Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2023

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2023 [1].

---

Benty Grange hanging bowl

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Benty Grange hanging bowl, such that it is, could fit in the palm of your hand. Part of the spoils of an 1848 excavation of a richly furnished barrow—known for the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet found alongside—all that remains are two decorated fragments. But just enough remains to reconstruct their original design, an enigmatic motif of three dolphins (or similar) chasing each others tails.

This article was created in 2018, and brought to GA in 2021, thanks to a review by Simongraham. I've refined it since, and recently given it a close look and revision, making it ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. Given that I walked by the tumulus last month I really ought to look at this. Nudge me if I haven't started in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". Actually the A515 only joins the course of the Roman road about 200 yards north west of the site (and leaves it again after 500 yards to parallel it 100 yards to the NE before leaving its course entirely after another 2 miles), so the Roman road passes quite a bit closer to the tumulus that the A515. Do you have access to the relevant OS 1:25,000 map? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gog the Mild. The road (The Street (Derbyshire) it looks like) is plotted on this map. Does that look accurate to you? Assuming it's right, it looks like it would actually be a bit farther away from the barrow than the A515, but not by much—some 300 feet instead of 150 feet. But, as you say, they're different roads at that point. The sources currently used in the article say that (Ozanne 1962–1963) "The continued or revived importance of the Roman road between Derby and Buxton is illustrated by the construction of new barrows and the reuse of prehistoric barrows along its line. Benty Grange is close to the road, Hurdlow on the hills flanking it. Galley Low or Callidge Low near Brassington must have been near it, as also was the Garratt Piece, Middleton Moor, barrow." and that (Brown 2017) "This Anglian burial monument is located c.4.4km to the south-east of the Application Site boundary on a slight eminence immediately adjacent to the presumed course of the Roman road between Buxton (Ague Arnemetiae) to Derby (Derventio) known as The Street', which is followed by the A515 (according to the NRHE entry)." I think the error must have stemmed from me reading "followed" as specific rather than general.

Well, your map and my map diverge about a mile south of Benty Grange. My map has the road passing 25-30 m SW of the tumulus. I know the route of the Roman road pretty well, I walked a couple of miles of it near Minninglow only three weeks ago. I am inclined to slightly prefer the County Council's version, but there are a couple of issues which do not wholly convince me. Bung me a blank email and I'll send you a copy of the relevant bit of the OS map. This is not a section I have walked due to a lack of public footpaths in the area. I assume that the tumulus is the faintly seen circle in this Google map? [2] Or is it one of the two sets of excavations in the same field a little further south? Do you have a precise grid reference or lat & long for the mound?

Sent you an email. That faint circle is what I've been assuming is the barrow. It's almost exactly where the map displayed with the HE list entry says it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those maps, Gog the Mild. Interesting stuff. I've added the Derbyshire County Council source, and changed the wording to its barrow, which still survives, is prominently located by a major Roman road, now roughly parallel to the A515 in the area, possibly to display the burial to passing travellers. Incidentally, another map showing both tumulus and road is in Bruce-Mitford 1974 (at p. 224). It recognizes the uncertainty, denoting the road as "Roman Road (course of)". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(Note that the arrow in the 1974 map is slightly off. Per Bruce-Mitford 2005, p. 119, the mound is at "Map ref. SK149642, near high point 1226 ft, west of the line of the Roman road". He states that "I am grateful to Clive R. Hart of the Sheffield Museum for this adjustment from the position of the discovery apparently incorrectly shown in Bruce-Mitford 1974, 224, fig. 35.")

• Separately, if you're ever back in the area, would you be interested in taking a few photos of the mound? I emailed the owner of the Benty Grange farmhouse a few years back for that very reason, but no luck. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no public access. I will have a go next time I am up that way, but it depends on whether I can find a gate and what is growing in the field. (When I wrote "I walked by the tumulus" I meant, 'within 200 m'!) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Review

• "with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension ... The hooks project from escutcheons". I am unsure that "hooks" is the best description. In the bowl pictured for example I see no "hooks", hanging rings, yes. Later you mention "a ring on the back of one fragment" And "from" the escutcheons, really? I don't see this in the bowl pictured and I don't see how it could be the case without a hole being made in either the escutcheons or the bowl.

• The hooks are not the rings, but the things around which the rings loop. See the example here. I've also clarified that the ring is not part of the escutcheon, but a small iron ring stuck to it that may have been part of suspension chains. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is it known or speculated how the escutcheons were affixed to the bowl?

• Per Bruce-Mitford, "either by riveting or by soldering, any occasionally by both". Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• "and their place of manufacture". Is it agreed that "place" is singular?

• Nope, changed to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Two escutcheons are all that remain of the Benty Grange hanging bowl." "the silver rim and ornaments" have been lost then?

• Those are from the cups that’s were also in the burial. You can see them in the last photo here (above the map at the end). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to delete that. That was me getting confused. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." Perhaps a semi colon after "1968"?

• I think you missed the first word of the sentence, but I can reword if you think it's confusing: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Each animal has ..." Suggestion: 'creature', to leave open the possibility that they are mythological. (And again at the start of "Parallels".)

• Good point, changed throughout. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Winchester hanging bowl" is red linked, but "Lullingstone hanging bowl" isn't. Is there a reason?

• Probably because I didn't realize how notable the Lullingstone hanging bowl was when I first wrote that part of the article—or even looked at a picture of it, which would undoubtedly have disabused me of that particular form of ignorance. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "is prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". I think that the maps, and other sources, all agree that the A515 does not follow the route of the Roman road.

• Changed as noted above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• "under the fold". Should that be 'into the fold'. Or, perhaps, 'under the authority' or similar?

• Went with "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• If "The seventh-century Peak District was a small buffer state between Mercia and Northumbria, occupied, according to the Tribal Hidage, by the Anglo-Saxon Pecsæte" then do we know why "the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655" matters. I realise that the latter is a quote, but it seems strange.
• "loaned the collection to Sheffield". Is it possible to be more precise? Eg, was it to the town council?

• Also the Corporation, it would seem, at least in the legal sense. Here's what the source says about all this: IN 1876 the Corporation of Sheffield received on loan from Thos. W. Bateman, Esq., of Middleton Hall, Derbyshire, the collection of Antiquities formed by his father and grandfather, and for many years previously arranged in cases in Lomberdale House, near Youlgreave, Derbyshire, where the collection had been open to the inspection of antiquaries and other visitors interested in it. Both the objects and the cases were removed to the Public Museum in Weston Park, Sheffield, where they remained on loan until 1893, when it was arranged by the Bateman family that the collection should be sold. The objects which had been discovered in the process of barrow digging in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Staffordshire, under the direction of Mr. Thomas Bateman and his father, Mr. William Bateman, F.S.A., were purchased by the Corporation of Sheffield, and comprise the collection catalogued in the following pages. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The city purchased". Similarly.

• The Corporation of Sheffield, i.e., the town council. Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "they would likely be yellow-on-red." "likely" is American English. Suggest 'probably'.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A lovely little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gog the Mild. I think I've now managed to answer everything above—got myself thoroughly confused about hooks vs. rings before figuring that one out. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Take 2

That all looks good. There have been a few changes since I first looked at this, so I'll give it another skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and that sit outside the rim" sounds odd. Perhaps 'beneath the rim on the outside' or 'externally beneath the rim' or 'externally on the side' or similar?

• Now: bronze frames that are usually circular and elaborately decorated, and that sit along the outside of the rim or at the interior base. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "when one of the escutcheons was analysed in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." I am not sure that "however" is necessary.

• The however relates back to the first words in the sentence: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. Does that make more sense? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Bateman astutely remarked on this as early as 1861". While I realise that you are paraphrasing Brice-Mitford & Scott I am a little unhappy that "astutely" is PoV and/or unencyclopedic.

• Removed the word. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "penannular"?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• "entered the extensive collection of Bateman." Perhaps 'entered Bateman's extensive collection'?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "he related his discoveries". In person or in writing?

• At a meeting; clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to add a final sentence to "Excavation" describing the current agricultural use of the field containing the barrow?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is a surprisingly controversial issue: see here. I've gone with The surrounding fields were designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest in 2013, and see agricultural use. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, once you have addressed my last query, could you ping me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

UC

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Greatly enjoyed reading this one: the prose is generally a real strength -- skilfully written, clear and authoritative. Most of the below are prose nitpicks, matters of terminology and places where I think the facts are not quite clear. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for your close and careful read. I think I have finally(!) addressed all of your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support -- thank you for your good humour in handling what has been an intensive and, I'm sure, sometimes frustrating set of comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist. And not at all—it's always a pleasure to get a review from people with intelligent things to say. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Resolved matters

that are associated with Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art: associated with feels a bit vague and woolly here. Now "a fixture of". --Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The original purpose of hanging bowls, and their place of manufacture, is unknown: this sounds like we mean that we don't know where they were originally made, but reads as if they were all made in some single location, which hasn't yet been found. Changed "place" to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times: I would put some chronological information in here. Do we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times? Are they used throughout the Roman period at all? Butting in, since this has sat around a bit. No I don't think "we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times" at all, indeed probably no surviving hanging bowls are from before the Roman conquest (might be wrong there). "Celtic (pre-Roman)" is the problem; the idea at least used to be that they used Celtic ie British legacy traditions, especially enamel, for an AS market. Perhaps they were made in Hen Ogledd, or just British workshops in AS kingdoms (B-M p. 29). The Staffordshire Moorlands Pan, clearly made for a Roman market in the 2nd century AD, shows a similar mix of contexts for manufacturing and usage. The word "still" should be dropped. I haven't read much of Bruce-Mitford, but his first line says "late Celtic", meaning after the Romans had come and gone. Pre-Roman would be "Early Celtic" in the normal terminology. It's clear to me he regards the finds in AS contexts as not too old when buried (see p 4 for example); on p. 17 his "earlier bowls" start in the 5th century. Johnbod (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for this, John -- a great bit of digging (sorry...). It would be useful for the article to clarify the timeframe here, then. "Celtic" is a particularly tricky term, as it's not-always-simultaneously a chronological marker, a set of archaeological cultures, a set of related languages, an artistic idiom and an ethno-national classification. It might be useful to clarify the sense of "Celtic" that we mean here, and perhaps to consider an alternative or additional label (as John does, many now will contrast "British" with "English/Anglo-Saxon", though I think that would need a footnote if we were doing it in a general-audience source). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Yes, thanks - one always has to be careful with "Celtic" (which isn't linked here). Expand to explain is the answer. British can introduce a further set of possible misunderstandings. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Apologies for letting this one sit, but thanks, UC and John, for carrying on such a helpful conversation in my absence. I've changed it to Hanging bowls are thin-walled bronze vessels, with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension, that are a fixture of Late Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art—a period spanning approximately 400 AD to 1100 AD. I've also added B-M 2005 page 34 to the cite; it states that The bowls of our series, found in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Viking contexts, range in date from c. ad 400 to c. ad 1100. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC) votive chalices hung in churches: this would be tricky as an original use if their origin predates Christianity, as we've just said. No sign that he does, imo. Christianity among the AS certainly, but the idea is presumably Roman house-churches etc (B-M p.30.) Johnbod (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Btw, "chalices" bothered me a bit, but I haven't seen the source. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Here's what the source says: Speaking in general, there is no evidence whatsoever for hanging bowls having been used in the churches of the Celtic lands as liturgical water-vessels or as lamps. A third possible explanation might be advanced: Celtic churches were influenced by ecclesiastical customs prevailing on the Continent, and during the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, it was fashionable to present votive chalices to be hung up in churches. The Roman basilicas had great numbers of these votive chalices (the gifts of successive popes), and the palatine churches of Carlovingian princes also led in this fashion. There is no doubt that reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands, and manuscripts, like those emanating from the court of Charles the Bald (PI. XXIV, i), or carved ivories, like the panels of the Pola Casket (PI. XXIV, 2), showing the interiors of churches with hanging chalices and vases, would help to spread the fashion. The hanging bowls of Celtic churches may simply have been votive gifts, presented to these churches in accordance with the popular Continental fashion. In such a theory, hanging bowls would have, generally speaking, no utilitarian purpose but would simply express the piety and generosity of the donor. Such a supposition would, however, give some explanation of the enrichment of the insides of these bowls (as in the Sutton Hoo example or the Lincoln example from the River Witham), which makes the bowls more elaborate and costly as votive offerings but renders the bowls much less useful for any practical purpose. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC) It does sound like a) "Celtic" means "the Brythonic-speaking parts of the Early Medieval British Isles" (given the "pilgrims" comment, perhaps particularly Ireland and the Western Isles) and b) "Roman" means "in the city of Rome" rather than "subject to a guy called Caesar", and again refers to the same Early Medieval period. I think both should be clarified for our audience. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for all that typing! It seems clear that in this passage "Celtic churches" means churches of Celtic Christianity, which might not always imply use of Celtic languages, and Roman basilicas means basilicas around Rome. I don't see your point about pilgrims and Ireland and the Western Isles. Could "chalices" be changed to "vessels" perhaps? We don't I think want to imply that hanging-bowls were ever used or thought of as chalices. Johnbod (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC) The pilgrims comment was purely a guess, based on the fact that most of the likely sites that I know for pilgrimage in Celtic Britain were in that part of the world, rather than in (say) Cornwall, mid-Wales or Cumbria. Good point on the churches; I don't know enough about the topic to say whether there would have been Celtic churches in English-speaking areas. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC) In "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands" the meaning would be clearer as "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back to the Celtic lands by pilgrims and travelers". The travel is to the Continental sites he's been tallking about. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC) "Chalices" is now "vessels". Not the biggest fan of the newfound alliteration, but better that than creating confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Whether they are hook or basal escutcheons is uncertain: Schoolbook punctuation would be hook- or basal-escutcheons, but that may be a bit archaic now. Is there a rule you can point me to? Happy to add if appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) It's called suspended hyphens, but it's quite an ugly thing anyway and an edge case when you wouldn't necessarily write e.g. basal-escutcheons on its own. There might be a way to rework so that hook more clearly modifies eschutcheons, but there's not really a problem here, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) a ring on the back of one fragment suggests an association with the suspension chains: would rephrase: perhaps may have been used to secure a suspension chain vel. sim. An association with is a bit flowery while also being rather imprecise. Reworded and added. It was admittedly a bit misleading—the ring is stuck, and perhaps originally part of a chain, not part of the escutcheon itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968: I would name the museum here. Reworded. The location of the escutcheons is not introduced by this point, so I've gone with a general statement in the text, and named the museum in the footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) three "ribbon-style fish or dolphin-like creatures": we should attribute the quotation: "what Soandso has called..." Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) They are limbless, the tails curled in a circle, and the jaws both long and curved; where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind, gaps appear, creating slight separations between segments of tail: separate from the copyright issues raised elsewhere, this is a bit poetic for an encyclopaedia. It's been reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) and the contours and eyes of the animals, are all tinned or silvered.: drop the comma before are. It's a cumbersome sentence, but I can't immediately see a good way to resolve it. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The escutcheons were undoubtedly part of an entire hanging bowl when buried: can we cut undoubtedly? I don't think we generally assume that what we write is doubtful. This point was made above, but I do think that "undoubtedly" conveys that this is an extrapolated, rather than definitive, fact—it is not known, but there is no reason to doubt it. We could perhaps change to "presumably" if you think it worth it. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Perhaps "almost certainly", or "are believed to have been..."? "Presumably" works fine too. As you say, the reason to put an adverbial phrase here is because there's a tiny bit of doubt, so undoubtedly doesn't quite work to fill that gap. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) "Presumably" it is. Note that Bruce-Mitford himself goes with "no doubt". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away: we've generally converted imperial measurements, so should do so here as well. We could, but does saying that six feet is approximately two metres really add anything? Most people can probably figure that out, whereas the two conversions in the article (both 40 mm to 1.6 in) are perhaps more useful. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Never mind, I missed all the {{cvt}} (rather than {{convert}}) templates. Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The Benty Grange chainwork was also likely too heavy: a frequent flier here would advise probably; likely in this context is a little AmerE. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC) more developed bodies: what does that mean here: more muscular? Changed to "detailed". In other words, the Benty Grange creatures are basically line drawings defined by their outlines, whereas the Faversham creatures are more elaborate (see here). --Usernameunique (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The third escutcheon from Benty Grange, meanwhile, surviving only in illustration, is most closely parallelled by the basal disc of the Winchester hanging bowl.: could we give some context for when that bowl is from and what it is? Added the date. What other sort of information about the bowl are you thinking of? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Actually, just removed the date. The Winchester bowl is already covered in the "Date" section. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Happy with this; I didn't have any particular additional information in mind, unless there was something you felt worth adding. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) There's plenty that could be added—there are several articles etc. about the bowl—but it might be best left for if the red link ever turns blue. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Despite the similarities with other escutcheon and disc designs, several manuscript illustrations are more closely related to the Benty Grange designs: I'm not seeing how this sentence goes together. More closely compared with what? What's the sense of despite here? Reworded: Even closer parallels to the Benty Grange designs are found in manuscript illustrations. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC) "shrewdly" as it turned out: if going to stay, this quote needs attribution, but I'm not sure how much value it really adds. Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Advice changing several manuscripts of the VIIth Century to seventh per MOS:CONFORM. Not a big fan of changing quoted text without noting the change, so have gone with [Seventh] Century. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC) the INI monogram: is it worth explaining what INI meant to a medieval Christian (come to think of it: what does it represent: is this INRI - Iesus Nazarei Rex Iudaeorum?) Went down a lot of rabbit holes on this one (including a very unhelpful discussion with ChatGPT) before realizing that "INI" is simply the first three letters of the first line: Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi, Filii Dei. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) based on its design, and the associated finds: no comma needed. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC) from the barrow: We haven't really talked about the context of deposition yet, outside the lead, and so this comes in a bit oddly. Perhaps "the barrow in which it was discovered"? Ideally, we'd want to introduce its deposition first, but we don't want to pull the whole discovery/excavation section before the date, I don't think. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Do we know the date of the barrow? As far as I know, most are Neolithic, but we've implied that this one was post-Roman. A bit more than implied, no? Given the presence of a helmet and cup with silver crosses, wrote Audrey Ozanne, "[t]he straightforward interpretation of this find would seem to be that it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I think I may have missed that on first read. Are the burial and the barrow definitely contemporary? Lots of Neolithic barrows were re-used for burials in later periods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I haven't seen anything suggesting that they are not. If anything, the proximity to the Roman road (and resulting indication that the barrow was meant to be seen therefrom) would militate towards a later date. (Of course, the Roman road could have been following an existing route.) --Usernameunique (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) All true. Happy here in the absence of evidence to the contrary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) a small buffer state: Is state, with all its Weberian and Westphalian connotations, the right word here? I've changed to "province", which is the word used by the source. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The area came under the fold of the Mercian kingdom: a slightly mixed metaphor (into the fold or under the wing: a fold is a place you keep sheep), but in any case worth reworking per MOS:IDIOM. Now "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) MOS:IDIOM would still prefer something more literal, for those who speak English as an additional language or don't have much experience of sheepfolds. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) under the control it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) the Benty Grange and other rich barrows suggest that the Pecsæte may have had their own dynasty beforehand, but there is no written evidence for this.: this may be slightly disingenuous, given that we're in a place where there isn't a whole lot of written evidence for anything. That's true, but there's practically nothing written about the Pecsæte, whereas a number of other political entities (particularly the larger ones) in and around Mercia got at least something written about them, even if it was written later, or by sources in other kingdoms. Yorke 1990 has a good discussion of this (under the heading Sources) at pages 100–101. And page 108 is the cite for the line in question: "A separate dynasty amoung the Pecsæte might be assumed from the series of rich burials in barrows, including that at Benty Grange which produced the only other helmet found in an Anglo-Saxon burial besides that of Sutton Hoo, but the archaeological remains cannot be supplemented by any written records which would clarify their significance." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) All fair enough. Perhaps we could be even bolder and say something to the effect that this [the existence of the barrows] is the only reason to suspect that the Pecsæte had their own dynasty? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I almost went with "no written or other evidence for this", but, technically speaking, I think that goes beyond the source. As written, it's at least clear that the only evidence offered is the barrows. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) The fact that the objects were found in two clusters separated by 6 ft (1.8 m): Separated by looks wrong, to my eyes, with the abbreviated units: suggest 6 ft apart. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC) that other objects that normally accompany a helmet were absent, such as a sword and shield,: I think the relative clause should really go after helmet. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Being so large it may alternatively or additionally have contained two burials, only one of which was discovered by Bateman: might be worth rephrasing for elegance, but if not, comma after large. I'm not sure I understand alternatively or additionally: if the latter (for three total), surely neither of them was discovered by Bateman? Reworded: Given the size of the mound, an alternative (or additional) explanation is that it originally contained two burials, only one of which Bateman discovered. Alternatively/additionally is intended to convey that the clustering could be due to the barrow being (a) looted, (b) a double burial, or (c) both looted and a double burial. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Much clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) In 1861 Bateman died at 39: this reads a little clunkily to me: died, aged 39 would feel more natural. Went with died at age 39. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) loaned the collection to Sheffield: to Museums Sheffield? You can't loan something to a city in the abstract; some body has to take custody of it. Clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) having seen to his father's fortune: is seen to a slightly archaic synonym for spent? Less archaic than understated, I think, but have changed to "spent." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Grave-mounds and their Contents: per MOS:CONFORM, use our orthography per standard title case: Grave-Mounds and Their Contents. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) British Archæological Association: similarly, change the digraph to ae. That's a step too far for me. Given that it's the name of an organization, it's also arguably within at least the spirit of the MOS exception for proper names. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure it is the name: looking at their website, the digraph is used only in the logo (never in text), and I'd argue that it's therefore merely a decorative part of the logo itself, rather than their own sense of their own name. It's a bit odd for Wikipedia to be claiming to be more correct than the organisation itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The relevant question, I think, is what was the name at the time in question—and the newspaper articles use the "æ". Looking at the organization's journal from the time, however, both "æ" and "ae" are used. If they're not going to be consistent, then it's no longer a step too far to drop the "æ", which I’ve just done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974: MOS:IDIOM: I think we mean "wrote another book about", rather than simply "walked to". Yep, now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) and published what he termed a "definitive" reconstruction: MOS:SCAREQUOTES might encourage that we simply say "what he termed a definitive reconstruction". Looking at that part of the MOS, it doesn't seem as if the quotation marks are an issue: Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. (emphasis added and footnote omitted). If anything, it's probably the "what he termed" part of the sentence that suggests doubt. But I think there's some value to noting that he's the one who made that statement. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Wasn't the best link: better is MOS:QUOTEPOV, which has Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred.. It then gives the example to avoid underneath as Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting"., which seems to be almost exactly what we have here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) That makes more sense, thanks. Dropped the quotation marks. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Llewellynn Jewitt suggested there were two burials in 1870: less ambiguous as suggested in 1870 that there had been two burials. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Source A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with An Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia.: decap an. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Capitalisation in the Brenan ref: why is Bowls capitalised but the rest in sentence case? The other vowel in the title (as opposed to the words in the subtitle) is also capitalized. I just followed how the report styles itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Our Manual of Style would go the other way: make the formatting fit the norms of the article (as long as doing so requires only superficial changes, such as capitalisation, digraphs, ampersands and so on), not whatever happened to be the norm in the time and place where each individual source was published. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Done, here and for a couple other books. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• How attached are you to the term Anglo-Saxon? Within the field, there's quite a lot of movement against it now -- primarily because it is only very rarely (once?) attested in contemporary sources, whereas English and equivalent were the dominant means by which these people referred to themselves, and partly because of its appropriation by nineteenth- and twentieth-century racists. I believe "English", "Early Medieval" and combinations thereof are generally preferred.

