommend archiving

  Which one? Checklinks isn't reporting any problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, looks like a CNTRL+V fail. It's " "Capt. James A. Lovell Visits with Wisconsin NROTC Midshipmen". United States Navy. January 3, 2017. Retrieved December 3, 2019.". Hog Farm _Talk 06:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Restored from archive. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• "As a college student, Gerlach had transferred from Wisconsin State Teachers College to the George Washington University in Washington, D.C., so she could be near him while he was at Annapolis" - how much of this does the public record link actually support? the other ref doesn't support all of it

  I don't have access to it; replaced with a reference to Lovell and Kluger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• - "Evans, Ben. "'The Best All-Around Group': NASA's Astronauts of '62". AmericaSpace. Retrieved February 12, 2018." - Given that this is one of four refs just supporting the "New Nine" name for the group, I think this ref can go, as it appears to just be a middle-tier source in reliability.

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Hog Farm _Talk 19:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Link Honourable Company of Air Pilots where it is used as a source

  Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• " "James A. Lovell". The Hall of Valor Project. Retrieved November 27, 2019." - is this valor.militarytimes.com source RS? I've never gotten a good answer for this question.

  Reputable publisher. Military Times is a well-known newspaper that specialises in US military news. The Hall of Valor is not crowd-sourced material, but reproduces the citations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Hintz, Martin (2000). Wisconsin Portraits: 55 People who Made a Difference. Big Earth Publishing. ISBN 978-0-915024-80-3. OCLC 44508414." - very obscure publisher, what makes this high-quality RS?

  I've added an additional source, from the Chicago Times, but Big Earth is neither obscure nor small [7] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• What makes " "Life Magazine cover: Jim Lovell". Oldlifemagazines.com. Archived from the original on November 29, 2011. Retrieved March 9, 2013." high-quality RS?

  It was a site that sold old Life magazines. Substituted a link to the issue via Google. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Other sources look okay for major formatting issues/reliability. Hog Farm _Talk 20:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Also: you have to put "recusing" in the edit history if you want the bot to credit you as a reviewer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why are some books missing publisher locations? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like an oversight. Added missing ones. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 December 2021 [8].

---

Benedict Joseph Fenwick

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the second nomination of this article, after the first failed for lack of input. I have taken this article through GAN and believe it is up to FA standards. Fenwick led a fascinating life, full of controversies and disputes navigated from senior positions. Ergo Sum 14:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

• "with it officially shuttering in April 1814" - shouldn't that be "shutting"? Or is "shuttering" a synonym for that in US English?
  • Shuttering is a common Americanism but it sounded a bit colloquial on second glance, so I've rephrased. Ergo Sum 00:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Fenwick served alongside Kohlmann as pastor of Old St. Patrick's Cathedral in 1809, an office he held until 1815" - he held the office in 1809 (implying only during that year), but until 1815? That's a bit unclear......
  • Agree that that was poor wording. I've fixed it. 01:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "St. Patrick's Cathedral, whose construction" => "St. Patrick's Cathedral, the construction of which" ("who" should only be used when referring to people, not inanimate objects)
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• No need to link Georgetown College again in the section of that name
  • That link doesn't go to Georgetown College; it goes to List of presidents of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 01:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "In May 1822, Fenwick returned to Washington, D.C." - when was he in DC before? The city hasn't been mentioned up to this point......
  • The Early life section discusses how he lived in and then studied in Georgetown, which is in Washington. Ergo Sum 01:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• That's what I've got as far as the end of the Georgetown section. I'll look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This was followed by the establishment of a co-ed day school." - what does "co-ed" mean? I suspect this is possibly a common US term with which I am not familiar
  • I don't think co-ed is a strictly AmEng term (but I could be wrong. Nonetheless, I've expanded it to co-educational and linked it. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the school began charging tuition" => "the school began charging for tuition"
  • I've never heard that particular construction. I've only ever heard "charging tuition." I suspect this might be an AmEng vs. BrEng matter. Ergo Sum 01:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "As they left, a mob of 2,000, wearing masks or painted faces encircled the convent" - needs a comma after faces to close off the clause
  • Done. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• "All but one of the perpetrators was acquitted" => "All but one of the perpetrators were acquitted" (the subject "all but one" refers to multiple people)
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 01:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, ChrisTheDude. Ergo Sum 01:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

HF - support

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• " The school was opened in 1808, in a house on Mulberry Street,[10] across the street from the original St. Patrick's Cathedral" - based on our article about the cathedral, construction did not start until 1809, so the school would not have been across the street from it in 1808. Maybe rephrase to across the street from the future site of the original St. Patrick's Cathedral?
  • Good catch. Clarified. Ergo Sum 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• "succeeding Giovanni Antonio Grassi at the former" - you've already introduced him, so you can just refer to him as Grassi
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Later that year, Ambrose Maréchal, the Archbishop of Baltimore, sent Fenwick to Charleston, South Carolina," - is there a more exact date for when he was sent from Georgetown?
  • Unfortunately, the source does not give specific dates. Ergo Sum 18:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Fenwick remained in Charleston one year beyond the erection of the new Diocese of Charleston and the appointment of John England as the first bishop" - more exact date? At least a year?
  • Added year. Ergo Sum 18:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• So he was acting president of Georgetown and Bishop of Boston at the same time? That seems geographically difficult, especially in the 1820s era
  • I'm not sure I follow. I don't see where it says he held the positions simultaneously. Ergo Sum 18:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • "On September 15, 1825,[28] the Jesuit mission superior, Francis Dzierozynski, again made Fenwick acting president of the college and vice rector, as the incumbent president—his brother, Enoch—refused to return to the college after leaving for St. Thomas Manor" and then says he held the position for less than a year. And then he's consecrated as bishop of Boston on December 21, 1825. So does "less than a year" mean ~3 months here? Because I think that most readers would be like myself and assume that "less than a year" suggests a time period greater than three months. Reading Dubuisson's article, it looks like that Fenwick did have a very short acting presidency, so could the "less than a year" be rephrased to make it clearer that this time frame wasn't even close to a year? Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Rephrased to clarify it was just a few months. Ergo Sum 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Can we get a more exact date as to when his 1825 acting term ended?
  • I was able to find the precise date he became president for the second time, but the sources are silent as to the date his presidency ended. They all seem to suggest that he just held the presidency until he went to Boston, following his appointment as bishop. Ergo Sum 19:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Infobox says he died in Boston. I don't doubt this, but it actually isn't specified/cited in the body
  • Most every source simply says that he died as the Bishop of Boston, implying that he died in Boston. However, I was able to find one source that says he died at the then-cathedral of Boston, which is in Boston. I've added this to the article. Ergo Sum 20:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• ""From the Pastor's Desk" (PDF). Holy Trinity Catholic Church Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Holy Trinity Catholic Church. December 6, 2015. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 16, 2018. Retrieved January 4, 2019" - Since you're citing a column written by the pastor, shouldn't he be given as the author?
  • That makes sense. Done. Ergo Sum 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Fenwick cropped.jpg - does not have a real source link. The source link takes me to a different file, which merely has a circular source link back to the file description page.
  • The original was a photograph, so there's really nothing to link to. I've slightly tweaked the wording to make this clearer. Ergo Sum 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This does not constitute a formal image review, although I did look at the images. Hog Farm _Talk 05:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Hog Farm. Apologies for the delay. Ergo Sum 20:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ergo Sum: Looking good, except for one point that I think can be addressed with a phrasing improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 20:13, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Grapple X

• Overall sources seem to be academic publishing—good to see a mix of university presses here and not a preponderance from Georgetown, the range speaks to breadth well.
• Tager 2001 has a URL but no access date, unlike the other sources with URLs provided. I don't believe these are necessary for books but it should be uniform if used,
  • Added access date. Ergo Sum 21:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 52 mentions that the building was sold in 1980, not that the school ceased operating that year; can we get this backed up with another source giving the specific year it stopped operating?
  • I found a better source and replaced the previous one with it. (Also discovered that it was 1981, not 1980). Ergo Sum 01:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• That's all I have here. I don't believe a dedicated spot-check is necessary but I can conduct one if required. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review, Grapple X. Ergo Sum 01:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • New source definitely covers this better. Took a second read over everything just to be sure and nothing seems amiss. Happy to consider this passed on sourcing. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Three links in the opening three sentences of the lead to the Society of Jesus.
  • I actually think it's justified in this instance, because each of those three instances are very different. One is the term "Jesuit," the other is "Society of Jesus," and the third is "SJ." I think it's definitely worth it to link Jesuit and I think your average reader, especially a non-Catholic, would not know that the Society of Jesus is the formal name for the Jesuits, much less that SJ is the abbreviation for Society of Jesus, which is the Jesuits. It is also standard in Jesuit biography articles to link the first instance of SJ for that reason. Ergo Sum 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "founder of the College of the Holy Cross" might be contextual to say where this is.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "began his ministry in New York City as the co-pastor of St. Peter's Church, the pastor of the..." mildly confusing, he began his ministry with two positions simultaneously? Also, a year would be helpful I think.
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "intra-parochial conflict" what's that?
  • Rephrased. I think "intra" is redundant here, and linked parochial to Parish (Catholic Church), of which it is the adjectival form. Ergo Sum 02:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Fenwick's life, and the formation of the Montgomery Guards. Fenwick also addressed intra-parochial conflict, ultimately placing a Boston church under interdict. Fenwick ..." thrice Fenwick, perhaps replace the middle one with "He"?
  • Tweaked. Ergo Sum 02:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "His older brother was.." last "his" would relate to Cuthbert, is that the intention?
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "earning highest academic honors" what does this mean?
  • Not entirely sure. I could speculate that the source means summa cum laude, but I don't know if this institution was using Latin honors at this time. Ergo Sum 02:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• You link "philosophy" but not "theology"?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 02:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the Society of Jesus, which" again, you've linked Jesuit in this section already.
  • It's always been my practice that the lede is discounted for the purposes of linking first instances of terms unless it's an especially short article. Here, this is the first instance of Society of Jesus after the lede. Ergo Sum 02:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "entered the Jesuit novitiate ... enter the restored novitiate..." repetitive.
  • Combined sentences. Ergo Sum 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "he was sent" re-assert Fenwick, last "he" was Leonard Neale. And it's a new section so nice to recall who we're talking about in any case.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the Archbishop of Baltimore, sent Fenwick" overlinked.
  • This is the only place in the article where Archbishop of Baltimore is linked. I think it makes sense to do so. Plus, the earlier Archdiocese of Baltimore is not that close. Ergo Sum 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "returned to Washington, D.C. as" overlinked, and comma after D.C.
  • This, too, is the only instance of Washington, D.C. being linked. I always think it makes sense to link cities, especially for a non-western readership. Ergo Sum 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • But you've called it the District of Washington above and linked it as such. Did it change names? I would refer to the same entity with the same nomenclature here, and reduce the overlinking. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I've gone ahead and linked that first instance to District of Columbia (until 1871), which is really more accurate here. Ergo Sum 03:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a link for rector?
  • Linked. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Archbishop Ambrose Maréchal served" overlinked.
  • Removed duplink. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "by Protestant evangelists" overlinked.
  • Though certainly a common term for a read-up person in the Anglosphere, I think it's worthwhile for those who may not be familiar with the Protest-Catholic divide/history. However, I'm amenable to removing this one if you really think it's unnecessary. Ergo Sum 03:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Well it's already linked in the same usage earlier on so I don't see what this is linked here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Very right. I didn't catch that. Removed the duplink. Ergo Sum 03:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• "in Old Town, Maine for" comma after Maine.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a link for incardinating?
  • Yes, linked. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "from Emmitsburg, Maryland to" comma after Maryland.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "this paper survived" publication perhaps instead of the colloquial "paper".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• " The Pilot, which is today the oldest Catholic newspaper in the United States" the target article says it's the oldest still published because at least one other work was older.
  • Corrected. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Our article capitalised Greater in Greater Boston.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review, The Rambling Man. Ergo Sum 03:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

All images appear to be suitably placed and alt text is passable. File:Mitre plain 2.png and its parent work File:Mitre - Heraldry.svg however need to explain the copyright status of the mitre design; I imagine it's some flavour of PD-old? File:Old St. Patrick's Cathedral on Mott Street, NYC 1831.jpg licencing is fine but is a direct link to the page where the image is possible? File:Ruins of Ursuline Convent 1834 Riots.jpg dating is a little sparse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thank you for the image review. For the St. Patrick's Cathedral image, the link at present does go to the original work (a book), which is made available via Internet Archive. I'm afraid I can't find any more detailed a date than the year for the convent image. For the mitre image, which comes in as part of the template, I think the CC 2.5 license applies to the design of the mitre, since it's just a generalized depiction of a mitre. I don't think it copies anything, so the author's released under 2.5 is a release of the whole image, which includes the digital design. Otherwise, I'm not sure what they would be releasing. Ergo Sum 04:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

If the image depicts a generic mitre, it should be removed - the way it's currently used it strongly implies that the image is the official design and style of this particular cleric. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, to clarify, the mitre is not specific to Fenwick. It’s a long-standing symbol of Catholic bishops and, indeed, many Christian bishops generally. It cannot be removed without removing {{Infobox bishop styles}}, which is used on a great many (perhaps the substantial majority) of Catholic bishop articles and those of other Christian denominations. It’s a useful template, and I think the mitre is a minor but welcome stylistic touch to the template. Either way, that’s something that has to be addressed in the context of the template, not this particular article. Ergo Sum 15:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus just to make sure they saw the above response. Ergo Sum 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to be That Guy but I still think that it is misleading when the template says "Styles of Benedict Joseph Fenwick" (emphasis mine). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think we just have a difference of opinion. Granted I am fairly well versed in Christian, particularly Catholic, imagery, I don't think your average reader with at least some degree of familiarity with Catholic (or Christian) bishops would conclude, given the context, that the mitre depicted is Fenwick's uniquely. I think it is pretty well known that a mitre is the signature symbol of a bishop, and that is the reason it is used here. I would go so far as to say that is common knowledge among the average, educated reader. This is especially so, given the context of the vast majority of other Catholic bishop biographies on WP bearing that same mitre. If someone is not familiar with that, then one need only click on the image where there is the description. If it is any help, I have beefed up the description of that image on Commons to clarify that it is an image of a generic mitre, not any one bishop's in particular. Ergo Sum 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with being overridden on this one, but from my perspective as someone who knows about heraldry but little about the Catholic Church that kind of infobox image is misleading as my first assumption - endorsed by the text over the image - is that the mitre is specific. I wouldn't assume that readers coming here will be familiar with other bishop articles and their writing conventions, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ergo Sum, any further comment? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would've liked a another set of eyes on the question. As I say above, I think the average reader would understand the image in context, but if others think otherwise, then I'd be open to removing the template for the time being and opening a broader discussion on the template page about whether the current use of the image is warranted. I just wouldn't want something rather minor like this to hold up what would otherwise appear to be a successful FAC. Ergo Sum 03:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comments from Gog the Mild, recusing to give a second opinion on this.

• I am afraid that I agree with Jo-Jo. The phrase "Styles of Benedict Joseph Fenwick" immediately followed by the mitre symbol will, IMO, inevitably lead a reader to believe that the symbol is part of Fenwick's personal style. It seems to not be a terribly well designed template. Regardless, the article, IMO, needs tweaking such that any risk of such reader confusion is removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I concur with Gog here. When I read the article, I had assumed that the mitre would part of the style. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• It would seem the people have spoken. I've gone ahead and removed the template. Perhaps the template can use some tweaking to avoid this issue. Ergo Sum 02:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2021 [9].

---

Great Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is part of two lose series that have been on my back burner for a while (railway company war memorials and Charles Sargeant Jagger's war memorials). It follows on from my previous nominations of Jagger's works, the Royal Artillery Memorial and Portsmouth War Memorial. I've been working on it on and off for a couple of years but only recently got round to giving it a full overhaul when I had a bit of time on my hands and wanted a project I could complete without having to buy any more books (I already have a bookcase full of material on war memorials!). It's not a very long article becuase the subject seems to have been overlooked in favour of larger, outdoor works, but I hope the bibliography shows that that is not for want of research, and I think it contains everything that can be expected. As always, I'm eager to hear any constructive criticism. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course. Done.

Comments by Thryduulf

• Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them. This feels too detailed for the lead and is also contradicted by the railway company built a stand on platforms and 2 and 3, and moved wagons into the tracks between the platforms in the history section. Were the stands built across the tracks or not?
  • I think it's relevant to the lead that there was such a crowd that accommodations had to be made. I've clarified in the body that there were stands on the wagons and it was one continuous crowd.
• The GWR was also responsible for running a train to remove the Austrian ambassador. More detail please - where was he being removed from and to? Why were they being removed? Why was a special train needed, and why the GWR? Some of this would probably be better provided by a link to where this information is elsewhere, if it's anywhere, an offline reference that may or may not include this information is not helpful in this case.
  • I don't think any more detail would be relevant here. The aim here is to provide a brief overview of the GWR's activities in the war as background to the memorial. We don't have an article on the Great Western Railway in the First World War or even anything similar, and the coverage of WWI in the main GWR article is two sentences so we don't have anywhere useful we can point readers.
    • I see your point, but the current sentence jars me out of the narrative with a "wait, what!?". As Extraordinary Wit suggests, toning down the language and adding a destination will resolve that. If you don't want to do that then remove it all together. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Having slept on it, I think it's venturing off topic, and it's distracting (there could be an article to be had there, there's definitely enough sources for an article on the GWR in WWI, but neither is within the scope of this article) so I've removed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• the GWR ran ambulance trains and ... and ... too many "and"s.
  • Reworded.
• the modern successor to the GWR suggest linking this to Great Western Railway (train operating company)
  • Not sure this is helpful or necessary; the casual reader doesn't need to know about the modern TOC to understand the article, and introducing a second GWR is likely to cause confusion.
    • What I'm suggesting is "the modern successor to the GWR", providing a bit of relevant context for those who don't know or aren't sure what organisation you are referring to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I see your point, I just don't think it matters. Those of us who already have a detailed knowledge of 21st century UK railway operations already know where that article is, and those who don't and just came to read about a statue probably don't care. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• but it explicitly include in the grade I listing change to "but it is explicitly included..." Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. @Thryduulf: thank you for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Extraordinary Writ

Looks to be in good shape. A few nitpicks below:

• Comissioning – typo
  • Fixed.
• The GWR considered several schemes... – this sentence would probably flow a bit better if you split it into two.
  • Done.
• During the Covid-19 pandemic – our article has COVID in all caps (and I would too), although that's certainly not a hill I'm going to die on.
  • Not the hill I'd choose to die on either. I think I prefer it in sentence case because it's not an acronym where each letter corresponds to a word so it feels a bit SHOUTY, but if there's a consensus or a MoS subsection that says I'm wrong I'll concede the point.
• Gloucesterhsire – typo
  • Fixed.
• a train to remove the Austrian ambassador – "remove" to me connotes some sort of involuntary expulsion, which (to Thryduulf's point above) really makes the reader curious. I see the source uses "return"; perhaps something like "a train to transport the Austrian ambassador back to ____" would be best.
  • I've removed this. See my response to Chris above for rationale.
• its ships – perhaps link Great Western Railway ships?
  • Might be helpful. Done.

More soon. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ, thanks for your comments. I'm back at work and on early earlies for the next couple of days so it might take me a day or two to act on any further comments. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Have you considered using Template:Inflation to auto-convert sums like £5,625 to their present values?
  • I've considered it. I just don't think the output is meaningful or useful. Maybe not apples and oranges, but it feels a bit like comparing apples and pears when you consider the changes in purchasing power over the course of a century.
• The GWR chose Jagger to design... – I'm a bit confused by this sentence. What was Blomfield recommending Jagger for? How (if at all) was "the government" connected to the memorial?
  • Clarified.
• To give such a large crowd... – this sentence is long and complex; it might be more readable if you split it up. The same is true for the following sentence (The ceremony began....
  • I've broken these up a bit.
• MOS:TIME seems to insist that times be spaced, so "10:45 am" and not "10:45am"
  • We can probably dispense with the "am" and leave it in 24-hour format.
• Several of your footnotes cite Gibbins, but the name used in the bibliography is Gittins.
  • Fixed.

That's about all I have for you. Sincere apologies for the delay: time just got away from me! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ no apology necessary, though it took me a few days to get back to you! Thank you for your attention to detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support on prose. Good work, as always: there wasn't much to nitpick here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

A railway I remember my boyfriend mentioned, made an Oooo sound when seeing this FAC. Here we go.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

=====Lead and infobox===== "who were killed in the conflict." Link World War I in "the conflict". I think that would be an Easter egg and not particularly helpful to the reader. It's not necessary to link every topic solely because the article exists. Oh God sorry for this bit. I think this point was a mistake. Link Archbishop of Canterbury. This one is helpful. Done. "British Army's postal service"-- link either History of the British Army postal service#The Volunteer Movement and formation of Army Post Office Corps (1868–82). I don't think this is necessary in the lead. "Covid-19" must be capitalized. Must? Do you have a source or a MoS link for "must"? I'm going to capitalise it, but because most of the style guides I've found online advocate "COVID" rather than "Covid". Yeah there's no particular MOS for that, however the title case version is a sort of colloquial version. Most formal sources use "COVID-19", even if there are formal sources that use title case the capitalised is the most encouraged. Infobox looks good. Background Link History of rail transport in Great Britain in "Britain's largest railway company", per the lead of Great Western Railway article. That would be an Easter egg again, and contrary to the MoS (and thus the featured article criteria) Link ambulance train. That one might be helpful. Done. "As well as manpower, the GWR gave up the majority of its ships for military use." I'd suggest moving the "as well as manpower" to the end of the sentence, as putting it in the front makes it confusing; putting it in the end I think makes it more straightforward. The previous sentence discusses manpower, which is why this one begins the way it does. "Thomas Tait"-- add the "S." and link Thomas S. Tait. Done. Link Royal Artillery Memorial and Realism (arts) in the image caption. Done for the RA memorial. Always nice when I can cross-reference another of my FAs. "Realism" I feel is plain enough English that a link isn't necessary. Reasonable objection to the latter. And I mean, who doesn't like cross-referencing another of their FAs? (Not saying I have an FA but I guess I'd love to cross-reference) Commisionning "The Great Western established a war memorial committee"-- is this referring to the GWR? If so it must be referred to as "The GWR" for consistency. From the context, it couldn't possibly be referring to anything else, and we don't have to be repetitive in the name of consistency. I disagree. At the Background sec, it is already abbreviated as GWR, so readers expect for it to be continuously referred to as GWR. If all of a sudden there's the word "Great Western" there might be two possibilities: either this is GWR, or another Great Western. There shouldn't be that type of confusion. As far as I see, this shouldn't count as repetition. It's common practice, when writing about historical railway companies, to drop "Railway" from the company name when the context is clear. cf. Midland Railway War Memorial, where "Midland" is used extensively in preference to "MR". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Well, not exactly. One thing I'd like to note from the Midland memorial article is that the abbreviation is not given, and that it has been chosen for the article to only refer to the subject as Midland Railway. That article is consistent in referral. But here, because an abbreviation is already given, it should be referred to with that abbreviation throughout. GeraldWL 01:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC) There is no requirement to refer to something by an abbreviation every time it's mentioned simply because the abbreviation is introduced in the beginning. From the context, "Great Western" couldn't mean anything else. Look at Great Western. From the context, we're clearly not talking about mountains in Sri Lanka or the USA, or towns in Australia. Most of the other entities on that page are either named after the railway company or created long after it. As I said, it's very common practice to drop "railway" from the name of a railway company once it's been established which company we're talking about. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think it's a "It couldn't mean anything else, so it's fine if we just use Great Western" issue. MOS:ABBR has stated explicitly, "Maintaining a consistent abbreviation style will allow Wikipedia to be read, written, edited, and navigated more easily by readers and editors alike. The style should always be consistent within a page." Why putting the GWR abbreviation when it's gonna be used here anyway? It just looks weird for me that other places use "GWR" but here it's "Great Western". It's almost as if you could be suggesting there's another kind of Great Western. I think changing that to GWR can help make the article tidier, in a way. GeraldWL 01:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Midnight update: Although at this point, if you still disagree with this point it's totally fine; it doesn't harm the article to a degree and I'll let it pass. GeraldWL 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC) "on the approach to Paddington"-- Paddington station? If so it must be a "London Paddington station" and link. It couldn't really be anything else, but I added "station" just to be sure. "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625"-- link £. That would be contrary to WP:OVERLINK. But does it though? MOS:OL does not specify currency, and I've seen plenty of GAs and FAs that link to currencies. Most English speakers understand what GBP is, and the history of the currency isn't relevant to a war memorial. What they're more likely to want is a conversion but that changes so frequently that it would be impossible for Wikipedia to keep up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think a conversion is needed, since UK is English-speaking and ENWP is, well, English. Also speaking of which: the budget bit was referenced to Lambert (short ref), but there's no "Lambert" source in the Bibliography seemingly. Is there a mistake here? GeraldWL 16:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC) Well spotted Gerald Waldo Luis. Must have forgotten to add the full reference to Lambert. Added now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Design "The GWR began commemorations for its war dead"-- is "war dead" an actual phrase? Does it mean casualties? If so, I'd prefer to change it to "war casualties". Yes, it's an actual phrase, and commonly used in such contexts. Got it, apologies ESL guy here. Unlink Thomas S Tait here; it should be at the background section. Done. "The second inscription was added after the Second World War"-- link Second World War. That would be overlinking; most readers know what WWII is. "20th-century British art"-- link 20th-century art and British art. Also overlinking. History "Army Post Office Corps"-- link History of the British Army postal service#The Volunteer Movement and formation of Army Post Office Corps (1868–82). Not necessary. BFPO is linked right next to it. The history is there if anyone wants to explore the history of the British Army's postal service. "Queen"-- link Queen of the United Kingdom. Overlinking. "Great Western memorial"-- remove "Great Western" per consistency. This is necessary because the previous paragraph discusses a different memorial. "GWR war memorial"-- same thing above. Rephrased. Capitalize "Covid-19". Done. References Should it be Citations first, then Bibliography? Because almost all articles I've seen using this style puts Citations first. But if it's normal then no problem. It's the format used in almost all my 31 FAs and it's not normally a problem. I think the works/publishers should be linked per consistency with ref22, 12, and 30; it'll be weird if one ref is linked but the other isn't. I used to link publishers and people objected to that. Now I tend not to bother. Refs 12 and 22 are generated by templates so there's not much I can do about those; 23 and 30 the work is linked (mainly because it's relevant to the subject and not necessarily well known) but not the publisher. I think that's as consistent as I can be unless I don't link anything. Understandable. Personally I've linked to publishers for ages and people have never objected to that. But it does no harm, so I'll let that pass.

Other than that, nice article. Comprehensive and detailed, using RS-es. If my comments are resolved, I'll support this. GeraldWL 02:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: I haven't been able to enact all your suggestion for reasons given above, but thank you for taking the time to read the article and leave a review. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the responses! I've responded to them back; you would want to see those in the Commissioning part. GeraldWL 05:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: replies inline above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

And with all that resolved, I'm happy to support this article. GeraldWL 01:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "on a polished granite plinth and Portland stone surround": I read this to mean that the memorial is on the surround; surely the surround is the arch within which the soldier stands?
  • Clarified.

    Could we make it "...plinth, within a Portland stone surround"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Sure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Such was the size of the crowd that the GWR built viewing stands across two platforms and the tracks in between them": Again I misread this: I took the first half of the sentence to mean that the GWR was responding to the size of the crowd that turned up. Just making it "expected size" would prevent that.
  • Done.
• "encouraging people to write to a letter": looks like editing debris?
  • Fixed.
• I think the last sentence of the lead should make clear that this is in reference to Armistice Day.
  • Good point. Done.
• "the railway was forced to implement controls": can we get a word or two more of explanation? Maybe "the railway was forced to limit the rate of enlistment", if that's what they did?
  • Added half a sentence; see what you think.
• "The railway company authorised a budget of £5,625 though the completed memorial came in around £1,000 under budget": can we avoid the repetition of "budget"?
  • Tightened.
• "a conclusion with which academics Gill Abousnnouga and David Machin concurred": you might move "with" to after "concurred" here; neither is wrong but I think the latter reads a little more fluently.
  • I was taught that it was poor form to end a sentence on a preposition.

    Struck -- I guess I'm on the other side of that debate, but it's OK the way you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I had a quick look for newspaper articles about the dedication in 1922, and found a short piece in the Observer on newspapers.com. About the only thing it contains that you don't already have is that GWR's General Manager, F.J.C. Pole, laid a wreath on behalf of GWR's staff. If you think it's worth including and if you don't have access I can clip the article for you. Otherwise there are just the minor points listed above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

That would be Felix Pole. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe I've addressed all your comments, Mike. Yes please to that snippet from The Observer. It's a nice little detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mostly struck above; I will get you that article shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The clipping is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added. Thank you! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. Looks good, as usual. Harry, if you don't have newspapers.com access and are interested in getting similar clippings for other memorial (or other) articles you work on, I'd be happy to clip what I can find for you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do soon. Hog Farm _Talk 18:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

So sorry I'm just now getting to this - had some crazy stuff come up over the weekend.

• A handful of harv/sfn errors - I think you'll need to add |ref=none to King, Black, Matthews, and Pullinger, based on the citation style you're using for the others
• Sources look reliable enough
• Are Gibbins and Gittins suppose to be the same source? Only a Gittins in listed in the bibliography
• "and moved to RAF Northolt in 2007 when the army unit responsible for it relocated" - not finding this detail in the cited source?

Looking good, pending the items above. Hog Farm _Talk 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hog Farm, no apology necessary. I wasn't available much over the weekend anyway. Believe I've fixed everything you mention. The old and new locations for the replica statue are both mentioned in the IWM source, but I've found another one that spells it out a bit more. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Support from KJP1

Harry, two quick comments. Although not mentioned in Pevsner, I have found it in a little book I've just obtained, The Immortals: London's finest statues. It doesn't actually have much that you've not already covered but I wonder if it might be included for completeness. Where I think it may be useful is the end of your Design section, in the discussion of Jagger's wartime experiences. Here, Blundell and Hudson have: "This memorial was created by someone who 'knew whereof he spoke'. Jagger was wounded at Gallipoli in 1915, and again on the Western Front in 1918, when he was awarded the MC." See what you think. You can find the full details for the book, here, and the page=16. My other quick observation is that, although the WWII rededication is mentioned in the Design section, it's not covered in the History section. I think there should be a mention of it in the latter. Perhaps a slight rejig/trim of the wording in the former section could avoid repetition. KJP1 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - Gog, I’m guessing Harry’s busy IRL. If, in your view, it’s got enough Support, I don’t think my comments need stand in the way. They’re marginal. Alternatively, I could weave the Blundell in? What do you think? KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, you are probably right about Harry. All of your points seem on the money to me. Would you mind working into the article what changes you consider would improve it? I will then check your edit and consider whether th e nomination can be closed. If Harry is not happy with anything the three of us can have a post-FAC discussion; I have always found Harry to be reasonable in these sort of situations. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry guys, the day job is insane this time of year! It'll probably be Christmas Eve by the time I can do any substantive editing (ie not just mashing buttons from my phone!). KJP, if you can make those tweaks before then, by all means please do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Have added Blundell and Hudson to the Bibliography, dropped their Jagger quote in to the Design section, slightly trimmed the WWII text in that section, added a short mention of the WWII rededication in the History section. Hope the changes meet with approval. Have read the whole thing through twice. It’s well up to HJM’s usual high standard and I’m pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2021 [Permalink][Image].

---

Pomona College

Nominator(s): {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a liberal arts college in California, one of the four level-5 VA liberal arts colleges.

I have been working intently on it for the past year or so, hoping to create a new model article for WikiProject Higher education, which has seen a devastating trend: of its 15 FAs on extant institutions in September 2020, all but 4 have now been delisted after failed FARs, and most of the remainder are in poor shape.

I am grateful to have already received substantial feedback on this article in three prior venues: a thorough GAN, the previous FAC, and most recently an extensive peer review and source spot check. It includes some novel elements, like an interactive campus map (the first of its kind for a college, I believe) and 360° interactive panoramas accompanying some photos. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to addressing your comments! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• This article includes a large number of images, which is causing some layout problems

  I've focused on ensuring that there are no layout problems on New Vector, as that's what will be in widespread use shortly. If you have any particular concerns, please let me know. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Skin isn't the only thing impacting layout - also screen size. On my (average-sized laptop) screen there is extensive sandwiching, particularly in the Campus and Student life sections, as well as headings getting shifted right. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  You're correct that screen size has traditionally been a main determinant of sandwiching—with the old skins, on a big enough screen, any article with any images on the left will have sandwiching. But New Vector limits content to a maximum of 960px. When it is deployed soon as the default mode, it will be the experience for 99% of desktop readers, so that's what I'm designing around. Let me know if it's different for you, but when I read the article with New Vector, the only place where sandwiching concerns might arise is the athletics section.

  That section presents a tricky scenario, as it would be a significant loss to the article to remove either the table of athletics teams (a pretty standard element) or the sole photo of contemporary athletics, and it is not really possible to retain both without creating a minor sandwich. To alleviate that concern as much as possible, I ensured that both the table and the photo are thinner than average width, so the text is still as wide as it'd be with something like {{Multiple image}}. Ultimately, it boils down to whether minor sandwiching or the removal of useful content is the greater loss for readers, and my view is that the content loss would be more significant, making this an appropriate instance to invoke the note at MOS:IMAGES that occasional exceptions may apply. Do you find that rationale satisfactory enough? We can explore what to do if it's a dealbreaker, but I think it'd be a loss. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Given that there is a free logo, what is the justification for also including a non-free logo?

  Having both a seal image and a wordmark is built into {{Infobox university}}. The "free logo" in this case is just a wordmark that doesn't pass the threshold of originality. It would be insufficient to fulfill the seal's purpose of use as described at the file page, as it is the seal, not the quite generic and undistinctive wordmark, that is the primary visual identifier of the college. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Suggest elaborating on this in the FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done here. Let me know if I should change anything further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Exterior_view_of_Pomona_College,_Claremont,_1907_(CHS-3857).jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:President_Roosevelt_speaks_at_Pomona_College,_1903.jpg, File:Men_protest_opening_of_Frary_Dining_Hall_to_women.jpg

  For the first one, I'm not aware of the initial publication date, but the current rights holder is USC, and per the description page they've released it into the public domain. For the second, it was published 9 May 1903 as can be seen here. For the third, it was published in the 1957 Metate, Pomona's yearbook, per here and my correspondence with the Pomona archivist (see here). I looked through the copyright renewal logs to confirm that the Metate copyright was not renewed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  For the first, if this is believed to be PD because of a release the tagging should be changed to reflect that. For the second and third, that information should be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  PD tag for first adjusted. Information added for second and third. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Pomona1.jpg is tagged as lacking a description

  Description added. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Johnson_spanish_music_1916_4.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I added PD-US-expired. Did I do that right? My understanding is that both the sculpture and the photo need to be properly licensed. For the photo, that's pretty easy, as it's own work by Seauton. For the sculpture, it was created in 1916 and the artist died in 1927. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nikkimaria: Just quickly following up, please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will review this soon. Hog Farm _Talk 07:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm just now getting to this - have had some stuff coming up. The review will probably be in a few chunks due to article length and Thanksgiving

• Exact quote of "college of the New England type" is only in the lead, although a paraphrase is found in the body. Shouldn't the exact quote be used in the body as well, if its significant enough for the lead?

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "On October 14, 1925, Pomona's 38th anniversary, the Claremont Colleges were incorporated." - specifically state that it's a founding member of the Claremont Colleges? Implied but not directly stated

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "He and dean of women Jean Walton also ended the gender segregation of Pomona's residential life," - maybe mention that this was how the college ran things before mentioning that it was ended? It comes a bit out of the blue in the current form

  Done here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• The 21st century section is a little WP:PROSELINE-y. Not a terrible example, and not a sticking point for me, but could the paragraphs flow together a bit better than all starting with various constructions of "In 20XX ..." or "In the ..."?

  I attempted a small fix here. The reason the more recent history is like this is that the most recent scholarly history of the college ends in 1969, so most of what came after has to come from newspaper reports of individual events. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 06:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and are designed to facilitate both indoor and outdoor use" - Maybe I'm overthinking this, but how do you have outdoor use of a building

  Here's the relevant quote from the source: Throughout all its history, though, a strong emphasis on spaces that facilitate both an indoor and outdoor lifestyle have remained. Almost every single residence hall, for example, is situated by or around courtyards, with calm bubbling fountains, benches and tables for lounging and socializing and cool, inviting trees and lawns. Most dining halls have patios for outdoor eating, and there are many spots with tables outside where students frequently study or hang out. As a brochure guide to Claremont's campuses puts it, "As open spaces the courts are not merely voids between structures; they are compositions of space and landscape elements." {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "They include the Carnegie Building, a neoclassical structure built in 1908 as a library" - specify/link that it was a Carnegie library

  Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• " The college has 821 total employees as of the fall 2020 semester" - through in the full-time educational faculty number, as well? Since the majority are non-educational faculty

  I mention that in the Academics section a little further down. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Its operating budget for the 2019–2020 academic year was $229 million" - is the 2020-2021 operating budget available, since that academic year has been completed

  Not yet, at least from here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is bond rating encyclopedic?

  I'm not a finance expert, so someone who is might be able to address that question better. But the reason I added the sentence is because this section ought to give readers a sense of the institution's overall financial situation, and the credit ratings agencies seem to be the best independent source for that information. When I read the Fitch rating commentary, I was struck by the level of detail it went into about the college's financial operation—there seems to have been a lot more that went into it than just "it has a giant endowment so it gets AAA". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  Makes sense, then. (I'm an auditor who does some work with government entities, and any random road board or high school can get a bond rating. But this sounds more significant than those minor ones) Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 23:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note g probably needs a source

  The ref for note g is Enrollment Policies (currently 218), which appears at the end of the sentence in which the note is embedded. The schema I've been using for note references is to include a separate reference for them only if it's different from the reference supporting the sentence. When a note appears at the end of a sentence (as is the case for most of the others), I place it before the body reference if that's the reference supporting it and after the body reference if it has its own reference. This did come up in the prior FAC; is it something you think I ought to change? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "During the 2015–2016 academic year, 175 employers hosted on-site informational events at the Claremont Colleges and 265 unique organizations were represented in 9 career fairs" - somewhat dated, anything newer available? If not, maybe remove as this is old enough that relevance is questionable by now

  I wasn't able to find anything newer, unfortunately—the office seems to put together a comprehensive annual report only once every several years, and this was the most recent one. I wouldn't imagine that the numbers have changed all that much, though. I included the sentence since I think the paragraph on career development ought to have some quantitative information on the level of recruiting that happens on campus. Does that seem reasonable or should I take it out? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Student life - note sure the tooltip note for 5C is needed - it's already been introduced in the article

  I've been musing lately about MOS:REPEATLINK and related issues, given research that most readers jump around and read only parts of an article, rather than going top to bottom. I'm not sure it's safe to assume that someone in the student life section has read the academic affiliations section, and an {{abbr}} tooltip seems like a low-cost way to inform (or remind) them if needed. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The Golden Antlers publishes satirical content" - recommend a better source than the Golden Antlers itself to demonstrate significance

  Yeah, given the purported 1726 establishment date, I think we'd be wise to steer clear of the Golden Antlers about page even for WP:ABOUTSELF info haha. I've swapped to this feature from Scripps, which has the most detailed info I could find, and I could add this article from The Student Life if you'd like a secondary source. I think it's important to mention the Golden Antlers not only because of its significant presence on campus, but also because, as an online publisher, it has a bigger presence off-campus than most 5C clubs—a reader researching Pomona is far more likely to encounter a Golden Antlers article than they are e.g. something about the orchestra. Having a mention helps contextualize it, which is particularly important for a satire publication. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• " and undocumented or DACA recipient students" - DACA's already been linked, don't think you need the tooltip

  See above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The Pomona Student Union (PSU) facilitates the discussion of political and social issues on campus by hosting discussions, panels, and debates with prominent speakers holding diverse viewpoints" - recommend a better source than PSU's weebly site to support significance of this activity

  I added a post from the American Association of Colleges and Universities to supplement the WP:ABOUTSELF source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources:

• Post-2013 Newsweek is listed as iffy at WP:RSP, is this good enough for FA standards?

  I swapped it out for Fiske. The Pomona College Magazine article has the most detailed info, but I wanted to supplement it with a secondary source. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes the Hidden Pomona podcast a high-quality RS?

  That's a very reasonable question. I use it in three places, and in each I found it to be the most comprehensive historical account of the event it's supporting. There are a few things I'd note in support of it meeting the WP:RSSM reputable student media standard. First, I think it's fairly self-evident from listening to it and reading about its production that it was thoroughly researched and reported with attention to detail and accuracy. Second, you can look at the people involved. Kevin Tidmarsh was editor-in-chief of The Student Life and went to RSP-greenlit NPR after graduation.[10] Saahil Desai wrote for The American Prospect and The Washington Monthly (both respected policy magazines) prior to Hidden Pomona and also went to NPR after graduation.[11] He's currently an associate editor at The Atlantic (RSP-greenlit, and arguably tied with The New Yorker for the title of most reputable American magazine).[12] Susan McWilliams Barndt, who oversaw the project, is a tenured full professor in Pomona's politics department and the co-editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal American Political Thought.[13] Lastly, in each case where I cite Hidden Pomona there is at least one accompanying reference, so if you're not persuaded on reliability you could view it as serving the help users find additional information on the subject aspect of the WP:WHYCITE guideline rather than the verifiability aspect and defer to the other sources for verifiability. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Trendacosta, Katharine (May 28, 2013). "The Longest Running Gags in Science Fiction Movies and Television". io9. Gawker Media. Retrieved April 7, 2020." RSP does not say positive things about Gawker, recommend replacing

  I removed it since the material is fully supported by the other references and there's not much in that one not also in the others. For the record, I would say it's reliable, as io9 is an independent publication that was under Gawker Media (≠ Gawker). Two years after this piece was published, it was acquired by RSP-greenlit Gizmodo, and when it most recently came up at RSN in 2019 most editors seemed to consider it reliable. All that's moot with it no longer in the article, though. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Burt, Brackett, and Bernard are in the bibliography, but not used? Moved to further reading, as they seem to be generally dated and don't represent gaps in the research here?

  Sumner and Brackett are the two earlier scholarly histories of Pomona, and Bernard is the most recent scholarly history of the consortium. I didn't see a need to use any of them as references, since everything significant enough for the article is covered by Lyon. But I did want to include them in the bibliography due to their potential usefulness for readers, particularly given that they're all freely accessible online. I wouldn't be too keen to break up the bibliography, as it wouldn't be clear to most readers why some stuff is there and other stuff is in a different "further reading" section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This one's in pretty good shape. It was interesting to read about Pomona - the college I graduated from not long ago was the polar opposite - a fundamentalist Christian college that banned on-campus dancing. Hog Farm _Talk 05:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Hog Farm, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have reviewed on talk and have no concerns, but please ping me to continue review after Hog Farm is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: - I think I'm comfortable with supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 19:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

      Got it; will review thoroughly today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

      Very fine work, nitpicks on talk, anticipate supporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

      Support, all my nits picked, and I took a stab at copyvio checking on talk, as this will be Sdkb’s first FA; I found no problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from HAL

• I have already made extensive comments on this article, and I'm very satisfied with the work done by Sdkb. I'm happy to support this nomination. ~ HAL333 03:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. I see this has received a thorough spot check at PR, so I will not do so here. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm I'm kind of thinking this already had a source review, per the talk page comments and the PR source review. @FAC coordinators: is this needed, or? There's a lot of sources, so I wanted to check first before going through them. Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 I’ve done a bit on talk here, and there are also some pieces elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are quick! I didn't see your comment before I left my earlier one, I may end up leaving some content comments instead then. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be good to do a bit more than time permitted me to do. There is no copyvio/too-close-paraphrasing concern, but you can look over what I did on talk to see if maybe more is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The type of source review this article hasn't had yet is a source formatting review, so it might be helpful to focus on that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay! Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed
• I'm two thirds through the refs, though may need to take another look at the second third. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Version reviewed for second look Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• I don't really understand your location rationale in the Bibliography, sometimes its city, sometimes city and state? Are you just listing better known cities without the state? Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yep, my approach is to include the state only if the city is not internationally recognizable. Claremont, Naperville, Walla Walla, and Anaheim fell short of that threshold, whereas New York, Los Angeles, and Boston met it. If you're looking for a more formal definition of "internationally recognizable", we could use VA level 4 or the AP Style list, but it wouldn't really come into play unless I added another entry to the bibliography. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think Bernard, Brackket and Sumner are used, should they be in further reading? Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hog Farm asked about this above; ctrl+f for "Sumner and Brackett are" for my reply, and let me know if you'd like me to expand on it further. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the sentiment, but I don't agree that "it wouldn't be clear to most readers why some stuff is there and other stuff is in a different "further reading" section". In the past I have included historical sources in the further reading for the same reason you're saying, so would think it makes sense here? Though I would not oppose over this, it just seems fundamentally confusing Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think the most likely reason a reader would go to the bibliography section is if they wanted to read about Pomona in more depth than is covered in this article. For that purpose, they won't really care whether or not a source is used directly in the article (I say "directly" because Lyon used the earlier histories by Brackett and Sumner to inform his history). I think part of the confusion may be coming from the fact that "bibliography" has multiple definitions—it can mean either "list of works consulted" (#3 here) or "list of works relating to a topic" (#2), and I'm using it more in the #2 sense. (I wish that there was another less ambiguous word; see also the lack of standardization at MOS:REFERENCES.) With all that said, if you'd still like to see this modified, one thing we could do would be to change the section title to "Bibliography and further reading"—let me know if I should do that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  OK, how about we keep it as is, but maybe you add invisible comments along the lines of "Though this reference is not cited directly, it is kept in this section in order to preserve a single bibliography section"? Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good; done! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it fundamentally misses the point that the bibliographies are meant for the works cited in the article. In the past I've created large further reading sections of historical source

• Ref 258 needs a publisher/website/work or something

  Good catch; I'm always amazed at how there's still stuff I manage to miss after looking over the refs so many times haha. Fixed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 291 needs a publisher

  Another good catch; fixed (Springer Nature). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Page number for 296?