  This is purely in America, because of contemporary political connotations! You believe wrong, and Yankee cultural imperialism should be firmly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the "purely in America" label is quite fair; true, the debate was precipitated by the renaming of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England in 2019, and that initiative was mostly led (though by no means entirely followed) by the society's North American members, but the ensuing conversation has been international. The Welsh archaeologist John Hines has a good and even-handed article walking through the circumstances of the debate and its fallout, particularly in the UK (there was also a fairly large student petition to rename the eponymous faculty at Cambridge a few years ago, though I'm not sure much came of it). The most consistent and visible voice against the "Anglo-Saxon" term is Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is a Canadian trained largely in the UK: her arguments against it do reference present-day politics, but are based largely in the fact that the term is almost unattested before the sixteenth century, whereas people at the time referred to themselves and were known by others as "English". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just about all period terms are later inventions by historians, look at "Celtic" for heaven's sake, not to mention Byzantine, Hellenistic, Gothic, Romanesque, Renaissance.... You rightly seem to to be climbing back from "generally preferred". "English" doesn't help - an American student "boldly" converted one major article here to use "Old English" but that has no usage beyond the language. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  If I read Hines correctly, he doesn't see the term "Anglo-Saxon" as inherently objectionable, and thinks the debate over it both has come at the expense of worthwhile reforms and also counts as its most vocal supporters those who have contributed least to the field. But the more salient point, I think, is that we're in an encyclopedic rather than progressive context; the point is to state the facts as they are, rather than as they ought to be. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Happy with this: the general approach on here when a decision is remotely a matter of taste is to defer to the first person who made the call. I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you -- there's nothing here to impede promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• but on minimal and possibly incorrect evidence.: Could we have some sense of what that evidence is? Presumably, if it's possibly incorrect, it's also possibly correct, so I'm surprised that we're closing this hypothesis down so firmly.

• Fair point, now clarified. Basically, there's no evidence, other than the fact that red enamel is common, and yellow enamel rare. The "incorrect" part is that one of the yellow-on-red proponents cited Rupert Bruce-Mitford in support of the theory, when he said no such thing. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be worth explaining that one, if only in the footnote on "without evidence": our current framing implies that Henry and Haseloff said something like "I reckon it was yellow and red, but don't have any evidence for that", which they quite clearly didn't: the problem is that their evidence (the fact that B-M allegedly saw or reconstructed that colour scheme) never actually existed. Was that really all of their evidence, though? Often these conjectures are made by comparison with other similar objects, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've changed to "without offering evidence", but is this not already explained in the footnote? The main problem is that they just say it, without saying why. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've not understood, clearly: from my first reading of your comment, it sounded like they did say why (because Bruce-Mitford said it, and that our priors for all-yellow decoration are pretty low, given that yellow enamel is pretty rare in the period), but that the evidence/argument is generally considered unconvincing. That's not quite the same as offering no evidence, and I think it's a little unfair to accuse Henry and Haseloff of simply making baseless assertions if they did not in fact do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Henry 1936, At present, out of all that was originally found, there remain only two half escutcheons, one in the Ashmolean Museum, the other one in Sheffield Museum. By combining them it is possible to reconstruct a pattern of three elongated beasts biting each other's tails ... They are enamelled in yellow on a red field, like several of the spiral discs, and the bronze has also been plated with silver. Per Haseloff 1990 (translated), Fragments of an escutcheon from Benty Grange, Derbyshire, show three animals arranged in a circular shape with ribbon-like, tapering bodies that end in a fish tail. These are clearly representations of dolphins, which appear in Irish art, especially book painting (Cathach of St. Columba; gospel fragment, Durham A.I.10. fol. 2r). The colors of the enamel are, in my opinion: yellow for the animal bodies and red for the background. The separating metal bars are tinned. According to R. Bruce-Mitford, there is only one enamel color, namely red. And per Ozanne 1962–1963 (probably taking her lead from Henry, who is cited in the following sentence), The Middleton Moor escutcheon is enamelled in red only, while the second attachment has both yellow and red, like the Benty Grange fragments. Henry possibly analyzed the escutcheons in person, but there is no indication either of the others did. In any event, however, none of the authors present any evidence for their assertions, and Haseloff gets a fact incorrect when he attributes an all-red theory to Bruce-Mitford. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to try to make it more clear: A yellow-creatures-on-red-background colour scheme has alternatively been claimed, but no evidence for such a layout has been presented. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• according to the Tribal Hidage: I would introduce what this was.

• I'm a little bit reluctant here, just because there's so much to say, and so many qualifiers to add; just clicking on the link seems to better way to figure it out. But let me know if you disagree. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NOFORCELINK would always advise some kind of explanation additional to "just click the link", but I'll have a read and a think as to whether I can suggest something that's both brief enough and correct enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, in that case I've gone with a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• The nearby farm was renovated between 2012 and 2014; as of 2023 it is rented out as a holiday cottage: I'm not sure how relevant or encyclopaedic this bit is; the last part in particular could be taken as WP:PROMO. Given that none of the sources cited here really pass HQRS muster, would remove.

• As noted below, I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, but the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's thus somewhat interesting to know the status of the farmhouse, just as it's interesting to know the status of the barrow and the surrounding fields. It's not a point I feel particularly strongly about, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm with User:SchroCat on this one: the farmhouse itself is interesting, but not the renovation and not the current use as a holiday cottage (it would be interesting if the barrow itself, or something more directly related to the artefact, had some current use, but this cottage is only notable by sheer proximity and the sentence with that citation does read like an advertisement.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of it being rented out, to make it seem less like an ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Some initial thoughts:

• "seems to show that a hook may have been present" – this double-hedging is a pet peeve of mine: what's wrong with "seems to show that a hook was present"?!

• Good point. Now: a contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt suggests that a hook was present at excavation. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion of colour is slightly confusing: we are told that the yellow-on-red colour scheme has "also" been suggested before the all-yellow theory which it is additional to is mentioned! Either cut the "also", or mention Bruce-Mitford's all-yellow working hypothesis first.

• The first mention of color is The decomposed enamel background appears uniformly yellow to the eye, as it did when excavated. I've just added the "uniformly" to make this more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the description of the dolphin design seems uncomfortably close to Bruce-Mitford's text to me:
  • "each biting the tail of the animal ahead of it" / "each biting the tail of the one ahead of it"
  • "jaws both long and curved" / "long curved jaws"
  • "where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind" / "where the tail or ribbon body of an animal should logically pass through the mouth of the one behind it"

• Reworded all. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away": this is a little jarring on the first mention of this chain; I would say something like "a mass of corroded chainwork was discovered six feet away..."

• Changed "The" to "A". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the lateral stroke of the INI monogram that introduces the Gospel of Mark": Bruce-Mitford 1974, cited for this, says that the monogram is IN and the gospel is John; I don't have access to Bruce-Mitford 1987, so I can't see if that supports the claim. (Though I see this fragment of the Durham gospel is in fact Mark and has what looks suspiciously like the monogram described by B-M)

• Well, this one is interesting. Per B-M 1974, "The lateral stroke of the N in the IN monogram from St John in the Durham Gospel fragment MS A II 10 is built of two similar fish motifs. The MS dates from about A.D. 650." Folio 2r of the Gospel Book Fragment (A. II. 10.) shows just this—but, as you say, it is the beginning of the Gospel of Mark. Meanwhile, what does folio 2r of the Durham Gospels (A. II. 17.) depict? The Gospel of John, with a big N-looking thing, decorated with fish- or dolphin-looking things. I think B-M had to have been describing the fragment: it is the only one where there is a "lateral stroke ... built of two similar fish motifs". But the similarity between them is probably the cause of the error. (And as discussed here, there appears to be another, related, error in B-M 2005.) I'll also take a look at B-M 1987 when I have access to it again next week. But for now, I think we can be confident that the article here correctly navigates the intended meaning of the sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: Bruce-Mitford 1987 does not shed any further light on this issue. It says just that the best analogy for its fish design [is] in the Northumbrian bible fragment MS Durham A.Il. 10, of c. 650. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• "fosse"/"penannular": both uncommon technical terms. Can they be glossed, linked, or replaced with something more understandable?

• fosse and penannular are both disambiguation pages with definitions. The former suggests that ditch is a viable piped link, which I've gone with. I'm not sure what to link penannular to, though. Wiktionary? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given that one of the fragments is (or at least recently was?) on display in Sheffield, I don't suppose there's any way of getting a decent photo of what it looks like now? If I remember next time I'm up there I'll have a go, but that's not going to be until February at the earliest.

• To be honest, I'm not sure where I got the information that it was on display; the link it was sourced to doesn't seem to have that information, and I've now removed it from the article. I've also emailed the museum a couple times about a photo, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto-public—interesting points. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public, just checking if the above responses are sufficient for your support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "A third disintegrated soon after excavation, and no longer survives. " Well, is it necessary to tell the reader something that disintegrated no longer survives?

• Well, it could have been tucked away in a box full of dust; were the excavation done today, for instance, there would presumably be better records of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• I also was wondering about a photo of the one on display, either taken by a visitor or if the museum would co-operate with making one of its images available through OTRS. Having taken more than a few photos as a visitor to museums, I suspect the latter would be the preferred option. The Ashmolean might also be queried. Has either a Wikipedian in residence?

• I've sent both museums emails on the subject. The Weston Park Museum was kind enough to send photos of the helmet at one point, so I'm still hopeful they might find time for the escutcheon. I sent one to them recently; I'll try following up with the Ashmolean, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Are the objects mentioned in "Parallels" simply of similar design, or do the sources draw the parallels with the escutcheons in question?

• The sources always say either (a) "[object in question] is similar to the Benty Grange escutcheons", or (b) "the Benty Grange escutcheons are similar to [object or objects]". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1861 Bateman died at 39" age 39?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "having seen to his father's fortune," perhaps "dissipated" rather than "seen to"?

• Went with "spent." You're now I think the third person who has suggested revising that line; guess it's time to wise up. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I get the same thing with cute idioms that don't work well in all ENGVARs Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• " Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974,[100]" Does this mean he went there?

• It wouldn't shock me, but it's now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; templates like tq cause template limit problems in the FAC archives, and slow down the load time for the entire FAC page. I have replaced them here as right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

IB

• The three location links should have some delinking to bring them in line with MOS:GEOLINK

• There are only two links, no? "Benty Grange farm, Monyash, Derbyshire, England". Are you suggesting that Derbyshire doesn't need the link? If anything, I think we could be adding a link, to Benty Grange. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting it, MOS:GEOLINK is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:GEOLINK says For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit. Here, the "larger unit" is England, which is not linked. This would appear to be consistent with the example (Buffalo, New York, United States), where the city and state are linked, but not the country. (Granted, that example has only one link—"Buffalo, New York" is the full name of the article, whereas "Monyash" and "Derbyshire" are each full article names. Nevertheless, the "larger unit" remains England.) --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I read it differently, but your call. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Excavation

• Is the C21st renovation of the farmhouse important? Or the fact it's now a holiday cottage?

• I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, although the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's somewhat interesting, therefore, to know that the farmhouse is still around and kicking. The article on the helmet also mentions the same facts and went through the same FAC process. With that said, I don't feel too strongly about it (especially, perhaps, because the owners never responded for a photo of the barrow), so won't push back if you think the article better without it. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll accept the first bit about the farmhouse being there (I suppose knowing the environment of the archaeological site is an important point), but not so much the holiday cottage, which seems superfluous. Your call, and it won't affect my support below one bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's my lot. Nicely written - engaging and nice and clear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat, just checking to see if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? (Obviously, neither is obligatory.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the ping. Only one of my two comments has been addressed, so I'm not going to come down off the fence on this one yet - but don't let that hold up the process if you're looking to pass this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs and SchroCat, apologies for the delay—had some computer issues which made editing more difficult. But SchroCat, I've responded to the remaining comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going with a guarded Support for this. On the prose side it is certainly qualifies. Both UndercoverClassicist and Johnbod are eminently more capable than I to judge the content aspect and I hope at least one of them confirms they are happy with that part too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod

• I've butted-in some above.
• I wonder if you came to regret picking an object that barely exists? You end up doing a lot of "the knee bone was presumably connected to the thigh-bone" stuff, which has perhaps understandably attracted much reviewer excitement.
• "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." See above - B-M does not mean "Early Celtic", before the Romans, but Celtic from the Romano-British, sub-Roman or "Late Celtic" period. Best to expand to clarify this important point. "Still" is misleading - he & others regard most of them as being made "during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times".
• "He suggested that this was the result of "a mixing or tempering with some corrosive liquid; the result of which is the presence of thin ochrey veins in the earth, and the decomposition of nearly the whole of the human remains." Any modern comment of this? Sutton Hoo similarly lacks the human remains, but I think this is just put down to natural soil chemistry.

• B-M 1974 says that "The disappearance of human remains may be due to the soil conditions observed by Bateman. The process of disintegration was no doubt advanced by the robbing of the grave." Given that B-M was very familiar with the conditions at Sutton Hoo by this point (he excavated there from 1965 to 1970), it's somewhat surprising that he doesn't discuss the possibility that it was simply the nature of the soil; it does suggest, however, that he thought Bateman's hypothesis had some potential. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• You list "Bruce-Mitford, Rupert (2005). Taylor, Robin J. (ed.). A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with an Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-813410-7" As you know, Rupert Bruce-Mitford died in 1994, having started compiling his catalogue in the 1940s. Sheila Raven is credited as author of the Scandi finds section (not relevant here), and the entry authors (end of the pre-numbered pages) are these two and Jane Brenan. I don't see Taylor, Robin J. anywhere on a g-books view. I think a note explaining the situation would be good somewhere.

• That was a mistake. It was caused, most likely, by using as a starting point the citation template for Bruce-Mitford's 1997 posthumous work (on Mawgan Porth Dark Age Village), which was edited by Robin Taylor. Thanks for catching. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's all for now. Nice article, though I wish the subject was more complete. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I notice that the "still" in "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times...", which is still there, and needs to go (and "Celtic" to be further expanded, was added in response to a query by Dudley M in the pre-review on the article talk (not his fault). We have a lot of "tree" detail in the article, but I think the "wood" overall picture needs stating more clearly. If such an experienced and intelligent reviewer as UC was misled, it shows there was a problem, which I don't think has been sufficiently dealt with. The page or so in Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092 (pp. 101-102) might help, if you've not seen it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    • That's a helpful source, thanks. How do you feel about: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes - it might be tinkered with, but that does the job. There's sometimes talk of "native" Romano-British populations, at least in the early Roman period. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• If anyone's interested, the conversation higher up moved me to start Dragonesque brooch, an earlier type of British cultural hybrid artefact. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• ok, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Johnbod. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• You should give the source in the image description of the reconstruction.

• The source is Carlinmack (thanks again), based on published designs. What are you suggesting? Something like "after Bruce-Mitford 2005"? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• It should be a full reference including the page number so that anyone interested can find the source image. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "What remains of one escutcheon belongs to Museums Sheffield and as of 2023 was in the collection of the Weston Park Museum. The other is held by the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford; as of 2023 it is not on display." You imply that neither is on display but you should state this specifically.

• I'm not sure about the status of the Sheffield escutcheon, whereas the Ashmolean affirmatively states that theirs is not on display. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion of the date and provenance of the bowl is unclear. In the lead you say "a fragmentary Anglo-Saxon artefact from the seventh century AD". In the main text "it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". This implies late seventh/early eighth rather than straight seventh century. But "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." This implies that it was not made in 7C Mercia but of ancient Celtic manufacture.

• I've tried to clarify this with the following: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• This still seems vague. Post-Roman Britain redirects to Sub-Roman Britain, which is the fifth and sixth centuries. Is this what you mean? Vikings are irrelevant unless they also used them. The Vikings were active in Britain between the late eighth to the eleventh centuries, which is very broad. Presumably the bowls' dating can be more closely specified than that. (BTW the term "Celtic" is controversial except as applied to the language. An academic historian once objected to it in an article of mine and I replied pointing out that it was in a quote from another academic historian.) How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the [[Sub-Roman Britain|post-Roman period]] (fifth and sixth centuries). Some were acquired by Anglo-Saxons, probably by trade, and used until the ... century." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Driving by - I don't think that is supported by the sources. There are 28 examples from Viking period graves in Scandinavia,(B-M, 41) never mind Britain. B-M is very cautious in giving dates, except for burials when there is other evidence, but supports a much longer range than just the fifth and sixth centuries. Your presumption that "dating can be more closely specified than that" is I think wrong. Another context where "Celtic" is not controversial is artistic style, especially in fact after the end of the "Celtic" Iron Age with the Roman conquest. That is what matters here. Btw, I don't think we should exclude the possibility that, at least after the earliest period, the A-S elite (perhaps later joined by the Vikings) were the main market for hanging bowls, perhaps commissioning them direct from the workshops. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I was trying to clarify the wording, and where I have wrongly interpreted it I think that this shows that the wording is unclear. Your comments help to clarify. From what you, say maybe change "used by Anglo-Saxons until Viking times" to "used by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings." My reference to fifth and sixth centuries was what I assumed was meant in the article by "post Roman period" for manufacture, not usage. You appear to say that both manufacture and usage carried on much longer than what is usually meant by the post-Roman period. If dating cannot be closely specified then I suggest saying so, not giving a vague and apparently irrelevant "into viking times". As to Celtic, I was commenting on "Celtic populations", not Celtic art. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I've said similar above (in 2 places). But vagueness seems to come with the territory (perhaps partly because B-M was only published 10 yrs after he died ...). I can't today access B-M p. 17 where he summarizes his conclusions on dating, but it covers a long stretch, as I recall. From a google search they "occur mainly in Anglo-Saxon burials of the 6th and 7th centuries AD" but were at least often "antiques" when buried. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• If the Scandinavian examples date to the Viking period, does that mean that they post-date the ones in Anglo-Saxon burials? The Viking Age is usually taken to start in 793, but that seems Anglo-centric and I do not know whether it is taken to start earlier in Scandinavia. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• See B-M p. 43 (part of Raven's bit). C10th and (slightly less common) C9th are the Scandi burial dates, where we know them. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• So Scandi examples are much later, but that might be because by 9C the Anglo-Saxons no longer buried with grave goods, not necessariy because they had stopped using hanging bowls? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's right. The remarkable (and remarkably lost, after being exhibited in 1868) Witham bowl from the River Witham in Lincs. is dated by B-M to the late 8th or early 9th century. Perhaps significantly, this doesn't seem to come from a burial. B-M pp. 208-212. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Two notes that are relevant to the above discussion. First, Bruce-Mitford's conclusions on dating (2005, p. 40) is as follows: The main conclusions reached in this chapter on the dating of the hanging-bowls are as follows. The origins of the series is firmly placed in the late and early sub-Roman bowl-making industry, and Brenan's proposition that there was no continuity is not accepted. It is maintained that there was no bowl-making industry in Ireland before the eighth century, although the ornamental background of at least one group of bowls, the fine-line group, was well established there during the sixth century. Hanging-bowls were used in late Roman and early sub-Roman contexts, and the Faversham (1) (Corpus no. 37), Finningley (1) and (2) bowls (Corpus nos. 109-10), and the Newham Bog (1) (Corpus no. 71), and Silch-ester (Group 2, no. 5) escutcheons are (or may be) all examples of this. A bowls are by and large confined to the fifth and sixth centuries. The B bowls and the folded rim are a seventh-century development, and the folded rim everywhere supersedes the straight in-bent rim that descended from the late Roman bowls of Irchester type. However, some A bowl traditions continue, in not clearly apparent circumstances, into the seventh and later centuries. With the exception of the Wilton bowl (Corpus no. 97) and any others that may have shared its peculiarity (riveting on of the escutcheons), A bowls and B bowls had soldered escutcheons, following the Roman tradition. Riveting of escutcheons is found later in the C bowls, and becomes thereafter universal. C bowls are dated generally to the seventh/eighth century and D and E bowls are the last in the series and date to the eighth-eleventh centuries and even possibly later. Second, there's a 1999 article (doi:10.1080/00766097.1999.11735623; not cited in B-M 2005, probably because it's posthumous) that expressly argues that hanging bowls—whatever their broader dates of manufacture and use—were only deposited in Anglo-Saxon graves in the 7th and 8th centuries. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the typing. Some of this could go into our main Hanging bowl, by a professional archaeologist, but rather short. For this article, one might simplify by restricting/distinguishing between this type of hanging bowl, and other later ones. Mind you, B-M doesn't seem to commit himself as to which of his letter types the bits come from. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• (Much as I'd love to take credit for the typing, this is a very handy tool.) I've edited the line about use to clarify that Vikings were amongst those who used the bowls, and added some of the above (namely, the article by Helen Geake) about when hanging bowls were included in Anglo-Saxon graves. We could add a discussion of the different bowls types, but I think that would be better placed in the main hanging bowl article, especially because here, the bowl itself (as opposed to the escutcheons) no longer survives—likely why Bruce-Mitford does not discuss what type of bowl the Benty Grange example was. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "wayside drinking vessels of the sort Edwin of Northumbria is said to have provided travellers". to or for travellers.

• "for" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• "stuck the back of one fragment" "stuck on the back of one fragment"?

• Fixed (went with "stuck to"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Further comments

• The one outstanding point I see from the discussion above is "Celtic populations". The term "Celtic" is controversial in this context and "British" would be better.

• The problem with British, as a standalone term, is that it seems much more ambiguous than Celtic. The current sentence refers to Celtic populations in Britain, and we'd be changing to British populations in Britain—a phrase that could just as well include Anglo-Saxons in it. Per Johnbod's comment above, we could perhaps go with something along the lines of native Romano-British populations, although it's somewhat clunky. Bruce-Mitford 2005 unabashedly uses the word Celtic: No one doubts that the great majority of the bowls are of Celtic manufacture. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bruce-Mitford died in 1995 and in his time the term "Celtic" as applied to people was not controversial, which it is now among academic historians. I am now away and do not have access to my books, but in British people see: "In this sub-Roman Britain, as Anglo-Saxon culture spread across southern and eastern Britain and Gaelic through much of the north, the demonym "Briton" became restricted to the Brittonic-speaking inhabitants of what would later be called Wales, Cornwall, North West England (Cumbria), and a southern part of Scotland (Strathclyde).". Changing "They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." to "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." would not be unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Usernameunique that an unexpanded "British" is at least as likely to be misunderstood or mislead as "Celtic". I'm not sure how "controversial" Celtic actually is - everybody agrees it is a weak term, with a lot of baggage, but it is univerally understood. I note that Leslie Webster's 2012 book has "...been argued that in the sixth century the majority of bowls were made by Celtic populations within Britain ..." and later "as the A-S kingdoms extended" the workshops seem to have retreated to modern Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Webster was an art historian using a term almost always avoided by historians of early medieval Britain. The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales by Thomas Charles-Edwards is called Wales and the Britons, meaning excluding the Anglo-Saxons, and he obviously regards it as an unproblematic usage as he used it in the book title. He writes of central Scotland being disputed between the Britons, Picts, Irish and English. Britons is used in the same sense in Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages and in the two modern academic histories of the period, The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas Higham and Martin Ryan, and the first volume of the Cambridge History of Britain, Early Medieval Britain by Rory Naismith (Professor of Early Medieval English History at Cambridge University, who is the reviewer I referred to above who objected to my use of "Celtic" in an article for the WikiJournal of Humanities, see comment RNN16 in [3]). The only exception I can find is the article on Celts in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, which described them as various groups of peoples in Europe and Asia Minor, including Britain. We should not use a term in a sense regarded as problematic by almost all specialists on early medieval Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, we know all that! Webster (who is still alive) is a historian too, and a very distinguished one! Art historians, including "specialists on early medieval Britain" (only a couple of whom seem to feature in your impressive library list) are at once perhaps more conscious of the issues around "Celtic" than general/political historians, and less at the same time scared of using the term for this period. You might recall the name of the British Museum exhibition a few years ago. The issue is - what does Randy from Boise" make of a plain "British"? As I've said several times above, unpacking and explaining these terms is best for those readers who haven't read the Oxford History of Wales etc. What that review note actually says is "Commented [RNN16]: Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." which is certainly true. But to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’ here is not an option, as these areas seem to be firmly where hanging bowls were not made at this period. "British" in the A-S period has its own, much less well-rehearsed, issues - when do the "British" in modern England stop being British? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• My suggestion is: "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." The meaning of "Britons" here seems to me clear to anyone from the context. However, you raise a point I was not aware of. I assumed that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made. So were they made by native Britons in AS areas? This should be clarified in the article. Of course you raise valid points about "British", but disputing historians' usage and using a term they reject because they have not discussed the issues is OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• You suggested above "How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the post-Roman period (fifth and sixth centuries)." Just saying. The little we know on locations (essentially find-spots rather than evidence of manufacture) is summarized below. They may have been made in areas the A-S hadn't quite got to at that point - see Webster. Later on they probably were made in Ireland. There is I think nothing in the article to encourage you to assume "that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made", except the mention of "Celtic" style, but it might be best to head off that idea somehow. Btw, why not Scotland? The evidence for manufacture there is far stronger than for Wales or Ireland. Since the mere mention of "Celtic" seems to immediately generate different assumptions - Iron Age for Undercover Classicist, & Wales & Ireland for Dudley, I really think as clear as possible a statement of what is meant (and not meant) is needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I should have mentioned Dumnonia and Strathclyde as well as Wales and Ireland. I did not include Scotland as it did not exist at that period and I would be interested to know where in Scotland the bowls were made. The south-east is presumably possible before it was anglicised at an early date by the Northumbrians. Strathclyde is likely but it was not yet part of Scotland. Dal Riata covering the western seaboard of Scotland and north-east Ireland is likely. I assume Pictland is unlikely as it was a separate culture in the far north. A discussion of the areas and dates of manufacture would bypass the need to choose between Celtic and British. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Dudley Miles, this is taken from p. 225 of Wales and the Britons by Charles-Edwards: Hanging-bowls, a form of thin copper-alloy bowl designed to be suspended from three or four hooks, provide evidence for a quite different pattern of exchange. They usually have Celtic decoration but are mainly found in Anglo-Saxon graves of the period 550–650. When they have been repaired locally in the area in which they are found, the craftsmanship of the repairs is sufficiently different from that of the original manufacture to show that they were imports from somewhere else. They were not made by Celtic craftsmen working for Anglo-Saxon employers in eastern Britain; and thus the Celtic form of decoration is the best guide to their place of origin. Unfortunately it is not known from where in Celtic Britain or Ireland they were imported into Anglo-Saxon England. This uncertainty is itself, however, a symptom of the shared material culture on either side of the Irish Sea and reaching up into the Hebrides. That shared material culture began to emerge in the fifth century, as shown by the development of one fourth-century British type of Brooch into the standard form, the pennanular brooch, class 1, in both Celtic Britain and Ireland and at very much the same date. And per Youngs 2009 p. 228 (doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264508.003.0009), I suggest that enamelled hanging-bowls were originally made in some of the most prosperous centres of British Britain from the mid-sixth century, from the lower Severn Valley to the Moray Firth, though not in the poorer western areas that were to become bastions of medieval Celtic culture, Cornwall and highland Wales, and that the fashion for such bowls was exported to Ireland much later than the first wave of brooches and pins of c.400. My view (which is a polite term for a guess) is that we should be looking, after the domination of Rheged, the creation of Wessex and fall of Elmet in 617, at the Strathclyde, Scottish Dál Riata and Pictish areas. It is always tempting to look at Scottish Dál Riata as a west-coast gateway for the exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of Ireland, not just in the context of the Columban foundation on Iona. There had been traffic with neighbouring north Britain since prehistoric times. Was the situation in former Roman Britain in the sixth to seventh centuries analogous with the effect of the Roman invasion on the Celtic kingdoms of Britain? The latter is argued to have resulted in an earlier influx of British metalwork into Ireland, particularly the midlands and the north. Did the successful Anglo-Saxon military campaigns of the period lead to a production shift north and west, following established marriage alliances, trading and ecclesiastical connections? The bowls in the Anglo-Saxon territories represent any one or all of the following: loot, tribute, prestige gifts, marriage portions, local trade, originating with British elites. These vessels were often old, mended and frequently incomplete when buried by their finnal owners. Smiths are mobile, but so too are patrons. --03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've added this line: One possibility is that they were originally made by populations outside the sphere of Anglo-Saxon control, such as in the Severn Valley in southwest England to the Moray Firth in Scotland, and—as the Anglo-Saxons extended their domain—were manufactured in progressively northern places, such as Dál Riata, Strathclyde, and Pictland, with the tradition ultimately taking root in Ireland also. (Fun fact: this FAC is now twice the length of the article.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Let's make it even longer That framing seems imply that "the Anglo-Saxons" were a single political unit (in particular, the phrase extended their domain and perhaps the phrase Anglo-Saxon control). Is that accurate? If not, would suggest something like "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms/polities/realms/similar extended their domains...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• How about "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms extended their territories". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, used that wording. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the reference for the image should be in the image description as well as in the article.

• It's in the footnote: "After Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pl. 3." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes the article footnote. But the the description in c:File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg is just "Design used on 7th century Bowl." This is too vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Good call. I've expanded both the description and attribution. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• "141 were from Britain and Ireland, 26 from Norway, and 7 from elsewhere in Europe." There are several issues. 1. MOS forbids - if I remember correctly - starting a sentence with a number in figures. 2. Is no breakdown of the figure for Britain and Ireland available? Anglo-Saxon areas, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland? 3. Europe should be "mainland Europe".

• (You're correct about the MOS.) I've reworded to Within the British Isles, England accounted for 117, Scotland for 7, and Ireland for 17; elsewhere, Norway accounted for 26, and the remainder of Europe for 7. I don't think Bruce-Mitford gives a more detailed breakdown (although it could be at least partially compiled from the bowl-by-bowl breakdown), though he notes that The bowls have come to light in all parts of the British Isles, from Shetland to the Isle of Wight, except for Wales, and Devon and Cornwall. Of those European (but not Norwegian) 7, meanwhile, I don't think "mainland" works, since Sweden accounts for a bowl. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Webster says, "some 150 bowls or bowl fittings are known from Britain (before 700)... most of them from England". Also 4 from Ireland. But B-M has more on this, maps at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Continental Europe article says "The Scandinavian Peninsula is sometimes also excluded as, even though it is a part of "mainland Europe"", so it covers Sweden, but this is a minor issue as "Europe" is often used - wrongly in my opinion - to exclude the UK. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The Benty Grange hanging bowl is typically dated to the second half of the seventh century". "typically" is an odd word in this context. Maybe "dated by most experts" Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I wonder how many experts have actually made their own assessments, rather just following B-M. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for all your input, Dudley Miles. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• PS. I see that Charles-Edwards refers to "Celtic craftsmen" and this seems better than "Celtic populations". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  And better than "British Britain", which Youngs uses! Changed to "Celtic makers" so as to not gender it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Image and source review

Image placement is OKish. File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg should probably say that the underlying design is PD. Otherwise it seems like licencing is OK. Personally I tend to think that the ALT text needs to convey the same information on appearance as the image would, not merely say what the image is. Source-wise, spot-check upon request. Why do Liestøl 1953 and the 19th century Bateman sources have no page numbers in the References section? What do "pp. 223, pl. 73.", "pp. 223, 223 n.4." and "pp. 46–47, 47 n.a." stand for? Is Thomas Bateman (antiquary) a high-quality reliable source? Same question for William Henry Goss. I see there is some inconsistency in which information is provided by which sources - some books have ICCNs and/or ISBNs and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a PD template for the design. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added better alt text—have deserved to be called out on that for a while. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bateman works are being cited as a whole (in essence, "he published X book", followed by a cite to the book). For Liestøl, the whole article is about the idea being cited (that hanging bowls may have been vessels for liturgical use). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"pl." stands for "plate". "n." stands for "note" (as in footnote 4 or footnote a). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Bateman and Goss are being cited as contemporaneous sources, not for modern analysis, and are high quality reliable sources in that context. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a missing ISBN. The intention, however, is to have book cites include whatever numbers (primarily ISBNs and LCCNs) with which they were printed; depending on age, some have one, both, or neither. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review—particularly appreciate you taking it so quickly after it was posted. Replies above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Be warned that this isn't a field where I can instinctively recognize the relative reliability of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Just a courtesy ping to let you know that all comments have now been addressed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (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) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (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) 27 December 2023 [4].

---

Teloschistaceae

Nominator(s): Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Dive into the colourful world of the Teloschistaceae, the 3rd-largest family of lichen-forming fungi with about 1000 species and more than 100 genera. I think the article is an up-to-date summary – a curated and comprehensive compendium – of the relevant literature space, and, imho, the best single source of information about this topic either online or in print. Please read and comment, and look at the many pictures of attractive orange and yellow lichens! Esculenta (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• There is a huge amount of whitespace in the Description section

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Ikaeria_serusiauxii.jpg: the license mentioned in Summary is different from the one in Licensing - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reduced the cladogram size slightly, so that should help a little, but am open to other suggestions (whitespace doesn't show up me for unless I drag the window width to be quite large). I could put it in a show/hide template, but perhaps this sort of usage is discouraged? Have corrected the licensing on that image. I'll add alt texts, but the day is coming soon when multi-modal language modelling with image integration is built into browsers and will be able to describe images to viewers in any way they want. Thanks for the image review. Esculenta (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Esculenta:, could you move the cladogram up a bit in the article? It would still be in the "Systematics" section of the article, which seems appropriate. MeegsC (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a great idea – done. It now starts where the bulleted summaries of the subfamilies are given, which is a logical placement. Esculenta (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Fritz

• "its their frequent anthraquinone content"

• Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the thallus (the main body of the lichen) is either leaf-like (foliose), bushy or shrub-like (fruticose) to crust-like" this clause is a little confusing to me. Is the thallus leaf-like, bushy, or shrub-like... to crust-like? I'm having a hard time visualizing the different options. Additionally, is there a reason the technical term for crust-like is not given in the same manner as foliose and fruticose?

• Reworded this part, hopefully it's clearer? Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Teloschistaceae lichens" is there mention of the non-lichens in the lead? I noticed the first sentence says "mostly lichen-forming fungi" but then I didn't see further elaboration on the non-lichens

• The final sentence in the lead para mentioned the 40 lichenicolous fungi in the family, but I've since added some words to make this distinction more explicit. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• My next question would then be: does the second paragraph refer to all members of the family, or only the "Teloschistaceae lichens"?

• It refers to the vast majority, 960 or so lichens, so the wording is purposeful. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think the link for "thalline margins" is broken. Could that just be written "edges of the thallus"?

• Switched to more lead-friendly wording; the link works for me. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Several dozen new genera have been added" since 2013? or earlier?

• The former, clarified. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "as ongoing molecular studies provide clearer insights into the phylogenetic relationships amongst taxa within this family" is a very dense clause to have in the lead. I think a layperson may have some difficulty here.

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Three Teloschistaceae species have been assessed for the global IUCN Red List." This seems very abrupt. I think elaboration on a few threats to their conservation, or other notes on their ecology, may be warranted here.

• Added some text to flesh this out. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "that shared the typical polar-diblastic spores / now recognised as the family Teloschistaceae" I would split this into two sentences, or cut the latter part

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "polarilocular or 4-locule ascospores" come again?

• Trimmed some unneeded historical details in these parts, and made terms consistent. I hope it reads more smoothly now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• To what to télos (ends) and -schistós (split) refer? Laying it out for a dummy like me would be nice, even just a brief "referring to the split ends of the lichen in the family" or something of that ilk

• Good idea, done. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "independent molecular studies" I only see a single study cited here

• Added 2nd, corroborative, source. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "which was informally introduced" what does this mean? Was it invalidly published or not published at all?

• Clarified in text. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite these results, Kondratyuk and colleagues continue to use these subfamilies" clarify which subfamilies, I thought it were referring to the three original ones until I got to the end of the paragraph

• Also reworked this text, please let me know how it reads. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the Molecular phylogenetics section could use some work. I would suggest moving the third paragraph to the front. It gives an overview of why phylogenetics are necessary. I think the quote by Gaya and colleagues in P4 is overly long. Perhaps it could be moved to a quotebox, or just rephrased in more simple terms. I also don't see the relevance of much of P2 - I'm honestly having difficulty telling what exactly it's saying.

• Great feedback! I used all of your suggestions and trimmed lots of complicated stuff not needed for the general audience. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• The link for "umbilical" is also not working for me

• This one works for me; other readers please let me know if this is a common problem. Esculenta (talk)

• "biatorine or lecideine forms may manifest" what does it mean to manifest? Does that mean develop in a single specimen, or arise evolutionarily within a clade, or something else?

• Again, reworked over my confusing prose, hopefully is clearer now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Asexual reproduction within this family, results in the formation of pycnidial conidiomata that yield clear, either bacillar (rod-shaped) to bifusiform (double-spindle-shaped) conidia" some construction/comma issues here

• Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is my personal taste, but as a reader I would prefer if all the lichen-jargon were explained within this description section. I understand I can click the links to find out what each term means, but that leads to an unpleasant and jarring reading experience. A few words that give me a rough understanding of what the hell "paraplectenchymatous" means would be most welcome

• I hear ya! Check if the read is smoother now. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there anything "7-chlorocatenarin" could link to?

• I red-linked to the parent compound catenarin and will bluelink it before this FAC is over. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• There are several more terms (like Sedifolia-gray) that have broken links to the glossary. It may be an issue throughout the article, and is one more reason it is good to have brief explanations of in-line text

• Interestingly, these lichengloss links with a hyphen don't work for me either, and I have no idea why not; the anchors on the glossary page seem to be constructed correctly ... will investigate. For now added a couple more words to give these compounds more context. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not necessary at all, but a table for the list of genera may improve readability and reduce white space

• I'm reluctant to use something other than the standard formatting we've sort of establish at WP:Lichen, but maybe I'll play around in a sandbox and see how it looks? Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Do any species prey upon Teloschistaceae? I know it was mentioned earlier that some of the chemicals deter herbivory; I'd be interested to know if there are herbivores that are not deterred by that, or if there are species that lack pigments and are consumed more readily.

• For lichens, this kind of information is generally dealt with in genus and species articles, but since you asked, I was able to pull some tidbits of info applicable to the entire family and made a "Species interactions" subsection for it to reside. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why are the species on the Red Lists threatened? Are there any broad threats to lichens in the family?

• I've added some more interesting details from the IUCN sources. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's all I have for now, thank you for the excellent article; it is a wonderful overview! Fritzmann (message me) 15:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for a most helpful review! I appreciate the valuable feedback and am happy to see the article improve as a result. Esculenta (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some great changes there, I'm glad I was able to help and am happy to support on prose and content! Fritzmann (message me) 11:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Jens

Great to see this here. I spotted the type species myself just two months ago while hiking.

• reaction of the ascus tip's external layer to iodine – the ascus being the spore-producing structure. – Reads awkward. Maybe "reaction of the ascus, the spore-producing structure, to iodine"? In addition of being less awkward, this is now more simplified, but I would recommend such simplification at least for the lead.

• up to more than 1000 – we can't have "more than" and "up to" at the same time, this is contradictory.

• were largely ignored by later contemporaries, – contradictory as well: are they contemporaries, or did they live later?

• I think that terms in figure captions should be linked.

• Also, terms that were already linked in the lead should be linked (and preferably explained) in the main body again (according to WP:MOS).

• ascospores – link terms always at first mention

• The link "amyloid" to the glossary is unsatisfactory, as the glossary entry does not make sense to me. Why not link to the main article?

• presence of a strongly amyloid cap-like zone at the tip of the ascus – We need to do more to get the general reader on board, I think. Maybe replace "amyloid" with an explanation, or add such explanation in a bracket?

• verified the presence of a special ascus type featuring an amyloid outer layer without visible apical structures, and with an irregular dehiscence; she named this the Teloschistes-type – my perspective here is that of a lay person. I honestly think that I am unable to learn much from this sentence. In this context (it is the history section!), it seems to be way too much detail. And even when I follow the links, I still can't really understand the essence, because for this it is not detailed enough. E.g., "irregular dehiscence", irregular in what way? The article dehiscence does not explain what "irregular" means in this context, too. Maybe it would be possible to reduce the detail overall, and focus on getting the main points across?

• until the molecular era – I was not entirely sure what the molecular era is here. Link to molecular phylogenetics, if this hits your point?

• including 8 genera, 48 new species – why are only the species "new", but not the genera?

• Technically some of the genera were "resurrected", i.e. circumscribed a long time ago, forgotten, and then revived due to molecular work that reveals that the name of the old genus is the best placement. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• identifying it as an "artifactual taxon" with "chimeric" data origins – can we translate this to common language? Maybe it could simply be deleted.

• A subsequent review revealed it to be – "subsequent" to what? This is already the second sentence about a paper that is "subsequent" to the former.

• Although evidence undermines the phylogenetic legitimacy of these two subfamilies, Kondratyuk's group persists in recognizing them, attributing nine genera to Brownlielloideae and two to Ikaerioideae.[36] – Are we too close to WP:Synth here? This is a sentence that calls for a secondary source, but you only cite the group that you are criticizing, so it reads like original criticism published in Wikipedia, which should not be.

• used by Ulf Arup and colleagues in their 2013 publication, – I personally consider this excessive detail

• diverse secondary chemistry – what does that mean?

• This subfamily was first informally proposed (without a valid diagnosis) – But this seems to apply to the other subfamilies as well, yet you only mention it in this one. Why?

• Caloplacoideae contains mostly crustose species, and collectively has a wide distribution – what does the "collectively" add here? If you want to refer to the individual species, you should write "which collectively have", but that seems just redundant to me.

• The widespread application of molecular techniques to the Teloschistaceae has illuminated the variability of many morphological and anatomical characters, demonstrating their unreliability as evolutionary markers.[51] With the advancements in molecular techniques, differentiation of species once considered phenotypically indistinguishable became clearer, as evidenced by the semi-cryptic species group containing the closely named Caloplaca micromarina, C. micromontana, and C. microstepposa.[52] – I think this has similar problems to those I mentioned above:
  • What's the difference between morphological and anatomical characters? Aren't these synonyms?
  • If characters are "variable" in the family (i.e., different from species to species), that does not necessarily mean that they do not carry phylogenetic signal. So I am not sure what you mean.
  • "as evidenced by" – but you do not provide any evidence, you just list three species. This does not help, you could just remove this part.