  Added (pp. 43–44). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 303 is the only The New York Times ref with a subscription icon, and regardless is should probably be an access limited one anyways

  That's intentional—ref 303 the only NYT ref in which the article has not been digitized, so a subscription is required to view it on the TimesMachine; the others are all available for anyone. Re "limited", I've never been persuaded that we ought to be using that, as the symbol is confusingly the same as the "registration" one and it makes it seem like the source is less accessible than it likely actually is. I don't feel all that strongly about it, so let me know if you do, but the current formatting is consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Isn't 307 also in the time machine? That was part of my confusion. Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  All old NYT articles are available in the TimesMachine, but most of them have been digitized through optical character recognition, so they're also available freely as text. 307 (and a few others) have been digitized, whereas 303 is not and has the note "Full text is unavailable for this digitized archive article. Subscribers may view the full text of this article in its original form through TimesMachine." That's why it's labeled differently. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looks good otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• Are the Hidden Pomona (Podcast) sources needed? I'm not sure that the pod cast can be considered "high quality" and the references are seemingly being used in addition to other ones already Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hog Farm also asked about this; ctrl+f for "That's a very". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well if that's its use, I would suggest putting it into notes for something like "For a comprehensive overview" or "for further information" rather than references. In general, citing an entire podcast without time stamps feels like citing a book without page numbers. Aza24 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am using it as a reference, for the reasons stated above. And even if it was only a "further information" link, I think those fit better in the references section (where they're allowed per the WP:WHYCITE guideline) rather than in the notes section, which in this article is for content rather than sources. Re timestamps, it's not possible to add them because in each instance, the entire episode is about the event it's supporting. I'd view a 20-min. podcast episode as more analogous to a feature article than to a book, as its transcript would be more article-length than book-length. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ah I agree with your video-book vs article-podcast comparison. No worries here then. Aza24 (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Was ref 66 "pt. 3" meant to be "chpt. 3"?, otherwise, switching between page numbers, chapter numbers and parts seems a bit much, and the latter seems too broad to offer real verifiability anyways Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  It is part 3; the broadness comes from the fact that the sentence covers World War II through 1969, and that's the last third of the book. I'll go ahead and remove it. The secondary verification there comes from the Los Angeles Times. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Otherwise already approved by Sandy at the talk page and Zetana at PR Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Aza24, you seem to have gone through these fairly thoroughly, for which thanks. Do you consider that you have also carried out a spot check on source to text accuracy? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog, my apologies I should have been clearer. See my above comment "Otherwise already approved by Sandy at the talk page and Zetana at PR"; you'll see at the talk page and peer review there were already comprehensive spot checks and source to text checks by others. Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, no, no, thanks for squirreling them out, I would probably never have found them. And apologies that I missed the point of what you were communicating. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 December 2021 [14].

---

Bad Times at the El Royale

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In 2018, 20th Century Fox released Drew Goddard's Bad Times at the El Royale, a thriller set in the 1960s. The film features an ensemble cast including Jeff Bridges, Cynthia Erivo, Dakota Johnson, Jon Hamm, and Chris Hemsworth. It was praised by critics but bombed at the box office. I rewrote the article in 2020, adding over 100 references. It is a GA and has appeared on the main page through DYK. I believe it can become an FA. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Hotel_Sets_and_Design_by_Martin_Whist.jpg is missing a fair-use tag and the purpose of use field in the FUR should be strengthened
• File:Bad_Times_at_the_El_Royale_-_Character_Posters.png: the fair-use rationale currently seems to be based on the image being used for identification purposes; that's not really what it's being used for here
• File:Kubrick_on_the_set_of_Barry_Lyndon_(1975_publicity_photo)_(cropped).jpg: the given tag says year is required for a "literary, musical, or dramatic work " - which this is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Done the first two. I am confused about the third image. The public domain tag says it could be in the public domain if "it is a printed literary, musical, or dramatic work that does not include the year." There are other reasons listed that would put it in the public domain, including: "Notice does not include the copyright symbol ©, the word "Copyright", or the abbreviation "Copr."" Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the original, it does include the word "Copyright"; is there another of those reasons that you feel may apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I guess not. The image has been replaced. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Still think the first item could be improved - why is this essential to reader understanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I have removed it. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

• 2018 American neo-noir thriller film written — WP:SOB?
• and slow pacing. It — "slow pacing" is WP:VOICE
• and Goddard Textiles, Goddard produced — repetition of Goddard
• Furthermore, Erivo would also go on — "furthermore", "also go on", seems kinda redundant
• chronological order, due to most of the story taking place in the same location, to improve — kinda awkward
• was working on The Greatest Showman in 2017. — if, according to TGS's article, filming began in 2016, wouldn't that be 2016 and 2017
• Working with "distinctive characters" he believed — comma after "characters"?
• respectively, on October 12, 2018. — remove respectively as redundant
• while a digital rerelease on → while a digital re-release on
• included two additional songs, "This Old Heart — I think a colon, instead of a comma, would work better in this case
• and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed → and "Hold On, I'm Comin'", performed (edit to see)
• Following its rerelease, the soundtrack → Following its re-release, the soundtrack
• know about the characters so far." — per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside of the quotation mark
• high runtime, slow pacing — WP:VOICEy
• Wikilink weighted average
• average reviews." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
• and slow pacing. Additionally — WP:VOICE
• gets too clever." — move the full stop outside the quotation mark
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Bad Times at the El Royale should be italicised in citations

That's what I got on a first pass (not a lot). Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: All done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support – great work! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I do not really see the benefit of File:Bad Times at the El Royale - Character Posters.png. When looking at it in the article, the individual posters are rather small, and I could not clearly make out the differences in appearance that are discussed in the caption. The eight character posters are also discussed in the prose. I am just uncertain about how useful this image really is in the article due to the size of each individual character poster.

This is my only comment for now, but I will read through the article again later in the week. I have made some minor edits, mostly involving linking. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Upon reading the article again, this is the only note that I have for my review. Once it is resolved, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: The image has been removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I support the FAC for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from indopug

I haven't read the whole thing because I want to watch the film first, but the lead currently seems very bare bones and workmanlike, giving very little idea about what is unique about the film and its making. Much of the second paragraph is basically redundant to the infobox ("it was shot by X, scored by Y and edited by Z"). Just glancing through the Production section it's clear you can write a more substantive paragraph, going beyond dates and a role call. You can also add something from Themes (perhaps summarising it) to the first paragraph.

On the other hand, I feel there is some stuff you can trim. For e.g., "took place until April, in British Columbia, specifically mostly on a large studio set in Vancouver"? Also, what was well-received about the film is repeated twice ("its ensemble cast, soundtrack, and cinematography, ... story, cinematography, writing, and acting"). Is "Best Thriller Film at the 45th Saturn Awards" an accolade even worth mentioning? Lastly, I'm confused as to how "grossing $31.9 million against a $32 million budget" constitutes a bomb.—indopug (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indopug: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Indopug: Two week update/reminder. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-checks not done. The source formatting looks consistent and coherent to me. I have to admit that I don't know most sources - let alone their authors - sufficiently to establish whether they are reliable, but I'll try. Is BackStageOL, Collider, iFilm and Newsweek a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The citations to BackStageOL and Newsweek contain interviews and do not state new information, so they are reliable. Furthermore, most editors have deemed Collider and /Film as reliable sources to cite. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, is that a pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, with the qualification though that I am not super familiar with the sources.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

Apologies for the delay.

• I would consider linking jargon terms in the lead such as Principal photography and Post-production for instance.
• "the TCL Chinese Theatre in" do we use branded names in these cases?
• You could link Motion Picture Association.
• "its lengthy runtime" ... +"of 141 minutes"?
• "Emily Summerspring arrive at the hotel" should you emphasise that they arrive independently of one another here?
• You link master key but not wiretap?
• I don't think a common term like roulette needs linking here.
• "Talking with Matt Patches" is this individual relevant?
• "A major aspect of Bad Times at the El Royale was its visualization of each character's morality and if their actions were justified." this scans badly for me, this seems to be two aspects...
• "the Tate–LaBianca murders, while" this necessitates me to click away from the article to understand why this is relevant, perhaps a footnote here to explain why this should be mentioned here.
• "down to John F. Kennedy (JFK), Robert F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr" sure "down to one of John ..."?

Is this correct? "the identity of the person was narrowed down to one of" doesn't sound right. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well for me it makes sense to say the identity was narrowed down to one of those listed. It wasn't narrowed down to A, B and C. Only one applies. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• " star.[40][41][22] After" ref order.
• "between January 29 – April 6, 2018" replace that en-dash with "and".
• "improve continuity.[49][19][50] After " ref order.
• "60,000-square-foot" etc convert for our metric buddies.
• "Using Avid Media Composer, a tool she used..." Using/used is repetitive.
• "starting with September 17" with is unnecessary.
• "2018. It was released" merge these short sentences.
• Ref 13 and 58 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
• Ref 64 why is "Motion Picture Association" in italics?

Great article, I think these items are relatively trivial. Ping me when you're done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Mostly done. Left a note above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, great, I'm happy to support the article. Apologies once again for my delay in getting to it after I took it off the urgent pile. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

I remember following the PR of this article, so here I am. GeraldWL 10:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

SDFNC, if my last comment about Plot is resolved, then I'll support this FAC. GeraldWL 10:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments all resolved, so support. Bravo with the article! GeraldWL 02:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also Some Dude From North Carolina, I have Wikipedia:Peer review/To Fly!/archive1 open and it's still unreviewed, wondering if you might wanna check it out. No pressure of course :) GeraldWL 02:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 02:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

=====Lead and infobox===== The infobox looks neat and so does the lead, but: at the PR, I pointed out that the accolades sentence only seems to prioritize the Saturn Awards and suggested adding "The film won various accolades, including...", and it's marked as done. Is there a reason it is (seemingly) undid? Someone above said the phrasing of the sentence sounded repetitive. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Disagree with that statement, but it's reasonable. Suggestion: how about changing the sentence to "It received various awards and nominations, most notably at the 45th Saturn Awards, for its writing, acting, cinematography, music, and trailer." It's broader, and doesn't sound repetitive for me. GeraldWL 16:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Plot "movie camera" --> "film camera" "the Federal Bureau of Investigation" --> "the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)" Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) One addition, since I just finished watching the film so I can get a better grasp. The last sentence of the plot sound vague for me, since it's already established that she's a singer, and that the two have a good relation. GeraldWL 16:11, 14 December 2021 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: Any suggestions? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC) I suggest removing the sentence as a whole, since it serves no purpose whatsoever. GeraldWL 02:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC) @Gerald Waldo Luis: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC) Themes & analysis Always nice to see articles that don't just use American and British references :) I don't think morality needs to be linked, as it's a fairly common concept. Should Signal Horizon be italicized or not? If not, then the name in the reference must be moved from =website to =publisher. Similar case to SSZee Media. Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Production "Drew Goddard" --> "Goddard" "between the border of California and Nevada" --> "between the California–Nevada border" "on The Cabin in the Woods in 2011" --> I don't think the "in 2011" is needed, considering it's established that Cabin is a 2011 film in the Themes section "Widows" --> "Widows (2018)" "With Variety"-- pretty confusing bit. I suggest changing to "In an interview with Variety" "On the matter, Hamm said" --> "On the matter, he said" "The Greatest Showman" --> "The Greatest Showman (2017)" "on a 1:2.39 aspect ratio"-- I think you mean "2.39:1 aspect ratio". As far as I'm aware, nobody starts with the 1. "to capture the feature film"-- the "feature" bit is pretty vague I think you can put the blockquote bit in the second paragraph with paraphrasing. I have this in mind: "Early in the production, the film crew realized they could not find a real place with perfect symmetry to film, and Goddard also wanted the weather to be controllable, thus the decision to build a set in Vancouver." "the 1969 documentary Salesman" --> "the documentary Salesman (1969)" "the jail scene" --> "jail scene" per consistency with "doctor's office scene" "while working on Alias and Lost" --> "while working on television series Alias and Lost" Mostly done. I think adding "Widows (2018)" would make the paragraph confusing since it mentions 2017. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Marketing - Release I think the subsections make the reading flow a bit stiff, removing them will make them more natural. And it's just one short paragraph for the home media. "where moviegoers" --> "where filmgoers" "Digital HD"-- link Digital HD "Special features on the Blu-ray" --> "Special features on the physical release" "a 28-minute documentary with behind the scenes footage" --> "a 28-minute making-of" "in the lack"-- should be "in the absence", since the special features has no tracks, and "lack" means the reviewers expected more than one tracks Overall, a nice FAC. Wish best of luck with this. GeraldWL 10:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC) Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC) @Some Dude From North Carolina: Can you please remove the {{done}} templates per the guidelines at WP:FAC? Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 December 2021 [15].

---

SS Choctaw

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Choctaw. I brought the article to GA status in December 2020. Ever since then, it has been copy edited by Baffle gab1978 and has undergone and a peer review. The original review was closed to a lack of input. GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Should this be added to the urgents list? It already failed the first time due to lack of reviewers and now the second nom is two weeks in with just an IR and my review. Noah^Talk 13:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Your infobox is really long, leading it to collide with the cross section image. Consider removing the second part of the infobox (NRHP listing) or moving it to the section of the article dealing with the wreck.
• File:Wahcondah.jpg—how do you know the publication date?
• File:Choctaw after the collision with L.C. Waldo.jpg File:Semi-whaleback cross section.jpg—what is the publication date? (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I don't know the exact publication of the Wahcondah image, however, it is know that the publishing company went out of business in about 1920. I have added the exact publication date on the other two images. GreatLakesShips (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, the licensing looks fine. (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the infobox to the wreck section. GreatLakesShips (talk) 09:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Consider adding {{snd}} between the year ranges in the infobox for operators instead of the –.
• On her regular route between Detroit, Escanaba, Marquette, Michigan and Cleveland, Ohio, she carried iron ore downbound, and coal upbound. It isn't inherently clear that that the first two are also in Michigan. Personally speaking, I had no clue where Escanaba was.
• Link Lake Huron in the lead.
• Multiple duplicate links in the lead and body.
• East of Presque Isle Light the freighter was rammed by the downbound Canadian canaller Wahcondah I believe a comma is needed after Presque Isle Light.
• She was discovered resting in about 300 feet (91 m) of water, Should it be resting under? Also, I would abbreviate feet to ft.
• shipyards around the lakes began construction iron ships on a relatively large scale Missing a couple of words here.
• As the railways were unable to keep up with the rapid production of iron ore, [...] , was transported by bulk freighters. Missing a noun/pronoun on the second half.
• The quantity of iron ore mined from Am I mistaken or is ore measured by volume rather than quantity?
• Her hull was 266.9 feet (81.4 m) in length with a 38.1-foot (11.6 m) beam,[13] and had a 17.9-foot-deep (5.5 m) hold and water bottom. Feet and foot can be abbreviated.

• 16-foot (4.9 m) draught same here... check for others.

• Her regular route was between Detroit, Escanaba, Marquette, Michigan and Cleveland, Ohio. Same thing as the comment about this in the lead.
• Choctaw was travelling on Lake St. Clair when one of cylinder heads exploded, Missing a word.
• I suggest incorporating dates into the middle of sentences rather than having them all listed out front as it makes the prose flow choppy.
• Link Pointe aux Pins
• after being lifted by heavy seas I would use a word other than seas since this is a lake.
• Choctaw, under the command of Captain Charles A. Fox, was upbound from Cleveland, Ohio, with a cargo of coal and was bound for Marquette, Michigan This sentence seems a bit clunky.
• For the times you are mentioning (midnight, 5:30 a.m), which timezone is being referenced?
• five–six miles (8.0–9.7 km) Abbreviate miles. Check for others.
• alleging that she was travelling at an excessive for the condition Missing a word.
• hi-definition --> high definition.
• The remains of Choctaw rest in about 300 feet (91 m) of cold, fresh water Probably should be "under" instead of about.

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 03:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Thank you for the suggestions. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@GreatLakesShips: No problem. Quite frankly I am appalled that nobody commented on this sooner. I have experienced the same fate as you did for one of my FACs. I had no substantial reviews and it was archived. Hopefully, we can get some more people here so this can get going. Noah^Talk 15:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• GreatLakesShips Have you addressed these comments? (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: All except the feet → ft abbreviations, which are not present in any FA ship articles I have seen. GreatLakesShips (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The only other thing I see is that it should be "under" instead of "in under". I trust you to make this last correction so I am going to support. I don't really feel like being here that much right now since my grandfather died yesterday. Noah^Talk 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for your loss. GreatLakesShips (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Link The Mining Journal
• ISBN needed for Bowlus
• Are you sure PortCities Southhampton is the original publisher for Demers 1915?
• What's Marquette 365? Chrome won't let me access the website cause it says it ain't safe, and searching for "Marquette 365 com" brings up stuff for Marquette U's Microsoft Office 365 program and something about a Marquette community calendar that it looks like anyone can post on
• "Government Printing Office (1903). "Annual Report of the Supervising Inspector-general Steamboat-inspection Service, Year ending June 30, 1903". Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. p. 69. Retrieved May 7, 2020 – via Haithi Trust." - Government Printing Office is not the author. Also, hathitrust is spelled wrong
• What makes Freshwater Press a high-quality publisher? Does Greenwood or Vanderlinden have good credentials
• For a lot of the no-author ones, you tend to give the publisher for both the publisher and the author, it should only be listed for the publisher
• "Stonehouse, Frederick (2006). Haunted Lake Michigan. Duluth, Minnesota: Lake Superior Port Cities. ISBN 978-0-942235-72-2." - looks like a weak source. Description sounds like the book can get kinda fruity at time, and it's published by a regional magazine that is actively soliciting articles from the general public, according to its web page
• Thompson 2004 - don't need the page number in the long ref, since it's already in the short ref

Will do spot-checks once these are addressed. I reviewed this at GA, and the sourcing has come a long way since then. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I have addressed some of them. I am not sure what I should do about the no-author sources. I haven't managed to find anything on Greene or Vanderlinden. However, Vanderlinden's co-author, John H. Bascom is the editor of The Scanner, a historical newsletter published by the Toronto Marine Historical Society. I hope that helps. GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For the no-author sources, just leave the parameter blank. If you're concerned about how to sfn target without an author, you can use the parameter |ref=CITEREF to set things up. For an example on how to do that, see Harris's Missouri Battery (1864)#General sources. Hog Farm _Talk 20:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Done. Should I also alphabeticize them? GreatLakesShips (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be preferable. Hog Farm _Talk 22:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to do spot-checks tomorrow, before I go visit family for Thanksgiving in an area with dodgy internet. Hog Farm _Talk 06:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I just realized I never responded about Freshwater Press - Vanderlinden should be okay then, although I'd recommend replacing Greenwood - he's only used once, so it shouldn't be too hard. Hog Farm _Talk 05:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/SS Choctaw/archive2. Hog Farm _Talk 05:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Only problem noted is a deadlink. Hog Farm _Talk 05:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I have replaced Greenwood. GreatLakesShips (talk) 05:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I have also archived the link noted on the talk page. GreatLakesShips (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The link to canaller is not very helpful, since it redirects to a related term. Can we explain the word inline or with a footnote, or perhaps add an entry to Glossary of nautical terms and link to that?
• Suggest linking the first appearance of both "long ton" and "short ton".
• "Choctaw was one of only three semi-whaleback ships ever built; there was an identical sister ship named Andaste and a "near-sister" ship named Yuma": suggest moving this sentence to the end of the next paragraph, since that's where you talk about her design.
• The yellow sonar image took me a while to interpret; I initially thought it was a relatively close-up image showing some projection from the ship's hull. The image file itself explains it better but I'm still not clear if this is a side-on view taken by an ROV of some kind or a surface sonar scan. Whatever the explanation is, could it be added to the caption or the article?

  That makes it clearer. Is there any reason not to rotate the image so that the up-down direction is vertical? I can do that for (and crop the image a bit) if you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Do you have access to newspapers.com? There are some more details in newspaper stories that you don't include -- the Buffalo Commercial, 7/14/15, page 9, has a longish story, as does the Port Huron Times Herald for 7/13/15. I can clip the relevant stories for you if you don't have access.

  I'll clip some of the stories and post links here when I'm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• I see an ISBN on the source listing for Dwight Boyer's Ghost Ships of the Great Lakes, but at 1968 this is almost certainly too early for an ISBN. Are you citing a later reprint? If so I'd use the "orig" parameter to give the original printing date, and make the publication date the date of the edition you actually consulted.
• You have "National Park Service (1) (2018), p. 4–5." as a citation; it should be "pp" not "p". I tried to fix this but apparently I don't understand the sfn referencing system so I had to undo my edit.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I don't have access to newspapers.com. The rest of the points have been addressed. GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A couple of replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Here are some clippings: Buffalo Commercial, Port Huron Times Herald, Sheboygan Press, Detroit Free Press, Moline Dispatch, Waukegan News-Sun, Tulsa Democrat.

A couple of nice touches that you could add from these -- e.g. that the crew were originally reported drowned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I have added the newspaper references. I don't know what to do about the linking of short and long tons, and I have tried to rotate the image, but to me it looked weird, so I left it unchanged. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The additions from the newspapers look good, with one exception: as far as I can see the Tulsa Democrat didn't report that the crew were drowned; instead it says "reports last night were that the Choctaw's crew had drowned", which just means that that was what the reporter had heard. It doesn't mean the Democrat actually printed that statement. I would make the efn note "Although no lives were lost in Choctaw's sinking, the crew were originally reported as drowned". I'll take a look at how to link those units and may try rotating the image myself to see what it looks like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Done. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Re the image, I've just uploaded a rotated/clipped version; I think that's easier to understand. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It definitely looks better than what I attempted. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. The article looks good. GreatLakesShips, you may be interested in getting access to newspapers.com; you can get free access via WP:LIBRARY, if you think you could use newspaper sources for more articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from DanCherek

• "Beginning in the mid-1840s, Canadian companies began importing iron vessels" – some redundancy here with "beginning" and "began"
• The first time Andaste is mentioned, there is no context (and it is unlinked); it's not until later in the paragraph that it is linked and introduced as a sister ship
• Should "tumble-home" be linked to tumblehome?
• Clicking the Swayze (2001) link brings me to a 404 "page not found".

Added archived link.

• I don't see "June 24" in the Bowling Green State University (2) (2010) reference, additional citation needed to supplement that?

This was contained in a reference I was advised to remove.

• "She would carry iron ore while..." this sentence has "would carry" twice and "would fuel", I'd replace these with "carried" and "fueled". Same with "This would be the last time..." two paragraphs later, "This was the last time" is crisper
• "upbound" is wikilinked four times in total (twice in the lead and twice in the body), is this intentional? "downbound" is wikilinked twice in the lead and once on the body. There are other duplicate links such as "Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary"

  Thanks for fixing these. Additiona duplicate links: Cleveland, Ohio is linked twice in the lead; Lake Superior is linked in both Background and Service history; Marquette, Michigan is linked twice in Service history; Presque Isle, Michigan is linked in both Final voyage and collision and Discovery

• Why are three citations needed for the Fox block quote? It's reported in full in The Buffalo Commercial, for example.
• "Choctaw's crew corroborated her owner's claims." it feels like this sentence should be moved to follow the first sentence in this paragraph, which is about Fox's claims (rather than Dineen's)
• I don't think putting "the high-visibility nature of the monitor ship type predicated the lookout to be stationed at the pilothouse" and "it would be unlikely for him to communicate with the wheelsman 200 feet (61.0 m) feet away" in quotes is ideal because it makes it seem like these were the phrases actually used by Cleveland-Cliffs in court. That's what I had assumed until I clicked on the source to read more.

  Thanks for removing the quotation marks, though I had something else in mind (paraphrasing the sentences). Removing the quotes creates an attribution issue because the sentences are still taken from the source, so there are two options: (1) Paraphrase these two quotes in your own words, or (2) If the source is in the public domain or compatibly licensed (I haven't verified this), then you can add {{Source-attribution}} to the citation to indicate that the sentences have been copied from the source. DanCherek (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Choctaw was insured for $80,200" this sentence is missing two closing parentheses. Ref should go after the comma in this sentence
• Where does National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2) (2017) mention Stan Stock's 2003 search?

I have added a ref with the discovery date of the Kyle Spangler.

• Rufus P. Ranney isn't mentioned in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2) (2011).

New refs added.

• Don't think "Federal Government" needs caps
• "settled by the head soon after the collision, but shortly before she disappeared she rolled to starboard and capsized, going down bottom side up" I don't see this exact quote in National Park Service (1) (2018) – I do see a similar quote that is contained in the previous Fox blockquote

Unnecessary sentence removed.

Great job with the article and I hope these comments are helpful. DanCherek (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: The issues have been addressed. GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

GreatLakesShips, just FYI, it's usually best to not strike out the points but let the reviewer strike them -- that way they can see what's outstanding and you can see what they think is still not fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. Most of my concerns have been addressed with two issues above. I think the article is in good shape and expect to support once they have been resolved. DanCherek (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: The overlinking has been sorted. I am fairly sure that this applies in the second case. GreatLakesShips (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Resources advises that "Official National Register of Historic Places nomination documents [...] are provided by the Federal government but are often written by state or local government staff or by private consultants or other parties who have not transferred copyright. As such, they are generally not in the public domain, even though most U.S. Federal government works are. Unless they are prepared by Federal staff workers, the copyright is believed to be held by the author of the document." Is there a reason that this would be an exception? DanCherek (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I meant the source in that section, which is given as "United States Circuit Courts of Appeals 1921:117". GreatLakesShips (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The block quote in the document ("His absence from the [...] for making reports.") is from the court and in the public domain, but the wording of the sentence used in the article about the "high-visibility nature of the monitor ship" originates from whoever filled out the NRHP nomination; it's not presented as a quote from the court. I think the best thing to do here would be to paraphrase that single sentence. DanCherek (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: I've modified the sentence. GreatLakesShips (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

While this is not really sufficient for paraphrasing copyright text, I've gone ahead and revised the sentence further myself. Assuming you're okay with that, I'll support as my comments have been resolved. DanCherek (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: Thank you. GreatLakesShips (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 December 2021 [16].

---

Apollo 5

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... the first flight test of the lunar module. Today, it's somewhat sunk in obscurity but it was important and a big deal at the time. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Comment Support by CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Sorry to say this @Wehwalt:, but I have to oppose the nomination. Many sections are very under-developed, and compare to Apollo 4, Apollo 5 is far, far from being a featured article. I respect a ton of your works at the article, but most people here would prefer to have a good article to review here. Although, I will review the article for good article status if you want to do that now :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot more information on Apollo 4 than 5. If you can point to sources that I'm not using, or underusing, I'll be happy to incorporate them.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, after hearing Hawkeye7 argument, I think I need to look at the article for a little bit. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

• The insignia is in a pretty odd place

It's next to the text which discusses it. I'm open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• In Apollo 4, there is a Aftermath, assessment and spacecraft location section. Why aren't there one in Apollo 5?

There is no surviving spacecraft. There were a large number of comments afterwards about Apollo 4 (big rocket!). There are many fewer about Apollo 4, so I folded that in, along with what came after (the next flight of the LM) into the flight section.

• There is no alt text in the images (even in Apollo 4)

I've added it to Apollo 5. I will add it to Apollo 4 as time permits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I almost forgot about this article! Previously, I have a hunch that there's something that isn't right, but after through inspection, the article is pretty spotless for me. I support this nomination. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

I agree that there is more information on Apollo 4 than Apollo 5. Articles are as long or short as they need to be.

Lead

• due to programming problems That's not really fair; suggest re-wording to match source 21
• Link "Houston" in the lead.
• Suggest linking Mission Control to Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center instead.

Background

• U.S. President John F. Kennedy challenged his nation suggest linking "challenged his nation" to We choose to go to the Moon
• Define and link NASA
• NASA invited 11 companies "eleven" per MOS:NUMBER
• Link lunar orbit rendezvous; no need for quotes
• Link major general (United States)
• De-capitalise Lunar Excursion Module

Delays

• Suggest moving the sentence starting with "To make way for SA-204" and the from the equipment section to up here, since this is needed for the reader to make sense of it, and it isn't really part of equipment
• It begs the question though: why use SA-204 instead of SA-206?
• "Just after New Year's 1968" New Year's Day?

Equipment

• The first paragraph should be moved up into the Delays section, where it is already partially covered.
• "metre" should be spelled "meter"; the US asserts ownership of the metric system (NASA and our MOS recommend the dd mm yyyy date format)

  Re the date format, since all of the Apollo mission articles re using month day year, this one probably should too. It would be a lot of work to change them all.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's no work at all - I can change them at the push of a button - but we should leave it as it is. (MOS:RETAIN) However, the article is one of those that makes the benefits of the US government format pretty obvious. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest incorporating the launch mass from the infobox.

I've added the whole stack's.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Flight

• "UT" should be "UTC", with a link
• Suggest splitting the first paragraph after fn 1
• "Mission Control, under Kranz's command, quickly saw what had happened" Not really; it was not understood until much later. suggest removing the second clause
• "The first crewed LM flight took place on Apollo 9" Suggest adding when this was.

Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding orbit inclination and period from the infobox. Footnotes can then be removed from the infobox, as it will all be in the article.
• Except that the SATCAT number is not referenced

References

• Given that the NASA books are available for download, I would much prefer references to the books with page numbers for fn 6, 8 and 18

I've done that for Brooks and will continue tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest moving the books to the sources section
• Apollo 5 isn't referenced from the NASA navbox

Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link Gene Kranz

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Much obliged for the review. I've done all except I can't find a paginated online version of Moonport and I've left the orbital period and inclination in the infobox since I don't think it would fit well into the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

[17] I have a hard copy of course.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I've adjusted that. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Guerillero

• drewexmachina.com is personal blog. Why is it a high quality RS?

According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials.

• Why is "Apollo/Skylab ASTP and Shuttle Orbiter Major End Items" a footnote and not in sources?

It is being used only to source the serial number of the SLA.

• • There are a number of things like this

It's often preferable to put non-book sources in the references, as more readily accessible to the reader, who can see the source right there and doesn't have to deal with some shorthand code for it that then links into the sources section.

• http://www.genedorr.com/patches/Ground.html is a personal website. Why is it a high quality RS?

I've switched to a source published by Chris Spain, who is an expert in space memorabilia whose websites have been used and passed in previous Apollo FACs.

• McDowell, Jonathan has an article

Done.

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've done or responded to the above. Thanks for the source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Pass -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy

Lead BG

• The detail about the original S-IB being used for Skylab only appears in a note. It should be in the body of the article if it makes it into the lead section. My opinion is that it is too small of a detail to qualify for the lead.
• "a contemplated second uncrewed mission to test the LM was dispensed with" I think your wording later in the article "a second uncrewed flight test using LM-2 was cancelled" is worded better than this sentence in the lead. I would change it to "The mission was successful enough that a a second uncrewed LM flight test was cancelled"
• "with a safe return to Earth" I think this is assumed and doesn't need to be included in the lead.

All the above are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Background BG

• I prefer the wording on the Apollo 4 page about Kennedy's speech
• "by the third stage of the launch vehicle, that stage being known as the S-IVB" I think this could be shortened to "by the third stage of the launch vehicle, the S-IVB"

The above two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• The timing is a little confusing in this. Lunar orbit rendezvous was decided on in late 1962, but then NASA was inviting bids on the LM in 1962, which was decided on November 7? I'm guessing all of this did not happen in late 1962.

The contract was awarded on November 7. LOR approval process was much of 1962, but given that Webb had approved it in August, it was going to happen.

• "Once in lunar orbit, the astronauts who would land would enter what was then known as the lunar excursion module, which would separate from the rest of the spacecraft, land, and after taking off again be discarded once the crew had transferred back." This is a long sentence, but also skips over some info for the flight (the CSM/LM docking and entering lunar orbit, docking again after the landing).. It also doesn't explain what parts of the Apollo spacecraft are involved, as there's no mention of the Apollo CSM. My take, "While in transit to the Moon, the Apollo command and service module would dock with the lunar module. Once the spacecraft entered lunar orbit, some of the astronauts would enter the lunar module, undock from the CSM, and land. The lunar module would then launch from the lunar service, dock with the CSM to allow the crew to transfer back, and was discarded."

I'm trying to explain it from the perspective of 1962. Some of those things had not yet been decided. I've worked on it some.

• "The remainder of the spacecraft would then return to Earth." I would change this to "The CSM would then return to Earth." to make it clear what part of the spacecraft is still being flown.

I've merged that into the previous sentence to avoid two uses of CSM in close proximity.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Delays BG

• "As with Apollo 4, this flight experienced long delays." I can't find a specific MOS for it, but I don't think Apollo 5's first mention in the body of the article should be "this flight".

Tweaked.

Why is "Apollo 4" in bold? I don't think that is the standard outside of the lead section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The primary cause of this was the lunar module, which was well behind schedule" The subject of the previous sentence is the flight/Apollo 5, so this sentence should either be combined with the previous sentence, or it should explicitly refer to the delays.

Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "long" and "well" don't quantify the length of the delays and how behind schedule the LM development was. Since the rest of the section goes into those specifics, it's sufficient just to note the delays without the extra words that add emphasis.

I think you have to say something to let the readers know the delays were significant. Just saying there were delays doesn't convey anything to the reader. Every project has delays.

• "...had originally hoped that in April 1967, the first lunar module, LM-1, would be launched on an uncrewed test flight in space" This sentence should address the what before the when. Also, it seems redundant to mention that the LM would be launched and then tested in space. My take "...had originally hoped that an uncrewed test flight of LM-1, the first lunar module, would launch in April 1967"

Done with slight variation.

• "NASA asked Grumman to have LM-1 delivered to Kennedy Space Center in Florida by September 1966, but due to the difficulties in manufacturing LM-1, delivery slipped later and later. " Was September 1966 the planned delivery date? This just says that NASA requested that date. I would also say "repeatedly delayed" rather than "slipped later and later".

That's what Debus asked Grumman for. The source isn't clear on how etched in stone this was. I've made that change.

• "After the fire that month that took the lives of the Apollo 1 crew" This comes across as WP:POETIC; it should be "After the fire that killed the Apollo 1 crew"

Fine.

• "to Launch Complex 37 and erected there in place of AS-206" I think it's clear from earlier in the paragraph that rockets are erected at the launch complex; it's sufficient to say "to Launch Complex 37 to replace AS-206"

OK with slight variation

• There is inconsistent use of "LM" vs. "lunar module." It makes sense ins some instances, such as "first lunar module, LM-1" when it would be awkward to use LM twice in a row, but it should be otherwise consistent throughout the article.

OK

• "then supervised Grumman as its technicians tested and modified the vehicle" This reads like he supervised the company as their technicians tested and modified, rather than supervising the techniciains. I would use "then supervised the Grumman technicians as they tested and modified the vehicle."

The problem with that is that it leaves an ambiguous they, as the reader might conclude that Williams was supervising his team while doing the testing etc.

I still think it reads weird, as it comes across like the team was supervising the Grumman corporation rather than the Grumman techs. Maybe "Grumman technicians that tested and modified the vehicle." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I've played with it again.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Works for me! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Due to leaks in the LM's ascent stage, the two stages were demated in August, and after these were fixed and the stages remated, another leak developed and the stages were demated again in September, with several pieces of equipment removed for repair by Grumman, after which the stages were remated again in October." This is a long sentence and should be broken up.

Done.

Objectives BG

• "During the monitoring of LM systems by NASA engineers," I think it's clear that a test flight is for gathering flight data and it doesn't need to be said that engineers are monitoring it.

OK.

• Combine the use cases for fire in the hole testing, and remove the info about its naming. My take is "During the flight, the ascent and descent engines would be fired. A "fire in the hole" test would be conducted to test if the ascent stage could still fire while attached to the descent stage, a procedure that would be used on the lunar surface and in the event of an aborted lunar landing. It involved shutting down the descent stage, switching control and power to the ascent stage, and starting the ascent engine while the two stages were still mated."

I've adopted your language but think the derivation of the "fire in the hole" worth including. We don't mention it in any of the other Apollo articles, but it's a "thing" mentioned in the sources.

• That Gene Kranz was the flight director is not a mission objective; that fact should be moved to the flight section.

OK.

Equipment BG

• There is a lot of repeated information about the use of SA-204 from Apollo 1 on Apollo 5; it should be either in the delays section or equipment section, but not both.

I think there needs to be mentioned in both, as it is part of the chronology, but something needs to be said in the Equipment section as well. I've rewritten it, see what you think.

I think it works better this way. The sentence had 3 uses of "designated" or "designation". I removed the old number, SA-204, and changed one "designated" to "assigned". The old designation is in the delays section, and I think the new designation is sufficient in the Equipment section.

• The chronology is off when describing SA-204. The sentence says that it survived the fire, was inspected, and then jumps back in time to when it was delivered 4 months prior to the Apollo 1 fire.

Re-ordered.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than saying the Apollo 5 vehicle had a stubby appearance, it should be quantified how much shorter it was than a different Saturn 1B launch.

I think the descriptor, which is in the source, conveys more to the reader than any figures would.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Using "both" when describing the reasons that legs weren't on LM-1 makes it sound like those reasons are separate, when they are linked. No landing legs will always be a weight-saving measure, but ill advised when attempting a landing. I would just change it to "As they would not be needed during the test mission, LM-1 did not have landing legs"

OK.

• It's not clear why the windows were replaced on LM-1 when a window broke on LM-5. I'm assuming it was because the engineers didn't trust the windows on LM-1, but that's not clear from the current sentence.

I've added what the source said, that the officials (Low and Phillips) were concerned about a failure in flight. What the consequences of this would be is not made clear.

• Is "mission programmer" the technical term? It seems like "remote controller" would explain what that hardware does without further explanation required.

That is the term the source used, and given it is the press kit, it is presumably reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Flight BG

• The von Braun photo can be prevented to fix MOS:SANDWICH. The caption is the only mention of von Braun in the article, and there's a better picture of the vehicle on the launch platform in the equipment section.

Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would consider replacing the mission control photo with a launch photo (like one).

I just feel the real action was taking place in Mission Control here and we're better off with an image of that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The use of "some accounts" and flowing right into Don Eyre's theory makes it sound like they are the same, when the source makes it clear that his opinion is that it wasn't the partial pressurization that caused the issue. Additionally, I think this places undue weight on Eyre's theory. I would try to make this more balanced; Eyre's cited "Chariots for Apollo" for the partial pressurization accounts.
• If there is debate on the actual cause of the problem, it seems like conjecture to say that programmers would be able to fix it. That seems like it's the opinion of Eyre, but comes across like it is a certainty.

(both of the above) I've added something from Brooks. I don't think there's debate, really, just unclearness. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Why would astronauts on a crewed mission be able to evaluate restarting the engine but Mission Control couldn't do that? It's not clear from this paragraph, and both groups would presumably have access to the same information.

The source isn't clear. I would speculate that it would be easier to restart the engine using the controls in the spacecraft than through remote programming.

• "and failure to conduct these tests would have meant the mission was a failure" I would reword this to avoid the double use of "failure"

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• "Kranz's team accomplished every burn, though due to a problem with the guidance system, after the burns, the ascent stage spun out of control. This occurred just under eight hours into the mission." I would reorganize this. The first sentence covers a lot of material, and also has a confusing flow when describing the spacecraft going out of control. I would replace the "every burn" with "all of the tests" to show that all objectives were met, and avoid the overuse of "burn". I would have a separate sentence describing the out of control spacecraft, and start off with saying what happened before addressing the when and the why. My take is: "The ascent stage spun out of control eight hours into the mission, after all of the engine burns, due to a problem with the guidance system."

Done with slight variations.

• Remove the COSPAR IDs from the paragraph about reentry
• Remove the date for the S-IVB reentering; it's sufficient to say 15.5 hours into flight

The above two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Insignia BG

• This section only has two sentences, and much of the information in the first sentence is duplicated in the mission patch caption. Additionally, the short paragraph coupled with the image results in a lot of whitespace. I would move the mission logo up to the insignia parameter for the infobox, and then add patch details as a note in the notes section.

It's not the mission insignia per se so I'm a bit reluctant to put it there. I think it needs to be in the article since it is associated with Apollo 5.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

While I don't think it's appropriate to have a section titled "Unofficial insignia", I think it comes across as much, if not more, as the official patch in its own section titled "Insignia" rather than the insignia parameter for the infobox. It seems like there wasn't an official mission patch for Apollo 5 (that's a shame), but I don't think an internal Grumman patch deserves its own section. My vote is to remove it entirely. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The mission patch photo looks like it is missing the appropriate permissions on Commons. There's a banner from the OTRS team about it, but another banner saying the permission details have been e-mailed to the Volunteer Response Team. Looking through the file history doesn't say what orders those banners were added, so I'm not sure which is the correct one.

I've just cut the whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

General comments BG

I'll be back later for the rest of the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I think I've gotten or responded too everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice work. I support this nomination! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. A couple of minor issues below, which don't affect my support.

• You refer to both the Saturn IB and the S-IB as "rocket"s in the lead; I assumed that "S-IB" was an abbreviation for the Saturn IB, and only realized my mistake when I checked to see what it was linking to. The S-IB article calls it a stage, not a rocket; I think it would make things cleare to use the same term here in the lead.
• "a 163-by-222-kilometer (88 by 120 nmi) orbit" -- do the numbers refer to perigee and apogee? Perhaps an explanatory footnote could be added?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Those things are fixed. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The note should probably on the first instance. And I just noticed that one orbit is given in kilometres, with a parenthetical conversion to nautical miles, and the other orbit is given in nautical miles with a conversion to kilometres; they should probably both be the same way round. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Got those, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Licensing looks fine. The white balance of the third image looks off (the sky should be blue, not purple) but that's not a reason to oppose. (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 15 December 2021 [18].

---

Julian of Norwich

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Julian, one of England's most important mystics. In May 1373 Julian completely recovered from a serious illness that had caused her to have revelations (or shewings), all of which she went on to describe in detail. Her writings are now published as Revelations of Divine Love, the earliest known book in English to be written by a woman. I would be great if her article was to be promoted before the 650th anniversary of her revelations, in 2023. It has been peer-reviewed and copy-edited since gaining GA status in 2019. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

This is my first time participating in FAC. I copy-edited this article as requested by Amitchell125 and corrected/updated citations and template usage. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 03:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map and the stained glass multi-image

Done. The church drawing (made in 1828) is now not there, as a larger map caused a sandwiching issue. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: I could try to remake the map with less dead space, if you think it would be helpful --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Thanks, not sure if it's worth the effort, as it's a complicated map to remake. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Preobrazhenie.jpg needs a US tag

I'm guessing that the none of the articles with the template Template:Christian mysticism have been at FAC before, so the image has never been challenged. It was uploaded to the Russian Wikipedia in 2005, and it's source is not given. I'll see if I can replace the image in the template with one whose source can be verified.Amitchell125 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Map_of_Norwich_(c.1300)_by_Woodward.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?

Sorted, I think. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:St_Julian's_Church_Norwich.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Image now gone (see comment above). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria—Is this a pass for image review? (t · c) buidhe 00:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Fascinating article on a major subject.

• The 'Background' sentence "Julian was alive ... " needs to be split into two. Probably shouldn't be using "overwhelmed" twice in succession either.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a number of them" - perhaps "some of them".

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Map of Norwich: perhaps "south of the castle" or "towards the bottom of the map" would help those who don't know where Ann's Staithe is.

Caption amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "refers to Kempe travelling to Norwich" - perhaps "mentions that Kempe travelled to Norwich".

Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Julian was largely unknown until 1670," - clearly this doesn't apply to her lifetime.

Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "It became known still further" - perhaps "It became still better known".

Agreed, sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Contemporary monastic and university authorities might not have challenged her theology because of her status as an anchoress." Perhaps the intended meaning is "Her status as an anchoress may have prevented contemporary monastic and university authorities from challenging her theology."

Thanks, your version is definitely better. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Eliot actually uses "All shall be well" not once but three times in "Little Gidding", surely worth saying. It might be appropriate to quote a few lines of the poem including one of the mentions. Eliot's use of Julian's saying is discussed by Barbara Newman; she notes that it serves "as a refrain, much as it does in Julian's own Revelations of Love", that it was a "very late addition" to the poem, and that Eliot corrects Julian (as he saw the matter) by adding "By the purification of the motive" before Julian's line "[In] the ground of thy beseeching", as he disagreed with her theology. Perhaps something of all this deserves saying, though the detail probably belongs in the article on the poem.

All done (I've put some of the Newman details in a note). Amitchell125 (talk) 08:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Super.

That's all from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chiswick Chap, all now addressed. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

With the caveat that I am no domain expert or even a native speaker, I have some comments about this interesting article. Mostly minor things, but I have 2 comments about the structure.

• It looks like the body of the article assumes that the reader has read the lead, a very fair assumption. But I've always thought the body has to start from scratch and pretend this is not the case (I've looked around but so far have been unable to find a relevant rule in MOS). In this article it is assumed that the reader has read the lead and thus does not introduce topics in the body I expected to be introduced. For instance "Little of Julian's life is known. She provided a few scant comments about the circumstances of her revelations in her book Revelations of Divine Love," to me does not really introduce the revelations but assumes the reader already knowns about them. This approach is unusual. But perhaps it is still fine. Perhaps more knowledgeable reviewers can shed light on this issue.

I've amended the the text of the article to reflect the comment you've made here, which is I think an entirely valid one. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• why is shewings in italics? why in quotes?

Italics/quotes now gone, wictionary link inserted instead to help readers understand the word is archaic. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• being completed soon after her recovery, and a much longer version, today known as the Long Text, being written many years later --> do we need these 2 uses of "being"?

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• The English city of Norwich --> link Norwich

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• During her lifetime the Black Death --> link Black Death

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• ruthless to the point of vandalism". --> ruthless to the point of vandalism." see MOS:QUOTEMARKS

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• 15 visions of Jesus, and a sixteenth --> 15 visions of Jesus, and a 16th, according to my interpretation of MOS:NUM

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• ever became a nun --> delink nun, instead link first instance of nun

Nun Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• The book now commonly known as Revelations of Divine Love was written in manuscript form by Julian in two versions, now known --> would it be possible to avoid the repetition of known?

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Julian's writings are unique, as no other works by an English anchoress have survived, although it is possible that some anonymous works may have been written by women --> This confuses me. The lead says "She wrote the best-known surviving book in the English language written by a mystic, Revelations of Divine Love, which is also the earliest surviving book in English known to be written by a woman." These are not the same sets of statements. Perhaps you mean to say here something along the lines of "Julian's writings are the earliest surviving English language works by a woman, although it is possible that some anonymous works may have been written by women. They are also the only surviving English language works by an anchoress, and the best-known surviving book in the English language written by a mystic." But I don't know if the sources support these claims.