• Despite the Teloschistaceae's prominence in GenBank with over 6400 DNA sequences, early molecular studies often faced limitations due to insufficient sampling of representative species. – the relationship in time is not clear. Did the early studies had access to those 644 DNA sequences? If those sequences were added much later, the "despite" seems wrong because that would be irrelevant to those early studies.

• Historically, genera within Teloschistaceae were distinguished based on attributes like growth form, cortical layer nature, rhizine presence, or spore type. – That sentence would make sense at the beginning of the section.

• these taxonomic distinctions such as those – "these" bits "such as those"

• especially given the reliance on previously unreliable characters – So they are no longer unreliable? If they are now reliable, why does this "emphazise" the need for molecular studies?

• You have a lot of "emphazise", "highlighting", "revealed", "elucidated", "illuminated". Some of these sound like MOS:PEACOCK to me.

• Given the myriad taxonomic changes – "many", not "myriad". No colloquial speech.

• In general, I think the writing still needs a lot of work, it is not quite there yet. I recommend to try to
  • reduce the amount of detail that is not precisely to the point/not needed to understand the key points;
  • formulate more concisely without fluff;
  • translate complicated sentences into plain language text that is easier to understand;
  • and add more context information that the reader might need to understand the main points.

Hope this helps so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• It sure does! I've taken on board all of your excellent suggestions (except for the single reply above) and invite you to have a look at the text again. I await more of your ideas for improvement. Esculenta (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Corrections are looking good! I continue with the remainder of the article below:

• anthraquinone – terms should be linked at first mention in the main text (independently from the lead).
• from the thin, encrusting (crustose) to leaf-like (foliose), or even bushy (fruticose) formations. – "the" is too much; I would maybe also remove the comma behind (foliose).
• apotheciate – wikilink should be extended to the whole word (using the pipe: |).
• Their reproductive structures, or ascomata, are usually brightly coloured. – are you now talking about the green algae or the fungi? This is not clear.
• In most species, apotheciate ascomata have a lecanorine form, in which the apothecial disc is surrounded by a pale rim of tissue known as a thalline margin. Fewer Teloschistaceae species have biatorine or lecideine forms, in which the apothecial disc lacks a thalline margin.[53][1] Reproductive propagules, such as isidia and soredia, can be found in select species. – Any chance to make this more accessible? Maybe some technical terms can be avoided, and others explained?

• I have clarified what "apotheciate" means, but I think the explanatory text following the commas adequately explain the respective technical terms. Perhaps it might be a good idea to add a small image of an apothecia to make it easier for the reader to envision the "disc" and "margin" that is referred to? I'll see what I can find. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, I've added an image that I hope will help the reader better understand the terms apothecia, lecanorine, and thalline margins. Esculenta (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• internal apical apparatus – what is that?
• J+ layer – maybe this technical term can be avoided by replacing it with your explanation that you provided in the bracket?

• Would prefer to keep this technical term, as it appears in several of the formal descriptions of the family; I've rearranged the text so the explanation is closer and no longer parenthetical. Esculenta (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• The translucent (hyaline) ascospores – Not sure if it makes sense to provide technical terms in a bracket (it only makes sense the other way around). Maybe remove the "hyaline" and just wikilink the word "translucent" accordingly?
• Despite the polarilocular nature of ascospores suggesting Teloschistaceae lineage, these spores are often not overtly distinctive. – I do not really understand this sentence, neither do I understand what it adds that is not stated by the sentence that follows.
• pycnidia-type conidiomata, producing clear conidia – again, give the reader some idea what this means?
• loosely paraplectenchymatous structure – again, impossible to understand the sentence without understanding this term; I suggest to add an inline explanation if possible.

• Again here, the explanation ("the constituent fungal hyphae are oriented in various directions") follows the comma. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• More to follow, as soon as time allows. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• A couple of your comments I've responded to; otherwise I've considered and implemented all of your suggestions to clarify and polish the prose. Esculenta (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• OK I see that some terms are already explained, but here it was not clear to me that these are explanations (you cannot know that if you do not understand what it means). I suggest to use the same format for explanations throughout the article (e.g., use "meaning that", or put them in brackets, as you do elsewhere in the article) to mark them clearly as explanations rather than additional information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Research on Teloschistaceae photobionts has shown that all studied foliose (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and fruticose (Teloschistes) types were affiliated with specific Trebouxia clades. This indicates a degree of specificity at the genus level, where only certain subclades of the Trebouxia clade are seen as suitable partners. This specificity, however, can vary based on the habitat; in extreme climates, lichens might be associated with a broader range of photobionts. – I had to read this several times, I think clarity could be improved. With "types", you mean genera? Who "sees" the subclades as suitable partners, the researchers? Does that mean it is an opinion rather than a solid observation? And do you mean that particular lichen taxa that live in extreme climates show a broader range of photobionts, or that photobionts within a taxon vary according to habitat?

• I hope this revision makes it clearer: "Studies of photobionts in the Teloschistaceae, including foliose genera (Xanthoria, Xanthomendoza) and a fruticose genus (Teloschistes), reveal a consistent association with specific Trebouxia clades. This finding suggests a genus-level specificity, with only select Trebouxia subclades forming symbiotic relationships. However, this specificity is not absolute and may vary with habitat: lichens in extreme climates have been observed to associate with a broader range of photobionts." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• The main group of lichen products – What does "main" mean here? Does this refer to the quantity of the produced substance?

• Main, as in predominant; it's now "The predominant chemical compounds found in the Teloschistaceae are chemical pigments known as anthraquinones." Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Evolutionary innovations in secondary metabolite production allowed the family to broaden its geographical range and transition from shaded, plant-based habitats to sun-exposed, arid environments. The production of protective chemicals is thought to be a direct contributor to the evolutionary success of the familial lineage – The second sentence kind of repeats what the first sentence was saying. You also use both "secondary metabolite" and "protective chemical", which seems to refer to the same thing here (the anthraquinones). This can be confusing, as it may be not evident that "protective chemical" refers to the substances previously mentioned.

• Reworded to trim the repetition and more clearly linked the term "secondary metabolites" with "anthraquinones," clarifying that they are the protective chemicals in question. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• A 2023 study reported using – "A 2023 study used"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• recovered at a looted Late Holocene aboriginal cairn burial site in South America. – Can we be more specific than "South America"?
• Caloplaca (in the broad sense) – not even the article on Caloplaca gives a hint what this "broad sense" could be. Can this be simplified?
• Collectively, the family has a cosmopolitan distribution, – replace with "worldwide distribution" to avoid an unnecessary technical term?
• In general, the family is moderately to strongly nitrophilous. This suggests a preference of many of its species for habitats that are rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate. – Why not simply "Many species of the family are moderately to strongly nitrophilous, meaning that they prefer habitats rich in nitrogen, particularly in the form of nitrate"? You are using "suggests", but actually what follows is not a scientific interpretation but an explanation of the term "nitrophilous"?
• Sun-adapted lichens, such as the Teloschistaceae, have an enhanced ability to upregulate the levels at which they fix carbon from the atmosphere and absorb excess nitrogen. – I don't really understand; what has carbon fixation to do with nitrogen absorption?
• There are several Teloschistaceae genera that contain lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) species. These originate from subfamily Caloplacoideae: Caloplaca (26 spp.), Gyalolechia (1 sp.), Variospora (1 sp.); from subfamily Teloschistoideae: Catenarina (1 sp.), Sirenophila 1; and from subfamily Xanthorioideae: Flavoplaca (4 spp.), Pachypeltis (1 sp.), and Shackletonia (3 spp.). – I am not sure why it is important to list the genera that contain lichen-dwelling species. You are not doing this for, say, lichen that grow on soil. Are these lichen-dwelling species especially relevant?

• I've made it more explicit in the lead and in the article that these 40-odd members of the family are fungi (i.e., not lichenised) and are therefore somewhat unusual in a family of predominantly lichenised members (and hence deserve to be highlighted). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Conversely, there is a relatively low diversity of crustose Teloschistaceae in Central Europe. – "Conversely" does not make sense to me here. It would make sense if you would state they are rare in the tropics (as opposed to the polar regions).
• occur in primarily in sunlit locations – excessive "in"
• Teloschistaceae species are known to be host to many lichenicolous fungi, with certain fungi like Cercidospora caudata and Stigmidium cerinae displaying a broad range of hosts within this family. Most of these parasitic fungi show a preference for specific Teloschistaceae species or genus. –

• Is this the same as the lichenicolous (lichen-dwelling) lichen discussed earlier, but this time other species growing on Teloschistaceae rather than wise versa? If so, it could have been mentioned earlier that these are parasitic and not sympatric.
• The first sentence is a bit awkward, especially the use of "displaying". Do they "display" the hosts? Maybe simply "have" is a better choice.
• Would it be better to combine the "displaying a broad range of hosts within this family" with the second sentence instead, which is about the same topic?

• Good points! I've rewritten these bits for clarity. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• late Cretaceous period, – "Late Cretaceous period" (upper case "L")
• These parasitic fungi seem to be interesting, but as a non-expert, I wonder if these are microscopic, or can be observed by the naked eye? If the latter, is there a photograph that can be shown?

• Mostly the latter; there might be an image I can use, I'll get back to you about this. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• In response to this and JM's comments below, I've added an image of the parasitic Tremella fungus to show its gall-inducing nature. Esculenta (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Caloplaca pseudopoliotera and C. cupulifera are two crustose species implicated in the slow degradation of the Konark Sun Temple in India. – "Involved" instead of "implicated"? Or even "responsible"?
• Economic significance – This section is not really about economic significance, but rather about conservation of cultural objects and buildings (which can have economic significance but I think the point here is rather cultural heritage).

• I couldn't think of a short subheader for this paragraph, so I left it out (doesn't really seem necessary). Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• In Europe during the early modern era, it was boiled in milk to alleviate jaundice – a treatment shared with Polycauliona candelaria – and employed for diarrhea, dysentery, stopping bleeding, as a malaria remedy in lieu of quinine, and for treating hepatitis. – What does "a treatment shared with" means here? Are both used in combination to make this medicine?
• In Traditional Chinese medicine the lichen has been used as an antibacterial. – You use past tense, but are you sure these are not in use anymore?

• I'm not sure; the source also said "used", so stuck with past tense. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• What is a pollutant tolerance biomonitor? If the lichen can cope with high levels of pollution, it cannot monitor the presence of these pollutants, or can it?

• Hopefully I've explained the authors' reasoning better. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• and potential invasive species intrusions. – Do you really mean that invasive species are potentially present, or do you mean that they have a potential impact on the lichen?
• and the presence of invasive species like goats and cows altering the habitat – really invasive species, or rather livestock?

• Clarified/explained "invasive species" for both instances. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• That's it from my side. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks again for a thorough review. I've actioned your comments to which I haven't replied. Esculenta (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support – all my concerns have been addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Fantastic to see this here. Gone are the days of multiple fungal candidates at FAC simultaneously!

• I don't personally mind it, but I could see someone saying that the second and third sentences of the lead are a bit specialist for so early in the article.

• Reorganised so that 2nd & 3rd sentences have more friendly information. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Current" estimates will quickly get out of date; do you have a year for the estimates?

• Took out "current" and reworded. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Nothing in the lead about uses to humans, cultural significance, etc.

• I've added a couple of sentences that summarise this. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I assume Mantissa Plantarum II is the same as Mantissa Plantarum Altera? I've created a redirect; if I'm wrong, please tell me!

• You are correct, and after consulting with the source to be sure, I changed this article to link to the latter title. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is "perforation" jargon?

• Depends if one knows what "perforate" means or not! It's now a "small hole". 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "later subsequent researchers" Redundancy
• There's a bit of inconsistency in the use of the Oxford comma. It's fine to use it or not use it, but aim to be consistent.
• " in his popular Outline of the Ascomycota series" Popular in what way? Is that needed?
• "Teloschistineae" We don't italicise suborders; or were you meaning to italicise it as a word, rather than as a suborder?

• Yes, I was going for MOS:WORDSASWORDS styling. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Letrouitineae (containing Brigantiaeaceae and Letrouitiaceae) and its sister clade, Teloschistineae (containing Teloschistaceae and Megalosporaceae)" Are any of these worth linking? Or would they just be properly included within the article on Teloschistales? (If so, might be worth creating redirects and linking anyway.)

• I made redirects for Letrouitineae and Teloschistineae, but don't think this article needs to link them (they're explained in text, and the actual links aren't useful yet). Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Molecular phylogenetics has revolutionised our understanding of the Teloschistaceae" Slightly rhetorical; the use of the first person isn't very Wikipedia!

• Text removed. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "researchers like Ester Gaya and colleagues in 2012 began" A bit vague/unclear. Maybe you could do something like "researchers (including Ester Gaya and colleagues, publishing in 2012) began". But that's not very elegant either. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at?
• "Moreover, molecular evidence has helped to map the family's relationship within the class Lecanoromycetes. A 2018 study, for instance, identified the Megalosporaceae as the Teloschistaceae's closest relative.[52]" This feels like editorialising/synthesis. You're making a broad claim but only citing one primary study; or am I misunderstanding?

• I don't think it's a particularly broad (or surprising) claim. We've suspected for a long time that the Teloschistaceae is part of the class Lecanoromycetes. Molecular phylogenetics is helping us to better understand the specific relationships of this family within the class. Molecular support for Megalosporaceae being the closest relative to Teloschistaceae pretty much conclusively demonstrates what had been long suspected. No dissenting voices (regarding this particular relationshp) have been in the literature published since then. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In response to these discoveries, experts like Robert Lücking recommend extensive analysis" Ditto two above points.
• " are important for" Again, editorialising/non-neutral?

• Have reworded these parts, please check to see if you think the editorialising is gone. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dash use inconsistent. Compare (eg) para one of description to para 2 of molecular phylogenetics to para 2 of description -- three different approaches! See WP:DASH.
• You mention in the lead that it's not always Trebouxia; but this doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in the article.

• I've gone through the literature again to confirm, and simplified a longer story. Basically, some studies found Asterochloris (a similar green algal genus) to also associate with Teloschistaceae. However, these findings have not been subsequently confirmed, and to make things more complicated, Asterochloris was not validly published by its author, although some still continue to use the invalid species names, while others keep them in genus Trebouxia. But this doesn't need to be explained in this article. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some inconsistency on -ise vs ize. Either acceptable in British English, but be consistent.

Stopping there for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments so far; I've addressed the points I haven't specifically responded to. Esculenta (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• {{lichengloss|Sedifolia-grey}} isn't linking where you want it to, because of gray/grey. Is there a way to make a 'redirect'?

• Fixed linking. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "bark-dwelling habitats" They didn't have bark-dwelling habitats; they had bark habitats or bark-dwelling habits. (Maybe there are more elegant phrases you could use.)
• "This section presents a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae, based largely on a 2021 fungal classification review and new reports published since then.[70] Each genus is paired with its taxonomic authority, denoting the first describers using standardised author abbreviations, the publication year, and the number of species." I worry this may be a self reference, which we should avoid -- but I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of the guideline.

• Not sure what to do with this, but I'm quite open to tweaking the wording to address your concern. This is a sort of standard format I've been using to introduce genera and/or species lists in family/genus articles, so I'd appreciate any specific ideas you might have for fixing this (and would use these fixes in other articles to avoid this in the future). Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Contemporary estimates of the number" Again; this will quickly become outdated. You start the section with a reference to 2001; there are many adults alive who were born after that!

• Reworded. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Genera are organised here by subfamily:" Another self-reference, perhaps

• Removed "here"; is that enough? Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "during the recent restructuring of the family" Another apt-to-become-dated claim; you could easily avoid this by referring to the specific restructuring.

• Just removed "recent". Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Andina Wilk, Pabijan & Lücking (2021) has been replaced with Wilketalia.[135]" I know this is slightly beyond the scope of this review, but if that's right, our article at Andina citrinoides, which you're linking to, needs updating!

• You are quite correct; I'll try to make this update before the FAC finishes. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Esculenta (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Also well beyond the scope of this review, but it's a shame we don't have an article on bipolar species!

• Yes it's a shame; we have both Bipolar lichen and Lichen biogeography on our "To-do" list at the Lichen task force, which will eventually cover this absence. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "in the previous decade" Again, this will quickly become outdated
• I thought a picture of Tremella caloplacae might be an interesting addition; this article is freely licensed, meaning you could (if you wanted to -- no pressure) add this image.

• That's great – I hadn't originally noticed it was free. Have added the image now. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this article's a real achievement. I wish I knew a bit more about lichens than I do, so I really enjoyed reading it. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi J Milburn, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I haven't had a chance to have a second read-through, so I'm afraid I can't support right now; but I certainly don't oppose, and think this is a very praiseworthy article. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Images good. No copyright problems. Some are visually stunning. I have 'reviewed' the licenses of a couple of the images taken from Mushroom Observer, which should futureproof them in the unlikely event that they're taken down from the website for some reason. File:Caloplaca aurantia (Pers.) Hellb..jpg has no English language description, and the description on File:Athallia holocarpa Droker.jpg is odd. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all of your comments and suggestions (those uncommented by me above I've actioned). Thanks for reviewing, and for the extra image validation. Esculenta (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Support on the condition that SchroCat's concerns are resolved. I agree with SC about your use of the Oxford comma. (I note you also have one colonizing, though you otherwise use -ise.) I also agree with SchroCat about your self-references in phrases like 'this section'. But I've just had another quick look through the article, and I think it's fantastic. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review spot-check upon request. Does the Acta Botanica Hungarica have issue numbers? I see that not all authors are linked, e.g Pier Luigi Nimis, Abramo Bartolommeo Massalongo, Alexander Zahlbruckner, Sergey Kondratyuk isn't, but I didn't investigate closely who needs linking and who not - it's mostly a minor consistency issue. I see a few ancient sources, but the kind of information sourced to them doesn't seem likely to change over time. I notice that some sources are split by pagenumbers and others have lengthy page ranges given for the same ref, which is inconsistent. I've filed a report about 10.1017/S0269-915X(02)00206-9 being a broken DOI. It looks like otherwise most references are consistently formatted and nothing jumps out as unreliable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Esculenta, any response to Jo-Jo's source review? FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Acta Botanica Hungarica does have issue #'s, but they were all already in the article before the source review. I added more authorlinks, so everyone that has an article should be linked at least once in the citations. Broad page ranges usually means that the cited information is passim in the source, but I'm happy to narrow down page ranges if it is deemed necessary. I filed a report about the broken DOI at least 3 months ago. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably best to narrow down page ranges, some of them are quite large. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I split a few sources into sfn's to cite specific page #'s, added pointers to some specific pages in broader ranges, added an online archive link for one citation so reader can confirm fact with "find", and added "passim" to some sfn's that had blank page parameters. I think the remaining long page ranges don't need specific page numbers, because more or less the entirety of the cited source supports the stated fact. Esculenta (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I would use the entire page range rather than passim, myself. Clearer for non-Latin anoraks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with risking that the small fraction of a percent of readers who actually check any of the 3 citations where passim is used will either be familiar with it already, or have to experience a new word. I could find other examples of FAs where it is used, if precedent counts. Thanks for the source review! Esculenta (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I think other FAs using passim instead of full page ranges probably means they need to have the passim replaced with a page range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Best practice, which is what is usually followed at FAC, is to provide clarity by using the actual page ranges. And as with all of Wikipedia, precedent is rarely a useful guide. If it is, I think that the precedent of your previous FA is a good one. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Cas Liber

Looks pretty good. Looking over now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking.

• Collectively, the family has a worldwide distribution,... - "collectively" is redundant here (in both places)

• Both have now been trimmed. Esculenta (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I am a neophyte on lichens - but I can't see any glaring errors..and the prose looks to have struck as best a balance as possible between accessibility and accuracy. So count this as a cautious support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Sergey Kondratyuk and his colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)

Drive by comment: That is the reader-friendly version of "et al." ("and others"), replacing the list of co-authors of a paper (i.e., "Main author et al." -> "Main author and colleagues"). "And colleagues" is pretty standard and I used it in all my Wikipedia articles, I can't think about how to make this clearer without adding bloat. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You may have, but I would have opposed if I had reviewed and seen it, and I do not consider it "standard". It may be used in scientific papers, but this is an encyclopaedia and there isn't a problem in showing the names on first mention, even if only in a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

It is demonstrably standard in science articles in Wikipedia. Pick any of our dinosaur FAs, for example. You can almost always get the full list of authors when clicking on the inline reference at the end of the sentence. I never have seen an article that provides all those co-author names in-text (these can add-up very quickly), and I probably would oppose an article that does so, because it adds bloat that is barely useful for anybody (and footnotes would just be redundant to the ref-list, where this information is provided anyways). Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You think people should only get details by clicking on the inline reference? No. That's not right at all and it's a method that in my mind does readers a disservice.

Anyway, my comments are to the nominator: I'll let them answer and then decide whether to support, oppose or step away. - SchroCat (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As Jens explains, its a prose conversion of "et al." and is used on many science-related FACs and GAs. I did replace the first instance of "Arup and colleagues" with the spelled out colleague names, as their 2013 phylogenetics paper was so fundamental to the current structure of the family it makes sense to credit them the first time they're mentioned. I don't think it's needed for the other instances. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "to German lichenologist Robert Lücking": is his nationality of importance? Removing it would probably improve readability and not harm a reader's understanding of the topic (much like you do with "the mycologist Friedrich Wilhelm Zopf and the chemist Oswald Hesse")

• Ok, removed this and one other instance. Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• You have "Xanthodactylon, Xanthopeltis and Xanthoria" but "yellow, orange, and red": probably best to take a spin through to ensure you are consistent in either using or not using the serial comma

• Fixed to serial comma. I thought I had caught them all with my last spin through, but apparently not! Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Arup and colleagues": who? Colleagues at or in what? (Maybe name them if it is a small team)
• "This section presents": I think that somewhere in the MOS is something that says we don't use language similar to this and it’s certainly something that I've not seen in any successful FAs. The phrasing of this one sentence is enough for me not to support the article as it stands. What is wrong with something along the lines of "A 2021 fungal classification review, and subsequent published studies, produced a compilation of the genera in the Teloschistaceae"?