I've worked on the text using your suggestion. I can't cite the most obvious bit (that her book is best-known work by an English mystic), so that's now gone. The rest I have cited using Leyser and Windeatt. Thanks for your help here. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that looks better. Just one thing about where it now says "some anonymous devotional works may have been written by women". By using devotional you make the reader wonder about anonymous non-devotional works. I don't think devotional is needed or helpful here. Same in the lead.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Julian's writings was largely unknown until 1670 --> were

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• based his book on the 86 chapters and about 63,500 words of the Long Text --> this may be personal preference but I would restructure this section and start this section with descriptions of the short text and the long text, including the number of chapters and words, and not fold that information into a sentence about someone else writing centuries later.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• by his Providence." --> by his Providence".

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• a daring likening --> is this a neutral enough point of view for an encyclopedia?

Sentence amended to reflect the idea that she wasn't daring at all (not sure how that managed to be slipped in). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• me or anybody else". --> me or anybody else."

Done.Amitchell125 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• one is able to radiate it". --> one is able to radiate it."

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pope Benedict XVI dedicated his general audience --> do we really need to say this twice? And if yes, then we should have consistency in the spelling of General Audience.

Thanks for spotting that, text deleted accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Anglais 40. Bibliothèque nationale de France. Retrieved 11 November 2021 --> other reviewers are more knowledgeable than me but I'm not sure you need that retrieval date here. Only in the reference I think.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Happy to do a spot check of the sources later on, if needed, once a few more reviewers have given support. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon, your comments are now addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, all fine except the "devotional" I mentioned above. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

All fine now. I Support on prose. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

In the infobox it says; "Died: After 1416 (aged 73–74)" - if we don't know the specific year when she died then how do we know that she was 73 or 74? If all we know is that she died after 1416, does that not mean that she could have lived until 1420 and died aged 77? Or 1430 and died aged 87? Apologies if I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude—infobox amended, as i agree with your comment. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

I think this is an outstanding article – beautifully written, well presented, admirably illustrated and well and widely sourced. I have struggled to find anything to quibble about, and these are my meagre gleanings:

• Lead
  • "English language works by a woman … may have been written by women" – not entirely felicitous, perhaps. Possibly "may have had female authors", shorter, active rather than passive, and avoiding repetition. (Same in the main text under Revelations of Divine Love.) Just a suggestion – feel free to ignore.

Not ignored. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Personal life
  • "the church in Norwich that her cell was attached to" – more formal, and I suggest more pleasing, to say "…to which her cell was attached"

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "As plague epidemics were rampant … as a result of plague" – I think you could profitably lose the last two words, avoiding the repetition without harming the meaning.

Thanks, done as suggested. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "almost no references were made of her writings" – unexpected preposition: wouldn't "to her writings" be more usual?

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "according to the British historian Henrietta Leyser" – is Mrs Leyser's nationality relevant here?

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Julian's shorter work … was likely to have been written" – We have a slight muddle of tenses here. I think perhaps either "is likely to have been written" or "was probably written".

Sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Theology

• "the medieval scholar Caroline Walker Bynum" – You might tweak this. We infer that she is a modern scholar of mediaeval history, but that isn't quite what the sentence says. The phrase "medieval scholar" conjures up a Roger Bacon or an Alcuin of York rather than a 21st-century academic.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• St Julian's Church
  • "continues to hold services on a regular basis" – perhaps rather a wordy and woolly way of saying it holds regular services?

Point taken, sentence now amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Literature
  • "Sydney Carter's song … was released in 1982" – strange verb: do you mean published?

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

And that is all I can manage by way of carping. I am most impressed. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 02:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley—thanks for your praise, and also your comments (now all addressed). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Very pleased to support. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 15:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

References

• #14: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter. Also, what makes this work reliable, and why not use the works cited in it instead?

Sorted - ref replaced with another citation. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #15: The Guardian can take a link.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #18: The other ODNB works are cited in full in "References"—without using a shore cite that links to "Sources"—and this one should be too.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #22: Should have a full citation.

​ I used {{Britannica | id=ID | title=TITLE }} from Template:Britannica (there is no author for the article). Is this not the correct template? Amitchell125 (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #50: British Library can take a link. Archived URL should be added as backup.

Done, but Template:Cite archive doesn't show the archive information, so it remains hidden. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #62: Ditto and ditto. What is "Belonged to William Amhurst Tyssen-Amherst, Baron Amherst of Hackney" doing here?

Ref amended to remove superfluous text. It's a reliable source as it come come the British Library's catalogue. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #69: I'm not sure what the convention here is for citing the Bible, but it seems that it should at least mention that it's citing the Bible.

If you could find anywhere (e.g. in the MOS) which says what the convention is, I'd appreciate it. Jesus (an FA) uses something like my style, other articles, like Proverbs_1–9 (not an FA) have more text. Ref amended, see what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #82: The Episcopal Church is the publisher, I think, not the author.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #85: What makes this reliable? Why not cite the underlying article instead?

Still looking for the original article, but a news item from the National Catholic Register has been used in the meanwhile. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #91, #92: Is Marilyn Oliva the author of these?

Yes, refs amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #105: University of East Anglia can take a link.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #107: Date (June 2019) missing. And it's the Institution of Civil Engineers, not Institute.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #108: The Conversation can take a link.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• #109: BBC News can take a link.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources

• Lots of publishers can take links.

​ Nobody's asked me to do this before, and FAs don't seem to link publishers as you suggest. Is there guidance on linking publishers somewhere? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Lots of publishers are missing locations.

Locations now added. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Baker 1993: This is the only JSTOR source which uses {{registration required}}. Generally speaking, I think it's not needed, but either way, it should be consistent.

Agreed, template removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Blomefield & Parkin 1805: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter. OCLC not really needed since you already have a free link, but no biggie.

|name-list-style=amp added. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Butler-Bowden & Chambers 1954: Inconsistent use of initials for first names. Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Sorted. Full names now included (one person's name cannot be done). Amitchell125 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Bynum 1984: Inconsistent use of {{registration required}} rather than "url-access = registration" parameter.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Eliot 1944: Ditto re OCLC.

​ Not sure what is meant here, as the OCLC looks OK. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I was making the same point regarding the OCLC as for Blomefield & Parkin 1805. But it's not a big deal. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Groves 2010: Does the acronym need to be in the cite?

​ I'd prefer it to be left there, as the organisation is invariably known by its memorable acronym. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Jantzen 2011: Conversely, why not spell out Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge? (Unless it appears that way on the publication page.) It can take a link, too.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Leech & Ward 1995: Pre- and post-nominals not needed in cite. Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Newman 2011: Modern Philology can take a link.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Rawcliffe & Wilson 2004: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tanner, Previté-Orton & Brooke 1932: Inconsistent use of initials for first names. Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Source amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Upjohn & Groves 2018: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Watson 1993: Speculum can take a link. Is there a reason this isn't cited in the article?

Thanks for spotting that, text now moved to the Further reading section (for now). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Watson & Jenkins 2006: Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

• Foster-Gilbert 2018: Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• Salih & Baker: URL? If not, ISBN or OCLC? Suggest using "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Many thanks for these comments, now all addressed. I have responded to some of them: #22, #50, #62, #69, #85. Lots of publishers can take links, Eliot 1944: Ditto re OCLC, and Groves 2010. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2021 [19].

---

Uskok-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Uskok or Četnik class of motor torpedo boats built for the Yugoslav Royal Navy during the late 1920s. An enlarged version of a British design, they deployed their torpedoes by lining the boat up with the target, dropping them off the back of the boat and steering away. Both boats were captured by Italian forces during the Axis invasion in April 1941, and they were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy. Their age and condition meant they were only used for patrolling and second-line duties. One sank in 1942 when its hull failed, and the second one became non-operational in September 1943, but escaped from the Germans after the Italian surrender that month and sailed to Allied-occupied southern Italy. It was broken up after the war. This article forms part of the featured topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards 100% featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Torpedo_boat_tc_1.jpg needs a stronger FUR, and suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • G'day Nikkimaria, all done I think. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Chesneau, Roger, ed. (1980). Standardize location to "City, State" as elsewhere, or just simplify to "London" as one would with New York.
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020) double-check the ISBN on this one, I can't find it anywhere but www.aircraft-navalship.com. Amazon gives an ISBN of 978-9537892128, but I also cannot confirm this in other places. If you bought the book physically, this may explain it.
  • Yes, I can confirm I physically have the book, and that is what it says on the relevant page, I think there may be some confusion as a second volume is pending and an ISBN for it is also listed, but this is the one listed against Vol 1. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• Despot Infinitus is not the most ideal publisher, but I will accept on Freivogel's merits.
• @Peacemaker67: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the source review, Iazyges! All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

    Article passes source review, may be back for prose review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Pendright

Greetings @Peacemaker67: I have a few minor commemts! Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• They were equipped with two British-designed 456-millimetre (18 in) torpedoes as their main armament, and were also fitted with hydrophones and could carry depth charges instead of torpedoes if being used in an anti-submarine role.

• They were equipped with "cradles" that carried two British-designed torpedoes?
• Drop the comma after armament or add a subject to the last clause?
• Is the word "being" neccessary, since the word "if" usually means "on condition that"?

Have rearranged the sentence and implemented the rest. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The boats were lightly-built using mahogany, powered by two petrol engines, and lacked transverse bulkheads within the hull to mitigate leaks.

Consider replacing and with "but

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• They were commissioned in the Italian Royal Navy and operated with a squadron out of the Dalmatian port of Šibenik, where they had been based pre-war.

They -> "The ships" would drop one they?

Sure, used "boats" though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Background:

• Large numbers of 17-metre-long (55 ft) Coastal Motor Boats (CMBs) had been produced in the UK between 1917 and 1922 for the British Royal Navy, and they were also sold to overseas customers in the interwar period.[1]

This seems to be the first use of "UK"?

MOS:1STOCC refers to common abbreviations not needing to be expanded on first use, and I think UK is one of those, along with US. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This created very uncomfortable conditions for the engine room crew due to [the] lack of space and the loud engine noise.

Consider this change?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• An open cockpit for steering was located amidships, immediately fore and aft of which were columns on which twin machine guns could be mounted.

Might consider replacing one which?

Done. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Great! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The boats of the class had two Thornycroft V12 petrol engines installed, the forward one driving the starboard propeller shaft and the aft engine driving the port shaft, with the rudders placed immediately aft of the propellers.

Should port and starboard be linked?

Sure, they are combined, but I think it'll work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• To conduct a torpedo attack, the [a] boat would be aligned with the [a] target, [then] the torpedo engines would be started and [a torpedo would] they were then [be] pushed over the stern by a 3-metre-long (9 ft 10 in) mechanical rod, after which [a] the boat would immediately turn to the side and [its] the torpedo would proceed towards [a] the target.

See what you think?

Not sure about that. This is being used as an example, so the definite article seems appropriate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

A specific boat is not mentioned, thus the comment - either way is fine. Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Only four torpedoes were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training – with an inert warhead – and in combat with a live warhead.[6]

• See if you can live with this version: Only four torpedoes – with inert warheads – were delivered with the boats, which were to be used for both training and combat with live warheads.[6]

I think that changes the meaning. The torpedoes were delivered with both inert and live warheads. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no proboem! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The torpedoes had two speed and range settings. At 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph) it had a range of 2,300 m (2,500 yd), but a range of 3,650 m (3,990 yd) at 29 kn (54 km/h; 33 mph). It had a warhead that consisted of 145 kilograms (320 lb) of TNT.[7]

The subject of the first sentence is pural, but the sentence that follows refers bcck to the first and it's singular?

Fixed, I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• There were also some concerns that the Mediterranean sun would warp their hulls, and precautions were put in place to cope with this should it occur.[11]

Change would to could

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that after the two boats were commissioned, plans to order more were shelved due to a combination of: negative assessments of the boats during their sea trials and [the] training of crew members[,] ; and the advent of the Great Depression in 1929, which meant funds [would probably] were not [be] available in subsequent years for further acquisitions.[6]

See if you can live with some of these changes?

Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• By 1941, the maximum speed that could be achieved by boats of the class was 30–32 kn (56–59 km/h; 35–37 mph), and in Italian service the auxiliary engine could only achieve 4.5 kn (8.3 km/h; 5.2 mph).[1]

"while" in Italian service?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Depth charges

How were thsee put into the water?

Not in sources, presumably the same way as the torpedoes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sevice history:

• one such training exercise a torpedo was lost from Četnik, and until 1941 she only carried one torpedo.

Any details about the loss of the torpedo?

Not in sources, presumably it sank. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Četnik was sailed to Divulje near Split by Popović's second-in-command, Porucnik Fregate (Lieutenant) Velimir Škorpik, ostensibly in order to join the nascent Navy of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Mornarica Nezavisne Države Hrvatske, RMNDH).

• "was" and "in order" could be dropped?

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Think about bracketing "near Split"

Used snd instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• One of the boats was sent to Piraeus in Greece for a short time, but the wear and tear of the long voyage weakened her hull.[14]

Can you tell readers which one?

Actually yes, the clear implication in the source is that it was MAS 1D. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• She sprang a leak and sank quickly due to the lack of transverse bulkheads in her hull.[5][13]

Any survivors?

Not mentioned in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• On the evening of 11 September, her crew escaped and sailed ME47 to Taranto in Allied-occupied southern Italy.

Suggest replacing "and sailed" with "by sailing"

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Finishd - Pendright (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Pendright! All done, see what you think of my responses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Supporting - I did leave some repsonses to yours. Regards! Pendright (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Coastal Motor Boats". Why the upper case initials.

That was their proper name. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and were also". Maybe a little redundant? ("and" and "also".) Also a bit of a long sentence.

trimmed and restructured. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the boats were also equipped with two hydrophones". "two hydrophones" each?

yes, tweaked. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In place of the torpedoes, up to four depth charges could be carried for anti-submarine warfare". Any details known about these? Size, weight, amount of explosive, whatever?

no, it isn't even clear where these were sourced from. Presumably the Brits, but nothing in sources specifically for this class. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "at the surrender." This comes a bit from nowhere. Surrender? Of whom to who and when?

added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Četnik sailed to Divulje – Split – by Popović's second-in-command". "by" makes this non-grammatical.

good grief, yes... Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

All done I think, Gog. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Is there a reason that you have "Yugoslav Royal Navy" linking just "Royal Navy" which is then piped to Royal Yugoslav Navy?

Over time, I have formed the view that the proper English translation of Kraljevska mornarica (and therefore the article title) is actually "Royal Navy", not "Royal Yugoslav Navy", so therefore the order "Yugoslav Royal Navy" is more accurate than the latter. I have yet to move the Royal Yugoslav Navy article to Royal Navy (Yugoslavia) and make many consequent changes to articles, but will when I get a chance. But in comparison, when the British Royal Navy is linked, only Royal Navy is usually linked, and this should IMHO be the same. I'm open to alternatives though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The naming convention for "other" royal navies by modern historians is to add the nationality to their name in English, even if it's not formally part of the name in their native language. Thus Royal Norwegian/Swedish/Dutch Navy, etc. This has been formally codified by NATO and makes the recent effort to refer to the British Royal Navy, etc., look very odd to my eyes. In my own writings I extend this pattern to navies for countries which once had a monarchy like Italy, Greece, etc., if I don't refer to them by their name in their native language like Regia Marina with a parenthetical translation as Royal X Navy. We're inconsistent about article titles for navies with French Navy instead of Marine Nationale, but also with Regia Marina.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've gone back to the Royal Yugoslav Navy formulation. It clearly is causing confusion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Uskok class or Četnik class was a class" forgive my ignorance, it seems like you're saying two classes were a single class? You then go on to say "Named Uskok and Četnik..." so is it really the case that it was just two boats in one class? It's very confusing to a non-expert.

It is a single class of two boats, but some sources call it the Uskok class whilst others call it the Četnik class. This is possibly due to ethnic bias, Uskoks were Croatian irregulars and Četniks were Serb ones. Any suggestions how I might clarify? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As the article is called Uskok-class, why could you just lead with that and add a footnote to say that it is also referred to as Cetnik? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

G'day The Rambling Man, done. I think that is your last outstanding comment? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• "by Italian forces" is there a link?

It isn't clear from the sources whether the navy or army captured them. The Italian Armed Forces page is actually about the whole shebang from the beginning of Italy, and isn't the best, but it'll have to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Italian Royal Navy" similar comment to the first one, why wouldn't Italian be in the pipe in this case?

Same response as above, it was the Regia Marina, and although that article should possibly be at Royal Navy (Italy) per WP:USEENGLISH, there is possibly an argument that Regia Marina is actually the common name in English. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could create plausible redirects at MAS 1 D and ME 47 to here.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "British Royal Navy" similar comment, you've got "Royal Navy" as a link to several different targets.

I've fixed the above, but in one case it is the Royal Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which isn't easily combined in the way Sturm suggests above, like Royal Yugoslav Navy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "class of 55 ft CMBs" you previously had metric first, which I have say I found odd (especially with the 456 mm (18 in)!), but here you use Imperial only, so I would consider the idea of using the contemporaneous units. "pair of .303-inch (7.7 mm) " is another example...

Well, it certainly is a dog's breakfast with various measurements leading. Perhaps the discussion in the first para should lead with imperial because that was the measurement of the original UK boats, but the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Yugoslavia used metric, so I should probably use that thereafter even where the item was UK-made (ie the torpedoes and machine gun). Does that seem ok? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that seems ok. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "as the Uskok class" firstly, Uskok is easter egg link, and secondly "class" was used prior to this so should be linked there.

Well spotted, fixed in both cases, hopefully it is better now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "to mitigate leaks" is mentioned in the lead but doesn't appear to have made it into the main body when describing the ship design.

Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the engine room crew due " how many crew for the engine room?

Not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "open cockpit for ... the cockpit " repetitive.

Opted for "it". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Two torpedoes were carried..." the lead said that depth charges could be carried, so shouldn't this say "Two torpedoes could be carried..."?

Yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Might be the geek in me but "1.15–1.3 m " I would give ranges to the same number of decimal places.

Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The boats of the class" what does "of the class" bring here?

Not much, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Same comment on d.p. for "1.15–1.6 tonnes".

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The main armament for the boats was two British-made forward-facing 456 mm (18 in) torpedoes in the cradles aft. ..." you already said most of this above, "Two torpedoes were carried in open cradles aft of the cockpit".

deleted all after "torpedoes". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• No need to pipelink TNT, that's its common name.

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "mount were carried, which could be mounted" mount mounted reptitive.

varied wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "precautions were put in place " such as?

Jarman doesn't say, perhaps staining or varnishing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a torpedo was ... one torpedo" torpedo torpedo.

deleted second torpedo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "on 17 April. " I would add the year for complete non-ambiguity.

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Italian Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" earlier you had Italian Royal Navy and link Regia Marina. I would be consistent.

I think I got these. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "ME47 was based" is it this or ME 47?
• "sailing ME47 to" similar.

These both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have in a brief read. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, one final concern, the image file being used says it has a "date of publication" of "1938 or earlier" yet just above it says the publication was "Original publication: Jane's Fighting Ships 1940 edition, p. 517" which appears to have been published in January 1941. It also appears the designation of TC1 is unspaced... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Nicely spotted, both fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• G'day TRM, thanks very much for the review! All done I think. There are a couple of queries above though. Let me know what you reckon about them? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi The Rambling Man, a couple of queries above when you get a chance. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - of course, no obligation either way, but do you feel that you are in a position to either support/oppose? Hog Farm _Talk 19:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 21:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2021 [20].

---

1996–97 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Following on from five successful nominations, here is another eventful season from the history of English association football club Gillingham. In this particular season, the "Gills" defeated a team from the top division of English football for the first time in nearly 90 years and had a player miss a match because he'd been shot!! Never a dull moment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "the 1995–96 English football season, the" maybe pipe to "previous season"?
• "65th season playing" do we need that quick repeat of "season".
• "The most notable new signing" that's POV.
• "£235,000" could inflate since it was 25 years ago (*gulp*).
• "club, both as a ... the club's" repetitive.
• Bradford City is an A.F.C. as is Wrexham and Swansea City.
• "against Bristol City. New" overlinked.
• "and scored the" to score (to avoid the and ... and...)
• "scored two goals from penalty kicks against" perhaps tighten to "scored two penalty kicks"?
• "suffering a serious injury" what was the nature of this?
  • I don't know, I couldn't find a source that was that specific. I've downgraded the description to simply "an injury", as on re-checking the sources it isn't described as "serious" (although he did miss five games....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "and Watford.[23] It " overlinked.
• "away to Burnley, who" ditto.
• "Due to the postponement of a number..." what caused the postponement, bad weather?
  • I guess so, but I don't have a specific source for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "to Crewe Alexandra, the" overlinked.
• "placed Watford, Butler" same.
• " Rotherham United and Bristol City.[28] " both of these too.
• "ended the month of March" no need for "the month of".
• "against AFC Bournemouth in identical" overlinked.
• "defeating Millwall, Walsall and Shrewsbury Town." all overlinked.
• Link Chapman consistently.
• "the 1996-97 FA Cup in" en-dash.
• "of the Third Division." overlinked.
• "due to the state of the frozen pitch" is "the state of" needed?
• "all unavailable" why?
• "the 1996-97 Football League Cup in " en-dash.
• "level opponents.[48] Gillingham's opponents" repetitive.
• "played Cardiff City of the" overlinked.
• Consider telling us when the pictures of the players were taken, Akinbiyi's looks like it was 12/13 years after this specific season.
• "the 1997–98 season mounting" perhaps "following season" instead.

That's it for the article, I'll take a look at sources at some point if that's useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man:, many thanks for your review. All actioned other than where noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @The Rambling Man: - all the above addressed to your satisfaction? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'm happy to support this, should you need a source review in due course, I'd be happy to oblige. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @The Rambling Man: - might you be able to do that source check if you have the time? Not to worry if not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Mike Christie

Support. I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with. I only have one comment, which is that if we're going to mention Hessenthaler setting a transfer fee record in the lead, I think we should also mention in the lead that the record was surpassed mid-season by Akinbiyi. I'm not going to hold up support over that; this is a straightforwardly written article that covers its ground well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: - that's a good shout - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good. Another comment: have you considering pulling the occasional quote from newspaper coverage? For this season I would think only the defeat of Coventry would warrant it, but sometimes match reports are entertainingly written and it seems like something that could liven up the article. This is a general comment about season articles, not a criticism of this one, and doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added a match report quote about the Cov win -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

This is in fine shape. Not much to quibble about.

• Gillingham played poorly and lost 2–0 --> is that "poorly" your point of view?
  • No, it's summarising the source on that sentence, which says that the defence made mistakes to allow Derby to score and the attack was ineffectual
• Aftermath: a bit too much detail of the next season I think. 1 line should suffice. What I would expect is a summary of players who left the club after the season.
  • Done

That's all. I might unwillingly have become a Gillingham supporter by now :) I will do a spotcheck of sources soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Many thanks for your review, and I hope you don't mind the abject misery that comes with being a Gills fan right now *ahem*going down*ahem*sack the manager*ahem* -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources:

• perhaps it would be good to archive some urls
• Formatting looks ok to me
• Spotcheck: #7 #8 #25 #26 #31 #37 #68 are all ok
• #28 does not seem to cover "putting them in the relegation places"
  • Added a second ref which confirms that the bottom four were the relegation places -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• #32 seems to cover only the "After this run, Gillingham had climbed to 15th in the table" bit, not the previous sentence
  • The previous sentence was simply distilling info from the (sourced) match details table, but for 100% coverage I have added the source to that sentence too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

All looks good to me. I Support on prose and sources. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Edwininlondon: - Are you okay with this counting as a formal source review? Hog Farm _Talk 05:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I was looking through the sources for a formal source review, but saw these comments. I found virtually no issues with sources, if extra assurance is needed. Aza24 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - this one now seems to have three supports on prose and source review and image review passes. Am I now OK to nominate another article? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: - thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Amakuru - Pass

• On reliability, the only source I'd maybe question is the one in the Sunday Mirror. It's such an unobjectionable fact though, and WP:DAILYMIRROR isn't actually deprecated so I'll let it go.
• I can't see any formatting problems anywhere, so well done there.

Spot checks

• Quite a lot of it is cited to books, so is there any chance you could email me photos of a few of them? Let's say, if you can, please send over "Triggs 2001 p156", "Rollins 1997 pp578–579" and "Borwn 2003 p107" that will be enough, just for a sanity check really given that you've done loads of these before!
• 7 - checks out
• 23 - checks out
• 26 - minor point, but the source says he received two yellow cards, with the throwing-the-ball-at-the-linesman incident being only the second of them.
• 54 - boo... what a terrible result! (checks out though)
• 68 - the meat of the sentence this supports is "Gillingham began the following season mounting a challenge for promotion, which would take the club to the second tier of English football for the first time" but the BBC report from the 2000 play-off final only really supports the last part of this. If the "mounting a challenge for promotion" part is actually in Brown 1998 p28, then I suggest moving ref 68 to the end of the paragraph next to ref 69.

That's all. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: there doesn't appear to be any option to add attachments when emailing someone from their user page. If you can email me, I'll reply with the pictures..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Never mind, I just remembered I have a dropbox account. Not used it for a long time :-) Will send you the link :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, duly received!

• Ref 6 - Regarding the Triggs p156 cite, the sentence mentions a transfer fee of £235,000 but I'm not seeing that on the page you sent me.
• Ref 48 - can't see the Swansea first-leg score, as it's off the bottom of the page you sent, but I'll take your word for it! Second leg checks out.
• Ref 51 - checks out; although I assume the book has a misprint - if home matches are supposed to be written with the opponents in capital letters, then the two Coventry games are the wrong way round. The October one definitely seems to have been the home leg and looks like the largest home crowd of the season though.

So maybe just a quick look at those minor omissions from refs 26 and 6, and then good to go. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: - both sorted (in the case of the Triggs ref, the specific fee is actually on the page before so I have amended the ref accordingly) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Nice one, thanks Chris. Happy to pass on sourcing.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 December 2021 [21].

---

Why Marx Was Right

Nominator(s): — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A quite long-term project of mine (including a long off-wiki writing process), Why Marx Was Right is my third article nominated for FA status. I've written lots of book articles before, but neglected to take many through feature-quality processes. A lot of research went into this article, perhaps the most of any of the 125 or so articles I've created. I look forward to all constructive criticism. — Bilorv (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't duplicate captions in alt text
• File:JStalin_Secretary_general_CCCP_1942_flipped.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD in Russia?
• File:Karl_Marx_001_(cropped_2).jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: done the first. For the second, I believe the Library of Congress record shows it was first published at least before 1944, when it was transferred to the LoC, and there's been no author identified in 70 years (plus 7 more). Is that okay, or would File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg be a more clear-cut PD usage?
    And on the last point, it was created by John Jabez Edwin Mayall and published in the International Institute of Social History (Amsterdam) in 1875. Mayall died in 1901. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • On the second, I don't see that LOC specifies it was published before being transferred? On the third, suggest adding that to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I've switched out the second image for File:Cropped Stalin 1943.jpg, as I can't find any more information about the image we were using. I've updated the image description as requested for the other image. Thanks very much for your feedback, Nikkimaria. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from czar

Extended content

General Had more to say than I anticipated. :) It was an interesting read—thanks for the heads up! Most of my comments below are structural. Anything phrased as a question is rhetorical—no need to answer them; feel free to address or ignore. If I have time later, will return for more. Listing page numbers and database identifiers would make source verification so much easier for readers (or a FAC source reviewer) Page numbers should now be added. Not sure what exactly you mean by database identifiers—experienced Wikipedians should be able to see most sources within ProQuest on TWL but readers (and editors) might be using JSTOR or their university's search system, so I'm not sure how universal an identifier would be (or how to get a DOI out of ProQuest). — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) It's possible to add database links like so (for ProQuest), which makes source lookup easier down the line. I personally add JSTOR, DOI, and PQ or EBSCOhost where relevant, so readers have options, but that's very much optional. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) There's now a ProQuest (or other database identifier) for each reference that does not have a direct URL link. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Lede Are all 10 objections needed in the lede? It's somewhat excessive to me as a general reader when a few examples would suffice. The list in the synopsis section would make sense, though. Now just summarising some, and each objection is listed with a bit more detail in the new synopsis. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) How do you know the reception was "mostly negative" without an aggregate reviewer saying so? Believe that's original research Removed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) General readers don't need exact dates in the lede since they have it in the infobox and, if necessary, in the relevant section. They just need to know the gist of when the book was released. Now just gives the years 2011 and 2018. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "criticised by others as humourless, filled with poor analogies or lacking strong arguments" introduce a parallelism for better reading: "as lacking humour, strong arguments, and good analogies" Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "the prose style", "the commentary on historical materialism" sound detached; it's either "its prose style" (referring to the book) or "Eagleton's prose style" (referring to the author's role in writing the book) Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "historical moment" doesn't need ersatz quotes (or, then, a ref) Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) were no reviewers strong enough to warrant mention in the lede? If not (and that's fine), consider how the reception section could mirror the lede; i.e., where is the group citation for how the prose style can be summarised as witty, entertaining, and easy to read? If that's a point important enough for the lede, I would want to read a part of the Reception that explains why, perhaps starting with that topic sentence and followed by the supporting evidence I'm not sure any reviewer is worth quoting specifically in the lead, but the paragraph is intended to be a clear paragraph-by-paragraph summary of Reception, which in many cases did repeat topic sentences. Take another look at the new version and if you still think it's not clear where the content is verified (with citations) then I'd appreciate more detail. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Is there anything worth adding about Eagleton's approach or background with Marx in the lede? Like what about his prior experience with the subject or reputation in this aspect None of the sources really brought in past works of his; the only real commentary on his approach is that he's an Irish Catholic, given a paragraph in "Background" and Gray (2011) believes Eagleton understates Marx's objection to religion based on his Catholicism, as mentioned in "Reception", but that's not lead-worthy. I could maybe add "Eagleton's approach to Marxism was informed by his Catholicism", or equally leave it out? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Yeah that sounds more like it fits in Reception than as Background. To the question, he's writing in defense of Marxism: Is he a Marxist and if so, is there anything published on his background as a Marxist? czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Yep, I've added a couple of sources that give more background context on Eagleton's involvement with Marxism and leftism (whether he calls himself one or not, his writing is heavily influenced by Marxism). — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Background/Editions There are parts of this section that would fit better in a Publication section (history of publication, development of the work, relationship with publisher, editions, release) if there's enough for a dedicated section (check for interviews); Background should be the truly Background topics needed for a general reader, e.g., what does the reader need to know about Marx to make the synopsis intelligible for a general audience? I'm not quite sure what you mean here. None of the section is about background Marxist theory—as the book is for laypeople, the synopsis should be intelligible to the general audience (at least on the latest rewrite, or with further refinement). Are you suggesting, then, a re-title to "Publication" (as I've now done), or is something else needed? (As for interviews, the couple that exist are included already.) — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) It's common in articles about books to start with a Background or Historical context section that either explains the terms or the circumstances behind the book's publication. To my eyes, the Background here is Eagleton's background with the subject (prior writings, etc.) and the summary of Marxism that a general reader would need to be literate. Topics like Eagleton's motivation, his personal background, and editions of the book all fall within Publication history or Development, which is usually a later section. I'm not sure whether the current version necessarily must be changed, but the above is how I'd organize it to give the reader what they're expecting when they need it most. czar 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Is it now organised as you describe above? — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC) re: editions, it would be sufficient to put the reprint information in prose as four identical citations are redundant Is the current version what you had in mind? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) That works. I'd personally condense down to just the year and no ISBN for subsequent releases, unless the specific date and edition is particularly noteworthy (reprints and paperback editions generally aren't). czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Alright, I've condensed to years and removed the other ISBNs except for the 2018 second edition, which had a new preface at least. (Thinking about it again, is "reprint" technically wrong if there was a new preface? That's the only change.) — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) "Reprint" sounds right czar 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) There are a few parts here that would be better served by saying what the source means instead of their flourish: What is "something of a revelation"? (To what? About what? In what way?) What is "newly perceptible as as a system"? (More apparent to non-theorists? More present in everyday life and rhetoric?) Done this for those two and a couple more. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Room for concision: "The New Republic's John Gray argued that before the economic crisis, Marxism had been at its most "unfashionable", due to the failures of the Soviet Union and modern China.[8] However, the crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought.[8][9] " >> "While Marxism had been "unfashionable" due to ..., the financial crisis caused a resurgence in Marxist thought." (this should be a fact, not an attributed opinion, if the source is reliable) Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "its fallout" whose? Or in the spirit of concision, "resurgence in Marxist thought, including the books ..." But I don't think you need to list five books to make your point—picking the best one or two would be sufficient. The rest can go to a footnote if important. Down to two. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) "obselete" typo Done — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) The most interesting parts of this section are the background on the historical moment. For what it's worth, I don't think the background on Eagleton's motivation, professorial history, or favorite chapter was particularly important background, though perhaps relevant in a Publication section. As above, they're all in "Publication" now. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Synopsis This section isn't very accessible to a general audience—it's trying to convey a lot of information in the space of a plot summary when it would be better served by taking more time to explain each "objection" and the substance of Eagleton's rebuttal. For this reason, it would be much more helpful for this section to have citations such that you could introduce outside context where needed for each description without needing to work around rules for foregoing summary citations. There are plenty of reviews so I would imagine there is plenty of content here. I guess I was worried that more words would make the section too long. For instance, I could do a paragraph on each chapter, but is that not too much detail? I tried to make the synopsis just about self-contained, and I can probably give quite a lot more context with another 100–200 words, but where do you think the limit is? Or are you talking about a more fundamental restructuring? — Bilorv (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC) re: potentially too much detail, it might be—I'm not sure. I can defer to other reviewers. To my ears, ten shorter paragraphs sounds appropriate since the point of the article is to explain the role and importance of a book, which involves understanding its argument. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) Okay, take a look at the new section, which is still just a synopsis of the book, but contains more explanation of terms (based on Eagleton's definitions in the book) and expansion on Eagleton's arguments. Let me know if this is still not accessible. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) It's better but it's still hard to follow. For each section I just want to know, "To the claim that Marxism results in mass murder and political repression, Eagleton [counterargument]." As currently written, it's hard to piece together what exactly his counterargument is in response to the "objection". Insofar as it's possible to outline the objection and the thrust of the counterargument in the same topic sentence, that would make for much easier reading, and perhaps wouldn't need so much text to back it up. Are all the term explanations necessary? I'm mainly trying to understand his argument, not learn the terms. If the terms are important for understanding Marxism than in context of the synopsis, another option is to have a paragraph or two explaining the basic language of Marxism in the Background section. czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC) I've added a background section for the main exposition of Marxist terminology, and made some rewrites to focus on how Eagleton's commentary is a counterargument to the initial objection. The terms are important to be precise, and because the exposition of Marxist theory is a key focus of the book. With some chapters, several reviewers thought Eagleton's writing was unclear or not a counterargument at all; in this case, all I can do is convey what Eagleton wrote, rather than construct or infer a counterargument myself. However, let me know if any parts of the Synopsis are still unclear in conveying what Eagleton says. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I.e., "against the irrelevance of Marxism to the 21st century" this is academic language—what does this mean to a general reader? Is it "argues against the objection that Marxism is outdated for 21st century purposes" (which would still need explanation)? That was the meaning, but now there's more detail: "he sets out a brief argument that Marxism is irrelevant in the post-industrial, classness Western world". — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) If I can pull this thread a little more, still not sure what that means. How is Western society (socially) "classless"? Is class less important or deemphasized? It surely isn't eradicated or fully classless, no? Is the objection that "social class plays a lesser role in post-industrial societies, making Marxian class theory less applicable"? czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Yep, that's a better way of putting it, which I've now employed. The argument goes: ... [Marxism] certainly has no bearing on the increasingly classless, socially mobile, postindustrial Western societies of the present ... — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Reception It's very hard to follow the cavalcade of reviewer names and frequent quotes. For instance, when "Barry and Rundle found it the weakest part of the book", should I be backtracking to figure out who Barry is and what qualifies his opinion? This is a common Reception section issue and I've found that the best solution is to not name individuals unless they are noteworthy critics (with their own WP articles) and instead refer to reviews by the outlet name, when it's necessary to even attribute the sentiment. The smoothest Reception sections group each thematic paragraph into a narrative. For example, it's much easier to understand that, "Multiple reviewers [or Publications X, Y, Z] criticized what they considered weak argumentation throughout the book. Supporting example 1 of assertion instead of argument. Supporting example 2 of glib approach. Supporting example 3 of general weakness. Dissenting example or caveat 4, e.g., who were generally convinced." But by setting up what the paragraph is about (argumentation more than rhetoric), it becomes much easier to follow what you want the reader to take away from the paragraph. CRS is my Bible, but I have worked quite hard to try to theme the comments and draw a narrative from them. If you look at the wikitext, there's a hidden comment for each paragraph which roughly describes its topic, and the first sentence should be a topic sentence. I'll work on restyling the names (though I really dislike quotes with no prose attribution so I might shorten just to outlet), but can you give some more guidance on the rest? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) I was once given advice by a historian who made the point of how many pieces of evidence are needed to prove a point: Five? Ten? Two? Only as much as needs convincing. So when I hear that reviewers had varying opinions on whether the book met its objectives (which were what again?) as a general reader, I expect to see which reviewers (X, Y, Z publications) thought it did and which reviewers thought it didn't, followed by one or two compelling examples per side that give color or help elucidate the most convincing cases for and against Eagleton's writing. If Eagleton's "stated objectives" were to convince the reader that the ten objections are mistaken, then I'd want to read something like: X, Y, Z thought Eagleton was most compelling in arguing A because B. D and E were thoroughly convinced throughout, though E generally thought [contrary position]. Since this is also a highly partisan subject, it would be useful for me to know as a general reader if an author or source is writing from a pro- or anti-Marxist position. (I.e., not surprising that The American Conservative did not find the arguments compelling, but is there more to it than that?) But the main benefit of this approach is, instead of writing three different ways that three different reviewers thought the book met its aims, it's possible to combine them in a single sentence (see XYZ above). It's perhaps even more compelling to see one strong sentence reinforce a central narrative than three relatively weaker sentences about minor aspects of the paragraph's thesis. czar 04:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) I've given it a rewrite, with just publication names (except for a review published in two different newspapers and two different reviews in the same newspaper). Hopefully these names and links are enough for readers to identify clearly pro- and anti-Marxist positions, but I don't think I can be more explicit without engaging in original research. I've grouped things together more, reduced reliance on quotes and cut some things where they aren't going to fit into a flowing narrative (i.e. some of the points that were only raised by one reviewer). Take a look now and see if the section has moved in the right direction. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) This is so much easier to read now. Nice work! czar 17:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC) "Critics were divided on whether the topics covered were well-chosen." Generally can avoid passive voice by putting the author or book in there: "Critics disagreed on Eagleton's selection of topics." czar 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the detailed comments, Czar. I've read them all and begun addressing some, but it may take me a few days to properly respond to them all. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @Czar: apologies for the delay, but I think I've responded to each of your points now. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC) @Czar: another Synopsis update, and I believe I've also addressed the tags you added to the Publication section. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Left a bunch of in-line tags and changes with descriptive edit summaries czar 07:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC) Re: "wouldn't this sentence be stronger if it showed the stat that refuted Eagleton?" – there is no such statistic. Eagleton gives the statistic (I believe without citation—I'm struggling to relocate the right page at the moment) and the reviewers simply assert the statistic is patently false without citation. Not sure what else there is to say here. As for the relevance of global poverty (purportedly) falling, this is posed by the reviewer as a direct contradiction to something Eagleton claims: Some of his own preconceptions, though, are on equally shaky ground. In particular, global poverty and global inequality have fallen rather than risen over recent decades. However, so far as I could see it does not contradict anything Eagleton claims. So I've taken that bit out now. Re: "what happened in 2016, some kind of re-release?", I've no idea. It's not clear to me what caused the spike. — Bilorv (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. It's a good read and the Reception section shines. I'd be curious to see what others think of the Synopsis, which I would normally hammer out so that each connection is crystal clear, but alas I haven't read the book and it's at least 80% there. If need be, I can return for a source review.

By the way/apropos of nothing, I came across What Marx Really Meant (G. D. H. Cole, 1934) today—it's similar to Eagleton's book except written four generations ago. Thought you might appreciate. czar 07:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments, Czar, they've really helped to improve the article. (That is a funny comparison—it's always interesting to hear what different eras's "modern" interpretation of historical writings was like.) — Bilorv (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment from Nick-D

• The references to journal articles, the hard copy magazines and The Communist Manifesto need page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • These should now all be added, Nick-D, except for Brown (2011), Maclean's (2011a) and Maclean's (2011b), where ProQuest doesn't show any page numbers. Does it look right now? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • No. You need to provide page numbers for all the specific references to these works. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, how about now, Nick-D? — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

I will wait until czar completes their review before I post my own. This is admittedly outside of my usual area of expertise, as I have not worked extensively on book articles and it has been a while since I learned about and discussed Marxism in college. I just have one quick question. Why is the second edition cover used rather than one from the first edition? From my experience, the featured articles on books go with the first edition covers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, the reason is that I find the first edition cover horrendously ugly (not unusual for an academic text). I am happy to change it if you feel that the first edition is inherently more encyclopedic. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I was more so curious if there was a policy in place about this. If not, then the current choice should be fine. I would have honestly done the same. The second edition's cover seems more engaging to me, and I also have preferences over certain covers from certain editions. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is a nitpick, but for this part, Written for laypeople, Eagleton outlines ten objections to Marxism that the average person may, could "the average person" be replaced with "they" as it feels somewhat repetitive since "laypeople" was already established earlier in the same sentence?
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Soviet Union is linked twice in the lead.
  • Unlinked on second occurrence — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• For File:Culture Wars - Kulturkriege. Luxemburg Lecture mit Terry Eagleton (8720387921).jpg, I would include when the photo was taken in the caption to provide more context for readers. This information is likely unnecessary for the more historical photos, but it would be nice to know if the Eagleton photo was taken around the book's release or at another time.
  • Added year (2013) — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am not sure "The author" descriptor is necessary for this part, The author Terry Eagleton is an academic. If you would like to keep this, I would remove the determiner to just say "Author" as it reads a little odd to have this part before the actual book is introduced in the article itself.
  • Dropped — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• I would add a link for leftism in this part, He turned to leftism.
  • Done — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have a clarification question about the "he's dead, actually" part. I get that it is joke, but has Eagleton ever seriously answered this question?
  • No, I don't think so. I couldn't find any other comments he made about the title or any others he considered (maybe more apt given the book's structure of responding to misconceptions would have been Why Marx Wasn't Wrong). — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• The Karl Marx wikilink should be moved up to the "Publication" section where he is referenced (only by his last name) for the first time.
  • Yep, broken the quote into two to give Marx's full name and link there. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• In the "Reception" section, you discuss the book's sales in Canada. Is there a reason why its sales in other countries are not mentioned? It just seems a little odd to only mention Canada here, when the books was written by a British academic and published by an American university.
  • Yeah, it is a strange one, but I couldn't find any sales details in any other countries, and I believe it didn't make any Bestseller lists in the U.K. or U.S. I don't particularly know why it seemed to do so well in Canada. — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That is interesting. Maybe something in this book just resonated more with a Canadian audience or it could have been just better marketed there or something alone those lines. Thank you for answering this question. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. Again, this is well outside of my comfort zone, but I wanted to do my best to help. I trust that czar and others would be able to provide a more complete and thoughtful review than myself. With that being said, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once my comments have been addressed. Great work with the article and I hope you had a wonderful end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, they are very useful. :) — Bilorv (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything! I am glad that I could help. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time and/or interest. Again, wonderful work with this article. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

I may not do a full review, but these points caught my eye:

• " Eagleton's roles around the time of the book's publication include professorships in English Literature at Lancaster University, the National University of Ireland and the University of Notre Dame" - no doubt strictly true, but misleading. These were smaller roles, I think all after he retired from his main job at Manchester in 2008. His later academic career is much better summarized by the bio: "Formerly the Thomas Warton Professor of English Literature at the University of Oxford (1992–2001) and John Edward Taylor Professor of Cultural Theory at the University of Manchester (2001–2008), Eagleton has held visiting appointments at universities around the world including Cornell, Duke, Iowa, Melbourne, Trinity College in Dublin, and Yale.". Oddly, Lancaster isn't mentioned, though I think the biggest of the last lot, and his page there is used for the last reference.

• I appreciate the feedback here, as this one of the paragraphs I most struggled to write. Take a look at the new description in the first paragraph of Background (which also incorporates more of his early leftism based on another review comment) and let me know if you still have concerns. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Eagleton is an Irish Catholic." No, he's not, not in British English anyway! He lacks the essential qualification of being Irish, since he was born & grew up in Salford, effectively Manchester. You should work in an adjectival form such as "Irish Catholic family/background".
  • Changed. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• You only have a 3-para lead; I think the article justifies 4.
  • There's now a new second paragraph, more synopsis of the book with a focus on basic concepts to make the rest of the article accessible to more readers. — Bilorv (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• All good - thanks. I may complete a review , but if I don't, I'm certainly not opposing, & please don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Feel free to revert any of my copyedits if you disagree with them.