• I'm happy to change the wording to comply with WP:SELF, but haven't come up with a fully satisfying alternative. Unfortunately, your suggested phrasing seems a bit awkward (it seems to imply that the review and following studies produced the compilation, but I produced the compilation using these sources ... am I overthinking this?) Esculenta (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Possibly, although I now have a slight concern that there may be OR involved in the compilation (based only on your phrasing here). I suspect it’s not really OR, but can you confirm and clarify please?
  Can you also clarify the source for this list? The text says there are “117 genera and 805 species” which does not tally with what is shown.
  Regardless of either of those points, the opening paragraph needs to be rewritten to avoid breaching SELF. I’ll finish the rest of the review later today. - SchroCat (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Ok I removed the first sentence (which seemed to be the major SELF violation) and shuffled some bits around. To clarify how this list of genera was made, I used 2021 Wijayawardene et al. ("Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa – 2021") as a starting point, as it is the most recent compilation of fungal taxa available. From there I added new genera that have been published since that time, and included all of the genera that Wijayawardene et al. place in synonymy, with explanatory footnotes about who thinks what genera should be included or not. The text says "Species Fungorum (in the Catalogue of Life), accepts 117 genera and 805 species", which is true. This does not mean to imply that the entirety of the list comes from that source. The taxonomic situation is fluid, and different authorities have different opinions on what genera should exist, so I've tried to list them all and explain where the sources disagree. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Done down to the start of Habitat. More to follow shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Just two points from the remainder:

• Diarrhea - > diarrhoea (x2)

• Changed to BE. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a reason why FNs 2 and 3 are unsupported?

• Citations now added. Esculenta (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes you've made and the work you've done on this overall. I'm not going to be able to support this, but I don't think I can oppose it either. The reasons for my sitting on the fence are as follows:

• I am personally uncomfortable with the "X and his colleagues" format. I am aware this is common in academic papers, but this is an encyclopaedia to be read by the general public. Calls to "it is used elsewhere on WP" don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Although at FA we try to mimic some aspects of academic publishing, we are an encyclopaedia with a global general readership and I don't think this helps them.

• Actually, the "X et al." format is common in scientific academic publishing, whereas the "and colleagues" is the "translation" that Wikipedia seems to have taken up. I understand your point (but don't necessarily agree). Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• I’m well aware of the original (and it’s not just scientific, but other disciplines too) and it’s the default on WP in the references for multiple authors when using sfn, but I disagree with its use in the body in a general encyclopaedia. Not everyone who reads this will be familiar with the academic norm and will be confused. -SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• The prose is, I think, too densely technical in places. That's not necessarily the fault of the writer(s), but I think overall it runs too close to WP:OVERTECH for me to be happy enough to support. There are areas where the general reader (which includes me!) will just be lost in the terminology. Ditto my comment above on 'global general readership'.

• I accept that the type of articles I work on are technical by nature, but have tried to follow the principles outlined at WP:TECHNICAL. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• The question of the genus list (a list of "117 genera and 805 species" shows 124 genera), which makes me a bit uncomfortable.
• (Added later): I’m also uncomfortable with the very wide page ranges in the refs: pp. 1–82, 147–203, 132–168, etc. (added at SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC))

There is nothing I am going to oppose on, but I just don't think I can support either. – SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for giving it a read and offering your suggestions for improvement. Esculenta (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Schro, I realise you're not committing to support or oppose, but can I just check you have nothing further to add, given it appears that Esculenta has done some work on the article since your last comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I think I’ll stay where I am on the !vote side of things. Cheers for the ping. - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2023 (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) 21:21, 27 December 2023 (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) 27 December 2023 [5].

---

1983–84 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh blimey, not another Gillingham F.C. season article, I hear everyone cry. Well, what can I say, I enjoy working on them so chances are they will keep on a-comin' :-) This particular season included (I think - the memory is slightly hazy given the yawning time gap between then and now) the first Gillingham match my dad ever took me to. Sadly it also included one of the club's most famous missed opportunities to defeat a team from the top division of English football....... :-( Feedback on the article will as ever be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

• and were near the foot of the league table - This may be MOS:IDIOM, perhaps simplify.
• The first league game of the season at Gillingham's ground, Priestfield Stadium, took place a week later against Hull City;[15] Ray Daniel, a teenaged midfielder signed on loan from Luton Town, made his debut.[18] Gillingham conceded a goal in the first half and, although Leslie equalised with his first goal for the club shortly after the interval, ultimately lost 2–1. -- I think this should be split into 2 sentences.
• Steve Bruce, a defender who was still only 22 years -- Either "still 22 years" or "only 22 years"
• Gillingham were 22nd out of 24 teams -- Gillingham ranked 22nd
  • "Ranked" is not used in that context in British English. The standard usage is just to say that team X "are/were Nth in the table", see eg the last sentence of this BBC Sport article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps it is worth linking equaliser
• promotion-chasing Wimbledon -- maybe this can we stated differently, like Wimbledon, who is up for promotion or a win away from promotion, something along those lines.
• That's all that I could find. Another fine and solid work on this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed bar one as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

NØ

• Just some comma removal suggestions:
  • "It was the 52nd season in which Gillingham competed in the Football League, and the 34th since the club was voted back into the league in 1950."
  • "they played 15 games and only won three times, to fall out of contention for promotion to the Second Division."
  • "They lost in the first round of both the Football League Cup and the Associate Members' Cup, but reached the fourth round of the FA Cup"
• "four games more still to play than the teams above them" => "four more games to play than the teams above them"
• "The club had never reached the second level of English football in its history" - probably "its" could be removed without changing the meaning just to be more concise.
• "Bruce scored twice and Weatherly and Cochrane added a goal each as Gillingham took a 4–0 lead, but their team-mates John Sitton and Peter Shaw then both scored own goals" => "Bruce scored twice, and Weatherly and Cochrane added a goal each as Gillingham took a 4–0 lead, but their team-mates John Sitton and Peter Shaw then both scored their own goals"
• That's it!--NØ 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, all done apart from the last one. You don't say that a player scored "his" own goal, you just say that a player scored an own goal -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support--NØ 09:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

The sourcing follows a consistent format and the sources are reliable for the purposes they are used so this passes my source review.--NØ 08:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "The team started the season poorly and were near the bottom of the league table at the end of September". This only really conveys information if you tell the reader when the season started and/or the number of matches played by the end of September.
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Prior to the new season, Gillingham signed two new players." Perhaps replace the full stop with a colon? (Or, if you prefer, a semi-colon.)
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• "John Leslie, a forward, arrived from Wimbledon,[8] and David Fry, a goalkeeper, joined the club from Crystal Palace." Is it known what if any transfer fee was paid?
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Four of Gillingham's five league games originally scheduled for January were postponed". Is it known why?
  • Two because (contrary to expectations when the fixture list was drawn up) they were still involved in the FA Cup and couldn't play league and cup games at the same time. The other two were, I presume, down to the weather, it being January, but I couldn't find any source to confirm that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Consider adding 'two because of their continued involvement in the FA Cup' or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• FA Cup section: in the first paragraph you don't say whether any of the three matches were home or away.
  • Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Why did both replays take place at Priestfield?
  • Clarified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
• Was extra time not played at the end of the first FA Cup match against Everton?
  • No, under the competition rules at the time, extra time was only played in replays -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's it. Another well written little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild:- many thanks for your review - responses are above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

A final suggestion above, but I am happy to support as is. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Serial's support

• I'm sure you've been asked before  ;) but why call them "second choice colours" rather than the more common (if colloquial?) away kit, as you do in the IB?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Would be interesting to know more about the Japan game; that's the kind of thing that would be pretty rare now.
  • Unfortunately I couldn't find any more info than what is in the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• What happened to red-linked Andy Woodhead, he leave the sport?
  • He dropped into semi-professional regional football after being released by the Gills -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity, why (e.g.) Exeter City, Wigan Athletic, Lincoln City but only Orient?
  • Because that was the club's name at the time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Check. Must've been a couple of years later they changed again... ——Serial 14:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
      • @Serial Number 54129: - the "Leyton" was added (back) in 1987 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
        • Ah that makes sense. It confused me as a kid; the first time I saw them, they were Orient, and the next they were LO :) ——Serial 15:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• "had scored more than four goals" > "over four"
  • Personally I think it works better as it is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• "played between two and five games fewer than every team above", but only in the League, isn't it? They played other matches in the Cup, and in any case have to make the league games up?
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• Link Matchday programme.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Chris, nice article. Talk about unlucky with Everton! ——Serial 22:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Serial Number 54129: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

All good, cheers chris, another in the Pantheon. Gibbon's Decline and Fall has got some competition  :) ——Serial 14:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me and meets the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Co-ordinator query

@FAC coordinators: - got another one ready to go, can I nom it? Oh, and happy Christmas if I don't speak to you before :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2023 (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) 00:43, 27 December 2023 (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) 25 December 2023 [6].

---

Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a skyscraper in New York City that, until a decade ago, was the tallest in Brooklyn and the only real skyscraper in its neighborhood. The exterior has extensive amounts of sculpture, an enormous clock tower, and a dome (leading some to compare it to a phallus), while the interior has an extremely elaborate banking room. Developed as an office building, the tower later housed dozens of dentists' offices before being converted to residences.

This page became a Good Article a year ago after a Good Article review by Ganesha811, for which I am very grateful. Following a copy edit from voorts, to whom I'm also indebted, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review PASS (no spot checks)

Working on it now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• The 1977 NYCLPC report link goes to a report about the 83rd Precinct Police Station and Stable from March 8, 1977.
  • Oops, I meant 0971 instead of 0951. Good catch. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• The archive link for "1 Hanson Place, 11217" doesn't work.
  • I replaced this with Template:Cbignore. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Both "mta.info" and "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" Wikilink to the same article. I think you can remove the Wikilink from the web address.
  • I removed mta.info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll type out more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• How about Wikilinking The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Brooklyn Times-Union, Emporis, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Newsday, New York Daily News, Brooklyn Citizen, Press & Sun-Bulletin, Francis Morrone, Brownstoner Magazine, Curbed, New York Herald Tribune, The New York Observer, WNYC, GlobeSt.com, The Brooklyn Paper, New York (magazine)#The Cut, The Real Deal (magazine), Brooklyn Reporter, Crain’s New York Business, Real Estate Weekly, Time Out (magazine), and DNAinfo? You could link Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Architectural Digest, Variety (magazine), and Slate (magazine) too, but given how broadly recognized those publications are, that may be WP:OVERLINKing.
  • I have linked all for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 23: the original Emporis link doesn't work, but the archived one does. Can you get a new link to the Emporis website?
  • Sadly, the entire website no longer exists. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 24: the title of the web page currently includes the name of the website, Skyscraper Center. I think you should separate out that name into a parameter separate from the page name.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dolkart 2004 should be formatted more like Dolkart 2009 to include the publisher's full name and location, as well as the NYCLPC name. Also, the archived link for Dolkart 2004 doesn't work that well for me, so none of the book's pages are loading. What about you?
  • I formatted the location and full name. I have removed the archived link as it is neither necessary (being that this is a print source) or working. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 48: is there an archive link you can add?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Morrone: source listing is missing publication year and location of publisher. ISBN appears to be incorrect.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• The Friedman book is formatted poorly and missing a lot of information: publisher, publisher location, and ISBN. Are those two numbers on the end supposed to be page numbers?
  • Yes. This was a pre-existing ref that was present before I rewrote the page, but I forgot to format it.
• Hugh Son 2005 original link is broken. Can you find a replacement? The archive link works.
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 84: year should be 1927.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 107: is there an archive link?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Moritz 1989: is there an archive link?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 157: original link is broken. Can you find a replacement? The archive link works.
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 158: same
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 160: same
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 169: my browser won't let me open the original link for security reasons, but the archive link works fine. How about you?
  • This is a temporary issue with the website, since its HTTPS certificate expired. However, I'm not sure how to format this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Except for the comments above, the citations and sources appear to be formatted properly, the sources seem reliable, and the links go to the right places. Of the academic publications, I see mostly broad surveys of NYC architecture. There aren't any academic sources more focused on this building, are there? As a collection, these sources represent a pretty wide breadth of publications from a wide span of time, so notwithstanding my question about academic sources, the list looks comprehensive. Well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review Dugan Murphy. I have addressed all of your bullet points. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find other sources talking about this building specifically (and not, for example, other buildings in the same area). There is a small handbook by the architects, which was published in 1928 but seems to be out of print; I doubt that source has any significant details not mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No problem. I can't find any other issues with the sources. I haven't done any spot checks, but this is a pass. If you are willing to take a look at my current FAC nomination, you'll find it here. It would be a big help if you were willing to look at my sources, prose, or whatever. Thanks in advance if you are able! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • P.S. The official website from the External links isn't loading on my browser. Is it on yours? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    Hmm, that is strange - the site isn't loading for me, either. I can take a look at your FAC in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Images are all under free-use license or creative commons
• Infobox image needs alt and a proper caption
• In fact, all the other images are missing alt.

ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Passed for image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

I shall review.

Lead:

• "There is also a lobby in the basement, leading to Atlantic Terminal and the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station" – "A basement lobby leads to..."
• "The bank occupied the lowest floors when the building opened on April 1, 1929. The remaining stories were rented as offices." – suggest combining with a semicolon
• "By the late 20th century, much of the building contained dentists' offices." – This statement is a little trivia for me to be included in the lead.
• "similarly designated" – "later designated"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rather busy with my studies for the past few days so I haven't been able to give this a proper look through. But I won't be opposed if others' consensus finds this article worthy of FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@ZKang123, do you have any additional comments about this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Like I said, if others find this article worthy of FA, I won't be opposed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ZKang123. I have done all of these except for the dentists' offices, which is described in some detail later on in the article. I've also fixed the image issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by David Fuchs

Recusing to do a review.

• Prose:
  • Lead:
    • This may just be me, but measurements start getting in the way of reading text, especially when you have the conversions as well, so I'd try and limit them, especially in the lead. The height is the overarchingly important stat; I'm not so sure the size of the clocks or the size of the banking room are so important they need to be mentioned here.
      • I've trimmed these. I think the height of the banking room is somewhat important, since there are few interior spaces in NYC that are this high (even the New York Public Library Main Branch's reading room is less lofty). Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    • It seems odd to me we mention the previous banking headquarters specifically in the second paragraph, but then follow back on it in the third when giving the history.
      • Good point. I moved the mention of the 175 Broadway HQ to the third paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I know that you've put out a lot of these articles with a similar structure, but I wonder just from a limiting repeating information sense, if it would make a bit more sense to put the context and history for the building (or at least its construction) up before the long description of the site. We mention the 175 Broadway headquarters a bunch, for instance, before it gets properly introduced in the history.

    Yeah, that might make more sense. Swapping the history and architecture sections might be the best thing to do here; I'll do this shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • My thoughts on the stats talk likewise relate to the article as a whole; sometimes it just feels like we're getting smacked with random factoids and conversions for long passages. Is the height of the center of the clock from street height really so important it needs to be mentioned? We can convey the size and mass of the clock hands without three separate sentences giving specific figures. Where possible some more summarization would I think make it read a bit better, especially when we're giving exact dimensions or exact numbers of things (the number of rectangles in a grid, the number of window bays, etc.) It's appropriate for the LPC designation, I'm not sure it's appropriate for an overview like this.
    • I've tried to condense the description slightly. I do acknowledge that the description may have been overly detailed - Ganesha811 removed much of this excessive detail during his GA review, but maybe some of the extra detail was retained unnecessarily. I've trimmed the exterior section slightly and the interior section more significantly. I don't want to give too little detail (for example, the fact that there are three huge arched windows is mentioned prominently in a few sources), but in hindsight we really did not need three subsections for the banking room section. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "Due to the height of the five-story banking room, as well as empty spaces on the topmost floors, the building has been described as having as few as 34 stories." Honestly this feels like it's not important enough to note, especially if it's apparently not commonly done.

    • I included this sentence because I felt that the reader would benefit from an explanation of the conflicting floor counts. Would you prefer that I remove this completely, or is it fine if I move this to a footnote? Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

      • Per this and the below note, I think that's definitely something that should get mentioned in prose as "generally X stories, some stuff counts differently" and then use any further mentions/the LPC stuff in a footnote the first time it's relevant. I don't think repeating the footnote every time you hit another floor number comes up is necessary (it's mostly just distracting and adds to the refspacing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

        Good point as well. I have removed these extra footnotes. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

    • For the sake of ease of reading, I think you should just pick a story-numbering scheme and stick to it, rather than "at the 30th story (floor 26)" stuff. Especially since we're talking about the exterior, the interior numbering isn't all that important.
      • Done. (There's already a footnote about interior and exterior floor numbering, so I agree—it may just be redundant.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "Embedded in the wall are square bas-reliefs, one on the right of a burglar," I assume this is supposed to mean one of the bas reliefs is of a burglar, but the way it's phrased makes it kind of sound like the reliefs are on the right of a burglar.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "On the south side of the ground story, leading from the center of the Hanson Place frontage, is an entrance vestibule.[33] The doors from the south lead from Hanson Place. " This seems redundant?
    • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "it had 158 depositors and $15,000 in assets" what's the timeframe for this statement?
    • Added - this was from the first annual report. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It's unclear if the architects had to modify the plans after the department rejected them or not, since it only says the completion date was pushed back.
    • It seems that I got the source wrong. The source says merely that a change in plans would've forced the plans to be postponed. The only thing I could find on the possible postponement was this article from February 12, 1927, saying that the bank planned to appeal the bureau's rejection of the plans. `Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There's a lot about the building's dentists.
    • Yeah...apparently they took up the majority of the building in the late 20th century. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The critical commentary on the building feels pretty thin, especially since there's not really a source directly speaking to generally positive critiques of the building. At the least I don't really see where the height record stuff and symbolism should be divorced from what comes before it.
    • I have removed the part about positive critiques. Given I wasn't really able to find too much critical commentary on the building, I have combined the symbolism and critical commentary sections. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

More forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments David Fuchs. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • "Johnson did not initially plan to include affordable housing in the converted building, prompting criticism from community groups" — so what came of this? Did affordable housing get added as implied, or not?
      • I haven't heard anything about affordable housing being built (in fact, the sources I've found indicate that all of the residences there are luxury condos). I've rephrased the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    • The Impact section is a little better, but it still feels a bit like a laundry list of quotes rather than a summary. I will take a look and see if I can find anything else that might go there.

Drive-by comment: to my mind it also falls foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but on the flip side, MOS:QUOTEPOV says that quotes could be used "to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice", which some of these quotations truly are. I've paraphrased the other unnecessary quotations, but it's quite hard to paraphrase an opinion while staying faithful to what the source actually says. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • "The windows' ornate decorations contrasted with the spare ornamentation of the piers on which the arches rested." Why is this sentence is past tense? Are the arches no longer there? Same for "The metal included brass, bronze, copper, silver, and both cast and wrought steel." (Everything around it is present tense.)
    • Otherwise, prose looks fairly good. I've made some edits and I will probably want to do a final pass later, but it's looking much more readable. Will be looking over other criteria presently.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why these were in past tense, but I've fixed this now. Thanks for following up David. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose based on source review. While there's no major issues I found on my spot-check, I did appear to find a number of minor issues with figures, timing, etc. that seem to be prevalent throughout and need a fine-tooth comb to check for. Some might just be me nitpicking to a pedantic degree, but I think enough are plain that it needs addressing. I Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 86, 93, 96, 104, 120, 121, 139, 141, 142, 145, 148, 164, 172, 178, 180, and 184.