I've split the first part of the lead back into two paragraphs, as a fourth lead paragraph was introduced on suggestion by a reviewer above that one was justified, and I thought that was a good idea. (I see WP:LEADLENGTH as just a rule of thumb.) For readability, I think the content is better as two paragraphs here. I'm otherwise happy with the copyedits. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• You have most of the definitions in italics in the second paragraph of the background section, but not "productive forces"; any reason not to make that italic too?
  • A now-corrected oversight. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• There are a couple of infelicities of phrasing:
  • "most major"
    • Now "predominant". — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "Marx's view of societal progression (through modes of production and class struggle) can develop in different directions". The intended meaning is clearly that societal progression can develop in different directions, but as written "develop" has "Marx's view" as its subject. And simpler language would be possible here: "Marx's view was that societies can develop in different directions" -- do we lose anything if we don't have both "progress" and "develop"?
    • Implemented your suggestion. In fact, avoiding "progress" is perhaps better anyway (from capitalism to fascism is not "progress" in the sense of "an improvement"). — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "Chapters three to six, wrote The Times Literary Supplement, somewhat redeemed the rest of the book, with its potential utility to historians": "chapters" is plural, so "its" is wrong since it can't sensibly refer to "book"; I think "their" would sound odd too because of the intervening clause so restructuring is probably needed.
    • Yeah, you're right: reworded. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "criticised that"
    • Does "thought that" flow better? — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• "He says that inadequate material resources": suggest "He says that a socialist regime with inadequate material resources".
  • Not used that exact phrasing, as I'd then have to re-use "regime" or introduce redundancy with a synonym, but I think it is better as: "He says that socialism with inadequate material resources results in regimes like Stalinist Russia ..." — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• "...centred people as active beings with agency": having read some Eagleton, and some related theory, I know what this means, but can we make "centred" a bit more comprehensible to a reader unfamiliar with this sort of discussion?
  • Is it clearer as "Marx's form of materialism started with the fundamental concept that people are active beings with agency"? — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• "but contemporary Marxists contend that socialism cannot be achieved through control of the state due to power held by private financial institutions". If this argument says what I think it says (that these institutions would be able to successfully combat any democratically elected socialist government's policies) then how does Eagleton regard this as rebutting the fear of authoritarianist Marxism?
  • I think it's partly tangential—what you read in is a correct inference—but partly the idea is that Marxists can't install an authoritarian state if they fundamentally do not wish to control the state at all. (Eagleton writes, "The fact that, generally speaking, politics is in hock to economics is the reason why the state as we know it cannot simply be hijacked for socialist ends".) And then, with the "withering away of the state" explanation we see that the alternative to controlling the state is dismantling it. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• The comparison to the caricatures of Freud bothers me; I think I know what is meant but one should not define a term by simile, since it assumes knowledge about the other term. I'd suggest cutting that and combining this sentence with the previous one: 'Eagleton was interested in the rhetorical conceit of defending Marxism against individual points of layperson criticism, that Marxism is "irrelevant or offensive or authoritarian or backward-looking", and believed Marx's views had been "extraordinarily caricatured" '.
  • I see your point, done. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think I'd cut the sentence about the letter from the reader and the reply that Marx is dead -- not something I'd argue about but for me it doesn't illuminate or entertain enough to include.
  • I do think it has a slight point beyond just being amusing—the past tense isn't meant to imply that Marx is no longer relevant/"right"—so I'd prefer to keep it unless anyone else raises the same point. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• "judged Eagleton's cultural allusions to be performative": I think "performative" is the wrong word -- "relating to performance" isn't right, and nor is it a case (such as the verb "to thank") where the allusions can be said to perform rather than describe. I think you could just cut it: "...cultural allusion to be 'trying too hard to reach...'".
  • Done. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• There are still a couple of "why?" tags in the reception section -- I didn't place them and I'm not convinced they're necessary, but take a look and see what you think -- they will have to be removed or addressed before this can be promoted.
  • Ah, that's based on the review by Czar above, but apparently I missed a couple. Now fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• For the Sewell and Smith books, are these chapters in edited books? If so, suggest including page ranges.
  • The first is also a print book but the citation is to a URL, which doesn't have a page number (and I'm not sure glossaries always do). I accessed the second on Google Books, where page numbers don't seem to be available. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and copyediting, Mike Christie. I believe I've addressed all of your comments. — Bilorv (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The only outstanding point for me is that your explanation above that starts "I think it's partly tangential" makes it clear to me here, but I think that should be clearer in the article. Can you transfer some of that explanation into the article text? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: yep, I've now had a go at rewording with that explanation in mind. — Bilorv (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely better, but now do we need "a capitalist state can still serve some class-neutral or positive interests"? It doesn't address the point of the chapter, does it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's useful in giving the nuance that Marxists don't (necessarily) believe that decreasing the power of the state is always the right move: for instance, in the cases of welfare, free education for all etc. — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. One minor question left above, but it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• The infobox seems to be mixing information from different editions - for example the publication date is for the first but the OCLC is for the second. Why is this? If it's necessary to do this, can we provide some clarity for the reader?
  • No reason other than oversight, now consistently first edition info. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• FN2: pages?
  • As mentioned above—I'm accessing via Google Books, which doesn't give page numbers, but the chapter is given (and it's the first page of the chapter being cited). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• It looks like ProQuest does supply page numbers for some of those still lacking them?
  • @Nikkimaria: can you give me an example or two? — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Bahnisch is p 22. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see what you mean now. Added several page numbers. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Bottomore: the ISBN supplied seems to be for a different edition than the one cited? Ditto Sewell, check throughout
  • Fixed those two, checked the others and no issues, but I've added "edition" parameters where there's more than one edition. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks like this has now broken some of the harvlinks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Should have anticipated that, fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Check alphabetization of References. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Alphabetisation by author surname (those with no author credit listed last) should now be correct. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Not quite - Barry. Also how are you ordering entries without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Could have sworn "r" comes before "h"... Entries without authors go last, and then within that alphabetically by publisher name. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Guettarda

Looks pretty good overall.

• Synopsis, paragraph 9: "According to Eagleton, a capitalist state can still serve some class-neutral or positive interests" - I don't get how this fits in here, or relates to the "however" in the following sentence.
  • Now removed as Mike Christie highlighted the same sentence as unclear/unnecessary. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Final paragraph: "despite Marx's mixed views on imperialism" - this is a bit cryptic, and the link isn't very helpful in explaining Marx's mixed views.
  • It's supposed to be a fairly direct summary of Eagleton's "Marx himself was somewhat more ambiguous about anticolonialist politics". Eagleton goes on to describe how Marx and Engels sometimes supported colonialism and sometimes anti-imperialist movements. Hopefully it's a bit clearer as "... despite Marx speaking in favour of imperialism in some cases" (Eagleton lists cases including India and Bolívar-led regions). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Reception: Is there some reason you just listed Canadian best-seller lists (including one very regional one)? Eagleton is a British academic, based in the UK, and the book was published by a US-based press. It feels oddly specific and incomplete.
  • It's complete as far as my research has shown. I don't think it made any British or American best-seller lists, or that sales data is public information. It is strange and I've not found a particular reason for its Canadian success, but that's what the sources say. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Critical reception/Writing style/Subject matter: "Economic and Political Weekly believed...as did Social Scientist" - publications don't have beliefs, people do. Unless it's an unsigned editorial, I think it's important to attribute opinions and reviews should be attributed to people rather than publications.
  • The current practice was reached after czar's review above, where attributions by author surnames (with publication name on first mention) were replaced with publication name for readability. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

    Sticking my oar in to say that I think it's good practice to drop the authors' names where they are not themselves notable -- the reader is typically going to care more about the publication name, which they're more likely to have heard of, and the citation will give them the authors' names if they want them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

    • I disagree rather strongly except when you're talking about staff writers (I'm especially against in when it comes to academic journals - even book reviews) but I'm not going to oppose on this. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree with you, in truth, but this is perhaps a matter for wider discussion, as use of publication name like this is common on Wikipedia. At least in this article it's more pertinent contextual information to say that The American Conservative gave a negative review, rather than that Samuel Goldman gave a negative review. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Writing style, para 3: "The book is an apologia of Marx, wrote The New Republic" - is this supposed to be a quote?
  • No, but they use the word "apologia". Now "... according to The New Republic". — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Subject matter, para 1: "The American Conservative and The Guardian writer Owen Hatherley believed that the ten objections were not straw men, but Libertarian Papers and Financial Times felt they were arbitrarily chosen" - I'm not sure I see the contrast here implied by the "but". "And" or "while" seem like better connectors (unless I'm missing something).
  • "while" is fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Reading the Reception as a whole I'm left with the conclusion that reviews were generally negative, something that's not reflected in the lead or the overall tone. Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Again, this is something removed by earlier reviewer feedback, as an earlier version read "The book was met with mostly negative reception from critics ...", but was seen as original research. I am perennially frustrated with the community's divided view on this topic, as half of reviewers will always demand such a summary is included (the lead must summarise the body), and half will always demand its removal (such summaries are necessarily SYNTH). — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I didn't get the "negative" opinion from the lead, but that might just have been me projecting ("it's an FA candidate, so the book must have been viewed well"). Guettarda (talk)

Thanks for the comments, Guettarda, and I've made an effort at addressing them. — Bilorv (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Bilorv. Looks good, other than it looks like you broke the citation to Bottomore when you made one of your fixes (there's a lot of red in the "Citations" section. Guettarda (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it an add-on that's giving you red? No red showed up to me. But I think I've fixed the citation issues. — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I just meant the error messages. Looks good now. Switching to support. Guettarda (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

This is almost ready to promote, the only thing remaining is Nikkimaria or another editor passing the source review. (t · c) buidhe 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2021 [22].

---

Beowulf and Middle-earth

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is about J. R. R. Tolkien's use of the Old English poem Beowulf in his Middle-earth fantasy writings, especially his 1954–55 work The Lord of the Rings. Like the Beowulf poet, Tolkien was a Christian looking back at a distant pagan past; and he hoped to echo the poem's symbolism that managed never to be a mere allegory. The article was generously reviewed by Amitchell125 and I hope that FAC reviewers will similarly find it worthwhile. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• File:Rolfs_sidste_kamp_-_Louis_Moe_(17009)_-_cropped.png needs copyright tag for the original work - under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Added PD-old on Commons, Louis Moe died in 1945. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • This will also need a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Added PD-1923 on Commons (published 1898), happy to be advised if other licenses are more appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

• J. R. R. Tolkien, a fantasy author and professional philologist, drew on the Old English poem Beowulf for multiple aspects of his Middle-earth legendarium: in terms of elements such as names, monsters, and the structure of society in a heroic age; in terms of style such as creating an impression of depth and adopting an elegiac tone; and in terms of its larger but hidden symbolism. Multiple issues with this.

• "In terms of" is used too many times.

• Edited.

• I would consider splitting this up into multiple sentences as it quite massive.

• Done.

• The names of races including ents, orcs, and elves, and placenames such as Orthanc and Meduseld, derive from Beowulf Should be a comma after races.

• Done.

• That symbolism, [...] , Tolkien worked to echo in The Lord of the Rings. This is a bit clunky.

• Rearranged.

• Beowulf also rid Heorot of Grendel's mother. Source?

• Added.

• The name "Beowulf" can indeed be read as "the Bees' Wolf", that is, "the Honey-Eater", in other words "the Bear", the man who is so strong that he snaps swords and tears off the arms of monsters with his enormous bear-like strength. This is clunky and likely should be split into two sentences.

• Split.

• Smaug enraged when Bilbo steals golden cup missing a verb.

• Fixed.

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

All done. I'll take a look at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Supporting now. Noah^Talk 12:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....(fascinating topic)

• Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead looks a little choppy at 3 smallish paras...I might consolidate into two.....

• Done.

• werebear looks odd to me hyphenated....(but then again I've played D&D for over 40 years..)

• Unhyphenated it is.

• Beowulf was in the Tolkien scholar and fellow philologist Tom Shippey's words "the single work which influenced Tolkien most" - scans oddly when I read it - also, last segment can be reworded and dequoted.

• Done.

• Describe who Verlyn Flieger is

• Glossed.

• Among the many poems in The Lord of the Rings are some fine examples... - "fine" strikes me as POV...let words speak for themselves

• Removed.

• I'd probably put the The road of life segment at the bottom as a nice way to finish the article

• Moved it down there.

• Another large theme, in both.. - "large" strikes me as an odd usage...

• Removed.

An interesting read and in good shape. Am wondering whether the sections are a bit small and numerous - if any can be combined might be good for flow....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Merged two sections in the Rohan chapter. The others seem to work well, each corresponding to a subsidiary article for further information. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Okay...nothing else to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Good to hear! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Mirokado

I have a couple of questions:

• Trolls
  • 'Noting that Tolkien compares them to beasts as they "came striding up, roaring like beasts ... bellowing", she observes that they "remain wordless warriors, like Grendel", although they are sentient, with intelligence and a single language, unlike the varied tongues of Tolkien's orcs.' I didn't understand this at all, are they wordless or do they have a single language?
    • Clarified. In The Lord of the Rings they never speak; in The Hobbit they use the common speech (represented as English). Tolkien regretted that early decision, as having language implied to him that they had souls and were not simply monstrous beasts. He never fully resolved the matter, which is discussed further in Troll (Middle-earth)#Speech, sentience, and souls. It's probably off-topic for this article.

      Thanks for the detailed reply (I've corrected the troll link above). The article is now clear in referring to The Return of the King and I agree that details of how the concept evolved are off-topic here. The further information link to Troll (Middle-earth) is there for the interested reader to follow. I may have a detailed look at that article one quiet evening... --M

• Elegaic tone
  • "The Lord of the Rings, especially its last two books in The Return of the King": two books? one book?
    • The Lord of the Rings is in 6 books, which are printed in either 1 or 3 volumes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
      • There is no other mention in this article of the separation into six books, so this is a bit confusing even if correct. Perhaps change to: "The Lord of the Rings, especially in its last part The Return of the King", this provides all the information without any distraction about different presentations. --Mirokado (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Indeed. Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Support: thanks for the quick response! A well-written, well-sourced article. --Mirokado (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

References

• #5: What does "#142 to Robert Murray" mean?

• Edited to "Letter", added date. The book is a selection of Tolkien's letters.

• #7: Is 192ff an illustration?

• No; said 192–193.

• #12: No need to use the sfn citation on this one, since the entire work is being cited.

• Noted.

• #17: "book 1," or "book I"? What about linking it like this: "book I, ch. 2"?

• Done.

• #19: Is this a chapter by Evans in a book by Clark?

• Yes, reformatted as such.

• Are you intentionally citing the entire chapter? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it's all relevant to the article but I've narrowed the page range for the paragraph cited.

• #24: Ditto re 5/V. And why is the title of the chapter relevant for the citation?

• Fixed, and removed.

• #26: What does "#187 to H. Cotton Minchin, April 1956" mean?

• Edited to "Letter".

• #28: Is the entire work being cited here, or just a part? If the latter, the page numbers should be given. "Article 4" doesn't add anything, since it's in the full citation, too (i.e., it appears to be "Article 4" in that issue of the journal).

• Done.

• #29: Ditto re 3/III. And why is the title of the chapter relevant for the citation?

• Fixed, and removed.

• #39: What does "40ff" mean? What does "Tolkien and the True Hero" mean?

• Fixed as for #19, this is a chapter by Clark in his own book.

Sources

• Clark 2000: Can Greenwood link to Greenwood Publishing Group? Publisher location missing.

• Linked, location added.

• Fawcett 2014: This should use the {{cite thesis}} template. And I feel obliged to ask what makes this a reliable source?

• Formatted. Fawcett wrote a serious and considered thesis, supervised by the scholar of English literature Robert Maslen and the philologist Jeremy Smith.

• Flieger 2014: The editors need to be in separate paramaters: "editor1-last = "; "editor1-first = "; "editor2-last = "; "editor2-first = ". Then, I'd suggest using the 'name-list-style = amp" parameter.

• Formatted.

• Hall 2005: What makes this reliable?

• Alaric Hall, philologist, directs the Institute for Medieval Studies, Leeds. His thesis was on Elves in Anglo-Saxon England.

• Lee & Solopova 2005: Suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

• Done.

• Liuzza 2013: Broadview Press can take a link. Publisher location missing.

• Linked, location added.

• Nagy 2003: Routledge can take a link. Publisher location missing. Does "Part IV, ch. 15" add anything important?

• Linked, location added, used pages only.

• Reynolds 2021: What makes this reliable?

• Reynolds has written on Tolkien for over 20 years, and has edited the Tolkien Society's journal Mallorn. Her article is reliably cited.

• Shippey 2001: Publisher location missing.

• Added.

• Shippey 2005: "Third ed." (spelled out) is inconsistent vs. "2nd ed." (not spelled out) above.

• Fixed.

• Tolkien 1955: What is the "(published 1987)" indicating? Was it not published in 1955?

• Removed. First edition used.

• Tolkien 1983: Ditto. What happened in 1983 and what happened in 1997?

• Ditto.

• Is there a reason Tolkien 1954a doesn't mention The Lord of the Rings, as do Tolkien 1954 and Tolkien 1955? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Two more comments above. As to Hall 2005 (ref #12) and Evans 2000 (ref #19), you could put the full cites in "References" if you wish, as the short cites don't really do anything—they refer to the entire works, not to limited parts of the works. With that said, I'll leave that one up to you. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fixed those two. Hall 2005 is a short article. I've limited the page range for Evans 2000. So I think we're complete here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

HF - support

Will review this one, either on tomorrow or the day after. Hog Farm _Talk 05:46, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, will likely be about another 24 hours before I can get to this - have to travel early tomorrow morning, can't stay up to look at this as much as I'd like to. Hog Farm _Talk 04:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long - was busier than expected

No worries.

• I know it's essentially the same meaning, but that the article translates the Beowulf quote as both "demon-corpses" and "devil-corpses", both cited to Shippey (one in body and one in caption). Since they're both sourced to Shippey, does he use both equally or prefer one translation over the other?

• He seems to prefer "demon" in the texts cited, so let's run with that.

• "or byrnie" - link to Byrnie (redirect to hauberk), since it's not a familiar term?

• Linked.

• " His trolls share some of Grendel's attributes, such a" - recommend "Tolkien's trolls ..." here, as the most recent person "he" could refer to in this passage is Beowulf

• Done.

• Sources look fine

• Thanks.

Good work here, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 04:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, all done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2021 [23].

---

A Beautiful Crime

Nominator(s): DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 2020 novel in which a young couple travels to Venice to sell an inherited collection of forged antiques to an unsuspecting collector... what could possibly go wrong? The article has been taken through peer review and most recently a GOCE copyedit. Thanks in advance for any comments and feedback; I'll do my best to address them. DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I do not think it is necessary to name The Destroyers unless that book is somehow more closely tied to this one. If it was just the last book he wrote prior to this one, then I do not think this information is notable or informative enough for inclusion here.

  Agree, I've removed it from the lead. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. For this part, which is set in modern-day Venice, would "modern-day" be appropriate? I am curious as this will change depending on when the reader approaches the article as "modern-day Venice" may be dramatically different in 20 years for instance. However, this is likely already clear from context, specifically the book's publication year, but I still wanted to get your opinion on this one.

  That's a great point that I didn't consider. I've removed "modern-day" as you suggested, per the spirit of MOS:CURRENT.

  Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think a link for depopulation in the lead would be beneficial.

  Link added. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would include the year that The Talented Mr. Ripley was published to the lead.

  Added. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is probably obvious so apologies in advance, but what happens to Richard after he is exposed as the anonymous investor?

  Not obvious at all, thanks for asking! He remains mute; public sentiment turns against him and his home is vandalized, and his wife transfers him to a neurologic clinic in Leipzig. I've added his transfer to Leipzig to the article to wrap up his part of the plot. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding this part in as it does clear this up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is another clarification question, but do we know anything further about Freddy van der Haar's more prominent role in the first draft?

  Unfortunately, not really—it's based on this source which doesn't really answer that question—but I've added a few words about his character representing an older generation of gay New Yorkers. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  That is understandable. The bit about the older generation of gay New Yorkers adds a lot more context by itself. It is understandable that further details from a first draft would not be publicly discussed so this part looks very good to me now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• For the Patricia Highsmith photo, I would clarify in the caption when it was taken to provide a clearer context for readers. I am also curious on why this photo was selected rather than one like File:Patricia-Highsmith-1962.jpg which was taken closer to the time that The Talented Mr. Ripley was published. I do not a preference either way. I was just curious about it.

  Honestly, I'm not very good with image licensing and I wasn't sure whether File:Patricia-Highsmith-1962.jpg was actually freely licensed because I didn't know how to confirm that it was published without a copyright notice. The source link is live but it's just a link to the image itself without any context, and the uploader's talk page has some copyright concerns, so I went for the VRT-confirmed File:Highsmith on After Dark.JPG. (Besides license questions, I don't have any objections to the 1960s photo.) In the meantime, I've added "(pictured in 1988)" to the caption. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for adding the year to the caption. If I am being honest, I am the worst with images. That is really my biggest blind spot on Wikipedia. I can understand your concern, and I think that is valid. The current image should be fine, and I would honestly give more weight to whomever does the image review as they will likely be more well-informed on image policy than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. It is always great to see a book article in the FAC space. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will re-read the article to make sure I did not miss anything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for taking the time to leave these comments, very much appreciated along with your copyedits. I'll be happy to address any additional concerns, questions, or clarifications. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I have done one more edit to add a link to the racism in the LGBT community article as I think that could be helpful for readers, but feel free to remove it if you feel it is unnecessary. I am just glad that I can help. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The link looks great. Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Urve

I watched this article's good article nomination and its peer review. There have been changes since then, but none that are troubling to me. My view is that comprehensiveness is only able to be judged in reference to what sources exist, but not what sources could exist. There are many details here that, in a perfect world, would have further elaboration - but since those questions are not answerable by sources in either the nominator's searches or my own, I believe this article to be comprehensive. The prose is of an excellent quality. That's all to say, I support promotion.

I continue to think that you should read Garth Greenwell's What Belongs to You (currently a redirect - maybe a future project, should our paths cross again). Urve (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments during peer review and here. And yes, it's next on my to-read list and I'm very excited to get to it! DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

File:PI5DAE~2 - CopyPeggy Guggenheim Museum.JPG - per C:COM:FOP, there's no freedom on panorama for buildings in Italy. We need more information here - when did the architect die? Also, if the museum is considered cultural heritage, things get trickier, as well.

Thanks for the image review, I totally forgot about FOP. The original architect, Lorenzo Boschetti, worked in the 18th century so it has been more than 70 years since his death. But I spent a while looking through the pages and discussions linked at c:COM:FOP Italy and a lot of it is still pretty impenetrable to me, including whether {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} would be appropriate for photos of the Peggy Guggenheim. I asked a question about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Freedom of panorama in Italy and will either remove the image or add an appropriate tag based on any guidance I get there. I'll follow up here once I do that. DanCherek (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I've gone ahead and added the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} tag to the image, assuming that the museum is a cultural heritage asset since it is more than 70 years old and listed on the Ministry of Culture's beni culturali website. I've also added the architect Lorenzo Boschetti to the description, and the fact that he was from the 18th century, so hopefully that is resolved on that front. Let me know if you think that's sufficient. In the end, I don't mind removing the image if it gets too tricky to figure out, as it's not integral to the article. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

FUR for book cover is fine, the district image is presumeably fine as it doesn't focus on any building and is more of the canal than of anything else, and the cruise ship one ought to be fine. Highsmith image is VTRS, and the other person image is CC-licensed by source. Hog Farm _Talk 02:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hog Farm, any further thoughts on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: - No, I think we're good here on the images front. Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

• #1: Is there a reason this one doesn't have an archived backup?

  This archive from June 13, 2021, is already linked in the citation. Am I misunderstanding your question? DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Whoops, missed that. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• #5: Can you provide a translation of the title? It should go in the "trans-title = " parameter.

  Added translation as "Christopher Bollen: interview with Vogue Italia". DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• For the newspapers/regional sources, you should probably fill in the "location = " parameter.

  Added to citations 4, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, and 20. This is the one I'm not really sure that I did correctly, so I'm happy to adjust if you think any of them are wrong (or if I missed any). DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. If you're going to add the location for the Los Angeles Times you may as well add it for the Washington Post and The New York Times, and perhaps The Guardian. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added, thanks. DanCherek (talk) 04:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• #20: Link Los Angeles Times'.

  Done. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #21: You might add the "name-list-style = amp" parameter. Also, link O, The Oprah Magazine.

  Done, thanks for the suggestion. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #22: Link The New York Times.

  Done. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Do none of the authors of these sources have Wikipedia articles on them?

  I've added author-link to citations 1, 7, 10, 18, and 26. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. The fact that literally every source is an internet source is noticeable, but perhaps to be expected for an article on a 2020 book. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: Thanks for the source review, I appreciate it! I've responded to each of them above, let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, DanCherek. Left a minor comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Brief comment

I notice that the lead seems to be trying to avoid spoilers. I’d suggest revising the phrase “but their attempt to escalate the deception leads to unexpected and dangerous consequences” into something more specific. As written, it sounds like “teaser” text that could equally apply to comic misunderstanding hijinks as to the actual events of the novel. I would state explicitly that Nick commits further crimes, including murder, or at least spell out to whom the consequences are dangerous. Overall it looks like a very nice article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: That makes sense! I've changed that sentence to "Their deception quickly leads to more serious crimes, as Clay attempts to sell an expensive property that he does not fully own and Nick murders a silver appraiser who threatened to expose their initial scheme." – I'm happy to revise or wordsmith it further if you have additional thoughts. Thanks for the comments! DanCherek (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That’s great! You packed in a lot very efficiently and I think that’s a much more thorough overview of the latter half of the book. I only read the lead & plot summary but with that change both are now very clear and well-written, from the POV of someone who doesn’t know the book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. I just read through and didn't find a single thing I wanted to change; the writing is excellent and the article is well-structured and clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2021 [24].

---

Hamilcar's victory with Naravas

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Another obscure North African campaign involving the Carthaginians. This went through GAN a couple of months ago and I have worked on it a little since then. I believe that it is now up to FA standard. As with several similar submissions, scholarly discussion is limited enough that I believe that I have covered everything of note, but sufficient that I believe that there is enough to warrant an FAC. Feel free to disagree, on this or anything else. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass indeed I think I've seen all these images before (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Autaritus or Autharitus?

Oops. The former. Standardised.

• "The rebels were finally defeated in 238 BC. " - the text is not so certain on this; which is correct?

Lead expanded to clarify.

• Be consistent in when you include publication location

Fixed.

• Eckstein ref is misformatted - this appears to be an encyclopedia entry

It is called an encyclopedia, but it isn't. It is a straight forward set of history volumes.

• Scullard: current title should be split across multiple parameters.

Done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria, I think that I have now sorted everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

• Reviewed this at GAN, happy to support it for FAC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Serial Numerus LIVCXXIX

A battle so obscure we don't know where it took place, excellent.

Hail! Consul Numerus.

Suggest this is raised far sooner than it is: at the moment, 1st para of fifth section and nothing in the lead. So perhaps Hamilcar's victory with Naravas was a battle that took place in 240 BC.... Although remember that per WP:AVOIDBOLD, there's no pressure on you to shoehorn the title into the lead if it reads uncomfortably.

Lack of location is now covered in the third sentence of the lead. I feel quite comfortable with the way the title is worked into the lead.

(Here's an example you won't find at all memorable!)

No, doesn't ring any bells. Someone I know?

For instance, you could remove the bolding and say something like In 240 BC a battle was fought at a now-unknown Tunisian location between.... Either way, however it's dealt with in the lead, suggest an etymology section before everything else, perhaps just transposing the explanation from where it is now to the top.

But I don't mention any insects?

By the way, welcome back to FAC!

I was going to say the same. I hadn't realised that I had been away.

——Serial 15:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Numerus LIVCXXIX, all covered, I think. And apologies for taking so long over it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

HF - support

I'll stick this onto my to-do list. Ping me if I haven't gotten to this over the next few days. Hog Farm _Talk 06:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• "under Auharitus" - possible typo?

Possibly.

• Link Polybius in the lead?

Done.

• Map in the prelude section - which number is this battle, or what relative area? It's not marked

The caption includes "The numeral "7" represents the Battle of the Saw, although the location is extremely approximate". Is this insufficient?

That's good for The Saw, but of the possible location points for this battle, the only ones indicated are Tunis and Utica. Although I don't know that it's possible to really convey on a map a location that disputed, so this is fine.

@Hog Farm: you are quite right. It's "6". Changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• " If Hannibal was to avoid starvation, he was going to have to leave his camp " - this is the first mention of Hannibal, can his role be better introduced before this point?

Good spot. Typo for Hamilcar - too many Carthaginian generals whose names begin with H!

• "was a young Numidian noble named Navaras" - wrong spelling/link?

Gah! Spelling corrected.

Good work here, that's it from me. Hog Farm _Talk 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Hog Farm. All sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Oh, seems like one of the few times recently that Gog's FACs has lingered far enough for me to get in on it in time. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• "south west of their capital." What does "their" refer to?

Does "increased the area of Africa controlled by Carthage. He extended its control to Theveste (modern Tébessa, in Algeria) 300 km (190 mi) south west of their capital" not make this clear?

• Wouldn't the "Modern recreations" photo make more sense under Opposing armies (and right aligned)?

Done.

• "describes to this as "a gross oversimplification" Remove "to"?

Done.

• The link here to Libyans goes to Berbers, which is already linked. Something more specific to link to? Ancient Libya?

I just changed the redirect link of Ancient Libyans to go to the above instead. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Both Spain and Gaul" Anything to link?

I am assuming that both would fall foul of MOS:OVERLINK, but I will grit my teeth and link both if you insist.

• War elephant is duplinked.

Oops. Thanks. Fixed.

• "with widely separated possibilities being suggested" Could we get some examples? With the article being so short, I don't think it would hurt elaborating on this point.

Some of the suggested locations added. I assume 'don't have a clue' is unencyclopedic?

• Navaras links to Indian aesthetics... I guess it's just a typo for Naravas. That spelling is used at least once, with a wrong link..

Yeah, several sources spell it that way[!], which makes it difficult for me to keep straight. Fixed.

• Where were the Romans in all this? One might expect them to support the rebels? Or perhaps that's covered in the article about the wider mercenary war?

It is. They didn't. They actively supported the Carthaginians. I could include some of this in Background if you think it relevant.

• "An illustration by Victor Armand Poirson which envisages the crucifixion of Spendius and his lieutenants in front of Tunis." Where is this identification from? Neither the Commons description or the source it is taken form are this specific.

I took it from here - "Nineteenth-century French illustrator Victor Armand Poirson envisages the crucifixion of Spendius and his lieutenants in front of Tunis."

Strange, when I click onwards to Commons, that text disappears? Could it be added to the Commons description? And can we be certain it's correct? Are there any sources that confirm it? Other changes look good, by he way. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk, I am sure that I have seen this in passing at some point. But nearly two hours of searching has not turned it up. The illustration is from the 1890 edition of Flaubert's Salammbo, illustrated by Poirson and is fairly obviously depicting "He had the ten emissaries crucified, next to the other, on a mound in front of the city". [Auto-translate from the original French.] Note the city in the background. There is probably a copy of this book somewhere on the net - eg in the French National Library - but I can't find it to specifically reference to. That BnF link contains "Note(s):Signed lower: "V.A. Poirson 85". On the back: "M. Quantin - 10 - Chap. XIV" " - the quote I gave above is from chapter 14 - that is as close as I can get. So let me know if you think I should dial back the specificity of the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I found a hi res version on Gallica[25], which is kind of the French Archive.org, perhaps it could be used instead, and I'm pretty sure that if the illustration is there, they also have the full publication. But I'm always a bit puzzled by the interface of that site, so I'm not sure how to find it, maybe you'll have more luck. But yeah, I'd say that it's best to be as close to the original caption as possible, whatever it is. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Yeah, I had seen that, and tracked it back to Rouen where the hard copy is, but still nothing on line. I have amended the caption to "An illustration by Victor Armand Poirson which envisages the crucifixions in front of Tunis." Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, not much more to do here. But should we get the high res version on Commons and replace the smaller version? FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: By all means. Commons is a bit terra incognita to me, and while I am willing to have a thumb fingered attempt if you don't mind doing the replacing I would be grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link Numidian cavalry in the article body too.

Done.

• "Polybius to term it the "Truceless War"" This particular battle, or the mercenary war in general?

Er, the war; hence Truceless War. And I start the sentences with "From this point" to attempt to make clear that the whole war is being referred to.

Hi FunkMonk: great stuff, thank you. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Could I have permission to fire my next one up? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 11:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2021 [26].

---

The Boat Race 2021

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about canoes up the Thames. No, actually, not this time. With COVID still in full swing, a very RARE thing happened, the BR was moved to a different river altogether and was contested behind closed doors. For us oficianados, it wasn't quite the same thing, a pretty much straight race without the infuriating aspects of rowing on the Thames, but it was a race nevertheless, and naturally the best team(s) won. I'll happily address any constructive comments raised here, thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

Reviewed this article at GA. Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• One image, a map. Licensed okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  And it was made especially for this article too, with enduring thanks to Amitchell125. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: Ordnance Survey maps are subject to copyright --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Guerillero please take the issue up with the creator of the map, as noted above Amitchell125. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Guerillero, I'm pretty sure we're OK—see here. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: Awesome. I did some tinkering to deal with OGL. Let me know if you disagree -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem, whatever floats your boat... Amitchell125 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• You've probably had this asked before, but when you say "the 2021 race", should this not be plural, as there were two races? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like there were four races. Can the lede not comment on the reserves a bit more? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly? Not really. This year's races, held on a practically straight river, were wholly uneventful (other than the fact they weren't held on the Thames of course), so there' nothing much else to say at all I'm afraid, unless you think I'm missing something specific? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• the previous occasion was an unofficial wartime staging of the event, which Oxford's men won by three-quarters of a length. - could we get the year this is? I'm assuming this is second world war stuff, but a year would make that a bit more obvious. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• It says 1944 later, which could probably be moved a touch up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Only the main men's and women's races were scheduled to take place on the same day, with the women's race around 3:50 p.m. and the men's an hour later. As of March 2021, the reserves races were yet to be scheduled. - unless I've missed it, we haven't commented on the date of the race in the prose yet. - also, the lede comments about the reserves, perhaps the last sentence needs an update. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link YouTube? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski thanks for your comments, sorry it's taken a while to get to them, but I think I got 'em all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:56, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski are you happy with the response to your comments? (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Hi Lee Vilenski, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Apologies. I thought I had. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• Echoing a comment above, it seems odd to refer to it as a race (singular) when the article covers four separate races. Even if you disregard the reserves, is it really right to say "The Boat Race 2021 was a side-by-side rowing race that took place on 4 April 2021." when two different races occurred on that day?

  Addressed above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The lead says it took place near Ely, but then the background section says it took place literally in Ely. Which is accurate?

  Near. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• The Adelaide in Adelaide Bridge is linked in the body but not in the lead. Better to be consistent I would have thought.....?

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "As of March 2021, the reserves races were yet to be scheduled" - this doesn't match the rest of the article

  Addressed above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Alex Bebb is the Oxford University Boat Club (OUBC) president" - is there a way to reword this now so that it doesn't need updating when Alex inevitably stops holding this position?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude sorry for the delay, I think I got to all your comments eventually! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a thought, but "The Boat Race 2021 were two side-by-side rowing races" does read a little oddly, but "The Boat Race 2021 was a side-by-side rowing race" isn't technically accurate. How about "The Boat Race 2021 was an event comprising two side-by-side rowing races"....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks, done that, of course next up someone will say "yeeaaah, but wasn't it four races....?" The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

• #1: Wrong publication listed.

  No, it's The Observer, The Guardian isn't published on a Sunday. Check the URL. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #5: Might be worth adding something in the "work = " parameter. "The Boat Races"?

  No, I don't think that's helpful. The "work" isn't The Boat Races. The publisher is "The Boat Race Company Limited" and that is sufficient. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #6: Ditto.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #8: This is confusing. I'd have it link to the source (e.g., with an sfn template). Also, the source should be in a separate section, e.g., "Bibliography".

  If you can fix the sfn template when there's no author name, please be my guest. Separate section actioned. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  See these edits: 1 & 2. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• #9: Link gives me a 404 error. Also, do you have access to Gale? If so, you can pull a free link (e.g., the second reference in George Sidney Herbert).

  No error for me, and I tried accessing Gale this evening and my access has apparently now been denied. Feel free to find it there if you can. Otherwise you just have to AGF and we can, if necessary, delink it. It was, after all, in the printed press. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #10: Same as 5.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #11: Same as 5. Also, this one omits the "The" in "The Boat Race Company Limited".

  Added "The". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #13: CBC News can take a link.

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #14: Same as 5.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #15: Ditto.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #17: Ditto.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #20: Same as 8.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #21: Ditto.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #22: Ditto.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #23: Both YouTube and The Boat Race should be mentioned in the citation. Also, how about linking to 3:07 in, so people don't have to click through that siren-like noise?

  I like the siren noise, and as it's not all happening at 3:07, I'll leave it. I've linked YouTube. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #24: Same as 5.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #25: Suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

  I've done this, but it appears to be personal preference rather than a MOS policy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #30: Same as 8.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #31: Same as 5.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #32: Ditto.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #33: Suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter.

  I've done this, but it appears to be personal preference rather than a MOS policy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #34: Same as 5.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #36: Same as 8.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #37: Same as 5.

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #38: Same as 8.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #39: Ditto.

  As above, if you can fix the sfn template to work without an author, please be my guest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• #43: Work (BBC Sport) missing.

  Added as publisher. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• That bulleted source: As noted above, this should be in a separate section. Same point as #5. And what is "Row 360"?

  Row 360 are the agency. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  The agency for what? Where is it mentioned in the source? Putting it in the "department =" parameter is almost certainly incorrect. Per {{cite magazine}}, this parameter is for the Title of a regular department, column, or section within the periodical or journal. Examples include "Communication", "Editorial", "Letter to the Editor", and "Review". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  It says it on page 3: "This e-magazine ... is produced by Row 360..." If you have a better suggestion for which parameter it should use, feel free to do so. At the end of the day, the information is what matters and the reader can see this as it stands, regardless of which under-the-hood parameter is used. But if there's a more appropriate one to use, go for it! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  The prominent placement ("The Boat Race". Row 360. The Boat Race Company Limited.) makes it confusing. In ref #34, meanwhile, Row360 is given in the "via = " parameter, which displays markedly differently. Both, I think, are incorrect. In ref #34, the only Row360 affiliation is that the author of the article is a Row360 editor—it thus appears that it should not be mentioned at all, just as a citation to a newspaper op-ed would not mention where the contributor works. As to the magazine, Row360 appears to be akin to when a society's journal is said to be "published for [society] by [publisher]". In such cases I generally choose one over the other, and here, I would choose The Boat Race Company Limited and omit Row360. By the way, it looks like it should be Row360, not Row 360. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well, I've removed it. I didn't see it doing any harm in the slightest, but I think way too much energy has already been expended on this already and it's not that big a deal to me in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique I've responded to all comments above, thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem, The Rambling Man. A few comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• the 166th men's race, with the 2020 race having been cancelled the ", with" construction is ungrammatical, though popular in tabloid subheadlines, and something I pick up in FACs quite a lot. In this case, the sentence works fine without "with", or you can split it with a full stop or a semi colon.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• There's a big gap between The crews were announced on 25 March 2021 and The reserve races took place three weeks later . Perhaps a date would be helpful?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• cancelled as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom Do we need "in the United Kingdom"? COVID was (and is) a global pandemic.

  Well I think it's more specific because not everywhere were sporting events closed down or conducted behind closed doors, this was specific to the UK. And it alleviates any surprise when clicking on the link to find the UK-specific article. It's also relevant because of the impact on umpire's availability due to changes in the tier system, a highly UK-centric matter. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• scheduled to take place on the same day, with the women's race ", with" again. This one I'm more sympathetic to but if it were up to me, I'd replace ", with" with an emdash.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Something about the sexual assault allegation seems ... I don't know. Out of place? It's a little jarring, especially as there's no resolution mentioned. I'm not sure this is "actionable" though.

  I understand. I didn't add that, and I have looked for resolution material but discovered nothing. It appears that allegations were made and that's all there is to say. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Because of restrictions imposed by the university, Oxford had been prevented COVID restrictions or something else?

  The source isn't specific. I imagine they were directly related to the behaviour of students during that period of the pandemic, but I can't be sure, so I've had to leave it as per the source. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• CUBC men's trial featured boats The CUBC men's trial featured boats? Or CUBCs men's trial featured boats?

  Gone with "The" to be consistent with the women's description. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Nice work as usual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell thanks for your comments and review, I believe I've addressed and/or responded to each of them, let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support. My comments were minor to begin with, and you've addressed them completely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Harry. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 21:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2021 [27].

---

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Harry S. Truman's 1948 campaign, arguably the most under-rated presidential campaign in American history. By various accounts, Truman was a fine man, who was nominated for vice-presidency by Franklin D. Roosevelt for his fourth term. Just 82 days after being inaugurated for his unprecedented fourth term, Roosevelt died. Truman ascended to the presidency, explaining the burden of the presidency as "the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on [him]." In 1948, he tried to "earn" a term in his own right, but almost all predicted a victory of his opponent—the young and charismatic Governor of New York, Thomas E. Dewey. Various Democratic Party bosses wanted General Dwight D. Eisenhower (considered the most popular man in America) to run, and drafted him. Due to his unpopularity, Truman even agreed to run as Eisenhower's running mate! Eisenhower declined. Truman had to face division withing his own party; two new parties were formed by influential Democratic leaders challenging Truman in the election. Truman campaigned around 22,000 miles, gave 352 speeches, and traveled almost the entire nation (except deep south). Almost all polls predicted a "landslide" for Dewey. Elmo Roper discontinued polling way before election, saying "My whole inclination is to predict the election of Thomas E. Dewey by a heavy margin and devote my time and efforts to other things." The top 50 political writers were asked their opinion about the election. All predicted a victory for Dewey. On the election day, Chicago Tribune printed the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN", boldly anticipating a victory for him. Truman won! He won by a margin of over 2 million popular votes. Truman's picture, holding the erroneous headline of Chicago Tribune has been described as "greatest photograph ever made of a politician celebrating victory".

This article was copy-edited by @Twofingered Typist, reviewed for GA by @Maile66, and peer reviewed by @Hog Farm and @DanCherek. Any constructive feedback is more than welcomed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Caption grammar could use some improvement
  • Keep in mind that captions should end in a period if a complete sentence, and otherwise not. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Tried.
• Instead of "See caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alt text
• Don't duplicate between caption and alt text
  • Done till here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Removed the fixed px size, but the info-box image now appears unnecessarily large. Can we fix it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I moved the alt to its specific parameter, see Special:Diff/1050616001. If you wikilink the file, it will typically display at full size, but if you just pass in the name the infobox should automatically resize to fit. Zetana (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Harry_S_Truman,_bw_half-length_photo_portrait,_facing_front,_1945.jpg: why specifically is this believed to be PD?
  • The image record on the Library Of Congress states "No known restrictions". Also, it was published in 1945, so maybe {{PD-US-no notice}} should also apply. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The image descriptions states that it was "copyrighted" in 1945. Is that not the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria – It is indeed copyrighted, which was not renewed. Library Of Congress states that it was "Copyright by Edmonston Studio", "No copyright renewal", currently having "No known restrictions". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Harry_S._Truman's_1948_Democratic_presidential_primary_result.tif: it doesn't seem that the colours in the legend quite match up with the colours in the actual image? See MOS:COLOUR
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Alben_Barkley,_pensive_(cropped).jpg is missing link to the LOC image record
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Eubie_Blake_-_Just_Wild_about_Harry.ogg: commons:Commons:Hirtle_chart#Sound_recordings suggests this would not yet be PD
  • And yet it is a featured sound! Removed for now, will add after 75 days (on Jan 1, 2022). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Political_Cartoon_by_Jim_Berryman,_"Down_by_the_Station"_(cropped).jpg: why is this believed to be a US government work?
  • Changed to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Truman Library claims it to be in PD. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Truman-Dewey-polls-1948.jpg: in what paper(s) did this cartoon appear?
  • Unclear, but Clifford Berryman (the author of the cartoon) used to work for The Washington Star from 1907-49. National Archives claim it to be unrestricted for further use. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • If this is unknown, how do we know there was no copyright notice in the original publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I meant, it is also unclear that if that cartoon was published in a newspaper or not. All we know is that it is created by Clifford Berryman in 1948, and it is a part of his cartoon collection, compiled by the "U.S. Senate. Office of Senate Curator". NARA claim it to be unrestricted for further use. As we don't know whether it was copyrighted or not, I have changed the licence to {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Does that help? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Since that is also not specified, I would suggest using a more generic tag with the NARA claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria – Okay, so I decided to double check everything. It was difficult to find, but I finally got this October 19, 1948 edition of The Evening Star, Washington. Indeed the cartoon appeared in this newspaper on that date. Don't know why NARA doesn't say that ... And it was published without any copyright notice. I have now changed it back to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Is it fine? Also, Berryman (the author) died in 1949, i.e. more than 70 years ago, so it is surely in the PD anyways. And I guess, rest all the image licencing concerns are resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
            • That's fine. Thanks for tracking that down. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Deweytruman12.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Tried. I do want to note here that there are three images of the same incident on Commons. I had discussed about copyright status of those images here, and it was concluded that they should be deleted from commons. There is a deletion request underway. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria – Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikki, could I just confirm if you're happy with images now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis — Support

As you probably know from Daisy, I am very inexperienced/naive in the field of politics and probably will screw something up.

• In 1948, Harry S. Truman and Alben W. Barkley were — who are they and why do they warrant a mention?^{[just kidding]}
  • In 1948, almost all media companies and pollsters were thinking the same!
• and former vice president under — per MOS:PERSONOROFFICE, I think "former" can be removed
• and urged former Chief of Staff of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower to — WP:SOB?
• wanted Supreme Court Associate Justice William O. Douglas to — same as above
• however, Douglas declined, claiming a lack → Douglas, however, declined, claiming a lack (MOS:HOWEVER)
• and impressed Truman. Truman selected — repetition of Truman
• received some notable endorsements — WP:EDITORIALISING
• Initially leading in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey — given what the rest of the sentence says, I believe this is referring to Dewey leading the popular vote. Though I'm not that well-versed in grammar, I think this makes it grammatically as the verb in the dependent clause at the start (i.e. leading) is tied to the noun of the next phrase (i.e. Truman); if Dewey led, I would revise it to: "Initially leading in the popular vote, Dewey lost to Truman", or "Initially losing in the popular vote, Truman defeated Dewey", etc.
  • Well, Truman was initially leading in the popular vote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• By July 1918, became commander — missing word
• Roosevelt believed that Roosevelt might not live — "he" (for the latter "Roosevelt") seems fine in this case as this (probably) could not refer to Truman or another man
• The incumbent Vice President Henry A. Wallace was viewed as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor by most of Roosevelt's advisors. → Most of Roosevelt's advisors viewed the incumbent Vice President, Henry A. Wallace, as too far to the left and too friendly to the labor.
• I'm not ask you to change anything about it but I'm interested: what does "on his ticket" mean?
  • Well, a ticket in politics, especially in this particular case about American presidential election, comprises on the presidential and vice presidential nominee. When Roosevelt decided to replace Wallace from his ticket, he meant to replace him with any another candidate as the vice-presidential nominee. In American presidential election, voters vote for a ticker, not for a candidate. That is, if someone votes for Truman, he is actually voting for "Harry S. Truman for president and Alben William Barkley for vice president". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Though he showed little interest in being the vice president, the 1944 Democratic National Convention chose him — I think this is another grammatical error as the beginning bit (i.e. Though he showed little interest) is linked to the 1944 Democratic National Convention. Might need rewording
• nominee of Eisenhower, if Eisenhower so desired — repetition of Eisenhower
• four possible Republican nominees including Dewey — to my knowledge, "include" means as part of a whole. Since all four are listed, however, I would replace "including" with a colon or something
• "Americans in 1948 had to render [...] conventions really mattered." — per MOS:BQ, blockquotes should not have quotation marks
• initial choice was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. — WP:SOB

That brings me to #Democratic convention... Pamzeis (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis – Done all, or replied above. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis – Just a courtesy ping that all previous comments were resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, I've been kinda busy lately with... managing my time poorly. I'll finish this review by Sunday. Pamzeis (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• Unlink Howard McGrath in #Democratic convention per MOS:DUPLINK
• did not mention his opponent Thomas E. Dewey, he — I think a comma is needed after "opponent"
• "ascendancy of the visual, propelling images as well as words immediately into the homes of millions of Americans." — I can't tell if this is a full sentence or not but if it is, per MOS:LQ, move the full stop outside the quotation.
• The were soon nicknamed → They were soon nicknamed
• William Batt headed a new — who is William Batt?
  • Specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Truman's close friend, Oscar Ewing, advised — unless Truman only has one close friend (that'd be sad), remove the commas around "Oscar Ewing"
• In early August when the special — I'm unsure about this but I think a comma is needed after "August"
• had been a "do-nothing" Congress → had been a 'do-nothing' Congress (MOS:QWQ)
• was to carry the fight to them [Republicans], to — I don't see any quotes here so I'm unsure why "Republicans" is in square brackets
• travel in all 48 states but — ...doesn't the US have 50 states? To my knowledge, "all" means every single one... I'd recommend removing all
  • Well, in 1948, US has total 48 states. Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states, so I guess its fine as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• deep south states which heavily favored — I wouldn't bring this up if this article was in British English but, from what I've read, in American English, you need to use that and not which in a defining clause.
• train stops featured a local brass band which played — same as above
• York Herald Tribune later characterized — comma after "Tribune"?
• November 3rd. Truman's triumph — per MOS:BADDATE, remove the "rd"
• On its cover Newsweek called — comma after cover?
• Truman's victory "startling", "astonishing" and — per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I would recommend not add quotation marks around one-word quote material
• Time magazine later called — unlink Time per MOS:DUPLINK
• 30%. 18 days after the New Hampshire — per MOS:NUMNOTES, avoid starting a sentence with a figure
• appeal to middle class Americans — I think a hyphen is needed between "middle" and "class"
• Republican senator from Massachusetts argued that — comma after Massachusetts?
• do for them if elected." — I think the full stop should be outside the quotation

I think that's all of it from me. Ping me once these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 07:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis – I think I have addressed all your comments, or replied as above. Changes can be seen here. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support – great work! BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Will try to pay your PR a visit soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 — Support

One thing I'd change, though, is how journal articles only list the year of publication. I think it's much more elegant – and, furthermore, more useful – to also list the month. Up to you. Also, I'll try to add links to these sources where possible, such as JSTOR and the Internet Archive. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I also went ahead and added links to the book sources where possible. Hopefully this helps things feel more accessible for casual readers (like myself). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I have added remaining links to books and authors, to make it consistent. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheTechnician27, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Gog the Mild. Right now, I'm saying tentative support, but I want to give it one more read before I say 'Support'. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: This might be a little out there, but by any chance is there a map of the stops Truman made? The numerous stops he made were such a massive part of the campaign that I feel it would be incredibly illustrative for just how many there were. I think this exceeds even FA criterion 3, but I still would love to see something like that – maybe an SVG map with dots like over at List of U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy. It'd take a lot of work, and it's just a thought, but I'm going to keep giving this article a second reading. So far it's a support unless something comes to mind while I'm reading it. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice idea. There does exist a photo map in the Truman Library (whose copyright status is not clear). Also, I do have sources that discuss have a list of places where Truman visited during his whistle stop tour from September 6, 1948, till election day. So, it is possible to create a map. While I have requested the Map workshop, I think it'll take some time. As it is not majorly a part of FA criterion 3, I think it won't be an issue even if this map was created/added after this FAC. I'll escalate this discussion about the map to the talk page soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• @Kavyansh.Singh: Two things come to mind when it comes to en-dashes and em-dashes. The first is that they need to be standardized. It seems like the article primarily goes with em-dashes, so I can change the en-dashes as I find them. The second is that there are places where a dash replaces a comma or a colon preceding a quote. However, WP:MOS#Punctuation_before_quotations does not include such a use for the en- or em-dash. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC) (Done)
  • Thanks for helping with the dashes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Another thing is in 'Early developments'. The sentence reads: "The same day, Truman watched the parade". However, you never actually introduced to the reader that there was going to be a parade. You also don't really explain why the public might think the auditorium was open to 35th Division vets, because you don't exactly introduce that Truman was speaking to 35th Division vets in the first place. Those two sentences just feel kind of confusing with the lack of context. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I added context about the auditorium part. I'm not sure about the first part saying "The same day, Truman watched the parade". Do I need to introduce that he was going to watch the parade; I feel that to be a bit reluctant. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kavyansh.Singh: I think it could be a good idea to have the same sentence, but with "Truman watched a parade", since that would be the sentence introducing the parade. Sorry if I'm getting nitpicky. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• @TheTechnician27 – No issues, I have now changed 'the parade' to 'a parade'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 – Thanks for your comments. I think I have gone through everything, and thanks for fixing up much yourself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I don't know how much of the article you wrote or fixed up, but it really is fantastic so far. It's like I'm back in 1948 following along with the coverage of Truman's campaign but with the hindsight of the modern day. It's an easy Support for me. I'm going to keep going through and nitpicking (for example, "Democratic National Committee" is mentioned 7 times, whereas it's usually just abbreviated to 'DNC'), but having already read it through once, nothing I find is going to make me change my vote. Just saying, by the by, that if you do have a list every stop Truman made, I can learn how to make an SVG map and go through all of them. If you have every stop Dewey made too, I could do blue dots for Truman, red for Dewey, and purple for both. TL;DR: Support. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. It took me little more than a week, but I can say that I wrote this article from scratch, and published it on 4th of July!. This is my first attempt for WP:4. Appreciate all your edits and help! I have list for Truman's all visits, but will have to find it for Dewey. Will let you know soon. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: One more thing I would add to the article is Bess Truman's quote to his friend Tom L. Evans: "Does he really think he can win?" in Ferrell (2013) page 270. I think it's impactful and noteworthy that even Bess had basically given up on his chances. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Dugan Murphy

• With such an extensive Works cited list, is the Further reading section necessary?
  • Not necessary, but this section is optional. Wikipedia:Further reading states that "Further reading is primarily intended for publications that were not used by editors to build the current article content, but which editors still recommend." (emphasis mine). The two journals listed in this section are minor publications (both under 20 pages), don't add anything major to the topic. It being or not being on the article is just a choice, and I think that it benefits the reader. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "too friendly to the labor" doesn't sound right. Labor movement?
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• It's not clear to me what "reward of service" is.
  • I check back in the book, and "reward of service" is used withing the quotations, so I've added the quotation marks.
• It's not clear who said "groom the general to follow him". The prose itself should make attribution clear and I believe there should be a citation right there at the quote to make clear where it came from, as is the case with citation 38. But having said all that, I don't think it is necessary to include this information as a quote. I think paraphrasing would be better.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman's all efforts" looks like a typo. Truman's efforts or all efforts?
  • Done. ('all efforts') – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think "Progressive" needs to be capitalized.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Howard McGrath, officially" would be easier to read as "Democratic National Committee Chair Howard McGrath officially"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman's candidacy on his behalf" — What does it mean for a candidacy to be on someone's behalf?
  • Here, 'his behalf' means that McGrath announced Truman's candidacy on Truman's behalf, instead of Truman himself announcing it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • In that case, I think "on his behalf" is extraneous and leaves room for misinterpretation. I recommend deleting those three words. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman won the support of unpledged New Hampshire delegates unopposed." I think I know what this means, but I had to read it a few times. Can you reword to make it easier to understand, especially someone who doesn't read a lot about political primaries?
  • Rephrased, and linked 'unpledged delegate' – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "76 speeches" is followed in the next sentence by "eightieth Congress". Any reason not to be consistent on how numbers are written out?
  • Done, now consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "clung into the roofs" — Is that really the quote?
  • Yes, indeed. The crowd "clung into the roofs" maybe because it was first visit by any president to Los Angeles in around 13 years. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Really what I'm wondering is if the original quotes uses "into" or "onto". "Onto" would make more sense to me, but if that's what was said, that's what was said. Can you confirm? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Fixed the quote - "clung to the roofs of buildings". I really can't understand how I misread it two times! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• What's the "Eisenhower coalition"?
  • Group of people who supported and campaigned for Eisenhower's presidential candidacy. See Draft Eisenhower movement. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The article's use of "Draft Eisenhower movement" as a phrase is defined and clear, especially because the movement has its own Wiki. "Eisenhower coalition" as a phrase is not clearly linked to the movement, and especially because it is in quotes, it makes the casual reader wonder if there's a separate entity being referred to with that phrase. I recommend rewording to either define or remove this additional phrase. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Reworded. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• "it became clear the Truman would be chosen" — "the" should be "that"?
  • Fixed the typo. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Southern" is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not. I think every instance it currently shows up in the body of the article deserves capitalization. Same goes for "the South". Same goes for "Congress".
  • Done all three. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I found a few you missed and capitalized myself, plus added a Wikilink to Deep South. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• I see Southern United States is Wikilinked twice in the body. Per MOS:DUPLINK, the convention is to Wikilink any one article only once in the body, plus once in the lede, plus where helpful in captions and tables. There may be other duplicate links I didn't notice.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:FRAC, "651½ to 582½" should be "{{frac|651|1|2} to {{frac|582|1|2}}". Same for "947½".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• You've got 11 instances of two citations adjacent to each other and 2 instances of three. I recommend using Template:Sfnm to reduce clutter.
  • I understand that it looks better when using Template:Sfnm, but I thinks there is no issue in using multiple citations adjacent, as long as it is consistent internally (means that no citation used Sfnm). I dislike using Template:Sfnm, though I consider it when it really is an issue (4 or more citations together) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Barkley was nominated as the vice-presidential nominee by acclamation." Could you clarify what this means?
  • Linked in the article. It means that there was no formal vote, and all the delegates unanimously votes in a Voice vote for Barkley. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman began his speech electrifying the delegates" — Would this read better with a comma after "speech"?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "from the radio age to the," — the comma isn't necessary.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "at dedication of the Idlewild Airport" — Looks like "the" is missing.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "vice-presidential" is sometimes hyphenated and sometimes not. I believe it always should be.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Why is "high-profile" in quotation marks? Consider rewording (perhaps "high-ranking" or "well-respected") so you don't need a phrase that seems to need quotation marks.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Who said "home of [the] advertising industry"? The prose doesn't make that clear.
  • Well, New York City is generally regarded as "home of [the] advertising industry"; but as it is not necessary here, I removed it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • If the DNC moved its HQ to be closer to the advertising industry, you should consider adding that information back in (so long as the citation backs up that claim). Just say in in clear prose rather than a quote if nobody is being quoted. But if you feel that info is extraneous, leave it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Did Truman say "dangerous move", or someone writing about him? Is it necessary to use this quote? I'm not sure that it does much to illustrate beyond what paraphrasing would accomplish.
  • Truman considered it a "dangerous move". I have now paraphrased it. –
• "he attacked Republicans claiming that" — there should be a comma after "Republicans".
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "83-foot (25 m) long train" — "long" is extraneous.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The tour was divided into three segments—first cross-country to California for fifteen days, a six-day tour of the Middle West followed by a final ten days in the Northeast with a return trip to Missouri." is a little confusing, perhaps because it is lacking a couple commas the way it is written.
  • Done, now all the three segments are separated by a comma. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused by "Truman was forced to make some campaign promises primarily because Dewey raised no issues that would force him to respond." Because Dewey raised no issues, Truman had nothing to which to respond, so he made campaign responses instead?
  • Dewey's campaign strategy was to act presidential. He rarely attacked Truman by directly mentioning his name, and often discussed problems, but didn't offer his solutions. As Truman had nothing major to respond to Dewey, he was forced to make campaign promises to galvanize support
    • I just reworded this sentence based on what you said. This makes more sense to me, so hopefully it still conveys what you want it to. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• This sentence has multiple issues: "The major reasons for Truman's victory are given as his co-ordination in handling a single-handed campaign, despite most of the polls and political experts predicting victory for Dewey; and his direct appeal to middle-class Americans, which earned him the vote of farmers, who traditionally voted for the Republican Party." It's too long and cumbersome. The semicolon isn't being used correctly. The first half doesn't make sense to me. And why is "co-ordination" hyphenated?
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I just rephrased again, so please check my work to make sure it still says what you want it to say. I removed the piece about pollsters predicting the wrong outcome, since the paragraph starts out with that information and it doesn't contribute here. I focused on the use of "single-handed" and "coordination" so those words are used the way I think you mean to use them. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Looks better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• The LBJ quote isn't long enough to justify a block quote.
  • Keeping my preference aside, I am happy to fix this by inducing the quotation in the prose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• The lede is already pretty long, but doesn't include anything from the Aftermath and legacy section but the inauguration date. It seems important to at least include something about how the campaign is remembered for the failure of polling to predict the election outcome.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Great article. Without verifying any of the references or checking for plagiarism or close paraphrasing, I like that they are consistently formatted and the works cited represents a wide breadth of sources. The prose is engaging but neutral. It seems to me to offer comprehensive coverage of the topic without going into undue detail. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy – Thanks a lot for your comprehensive and helpful review. I think I have fixed everything. Do let me know of any other issues. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I've still got a couple minor issues above I recommend you look at, but this article is already in a state to warrant my support for FA status. If you feel like getting back on the other side of the table, this FAC nomination is in need of another content reviewer. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I have fixed the remaining issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Recusing to do the sr. Hog Farm _Talk 18:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Farley 1989 - publisher should be Julian Messner. Also, this looks like it might be a children's book. Does it meet the stricter "high-quality RS" standard for FA
• "Eisenberg, Lucy (2016). "Harry Truman and the Election of 1948" (PDF). Constitutional Rights Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 23, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2021." - This is meant to be classroom read-and-learn homework. The same question of RS vs high-quality RS applies to this one
  • For the above two sources, I find them reliable, but maybe they are not what we consider "high quality reliable sources", so just to be on a safer side, I have replaced their citations with another more reliable source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Recommend adding ISSNs to the journal sources, if available - check Batt & Balducci, Bogardus, Holbrook, Lee, McDonald et al., Murphy, Sitkoff, Visser,
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link Communication Research (journal) as the publisher in McDonald et al. 2001
  • Linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "After Eisenhower declined to run yet again, it became clear that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee" - recommend in-text attribution, since you're using a primary source for this.
  • Not sure how The New York Times is a primary source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • It's contemporaneous news reporting of a historic event. While it's independent, it's primary from the sense that it lacks the benefit of any sort of hindsight view
      • Okay, so I added a book source for a phrase of the sentence. For "it became clear that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee", I could not find better source, so I think we should be fine with The New York Times, but I rephrased it as "but many Truman supporters soon believed that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee", which makes it more clear and the fact is directly cited by the news article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from points above, everything looks okay from a perspective of reliability/formatting. So far as I can tell, the range of sourcing used is pretty comprehensive and representative

Spot checks:

• "The president's discretionary travel fund covered the costs because of a lack of donations to the Democratic National Committee" - can you quote for me what Baime says here? Assuming the page number in Bray is correct, Bray just makes general comments about the state of DNC funding, not referring to Truman's travel fund paying or this specific incident at all
  • Sure. Bray indeed make comments about the state of DNC funding, but rest of the incident is cited in Baime 2020, p. 124. See this preview on Google books. He says "[...] meaning it could be paid out of the president's discretionary travel fund. Truman was such an underdog, the Democratic National Committee was broke. ..." Does that help? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • This works
• "Initial counting showed Truman leading in the popular vote, but news commentators predicted a Dewey victory" - Bray p. 38 only mentions the commentators, not the initial counting
  • Added "McCullough 1992, p. 706", which was cited in the just previous sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• " Truman began his speech, electrifying the delegates by directly attacking Republicans, and praising Barkley—who was considered the most popular man in the hall" - Not sure about the "directly attacking the Republicans" - this seems to be based on "“Senator Barkley and I will win this election and make these Republicans like it—don’t you forget that", which isn't an unequivocal direct attack. The next page does discuss the attacks on the Republican platform, though
  • Specified, and added page 4 in the range. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• " American author and historian David Pietrusza later wrote that Truman's speech transformed a "hopelessly bedraggled campaign" into an "instantly energized effort capable of ultimate victory in November"" - checks out
• "Although he did not mention his opponent, Thomas E. Dewey, he criticized the Republican platform, charging them for actions of the eightieth Congress" - source says that he contrasted the platform and the actions, not charging?
  • I indeed wrote "contrasted" in the initial version of the article, but it was changed during rounds of copy-editing, and mics... Fixed now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "He blamed the Republican-controlled Congress for not passing his legislative measures like the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill" - page number's wrong - should be 259, not 256. Source also doesn't name the bill, just referring to "failing to pass vital legislation for housing" - is it WP:OR to assume that Lee is referring to Taft-Ellender-Wagner?
  • Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "July 26 is referred to as Turnip Day in Missouri, as Turnip crop is traditionally sown on that day. Truman himself was a farmer for 11 years prior becoming a politician" - checks out
• "The number of campaign stops (238 for Truman and 40 for Dewey) are from September 3 till the election day. It differs from the number of days spent in the state, or his overall number of tours" - source says September 2, not September 3
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman campaigned much more actively than Dewey. Although the candidates had only a slight difference in the number of states visited, Truman had a clear lead in the number of campaign stops, having made 238 stops to Dewey's 40" - checks out
• "Clark Clifford edited and presented the forty-three page confidential memo to Truman" - source doesn't seem to say that Clifford edited the memo?
  • As mentioned in the article, James H. Rowe wrote the initial memo, which was edited by Clifford , as also mentioned in Baime 2020, p. 95 and 96. This source is for supporting that fact that Clifford "presented" the memo. His editing is mentioned in Baime source, cited at end of that sentence. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Recommend adding a cite to the Baime source at the end of here then
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman became the first candidate to lose in a Gallup Poll but win the election" - checks out
• "Even many Democrats strongly anticipated a victory for Dewey and did not campaign to obtain votes for Truman" - checks out
• "His direct approach stood out more favorably compared to Dewey's strategy. Truman discussed specific issues and solutions, while Dewey mostly discussed general problems and did not provide the solution or his approach" - not sure where "and did not provide the solution or his approach". Best I can find is on p. 80 is "hewed to the line of generalization", and it seems to be a bit of a stretch to pull "did not provide the solution or his approach" from that
  • "hewed to the line of generalization", "Governor Dewey's aloofness from domestic issues", and other instances from page 81, etc. leads me to believe that "Dewey mostly discussed general problems and did not provide the solution". Is you think that "did not provide the solution or his approach" seems a stretch, I can remove it. Your thoughts?
    • I'd recommend removing the phrase, then, if that's the case
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman single-handedly coordinated his own campaign, making a direct appeal to middle-class Americans and farmers, who traditionally voted for the Republican Party" - can you point out where "single-handedly coordinated" is on pages 81 and 82? Or where middle-class are specifically referred to - I'm seeing the source mainly talking about minorities, farmers, and housewives
  • Source mentions "[..] of his own personal courage in making an almost singlehanded bid for support and of the let-down in the opposition's efforts due to overconfidence.", " The President made positive proposals where the people's needs were greatest, namely, in connection with the interests of labor, of the farmer, of the veteran seeking more reasonable housing ...", " Truman won farmer votes away from Dewey." (emphasis mine) Fixed duplicate citations and pg no, though. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Still not sure that any of this directly supports the middle-class, although the rest is fine. Hog Farm _Talk 07:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks did not give me confidence. Hog Farm _Talk 06:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm – Fixed the minor issues of page numbers, etc. Have responded to the spot check review above, and fixed almost everything mentioned. There are few places where we disagree on source interpretation, but I have tried to make it clear in the prose by removing details which may otherwise be considered doubtful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Replies above, will take another look in the morning but this is coming along nicely. Hog Farm _Talk 07:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Hog Farm, I fixed everything mentioned to the best I can. Do let me know of any other issues with spot-checks, which I'll surely fix. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Except for Louis H. Bean and Survey Research Center's (SRC) polls, most of the other polls conducted during the fall campaign polled Dewey having a decisive lead over Truman" - where is Bean mentioned in the source? Source says "it turned out that only the SRC had correctly gauged the mood of the nation."
  • Added another source. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Apart from Truman and his campaign team, about 100 other officials boarded the train, including many journalists" - probably ok
• "In a busy schedule, Truman delivered four or five speeches a day" - checks out
• "252 of which were given from the rear platform of the train, which had covered 21,928 miles (35,290 km)" - Not sure what the list of speeches is supposed to support here. It lists 252 speeches, but #249 is said to be in an auditorium, #250 from his house, #251 at the election victory party, #252 at the White House, 239-244 are all from various places in NYC, and many more
  • In that case, claiming them to be from "rear platform of the train" would be erroneous, so removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Truman's 1948 campaign and the election are most remembered for the failure of polls, which predicted an easy win for Governor Dewey" - checks out
• "Clark Clifford, David Bell, George Elsey, and Charles Murphy were responsible for writing Truman's major speeches" - checks out

Fixed both. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Pass on source reliability and formatting, but this one needs further spot checking. I couldn't spot check the books, and the problem rate in the journal/web sources was higher than I was comfortable with. Hog Farm _Talk 22:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair call. To whoever does more spot-checks: All the books except Baime 2020 are available on Open Library or Google Books. I have tried to do some spot-check myself (I know that wouldn't count), but I'll definitely resolve further concerns. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by CactiStaccingCrane

I think that this article is among the best of many FACs, although I think that it would benefit from splitting really long paragraphs. To a desktop user, it wouldn't matter that much, but to a mobile user, it would be a really really hard read. 08:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane – Thanks for your comments and kind words. I have tried to split long paragraphs, and having checked the article from the mobile, it looks better to me! You'll still see one or two long paras, but they have not been split because the content in closely related, so spiting would break reader's flow. Rest, most of this is done. Would appreciate if you have any further comments. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I just gonna roll over my sleeves and split the paragraphs then, and will take a look at this article later. Thanks a lot for your thank-yous as well! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane – Just a courtesy ping; do you have any further comments before you support/oppose this nomination. Definitely, no issues if too busy. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I cannot review your article in time, I really do be busy today :( CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot check #2

1. 129 Can I have a copy of McCullough 1992, p. 680.?

See McCullough 1992, p. 680 on Open Library (OL)

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 120 OK.
2. 8 OK.
3. 72 Can I have a copy of the page? Google Books has different numbers and different context from the text.

See Donaldson 1999, p. 164 on OL

That still bothers me from a context perspective - no Charles is mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Charles Bloch calling for Russel's nomination has been mentioned and sources from other books (see this). This citation is for citing the statistical claim of Truman's "947½ delegates to Russell's 266". As for the context, it is quite similar. Baime and Busch state that Charles Bloch of Georgia called for Russel's nomination, and Donaldson states that "Georgia delegates cast their cote for their senator and favorite son Richard Russel, and most of the south followed." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 100 Can I have a copy of the page?

See Karabell 2001, pp. 188–189 on OL

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 18 Google Books does not mention Manchuria on the page?

Fixed (removed)

1. 81 OK.
2. 106 Can I have a copy of the page?

See Karabell 2001, p. 191 on OL

OKish but I worry that the text in our article is quite similar to that on the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that is a case of WP:LIMITED, but I still tried to rephrase. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 94 OK.
2. 177 Can I have a copy of the page?

See Savage 1997, p. 138

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 9 Can I have a copy of the page?

See this partial preview on the Google books for Baime 2020, p. 32. Rest, we have an entire book (The Truman Committee – A Study in Congressional Responsibility) cited on this subject!

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 127 Can I have a copy of the page?

See Karabell 2001, p. 217 on OL

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 40 I am not seeing the travel fund on the page given.

It is cited by Ref#39; see my reply to Hog Farm above.

1. 181 Can I have a copy of the page?

See McCullough 1992, p. 710 on OL.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 56 Can I have a copy of the page? The abstract does not entirely square with the claims.

Well, the title of the news article itself is "Eisenhower Stand Buoys Truman Men", which in my interpretation means that Eisenhower's stand (which in article is "restatement of his unavailability for public office") kept Truman supporter happy and confident. The prose of the article states "After Eisenhower declined to run yet again, various ADA members unsuccessfully tried to persuade Douglas to contest the nomination,<cited till here> but many Truman supporters soon believed that Truman would be chosen as the Democratic nominee." Is that fine, as I wan't able to find other source, as told to Hog Farm above.

Hmm, that sounds a little too WP:OR for my taste. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think the full news article must have this mentioned, but I don't have access to The New York Times. I am unsure what needs to be done in this case, but have found other newspapers of the same date reporting that despite Eisenhower's stand and anti-Truman forces, veteran Party leaders believe that Truman would win the nomination on the first ballot. (See this and this) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, have cited one of those news reports in the article. So everything should be goon now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

1. 47 Can I have a copy of the page?

See Karabell 2001, pp. 131–133 on OL.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 173 Can I have a copy of the page?

See McCullough 1992, p. 707 on OL.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 189 Can I have a copy of the page?

See Busch 2012, p. 189 on OL.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 195 Half-OK as Google Books shows half the sentence.

Can verify the same on OL; see Ross 1968, pp. 251–252

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

1. 114 Can I have a copy of the page?

See McCullough 1992, p. 654 on OL.

OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Considering the importance of a speech and its effect on the campaign, the Democratic National Committee decided to pay for nationwide radio time. is unsourced. Is it just an optical illusion with Baime 2020, or are some sources used multiple times with different format? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, it was indeed cited, but appears uncited due to recently I was splitting the long paragraph. Now fixed.

Thanks a lot, Jo-Jo Eumerus for doing spot-checks. I have provided direct link to page numbers for you to verify. Also, have fixed the issues you brought up. How is this going? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus – Replied to above 3 points. Let me know if I need to do anything else before this is considered Pass/Fail. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus – Hi! Anything else before spot-checks to be considered pass? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle

Fantastic article. My comments:

• There, Truman won the support of unpledged delegates unopposed. All unpledged New Hampshire delegates?
  • Yes; specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Although Truman did not trust Rowe, he endorsed the strategy enthusiastically. Is it of much concern why he didn't trust Rowe? Did he think Rowe had ulterior motives?
  • Because of their difference of opinion; specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Some explanation of the states' rights plank (it was a whitewashing term both then and now) in the Democratic convention section and how it contrasted with the civil rights plank would be nice. Same for Wallace's differences with Truman.
  • Added some context for "states' rights plank" in the convention section; they specifically called for states to maintain segregation. As for Wallace's differences with Truman, they are mentioned in the 'Preparing for a run' subsection: "In December 1947, former Vice President Wallace had announced via radio that he would seek the presidency in 1948 as a third-party candidate. He was dissatisfied with Truman's foreign policy, and in his announcement, made a forceful attempt to link Truman to a war-oriented point of view. The previous year, Truman had demanded and received his resignation from his cabinet as the Secretary of Commerce." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• The Washington Post's correspondent Marquis Childs later called it the "liquidation of one of the major parties". "It" being the walkout or the entire convention?
  • Walkout of delegates; specified – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Several editors and columnists accused Truman of appeasement by including foreign policy in his campaign. Appeasing who?
  • Appeasing as by using foreign policy for his own political gain. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
    • But appeasing what foreign power? The Soviets? -Indy beetle (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, specified. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle – Thanks for your comments. I have made some changes. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: – Just two things:

1. May I nominate another article for FAC?
2. How is this one going; anything else required?

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

1) Yes

2) Formally, I think it meets the requirement for promotion but it still needs to be fully evaluated by one of the coordinators. (t · c) buidhe 14:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I see Jo-Jo Eumerus's response to "Hi! Anything else before spot-checks to be considered pass? Thanks!" was "Yes", so I'm not sure that they're done there yet. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, "Yes" in the sense of "I am satisfied". I was doing a few too many things at once. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2021 [28].

---

Kererū

Nominator(s): Ambrosia10, Marshelec & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This chonky borb I brought to GA in 2007 but then forgot about it...has then had a very thorough GA review to the point where I reckon it is within striking distance of FA-hood. Thanks to Mover of molehills for going over it with a fine tooth comb. Have at it folks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

• consider glossing taonga in the lead - as well as linking - this is a specialized word

I will defer to @Ambrosia10 and Giantflightlessbirds: over the exact best translation as they are locals...otherwise I'll do some reading and guess... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Complex, commonly translated as "treasure," māori dictionary says: "Treasure, anything prized - applied to anything considered to be of value including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques." Dracophyllum 06:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reference 7 - James 1995 - this is a MSc thesis which I haven't found online. This isn't acceptable as a source - better sources are available.

replaced (was harder than I thought!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reference 39 - Dijkgraaf 2002 - this is a PhD thesis. This isn't ideal as a source - is the information available elsewhere? Important results from a PhD thesis are usually later published in refereed journals. PhD theses are not refereed and are often difficult to access.

in process of reading - HANZAB has a huge dump of plant species which is possibly not helpful to include. I have found this which is mentioned in other papers. Will add tomorrow as I need to sleep now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ok added the field guide as a good summary of fruits preferred. The Kelly paper seems to challenge the thesis anyway so have dispensed with it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The article in HANZAB (1996) is available online from New Zealand Birds Online here. Perhaps this can be used to replace the poor references above.

Took me a while to find the link on that one....but now we're in business... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• NZ birds also has the relevant pages of: Heather, B.D.; Robertson, H.A. 2005. The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand. Viking, Auckland

added fruit eaten Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• A cladogram would be useful. Why is the cladogram on the talk page not included in the article?

laziness. added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• mention local movements - see HANZAB p. 1018, Clout et al 1991 and possibly Powlesland et al 2011 here

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Breeding

• mention that both parents build nest

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• how large and what colour is the egg?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• mention that clutches can overlap - incubating on one nest while feeding a chick on another

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• at what age do they start breeding?

HANZAB says unknown Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• how long do the birds live?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thorsen et al 2004 "Parental care and growth rates of New Zealand pigeon (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) nestlings" might have useful info. available here

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

More later - Aa77zz (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 12 (Falla et al 1979), Ref 16 (Ward 2019), Ref 26 (Robertson & Heather 2017) - the titles of these three references link to the entry at WorldCat. I expect a title link to take me to an open-access version of the article/book. Note that the OCLC number already links to WorldCat.

delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC) Lead

• "It is the only remaining New Zealand bird capable of swallowing large fruit..." Not in body of article - needs source.

removed - forgot about lead. that was in body but cited to a thesis and actually challenged by subsequent fieldwork so not strictly true. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Breeding

• consider mentioning that these pigeons are monogamous and the pairs remain together when not breeding - the pair-bond probably lasts from one breeding season to the next.(HANZAB))

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

• Ref 45 Cousins 2010 - a Master's Thesis that should be replaced.

replaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 73 Renganathan 2004 - a Master's Thesis that should be replaced.

removed sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 78 "Supplementary information for subsistence practices, ..." - needs authors

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 21, 22, 23, 61, 67, 79, 84, 86 and 88 are all cites to the website "Stuff". Why is this a reliable source?

It is a website, Stuff, owned by Stuff (company) (previously Fairfax media) so has a reliable publishing pedigree Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is unbalanced - it mostly covers the conservation and the relationship to humans: it contains very little on the behaviour of the bird itself.

breeding and some measurements added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Figure captions

• File:Hemiphaga_novaeseelandiae_spadicea.png - consider adding the author (John Gerrard Keulemans), the date (1907) and that the lithograph was based on a preserved specimen in the Natural History Museum at Tring (see Plate 21 here

duly captioned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Keulemans, John Gerrard 1842-1912 -New Zealand pigeon. Carpophaga Novae Zealandiae. (one-half natural size). - J. G. Keulemans delt. and lith. (Plate XXIV. 1888). (21014153784).jpg - Walter Buller should be linked. The lithograph was published in 1888 and was again drawn by John Gerrard Keulemans. (This image adds very little to the article).

Diet

• Ref 35 - Bell (1996) - the specific name is misspelled. The page number should be 37 rather than 87. It is a single page - available here. I suggest deleting this reference - there are 3 other cites to support the short text "The kererū feeds on many species with tropical affinities, including the Lauraceae and Arecaceae".

ref removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

In Māori culture

• Possibly mention: Walter Buller in his A History of the Birds of New Zealand published in 1888 mentions that large numbers of birds (8000) were snared near Lake Taupō and preserved in their own fat. See: Buller, Walter (1888). A History of the Birds of New Zealand. Vol. 1 (2nd ed.). London: Buller. p. 234.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 49 - Best 1977 - this is a reprint of a book by Elsdon Best (1856-1931) that was published posthumously in 1942. (need author-link=Elsdon Best and orig-date=1942)

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Formatting references - rather than listing changes here I've edited the article myself.

Support - thanks for all your good work. -Aa77zz (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

thx for the thorough review - article is better for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• What is the purpose of including an image gallery?

Wasn't me who added. Removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding alt text

mostly done but group image template proving difficult and not sure about movie clips Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Hemiphaga_novaeseelandiae_spadicea.png needs a US tag, and what's the author's date of death?

added US tag - he died in 1912 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Great_Kererū_Count_2021.jpg: why is this believed to be CC? The source site has an "all rights reserved" notice

Removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Keulemans,_John_Gerrard_1842-1912_-New_Zealand_pigeon._Carpophaga_Novae_Zealandiae._(one-half_natural_size)._-_J._G._Keulemans_delt._and_lith._(Plate_XXIV._1888)._(21014153784).jpg: can more specific tagging be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

you mean adding the US tag? done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Stuartyeates

• Remove the image gallery unless those images actually add something to the article.

Removed. Am contemplating adding an image of bird with extended wings to body of text but article is pretty image-heavy as is and not sure it trumps any of the other images alreayd there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest changing "Spelling Māori loanwords with macrons—that indicate a long vowel—is now common in New Zealand English." to "Spelling Māori loanwords with macrons—that indicate a long vowel—is now common in New Zealand English, where technically possible." The change is already supported by the references.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• It would be great to get an image of a korowai with Kererū feathers, but all of the instututions I checked didn't do CC.

yeah that would be good.....sigh Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

- Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. Should Norfolk pigeon be merged into here, as is usually the rule for subspecies with short articles? FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

was sort of distinctive subspecies. Will look at content of both. Have incorporated the date and cause of extinction, and differences in plumage as the salient points. A merge discussion can take place later (given the distinctiveness there is a case for a separate article which is best discussed in a structured format) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• There are some duplinks (not counting those in the cladogram).

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The alt text has replaced the caption in the second image.

fixed now I think....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The video thumbnails seem a bit uninteresting, you can pick a specific frame with the parameter I've used at for example thylacine in the video under description.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see the article is a bit crammed, but always good to show the egg[29] when we can?

what would you propose removing...? This is tough.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I saw you ha a double image with the juvenile and the video before, perhaps make it with the egg instead? FunkMonk (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

egg added now (removed 2nd kuelemans lithograph) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bold its name in the cladogram?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree there could be a photo showing spread wings, but as you say, the article is a bit crammed. Perhaps under distribution?

see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• What should "Carpophaga" link to?

looking but not sure - original name combination to be for wompoo pigeon but not listed as junior synonym for Ptilinopus, which I think it is - need a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reworded now - Megaloprepia is Ptilinopus, still looking for where Carpophaga should go..I think Ducula but I can't find any references (!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "with the end of the genus name Carpophaga introduced by English naturalist Prideaux John Selby in 1835" This is a bit confusing, as it reds as if Selby used the name for this species, so you should specify if it was for another.

have reworded this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link Columba?

You mean one of the ones in the binomial names? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Either that or somehow work it in like "was first placed in the genus Columba as C. novaeseelandiae" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The extinct Norfolk pigeon (H. n. spadicea)" Could specify subspecies for clarity.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The kererū is a large arboreal pigeon weighing 550–850 g (19–30 oz),[25] and can be" That can be? Not sure, but seems incongruent now.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Details on the extinct Norfolk Island subspecies are scant" But does this apply to its plumage, considering many specimens are preserved?

the original wording was the ssp. was "poorly known" - but you are right it is misleading as is. Will move that elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Kererū make occasional soft coo sounds (hence the onomatopoeic names)" I think it should already have been stated the name is onomatopoeic when you discussed the common names then.

I didn't add that source so just removed it. I haven't seen that written elsewhere so will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Kererū remains have been recovered" Specify if these are fossils.

just changed to "bones" as simpler Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Although sedentary, kererū move can move" Double move.

move removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "travelled up to 100 km." Convert?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think one of these photos[30][31] of fighting individuals would add more to the article than the low quality feeding video, and it would work to both show the wings spread and behaviour.

Agreed Dracophyllum 05:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree too - and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "kererū are able raise" Able to?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Mention the word subspecies in the caption of the image showing the extinct one?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They are only restricted by moulting" How does this restrict them?

I think because of energy requirements and ability to forage for young, but not clarified in this source. reworded to "They do not breed when moulting" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• You give scientific names for plant species, but not animal species mentioned.

This seems to be the last unanswered point. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

oops - on it... think I got 'em all... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "On Norfolk Island, the subspecies was last seen in 1900" Add "the local subspecies" for clarity?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• " The reason for the kererū's iridescent green-blue and white plumage is because" Add "according to this legend"?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "New Zealand pigeon: A History of the Birds of New Zealand, Buller, 1888" Link Buller?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "along with moa, extinct New Zealand quail" Since both are extinct, perhaps say "along with bones of the extinct moa and New Zaland quail"?

reworded --Gertrude206 (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Everything looks good to me now. One last comment, maybe the first two images should swap their alignments (left/right) so that the birds look towards the text rather than away from it?

aaargh - if I right-align the lithograph, it will be displaced downwards on wider monitors (left-aligning the chick is ok). I thought for a moment you meant swapping the chick image and lithograph but that takes the chick away from its reference text...frustrating. You're not bothered by image displacement? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to show what I mean, on a small screen it would look like this:[32] FunkMonk (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

okay switched now 12:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The lead identifies the stoat as an invasive mammal, but that claim is not cited and not repeated in the body

Good pickup (how did we leave that out??), and added now to body Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how you format refs to IUCN red list

Weird - was a duplicate ref. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when locations are included and how these are formatted

All books should now have locations. One odd use of brackets removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

They don't all - eg FN38 - and looks to still be inconsistent in when/whether country names are listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use website name or domain name as work title for web refs, and whether publisher is included. Compare for example FNs 10 and 14

aligned as website name, and publisher included Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN12 is identified as a juvenile work at OCLC - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

This is weird - the Falla/Sibson/Turbott guidebooks to the birds of NZ were the go-to guidebooks. Perplexed by this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

So... is the OCLC listing incorrect, or is this a different book, or...? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the correct book on OCLC - I see the tag. No idea how it got put there. I have an older edition of this book. Is just a bird guidebook but a good one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Compare publisher formatting in 15 vs 16

yikes/fixed/aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Er, these still seem to be different? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ack - tweaked but one is web and one is book...and book one is putting location before publisher... :/ weird Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

all templated now (apart from one below) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how edition statements are formatted

edition formatting aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you use |via=

Never used them - removed them now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• How does FN51 meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP

oops - material covered by other two refs anyway. We'd removed a few theses and must have overlooked this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN57 is very oddly formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

ah yes - this is the last templated ref - I need to read up on this and is nearly 1am here...on it tomorrow I think I fixed it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. All good? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Just location formatting pending - including country vs not. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

(sorry, Xmas parties and IRL stuff) - umm...I used to always include countries in locations until BrianBoulton argued that if it was somewhere obvious like London or New York - they should be dropped. Happy to include all again if people want - my personal thoughts were that it was a little to subjective. Anyway, countries added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've got no issue with excluding for globally known locations like that, but if you're going to include for Auckland, it doesn't make much sense to not include for Collingwood. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

countrified now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "native to the New Zealand mainland" but the distribution section says it's found on Stewart Island and "offshore islands"?

aargh - adopted the KISS strategy and left as NZ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• "egg clutch" the "clutch" term could be linked and is not used in the main article.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "although it also ... Although widespread" repetitive.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Could link Māori culture.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Department of Conservation is normally just referred to as DOC so consider adding (DOC) after the first use and then using the initialism thereafter.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "genus Columba (bird) as" do we need (bird) in there??

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "found in mainland New Zealand" see above.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which is a member of a different genus." this is unreferenced.

removed (sadly), as is obvious - I searched for a source to no avail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link mantle.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "around Invercargill crossed" link.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "ritualised 'billing'" what does this mean?

rejigged material and removed this, as described later without need for this term, which actually isn't used in the main/authoritative secondary source (HANZAB) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• ("... can cause the bird to become intoxicated ..." this sounds brilliant, pity we don't have more on pissed Kiwi pigeons...!)
• "Breeding and lifespan" this para appears to suffer from image sandwiching.

moved the egg Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "breeding, and likely breed together in subsequent breeding" triple-breed.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• You mentioned "billing" (unexplained) earlier but not here.

see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "(mostly kānuka (Kunzea ericoides), which" looks to be missing a closing paranthesis.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link Rotorua.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "egg (museum specimen)" would think this should be "Egg..."

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "success.[48][46][49][50] " ref order.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "150 square metres" convert.

converted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "from Auckland city" link.

linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "causing them to become drunk" you've already mentioned this, although you used the slightly more encyclopedic term of "intoxicated"...

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "containers).[67][48][69]" ref order.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• " kaka, kakapo " why aren't these having their diacritics honoured?

tweaked. these articles were only changed recently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• "birds collected by the Department of Conservation.[83]" linked here? Do it first time and as noted above, then go for DOC.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 84 spaced hyphen should be en-dash.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• TRM ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I will try to take a look tomorrow. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm content with the changes and happy to support this nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

AryKun

• I don't think that the acronym for Department of Conservation is needed in the lead, because it's only mentioned once anyway.

Ummm....is mentioned twice in lead...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow, sorry, that was a major brain fade. AryKun (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• The "not threatened" DOC conservation status is capitalized in the lead, but not in the body. Should be consistent.

lower cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Also, "conservation dependent" is linked in the body, but not in the lead. I'm not sure if the link in the body is correct, as it goes to page for the IUCN category (maybe this would be a better place to link to?)

linked to new target x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Should taonga and iwi be italicized?

yes - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps an in-bracket note explaining that Megaloprepia is currently synonymized with Ptilinopus?

yes - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Pūriri and tītoki are missing their macrons.

fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Courtship display" → "The courtship display"

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe link brooding?

'Brooding' links to Egg incubation, which I linked at first mention of incubation in section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Why is kākahu capitalized?

idk - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's all. AryKun (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Couldn't find anything else, really nice article. AryKun (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2021 [33].

---

1937 Brazilian coup d'état

Nominator(s): FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1937 coup which created a dictatorship in Brazil. I have created and worked on it for the past few months and believe it satisfies the featured article criteria.