• • Ref 14: text says "there were eight buildings on the lot", the source itself is a little less definitive and says "about eight".
    • I have not changed the sentence at this time because the suggested wording might run afoul of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Please see my comment below. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      Changed to "about eight" (in quotation marks) to avoid any confusion about this. I still don't think it's possible for, say, eight and a half buildings to have been demolished, but we may agree that there is a difference in opinion regarding this point. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Ref 19: text says " The bank had 139,000 depositors and $212 million in assets in 1928". The source says "139K depositors but $210 million in assets.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Refs 29, 30, and 31 are used to source the bank protests. The text says "Though they were joined by six other banks" (aka eight banks in total, including the aforementioned City Savings and Dime Savings), but ref 31 gives a total of ten (City Savings, Dime Savings, "and eight others".)
    • Changed to "several others"—not sure where the six figure came from. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 34: text says "The William Kennedy Construction Company was awarded the general contract for the new building in December 1926, at which point the building was planned to cost $3 million" but the source is from December 1927.
    • Yeah, this was an example of me mixing up my dates by accident. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 36: text says "and a chimney for the church was integrated into the new bank building". The LPC designation says that the tower provides heat to the church in lieu of a chimney, it technically doesn't say there's a chimney expressly for the church.
    • I assumed the text was talking about the bank having a chimney attached, and providing heat through there, but I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 39: text says "and the bank announced that it would begin clearing the site" [later that month, I.e. January 1927], but the source says that they would be clearing it next month.
    • The statement is correct because the bank made the announcement in January 1927. Grammatically, January 1927 refers to "announced", not to "clearing". If I had meant to say that "the bank would begin clearing the site the same month", I would have said so, but this is incorrect. Maybe "the bank announced that it would, in the following month, begin clearing the site" would convey what I meant to say. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 70: mentions the closure in the late 1970s, but doesn't support the observation deck having been open to the public up until that point.
    • The source says the deck "has been closed to the public since the late 1970s", so that part is correct. I've removed the implication that it operated continuously since the building opened, if that was what your concern was. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 86: source text says "The building's name was not changed,[88][89] and residents unofficially continued to call it the Williamsburgh Tower", but it's talking about its unofficial name up to that point; it can't really be used to prove the future point that residents continued to call it that.
    • The sources from 1990 (after the merger) do mention that the building's official name remained the same, but I've removed the commentary about whether the unofficial name remained after the merger. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 104: Text mentions landmarked banks being converted, but the reference doesn't mention landmark status (and only some of the banks mentioned therein are landmarked.)
    • Removed the comment about the banks being landmarked (even though this is true), but see my comments below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 141: Text says "At the 30th story is an open loggia of arched windows, topped by another horizontal band of terracotta" but the landmark report doesn't mention the loggia.
    • Removed—I have also commented about this below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 172: Text says "while the Brooklyn Times-Union stated that the building's construction would unite Brooklyn's and Manhattan's skylines" but the Times-Union article says that "our skyline and that of Manhattan were merging" (they have already united), it's that as the skyline migrates north in Manhattan, it's also spreading outward in Brooklyn (such as the Williamsburgh Bank Tower.)
    • I've also commented below with regards to this point. However, now that I think of it, the merger of the skylines isn't what the source is really focused on—rather, it is the effect on property values and the fact that the tower was an "architectural triumph", as the source puts it. Accordingly I will be modifying the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the spot checks. However, with all due respect, I think some of these issues are not as major as they seem to be. Here are a few examples I'd like to quickly address:
  • The issue with reference 14 (that the source says "about eight" while the article says "eight") is a matter of wording - it's not possible for there to be about eight buildings. There's either exactly eight buildings, or there's seven or nine, unless somehow half a building wasn't replaced. I went with "eight" since saying "around eight" would make it sound like we don't know whether it's eight full buildings or not, while "exactly eight" would not be correct. MOS:UNCERTAINTY seems to indicate that numbers "rounded in a normal and expected way" should be rounded in this fashion.
  • Ref 104: technically, all three banks mentioned there are landmarked (the Apple Bank Building and the New York County National Bank Building are city landmarks). Yes, it's also true that the NY Times report doesn't explicitly mention "landmarked" bank buildings, but this is also verifiable using the LPC's website (and something I didn't think I needed to explicitly spell out).
  • Ref 141: The report mentions arched windows. Again, I agree that it doesn't specifically mention a loggia, but it does source the windows and everything else in that paragraph. (I described the windows as a "loggia" because that's how they physically appear, so I guess that might have been skirting the OR line.)
  • Ref 172: The source says that the skylines were merging but that "the skyscraper section is spreading", which indicates to me that the merger isn't complete yet, especially judging by the fact that the skyscraper boom was just hitting Brooklyn. As it turns out, this isn't even the main point of that article. Let me go back and change it.
• I will comb through the article to fix these issues (and more) later. I do feel that some concerns are slightly nitpicky, but I do appreciate the comments nonetheless and will try to eliminate all potential text-source integrity issues. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • On a cursory scan, I identified a few more text–source issues that I've now fixed. I will scan through the remaining issues over the rest of the week. I don't think there should be any major failures of verification, but it's clear that a few sources may have been misinterpreted or misread. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• @David Fuchs, as a quick note, I've just thoroughly examined the History section and removed some items that failed verification. Like I said above, I am willing to scrutinize this entire article with a fine-tooth comb over the rest of the week, and i hope that you will reconsider after I finish analyzing the rest of the page. It would be a shame if the FAC were to be archived because I sloppily misread a few sources; I had a similar problem earlier this year but was able to weed out the minor issues in that article as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Such things crop up, especially with very detailed or lengthy articles like this, it's just good to be mindful of it. I've withdrawn my oppose pending another check once you've done one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you @David Fuchs. I should be able to suss out any lingering issues during the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

    Still working through this article, but I hope to fix all the remaining issues by Thursday or Friday. I already fixed several other errors.

    I'm unsure about a few sentences there and am thinking of erring on the side of caution. For example, the History section contains the sentence "The bank was originally housed in the basement of a church in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,[5][19] at Bedford Avenue and South 3rd Street". This is sourced to a few refs, none of which specifically pinpoint Bedford and South 3rd as being in Williamsburg. I know it's in Williamsburg, and you probably know that as well, but this might still be on the borderline of SYNTH if none of the sources say it. (I ultimately cut the intersection altogether, but there's a few other sentences like that in the article that I still have to check.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry, this is taking longer than I expected. I should be finished in a few more days. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs, I've finished looking through the article and fixing the rest of the issues that I found. Some of these inaccuracies were my fault, while others were preexisting text that wasn't supported by the source and have now been removed. Given the length of the article, though, I've tried to fix as many of these issues as I could. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll start taking a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi David, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing another checkthrough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 35, 45, 47, 60, 69, 80, 94, 95, 101, 109, 132, 144, 151, 152, 159, 162, and 173. Did not spot further verification issues and checks looked good. Moving to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "From the time of its construction until 2009," Are anything other than the last two words required?
  • I have trimmed this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• The lead says constructed from 1927 to 1929, and the body says the same, but the groundbreaking was in 1928 per infobox? This seems to be the date the cornerstone was laid. I'm not sure a groundbreaking and a cornerstone laying are the same thing.
  • You're right, though I couldn't find a parameter for cornerstone laying. For such a tall building as this, it doesn't make sense to have the cornerstone laid three months before the topping-out. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "making it the fourth-largest in the United States.[5]" Fourth largest bank or savings bank? And by what metric?
  • The source doesn't say directly, but the context is the total amount of deposits held by savings banks. This source does say it directly though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The approval was contingent on the fact that a temporary branch, which was planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, would shut down when the permanent building was finished." This sentence is rather awkward. Perhaps "The approval was contingent on the closing of a temporary branch that the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, once the permanent building was finished.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "In January 1927, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank opened a temporary location at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues." Since the plans for said temporary branch have been mentioned, perhaps "the" instead of "a". Do we have any info on its closure?
  • I rephrased it accordingly. I have no idea what happened to the temporary bank. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The banking hall also hosted events such as an American Revolutionary War exhibit by the Long Island Historical Society in 1976.[70]" I would assume this had something to do with the United States Bicentennial?
  • Indeed it did. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "U.S. representative Fred Richmond" I would simply call him a Congressman and cap it and let it go at that.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Basketball player Magic Johnson " I believe Mr. Johnson had retired by then, so a "former" might be good.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The dentists had used large amounts of mercury vapor in their offices, " more likely they used mercury amalgams that generated vapor.
  • Clarified. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "the tallest building in Brooklyn from 1929 until 2009.[139][137][138]" refs out of order? Ditto "and motifs representing Brooklyn and its history.[146][145][163]"
  • It seems WP:CITEORDER says that "references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article". This is not a major issue for me, however, so I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• 1916 Zoning Resolution is linked on second use.
  • Fixed. (Until recently, the History and Architecture sections were swapped following David's suggestion above, hence why the link was retained in the Architecture section.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Near the corner is an inscription in all capital letters." Saying what? Maybe in a footnote?
  • I also removed the text of the inscription recently because I thought it might have been tangential to the article. I have re-added it to a footnote. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "with a bronze sign reading "Subway"s.[147]: 7 " It says Subways? Or Subway?
  • Just the singular "Subway". Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The roof contains an abandoned public observation deck at the 30th-story setback." Is this the one mentioned as being on the 26th floor under history? If so, perhaps try for consistency and also phrase as if you've mentioned it before.
  • Indeed it is, and I changed the first mention of "floor 26" to the "30th floor". There is a whole footnote about how the floor numbers inside the building (which I'll call "interior stories") don't match up with the physical stories outside the building (which I'll call "construction stories"), because the banking room is five floors tall. Hence, interior story 2 is actually the sixth construction story from the ground, and so on for all of the upper stories. In this article, I'm using construction stories, rather than interior stories. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The basement lobby leads to the bank's vaults and the subway lobby.[144]" Maybe "led"?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The depositors' vault was sealed by 60-short-ton (54-long-ton; 54 t) doors, measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 5 feet (1.5 m) thick, which were open for inspection during banking hours.[94]" Presumably you had to be a box holder to gain admittance? Thus "open for inspection" sounds a bit odd.
  • I changed this to "open to clients" (I think it should be clear that the clients are that of the bank, since I mention clients in an earlier subsection, but I'm willing to change this if it's unclear). Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Wehwalt. I have now addressed all of the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891

I'll take a read-through after David's concerns are resolved (feel free to ping me back here). No point in reading through if things are just gonna get mixed up again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891, thanks. I've finished looking through all of the issues that David pointed out, and I've fixed some other issues that I found myself, if you would like to take a look. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In the thick of finals week, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel after wednesday, at which point I should be able to comment on this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I will read through by Saturday, hopefully today or tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• "New York's superintendent of banks moved to allow the Williamsburgh to open a Downtown Brooklyn branch" I'm not grasping from the context why a superintendent wouldn't allow them to open a branch
  • Basically, ten banks opposed the Williamsburgh's decision to open a branch in Downtown Brooklyn, but the superintendent allowed it anyway. In theory, the superintendent could have also denied the Williamsburgh's application for a new bank branch because of the other banks' opposition. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• ""The approval was contingent on the closure of a temporary branch, which the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues," I think it might be clearer to put the plans to open a temporary branch earlier in this paragraph, rather than interrupting the sentence, especially if the plans were announced at the same time as the headquarters plans
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "saying that they violated the provisions of the" Do we know why?
  • The source said "Article 3 of Sections 8G and 9B of the Zoning Resolution of 1916". The actual zoning resolution document doesn't indicate what 8G is, but 9B has to do with the height of a building at the corner of a wide street and a narrow street. Because 8G is not described in the document, I decided not to describe what it was.
• Did the ensuing Great Depression have no impact on the building?
  • Not that I could find; the building was already almost fully leased by the time the Depression hit. However, the Depression did have an effect on other buildings (or rather, the lack of them), since no other skyscrapers were built in the neighborhood as a result. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "A life insurance sales department opened at both of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank's branches in 1941" Is this relevant to this building?
  • Yes. I meant to say that the department opened within the building's bank branch. (This was probably a bigger deal for the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building (175 Broadway), which was exclusively used as a bank building, but it probably merits mention here as well, since the bank was previously not allowed to sell life insurance.) Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "An office for discharged service members" a government office or?
  • Basically a rehabilitation center. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "The building was also deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places" 'deemed' eligible by who (if it didn't end up getting listed)?
  • Beverly Moss Spatt, the LPC's chairwoman, said the building could be added to the NRHP if the city-landmark designation passed. I don't know why it was not added to the NRHP. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is there any reason it couldn’t have been added if the city landmark designation did not pass? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Eddie891, no. Buildings in NYC can be added to the NRHP even if they aren't city landmarks (the adjacent Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station is one example of this). It's just that it's easier for a building to be added to the NRHP if it already has city landmark protection, since the city landmark designation is more strict than the NRHP designation—for example, the windows theoretically could be changed without permission if the building were listed only on the NRHP, but not if it were a city landmark. I do not know why Spatt used this specific wording, though, and the source does not elaborate. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District on September 26, 1978" why was it not initially included?
  • The district was designated on that date. I have reworded the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "one story for data-processing equipment." data-processing for who?
  • Various companies, though the source does not say who. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "The Williamsburgh Savings Bank started replacing windows in 1983 after finding that some were severely deteriorated." Is this really relevant? presumably it was not an uncommon occurrence to replace windows?
  • Typically, no, but this provides context for what happened next. Because the building was a city landmark, the bank needed permission from the LPC to replace the windows, which they did not have. This led to what the NYT described as the largest violation of New York City's landmarks law at the time, a detail that is noteworthy. Presumably other windows were replaced in later years, but these all received LPC permission and so aren't mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "while the remaining space was 96 percent occupied by 2002" Maybe "in 2002" -- unless there was a point where it was 0 percent occupied?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "One potential buyer wanted to operate the building as an office structure, but he reneged because of concerns that he would not be able to outbid residential developers" relevance? I'm sure many people would have liked to buy the building but couldn't afford it
  • I have removed this, as it's probably run-of-the-mill for reasons you mentioned. I only included this detail because the residential boom in Downtown Brooklyn was, at the time, unusual for a neighborhood that was mostly composed of office structures. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Through history so far. Nice reading. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Eddie891. I've responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• " from thirty miles away" -- conversion figure?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• " that "if it's a minute off, the people telephone immediately"" -- does this imply that they *didn't* rely on it, but instead just used it, considering that they had other clocks and noticed that it was off?
  • The source said that Brooklyn residents depended on this clock. Presumably some people had more accurate clocks, but I think this may be an exaggeration by the building manager. Nonetheless, there were at least some who may have used the clock as their main method of telling time, as evinced by the anecdote of the woman who missed a dentist's appointment because the clock was off. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Bank officials required that the dome be included" In this tower or the 175 broadway one?
  • This one. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• "these lights faded into each other, " I'm not sure what this means
  • The lights are in several different colors. As one light gradually turned off, another light (in another color) gradually turned on, giving the impression that one color was fading into another. However I don't think this detail is too important, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• " features Cosmati rectangles in a grid" what are cosmati rectangles?
  • In the style of the Cosmati family of Italy (which is already linked earlier). Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if some of the smaller phrases are not overcited-- for instance, why do you need three for " It was installed by Ravenna Mosaics" or "The mosaic, created by Angelo Magnanti"?
  • I can address this later. I added multiple citations to some statements to make the info more verifiable, especially when these sources disagreed on other details. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• and the author Jonathan Ames created a "Most Phallic Building" I don't think this is the best choice for linking 'phallic architecture', especially because it gives the impression of being a link to the competition itself
  • I moved the link out of the quote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• "The tower was intended as the first of a series of skyscrapers near Downtown Brooklyn" intended by who?
  • I probably used a poor choice of words there. There was no master plan to speak of; several developers, not identified in the source, proposed skyscrapers in the vicinity. I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much it from me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Eddie891. I've addressed all of these except the overcite thing, which I'll get to later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to Support overall, I would like to see some of the shorter phrases that don't need multiple citations pared down a bit, but that by itself isn't terrible (I'd rather have over than under verification) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 19 December 2023 (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) 14:14, 25 December 2023 (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 2023 [7].

---

Snowy plover

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The snowy plover is one of the best studied shorebirds of the Americas, but also one of the rarest. I tried to include many interesting details while keeping everything as concise as possible. It is my first bird article, and I am looking forward to your comments! Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Source formatting and quality review (no spotchecks)

• FN#2 Grinnell 1982 is available online here; the volume and issue# should be included, as well as the series (University of California Publications in Zoology)

added.

• FN#3, FN#23 be consistent with punctuation of author names (compare Russo, IRM v. Maher, K.H.)

Fixed this instance and some others.

• FN#4 and FN#8 No isbn?

Added.

• FN#4 and FN#8 it's interesting to use title case for chapter titles and sentence case for the title of the book (I would have thought doing the reverse was usual)

Puh, this is one of these conventions that I do not understand (having different rules for books and journals). I put the book titles in title case too, now, hope that works.

• FN#6 I think the page should be "e78068"

Fixed.

• FN#9 Don't need to include publishers for journals. The binomial in the article title should be italicized.

Ok, removed.

• FN#10 is available open access at doi:10.2307/4073508

Added.

• FN#11 not sure why the citation mentions "via Biodiversity Heritage Library", because it doesn't even link there. If a link is available to that page, that should be included.

I copied that citation from another FA. So I am not sure what that was doing. Removed.

The Helm Dictionary used to be available on BHL around I think a year ago, so the database attribution is probably from then. The BHL copy of the book was removed a couple months ago, but it is available on Archive.org if you want to add a link. AryKun (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying! I added the link. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• FN#12 two of the editors have authorlinks, which is fine, but inconsistent as there seem to be only three authorlinks throughout the citations

I added a few more, but these only make sense if the author has an article to start with, which is rarely the case.

• FN#11, 15 the ISBNs should be formatted consistently

Fixed.

• sometimes authors' first names are truncated to initials, even though full author names are available at the source page. This would be ok if it was consistent throughout, I guess (though I'm not sure why one would want to trim out that information), but it's not, as there are other citations that use full first names.

Personally, I would prefer to simply cite them as the names appear in the sources. However, here at FAC, people ask for consistency. It is often not possible to find the full names of all authors that are cited in the entire article. So I simply truncate them all, to meet the consistency requirement.

• the citation that's somewhat cryptically mentioned in the note is available for viewing here, with all bibliographic details needed to make it into a full citation

Wow, thanks for the hint! I was looking for it and couldn't find it. Two other sources seemed to indicate that they did not had access to the first description (as they did not cite the first description directly, but another paper that was citing the first description. This is why I decided to include that note.). Added now.

Other than these formatting nitpicks, the sources appear to be scholarly and appropriate for use as "high-quality reliable sources". I'll be back later with a full review. Esculenta (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Responses above, should all be addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891

• "which comprises 32 extant species and is therefore the most specious genus of the family" I'm not sure what context of its meaning you're using "specious" in here-- could you clarify (on the FAC)?

"Species-rich". Changed to the alternative form "speciose", which is hopefully less ambiguous.

• "The snowy plover, formerly Charadrius nivosus, is to be transferred into the genus Anarhynchus, as Anarhynchus nivosus, along with a number of other plover species." I'm (as a non-specialist reader) a bit confused by this. If they know that it should be transferred, why hasn't it been yet? Who does the transferring?

The major resources (Ebird, Birds of the World, Inaturalist, etc.) already made this step. But Wikipedia is following the IOC World Bird List, which apparently did not do this update yet. I expect that this will happen soon.

• " much debate revolved around the question whether the two represent a single or separate species" you don't really establish that any real debate occurred-- more that Oberholser said something, it was largely accepted for about 100 years

Very good point. There has been debate, but I thought it is not really worth mentioning here. But then, yeah, "much debate" is an overstatement. Removed.

• How do you decide whose work get's their name and who is just lumped into "a study in year"?

Usually, I give names either for works that have been seminal to the topic (usually old ones), or when I provide the opinion of one author that is either speculative or probably not shared by other ornithologists (to attribute the statement to that particular author).

• "and hints at the occurrence of these birds along rivers" Is this a common thing?

Charadrius has many species, and many of them are common along rivers. The snowy plover itself not so much, though.

• " In some cases, combatants pull on each others feathers, and may even pull out a flight feather. " What is the difference between a flight feather and a regular feather?

There are flight feathers (used for flight), and downy feathers (used for insulation), and display feathers (used for advertisement). I now specified "tail feather", and linked to flight feather.

• You link nest scrape in the caption but not ground scrape in the article, seems like would be worth a link in both places?

Linked now, and changed the text to "nest scrape", too.

• " The chicks are presocial" The linked article does not contain the term "presocial", but does have "precocial". Typo?

Oh yeah, thanks, fixed.

• "in the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded 58% of the time on average. " This is not clear to me-- 58% of their first ten days on average they are brooded? or 58% of them were still brooded after ten days? or something else

It means that, each day, the parents sit on them 58% of the time (i.e., 14 hours per day). I need to think about how to formulate this more clearly; if you have an idea, please let me know!

Maybe "In the coastal areas of northern California, chicks less than 10 days old were brooded for an average of 58% of each day" ? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Great, took your suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• " In western North America, chicks are attended for 29 to 47" what does attended mean in this context?

"attended" here means that the parents attend (take care of) the chicks. Should I replace with "are cared for"?

I think that sounds better

Changed. I hope that the double word ("are cared for for") is not a problem? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Not for me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I think SchroCat's suggestion below works well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• " the New Carissa spill of 1999 that is known to have killed a minimum of 45 plovers" Could probably just say "that killed a minimum"

Hm. I wanted to emphasize the "known" here, because there were many more spills with probably much larger numbers, but nobody counted. This one is worth mentioning because we have some data at least.

Oh in that case, I think it's ok.

• "In the future, effects of climate change, such as droughts and habitat loss due to sea level rise, are likely to negatively affect this species" Implying that they don't already, which is probably innacurate?

Probably. Changed to are likely to become significant threats.

• "In Mexico, the species is listed as "threatened" since 2010" maybe "has been... since 2010"?

Yes, done.

• "but target numbers have not yet been reached" The target numbers are?

The source didn't specify, and I searched again and didn't find this information anywhere. I will keep looking.

Actually, I couldn't find anything on target numbers in other sources. I therefore removed this information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Overall, a really interesting and well written article. A number of my points are probably my confusion and don't need edits to address them Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this helpful review! I responded to all, but for some I have questions; please let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thank you, again. I think all points should be addressed, and I hope I did not miss anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. A well written, highly readable, and wonderfully illustrated article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

FM

• Will have a look soon. I think this has the overall best quality photos and image selection of any bird article I've seen at FAC, nice! FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I am quite fortunate with this one, also regarding the amount of interesting research that I could add! And thanks for reviewing, I am looking forward to more comments!
• Point Reyes National Seashore is duplinked.
  • It is linked once in an image caption, and once in the text, that should be fine?

The highlight duplinks tools shows me it's linked in successive last two paragraphs under "Causes of decline". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I see. Fixed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• No cladogram?
  • As stated in the taxonomy section, the plovers are momentarily undergoing a major taxonomic revision, and the snowy plover is to be moved into another genus. There is an old cladogram from 2015, but it would show the old taxonomy (which the Wikipedia article is still following, though). And there is a newer one from 2021 that lists this species as "Ochthodromus nivosus", which seems to be outdated already. I didn't see any cladogram that has it under its new name. My secondary source (birds of the world), which was just updated this month, states that the snowy plover is most closely related to the Kentish, the white fronted, the Malaysian, and the chestnut-banded plover, and I included this information. However, no cladogram I saw matches this precisely. So I am not sure; should I include the old 2015 cladogram for now, or go without cladogram for the moment?
    • Actually I was wrong. The 2015 cladogram matches precisely the relationships stated by the 2023 secondary source. Added now, but without scientific names, since the genus name may change soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Could there be a caption for the map that explains the colours?
  • Why didn't I thought about that myself? Added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in whether nationality and occupation are listed for the people mentioned.
  • I removed them now to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Kentish plover is linked at second instead of first mention.
  • Fixed.

• "The genus Anarhynchus did previously contain" Seems a bit unnatural with the "did", perhaps "The genus Anarhynchus previously contained"?
  • Took your suggestion.

• Seems inconsistent when you give the scientific name of a species after first mention of the common name or not?
  • Simplified text so that I could remove the one mention of the scientific name. Scientific names add complexity and are not strictly pertinent, so I prefer to avoid them to maximize readability, and also to be consistent with other bird FAs.

• Since the WP:Engvar most associated with this species is US English, shouldn't the article be written in that? I see both ise and ize endings.
  • I found one -ise ending which I fixed, hope I didn't overlooked something.