It was recently copyedited by Twofingered Typist (talk · contribs) and received its GA review from Gabriel Yuji (talk · contribs) in September.FredModulars (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended content

File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is tagged as lacking author info, and when was this first published? What is its status in the US? Ditto File:São_Paulo_flag_burned_in_1937.jpeg I am unsure. I uploaded both as not knowing what license it should be under, and both were reviewed by the same two users as public domain. Images uploaded locally should be public domain in the US (or claimed as fair use), so these will both need tagging for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Both have been tagged for fair use in the US, public domain in Brazil, and the resolution for each has been reduced. These will need a stronger FUR, and suggest using the generic fair-use tag rather than unique historic image. Tags have been replaced. What do you mean by "stronger"? Non-free content needs a fair-use rationale that justifies why each of the non-free criteria are met and why a non-free image is necessary for illustrating the article. At the moment the rationales presented do not adequately accomplish this. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Added rationales for why File:MonroePalaceguarded1937.jpeg is necessary. File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg Unsure, but the permissions for these two images should not come into question because they were uploaded from the National Archive. Also, since they take place in two historical events, File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg is in October 1930 and File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg is in November 1935. We do still need to ensure the tagging is correct, particularly with regards to US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) They are, though, I believe. Both photos have tags of the National Archive. FredModulars (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Okay, why do you believe the tagging is correct if the publication date is unknown? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) There should be no question about it if it was uploaded from the National Archive. See the first licensing and summary for each image. Is there a link to this work on the Archive website? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC) All National Archive photos uploaded have identification in their summaries, so a link is not required. If we're not able to verify from the Archive site what licensing information is provided there, then yes, there is a question. It would be unusual for a non-US site to identify the status of a non-US work in the US. This applies also to several other images throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Both images were uploaded by the National Archive. They have identification in their summaries, licensing, and are said to be of the "Brazilian National Archives GLAMWiki Initiative". For US copyright purposes, the licensing on Commons is fulfilled by the file. It was first published in Brazil and not published in the U.S. within 30 days. Being that the Correio da Manhã (newspaper) shut down in 1974, it was first published before 1 March 1989. Fundo Correio da Manhã is also a part of the National Archives. Finally, it is a "cinematographic, phonographic, photographic and applied arts works completed before 20 June 1938" and/or a photographic work "not considered to be 'artistic creations' produced before 20 June 1998" from my understanding of the copyright law. Looking at the dates of the files (October 1930 and 25 November 1935, respectively), both are before 1938 and 1998. Therefore, both files are public domain in the US. We know the images were created before 1938/1998, but you've indicated above you're not sure when they were published. It's very possible for archival materials to have never been published. This applies to other archival images as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC) I have indicated the publication was before 1989. Since they are part of the Fundo Correio da Manhã, they were published in that newspaper, and before 1989 since the paper shut down in 1974. See above. Does the Archive specify that everything in that collection was published, as opposed to just part of that collection? The latter is more typical. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC) They were published. If you want more proof, which I believe is unnecessary since the archive is of the newspaper's photos, after p. 130 in "Vargas of Brazil: A Political Biography" by John W.F. Dulles, File:Intentona_Comunista_de_1935_-_Contingente_de_fuzileiros_navais_desembarcando_no_Catete_para_guarde_do_Palácio.jpg appears, albeit in a worse condition. It is sourced from the Correio da Manhã, the newspaper itself. For the other image, see here. Page five of the newspaper, middle of the three bottom images. File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg: is there evidence to support that the uploader was the copyright holder and could therefore release the image under the given license? Ditto File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, File:Francisco_Campos.jpg The first's permission in the table is "Fotografia com mais de 70 anos, domínio público." Being more than seventy years old, it is in the public domain (as should be most of these photos from my understanding of the law). There is no evidence for File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png, File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg, or File:Francisco_Campos.jpg. Being old does not automatically make something public domain; even if this is in the public domain due to age, the current tagging is incorrect and will need to be corrected. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) File:Plinio_Salgado_(cropped).png has little information and has been replaced by Plínio Salgado, 1959.tif. File:Armandosallesdeoliveira_(cropped).jpg was uploaded from Facebook and there is little more information. It has been replaced by File:Pintura Oficial de Armando de Sales.jpg. What's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Someone has just added a license that seems right: The same as File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg. The source link is dead - is there an alternative available to confirm those publication details? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) https://www.saopaulo.sp.gov.br/conhecasp/historia/galeria-governadores/. This should suffice. File:Miguel_Costa,_Góis_Monteiro_e_Getúlio_Vargas_-_1930.jpg has been replaced by File:Getulio Vargas (1930).jpg. When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) 1930. Do you have a citation for this publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC) I got confused with the date it was made and the publication date. I have removed the image entirely. File:Francisco_Campos.jpg has been replaced by File:FranciscoCampos.jpeg, a file I have uploaded from the Ministry of Justice. Why is this believed to be PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Found on a government website. Campos died in 1969, so it was commissioned before 1983. With that, it satisfies all the requirements of the licensing. That's for the Brazilian licensing - my question is with regards to the US licensing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I meant it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing, sorry. Okay, but again, the information you've listed is with regards to the Brazilian licensing, so why specifically do you believe it satisfies all the requirements of the US licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Updated the license with one from Wikimedia, the same one for File:Revolução_de_1930_-_Bombeiros_na_Revolução.jpg. It "was first published in Brazil (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days)" and "it was first published before 1 March 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities" and it is a photographic work not considered to be an artistic creation. It was made before 20 June 1998 since Campos died in 1968. Removed the image entirely; can't find when it was first published. File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: why is this believed to be a government work? Ditto File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif, File:EstadoNovoaddress.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC) The first two were uploaded to Wikipedia by the National Archive of the Ministry of Justice. With that, they are in the public domain. The third is one that I was not sure of when I uploaded it, so it was put to discussion for deletion and it was marked as being government work. It appears that the first two were uploaded by individual users, one of whom has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns; what leads you to believe either is affiliated with the National Archive? For the third, do you have a link to the deletion discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Of the first two, both are sourced from the National Archive. Their permissions are attributed to the National Archive. I believe the user you are talking about is Avrelianvs Magnvs. The image they uploaded is extracted from another image (that they did not upload) which, again, is affiliated with the National Archive. Here is a link to the third image's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 June 25. It is the third image being discussed. FredModulars (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC) That discussion does not determine that this is a government work; the file was deleted because it existed on Commons, but it does not seem that the underlying issue was addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC) I have reached out to the user who closed the discussion and uploaded the file to Wikimedia Commons to inquire on why they concluded it was a government photo. I am awaiting a reply. @Nikkimaria: The user was confused with the copyright and the photo has been deleted from Commons. In the article, it has been replaced with File:EstadoNovoRadioAddress1937.jpeg, awaiting a size reduction. FredModulars (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC) This should use the generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Done. File:Plano_Cohen_-_Correio_da_Manha.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: Done. For the license, it meets the first two formalities as well as "an anonymous work or a work deemed to be anonymous, or a work by a collective person whose authors were not individually identified, published or disclosed before 20 June 1938." I apologize for my delay. I will address the issues above soon. FredModulars (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC) @Nikkimaria: I have responded to the image review. @Nikkimaria: I believe your concerns have been addressed. FredModulars (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Some of the new images have fixed px size and are missing alt text

Done; I didn't know fixed px was an issue. Added alt text.

• Did Correio da Manhã include a copyright notice?

If you mean in the newspaper itself, no. I can't find copyright notice on their photos.

• File:José_Américo_de_Almeida_no_Catete._(cropped).tif: what is the status of this work in the US?

Same situation; see below for Flores da Cunha photo. Here is the photo per the National Archive. Produced by the Agência Nacional, it is under their license.

The current tags on the image are contradictory - either it's a government work or it's not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

PD in Brazil, CC for United States as below

Is this a government work, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is a government work.

• File:Deputado_José_Antônio_Flores_da_Cunha.tif: what does the Archive state about the provenance of this work? What is its status in the US?

I was able to find it here as part of the web archive. Information can be found here. It was produced the Agência Nacional, proof here (this link may not work since it is on the archive's SIAN website and a login is required) and already mentioned on its page. Added the agency's license. I don't believe a link is necessary since the accession number and collection are provided.

As above - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

PD in Brazil since it is in possession by the National Archive, but CC for United States (and also Brazil, I would suppose) since it was produced by Agencia Nacional.

• File:Discurso_do_presidente_da_República_Getúlio_Vargas_na_instalação_do_Estado_Novo_no_Palácio_Guanabara..wav: what is the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Added US licensing. I am a bit unsure on this one, but it should meet first two requirements and the last of the four.

When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a radio broadcast from 10 November 1937. That is stated in its documentation and in the first minute or so of the broadcast itself. Assuming by "published" you mean when it was disclosed to the public or when it was broadcast through an agency, that should be the date.

@Nikkimaria: I have gotten around to the new comments. FredModulars (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I hope this isn't excessive pinging, so my apologies if it is, but your question has been answered. FredModulars (talk) 04:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. The bit I'm still unsure about is the overlapping licensing (CC and PD). Our article on Agência Brasil indicates it was founded in 1990 - is that correct? Do these images appear on the AB site? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Agencia Brasil is a successor to the Agencia Nacional, and, according to the pt article, was established by President Vargas by a decree in 1937. I couldn't find them on the AB site.

Okay. The CC tag specifies content on their site - do you have a reference supporting that it applies also to the predecessor works? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

No. I thought the language of the tag would allow for anything produced by them, but I will try to look again for anything on their site and a reference saying it applies to older works.

Update: I have been unable to find anything on their site or a reference you requested. Without any suitable alternatives for Cunha and Almeida, I have removed both their images. All other portraits of people alone in the article have been removed, and the presidential candidates' images have deteriorated from replacements and now Américo lacks one, so I just decided to remove the other two.

Source review - pass

• Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Locations

• Fausto, Boris; Fausto, Sergio (2014) per WorldCat it looks like all editions were either published in São Paulo, Brazil (currently presented location) by the Universidade de São Paulo, or in New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press (current publisher). Currently used ISBN gives New York and Cambridge by the Cambridge University Press. Whichever edition you used, standardize to that, and if it's São Paulo, Brazil by Universidade de São Paulo, you'll need to change the ISBN to whichever is used in the text.

Done.

• Dulles, John W.F. (1967) what is the year of the edition you used? The ISBN provided links to a 2012 edition; if you used the 2012 edition change the date to 2012, and insert an orig-year of 1967. If you used a 1967 copy, change the ISBN to whatever is used in the text.

Done.

• Pandolfi, Dulce Chaves (2004) add a |trans-title parameter of the English title.

Done.

• Skidmore, Thomas E. (2010) add identifier; a common ISBN for the 2010 edition is 9780195374551, but check your edition.

Done.

• Young, Jordan M. (1967) add an id from whichever you used; it will likely be an OCLC.

Done.

Notes (non-issues)

• For Hudson, Rex A. I fixed the template used; Country study has its own template, and cite web isn't really appropriate.
• Meade, Teresa A. (2010) Facts-on-file is not the greatest publisher but she has been published by university presses, so I won't object to inclusion.
• @FredModulars: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: A new source has been added. I don't know if that would change the outcome of the source review.

Support from Hurricane Noah

• Vargas had risen to power in 1930 with the backing of the military following a revolution which ended a decades-old oligarchy. Comma after military and it should be "that ended".

Done.

• Under a new constitution, Vargas became the constitutional president of Brazil. Probably should link the constitution in this sentence.

Unfortunately, there is no article on the constitution on the en Wikipedia. I linked it to the section on it in the article History of the Constitution of Brazil.

• With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. With few other options, Rio Grande do Sul's Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. Im not seeing the connection. Did the declaration of war grant Vargas additional powers that made him more of a threat to the governor? Something else?

Changed to "With preparations beginning officially on 18 September 1937, senior military officers used the Cohen Plan [pt], a fraudulent document, to provoke the National Congress of Brazil into declaring a state of war. After having his state's militia be incorporated into federal forces by a state of war commission in his state, Rio Grande do Sul Governor Flores da Cunha [pt], who was opposed to Vargas, went into exile in mid-October 1937. State governors of Bahia and Pernambuco were also attacked by commissions in their states." This should clarify that the state of war allowed the federal government to pursue more interventions in the states.

• Francisco Campos [pt] was drafting a new constitution. Why? Was this to give Vargas more power? Something else? Link the new constitution as well.

Clarified. Linked to a section in the History of the Constitution of Brazil.

• By November, the president held most of the power in the country and nothing stood in the way of the intricate plan from taking place Comma before the "and". The second part after the junction is a bit clunky.

Done. Changed "nothing stood in the way of" to "little stopped."

• In the coup's aftermath, a semi-fascist, authoritarian state was propped up in Brazil based on European fascist countries. Comma after Brazil.

Done.

• Foreign reaction was mostly negative. Wouldn't it be reactions and were?

I meant it as a general reaction to the coup, but that makes more sense.

• The First Brazilian Republic ended with the Revolution of 1930 You should elaborate a bit more in this overview sentence (a generalization of why it ended).

The paragraph explains the causes for the revolution. I believe it would be unnecessary and repetitive.

• By now, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro [pt] supported Vargas. by now doesn't make much sense. I would say something like "At that time" or "At that point".

Done.

• The aftermath was harsh. Historians Boris and Sergio Fausto note, "it opened the way for far-reaching repressive measures and for an escalation of authoritarianism". Could these two be merged together? It likely is a with/ing kinda deal.

Added a semicolon.

• became a permanent organization lasting until 1945. Comma after organization.

Done.

• ending with the arrest of several assemblymen, supporters of the pro-National Liberation Alliance, a leftist front; No "and" in this list?

It's not a list, and this may be confusing. The assemblymen were the supporters of the ANL. The ANL was a leftist front. I have reworded the sentence: "who were supporters..."

• The 1934 constitution essentially existed only de jure. The states of emergency, police actions, and the anti-communist climate violated it. These could likely be combined.

Changed to "existed only de jure, as the states..."

• arose in its aftermath You should clarify which aftermath since you mention the coup and the revolt in the same sentence.

Changed to "arose in the aftermath of the communist insurrection."

• Vargas found support from all sides, and three constitutional amendments were passed by Congress to bolster Vargas's power --> "Vargas found support from all sides, with congress passing three constitutional amendments to bolster his power"

Done.

• Luís Carlos Prestes assumed responsibility for the movement after he was caught in March 1936, sentenced to seventeen years in prison by the TSN Change the comma to a semicolon and add "he was".

Done.

• Through late 1936 to early 1937 Through should be from since it is the starting time.

Done.

• supported Armando de Sales Oliveira ; Extra space here.

Fixed.

• Congress refused a request to prolong the state of war I assume a request to extend it even further?

Yes. Added "again."

• The military joined in the effort making a plethora of accusations against Cunha Comma after effort.

Done.

• Maciel Filho described the atmosphere in mid-September writing Comma after mid-September.

I believe this was written to convey the writing was of mid-September. Nevertheless, it makes no difference. Done.

This is all for now. I will do the rest of the article later. Noah^Talk 23:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• On 1 November there was a parade of the Integralist militia Comma after November.

Done.

• national plebiscite detailed in the new constitution was held Phrase from detailed through constitution should be offset by commas.

Done.

• those in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo,[e] Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco's intervenors were replaced. This is a bit clunky.

Changed to "Most appointees had succeeded themselves. Intervenors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced."

• Instead, he presented a new program of activity, with new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and implementing "a great steelworks" that could use local minerals and offer employment. verb tenses don't match throughout the sentence.

Changed to "Instead, he presented a new program of activity, including new roads and railways into the Brazilian hinterland and the implementation of "a great steelworks" that was to provide local minerals and offer employment."

• Civil rights were curtailed and individual liberties were nominal. The proposed Congress never met. Could these be combined?

Changed to a series.

• Vargas's term was lengthened by six years, and he could now run for re-election --> "making him eligible to run for re-election" has a better flow.

The lengthening of his term does not imply he was allowed re-election. Reworded to ", and he was now eligible to run for re-election."

• Political parties were outlawed on 2 December 1937. However, Vargas saw no reason to build support using a political party or an ideological program. Im not seeing a contrast?

This was supposed to contrast with the idea of the entire paragraph. The section implies Vargas had unlimited power and leaves the reader thinking he was totalitarian or fascist, which is only partially true (and completely false by the end of the Estado Novo) and contrasts with historians' view of him. Since these encompass two different ideas, I have separated them into two paragraphs.

• During this new period, Vargas ruled as dictator; his term ended on 29 October 1945. Why did it end?

I originally wanted to exclude this because it is drifting a bit too far from the direct aftermath of the coup. Added a paragraph at the end of A new regime to summarize how he lost, regained, and again lost power. After Vargas dies the political scene slowly shifts away from him and his crew and his memory is slowly forgotten, so that is enough. Many things are details (e.g. "a political crisis") because explaining them would drift too far away from the idea of the article.

• United States ambassador to Brazil Jefferson Caffery Ambassador should be capitalized in this case.

Done.

• Sources are out of order in multiple locations.

Fixed.

• Portuguese is a duplicate link in the lead.

Fixed.

• Hora do Brasil is a duplicate link.

Fixed.

That should be it. Would you consider reviewing my article? Noah^Talk 01:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Addressed all issues presented. Thanks for the review, I'll check out your candidate. FredModulars (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I believe everything has been addressed appropriately so I am now supporting. Noah^Talk 03:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Resolved issues

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with. You have quite a few "Further information" links at the top of the "Brazil in the early 1930s" subsection; I would suggest you cut the links that are already in that paragaph, which is most of them -- links like that are for the benefit of the reader who wants more information and has no opportunity to seek it via links in the text. I'd also suggest linking to the 1930 revolution from "armed revolution in October that year". I removed all but First Brazilian Republic and Brazilian Revolution of 1930. Though they are linked already, they are the most vital in my opinion. Linking to the 1930 revolution from "armed revolution in October that year" is unnecessary since it is introduced at the beginning of the paragraph and, therefore, already linked. If you think it would be better to conclude the paragraph with the revolution, I can change it around. No, it's fine as is; I missed that link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) "The 1929 economic crisis was undermining an oligarchy which had dominated Brazilian politics since the 1890s and concentrated power in the states of São Paulo and Minas Gerais. The oligarchy collapsed when then-president of São Paulo Washington Luís violated the agreement by..." The oligarchy and the agreement are two separate things, but here they're treated as if they are the same -- or else the "agreement" has no referent. It's also not clear to me why we're mentioning the 1929 economic crisis -- we don't say in what way the economic issues undermined the oligarchy. I would either make it clearer how events of 1929 affected "coffee with milk", or remove the reference and start with the nomination of Prestes. Changed to "the oligarchy's agreement..." Also changed the second issue to "The 1929 economic crisis was undermining the power of..." A crisis of any sort would truncate the rule of any group, or at least diminish their influence. Details like "why" and "how" aren't necessary for the reader to understand this topic, that's what further info and links to main articles are for. Right now, the idea of the oligarchy breaking apart should be conveyed to them. That's better, and I take your point, but can we make it "had undermined", or perhaps just "undermined"? I don't think the continuous present adds anything. Also, reading it again, I think we might be able to simplify it a bit more -- you explain the agreement towards the end of the sentence, so can we cut the reference to it at the start, making it "The oligarchy collapsed when then-president from São Paulo Washington Luís nominated another person of his home state, Júlio Prestes, to succeed him instead of acting within the terms of the inter-state agreement and nominating a candidate from Minas Gerais"? Or "terms of the oligarchy's agreement"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Changed to your first proposal (The oligarchy collapsed when then-president from São Paulo Washington Luís nominated another person of his home state, Júlio Prestes, to succeed him instead of acting within the terms of the inter-state agreement and nominating a candidate from Minas Gerais). Also changed to "undermined". You describe Luís as "then-president of São Paulo" but he was president of Brazil at that time, surely? Originally, it was "and paulista" with a link to Paulista. After another user added an unreferenced note clarifying he was born in Rio, I wanted to clarify he was of São Paulo, i.e., his home state, without it remaining unreferenced. Changed to "from São Paulo." I don't think that's enough -- I had no idea reading this that he was president of Brazil. It was only when I went to the linked articles I realized I'd missed that, and your edit still doesn't tell the reader that directly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Changed to "when then-President Washington Luís, from São Paulo, nominated..." Struck, since I think that does make it unambiguous, but here's another phrasing you might consider that's even more direct: "collapsed when the President of Brazil, Washington Luís, who was from São Paulo, nominated". You don't really need "then-president" since you have "when" indicating this is of a particular time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Removed then-. "At that time, the military and figures such as military politician General Góis Monteiro supported Vargas." I'm not clear why Monteiro is worth mentioning here. Is it the case that generally military figures supported Vargas but other political figures did not, so that Vargas's support in the political arena was restricted to ex-military figures such as Monteiro? (Or was Monteiro still on active service at this time?) Right now is a good time to introduce Monteiro, not only as an example of a military figure supporting Vargas, but also because he was a revolutionary leader and, something that is later mentioned, an architect of the 1937 coup. I can see the confusion, so I have just removed "military politician" entirely. I'll let this go if you feel strongly that this is the right way to introduce Monteiro, but I think it distracts rather than informs. You don't mention Monteiro for several more sections, and it's not clear why Monteiro is picked out -- and now that you've removed "military politician" and retained "General" it's not clear why he is separate from "the military". I don't know if this fits the sources, but could we do something like "At that time, the military supported Vargas, as did some [or many?] politicians with a connection to the military, such as General Góis Monteiro, later a significant figure in the 1937 coup?" Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) In these early sections, there is the reoccurring dilemma of wanting to exclude information that is generally unimportant to the 1937 coup but important to this era as a whole. The result is that the information is poorly condensed. For context, though I am sure you have inquired into him already, Monteiro was an influential military figure and a leader of the 1930 revolution, which is why I wanted the reader to at least acknowledge he was active in this time period if they were to research further. Seeing how this is an issue, and how the reader will most likely forget about this man when they get to "Preparation", I have just introduced him there and slightly reworded this sentence. I think that's better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC) What does "paulistas" refer to? Just a link might be enough. Linked. "Until then, Vargas was the provisional president": here "then" refers to the Constitutionalist Revolution in the previous sentence, but that's not what you mean. I think it would be better to mention his title at the point he assumes it, which is presumably in 1930. Can we make the first sentence of that paragraph "...and assumed all policy-making power, taking the title of provisional president" or "... as provisional president"? Then just cut the 1933 sentence to start "Vargas permitted elections in May 1933 to a National Constituent Assembly..." That sounds better. Changed to "In the revolution's aftermath, Vargas became provisional president," and cut the 1933 sentence to your suggestion. I was only concerned that the reader may think elections were a result of the 1932 revolution, but I don't think that should be an issue. "From 23 November to 27 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte." This isn't quite right, is it? Unless I've misread the linked articles, the attempted coup begins on 23 November in Rio Grande do Norte, but giving a range of five days as you do must refer to Recife and Rio de Janeiro as well; the way you have it, those events "followed" those in Natal but the reader can't see that the dates you give refer to them. The events in Natal, Recife, and Rio were interconnected. They were all the same revolt, just in different locations and varying in size. It is worded this way because the revolts began in Natal. The communist insurrection wasn't limited to only Natal, which is why the sentence is worded as "began in Rio Grande do Norte." I see that, but I think this doesn't say what you want it to. How about: "On 23 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte, and over the next four days the movement spread to Recife and Rio de Janeiro. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until it was defeated. The army's response in Rio de Janeiro was especially bloody..."? That makes it clear that the 23 November date applies only to Rio Grande do Norte, but that the movement is the same coup attempt in all three places. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Reworded it a bit, but retained the general idea. "From 23 November to 27 November 1935, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until it was defeated. The movement proceeded in Recife and Rio de Janeiro, where the encounters between troops were especially bloody and several people died." I wouldn't oppose over this since it's a minor issue of wording, but I'm going to leave the point unstruck since I think the meaning of the range of dates could be clearer to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Do you believe it should be "over the next four days" or something else? What bothers me about the current wording is that something did begin on 23 to 27 November, and it did begin in Rio Grande do Norte, but it didn't begin on 23 to 27 November in Rio Grande do Norte. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC) So now I understand what you are saying. Changed to "On 23 November, a Brazilian Communist Party–backed attempted military coup began in Rio Grande do Norte. The movement proceeded in Recife and Rio de Janeiro, where the encounters between troops were especially bloody and several people died. A junta governed Rio Grande do Norte's capital, Natal, for a short period until the uprisings were defeated on 27 November." That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC) You only use the abbreviation PCB once in the article text; I was going to say it should be glossed in the text (not a footnote) but since it's only there once I'd either change it "Brazilian Communist Party" and eliminate the note, or introduce "PCB" as the abbreviation when you first mention the party. Changed to Brazilian Communist Party by itself. Note: Changed the second PCB mention to Communist Party. it is repetitive to say Brazilian Communist Party again since we are speaking about Brazil. "were oppressed under the authority of the executive branch and the procurement of the National Congress": I have a couple of concerns about this phrase. What does "oppressed under the authority of" mean? Does it just mean "oppressed by"? If so I would cut this -- you give specific details later in the paragraph so this doesn't tell the reader anything new. If you want to say that the oppression extended beyond the examples you give, it would be better to place a comment like that at the end of the examples. And what does "procurement of the National Congress" mean? Do you mean specific legislation was passed such as the creation of the TSN? Again you give examples so I'm not sure we learn anything from the sentence. The procurement of the National Congress is to say that Congress was directed to oppress the left. The sentence is to place responsibility of these actions on the executive, and the examples are elaborating on how. I think "procurement" is not going to convey that to most readers. How about "The executive branch ordered the repression of the Communist Party in particular, and the political left-wing in general, and directed Congress to do the same. Among the resulting new government bodies was the National Commission for the Repression of Communism and the National Security Tribunal, created on 24 Janujary 1936, acting... Congress also created the National Security Tribunal in 1936 to investigate..." I'd suggest "bodies" instead of "organs" because "organ" conveys the idea of speech -- e.g. Pravda was an organ of the Soviet state, but Tass was less often described that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Sure, but "Among the resulting new government bodies was the National Commission for the Repression of Communism and the National Security Tribunal, created on 24 Janujary 1936, acting..." doesn't really make sense since it sounds like the latter was the former. I have just slightly reworded placement of those bodies. Yes, better. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC) You give the names of two of the "many" government organs, but without saying anything about how they inflicted oppression -- through extralegal violence? By enforcing laws designed to criminalize political behaviour? Both? (Oversimplified here) Torture and mass imprisonment, the latter of which is already mentioned. Also, the language used does not state or imply "many." There are terrible stories of those tortured by the government, and I will try to add further information on how they inflicted oppression. I might have to go to the library for A Concise History of Brazil, though. Added an anecdote of one of the five's experiences, an example of torture and how the government attacked the opposition. I also elaborated on the purposes of the two organs. Struck. The example adds colour and makes it clear that this was a brutal era, not just one in which political freedom was limited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC) I'm a bit confused by the fact that Congress, which created these repressive organizations, was under siege in March 1936 -- surely Congress must have supported Vargas if it created those organizations? So why did it resist the police? I believe the article explains this. The police arrested a few, five to be exact, pro-ANL members of Congress, so it wasn't all of Congress the police attacked. I don't mind elaborating on this, but I'd like to know if you think it would be necessary. See above: Added information on one of the members of Congress, and also how Congress as a whole voted in favor of the government in that they removed their constitutional immunity. The details are helpful. I guess what I'm wondering about is the specific word "siege" -- it seems that Congress complied with the executive -- the vote of 190-59 is not close, and they passed the legislation they were asked to pass -- so why was a siege necessary? It sounds like the police showed up to arrest the assemblymen and Congress initially resisted, so the police laid siege to the building and Congress eventually complied. Is that right? If so I'd make it a bit more explicit to clarify that this compliant Congress briefly resisted: perhaps "In March, the police arrested five assemblymen who were...; Congress initially resisted the policy but gave the men up after a short siege" or whatever fits the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC) I have changed "under siege" to "invaded," the language of one of the sources: "Police invaded Congress in March 1936 and arrested five assemblymen who were supporters of the National Liberation Alliance, a leftist front." Your interpretation is erroneous, however (no siege and I'm sure there was no resistance), which is a fault of my writing, so I would like to ask you how you understand this now. That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC) I don't think an "anti-communist climate" can be said to violate the 1934 constitution; it presumably justified or led to actions that violated the constitution. Reworded to "The 1934 constitution essentially existed only de jure as the states of emergency and police actions violated it, supported by an anti-communist climate." "Luís Carlos Prestes assumed responsibility for the movement": for what movement? And what does it mean to say he assumed responsibility "after" he was caught? "Movement" and other loose synonyms for "revolution" and "insurrection" refer to the 1935 uprising. With the second point, I will clean that up. Changed to "Luís Carlos Prestes claimed responsibility for the insurrection..." I'm going to pause there and wait for your responses. This is quite a lot of clarification to request for two short sections. I think the problem may be that you know the material so well you don't realize what is not clear to a reader coming to these events for the first time. I haven't read through the rest; I'd like to get these points resolved and then go back through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC) Continuing the review: I'd suggest dropping the link from order and progress in the BIA box; it only links to an article on the flag. A red link would be better, if there's a suitable target. Unlinked. I don't think a red link is necessary for this, and there is no suitable target. "However, the president's 1937 New Year's Address, which declared a "free and healthy atmosphere" for elections, was facing roadblocks. Across the world, war threatened Europe. At home, the states had new difficulties; the military wanted intervention, and the far-right was becoming militant." It wasn't the address that faced roadblocks, was it? Surely the Brazilian state was facing roadblocks? And a roadblock implies a direct obstacle to progress in a specific direction; I think something like "difficulties" or "threats" might work better. And can we say what "wanted intervention" means? You've already mentioned speculation about a self-coup, so is this a reference to military support for that? If so I'd be more direct about it. So, with the way the source presents the information, I can only deduce that the intervention is referring to the states. Revised: "However, a "free and healthy atmosphere" for elections, declared in the president's 1937 New Year's Address, was facing difficulties. Across the world, war] threatened Europe. At home, the states had new difficulties, the military was pressuring for intervention in them, and the far-right was becoming militant." "With that, political debates..." I don't know what "With that" means -- these are positive events but we've just mentioned roadblocks/difficulties/threats. Changed to "With the presidential elections". The states of emergency began in 1935, and I think it would be good to move part of this sentence up to the prior section. You mention the states of emergency there without giving the details you do here, so if you put some of this material before the sentence starting "The 1934 constitution essentially existed...", then here you'd only need to add "In early 1937 [or whenever the date is] Congress finally refused a request to prolong the state of emergency that had originally been declared in 1935". I divided it into both sections. The date of the declaration and the extensions are detailed in the communist insurrection section, while the end of the emergency is mentioned in Speculation and influential factors. I think that works well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC) Is the observer close to the government someone whose opinion was known to Vargas at the time, and who may have influenced Vargas? Or is this a comment from a contemporary which illuminates how the government saw the situation but which had no effect on events? I would presume the latter, but I would need to check the source. I hope you don't mind leaving this comment unmarked and moving on until I am able to get the source. No problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC) So, I have changed the sentence to match the original language of the source (not encroaching on close paraphrasing) but I am afraid it might not clarify it enough. Being that it was "government circles," one could deduce this might have meant higher-ups like Dutra, Monteiro, or Müller, but maybe not Vargas himself. If the observer is unnamed, probably too unimportant to mention, then this is probably the right conclusion. If that isn't enough, I think I will omit that detail next because there is nothing more to add here. I think I'd omit it. Without knowing whether this opinion was known or influential at the time I don't think the reader gains much from it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC) I hope this isn't a stretch, but I have replaced it with "and it seemed Brazil was at risk..." I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Nazi and fascist states in Europe influenced some officers, and others by Integralism, such as Integralist General Newton Cavalcanti" This is a mixture of active and passive which doesn't work grammatically. Changed to "Nazi and fascist states in Europe influenced some officers. Others were affected by Integralism, such as Integralist General Newton Cavalcanti" I tweaked this a bit for rhythm and to avoid too many consecutive short sentences, which can sound staccato. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC) "He did not appear as an official candidate": this seems odd -- Almeida is supported by the Vargas government, according to the previous paragraph. What happened? It's saying his positions and actions make him seem like an opposition candidate and he doesn't possess the characteristics of a government one. Changed to "He did not appear as if he was an official candidate..." "Through 1937, the federal government interfered in different states to "nip any possible regional difficulties in the bud".[38] Vargas ordered more frequent interventions in the states, including Mato Grosso and Maranhão." Are these sentence saying essentially the same thing? If so I would combine them; it feels repetitive. Perhaps 'Through 1937, Vargas and the federal government interfered more frequently in different states, including Mato Grosso and Maranhão, to "nip any possible regional difficulties in the bud"'. They almost are, but I have reworded the first sentence and combined the second and third sentences in the paragraph: "Through 1937, the federal government looked to resolve regional difficulties. Vargas ordered more frequent interventions in the states, including Mato Grosso and Maranhão, the latter of which had its opposition impeached its pro-Vargas governor in Maranhão." I also paraphrased that quote because, though I don't have the source in front of me, I believe that statement was made by the authors and not the federal government, which this might imply. "now found Vargas running against him": Vargas was running for governor of Rio Grande do Sul? That seems odd enough to be explicit about it (and I assume this could only happen because Vargas was not a candidate for president because of the constitutional restriction). Could we do "who had been against the president, was running for re-election, and now found Vargas running against him as a candidate for the governorship". Then we could cut "for the state assembly" from the next sentence. I meant this figuratively. I laughed audibly because this interpretation is wrong on so many levels and it is completely my fault. Changed to "The intervenor and governor of Rio Grande do Sul, Flores da Cunha [pt], who had been against the president, now found Vargas trying to circumscribe his power. The president increased the power of the federal military commander in Rio Grande do Sul in his attempt to contest Cunha's armed strength. Vargas also decreed a state of siege by a decree in April to attack the governor..." Is Lima Cavalcanti worth a red link? Yes. Linked. Stopping there for now; will try to do more tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Arbitrary break More: "...trying to circumscribe his power. The president increased the power of..." Can we avoid the repetition of "power" here? Changed the first to "influence". See below "The planning of what would become the Estado Novo (New State) grew because of Cunha": I don't think "grew" is the right word here -- perhaps "began"? Can we join this with the second sentence, and name the agent here rather than use the passive, like so: "Vargas's need to remove Cunha from power paved the way for the cancellation of elections, and the nullification of the federal system, and led to the planning of a new constitution and what would become the Estado Novo (New State)"? Changed to your sentence. I think "isolate" might be better than "segregate" in that same paragraph; "isolate" has more directly military connotations. Changed to isolate. "With the accession of Góis Monteiro [pt] to Army Chief of Staff in July 1937 and the removal of opposing officers in command, Vargas now needed to either act or be deposed." If I understand this correctly, the point being made here is that since Monteiro is sympathetic, and opposing officers are gone, Vargas now is able to act, and if he waits, the coming election will depose him, so now is the time to act. If that's right, then I think this could be clearer -- it took me a second to realize that "now needed to act" was not a question of urgency because the removal of officers placed pressure on Vargas. Perhaps "With the accession of Góis Monteiro, a Vargas ally, to Army Chief of Staff in July 1937, and the removal of opposing officers in command, Vargas now was able to act [or had freedom to act] before the elections in November dovember would unseat him". The point of this is that Vargas is now in a situation where he needs to act, i.e. support the military mindset, or be forced out by the military, nothing has to do with elections. Changed to ", Vargas was under increased military pressure to either act or be deposed." By the way, elections were set for January 1938. I hadn't realized that the military were considering deposing Vargas. Why? I assumed that Vargas was one of "the coup's organizers", but if there's evidence that some of the organizers viewed Vargas only as one of multiple options I think that should be clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC) A military figure once said "O Golpe do Estado Novo viria com Getúlio, sem Getúlio, ou contra Getúlio," or the coup of the Estado Novo will come with Getúlio, without Getúlio, or against Getúlio. Sadly, I don't have the source and can't put this detail in the article (it's from the pt.wikipedia article and I don't have the source to confirm this is legitimate). That is why from the beginning of the article, with the now-removed comment of Monteiro, until now I have been trying to build the (real) idea that the Armed Forces are the orchestrators of this coup, and Vargas is alongside them. The Armed Forces are the final arbiter in all these scenarios, from 1889 to 1930 to 37 to 45 to the mid-50s to the lead-up of and aftermath of 64 and then to 2021, which even Oliveria recognized in his pleas to the military before and after the coup. I hope this isn't confusing. So, anyway, I have changed it to ", Vargas was under increased military pressure to either act in favor of them or be deposed." I won't have time to reply to most points till tomorrow, but a quick note: I searched Google Books for the Portuguese phrase you quote, and it gave me a page showing footnote 16 to chapter 27 of Redentor: A biografia do Cristo de braços abertos, ilustre morador do Corcovado, orgulho do Brasil, maravilha do mundo, by Rodrigo Alvarez, 2021, which (via Google Translate) I was able to see confirms the phrase. If that's a reliable source, would that do? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC) That is not the source used on pt.wikipedia, but if you say it has the quote, it will do just fine. It is a great addition to this, too. I will look into the title and add it soon, let me just finish up the few other comments left right now. Update: So it seems that source references the pt source, Artes da política: diálogo com Amaral Peixoto. After a brief search, I found it here] on the Getulio Vargas Foundation website. Unfortunately, no source, the pt.wikipedia nor the book you found, contains the page. I will look for the statement in the book tomorrow. So, I found the page (136). However, it is talking about the 27 September meeting and wouldn't really fit or clarify anything in this paragraph. I'm not sure I follow -- the page I found has the actual quote on, and specifically ascribes it to Amaral Peixoto. If you couldn't get that to appear in Google Books I can send you a screenshot. Wouldn't that be enough to use the quote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC) If you wouldn't mind sending a screenshot with the page, that would be enough. Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Added the quote. I think "stepped" is not a very natural verb. I'd go with moved; or if the point is that the took many individual steps, make it something like "The government repeatedly took steps towards a more authoritarian rule, despite..." Changed to "went". "The official start of the coup's planning began on 18 September 1937": "start" and "begin" aren't both needed. Changed began to "was" 'writing about a "risk to life itself", he regained his sense of adventure as shown by his diary' -- I don't follow this. He diary shows he gains his sense of adventure and writes about a "risk to life itself". Given the context of a military coup, I think the readers could deduce why Vargas is adventurous all of a sudden. If they don't, then at least they know that Vargas is adventurous for something, and that should be enough to set the stage for what is about to come. I think I follow now -- he is at risk of being deposed, and is adventurous enough to plan to take power himself. If that's right, part of the reason I hadn't followed it was that I hadn't realized the military were considering deposing him. Once the point above about clarifying that is resolved I'll come back to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) I'm just removing this outright because I can neither explain it further nor risk someone getting the wrong idea from it (sorry). Why might Filho allow himself to be caught forging the uprising plan? I am not sure if you'd like to see this, but a Brazilian historian on YouTube made a funny reenactment of the events. You might not know Portuguese, but the actions should be self-explanatory (Filho is drafting the plan on his typewriter). 0:24 to 1:26 here if you would like to understand this event. That doesn't solve the issue in the article, though. I thought it was self-explanatory, that he wanted his superiors to get hold of it, but the source restrains me from expanding on this, so I have removed it all together. Struck, since you've removed it, but I did watch the opening of the video and it's a pity you had to cut it. I looked again at the text you cut, and I think the problem is that if he's "caught", even if he arranges for that to happen, that doesn't imply that the people who catch him are aware of his intentions and know what to do. If they were directly in collusion, it would seem easier to just type up the plan and hand it over for propaganda use. Or is the point that being caught allows him to later claim that he knew all along it was just a theoretical document? I'm not clear why he would think he needed a cover story like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) They weren't aware, I believe, but even so seeing this "bloodthirsty" communist document detailing a violent revolution, anyone would be freaked out. The story of the Cohen Plan deserves its own article (The pt.wikipedia has a good one, featured even). But the details are too many to lay out here, sadly. "This would be publicized in an AIB bulletin,[b] describing how the insurrection would go down and how the Integralists would react to it." I"m not clear if this is continuing the previous sentence, meaning that this is part of the captain's explanation of what he was doing. Changed to "This potential insurrection would then be publicized in an AIB bulletin, describing how the insurrection would go down and how the Integralists would react to it." It should also be clarified since the next sentence is a continuation of his explanation. Did you mean to strike my comment or your comment? Oops. Sorry; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Why is it relevant to mention Kun? He was never involved in South America, was he? Was he such a well-known name that the parallel would have resonated in the Brazilian press? No, but he was the namesake for the Cohen Plan and reinforces the idea it was anti-Semitic (and, obviously, anti-communist). Struck. To me it seems an odd parallel to draw, but if the sources cover this then OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC) That takes me down to the end of the September section. More probably tomorrow or Friday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC) Arbitrary break 2 More: "The aftermath of the document's revelation was severe. Almost immediately, on 1 October 1937, the petrified Congress convened": I think this could be trimmed to "On 1 October 1937, the day after the document's revelation, the petrified Congress convened..." The introductory sentence doesn't say anything we don't get from the next sentence. Changed to your sentence. "Governors headed state of war commissions to suppress the opposition in every state." This isn't true, is it? In some states the governor was barred from attending the commission's meetings. See the next sentence, saying Rio Grande do Sul and Pernambuco were notable exceptions, and Bahia is mentioned in the next paragraph (Sao Paulo was the only other exception, but it was not notable enough to include and I'd have to double check that). I see you mention exceptions, but can we avoid saying "every" if that's not the case? Just "almost every" would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Done. "At the same time, Vargas worked closely with Valadares." I think this needs more context. The only prior mention of Valadares is his involvement in the selection of Almeida as a candidate, with no explanation of who he is or what his role is. He was the governor of Minas Gerais. I will source this soon. Update: It has been added and sourced that he was Minas's governor in "Speculation and influential factors," and he is reintroduced at the end of the first paragraph in "October". "Vargas told the press Lima's visit was to ask his opinion for a substitute presidential candidate" and "Word of Lima's visit had spread": I don't follow this. The context seems to be a parenthetical clarification of the position of "both main candidates", but Lima is not named as a candidate earlier in the article, and there's no other mention of Lima visiting Vargas at this time. Or is this a reference to Lima's visits to the states of the northeast to see if they would support the coup? If so I don't understand "ask his opinion"; Lima wasn't visiting Vargas, he was visiting governors. Lima's mission is for coup support. The story of seeking a substitute candidate was to set aside press rumors. Here is the text from the source Levine (1970): "During the first week of November, word leaked out of Negrão de Lima's mission to the north. To allay rumors, Vargas told the press on an off-the-record basis that Negrão had been sent in order to sound out opinion for a substitute presidential candidate. The die was now cast." I have no idea why I used "his" instead of "the states", but it has been changed to "Vargas told the press Lima's visit was to ask the states' opinions for a substitute presidential candidate." The initial information on Almeida has also been removed to avoid potential confusion, and it doesn't contribute that much anyway. As for Caffrey's interpretation of events, this might have been my fault, but I believe the language was altered during the article's copyedit and it now conveys a different message. Caffrey's interpretation goes along with Vargas's explanation to the press, which is why I am addressing it here. It has been changed to "Vargas was unable to reach an agreement with the Bahia and Pernambuco governors for another candidate" to avoid potential confusion. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Sales sent a manifesto": I thought this might be a reference to Armando de Sales Oliveira, but it's obviously not since we get "Oliveira and Sales" in the next sentence, so I think we need to be told who this is. And we haven't mentioned Oliveira for a long time, so I would make it something like "Oliveira, the Constitutionalist Party candidate". I have no idea how in the world this happened and I can't believe I actually did that. There are many discrepancies with different English-language sources and shortening names, so there are many that refer to Oliveira as Sales. All "Sales" in the article have been changed to Oliveira, and the next sentence has been changed to Oliveira and Almeida. I'll just refer to them both as the presidential candidates since Salgado has exited. Is Fernando Costa worth a redlink? No. (Note: João Becker's redlink has been removed and redlinks have been added for Deputy Lima and General Cavalcanti) I think Costa might be worth it -- the Portuguese article seems quite substantial. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC) I was basing this on the importance of the person in this context, not article quality, but I think you're right and it has now been added. I think in general the relevance of the link to the article shouldn't matter, unless one is finding links to eliminate to avoid a sea of blue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) The end of the first paragraph of "Execution" seems to say that all intervenors were replaced with new ones, but then that most were not replaced. There are 26 states and the federal district in Brazil, the number was probably less in 1937. Not sure the exact number, but five, with Sao Paulo being reversed after thirteen days, is not most. So "new intervenors were named" means that the new government produced a new list of names of intervenors in the states, but in 20 or so of the states it was the same name as before? I took "new" to mean that it was a different person. The sentence is "In every state except Minas Gerais, where Valadares, the governor, was the politician most involved with the coup, new intervenors were named." Unless I'm still misunderstanding the intended meaning I think this should be clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Changed to "Almost every state retained their pre-coup interventors, notably Minas Gerais, where Valadares was the politician most involved with the coup. Interventors in Rio Grande do Sul, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, and Pernambuco, however, were replaced." You might notice intervenor has been changed to interventor. I thought it was a case of historians deciding to arbitrarily use Portuguese terms for some reason in their work, like "golpe," but I now realize it is an actual word. ' "a great steelworks" that was to local minerals and offer employment': something wrong here; is a verb missing? Not sure how that happened. Changed to "that was to provide local minerals" 'be of "peace, justice and work"': this is an odd use of "of"; would it be more naturally translated as "founded on" or something along those lines? Not a translation. Changed to "founded on". Looks like this change didn't get made, so I went ahead and did it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Brazil had purportedly been on the edge of a civil war." If this is in Vargas's broadcast I'd make that explicit. It's not. Actually, none of the information here is, only from secondary sources on the broadcast. Since "purportedly" means according to someone's interpretation, I think we need to make it clear whose interpretation this is. From what you say I would guess a historian is attributing this opinion to Vargas or to the coup organizers in general. Can we say something like "According to X, Brazil had purportedly been on the edge of a civil war" where X is Vargas or Campos or whatever is supported by your sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Source says that "X" is Vargas. Changed to that. "surprisingly calm at the event": is this a comment about his calmness on the day, or just at the dinner? I think it's the former, in which I'd suggest "With surprising calm, Vargas left to the Argentine Embassy for a dinner he had accepted before knowing 10 November would be the day of the coup." Calmness at the dinner. The story goes that an observer was so surprised at his calmness that he called Vargas some nickname along the lines of the coldest head of state at that time. I hope it isn't repetitive, but I just changed "event" to "dinner". Struck, but that's a nice story; can you source it well enough to put it into a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC) "Only six opposed it, including congressional president Pedro Aleixo, though Oliveira's deputies were confined incommunicado at their residences." Suggest "Only six opposed it, including congressional president Pedro Aleixo, though this count does not include Oliveira's deputies, who were confined incommunicado at their residences." Sounds a lot better. Changed. That takes me down to the end of the Execution section; I should have time to finish the review by tomorrow at the latest. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC) More: Much of the first paragraph of "A new regime" is uncited. I am unsure how this happened. When I was fielding Hurricane Noah's concerns and when I separated the sole paragraph into two, I must have brought the first's sources to the second. I have looked back and made sure those were the right sources, and it is now sourced by Levine (1970) and Bourne (1974). "what they believed to be its root issues—an absence of discipline, national pride, leadership, and belief in the parliamentary system of government." This sounds like they believe that an absence of belief in the parliamentary system of government was thought by the creators of the regime to be one of its root issues, but that doesn't seem to square with the fact that they promptly eliminated it. Would this be better as "what they believed to be its root issues—a populace that believed in the parliamentary system of government, and an absence of discipline, national pride, and leadership"? Yes, belief in the parliamentary system was considered a root issue. I have changed it to your sentence. "After a series of democratic openings toward the end of World War II, however, an increasingly uneasy military worried if Vargas would forcefully remain in power in a coup similar to the 1937 one": I think this could be clarified. It sounds as though there were steps taken towards some sort of election, and the military supported that and was concerned that Vargas would orchestrate another coup to bypass these new elections? Exactly, in an oversimplified version at least. I have changed it to "an increasingly uneasy military worried if Vargas would interrupt democracy again and forcefully remain in power in a coup similar to the 1937 one," to clarify the military was in support of democracy. Is this good now? From Caffery's version: "Vargas was unable to reach agreement over a third candidate for the Bahia and Pernaumbuco governors": I don't understand this. See the comment on Lima's visit in your previous comments. That makes sense, but it's a slightly opaque reference. Can you put in a parenthesis explaining that Caffery is referring to Lima's visits to the states? Or more accurately, he's referring to Vargas's cover story about those visits? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Done. (in reference to Vargas's cover story of Lima's visit to the Northeast); "A story attributed to Francisco Campos published in The New York Times was confirmation of a fascist organization in Brazil." Does "attributed to" mean "under the byline of"? I'd use that phrase instead, or if there's no real doubt it was written by Campos, just "by". And wouldn't it be simpler just to say "confirmed that the new government in Brazil was fascist"? It seems, looking back at the source, I got most of it wrong. It was a statement attributed to Francisco Campos, not a story, and the source says "affirming Brazil's fascist organization," so I have changed it to your sentence. Sorry about that. I took a look at the original article, since I have a subscription to the NYT. I can send it to you if you want; having read it I don't think we can say in Wikipedia's voice that it affirms fascism in Brazil. For example it says that Campos claims the new constitution "strengthens democracy". It goes on to describe some quite undemocratic provisions, but I think it would be better to attribute this to your secondary source -- Bourne or Levine or both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) If you could that'd be great. I'll take a look at it and then attribute it to whoever made that claim, probably Levine from my memory. If you email me using the "Email this user" link in the left side-bar on my user page, I'll reply with a copy of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Sent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC) So, it seems this is supported by the "US fears fascism.pdf". The first paragraph states, "The constitutional and dictatorial moves of President Getulio Vargas of Brazil have appeared upon today, upon the basis of incomplete reports, to have posed the problem of a Fascist government in this hemisphere". Well, the article still says "attributed to Francisco Campos", so that still needs to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC) I think there is some way that could be connected, but I have removed that since it doesn't explicitly say it. It also says late November, but I'll just remove it. Uh, I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I missed a footnote in the source, and apparently the NYT article was from 29 November 1937. Is there any way you could look at the newspaper that day if it's not too much? I'm not sure if you already sent it because you specified there were multiple articles in the email from the announcement of the coup, but all those are from 10 and 11 November, right? No problem; sent. It doesn't mention fascism directly, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Okay, will remove attribution to Campos. "in an attempt to distort any move to the right": suggest "limit" instead of "distort". Done. That's it for a first pass. Once these points are addressed I'll go back through and also look at the lead, which I skipped this time through. Overall I think this is pretty close; I asked for lots of little clarifications but it seems clear the material is all here and the structure is right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Second pass A couple more points from another read through (and there is just one point left from my comments above): "Communist journals in Brazil and L'Humanité in France put the number as 20,000 and 17,000, respectively, but the number is actually placed between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests": I think we should attribute the "between 5,000 and 15,000" figures. Can we say "but modern historians estimate there were" or something like that? Changed to "but historian Robert M. Levine places the number as anywhere between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests." "In June, Salgado stepped in and declared himself to be": do we need "stepped in"? He's already described as a candidate. Removed stepped in, but also minorly reworded the sentence. Not something that I think has to be fixed, but I tend to agree with FunkMonk's comment below that the quotebox isn't an ideal format for conveying information about the Integralists. I think some of the information isn't really needed in this article (e.g. green shirts, parades); some is useful context which could be integrated into the article (they were fascistic, nationalistic, and church-centered); and some seems relevant but could be a footnote (the later attempted putsch). I wouldn't let the use of the quotebox prevent me from supporting this article, but I don't think it's necessary. Now that three people have brought it up, I have removed the quotebox and retained a little information in the first paragraph of "Speculation and influential factors" after Salgado's entry. "Vargas also decreed a state of siege by a decree in April to attack the governor": repetition of "decree". Removed "decreee". I don't know how you'd do this with {{sfn}}, but we need to indicate where in Alvarez the quote is found. Can sfn include text for the pagination field? If so I'd put something like "unpaginated: footnotes to chapter 26". It looks a bit odd, but it should suffice. That's everything I can see this pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Just the issue with the NYT article and the attribution to Campos left now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. I had a lot of comments, but everything is now resolved, and I am happy to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. Appreciate the thorough review. FredModulars (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• World War II is duplinked.