• "However, a 2013 genetic analysis found" Give author, as you do with another genetic study mentioned?
  • Removed that author name to be consistent. If I would give all author names for all statements, it would be too much (I mostly cite a single secondary source, but this source is just a summary of dozens of papers which I do not cite directly).

• "have recognized them as" Don't think "have" is needed here.
  • Fixed. Thank you, I am looking for more comments! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Now that you removed binomials elsewhere, how about: "Similar species within its range include the piping plover Charadrius melodus), the collared plover (Charadrius collaris), the semipalmated plover (Charadrius semipalmatus), and Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia)."
  • Removed them here, too.

• I wonder if "demes" need explanation in parenthesis?
  • I originally did not because it is a bit words, but added now.

• While the article is image heavy, I wonder if this video[8] would be interesting under for example habitat? It shows something not really shown elsewhere currently in the article, a very large congregation of birds on a beach, and it is pretty interesting in showing then all moving in unison back and forth, seemingly in response to the waves?
  • Very difficult to see but I believe these are dunlins, not snowy plovers. At least some of them have black bellies and longer beaks, which can only be dunlin. Also, seeing snowy plovers feeding in such numbers would be highly unlikely. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps enough to question their identity in the Commons file description so others don't add it in other language articles? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

So I just edit the Commons file description, saying that these could be Dunlins? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, if it can just be added to the current description. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The typical call is a sweet" Seems a bit subjective and ambiguous way of describing it? How does a reader know what "sweet" means?
  • That what the source says, and I don't know of a better way to describe it. Yet, "sweet" means different things to different people. I removed it.

You could maybe say "has been described as "sweet"" to show that it's a claim? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The "broken wing" image[9] could maybe benefit from a closer crop?
  • Done.

• "Brine fly larvae are often shaked before consumption" Shaken? I'm not actually sure, pinging Gog the Mild... FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good spot. Yes, 'shaken'. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

OMG, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "in flocks up to 6 km away" Give conversion?
  • Done.

• "and sizes between 0.1 and 1 ha have been reported" Likewise?
  • Done.

• "on the ground in footprints" What footprints? By humans?
  • They will choose any depression that is suitable. I added human footprints as example.

• "The polygamous mating system of the snowy plover is uncommon" Perhaps clarify "in other birds"?
  • Done

• "average at 31 mm in length, 23 mm in width, and 8.5 g in weight" Conversions?
  • Done

• "Under hot conditions greater 40°C" Conversion?
  • Done

• It feels a bit like the "Territoriality and roosting" section should come after the breeding section, since much of what is discussed seems to be related to events that happen after?
  • Hmm I need to think about it. The idea was to have a general section on social interactions first, and then the more specific brooding section. The territoriality section introduces the nest scrape behavior, which becomes important in the brooding section.

Ok, makes sense then, also per below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Either way, it seems repetitive that both the above mentioned sections state that they can roost in tracks, some way to consolidate this?
  • Only the first mention is about roosting. The second is about the nest (when the ground is to hard to excavate a nest, then they sometimes use footprints for their nests). These are two different things.

• "as if they would be broken" As if they are broken?
  • Done

• "were approached by less than 30 m" Convert?
  • Done

• "and a 30 m buffer zone" Not sure if conversions are needed if already given earlier...
  • Since we only link terms at first mention as well, it seems consequential not to provide the same conversion twice.

• Link communal roosting and bird call?
  • Done.

• "but had been classified as a subspecies of the Kentish plover in 1922"

But was classified? Sounds a bit odd now.

Changed.

• Nest scrapes and egg predators could be linked in the article body too.
  • Done.

• Link saline and alkaline?
  • Changed to salt lake and soda lake, which hopefully will be a bit more accessible, too.

• "Charadrius nivosus occidentalis" Abbreviate first two parts of the trinomial?
  • Done.

• Thank you again. All addressed to date. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Support by SC

Marker - will pop along soon. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "and also one of the rarest": you don't need "also"

Removed.

Taxonomy

• "along with a number of other plover species" -> either "along with several other plover species" or "along with other plover species"

Took the first.

• "the following cladogram": I'm never a fan of "following" or similar indications of position, as things can be moved and changed. (We have rules about it relating to images, and this is close enough to draw a parallel)

Changed.

• "cladogram of a 2015 study": it's not a cladogram of the study, but from a study

corrected.

• "the Old World": an odd and rather archaic term – and one likely to be misunderstood by many. May be best to give a different description

I didn't know that; the term is very common in the bird literature. I replaced with "Eurasia and Africa".

Territoriality

• "However, in Kansas and Oklahoma": you can drop the "however" and the sentence will be stronger

removed.

Breeding

• "The species lays 3 eggs on average, but clutch size ranges from 2 to 6 eggs": these should be in words, not numbers

done

• "around a fourth of daytime": is that a quarter?

yes, changed

• "chicks are cared for for 29 to...": to avoid the 'for for', you could reframe slightly to "chicks are looked after (or raised) for 29 to..."

OK, done.

Conservation

"30 m buffer zone": Add a conversion, maybe?

"30 m" is given twice in the article, and the first instance has the conversion.

That's my lot. Interesting article and fantastic pictures. – SchroCat (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and the review. All points addressed, please let me know if there is anything else I can do. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Nicely done - SchroCat (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

All of the licenses check out. Please add appropriate alt text to all of the images. File:Snowy Plovers (49522382536).jpg has a watermark in it that should be removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Note also that removing watermarks can require a complicated analysis under Commons rules, so maybe it would just be best to find a different image without a watermark in it (see Meta:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images). voorts (talk/contributions) 18:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I added the alt text. Regarding the watermark removal: Apparently there may be legal issues here [10], so I prefer not to. This particular watermark is quite unobtrusive I would say. According to the Commons proposal [11], it falls under "Visible watermarks", which are discouraged but not prohibited. This image is quite unique, I am not aware of any that could replace it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Note I cropped out the watermark from this [12] image from the same author some time ago. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. But still, I don't think it is ideal to encourage editors to remove (unobtrusive) watermarks when this might potentially come with legal issues. I thought the "Image review" was for avoiding legal issues, not to generate them. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Voorts|voorts], how is this one looking? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, there is one open issue/question regarding the watermark in File:Snowy Plovers (49522382536).jpg. As discussed above, removal of a watermark might come with legal problems. It therefore feels strange to me that removal of such watermarks is required (?) at FAC, because this animates editors to do something that might be legally doubtful (because if I had removed this watermark, there would not be any problem here). What is your opinion here? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jens, for what little it is worth, my reading of Meta:Wikilegal/Removal of watermarks from Commons images if pressed would be that in this case it is permissible. But it looks as if the issue has been resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Looks like your ping of me somehow got broken. The map in the infobox still needs alt text. Some of the images could use more specific alt text, such as noting where the bird is located (e.g., on a beach or standing on stones) and describing what the bird looks like. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, @Jens Lallensack, I don't think that removing the watermark is strictly required and I understand not wanting to remove it for the legal reasons that you and I have both noted. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

All done now, thanks! I hope this looks better now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Voorts, apologies for messing up the ping. Is there anything left outstanding? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Nothing left. Pass. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

I'll give this a look, though it is admittedly outside of my wheelhouse. TompaDompa (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• This appears to rely extremely heavily on Birds of the World. So much so that I start worrying about copyright issues.

  I am following the guidelines here, which ask me to rely on secondary sources whenever these are available, and to avoid citing primary sources such as papers when I could use a secondary source instead. We have plenty of FAs that are based on a single source only. I am open for citing more papers though.

Lead

• "This facultative polygamy" – I know what "facultative" means in this context, but I expect that most readers will not. Could it be rephrased using more plain language, considering that the lead is meant to be particularly accessible to readers?

  You made a good point. I don't know how to rephrase this, so I just deleted the word; it would be clear from the previous sentence that they are not completely polygamous.

Taxonomy and systematics

• "Joseph Grinnell, who attempted to locate the holotype in 1931, suggested that Dresser might not have been aware of the significance of the specimen and gave it elsewhere." – inconsistent verb tense.

  Apologies, I am not a native speaker. I tried to fix this, could you check if I got it right this time?

• "most of this research was carried out on western North American populations, with few monitoring programs targeting the eastern North American and South American populations" – I would swap that last part around ("South American and eastern North American") to avoid the possible reading "eastern North American and [eastern] South American".

  Done.

• "the most speciose genus" – I know this was changed from "specious", but I would really like to suggest going with plain "species-rich". That's a term that will be understood by all readers without consulting a dictionary (or making an educated guess), and I don't think any accuracy or precision in terminology would be lost.

  Done, yes, you are right. I am sometimes not sure which terms will be readily understood by native speakers and which are more difficult.

• "However, a 2013 genetic analysis found that the lapwings are nested within Charadrius; the latter is therefore polyphyletic (not a natural group)." – I'm fairly sure I understood this (the most distantly related Charadrius species are more closely related to lapwings than to each other), but it's not terribly easy to parse. I think this needs to be clarified either with words or a visual aid.

  You got it right. I tried to explain more, and linked "natural group" to taxon so that the reader can learn more about that.

  I would have thought that "natural group" referred to clade rather than taxon here, but maybe that's my mistake. At any rate, I think this is a good place to use an explanatory footnote (immediately following the semicolon) that says something along the lines of "In other words, the most distantly related Charadrius species are more closely related to lapwings than to each other." TompaDompa (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, "clade" is even more precise, changed to that. I also added your explanation, which is correct and clear.

• "snowy plovers also differ from Kentish plovers in being smaller, having shorter tarsi and wings, in their chick plumages, as well as in the advertisement calls of the males" – "in" is used for the first, third, and fourth item in this four-item list, but not the second. That tripped me up.

  I tried to re-phrase with "having"; hope this works.

Description

• "the snowy plover differs from these species in its black and slender bill (shorter and thicker in piping plover and longer and thicker in Wilson's Plover)" – it's a bit odd to mention that the snowy plover's bill is black in this context, considering no mention is made of the other species having a different colour.

  Added now.

• "these include, amongst others" – redundant phrasing.

  Fixed.

• "Chicks give a "peep" call from up to two days before hatching" – before hatching?

  Yes, they communicate with their parents while still in the egg! Amazing birds. Should I add "while still in the egg" for extra clarity even if this is redundant?

  Yes, I think so. I'm probably not going to be the last person to come across this and think "surely that's an error?". TompaDompa (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Added.

Distribution and habitat

• "Breeding has been recorded at elevations up to 3,048 m (10,000 ft)." – that's a rather conspicuous conversion, as 3,048 meters is exactly 10,000 feet. Was the original figure in feet?

  Very true. Possibly it needs a "|sigfig=2". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, Birds of the World gives it in meters, but cites an older paper for that which I cannot locate. I would assume, then, that that original paper was in feet. I changed to "3,000 m (9,800 ft)", which is the rounding the template provides.

Behavior and ecology

• "An analysis of feces from a coastal population of California during breeding season revealed 72% beetles, 44% flies, and 25% insect larvae." – what do these percentages mean (they do not add up to 100%)? Is it that 72% of samples contained beetles, 44% contained flies, and 25% contained insect larvae? If so, this should be clarified.

  Oh right, very good spot. I completely missed this. Fixed now.

• "Snowy plovers are facultative polygamous" – ungrammatical. They are either facultatively polygamous or facultative polygamists (but I don't think I've ever heard non-human species described as "polygamists").

  Of course. Changed to "facultatively".

• "hypotheses include [...], amongst others" – redundant phrasing.

  Fixed.

  Still there. TompaDompa (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ah I see, that was another instance of "amongst others". Removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Under hot conditions greater 40 °C (104 °F), the male and female take turns every hour or less to prevent overheating." – to prevent overheating themselves or the eggs?

  themselves. I changed to "avoid" to make this a little clearer. (It does not make a difference for the temperature of the eggs whether the male or female sits on them)

  Might add a link to heat stroke, heat illness, or hyperthermia, whichever is most appropriate. TompaDompa (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Reconsidering this, I decided to remove "to prevent overheating". This is implied by the source, but not directly stated, and I think the sentence is clear without such explanation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• New comment: "every hour or less" – a bit clunky. I might say "at least once per hour" or something similar. TompaDompa (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  Changed. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Status and conservation

• "As of 2020, the global population is estimated at 24,000 to 31,000 individuals. The North American population has been estimated at 25,869; the population in and around the Gulf of Mexico at 36,000 to 38,000; and the South American population at 8,000 to 10,000 individuals." – these figures are obviously contradictory. How come?

  The total is mature individuals only, the other counts include juveniles as well. Specified this now (I should have done this from the start).

  There was an additional number error, which I fixed now, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• "habitat losses due to the trapping of sediments by dams and jetties" – I would at least link Jetty.

  Done.

Ping Jens Lallensack. TompaDompa (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thank you very much, these are all excellent comments that really made a big difference! All addressed, let me know what you think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. I would also really like for somebody with more familiarity with the topic and/or copyright to take a look at the heavy reliance on Birds of the World to make sure it's okay. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by query

• References: you have all article tiles in sentence case, which is good. Except for bird names: "Snowy Plover", "Lapwings". Why? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Common bird names are often capitalized, but Wikipedia choose to write them in lower case. I now changed them to lower case for consistency. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Jim

Gog the Mild asked me to have a look in view of the concerns raised by TompaDompa. I believe that I would struggle to find any significant content that's missing from this text. I looked specifically for parasites and diseases, often omitted from bird articles, but that's covered here too. Although I understand TompaDompa's concern, I think that if you have access to HBW it's bound to be a major source, especially as this extensive species account was updated as recently as this October. I checked several of the references to HBW, particularly where it was the only source for the relevant text, and I couldn't see anything that raised concerns regarding close paraphrasing.

The text has been well picked over by others, and the only issue I picked up was that wikilinking is a bit inconsistent and sometimes lacking. We have Washington linked in the text, but California and Texas only in image captions, and Kansas and Oklahoma nowhere. I think I would have linked Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and iris, at least. Nevertheless, this more than meets the standard, happy to Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! I reworked the wikilinks, hope that looks good now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, no other concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:09, 20 December 2023 (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) 16:14, 20 December 2023 (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) 17 December 2023 [13].

---

Thomas de la More

Nominator(s): ——Serial 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, Arbcom elections are nearly upon us; I bet there's a few who wish they could simply tear up someone's winning ticket and replace it with that of their pals! But, unfortunately, it's not 1429, and we can't. If anyone can help improve this article, please walk right on in. Kettle's on.

Yes, I know the article is too short. Obvs. I must oppose promotion on the grounds of size ;) ——Serial 20:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Jens

I know little about the topic, but was able to broadly follow. My comments below:

• There seem to be a lot of typos still. I will list those I stepped over: in the area. and regularly acted; thef Nevilles; Earl of Salisbury''s; Delamore; for him.; the date given in 1501 document; even number disputed

Embartassing, but dealt with (except, I couldn't find Earl of Salisbury''s?)

First sentence in "Relations with the Earl of Salisbury". But from the wikitext, it seems you did it on purpose, but I can't see why. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Check. No idea where all that nowiki came from, but I think it's something to do with visual editor and possibly switching back to source editor; it's caught me a couple of times before.

• This, and his close connection to the Percy family's rivals, the Nevilles, eventually got involved – Can a circumstance get "involved"? Maybe write "Because of this, he got involved"?

Done.

• This resulted – Two subsequent sentences starting with "this" are not ideal.

Tweaked the second sentence, and added dates.

• link "Cumcatch" and "Stanford family"?

Unfortunately, no. I would have linked Cumcatch if it existed, and if it hadn't, I would written a stub. But it looks like it's literally just a farm! I hope it was bigger in his day  :)

• It is known that by 1429, he had sheltered one Robert Bell—a member of a local violent family—from the law – Is this the reason for the royal pardon?

No sources suggest it, and personally, I'd say that eight years was too long for the pardon to be needed (he would have been done long before that if anything had come of it). But I have added the result of the attack—an arbitration—which hopefully suggests that the events were unconnected?

• elected MP – what is MP, can you spell it out?

Good point.

• This put de la More in close contact with the earl, – What put him in close contact? I am not sure what this is referring to.

Clarified.

• was a retainer of the Earl of Northumberland, – "who was"? Or "who became"?

New source suggests from TC's marriage a few years earlier. Added, with ref.

• Among the dead were personal enemies of York and the Nevilles: the Duke of Somerset and the Earl of Northumberland respectively.[51] The king was returned to York's keeping,[52] and next month the duke held another parliament – What "Duke" is this talking about; the Duke of Somerset, the last Duke mentioned, is dead as stated in the text.

Clarified.

You now write "the he". I assume the "the" is too much, so that "he" refers to the king? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep, sorry about that! Removed 'duke' but forgot to remove 'he'...

• The History of Parliament's Simon Payling – What is this?

Linked to it, it's a government research thing.

• For laypeople like me, such history articles are often difficult to follow because of all the names one needs to keep track of. This article, however, seems to make it much more complicated than it actually is: The names "Percy", "Thomas", and "Lord Egremont" all seem to refer to the same person. It would me much easier to read if the article would stick to one name.

Okay. I'm afraid I can't really see this; as far as I can see, I only call him Thomas Percy twice, once in the lead and on his first mention. All other times, he is called Egremont. When Percy is mentioned, it's in the context of the family, the House of Percy, which is linked. (Also, on one occasion, I mention "the Percy brothers") Could you show me if I've missed any? I could easily have a bliond spot, especially with the main guy being Thomas too...

I see now, and "Percy" usually refers to the family. Maybe you could change "Thomas and Richard Percy" to "Thomas (Lord Egremont) and Richard Percy", as I think it would help the reader with following the text. But I can understand if you have reservations here, so see it as an optional point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being considerate; if you don't mind, I'll leave it for now, pending feedback? But I do get your point.

• political struggle for dominance in the west march between Percy and Neville – Which Neville is meant? If it is the Earl of Salisbury, than we should keep referring to him under that name.

As above, families of. Clarified.

• De la More "sent word of þe said manasse to þe Erle of Salesbury by his lettre and his seal to thentent þat his good lordshipp shuld shewe it to yowe and your counseill – Who is quoted here? Also, as a non-native speaker, I am unable to understand it.

Fair point. In fact, thinking about it, there are probably quite a few native speakers who wouldn't understand it! So I've transliterated it, and moved the original early mod. English to a footnote.

• if it came to him Henry's own chancellor rather than an ex-sheriff – "from" missing"?

Yep, thanks.

• Egremont was unable to challenge de la More claims. "De la More's" (with 's)?

Ditto!

• At the outbreak of the Wars of the Roses, he – "he" refers to "Lord Egremont", I assume?

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Clarified; not particularly repetitive I think.

---

Nice of you looking in today Jens Lallensack, it's appreciated. These are all excellent points. Thanks. Particularly for pointing out some rather silly typos! There are a couple of things I've queried above, but all of your suggestions are improvements, and I've happily gone along with them. Let me know what you think; thanks again! ——Serial 19:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Glad to hear that my non-expert review was helpful. See two responses above, but I can support this nomination already. Nice work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jens Lallensack, I appreciate your review. You say a non-expert's one, but really, that's exactly what this kind of thing needs, isn't it, as you have shown. Little things that may seem obvious or I've just got used to, is doing the reader a disservice. Thanks for supporting this candidate. ——Serial 21:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

• ..., although they are known to have settled in Cumberland during the reign of King Henry III 1. I understand that Thomas's father is unknown. Can we say that anything is "known" about the de la More family? 2. Introduce Cumberland as a county because in the following sentence it is mentioned as such. 3. Perhaps the years when Henry III ruled could be mentioned in the text.

1. Very little I'm afraid! I've added another possible piece of info though, re. 1280. 2.Linked. 3.Regal years added.

• ...the truce with Scotland ... A wikilink?

Not only no links to this particular truce, there was no link to Anglo-Scottish truces generally. So I had to write the thing myself—hence the delay to my responses here. Apologies.

• ....Thomas was "almost certainly related to John... To which of the two Johns previously mentioned?

Inserted "[the latter] John"

• De la More may have trained as a lawyer.... Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar or could it be explained?

Introduced Peter Booth, edited previous first entry.

• De la More may have trained as a lawyer, but in 1415, de la More was discovered leading secret raiding parties across the Scottish border... Why is the but? Perhaps a separate sentence?

Done. As you say, connection at all.

• I would move the first sentence from note 3 to the main text if it is verified by a reference to a scholarly works that specifically mentions Thomas.

Great idea, done.

• It is known .... Could you explain it? I assume documentary evidence exists.

See below

• ...a local violent family... What does a local violent family mean?

See below

• ...Bell's victim... Previously, he/she is not mentioned in the text. I think Bell's crime should very briefly be described.

All three above done! Tricky, because not everything is in the source, but I've expanded the details a bit.

• It was in county administration and royal service, however, that his career was to be based... Why "however"?

Fixed.

• ...it was around now that his full-time public career began. He was variously appointed or elected to many important regional positions. Do we know why he chose a public career? Why was he appointed to important positions?

  Well, he didn't so much choose it, so much as it was expected of him. I've expanded these lines to clarify, hopefully.

• These included royal escheator for 1431 to 1432 for both counties and Sheriff of Cumberland for 1443–1444, 1447–1448 and 1452–1453. The sentence is unclear for me. I guess a comma, or a conjunction is missing.

  Add comma.

• This was an important position, as elections could take place under pressure from both the Crown and local nobility. Did an elector resist royal or aristocratic pressure, or represent it? Was Thomas a representative of royal/aristocratic will, or rather an opponent?

  The gentry are generally considered to have been looking out for themselves, first and foremost, unless a local lord was so powerful he could pack his own electors in (as Salisbury seems to have done in 1455), and de la <ore was definitely Salisbury's man. It's a bit OR to say all that simply, though!

• ...his annual income was valued at £20 per annum... Delete per annum.

  Done.

• Introduce Booth and mention his full name. Borsoka (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Linked above, moved from here.