• The second link has been removed.

• Not sure, but I wonder if the first two footnotes could get citations?

• I think that is really unnecessary. Nonetheless, I have sourced them.

• "The paulistas instigated a brief" A bit esoteric, explain in-text this means inhabitants of Sao Paolo?

• I'm fine doing this, but does it need to be sourced? Is this something like WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue?

I think it's fine if you explain it without citations. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Done.

@FunkMonk: Not sure if this reply was subject to oversight. FredModulars (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• "according to Vargas himself:" When did he say this?

• Sometime after the communist rebellion when Vargas and his daughter Alzira had a discussion on it. Changed to "Vargas himself commenting on the situation:"

• "put the number as 20,000 and 17,000, respectively, but the number could have been anywhere between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests." If the latter interval is supposed to be the most inclusive possibility, why is the last amount mentioned less? Who gives the lower number?

• Filinto Müller, Chief of Federal District Police during much of Vargas's time in power, put it at around 7,000, but only counting for federal arrests. The first amount is less because it was made by pro-communists and one could deduce communists would be biased towards communists and there would be more arrests by their tally. I have changed it to, "but the number is actually placed between 5,000 and 15,000 arrests," to clarify this.

• "in June, Salgado stepped in and declared he was Jesus's injunction to the electorate." Does "he" refer to himself or someone else?

• Himself. Changed to "declared himself to be" to avoid confusion.

• "following the path of Spain—destroyed by civil war." Link the war?

• Done.

• "such as Integralist General Newton Cavalcanti, were affected by Integralism" A bit redundant to present him as "Integralist" then?

• Removed "Integralist".

• "The Brazilian Integralist Action party" A bit odd to use the quotebox for what appears to be an infobox, which would make more sense as a footnote?

• I'll reiterate what I said in this article's GA review: The quotebox is to explain the AIB. The AIB had a strong influence on the military and is brought up later, such as how one of them fabricated the infamous Cohen Plan. They were, essentially, the only other major political force in this constitutional era other than the Communists and their ANL, now being oppressed by the government and already given attention to in the previous section. So, I think it's important their role be addressed at the least and stressed at the most. This can't be done in either an infobox or footnote.

I wonder if there are other templates that could be used, my issue is mainly that it is specifically a quotebox, which has a specific purpose, and its design (if recognised from other aticles) may confuse readers as to what the text is. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure. I got the idea of using a quotebox to explain the AIB from the article Revolt of the Lash#Mutiny. I think the distinction from other cases is clear since here it has a title (in most other circumstances I have seen only the quote) and the text is not attributed. I think neither an infobox nor a footnote would be appropriate here.

So, now that three people have brought it up, I have removed the quotebox and incorporated some of its text into the first paragraph of Speculation and influential factors after Salgado's entry.

• "had its opposition impeached its pro-Vargas governor in Maranhão" Impeach?

• I'm not sure if you don't understand the statement or are pointing out the incorrect verb tense. I believe it's the latter, so I've changed it to "impeach."

The tense. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• "considers the document was "a blatant forgery"" Don't think "was" is needed, or would be less jarring as "to have been".

• Changed to "to have been".

• Link Cohen (surname)?

• Done.

• "It reads: "New Sstate" An s too many?

• Yeah, my keyboard has problems with some keys. Fixed.

• A minister of justice is mentioned a few times, any reason why we don't get a name?

  His name is mentioned in a footnote at the end of "November".

Any reason why he can't be named in-text? FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added his name.

• "the former the seat of the Senate" Seems the second "the" is redundant.

  Removed.

• "later being exiled in 1938" To where?

  Added.

• Perhaps it could be stated under aftermath when Brazil returned to democracy?

  It is? The last paragraph of a new regime summarizes Vargas's fall and the subsequent election of Dutra.

But it "ends" with his return and suicide, what happened after? Doens't have to go into detail, but I am left wondering whether he was replaced by another dictatorship or democracy. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

(Spoilers) The political crisis would turn into a presidential coup if not for his suicide, postponing that for 10 years until the 1964 coup installed the Military dictatorship in Brazil. This new information would be drifting too far away from the 1937 coup and is unrelated to the subject itself or its aftermath.

Hmmm, but since the subject has consequences for the overall history of Brazilian democracy vs dictatorships, I'd think it warrants at least a footnote? At least a short acknowledgment that this wasn't the end of dictatorship in Brazil or similar. FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I know my addition is extremely short ("The government was overthrown again in 1964, ushering in a period of military rule."), but I think it conveys this idea.

• "condemned the neutrality of the United States Department of State" But were there any official US response? And did the "neutrality" have anything to do with American anti-Communism, as has been the case when it came to many other right-wing dictatorahips?

  "other right-wing dictatorahips" the Estado Novo cannot be classified entirely as "right-wing". I added a quote from a primary source which should help.

• "The German Propaganda Minister" Name him?

  Done. Already mentioned in the source.

• "Brazil's foreign minister" Name him?

  Done.

• "but his close friend in Washington, D.C., Sumner Welles" What was his occupation?

  Added.

• "European fascists were the only ones expressing supportive opinions." Including Portuguese? Would be interesting to hear the Portuguese reactions specifically, for obvious reasons.

  So, I have checked sources that would probably talk about this and went on the Portuguese Ministry of External Relations website. There is nothing, and a search online doesn't speak on their reaction to the coup.

• "having his state's militia be incorporated" I think "be" is unnecessary.

  Removed.

• "the new regime, the Estado Novo." Translate in parenthesis, as you do in the article body?

  Done.

• The intro could mention how long the new government stayed in power.

  Done.

• Support - interesting subject I knew little about, but the article explains it well. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, FunkMonk. Appreciate the comments and the review. FredModulars (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: I'm not sure if this is how I should ask the question, but with 3 general reviews (all supporting) and passed image and source reviews, is there anything left for this candidate to be promoted or to be considered as having consensus? Thanks. FredModulars (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Fred, I happened to see in the edit history that you had to fix the ping, so it won't have worked -- pings only work if you add them in the same edit as a signature, and you signed in one edit and fixed the ping in the next edit. I'm not a coordinator, but I can answer the question for you, having seen the question answered many times before -- with three supporting reviews and having passed image and source reviews, and no substantial opposes, you just have to wait until a coordinator has time to review and decide if they think more reviews are needed. The nomination is in no danger of getting archived, so you can feel free to start working on your next FAC... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thank you very much for the reply. I'm new to this process, so I just wanted to inquire if anything else was needed because I can't seem to find anything explicitly mentioning this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Thanks for clearing that up, I really appreciate it. FredModulars (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 06:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 December 2021 [34].

---

Croatian Spring

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a period in history of Yugoslavia and Croatia marked by a peak in a wider and longer-lasting conflict between centralisation and decentralisation of Yugoslavia. The period saw a rise in Croatian national sentiment and nationalist forces framing their objectives around economic issues of (de)centralisation. At the same time, those advocating decentralisation embraced (to a degree) support from the nationalists. Actions of the leadership of the Socialist Republic of Croatia drew response from Croatian Serbs and caused ethnic tensions. The period ended when the Croatian leadership was removed from power following an intervention by Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito. Croatian Spring and associated events had a significant impact on the final years of Yugoslavia. Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Looks pretty solid. I copyedited the article several months ago and it looks like it's improved since then. I may have more to say later. (t · c) buidhe 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map
• File:Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg: the given source doesn't seem to match up with this image. When and where was this first published?
• File:Deklaracija.jpg: the Croatian tag wouldn't cover the artwork in the middle of the page, and it's unclear why PD-self would apply
• File:Savka_Dabcevic_Kucar.jpg is tagged as lacking description
• File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Dolazak_Hrvata_na_Jadran.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Franjo_Tudjman.jpg, File:Milka_Planinc.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I plan to quickly fix those images that are comparably simple to get in order and (temporarily) remove others until issues concerning them can be addressed. I need some feedback though for a couple of them:

(1) Would it be better to cut out just the non-PD artwork from the Deklaracija.jpg and keep the rest of the page in the image or cut the image in such way that only the relevant article and newspaper title are in it? Apparently the artwork is not a part of the article.

If that is possible that would fix the Croatian tag issue. The PD-self issue is still a question. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly possible. I believe the uploader misunderstood the "self-made" work as referring to the uploaded file. I see no other reasonable explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(2) Oton Ivekovic...jpg has in its description the year of publication of 1905 and according to the Croatia PD notice works of known authors who died before 1949 became PD in 1999 (i.e. after 50 years). Iveković died in 1939, so the 50-year period expired on 1 Jan 1990 or at least on 1 Jan 1992 after the 1991 Croatian Copyright Act came into effect - in time not to be covered by 1 Jan 1996 URAA application. I see the commons page has the two PD tags and 1905 date, so I'm not sure what else needs be added in that case. Could you please advise?

Is 1905 the year of publication, or the year of creation? If the former, in which country was this published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That's year of creation (in Austria-Hungary at the time). In 1905-1908 Iveković worked as an art teacher in a Zagreb high school and then moved on to lecture at the Art Academy of the Zagreb University, and it is reasonable to assume the work was created and first exhibited in Zagreb considering his academic position. Since it is an oil on canvas, what would constitute its publication?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Under US law exhibition alone does not constitute publication - there's an explanation here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh thanks, that clears up things a bit. If I understand correctly Circular 1 referred to in the document you pointed out, specifically "How Long Does Copyright Last?" on p.4, a non-published, non-pseudonymous/anonymous, not-made-for-hire work receives US copyright protection for a period of author's life plus seventy years. Pseudonymous/anonymous or works-for-hire receive 95 years protection starting from publication or 120 years protection from creation (whichever is shorter) in the US, but this is not such work since author is known and the work was not commissioned. If I got everything correctly, that would make this particular work US-PD since 1 Jan 2010 because Iveković died in 1939. (Under Yugoslav copyright law, the copyright expired after life+fifty years so the work became PD on 1 Jan 1990 in Yugoslavia.)--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this work non-published? What is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what instances of (presumably lawful only) publication can be found. I have no idea right now - not even sure how would any successor to the copyright go about it in communist Yugoslavia. Perhaps they published in the West. I'll get back to you on that one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to check - I should be looking for an exhibition catalog or an art review containing a reproduction/photo of the painting, right?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I did some more digging: According to Circular 40 publication of a work of art is achieved only when multiple reproductions are created and publicly distributed. While the particular painting (and others of similar topics by Iveković) were likely reproduced in late 1960s and early 1970s due to their popularity, I'm not aware of any participation of Iveković's heirs in that, none of it has any impact under Article 103(a) of USC Copyright Law or Article 3 of Croatian Copyright Act unless done lawfully, i.e. with consent of the copyright holder. Considering the Circular 40, that would mean the work of art is unpublished unless demonstrated otherwise - and I can find no evidence of any lawful publication. Consequently, per Cicular 1, the work became PD on 1 January 2010 under the US law (and 20 years earlier per Yugoslav copyright law).--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(3) Aleksandar_Ranković_(1).jpg is a better quality version of a PD image - I've updated the Commons info in that case. Could you please take another look at that one?

That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to others shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaced Tuđman image with a different one of him. While I'm convinced the photo in the JNA uniform was taken pre-1967, I'm unable to reliably determine if it was published at all. Until this changes, another image will do, I trust. Also replaced Planinc image with image of the monument/bust in Metković since it is explicitly mentioned in the prose. Moreover, after some searching of images of Milka Planinca, I'd say the image previously used in the article was taken in 1980s and could not have been PD - although I could not reliably determine its publication date.

I'll fix the Deklaracija image (under 1 above) (by cropping) and Savka Dabčević-Kučar description shortly (after some more googling it) and get back to you.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Cropped the Deklaracija image. I have also located another image [35] which I'd love to use instead of the existing image of Dabčević-Kučar. I spotted it in this [36] newspaper article, and if its caption is right, it was taken in 1969 or 1970, but I have not been able to find its publication date yet, but I'm working on that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a brief description of Dabčević-Kučar image for now. My local library does not have a copy of the above book so I'll see if I can get a Zagreb-based editor to check that source. I'll wait for the the verification before swapping the images of course.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  If File:Oton_Ivekovic,_Dolazak_Hrvata_na_Jadran.jpg is unpublished as discussed above, its current tagging is incorrect. Also unclear why File:Franjotudjman.jpg is believed to be a US government work - the source seems to indicate it is a press image. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, Gog the Mild, I have removed the two images altogether. They're not really necessary for better understanding of the article anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This is 18 days in and showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this changes considerably by hte three-week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild we don't really have a lack of consensus, we have a lack of interest, because only images were reviewed so far, nothing else. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This is true, but as a coordinator I can't archive a nomination for lack of interest/reviews. I can archive for "consensus for promotion has not been reached". I accept that this is frequently a matter of semantics. You could try sending neutrally phrased requests for reviews to anyone whom you think may be interested in the topic or to editors whose nominations you have previously reviewed (and so may be sympathetic), but I suspect that this may be a little late for this nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no harm done I suppose - if there's no interest, there's no helping it. I was hoping for feedback on how to improve the article some more, so that's a bit disappointing. At least image licensing was sorted out thanks to Nikkimaria's comments.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I hope you re-nominate the article in two weeks. Sometimes when it gets bogged down in image review, people are less likely to comment. This is an important topic so it should get its fair share of reviewer attention. Unfortunately, I do not have time to review right now. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from SnowFire

Nice work, looks overall solid to me.

"The complaints initially concerned economic issues such as the retention in Croatia of a higher proportion of hard currency earnings by companies based in Croatia rather than their remittance to the federal government."

In general, I'm quite sympathetic to using technical language in technical topics, but if there's one area to ELI5 it, it's the lede section. Also, this is really describing a proposed policy change (keep more cash here), not a "complaint" directly. Maybe something like "Complaints initially concerned economic nationalism. The reformists wished to reduce transfers of hard currency to the federal government by companies based in Croatia."?

Good point. I revised this along the lines suggested. Actually this is very helpful advice - I'll make sure to look out for that in other articles too. --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

While the Slovenes advocated in favour of the People's Republic of Slovenia—a constituent republic of Yugoslavia—the Serbs sought to preserve the central government's monopoly on decision-making and the distribution of tax revenue to less-developed republics, including the People's Republic of Serbia.

"Advocated in favour of" is a bit vague (maybe increased centralization would be good for Slovenia, from some perspectives!). They were specifically advocating for more devolved powers, right? Also, is this saying that Serbia was economically backward in this era? Say so outright if so. (Although it's a little surprising since other sections talk about the banks from Belgrade being rich & powerful & expanding.) "The Slovene delegation advocated for devolving power and authority to the constituent republics. The Serbs sought to preserve the central government's monopoly on decision-making and the distribution of tax revenue to economically lagging republics; this would benefit the People's Republic of Serbia."?

True, the financial power of Belgrade-based banks in the 1960s was disproportionate to the "average" level of development of Serbia for two reasons. Most importantly, the most powerful banks had little to do with Serbia directly. Those were federal banks authorised to handle all of Yugoslavia foreign payments and foreign credit as well as distribute certain federal funds protected from competition by law. They were based in Belgrade since it was the capital of Yugoslavia. As far as the level of development is concerned, Slovenia and Croatia were most developed Yugoslav republics in 1945 (in terms of GDP per capita and most other economic indicators) and the gap from the least developed areas only increased throughout the following four and a half decades. I have tweaked the above sentences along the suggested lines, but I'm wondering if other readers will conclude that the banks being based in Belgrade means "Serbian bank", so I tweaked that bit in "Grieavances" to make it clearer. The other reason for the disproportion was, of course, that Serbia was never uniformly developed with Vojvodina and Belgrade itself being considerably ahead of other areas in Serbia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

She attributed this to years of economic austerity, political repression, unsuccessful investments in underdeveloped regions, broken promises, and to a form of protest against the dominant role of federal officials who were generally considered in Croatia to represent Serbia's interests.

Okay, but is Batjer actually correct on anything here to be an authority worth citing? Economic austerity might make people unhappy, but why would it spark nationalism? (Catalonia is arguably one of the most prosperous regions of Spain, the Basque Country one of the poorer regions, and yet both are pretty separatist, for one example.) For that matter, shouldn't political repression have reduced nationalism? Considering what happened after the repression stopped, with an explosion of nationalism and separatism.... Every government everywhere has "broken promises" and bad investments, the causal link to increased nationalism isn't obvious at all. The one thing that does link up is anger at officials perceived to represent Serbia's interests. I don't want to misrepresent Batjer's views, she was on the ground and I wasn't, but... eh. (Feel free to say I'm wrong and Batjer was probably right, just raising the issue - I'd be okay with citing Batjer just for the increase in Croatian nationalism and skipping her diagnosis of the reason behind the rise myself.)

I see your point. I agree it is difficult to determine if Batjer was right or wrong (and by how much). However, I still wanted to include her view, and clearly say it was hers, as a non-casual observer on the ground at the time whose reports were likely read by governments abroad. I think nationalism was always present (at least it was in a considerable measure since at least 1920s) and disappointment with austeriy measures/broken promises is easily channelled to nationalist goals if there's someone to blame: in Yugoslavia/Slovenia/Croatia it was the "Serb-dominated federal government" and there was no shortage of officials/public persons with access to media to make this claim publicly. I doubt that anyone read a taxation reform proposal and went on to become a die-hard nationalist that afternoon, but if one reads about being economically exploited as a group (or as a nation) in media constantly for few years, they'd probably be more likely to listen to a nationalist speech blaming a particular nation for all ills thinking "this makes sense". All this being said, I don't think Batjer's diagnosis actually adds much to the article: I'd say everything included in the "diagnosis" is already represented in some form elsewhere in the article, so the "diagnosis" may well go.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The SKJ discussed the failures and blamed the Serbian leadership for resistance to the reforms.

Is the discussion really that relevant? If so, keep as is, but otherwise, "Reformists in the SKJ blamed Serbian members of the leadership." or the like.

You're right. Edited accordingly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The June 1968 Belgrade student demonstrations erupted against authoritarian aspects of the Yugoslav regime

I have to ask since the timing is so close - was this inspired / related at all to May 68 in France? Or just a coincidence? (Maybe off-topic since this is happening in Serbia anyway.)

It appears from Madigan Fichter, Student Rebellion in Belgrade, Zagreb, and Sarajevo in 1968, [37] that it would be fair to say that the students drew inspiration about the method of fight/tactics, and organisational structure from May 68, and the article cites examples of use of same slogans as used by students elsewhere in Europe including absurd ones - for example a slogan against German publisher Springer which was not present in Yugoslavia at all. Perhaps it would be unfair to link the protests to May 68 specifically, but I added a reference to Protests of 1968.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

SKS leadership assembled around Petar Stambolić was removed on Tito's initiative for failure to prevent the demonstrations

I assume that Stambolic's "side" was the strong central government pro-communist / Praxis protesters, but you never know, sometimes people get removed just for being unlucky. Can Stambolic's affiliation be clarified? Apparently Nikezić and Perović were on the reformist side from later events, but it's not clear that Stambolic was a centralizer, so maybe this was just some chair-shuffling within the reformist faction.

Both Stambolić and Nikezić were communists - there was no other way to be in power. It is certanly true that Nikezić favoured reforms more than Stambolić. According to Miller (cited in the article now) Stambolić held views blending communist dogmatism and Serbian nationalism, while Nikezić was (as already noted) a reformist. I have added a sentence to explain this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the clarification, although now I guess we're in "be careful what you wish for" territory - the article now spends even more text on what's essentially a detour to Serbian politics. Not sure if that's easily fixable. Also, can you clarify "assembled around"? Does this mean that Stambolic was removed and the SKS leadership rallied around him anyway, or that Tito fired both Stambolic & SKS leadership allied with Stambolic? SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Edited to clarify - Stambolić and few others were sacked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, yes Stambolić affair is tangential, but the protest and consequent removal of Stabmolić led to appointment of reformist leaders in Serbia who activelly cooperated with the SKH leadership. This is significant because Serbia always played major (if not decisive) role in Yugoslavia. Not that dissimilar grievances were raised by Croatian leadership in 1990 - with two major differences: no all-powerful arbiter (Tito) and no like-minded leadership in Serbia (Milošević instead of Nikezić/Perović). I edited the paragraph a bit to shorten it - trimming off information not really contributing to understanding of the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, the situation was worsened by a genuine perception among Croatian nationalists of cultural and demographic threats to Croatia from the following policies

Apologies on this one, I am not trying to troll here or light nationalist fires, but... the word "genuine" seems a bit loaded here. They perceived these cultural and demographic threats, and this was accurate in that yes, things like Serbs intermixing in Croat lands were real threats to Croatia? I'm personally not a fan of "genuine" in that case - just stick to perception/belief. Or move the word "genuine" to the actual events that were really happening. (Cards on the table here, I'm an American, things like "This neighborhood used to be inhabited by ethnic group X, now it's inhabited by ethnic group Y, and that's terrible" aren't very convincingly a true "cultural threat".)

No apologies needed, reviews are meant to point out what's wrong. I meant to say they actually thought the threats were real, but I said it wrong. I'm not a native speaker of English, so... well, I removed "genuine".--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

" a campaign to make Croatian language more like Serbian,"

This might be an English varieties issue, but shouldn't this be "the Croatian language"? Also wasn't there officially no distinctions between Croatian & Serbian at all as far as the government was concerned in this era, i.e. they'd already shotgun marriage'd them into Serbo-Croatian, per the later section? So it'd be more like "a campaign to standardize Serbo-Croatian in a way that favored Serbian dialects", perhaps? Feel free to adjust the wording.

I have edited this sentence along the lines of your suggestion. The official position was not that there were no differences between Croatian and Serbian (omission of the noun on purpose), the dispute was if the differences were sufficient to qualify them as separate languages or not with the latter implying that there is only one standard dialect of the language. The first national authority to promote and codify the latter was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia as a means of achieving Yugoslav national unity. The project was apparently abandoned in 1945 when new Yugoslav constitution omitted naming any official language(s) even though it was read in the Parliament in four different ones when it was adopted. The Serbo-Croatian was an aspect of Yugoslavist campaign undertaken in late 1950s and early 1960s. The dictionary project was started then and Serbo-Croatian introduced in the constitution as the official language in armed forces. The Yugoslavist campaign (in political terms) was abandoned in mid-1960s, but the dictionary project went ahead. First published in 1967, it favoured Serbian expressions over Croatian ones, echoing the policy of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia on the matter defining Serbian as the standard form of Serbo-Croatian and everything else as dialects.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hrvatski tjednik [hr] (Croatian Weekly), which adopted a particularly radical editorial policy.

Radical how? "Radical" can mean a lot. I checked the Google Books preview, so maybe "Hrvatski tjednik, which enthusiastically promoted Croatian nationalism", perhaps?

Yes, that's better. Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

SKH factions

To be clear, this is not a criticism, but there's a lot of names here. I'm not sure there's any good spin-off article to stick this in, as the list of people Zanko denounced in his article is surely relevant to stick somewhere, but this article is definitely trying to give a crash course on the Sabor & the SKH leadership in two paragraphs.

Also, it might be worth discussing more explicitly Tito's role in this. In December 1969, he orders Zanko's arrest, where Zanko is a communist denouncing others for nationalism. But then he's ordering the arrest of students in December 1970 and non-communist challengers to student positions, as well as someone Zanko denounced? If Tito changed his mind and decided to support the communist faction at some point in the middle of 1970, this is surely worth talking about explicitly.

There are several points relevant for Tito's role and changes of position: (1) Žanko criticised the SKH leadership and Tito criticised him back. I think it is reasonable to assume Tito approved or otherwise accepted the recently appointed SKH leadership and he could have interpreted Žanko's words as indirectly criticising his poor judgment. If that happened, Žanko's removal would be unsurprising. Unfortunately I have no source that would allow me to write this explicitly, but it sounds reasonable. (2) Tito requested arrests of student leaders on 20 April 1971 and backed down later. The SKH adopted an action programme to combat nationalism in August (noted in the article) and discussed it with Tito in September when Tito expressed his satisfaction with the work of the SKH. (also noted in the article) (3) Brijuni Islands meeting with Brezhnev call to imply potential Soviet intervention (noted in the article). (4) There are July 1971 talks Tito held with Tripalo (noted in the article) offering him a federal government position; (5) Bugojno meeting 12-15 November where Tito is persuaded to act against the SKH (discussed in the article), and of course (6) Karađorđevo meeting on 1 December (also in the article). I wish there were more on the student arrest demands in April, but I found nothing so far. I would not expect many details on day-to-day governing by the federal government since the federal government was hardly involved in this - being the League of Communists matter and the League of Communists of Yugoslavia generally consisted of republican communist parties which largely kept away from the matter. Tito was nearly 80 years old by that point and lack of day-to-day involvement in politics does not surprise me. In addition to the above, there were state visits to USSR in September and US in October.

Fair point on Tito's age. Would it be fair to adjust the Infobox's "leadfigures2" to something like "Josip Broz Tito (December 1970 – 1971), though? It really seems like he was not actively helping the centralizing side earlier. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

He is already included in that field - although with "(from November 1971)" note. Would it really be fair to say he was helping the centralists in December 1970? I wouldn't add him to the column before the student elections (3 April 1971) or the arrest request (20 April) at the earliest. There was also his intervention against Veselica and Đodan, but that was even later - in July.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I somehow missed the "(from November 1971)" part - I'm used to seeing such dates on the same line rather than above, that's on me. Feel free to revert to the old version if you like, or keep it the changed style if Tito notably changed policy in April. SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The predominance of Serbs in these positions led to widespread calls for their replacement by Croats.

I realize that hard statistics dividing Serbs & Croats likely weren't kept in the era (nor are they clear when there's intermarriage, travel, etc.), but are there at least wild guesses as to how disproportionate Serb representation was in this kind of role? i.e. was this just nationalism (about the same proportion as Serbs in Croatia), a slight overrepresentation, or a major overrepresentation?

There are some figures available in reliable sources and I have just added them. The Croatia-specific figures actually pertain to 1980, so I did not specify exact figures because they might have been a bit different though. Army figures pertain to 1971, and civil service to 1969.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, interesting. From afar, since Tito was not a Serb and the Serb-dominated Kingdom of Yugoslavia was defeated in the civil war, I really assumed that Socialist Yugoslavia would have been far less Serb-dominated than it seems it turned out by the 60s. My only suggestion: is there really a significant digit to the tenth of a percent? I have to assume that ethnicity measuring was not a super-exact science, so maybe going with "accounting for 67% and 9% of civil servants respectively" might be more reasonable than 66.6% / 8.9%. Same with the other added figures. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Rounded off now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This decision made Dabčević-Kučar very popular in Croatia.

Wait, she defied a direct order from Tito and told people about it and wasn't removed from her position? (Well, not until another two years passed, at least.) Not sure if there's room, but that sounds like an interesting story.

True, but there's very little in terms of sources to allow such an expansion. The student body elections were in April 1971 and she was removed in early December. A similar delay may be observed in removal of Stambolić (June–November 1968). I'm not sure if that's coincidence, at least sources do not say.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Serbian philosopher Mihailo Đurić said that the constitution of Croatia only specified Croatia as the national state of Croatian nation and failed to mention Serbs. This remark sparked another series of public arguments in March 1971. The SKJ responded by bringing charges against Đurić and imprisoning him. Matica hrvatska proposed an amendment to the constitution further emphasising the national character of Croatia. The SKH dismissed the proposal and drafted its own amendment specifying that Croatia is the national state of Croatian nation, the state of Serbian nation in Croatia and the state of minorities living in Croatia

This story has some holes...? Why is a Serbian philosopher spouting Croatian nationalist lines then getting imprisoned for it - or did he mean that statement as a criticism, and that the Constitution should mention Serbs? The Mihailo Đurić article seems to imply he got imprisoned for opposing the 1971 amendments, not his statement about the existing Croatian constitution. The last sentence is very unclear, and seems to dive into linguistic quibbles that would fly over people's heads. Politically, what was the SKH pushing with this amendment? Which faction was happy? Not the extreme nationalists if Matica hrvatska's proposal was declined, but moderate Croatian nationalists? Communist centralizers? Nobody and the amendments didn't help?

As regards the Đurić remark: Yes, he meant to say it should mention Serbs in the same context as Croats. I edited the passage to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As regards Đurić's imprisonment: Ramet (2006, cited in the article) at p.239 says "The [Đurić's additions to the amendments] made explicit the rights of the Serbs in Croatia, but they also compromised the national status of the Croatian republic. Djurić's intervention was not welcome to the LCY [League of Communists of Yugoslavia] establishment, however, and he was put in prison as a result." Indeed Đurić made the remark about Croatian Constitution at the time of debate on June 1971 Amendments to the Yugoslav Constitution (later largely preserved in the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution). Republican constutions (each of six had one) were normally amended shortly after the federal constitution - and Croatian Constitution was amended in February 1972. I have edited this to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As regards who was happy with the amendments: Centralists certainly had nothing to be happy about because the 1971 amendments and a new 1974 constitution left the federal government in control of defence, foreign affairs and very little other than that. Nationalists did not get their way with the proposed amendment because the Croatian 1972 constitution introduced that complicated sentence on Croatia being the national state of Croats and state of Serbian nation in Croatia. Unsurprisingly, the sentence became very hotly debated in the run up to the Croatian War of Independence in 1990–1991 as people argued it granted the Serbs living in Croatia the right to block Croatian independence from Yugoslavia, or break away variously defined territories from Croatia, that it meant nothing at all, and several interpetations falling somewhere in between those. I have edited the passage in an attempt to clarify what was meant and that the amendment was designed as a compromise between Croatian and Croatian Serb positions. Since that particular amendment was not that significant to the (de)centralisation I'm unsure if that aspect should be emphasised here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. I suspect that the actual linguistic parsing will still fly over the heads of most people not familiar with the politics of the area, but these disputes about how exactly to phrase the status of X in Y can be very important (Filioque for one example that Catholic Croatians & Orthodox Serbs could argue about), so fair to include. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

following the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Nit: Might be worth saying "1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia" - casual readers may assume this was a contemporaneous event rather than one a few years earlier.

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Some Serbs called for the constitution of Croatia to be amended to make Croats and Serbs of Croatia equal, and create a Serb committee in the Sabor. Those ideas, as well as other forms of revanchism, were defeated by Grbić

Does this really qualify as "revanchism"? I'd think revanchism would be, say, denouncing deposed Croatian nationalists and taking their stuff. Merely asking for equality and representation sounds like something they'd ask for normally, not some special revenge for the Croatian Spring.

Oh, I meant something different and this came out wrong. Equality in terms of representation or civil rights was not the issue here. I meant to say that there were calls to redefine constitutional (political) position of Croats and Croatian Serbs (i.e. revisiting the complex sentence in the amendment debated in 1971) by Croatia being defined as the national state of the two or dropping the national adjective. I've edited this passege to clarfy.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The Croatian Spring was the most significant event in Croatia's history under Communist rule,

I think a powerful claim like this is going to require more than one citation to show it's not one eccentric academic who thinks this. Do other Croatian historians agree with Bing?

I saved this for the last to let me think some more about it while addressing other issues: While I'm confident I could turn up few more sources explicitly supporting the claim, I'm also sure I could find others disputing it. Remembering that superlatives are difficult to determine unless measurable in an objective manner (and this is not such an example), I think it should suffice to leave the second part of the sentence saying the event was significant for the entire Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Up to you on this one. As another alternative, since it is a spicy catchy line, can always attribute it - "According to historians XYZ and ABC, the Croatian Spring was the most significant event", etc. But it's certainly also powerful to just directly note its influence on the rest of Yugoslavia. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea. I'll look into further sources supporting or disputing the claim first thoguh.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Maspok: A portmanteau of masovni pokret meaning mass movement[1]

After reading through this article, was this really an accurate term? This article spends an overwhelming amount of time on political machinations in the SKH (and to a lesser extent, the SKS and SKJ), but the only time it really gets into a "mass movement" is the pro-nationalist strike in 71, and things like high rate of subscribership to nationalist newspapers I guess. Were there other "mass movementier" events happening that got glossed over? Or just that the SKH leadership was perceived as favoring decentralization precisely because of its popular support, rather than of their own initiative?

I just added a bit more on popularity of the SKH leadership to the previously existing note of a 200.000 strong rally in Zagreb by noting their rallies drew large crowds. Unfortunately the source does not specify at least approximate number of such rallies. Regarding the second part, the SKH seems to have genuinely pushed for greater decentralisation at least in the banking sector. It is pure guesswork to deduce how much of that was meant as a bargaining position considering they were removed from power.

As regards accuracy of the term maspok - multiple sources back it up. It is actually not that uncommon in Croatia. Of course "mass movement" will be fairly small in a small country.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't questioning the term, just curious if there were any mass rallies similar to the November 1971 incident. Fair enough. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Apologies in advance for any mistakes in my knowledge of Yugoslav history. A very interesting read. SnowFire (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

SnowFire thank you for taking time to review this article. I am confident it will be improved as a result of this. I think I have addressed all of the above issues in my comments here and I have edited the article in relation to most of them - noting what was edited in the comments above. Could you please have a look at the progress? Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. I made one tiny grammar edit, feel free to adjust / revert. Made a few replies above, but overall looks good, will presumably support after the last set of replies. SnowFire (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I addressed the remaining questions and commented briefly at relevant places. Could you have another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• LGTM. Support. Nice work! SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll review soon, hope it can delay archival, and give more time for other reviewers to arrive. FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• At first glance, Croatian language seems to be WP:duplinked in the intro.
• Not crucial to me personally, but it is recommended that images of people are aligned so they face towards the text rather than away from it.

FunkMonk thanks for the comments. I have removed the overlinking and moved a couple of images as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from peanut gallery: Not a big deal, but I don't agree on the Croatian language link - it's linked in the infobox once, and it was linked in the lede once, but infoboxes are explicitly separate in the Duplink guideline. So I'd argue the link in the lede should be restored, and it is not problematic. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the infobox link wasn't counted. The language is the very first link in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're getting that from, the {{lang-hr|Hrvatsko proljeće}} link that doesn't come up from CTRL-Fing the source. IMO, such links shouldn't "count" for duplinks (as they're essentially like footnotes, most readers will naturally ignore this, yet a link to Croatian language is Actually Relevant later in "content"), but this is a wider issue than just this one article, so I won't derail any further here. SnowFire (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

As another thought, perhaps the earlier link could be replaced with {{lang-hr|link=no|Hrvatsko proljeće}} to avoid the link there, and then restore the link to the later section of the lede where it is more relevant IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be far more useful to have the link at the place where readers are more likely to look for it, i.e. in the prose. However, it follows from MOS:REPEATLINK that the link should be at the first instance. MOS:LEADLANG says nothing on whether to link the term in the template or otherwise, but the example of the template used there has the link is suppressed. All in all, I have no idea if the link should be moved or not. --Tomobe03 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't say this is an issue I feel strongly about, so I'm fine with whatever outcome, but nice if the discussion can bring clarity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, apologies for derailing on a comparatively trivial issue here - took up the discussion elsewhere, we'll see if people have thoughts there, but it's fine no matter what solution is picked. SnowFire (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seems more terms in the infobox could be linked? Such as Croats and Croatian orthography?

Done. I just linked the two terms you pointed out as well as Culture of Croatia and federation --Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Give a date in the caption for the newspaper article shown in the infobox?

Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link more names and terms at first mention in image captions?

Linked as suggested. I've omitted repetitions of terms within captions though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was a federation according to its constitution" Could it be stated here, perhaps in parenthesis, what the member states were?

Added as suggessted and wikilinks to the six moved to this (now first) mention.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• There is inconsistent use of WP:engvar, with both UK and US spellings, ise/ize, while words like favour would indicate UK spelling. ize is accepted in UK English too, but then you should be consistent throughout, so the entire text should be checked for this.

I ran the Peer reviewer for this one and it found several instances -izat- and -ize- in the prose and a couple in the reference titles. I fixed the prose and left the reference titles as-is. I also checked few other typical searchable AE/BE pairings and I think this issue should be ok now. I'll re-read the entire thing though once again though after I fix other issues you raised here and get confirm here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "were inspired by the protests of 1968" You could add "worldwide".

Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The Declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language was announced in the Telegram, a contemporary literary newspaper." Give date in caption?

Added as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "to standardise the Serbo-Croatian in a way" Missing "language" after Serbo-Croatian?

Correct, un-piped a piped link left over in error.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Šegedin accused the Yugoslav government of attempting to assimilate Croatia" Assimilate into what, if it was already part of Yugoslavia?

The accusation was made about cultural assimilation. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify and linked the term there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Many people in Croatia believed these to be substantive threats intended to weaken the republic, and rejected alternate explanations of them as economic phenomena or results of modernisation." Missing "such as" before "economic phenomena"? Or does the current wording convey the intended meaning?

I edited the relevant sentence to clarify. What is meant that the changes were explained (by some/a minorty) as economic phenomena and/or results of modernisation, but most people believed otherwise. Could you please take a look at the revised wording to see if it is any clearer?

Clearer, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Within days, there were also several denunciations of the declaration on the Name and Status of the Croatian Literary Language from the SKJ within days." Starts and ends with "within days".

True. Removed (the first) one as redundant.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The works of Oton Iveković (Arrival of Croats to the Adriatic Sea depicted) gained popularity during the Croatian Spring." Give date for the artwork for context?

Specified in the caption now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Oton Iveković's paintings, depicting events from the national history, became very popular." Likewise, could give a rough time ran e of when these were from.

I have given years of birth and death for Iveković as relatively simple to implement. Most such works he produced in 1900–1910 but there are also his earlier and later such works. This particular one is from 1905. I have provided a reference (Batović, 2007, p.162 for the date range, but it also supports the year of the work (shown in the caption, see above).--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and outnumbered the Yugoslav flag by ten to one" Where, in what context?

It is meant to say that on average or overall there were ten times as many flags of the Socialist Republic of Croatia flown in Croatia at the time than the federal Yugoslav flag. The flag usage laws at the time required government institutions to fly three flags on bank holidays (Yugoslav, republican (Croatian in Croatia), and the flag of the League of Communists), but in civilian use (including the use by state-owned shops etc.) it was also possible to fly one flag - Yugoslav or Croatian, and the bulk of these in Croatia were Croatian and not Yugoslav. I have edited the relevant sentence to clarify.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• One thing that I'm left wondering is when and by who the term "Croatian Spring" was coined? During the events, or retroactively?

Good point. I have added now a short passage on the matter. Unfortunately it appears impossible to trace the term to a particular person - other than to say it was preferred by those took a favourable view of the events, while the opposite is true for "maspok". Could you take a look at this please?--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "predominantly ijekavian, or an ekavian-ijekavian blend, to predominantly ekavian" Should such names be capitalised?

True. Fixed now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "was the state of Serbian nation living in Croatia" A bit oddly worded? But not sure what the alternative should be.

I'm afraid there's no obvious way of helping there. The matter concerned precisely the convoluted wording of the amendment and the definition it contained. The specific wording, being differentiated by addition of the word "national" and specifying it refers to Serbs "living in Croatia" and implicitly not to others living elsewhere became a legal issue in the run-up to the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990s. SnowFire already touched upon this in their review comparing the matter to Filioque - certain to be too technical for some readers, but the point of the issue is this "technicality". I have tried to clarify the issue then, but at one point it is impossible to further clarify without a broader explanation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have rephrased the relevant passage, hopefully making it clearer. FunkMonk, could you please take another look?--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Were anyone killed during these events?

There appears no verifiable information linking any fatalities directly to the events - a least to the time frame until 1 December 1971. There is some information of few civilians taking up arms, but it appears nothing specific came from that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps add a trantlation of the titke Lijepa naša domovino?

That's certainly possible, but the term is wikilinked to the anthem's own article. I'm not sure if the translation would be useful for understanding of this article either. Should there be a translation?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "this led to a month of skirmishes" Perhaps add "deadly" if people were killed during them?

Added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Any word on how this influenced the later Balkan wars? Mention the Croatian War of Independence?

As far as I can tell from the sources used in the article, not directly. It played a role in weakening the federal power or at least co-existed with the same political powers that contributed to greater decentralisation of Yugoslavia, replacement of one set of political figures with others etc. Some Croatian Spring figures took up politics again in the run up to the Croatia's independence too. Both these aspects are included in the article, and there does not appear to be anything reliably sourced beyond this.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure, but is it worth mentioning that Tito himself was from Croatia? One might think this could have had an effect on non-Croats in Yugoslavia?

I added a Ramet's remark saying that Tito became the ultimate arbiter in disputes not otherwise resolved by the republics. There was, actually still is, a perception among a certain share of population (I have no idea about exact proportion) of Tito pushing anti-Croatian agenda among the Croats, and anti-Serbian agenda among the Serbs. I did not get the feeling this had anything to do with the place of birth, but with perceived preference/disliking/hatred/etc. for the particular ethnic group. I could look up if there is a published work on the topic, but wouldn't that be slightly off-topic?--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is anything relevant to this particular subject, otherwise probably not. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The Croatian Spring as the term was" A bit oddly worded, perhaps say "the term Croatian spring was"?

Amended as suggested.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think the article looks really good now, and didn't encounter more Engvar issues. FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spot checks not done but the source formatting seems consistent. The accusations of historical revisionism in Ivo Banac make me wonder if we can use him as a source. Antun Vujić was apparently involved in the events and the sentences cited to him seems like they might need a more neutral source. A bit the same question for Latinka Perović. Most of the sources look reliable but there are Croatian institutes cited where I don't know enough to judge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at this. Regarding your concerns:

• Perović is cited only once, to back up a claim in the prose attributed to her specifically (on her opinion when the Croatian Spring started). I believe this is appropriate use of the source.
• Vujić is referenced only once to back up use of the term "Croatian silence" for the period after the Croatian Spring. I believe this is quite non-controversial. If you prefer, I can look up an additional source to back this up.

  Yeah, I would prefer since the source currently also supports lasting until the late 1980s, during which the public kept its distance from the unpopular imposed authorities which is quite a bit more than just a name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Added - Haug at p.260 (already used in the article and available through google books) supports the same claim. Left Vujić too to verify Croatian term too.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• As far as Banac is concerned, the referenced web article in Ivo Banac says that its contents are taken from Požega Diocese website "retelling" (as stated explicitly in the cited source) Banac's words. The report takes issue with the fact that Banac did not speak about atrocities committed by the NDH. I would trust that claim much more if it was reporting directly rather what another source said - which may or may not have omitted a part of the lecture. For what it's worth, I would not be surprised if it were omitted from any retelling of the lecture. Specifically, there is a reference to pre-modern "ustaštvo" (meaning insurgents, rebels, outlaws etc in pre-modern context), than reported silence on NDH and then talk about damage from communist regime. I cannot say what was said there, but it appears that something is missing. I'm certain there would be another source claiming his revisionism other than Požega Diocese.
• Another point raised by the wikipedia article on Ivo Banac is misrepresented by omission. It says "Banac also blamed World War II in Yugoslavia on the King Alexander dictatorship and stated that Communism caused much greater damage than fascism" where the source says "...naglasivši da je ustaški režim trajao vrlo kratko u odnosu na komunistički režim, koji je Hrvatskoj i Hrvatima prouzročio puno veću štetu" (emphasising that the Ustaše regime lasted very briefly compared to the communist regime which caused much greater damage to Croatia and the Croats). Some will certainly find that statement also debatable, but much less so than of it were referring to harm done to non-Croats.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Just to clarify, I assume index.hr reported truthfuly what was reported by the diocese at its website, but I find it plausible that the diocese found it more interesting to retell the lecture by emphasising wrongdoings of the communist regime. Maybe something else was said, maybe not - I don't expect the index.hr's explicitly stated source and its method of reporting (relying on diocese report instead of being there in person) to qualify as a reliable beyond information that Banac held a lecture there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, how is this doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

  OK, but with the caveat that I know next to nothing about the reliability of sources in this region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Having a read through now. Not my area of expertise so mainly focusing on prose, and no finding much to criticise.

• Tito requested that Dabčević-Kučar order the arrests of Šegedin, Marko Veselica, Budiša, Čičak and Đodan, however, she declined "however" is a word to watch, and a simple "but" would be better here.
• Newspapers published in Serbia and Croatia How about "Serbian and Croatian newspapers" for brevity?
• referred to in the programme as 'national movement' Why the quote marks, and why single quotes? If it's a quote, they should be double quotes ("); if they're scare quotes they should be removed.
  • It was maeant as a quote, changed to double quotes. (T)
• Croatian traditional patriotic songs—some of them banned the link to music censorship is a bit of an Easter egg. I was expecting something about prohibition of those songs in particular.
• it was always paired with the Croatian one. The latter were also multiple ("were") or singular ("was")? You switch between the two.
• Finally, Prosvjeta's Rade Bulat demanded the establishment of an autonomous province for the Serbs of Croatia. His call was followed by requests to grant autonomy for Dalmatia as well Could easily combine those two sentences to eliminate redundancy and improve readability
  • Done, I think. Just to clarify, those were two different autonomy requests - one nation-based, the other regional. (T)
• The Serbian philosopher Mihailo Đurić said that the constitution of Croatia only specified Croatia as the national state of Croatian nation Three "Croatia"s in less than a dozen words.
  • Replaced the central one. I could remove the first mention too, but I'm afraid it might lead to confusion if this was in reference to Yugoslav or Croatian constitution (the federation and all constituent republics had separate constitutions). (T)
• resignations were tendered in I don't believe "in" follows "tender"; one normally either "hands in" or "tenders" one's resignation.

Not much really. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to look at this. I think I have addressed all the points you raised above. Could you have another look at the two points with remarks added above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. Support. Nicely written, and informative without being overly verbose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 December 2021 [38].

---

Mu'awiya I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) and AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Mu'awiya I, the founder and first caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate. Though his family led the opposition to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, he became the Prophet's scribe after the conquest of Mecca. He was sent as a commander in the Syrian conquest two years later and gradually governed that conquered region, where he secured a strong power base among its Arab tribes and mostly Christian bureaucracy. He defeated the 4th caliph, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali in the first Muslim civil war, bringing the caliphate under his rule. Considered controversial in Muslim tradition for seizing power, being less religiously devoted than his predecessors and establishing dynastic rule, unprecedented in Muslim politics, he is also admired for his competence, leadership skills and mild rule. Al Ameer (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps
• Some of the maps present a concern wrt MOS:COLOUR. Additionally for File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg it is unclear even for a non-colour-blind person which portion of the map is being referred to as "red" in the caption.

• I defined in text the areas shaded in particular colors in the captions on all the map images; also re-colored the expansion map (new upload called File:Age of the Caliphs-recolored.png for clarity).

• File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg: where is the CC0 claim coming from?

• This issue is outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the inscriptions are three-dimensional, I'm not sure if PD old applies for such a recent photo. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead

• Added archive links. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png: what is the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:Lead_seal_of_Mu'awiya's_dismissal_of_Ibn_Amir,_ca._664.png

• This issue is outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg needs tag(s) for the status of the coin itself

• Tag for US status of the coin still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Added US tag. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Statue_de_Okba_ibn_Nafi_al_Fihri_en_Algérie.jpg: where specifically is this statue located?

• I do not know. I could only assume somewhere in Tunisia, possibly Kairouan. Removed for now. Will try to find out from author in meantime but not hopeful. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The filename would indicate it's in Algeria? FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't I feel like a dummy. Thanks for pointing that out FunkMonk. Modified the description in the file and restored the image to the article now that we have the location. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Tomb_of_Caliph_Muawiya_Bin_Abi_Sufyan.jpg will need a tag for the original work, and where is the CC claim for the photo coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I removed this image for now as it is not clear where the CC claim is from. The source link does not indicate that the author has given permission to use the image. I may try contacting either the uploader or the author to get clarity on this. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @LouisAragon:@FunkMonk:. Would you guys be able to help me with the licensing on these?

1) File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg

2) File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png

3) File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg? Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The last just needs an additional PD old tag for the artwork I believe (as the others have). But as for the first two, as they're not entirely two-dimensional works, I'm not sure they can be assumed to be PD, as the photographer would still hold copyright (unless they specifically released the photos under free licences themselves). FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Not good news though, probably will have to remove them (the seal and the Greek inscription) if that's the case. Are seals not considered two-dimensional works like coins—and if so, would that make a difference here? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, perhaps Nikki has some input. Are there any licences listed on the website they are from? mFunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Coins are considered 3D (see commons:COM:COIN); I would expect we treat seals the same way. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately; I think plainish inscriptions are ok though. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikki;@FunkMonk:@Johnbod: Regarding the seals: File:Lead seal of Mu'awiya's dismissal of Ibn Amir, ca. 664.png comes from SixBid, whose [terms of use] appear to prohibit using the content for our purposes. I have removed the image from the article. As for File:Seal of Muawiya dismissing Abd Allah ibn Amir as governor.jpg, the terms of use of NumisBids indicate they post the pictures of the objects with permission, the "copyright, where applicable, remains with the original holders". I cannot determine any licenses from their site, not sure where to look other than the terms of use link. If this means that, short of the discovery of any suitable licensing, neither of these seals could be used here per PD-Old/PD-US, is there a decent chance at a Fair Use argument due to the rarity of the two seals, which very much contain the same inscriptions? There are no documents out there that we know of where Mu'awiya's name is inscribed in Arabic. There are a few coins from a Persian mint where his name is inscribed in Middle Persian and then the inscription from the Galilee where his name is written in Greek. Besides the uniqueness from that perspective, the seal is the sole epigraphic corroboration of the much later Arabic historical tradition that Mu'awiya established a government department for correspondence/chancellery (all other evidence was likely destroyed or otherwise lost following the demise of Umayyad rule). The seal is also the sole epigraphic evidence of Mu'awiya's dismissal of his governor from Basra, which the much later Arabic literary history records. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could take a picture of the seal and release under a free license. (t · c) buidhe 22:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed both the seal images. Al Ameer (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Greek inscription, would it be considered "plainish"? This inscription is also a unique document in that it is remarkably the only known epigraphic proof of Mu'awiya's rule in the Levant, where his 40-year rule as governor and then caliph was based. It is also the only known Greek inscription of his name. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Buidhe, is this a pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't my image review actually, it's Nikkimaria's. (t · c) buidhe 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png remains outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk)

[[User:Al Ameer son|Al Ameer] ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Was waiting to see if the inscription would be considered 'plain' enough to qualify as a two-dimensional work. If not, was going to attempt a Fair Use approach. In the meantime, while these matters are decided, I have removed the image from the article. Al Ameer (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges

Reviewed the article at GAN recently, will support once the issue with the ref "Ali 1974, p. 82" not having a bibliography is fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue has been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thank you for supporting and again for your efforts during the GAR. Al Ameer (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Nice to see this here, marking my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to mention that he was pagan or what exact beliefs he had before becoming a Muslim? I can imagine many readers would have no idea what Arab religion was before Islam.

• Yes, I think it would be best to note that his tribe was polytheistic for context. Will add. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link Muslim and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Arab, Byzantine, other such terms in article body?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The link to Arabia should thereafter be removed form the later "Moreover, the focus of Arabian tribal".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "against Byzantine Cilicia and proceeded to Euchaita, deep in Byzantine territory.[17] In 644, he led a foray against Amorium in Byzantine Anatolia." The first areas are also in Anatolia, so perhaps mention it earlier?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "principal Arab allies, the Ghassanids," Perhaps add they were Christian?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Although Syria's rural, Aramaic Christian" You could say "Aramaic-speaking" to avoid the contentious ethnic issue.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the historian J. W. Jandora" Full name like the others?

  Name is John W. Jandora, added full name in bibliography. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "According to the historian J. W. Jandora, "Mu'awiya was thus confronted with a population problem"." Does it need to be a quote or can't it be paraphrased?

• Decided to remove altogether unless you think otherwise. It would be a bit complicated to paraphrase because I would need to get creative on what Jandora means when he says "population problem". My understanding is that in Syria's critical urban centers, Mu'awiya had to contend with either a depleted and/or outright hostile population. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case, I think it could stay, but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "to pay a tribute equal to that which they paid the Byzantines" But did they have to pay both? Or should it be "which they had paid the Byzantines"?

• Revised to "had paid". Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and they bested the Iraqis" Is that term appropriate in this context? I can understand Syrians, as the region was called that, but was Iraq in the modern sense used then? And in any case, didn't Ali and his army come from Arabia? How do the sources distinguish the factions?

• In this context, Iraq is also the appropriate term and was used by the early Muslim sources to refer to the region that is southern/central modern Iraq. The sources actually identify the sides as Syrians and Iraqis, something of a theme of rivalry between the two geopolitically important regions throughout the early Muslim period. As for Arabians, the "Syrians" in this case were also Arabians, some being tribes established in Syria in centuries prior and others having arrived with the conquest armies. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "greeted Mu'awiya as amir al-mu'minin" Could need explanation.

• Clarified that this was in effect a signal of their recognition of Mu'awiya as caliph. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "was aborted as a result of Ali's assassination by a Kharijite" I believe there is an article about this that could be linked, Assassination of Ali.

• Linked.

• "This year is considered by the traditional Muslim sources as "the year of unity" What does "traditional Muslim" mean? I doubt Shias agree with this, so specifically Sunni?

• Maybe, but I am not sure "traditional Muslim sources" should be synonymous with Sunni sources. @AhmadLX: Thoughts on this? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the historians were not strictly "Sunni"/"Shia" in a sense scholars of hadith and jurisprudence were. It was more like some being pro-Alid historians and some not so pro-Alid historians. I remember seeing a source expressly saying that "Muslim tradition calls the year, year of jam'a", but at the moment I can't find it. The sources cited in the article name Tabari and Khalifa. Now, both of these historians were in the category of not so pro-Alids. I think, one can just add in the article "considered by some of the traditional Muslim sources..." for now. When a source listing other primary sources or expressly calling it a year of unity is found, we can change it back. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That could work, I think it's important to note it was not the universal opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally not a fan of the word "some", but have modified accordingly for now. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the caliph's name is preceded by a cross" Any images of these coins to show?

• None unfortunately. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the spring in Jeddah [sic]" What does the sic denote?

• Fixed. The source used the less common spelling of "Juddah". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the Yamama in central Arabia" You could add "region".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "During the reign of Mu'awia" Missing y from the name.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "According to Hinds, in addition to Yazid's nobility, age and sound judgement, "most important of all was the fact that he represented a continuation of the link with Kalb and so a continuation of the Kalb-led [tribal] confederacy on which Sufyanid power ultimately rested" Does this need to be a quote?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya's grave was a visitation site as late as the 10th century." Is its location known today?

• Not really. There's a tomb supposedly containing his tomb in the Bab al-Saghir cemetery but this is a relatively recent "rediscovery". His "real" tomb may be hidden somewhere in Damascus. As of the 19th century, his tomb in the cemetery had disappeared. I will check to see if there are sources that mention its existence later than the 10th century. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are somewhat inconsistent in whether you present historians by occupation or not.

• Please let me know if this has been addressed now. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya died of an illness" Any further details or context? How long was he sick, etc?

• No details here. Many of his Umayyad successors died from illnesses that a modern source proposes were recurrences of the plague of Amwas, but Mu'awiya is not included among them.

• "after the decade-long civil war" You could add "second".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Caliphate" is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.

• Caliphate has been capitalized when referencing the state/empire, lowercased when referencing the office of the caliph. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This has led some modern historians" Could they be named?

@AhmadLX: Does Hoyland mention any specific historians? If not, I will modify the wording. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, added names in a footnote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya and the Umayyads are given the title of malik (king) instead of khalifa (caliph), though the Abbasids are recognized as caliphs." Specify if this is by the aforementioned writer.

• Attributed to the Islamic tradition. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A Syriac writer notes that he did not wear a crown like the traditional kings" and "The Maronite Chronicles also maintain that Mu'awiya "did not wear a crown like other kings in the world"", seems to be the same info, is one redundant?

• Possibly; removed just in case. @AhmadLX: Objection? --Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Afterward, Mu'awiya became one of Muhammad's scribes." This doesn't seem to be specifically stated in the article body until way down under Assessment?

• It is mentioned in the Origins and early life section "Mu'awiya was made one of his katibs (scribes)". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, must have overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "condemned Mu'awiya and other Umayyad caliphs" The article body doesn't seem to clearly state he was Umayyad until this point far down?

• There are earlier mentions of him being an Umayyad family member, but I added a sentence in the "Early military career ..." section about him and the Umayyad caliphs, as well as their differentiation from the first four caliphs who are considered the "Rashidun". Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "considerable admiration for Mu'awiya in the sources" Add "contemporary"?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Rashidun" don't seem to be mentioned by this name outside the intro.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Only a few unanswered points left before I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: Please let me know if there is any other point that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your patience. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, now Caliphate ("to shore up support for the Caliphate") seems to be a duplink of Rashidun Caliphate, I think you could just make it a link to the general Caliphate article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the preceding "caliph" in this section links to Caliphate, so I will leave "Caliphate" un-linked, unless you think otherwise. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

• ...a prominent Meccan merchant who often led trade caravans... Is "often" necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ... preeminent leader... Is the adjective necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...during the early stages of its conflict with the Islamic prophet... Perhaps "the Quraysh's/Banu Abd Shams' conflict"?

• Went with "Quraysh's" Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Mu'awiya and his father may have reached an understanding with Muhammad... WP:WEASEL. You may want to say that they reached an agreement as it is demonstrated by the marriage of his sister to Muhammad in 629.

• Had to keep "may" as the source does not make it certain or even likely.

• If the source does not make it likely, why do we need to mention it? What is sure that Muhammad wed his sister in 629. I assume they must have reached an understanding before the marriage. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I revised this passage. I hope it is clearer and less weasely now. Let me know. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...with his tribesmen... Perhaps "with his Quraysh tribesmen"/"with the Quraysh"?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...The family... Who? (He, his father and his brother were mentioned. Do you refer to the three persons?)

• Changed to Abu Sufyan's family as it may have included the rest of his surviving children and wife. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Checking back on the source, it says "Abu Sufyan and the Umaiyids". Just kept Abu Sufyan. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Yazid, whom he later dispatched... Is "later" necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ..., where Abu Sufyan already owned property in the vicinity of Damascus, in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams. Unclear sentence. When and from whom did they receive the property?

• Need to do further research on this and will update you here. He owned property, according to the Muslim sources, in Syria (various sources mention the "vicinity of Damascus", "the Balqa", or a particular village in the Balqa) from before his conversion to Islam. None of the sources mention from whom he received it though.

• In this case, why are we sure that they received it for their loyalty? Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Abu Sufyan obtained this property before Islam and before the conquest, it was not given to him by Muhammad or Abu Bakr. The point the source is suggesting is that Abu Sufyan had economic interests in Syria and to obtain Abu Sufyan's and his family's backing, Abu Bakr gave them a prominent role in the conquest of Syria. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consider deleting the text ", in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams" - it is misleading, because the context suggest that he received it for his loyalty towards a Muslim leader.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consider introducing Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, Iyad ibn Ghanm and Umayr ibn Sa'd al-Ansari.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...Umar's efforts to curtail the influence of the Qurayshite aristocracy in the Muslim state in favor of the early Muslim converts. This is a statement out of the blue. Perhaps "Umar's well documented/otherwise obvious efforts"?

• Revised to "well-known". Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure that the statement is about Umar (not about Uthman)? Please also check whether Umar or Uthman is the subject of the paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes it is Umar, not Uthman that is being discussed. Cplakidas below raised a valid question about "well-known"; perhaps, I need to tweak the phrasing again. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...Medina consistently courted the Kal....Medina's entreaties... Perhaps the central government/the caliph instead of Medina?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could the statement "Medina consistently courted the Kal..." also be changed? I am not sure that all readers could easily realize that Medina refers to the Caliph or his government. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is not unusual to use a state's capital when referring to its government or leadership. In the "Origins and early life" section Medina is mentioned "as the seat of the Muslim government". Should this suffice for further mentions of Medina in this context, until of course it was replaced by Kufa? I will mention in the article that Kufa became the new seat under Ali. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ... the Byzantine emperor practically conceded when he withdrew from Armenia... We were informed that the emperor had moved to Sicily not to Armenia.

• Not contradictory, as far I could tell. He (or his army) withdrew from Armenia in 653; he was leading the Byzantine fleet against the Arabs in 654 or 655 when he was forced to sail for Sicily. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Uthman's confiscation of crown lands... Is "confiscation" the proper term?

• To me, "confiscation" would be the correct term as these were lands that belonged to the "Community", i.e. the Muslim settler troops, and they were seized by the caliph for the treasury. This is still a specific area I am not too clear on though. @AhmadLX: What are your thoughts on this? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO "confiscation" is correct. Borsoka what would you suggest? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the term "confiscation" refers to the transfer of property to the fiscus (or Crown), not from the fiscus (or Crown) to an individual. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Now, Umar's view was that these lands were in principle state assets, but were de facto controlled by the warriors. Uthman's argument was that they are state assets and as state head he can use them the way he saw fit. He did not declare them his personal property.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you say confiscation is the proper term in context, I will accept your decision. I am not a native speaker. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...his alleged nepotism drove the Quraysh ... to oppose the caliph... The footnote states that he preferred the Quraysh.

• @AhmadLX: Also on this. Uthman gave favor to his own clansmen, i.e. specifically the Umayyads/Banu Abd Shams, and this was opposed by the rest of the Quraysh, i.e. Zubayr, Talha, A'isha, Amr, Ibn Abi Waqqas etc. While his motive is not fully understood (whether it was to make it easier to rule the new vast empire by relying on close relatives or if it was simply to empower and enrich his own family), it is undisputed that he gave political and economic favor to his immediate relatives and Umayyad/Abd Shams clan. For reference, Donner 2012 pp. 152–153, Kennedy 2004, p. 74, Madelung 1997, pp.86–87. So I am thinking to change "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" to avoid the confusion pointed out by Borsoka. Opposed? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. Several Quraysh including Talha, and Zubayr, who eventually opposed him for whatever reasons, were among the beneficiaries of his grants. Amr's opposition was likely due to his removal from the office. MOreover, this is what Hinds and Donner say. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka it was like this: Umar diverged from Abu Bakr's policy of relying on the Quraysh in governing the caliphate. Uthman tried reversing it but in that favored his own Umayyad clan more than other Quraysh. This has been interpreted by the traditional sources as sort of nepotism and influence of his secretary Marwan, an interpretation accepted wholesale by Madelung. Other historians, including Kennedy, Hinds, Donner etc see it as centralization and stabilization effort in view of the enormous size of the empire and anarchist nature of Arab Bedouins of central Arabia, who were in the majority in the garrisons. These were angered by decreasing of their prestige, while the non-Umayyad Quraysh were dissatisfied with the increasing Umayyad influence. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: We still may need to clarify the wording in the note. Should we 1) modify "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" or 2) keep "Qurayshite control" but change "appointment of his relatives" to "appointment of his close relatives" or 3) "appointment of his kinsmen from the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abd Shams"? Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late response. I would prefer the second option ("appointment of his relatives" --> "appointment of his close relatives"). Even better, in my opinion, would be to attach to it the 3rd option as well: "appointment of his close relatives from the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abd Shams". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks AhmadLX, I modified the footnote accordingly, plus some minor c/e. Al Ameer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...to the east and west... Is this necessary? I am not sure that Egypt is located to the east west of (early medieval) Syria.

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Himyar is linked to the article "Himyarite Kingdom" and it ceased to exist in 525 AD.

• Will have to expand that article to include the Himyarites' Islamic descendants. Plan on doing this over the next few days. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done now, see Himyarite Kingdom#Tribal presence in Syria and Egypt (7th–8th centuries). Plan on expanding in future if no one else does and separating to its own article. Al Ameer (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, how are you going with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I will continue the review in a couple of days. I have been realy busy in RL. I think the article is very close to a FA. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...some of the traditional Muslim sources... WP:WEASEL: "some" and "traditional". Could we say "the earliest/widely accepted sources" or something similar?

• Agree on "some", this was a little compromise reached above due to valid concerns raised by Funk about the universality of the sources' view of Mu'awiya's leadership of the politically united caliphate as the "year of unity". As for "the traditional sources"/"the Muslim tradition", this is generally used in modern literature about the subject to broadly refer to the early Muslim sources. Rarely are these sources "contemporary", the earliest usually date to the 8th century and most to the 9th and 10th, but also as late as the 15th. These sources cite chains of transmission that supposedly go back to people contemporary to the days of the Prophet Muhammad, the first four caliphs and the Umayyads. Understandably, it could confuse readers, so I changed it to "early Muslim sources" in most instances, exceptions being when the "tradition" is the subject of the section.

• ...Mu'awiya is credited by the traditional sources... Who? Could we say "the earliest/reliable sources" or something similar?

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...the crown lands that he confiscated in Iraq and Arabia... Did he confiscate crown lands for himself or did he confiscate lands for the Crown?
• ...the absolute government practiced by Caliph Ali... Could Ali's government be described as "absolute"? Based on the article, I understand he was not in control of significant parts of his empire.

• Removed altogether. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...After Ziyad's death in 673, Mu'awiya gradually replaced him in all of his offices... Perhaps because of may poor understanding of English, but I cannot imagine how a dead person could be replaced with anybody gradually.

• Hope I modified to be clearer. Ziyad's son was installed to his father's offices gradually between 673 and Mu'awiya's death. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...According to the Muslim traditional sources, the raids peaked between 668 and 669. Could we say "nearly contemporaneous/reliable/widely accepted sources"? For instance, an article published in a newspaper in 2021 is a more traditional source than an online article from 2018.

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...though the traditional Muslim sources offer divergent details... Again, I do not understand what a traditional source means. Perhaps "earliest/relieable/widely accepted/primary sources"?

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Borsoka:. Forgive my slow response time (real life's fault), but I will get to all of these asap. Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: I hope most of these points have been addressed satisfactorily. I want to hear from AhmadLX regarding the "confiscation" question and the nepotism phrasing before addressing them. I will work on the Himyar article or create a new one about the Himyar tribe of the Islamic era to avoid confusion with the pre-Islamic Himyarite royal family, from whom the Islamic-era Himyar supposedly descended. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think there is a single pending issue in addition you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: Yes I missed that one. Answered now. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoroughly researched, interesting article. Only one issue is pending, but I assume it will be solved soon. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review Borsoka. That issue (regarding the privileging of the Quraysh or his closer relatives) should be addressed pretty soon, just a matter of tweaking. Waiting to hear Ahmad's thoughts on my proposals. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: the final issue that was pending has now been addressed. Al Ameer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Back for the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

For sake of use, I'll separate these by category.

Standardization

• Decide if you are going to link the author at each mention, or only the first, there is currently a large mixture of them. I generally prefer to link only the first mention, but either one is acceptable as long as it is standardized.

• I also prefer a single link, but most of these are templates which provide the author-link. To make it simple, I just linked all mentions. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Decide if locations will be "Location, State", "Location, Country", "Location", or no location, and standardize to that.

Brill search

• Bosworth, C. Edmund (1991) links to a search within Brill, not to the article itself, change the link to this. Please note that I don't have full access to Brill, and if that changes the way the links would work, please disregard this. I'm also OK with changing these links myself if you'd prefer, as it's not very impactful (in the way changing dates might be) and somewhat tedious. Adding a url= parameter to the EI2 templates works and automatically adds the url-access parameter.
• Christides, Vassilios (2000) ditto, use this.
• Dixon, 'Abd al-Ameer A. (1978) change link to this.
• Gardet, Louis (1965), same as first two, as Brill search, use this
• Gibb, H. A. R. (1960 Brill search, use this link.
• Hasson, Isaac (2002) Brill search, use this link.
• Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) this
• Hinds, Martin (1991) this
• Hinds, Martin (1993) this
• Lammens, Henri (1960) this
• Shahid, Irfan (2000a) this
• Shahid, Irfan (2000b) this
• Sourdel, D. (1965) this
• Vaglieri, L. Veccia (1960) this
• Watt, W. Montgomery (1960a) this
• Watt, W. Montgomery (1960b) this

• I added the urls, though the versions I used were the (digitized) books. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Dates

• For almost all of these, use whichever date comes from the edition you used to write the article, and the orig-year as mentioned if needed. Most of them probably have google books links for different editions and I'm happy to hunt them down and add them if you mark which date should be used.
• Crone, Patricia (1980) and Crone, Patricia; Hinds, Martin (1986) both have links which lead to a 2003 reprint, although the ISBN is appropriate for both per WorldCat; may wish to change the date to 2003 for both with original-years of the 1980 and 1986 (use |orig-year=); however, if the edition you used for this is the original, retain 1980 and 1986 dates with no original year.

• Done on Crone-Hinds 1986. I could do this as well with Crone 1980 by replacing the templates and writing out a full citation. @Cplakidas: Would it make more sense to modify the template? Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I can modify the template so that |year= is editable when |orig-year= parameter is provided, that should cover it. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• de Goeje, Michael Jan (1910) where does the 1910 date come from, given that the work itself is from 1911? I've been unable to find a 1910 edition of it.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Donner, Fred M. (1981) Link gives the year of 2014 but ISBN is appropriate for both, I suggest the usage of 1981 original-year and 2014 date year.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Donner, Fred M. (2010) The link gives the 2012 date, ISBN is appropriate for both, suggest the original year 2010 the date year 2012.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Elad, Amikam (1999) link gives a date of 1995, WorldCat gives 1994; suggest using an original-year of 1994 and a date of 1995 (unless you used a physical book with the 1999 date, in which case retain 1999 as the date with 1994 as the original-year.

• The link I have is for the Second Edition and it shows publication year of 1999. See here. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ende, Werner (1977) my German is not flawless (or even good...) but it looks like the publishing year was 1974, if so, use the original year of 1974 and date of 1977.
• Foss, Clive (2010) In a complex situation the link gives the date as 2013, and WorldCat as 2016, although 2010 is also an appropriate date for the ISBN; if you wish to retain 2010 date, change the link to this; you also may wish to change the date to 2016 and orig-year the 2010 date, and link to this, in line with WorldCat, which would also give the publisher as Routledge, rather than Ashgate; I would generally consider Routledge to be of higher quality than Ashgate, but I will admit limited experience with Ashgate, and I won't challenge Foss as HQRS in any academic source.
• Hawting, Gerald R. (2000) link gives a date of 2002, and ISBN is appropriate for both; you may wish to change the date to 2002A (and the current Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) to 2002B) with an orig-year of 2000, or more simply just change the link to this
• Kaegi, Walter E. (1992) link gives the date of 1995, suggest a date of 1995 and orig-year of 1992

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Kennedy, Hugh (1998) firstly, link author at first mention, secondly, the link gives a date of 2008, suggest using that date and orig-year of 1998.
• Shaban, M. A. (1971) has an orig-date of 1971 and linked date of 1976; suggest the date of 1976 and orig-year of 1971.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

IDs

• Crone, Patricia (1994) three IDs seems somewhat excessive, suggest dropping S2CID 154370527; also decide if all or only one mention of the author will be linked.
• Miles, George C. (1948) again, three IDs seem excessive.
• Sprengling, Martin (1939) same.

• Removed the SCIDs from all. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Author-links

• Ende, Werner (1977) may wish to authorlink to the de:Werner Ende page.
• Kohlberg, Etan (2020) may wish to author-link to de:Etan Kohlberg.
• Miles, George C. (1948) fr:George Carpenter Miles

• Linked. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• Hawting, G.R., ed. (1996) Link was broken, I have changed URL to a working one.
• Humphreys, R. Stephen (2006) Oneworld isn't ideal as a publisher but I'll accept on author's merit.
• Jankowiak, Marek (2013) while Academia.edu is very useful, it does at times host information without authors permission; it does look like the work was uploaded by the author themselves in this case.
• Kennedy, Hugh 2004, 2007 and 2016 all have publishers that aren't ideal, especially De Capo press, but I will accept on the author's merit.
• Hasson, Isaac (1982) and Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (1976) I've added the translated titles.

• @Al Ameer son: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: most academic publications hold the copyright to what they publish and don't allow authors to post the final versions of the work on sites like Academia.edu, so it would legally be a copyright violation. The author's work (preprint) they are usually allowed to publish, but the final version should be cited anyway. (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Buidhe: That is fair, should it be presumptively removed then? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, that's what I would recommend based on the requirement not to link to copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Iazyges Is this source review passed? (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: yes, source review passes. I had thought some were not yet done but they were just unresponded to, but fixed in the article itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Not my area, so comments will be general. It looks pretty good, and well-sourced.
• Lead: only 3 paras, but the 4th is very long, but the first para is pretty short. Split? At "Although Mu'awiya confined the influence of his Umayyad clan to the governorship of Medina ..." Probably. Several other paras lower down are pretty long. Or is another new para needed? The final section of the article "Muslim views" is important, and not really covered in the lead.

• I broke the third lead para. Further down in the article, I broke up two particularly long passages in the "War with Byzantium" section and one para in "Assessment". There are a couple others I noticed, especially in "Early military career" and one in "Assessment", but I believe in those cases it would be better not to split. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead. Would a mention, or more emphasis here, that M was much less closely associated with the Prophet than his Rashidun predecessors, until the last 3 years?

• Added the following sentence: "Unlike his predecessors, who had been close, early companions of Muhammad, Mu'awiya was a relatively late follower of the Islamic prophet." Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Ali turned his attention toward Mu'awiya, who, unlike the other provincial governors, had a strong and loyal power base, demanded revenge for the slaying of his Umayyad kinsman Uthman and could not be easily replaced" at the least, needs a comma after Uthman.

• Definitely. Broke up the sentence, and added the comma as well.

• The Commons category is not linked, not that there's all that much in there.

• Linked in article now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The pic captioned "Lead seal announcing Mu'awiya's dismissal of Abd Allah ibn Amir from the governorship of Basra, which occurred in 664 CE. He was replaced by Ziyad ibn Abihi" duplicated the one in the infobox (not the same piece I think.

• They are different pieces, same subject though. Should I remove one? Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe - they are not that informative. Aren't there any decent photos of buildings he would have known? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, any idea when the further comments might be coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Soonish, but they haven't dealt with the first lot yet. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing: "...holds that Mu'awiya had further developed a mosque originally built by Caliph Umar on the Temple Mount and received his formal oaths of allegiance there" - isa this the Al-Aqsa Mosque or another?

• Nothing of the structure built under Umar and/or Muawiya is known to be archaeologically extant, but modern sources consider it something of a precursor to the Aqsa Mosque, which was built by the Umayyad caliphs Abd al-Malik and al-Walid (690–715). Let me know if the revised wording properly reflects this. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• How big was the standing Muslim army during his reign? Do we have estimates?

• There was no standing army in his time. There were various important garrisons, mainly those of Basra and Kufa in Iraq; Fustat and Alexandria in Egypt; and across Syria–Upper Mesopotamia, presumably including the soldiers along the frontier area with Byzantium. Numbers mentioned by the early sources are generally unreliable. Hugh Kennedy, author of Armies of the Caliphs cited in this article, proposes 100,000 combined in Iraq, about the same in Syria, and 40,000 in Egypt. They were composed of tribesmen and their clients. These were not professional troops that could be mobilized upon command by the caliph as a standing army, though the tribal soldiery in Syria were the closest thing to that, being more organized, disciplined and motivated to heed Mu'awiya's orders. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya died of an illness in Damascus in Rajab 60 AH" better say something vague about his age.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, that's it. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Johnbod:. Please let me know if my changes suffice. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, so Support. On reflection, I think a mention of the very hostile later Shia view should be slipped into the last para of the lead, but I won't hold it up for that. Seems a very thorough piece of work! Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Fair point. Added the general view of Mu'awiya in Shia and Sunni tradition. Also made a few other improvements to lead. Thank you for your suggestions and support. Al Ameer (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Good to see this here, will review over the next couple of days. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SINGLE, glosses of words, e.g. for Rashidun, should be in single quotation marks.

• Fixed. Mentions of the "Rashidun" were the only instances I saw. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think this includes terms translated from Arabic and denoted as such, e.g. "Night of Clamor", "the year of unity", etc.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• who led trade caravans to Syria. perhaps add here that this was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yazid, whom he dispatched I'd recommend replacing the comma with a full stop, and separating the two conflicts (Ridda wars and the conquest of Syria).

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• contradicted Umar's well-known efforts to... 'well-known' to whom? Why is it even relevant that they are 'well-known'? Perhaps rephrase to 'contradicted Uma'rs efforts to otherwise...'?

• Agree. Changed to "otherwise"; discussing this above as well.

• central government's entreaties which central government? Presumably Medina is meant, but this is not entirely clear.

• I prefer Medina; currently discussing this above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend redirecting 'Greek Christian' to Rûm, esp. since Eastern Orthodoxy is an anachronism for the 7th century.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link 'garrison cities' to Amsar

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in the capitalization of Caliphate when referring to the state vs. caliphate when referring to the office (e.g. maintain the caliphate's influence on the island)

• Ran through them again, should be good now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The rest to come Constantine ✍ 19:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you @Cplakidas:. Looking forward to the rest of your review. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "early Muslim" is used in two different senses in the text: on the one hand for the first followers of Muhammad (e.g. "early Muslim converts"), and on the other for the early Muslim period (as in "early Muslim sources", which however are much later than the events discussed). In "early Muslim commander" or "early Muslim elite", I am actually unsure what sense is meant. I recommend changing the first case to something else, like "earliest Muslim converts" or "first Muslim converts". In the case of "early Muslim elites" perhaps "nascent Muslim elite" or simply describe them as the Ansar or Muhajirun or the specific group they belonged to.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• enabling the governor (optional) for some reason it feels odd to read of Mu'awiya as 'the governor', especially if just mentioned by name. Perhaps 'the governor of Syria'?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• nascent Muslim community link "Muslim community" to ummah

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• collapsed and by then... "collapsed, but by then..."?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• wrap italicized Arabic terms with {{transl|ar|}}

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Cplakidas Do you consider your comments to be resolved? (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @Buidhe: My comments above are addressed, but I am currently looking at the remainder of the article. Constantine ✍ 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the War with Byzantium section, I know that there is a recent revisionist tendency on the chronology of the campaigns, but as far as I am aware, the 'traditional' narrative based on Theophanes is still the one commonly accepted in modern histories. I would suggest adding a comment before the section beginning with Al-Tabari reports... to the effect that the culmination of Muawiya's campaigns was an assault on Constantinople, but that the chronologies of Arabic, Syriac, and Byzantine sources are at odds with one another, and that the traditional view is of a great series of naval-borne assaults against Constantinople in the 670s. Conversely, I would highlight that Jankowiak's reconstruction is exactly that, a revisionist (though quite likely accurate) modern challenge to the established chronology. In short, the reader needs to be made aware that there is a controversy, and what the two opposing opinions are. Having Jankowiak's view only is not enough.

• Fair point. Let me know if my revisions suffice and please feel free to make substantive changes where needed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Al Ameer son: Have made some tweaks/additions. Feel free to revise. Otherwise your changes are fine. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• In 670, Mu'awiya appointed Uqba as Egypt's deputy governor over the North African lands under Arab control west of Egypt and, at the head of a 10,000-strong force, Uqba commenced his expedition against the territories west of Cyrenaica a rather convoluted sentence, please split it up.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• The significance of the appellation 'Khosrow of the Arabs' will likely be lost to the reader, add an explanation to the effect that this likens him to the autocratic Sasanian monarchs, commonly called 'Khosrow' by the Arab historians and likened to the Biblical pharaoh.

• Another good point. I am working on finding a source for this, having trouble particularly with the connection to Pharoah. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• On the Shia view, perhaps add that the ritual cursing of Muawiya is a central hallmark of the emerging Shia Islam, both in the Twelver and Ismaili traditions.

• Also having difficulty finding an RS for the ritual cursing being the a central hallmark of the Twelver and Ismaili traditions. What I have found is that under Shia influence, the Abbasid caliphs began having Mu'awiya cursed in the Friday prayers in the 10th century and prohibited people from invoking blessings on Mu'awiya. @AhmadLX: Do you have any helpful sources? Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Have to look. Give me a couple days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: will also have a look in my sources, on both this and Khosrow. Constantine ✍ 07:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found something on cursing ritual although it is about Shia in general and doesn't talk about specific subdivisions of Twelver and Ismaili. Going to add soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

On Mu'awiya and the Shia: Donohue (The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq, 2003) p. 46 and Busse (Chalif und Grosskönig, 1969) p. 421 write that under the Buyids, the Shia in Baghdad wrote curses against Muhammad's companions; these were taken down, but the Buyids did allow curses on Mu'awiya in the mosques, to which the Abbasid faction also assented. Busse (Chalif und Grosskönig, 1969) p. 409 notes that the Baghdadi water-carriers cried 'Got have mercy on Mu'awiya' as an anti-Shia slur, and that the more theologically active Abbasid caliphs like Ma'mun and Mu'tadid had contemplated prohibiting the veneration of Mu'awiya and the Umayyads but had backed down in the face of popular sentiment, widespread even in Mesopotamia. Halm (Die Kalifen von Kairo, 2003) p. 192 writes that in 1004 al-Hakim prohibited a vegetable soup said to have been favoured by Mu'awiya, and in p. 90 that during anti-Fatimid riots in 972, the "usual anti-Shia slogan 'Mu'awiya is Al'is uncle' was heard." Constantine ✍ 15:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the crux of it is already present in the article. Adding specific details would, IMO, be undue weight. Al Ameer son What do you think? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX:@Cplakidas: Depends on the details. The information above does help illustrate how Mu'awiya figured in the rising sectarianism between the emerging Shia and Sunni factions, but I agree we could get lost in the weeds. I found a different source, Kraemer 1992, pp. 64–65, which I think helps put this in a summarizing way. I added it to the article, along with a general comparison with Fatimid Egypt. Let me know if it flies. Al Ameer (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On Khosrow, the EI2 article 'Kisrā' by Morony (col. 5, pp. 184-185) attests to the fact that the proper name had become the typical appellation for all Sasanian monarchs, and that the Arabs associated royal splendour, cultured manners and worldliness, but also the 'arbitrary exercise of power', with it, as opposed to the spiritual and humble message of Muhammad. I remember reading explicit references to Khosrow entering early Muslim popular consciousness as a sort of Pharaoh-like figure, and that vice versa that references to the Pharaoh in the Quran actually were allusions to Khosrow, but can't remember where... Constantine ✍ 15:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Explained the Khosrow comparison per Morony's entry. Still no luck with that Pharoah comparison. Al Ameer (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it. I've made some tweaks here and there in the prose. Otherwise the article is a splendid piece of work, extremely thorough and very readable, on such a pivotal historical figure. Well done, once again. Constantine ✍ 20:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cplakidas, for your review/suggestions and copyedits. We will hopefully resolve the remaining points shortly. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Al Ameer, how are you doing with those remaining points? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Just finished the revisions, hope I have addressed them now. Al Ameer (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Constantine, it's ready for you to relook at. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Al Ameer son and Gog the Mild: Looks very good, the essence of my comments above has been more than adequately addressed. Happy to support :) Constantine ✍ 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 December 2021 [39].

---

Hurricane Leslie (2018)

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Leslie, a long-lived system that was the strongest cyclone to affect Portugal since 1842. It caused severe wind damage across Portugal and Spain. Leslie combined with another system to cause severe flooding in the Aude department, France, which was the worst seen there since 1891. River records in the Aude that had held strong since 1871 fell during the storm. This article took months of work to research and write; it contains 81 Portuguese, 27 Spanish, and 17 French-language sources. Incorporating the local perspective is something that I see as a cornerstone with articles like this. I'm proud to finally be able to bring this behemoth of a storm here. Noah^Talk 18:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from LightandDark2000

There are just a few minor issues that I found. Otherwise, I think that this article is a solid FA candidate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the lead, I would specify that the USD and Euro values are in their 2018 values.
• At least 13 districts in Portugal were placed under a red alert from 13–14 October in anticipation of adverse weather conditions from Leslie. Add a comma after "13–14 October".
• Following the storm, water currents were greatly diminished for multiple weeks, This could be clarified some more. Is the sentence referring to the strength of the water currents?
• causing fog to persist for 32 hours in Ferryland, Newfoundland. For "Newfoundland", I would change the link from Newfoundland (which redirects to Newfoundland and Labrador) to Newfoundland (island), since the latter is more specific.

That's all I have. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: should be fixed. Noah^Talk 21:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Supporting now. Looks good to go. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Interesting article, and evidently already highly polished, so there's little to comment on.

• "hundreds of buildings, signs, and equipment." Perhaps "pieces of equipment".

• Added. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and damaged several structures and vehicles" -> "and damaging..." to fit the rest of the sentence.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• The map shows the track with circular symbols denoting "Tropical cyclone" as far north as the latitude of southern Spain. How is that?

• It's entirely possible to occur as long as conditions are favorable enough (warm sea surface temperatures mostly). I would note that in the last case as it was nearing Portugal and Spain, the storm was in the process of losing its tropical characteristics, although was considered tropical until the process was complete. This year, Hurricane Sam was tropical quite a bit further north (48N). It mostly is a result of warm sea temperatures allowing the storm to stick around. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• This was an international event (Azores, Spain), and Wikipedia has an international readership. "The National Hurricane Center" needs to be glossed "The American National Hurricane Center".

• Used United States-based. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "araucaria columnaris" -> "Araucaria columnaris" as a species name.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "€5 million (US$6.1 million) in funds were approved ... At least 230 trees were planted". That's over €20,000 per tree? Seems out by about 3 orders of magnitude.

• I changed the first part to specify there is a recovery plan and changed the second part to specify this was only part of the plan. Other details for the plan were not mentioned and I haven't seen any new developments. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. I should have addressed everything. Noah^Talk 12:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• That's great, happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from FredModulars

My first time reviewing, so sorry if I screw something up. FredModulars (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A very interesting article, and not much to comment on. Just a few things:

• "In November 2018, Aon estimated that Leslie's damage total exceeded US$500 million." Is there an equivalent damage total in Euros which should be mentioned? Lead and first "Impact" sentence.

• Converts to around 590 million euro. I will add it. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah: Took me a while to realize this, but that makes no sense. The amount of euros should be less than dollars.

• Fixed it last night. Twas a case of converting it in the opposite direction. Noah^Talk 15:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a link to the 1891 flood mentioned in the lead and in "France"?

• No there is not. Floods are a very lacking topic on Wikipedia. I also checked FR Wikipedia and didn't find anything there as well. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the infobox, wind speed is displayed mph (km/h). In the article, it is km/h (mph). If it's not the infobox template's fault, then it should be that way in the infobox.

• I don't believe there is any way to change this since it is dependent upon the basin parameter and the Atlantic goes to mph (km/h) from the knot input. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Initially, on 27 November 2018, the Portuguese government rejected a proposal to provide relief funds for victims of the storm.[162]...The Portuguese government was criticised for being slow in authorising the release of funds to these organizations.[170]" Portuguese government/government seems repetitive in this paragraph.

• Changed some of them to similar terms that would fit. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Was there any significant aftermath in Spain or elsewhere?

• I haven't seen any aftermath outside Portugal and France, and I didn't see anything new when I checked again a couple of weeks ago. A search now didn't turn up anything new. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for review. Let me know if there is anything else, @FredModulars:. Noah^Talk 04:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing else. Great job on this article. Glad to support it. FredModulars (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't duplicate captions in alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Should be fixed. Noah^Talk 23:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Article looks good to me. Some minor suggestions:

• Air pressure is measured in hectopascals in the lead and millibars in the article. Per MOS:METRIC, the metric conversion should be to the SI unit, hence hectopascals.

• Changed the lead to millibars. The Atlantic basin uses millibars and this is technically limited by our templates as well. Noah^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Mark the article as using US English with a {{Use American English|date=November 2024}} template.

• Done Noah^Talk 03:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• It says twice in the lead that it was an extratropical cyclone. Suggest dropping the first one.

• I removed some mentioning of it being an extratropical cyclone. Some of the earlier mentions are due to Leslie originating from an extratropical cyclone rather than it being one itself. Noah^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Duplicate links: convective, Figueira da Foz, Lisbon, Aude

• Removed duplicate links. Noah^Talk 03:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from RetiredDuke

Hm, I'd like to take a closer look at this one before it closes, I've already spotted and corrected two mistranslations from Portuguese just from a quick once-over (180 football games cancelled in Madeira sounded implausible to me and I happen to know Trofa well so I know it's not a street but a city, so those were quick to spot). In the mean time, what do you mean by "ocean routes"? RetiredDuke (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• A "marginal" in this case is a street that runs parallel to the ocean, it's built right next to the beach. It's not an "ocean route". RetiredDuke (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed that one. Noah^Talk 03:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Back to it, sorry about the delay. Please check after my edits, English is not my 1st language.

• I've changed the title translation of "mais de 180 jogos cancelados na Madeira e duas exceções nas modalidades" from "more than 180 games canceled in Madeira and two exceptions in the sports" to "more than 180 sports games canceled in Madeira with only two exceptions" - the way it works in Portugal, football/soccer is such a big sport that everything else is grouped into a big mix called "modalidades" - this just means that everything was canceled except for two sports events of "modalidades"
• I've added agency=Lusa News Agency to several links, because that's where the info comes from originally. Notice that news sources sometimes write Lusa in their stories; Lusa is the largest news agency in Portugal, many news sources either pull stories from them or work closely with them when they do not have the means to cover the occurrence themselves.
• I've written "as well as river routes in the Tagus" to reflect the source, I don't know if that's the best solution grammatically speaking, please check.

I'll resume it tomorrow, it looks good. I've only changed minor stuff so far, mainly related to sourcing or minor mistranslations. RetiredDuke (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Source formatting seems OK to me and the use of the sources strikes me as appropriate too. I notice that Portuguese and Spanish sources appear to be mainly news articles; are there government reports etc. as well? Spotchecks are mostly OK but #157 where does it say windshield? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any government reports. I searched the IPMA's (Portugal's Met/Sea agency) site and the main government site, however, nothing turned up other than weather forecasts for when the storm was approaching. Noah^Talk 14:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• 157 was a minor mistranslation that has been taken care of. Noah^Talk 14:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  This and this throw up some sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Interesting.. I didn't know you could search like that. I have one more Spanish one to add and I will take a look at the Portuguese ones later today. Noah^Talk 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay, my laptop battery and cooling fan failed yesterday so I had to wait until I got back to the university today to edit. I believe that I have added all of the appropriate sources from the ones you linked here. Noah^Talk 14:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• These seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Jo-Jo, is that a pass then? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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