Hi Borsoka, and many thanks for the review. Just to let you know I've seen it, but you gave me an idea which I want to follow up tomorrow. Might take most of the day, but I should make a start on your suggestions come the evening, if that's OK. They look interesting by the way 👍 ——Serial 21:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, many thanks again for your suggestions. I especially like the ones that involve added context, that's really useful stuff. I think I've addressed everything you ask—perhaps you could have a look. Cheers, ——Serial 16:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• A wikilink to protector? Richard of York is not listed among the Lord Protectors in the relevant WP article.

He's second on the list ;) but the sourcing isn't up to much! Thanks, linked.

• Indeed. :)

• ...turned into armed struggle... I would name the Wars of the Roses.

Done.

• ...esq., alias gent., alias late of London Could you link or explain the abbreviations and the term "late"?

Have linked gent and added a footnote re. the latter.

• ...the North West England Is "the" necessary?

Well spotted!

• Thomas Percy is not introduced as Lord Egremont in the main text.

Ah, done.

• A link to "west march", "keeper of the truce", and "vault"?

Links to Scottish Marches, Conservator of the peace and vault added.

• He was never knighted. Some context or explanation? I may mention this fact before mentioning his death. Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Very tricky this one, because I suppose I'm asserting a negative. But I've given various examples of what else he was formally called instead. The odd thing is that since he is called an armiger at one point, he is obvs considered able to afford the status, but why he never does, we don't know. Irritating, actually.

All your further points attended to, I think, Borsoka, if you're happy with them. Cheers! ——Serial 19:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delete the reference to his birth date in the lead because it is verified in the main text. Why c.?

Ah, MOS:CIRCA says the template is preferred on first use.

• Sorry, I was unclear. The main text does not say that the year of birth is uncertain.

• Delete the references to his death dates in the lead because they are verified in the main text. Why not {{circa)} 1460 or {{circa)} 1460/1 June 1459?

I will go all out on an investigation.

• ...he was a loyal royal official... Loyal?

Removed.

• ...making him more influential than his income would suggest For me the reference to his income is not informative in context. Perhaps "his relatively low income/his relatively low annual income (reporedly £20)"?

Have a look now; I've added some more context—average incomes etc—and a footnote. Does this help?

• ...his men were beaten and threatened... According to the main text, de la More was also assaulted and he was threatened (not his men).

Adjusted the lead to tally.

• As a result, he could not collect money for the Treasury as a sheriff was instructed. I would merge this sentence into the previous one because this is also claimed by de la More.

I've tightened it, but not sure how to merge it exactly. What did you have in mind?

• The exact date of de la More's death is unknown, but it was sometime between 1459 and 1461. Is this necessary? The uncertainty is indicated in the first sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

True; removed and the sentence has been tightened.

Thanks for these Borsoka, all helpful. Just that second point is going to be tricky, I think, but should solve itself one way or another. Many thanks! ——Serial 15:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I think only the dates of his birth and death are still pending. Thank you for this excellent article. I always enjoy reading "micro-history", and the life of this guy may assist us to better understand real life in the Late Middle Ages. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to leave the death cites for the time being, as I think it probably qualifies as material likely to be challenged or questioned if I take them away. And surely a range such as 1395–1459–1461 is misleading; it would imply he took two years to die! (as well as looking a bit bizarre!).

FWIW, I was in agreement with what you say about the birth using {{circa}} (or not). But there is a problem there, too. The RS literally does both: the title (see in the bibliography, Rawcliffe|2019a) says he is "c. 1395", while her text says, "On his own testimony, Thomas was born in 1395". She's a historian and would (a bit like us!) prefer independent sources to his own word. There were, as today, sound reasons for lying about one's age in the Middle Ages; not to enable underage boozing, but to come into an inheritance early (see our article Proof of Age in medieval England). I might be able to add a line about "not recorded in any other source", but of course, that may not be true, and it must be extremely OR to try and read the mind of the source!

Thanks for your generous words. You've helped greatly improve the article, and as you suggest, "real life" and ordinary people are understudied things in this period. Here's to levelling down! ——Serial 17:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

The year of birth in the lead is still problematic: that he was born around 1395 is not mentioned in the main text. I would also delete the citations from the first sentence of the lead for the years of birth and death. I would not add a range for his death date either but I would say c. 1460 (but this last suggestion is not crucial). Borsoka (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Apologies for being dense, but I've just realised what you mean! Of course, the cites for death are superfluous. I have removed them immediately. I'd rather not use c. 1460, as I say; I think the range is just a bit too broad for that (if it was a year either side, but not a couple of years, I think). Thanks for sticking with this, and apologies for being slightly slow occasionally! ——Serial 08:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to support the promotion of this excellent article. I also deleted the unnecessary references to his birth date. Borsoka (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'D's flyby

Why is the IB arranged with all his roles squeezed into one bar? Should it not be something like:

IB example

Thomas de la More Arms of de la More, blazoned A cross flory, with a scallop in dexter chief. Sheriff of Cumberland In office 1430, 1443–1446, 1447–1448, 1452–1453 MP for Cumberland In office 1420, 1429, 1450, 1455 Escheator of Cumberland In office 1431–1435 Justice of the peace In office 1447–1448, 1448–1452, 1452–death Personal details Born c. 1395 Died 1459, 1460 or 1461 Resting place Brampton Old Church chancel 54.564668°N 2.455868°W / 54.564668; -2.455868 Nationality English Spouses Maud Sandford (or Idione) Margaret Children Margaret Isabel Occupation Royal official Member of Parliament

References

Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, Tim O'Doherty, because I am a techno-luddite and/or incompetent. You can't imagine how much trouble I took faffing around with {{plainlist}} until it was right. And then felt really proud of it  :) thanks for this, it's a great improvement and looks much cleaner, tidier now. Cheers! ——Serial 08:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 - No prob, glad to be of help. Thought it might've been a deliberate stylistic choice, but thought I'd ask. Might do a full review later down the line; we'll see. Nice work anyhow. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• and de la More's wife's included both Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland and Ralph Neville, Earl of Westmorland as her feoffees - de la More's wife's what?

Thanks Tim good spot. I obviously couldn't decide how to phrase a simple sentence... now rephrased and rephrased again. Many thanks for the latest flyby :) ——Serial 14:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Just realised you were drawing my attention to some recent edits, Tim; thanks for that. Didn't spot it on the watchlist... first thing in the morning of course!

I'd like, that being the case, to go on record and thank Jonesey95 for their recent copy-edit, which I wholly accept, to the point that, if they had made the same suggestions here, I would have implemented them myself. I also apologise for my ungentlemanly response to his innocent fixing of linter errors (or having "something equally inane to moan about" as I put it!) which was extremely ungracious and unnecessarily abrasive. Please accept my apologies, Jonesey95, and thanks for your help! ——Serial 16:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries! I just AGF'd and assumed that you were being sincere. I am good at finding inane things to fix! You can count on it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen this; yeah, I was pointing out the clarify tag. Seen this is being promoted, so unluckily for you you missed out on one of my reviews ;). One fewer thing on my mounting to-do list anyway. Congrats on another FA though, hope to see it on the Main Page soon. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry Tim, you should have left a note. But happy to reduce your workload. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem Gog, don't let my sluggishness stand in the way of progress! Cheers - Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, I hadn't spotted it myself! But I look forward to a review (*gulps* as the realisation hits him...!). Possibly. Might be something a bit different. Thanks to Gog too, for being on the ball  :) Talking of which, I've left DM (below) hanging elsewhere... ——Serial 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Although never particularly wealthy". I would delete "particularly" as vague and unhelpful.

Done.

• "He entered the circle of Richard Neville, Earl of Salisbury at some point in the 1440s, making him more influential than his income would suggest." "than his income would suggest" is clumsy and unnecessary as it is covered in the previous sentence.

Removed.

• "De la More did not only play his part in the procedural aspects of elections. He was himself elected Member of Parliament" This too wordy. All you need is "De la More was elected Member of Parliament".

Indeed!

• "Leigh's case was weak on its own merits". What case? You say above that he was a victim of chicanery.

True; clarified that he didn't have much support in the first place. (If he had, would the chicanery have worked...?)

• "The History of Parliament's Simon Payling". I assume you mean that Payling is the author of a volume of the history, but it is a vague and confusing wording.

Hopefully I've clarified that they are a trust and that he has written with them.

• "predominantly due to Scottish raids which had "lyth wast and destroyed"". This appears to contradict the charge against Egremont, and you did not mention Scottish raids in describing More's shrievalty.

Excellent points. I was able to find some specific troubles from DLM's own shrieval year (kidnaps etc), and also the history of poor tax returns the area had.

• You have a section on 'Early life and marriage', which has a paragraph on his ancestry, but the paragraphs on his marriages and children are second and fourth in the 'Later career and death' section. I suggest putting these three paragraphs in a 'Family' section.

I'm with you in spirit. And in that spirit, and broken into a 'Family' section and discussed his wife, mentioned daughters. But the stuff that they do either after he dies or around that time I'd rather leave at the end of his life rather than introduce it so early.

• "Isabel was subsequently recorded in her own IPM". IPM is not explained.

Well, it's linked + footnoted in 5th para 'Royal office' section, but the abbreviation was committed. Rectified.

• "This did not prevent her marriage to William Vaux of Catterlen[96] (died 1481)". [96] appears to be an error.

Can't see how, Dudley—could you enlighten?

• I see that it was an error which you have corrected. You put the ref inside the link. The problem has disappeared since you moved the closing square brackets to the correct place. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Roland helped posthumously administer de la More's estate with Margaret." This appears to say that Roland acted after his own death. Also, what does "with Margaret" mean? That Roland and Margaret acted jointly?

Removed posthumously and added 'jointly'.

• "He was probably buried in the chancel". Presumably "He" means Thomas de la More, but grammatically it appears to mean the Earl of Warwick. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed it does, and clarified.

Thanks for looking in, Dudley; I can't deal with your (excellent) points immediately due to currently bombing up the M11 (in so far as one can bomb up the M11 on a Friday afternoon!) as the next couple of days are with the in-laws, I'll see what I can do from the middle of the Norfolk potato fields!  ;) Cheers, ——Serial 16:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Cheers, Dudley Miles, I appreciate the thorough review, as ever. Just one thing I'd like you to clarify if you would. Have actioned all your other points, hopefully to your satisfaction. ——Serial 21:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: So I fixed it without even knowing it! Just about sums me up. Thanks very much for the support, and for all your help. ——Serial 21:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "His family had lived in the county since the 13th century." Does this really need to be the second sentence? It feels like an interruption.

Absolutely. Irrelevant to the lead.

• "This had prevented him from collecting money for the Treasury." Why had?

Clarified about the lack of money, also that it was as much down to the Scots as Egremont.

No, I meant why "had prevented" rather than "prevented"?

I was reading far too much onto it! Sorry about that.

• "It was by now customary for the Crown" perhaps "by then"

Done.

• "sheriff and Justice of the peace" I keep a safe distance from MOS:JOBTITLES but this looks odd.

Which I could keep such a safe distance! But yes, lower-cased.

• "This indicates, argues the prosopographer Gilbert Bogner, that de la More was a propertied man, effectively at knightly level, and at least "prominent" member of the gentry.[34] " Is there an "a" missing somewhere before "prominent"?

Indeed, added.

• "The King was returned to York's keeping,[67] and next month he held another parliament.[68]" I would think a "the" before "next".

Done.

• "shrievalty" (used twice). Is this really necessary? wouldn't "tenure as sheriff" (if that's what it means as I suppose) be more reader-friendly?

OK, I swapped out the second occurrence. Keeping the first usage to avoid repetition, but would that still be not user-friendly?

I guess it's clear from context.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a contradiction between notes 8 and 18?

Very well spotted! And the odd thing is they're both from the same source and page. So I've basically erased FN18 and added how interchangeable the terms were to FN8, since the same guy says both. Is that suitable?

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice review Wehwalt, though provoking. I think I've attended to all your points, but let me know if you feel anything unsatisfactory needs to be tweaked further? Cheers, ——Serial 19:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Just a couple of notes above. Didn't mean to provoke, still, whatever improves the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciate that Wehwalt. Apologies are in order: that^^^ was a typo. I meant, "thought provoking"! You are not provoking at all :) ——Serial 20:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Of the five images, two have alt text and three don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Added, thanks. ——Serial 17:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Gog, many thanks! ——Serial 18:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Habitual I know, but spot-check upon request. Why does #8 have "p. n.5." and #9 doesn't? #22 likewise has a pp with a single number, then a n. #38 and #74 also have such a n note. Is there a logic between using ISBN for some sources and OCLC for others? PhD theses from what I know are so-so sources; . I'll ping Ealdgyth to check over potentially omitted sources or iffy sources that I can't quickly check; this topic is more in her wheelhouse than in mine. Pedantic I know but I wonder if the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England and the Rawcliffe sources need to be formatted like websites, isn't that more like a book? What are V.C.H, T.N.A and H.M.S.O? While I don't know many of the people cited, it seems like there are prominent historians and many university publishers among the sources. The M. E. D. (2023). source can probably reformatted so that it doesn't have that URL fragment and rather says where the website is hosted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond with a list if that's OK:

• FN8 is to a webpage, which obviously doesn't have a page number, but it does use footnotes. So have changed the param to |loc=; I think the footnotes are small enough to warrant distinguishing (i.e., easily overlooked).
• FN9, because it does reference the main page.
• FN22: this caught me out. Compare it to FN18; this is also a page + footnote, but only uses |p=. But see, it also hasn't got a comma? I realise now, that that comma makes the template think there are two pages, which would of course require |pp=. I've removed the comma so it only needs a single page ref. FN38 uses |pp= because it's citing multiple pages, even without the footnote, while FN74 rightly only needs (and uses) |p=.
• Naturally. ISBNs are used for books, where appropriate. OCLCs are used where they would not be; theses, journal articles and books printed before books were assigned a standardised internationally recognised number (pretty much everything pre-1970).
• I don't know what a so-so source is, as such, but the thesis has been (sparingly) used and is by a published expert in the field at an accredited ("respectable", I suppose) institution.
• Indeed, Ealdgyth knows how much I respect her work. I imagine she'll be the first to suggest that 15th-century sheriffs are about as much her wheelhouse as 11th-century bishops are mine. Or horses, for that matter. Apart from betting on.
• PROME is a website. I admit Rawcliffe is an interesting one. The way the History of Parliament Trust works is that they print a multi-volume work, and then a few years later, it gets published on the website (sound financial sense, presumably, on the assumption that many people buy the thing in the first place!). So in Rawcliffe's close, her 'volumes' are old enough—pub. 1993—to be by now online online, and that's what I used, so must I cite. But Payling's edition was only published ?last year, so won't be online for another few years. As such, with him, I had to use the dead-tree source.
• Good point, full names now used.
• True. In the world of faculty dinners and cheap canapés, those who are still with us are great folks.
• Another good spot. Swapped out that dangly ref for Univ. of Michigan, who seem to host MED.

Thanks JJE, all your suggestions carefully considered, mostly actioned and all appreciated. Let me know if I've misunderstood you anywhere, particularly re. technical stuff. Cheers, ——Serial 20:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a so-so source per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship: Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. Depending on how this thesis was written and afterwards used as a source, it may or may not meet high-quality RS requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I think it probably conforms, then. Booth himself was subsequently published on the topic (used in the article to a greater degree). He was supervised by Dr. D. T. Williams—who has an undergraduate prize named for him—with input from A. J. Pollard (Teesside) and Bill Sheils (York). The thesis itself has been cited several times in the literature ([14] from Boydell & Brewer, [15] from Cambridge University Press, [16] from Bloomsbury, etc.). Finally, as I said, it is used sparingly—four discrete occasions—and to provide context for material already sourced. As for Leicester... well, they might have behaved appallingly—f'ing appallingly, frankly (see: [17], [18], [19], [20]) in recent years—five years after Booth submitted, the THE ranked them as 197th globally. Perhaps, unfortunately. Cheers, ——Serial 13:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems like it might pass muster, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo. Is that a pass for that source, or for the whole source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It is for that source and upon thinking also for the rest. On condition that someone with more familiarity with the sources doesn't object and that we don't need a spot-check that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2023 (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) 19:26, 17 December 2023 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2023 [21].

---

Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891

Nominator(s): Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully reviewers aren't bored of season review articles for sports clubs, as I present this one for your perusal. Inspired by the excellent work of ChrisTheDude, I've brought this one up to what I believe is FA level. This was Somerset County Cricket Club's first season in the County Championship when they provided a great shock by defeating the all-conquering Surrey side. As always, all feedback will be warmly received. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am touched that you cite me as inspiration :-) I will endeavour to give this a review over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "scoring 560 runs at an average of 31.11" - link average
  • Already linked earlier in the sentence. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Meetings were held at Somerset" - not sure "at Somerset" really works - you don't say "at" with a county ("at Lancashire" makes no sense). I'd say "at [specific town]", or if that level of detail isn't known then just say "Meetings were held"
  • Changed to "Meetings were held at the club" for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "such as Lionel and Richard Palairet," - I'd be tempted to change that to "such as the brothers Lionel and Richard Palairet," so it doesn't look like they had a player with the mononym Lional
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, including home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties" => "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, consisting of home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "only delivered a hundred overs between them" - link overs
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• " Lionel Palairet was the club's leading run-scorer by over 200 runs" - link runs
  • It's linked in "run-scorer". Can switch it if you think that would be clearer? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "There was no play on the first or last days of the game" => "There was no play on the first and last days of the game"
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game is linked twice
  • Removed the second. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Lionel Palairet scored 100 runs exactly" - I think "Lionel Palairet scored exactly 100 runs" would be slightly better
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "and finished third in the Championship table with eight wins and five losses, a position they would not equal again until 1958" - this makes it sound like they didn't finish with 8 wins and 5 losses again until 1958. Suggest changing to "and finished the season with eight wins and five losses, placing third in the Championship table, a position they would not equal again until 1958"
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Cheers :) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - apologies for being a dumb-ass and missing that a couple of things were in fact already linked...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that under recent changes Wikilinking more than once is allowed so long as the second mention is in a different section and is considered helpful to a reader - broadly construed. You may already be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:County_Ground,_Taunton,_1895.jpg is missing author date of death. Ditto File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png
  • I think I've covered both of these now. Found the year of death for the County Ground picture, so that's included. For the Palairet one, I couldn't ascertain which of the Chaffin brothers took the photo, but they all died over 70 years ago, so I've switched it to a PD-unknown with an explanation, is that okay? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:HTHewett.jpg is missing a US tag, and the tags that are given are contradictory. If the UK-specific tag is kept, details on research will need to be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I switched that image out as I couldn't find any more details, including a date of publication, for it. Added File:Ranji 1897 page 295 H. T. Hewett.jpg instead, which is another with a PD-unknown because only the photography studio information is provided.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for this, I've made a few changes to licenses and what-not, as detailed above. Please let me know if these are okay. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

When and where was File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Not necessarily the first time it was published, but I've found a copy of it in an 1893 book, so added that to the Commons information. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Pedant's corner, and I hate myself for doing this. Is the article mistitled? Should it be "Somerset County Cricket Club's 1891 season"? Because that's what it seems to be about. (If you are sticking with the current title, I have several queries about information I would expect to see and don't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Indeed, the naming of cricket team articles is an anomaly. In other sports we have:
    • 1913–14 Gillingham F.C. season
    • 1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers season
    • 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
    • 1984 Dallas Cowboys season
  • After the conclusion of this FAC (for simplicity) I would intend to start a discussion in the cricket project about moving all cricket team season articles to a similar format, so this would end up as 1891 Somerset County Cricket Club season. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing seems fine to me --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero, hi is this a pass on sourcing based on formatting, reliability and verifiability or should a request for an "official" source review be placed at WT:FACSR? FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Given Guerillero's lack of response, I have added a request for a full source review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Surrey were undefeated in first-class matches and were champions-elect": does this mean they had already mathematically won the championship, or just that everyone expected them to do so?
  • The second. Changed to "considered champions-elect" for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• In Somerset's last match they were three runs short of avoiding the follow-on, at 172; so since Gloucestershire's first innings was 254 apparently the follow-on score for a three day match was then 80 runs. Perhaps a footnote explaining that the rule then was not the same as it is now?
  • I've added a footnote about this on the first mention of the follow-on: do you think it is worth duplicating the footnote for this instance too? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think it would be helpful. Could it perhaps be phrased to make it clear that the follow-on is still a rule of cricket, but the number of runs has changed? As written one could read it as saying that the follow-on is no longer a rule of cricket and that when it was a rule it was 80 runs in all circumstances. I knew what the follow-on was but am not an avid cricket fan, so I actually went to the follow-on article thinking, based on your footnote, that the rule had perhaps been abolished some time in the last few years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And mentioning that following on was compulsory for teams with deficits of 80 runs or more. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just these two minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Okay, tweaked the wording of the footnote, and duplicated it for the match in question. Let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Reserving a place. Harrias, could you give me a poke once you are in a position to respond to review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yeah, I'm here or hereabouts. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "against six of the eight other first-class counties". Which two didn't they play and why not?
  • They didn't play Nottinghamshire or Sussex. I can add that, but as for the reason, it is never plainly stated. Reading between the lines, it seems like Somerset couldn't manage a full schedule, either due to player availability or just the financial cost. There is some suggestion that Notts wouldn't agree to play them, but none of this is stated clearly enough for inclusion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Naming the two they didn't play would help. Possibly 'for reasons which are unclear' or similar?

Okay, lots of searching Newspapers.com has come up with something, so have added: "During a subsequent gathering in Taunton, Spencer explained that the decision to restrict their fixture list to twelve matches, which meant they did not face either Nottinghamshire or Sussex, was primarily a financial decision." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Slow left-arm orthodox". Perhaps append 'spin'?
  • Unpiped, so it now shows the linked (and clearer) "Left-arm orthodox spin". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "County Championship": the paragraphs are on the long side.
  • I can play around with this if you really feel they are too long to meet the criteria, but realistically, the only other option is each match having its own paragraph, and I prefer long paragraphs over very short. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "a heavily rain-affected match". Optional: 'a match heavily affected by rain'.
  • Yes, done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "just under five hours on the other." Perhaps "other" → 'third'? Or mention somewhere how long each match was.
  • Changed to "There was no play on the first and last days of the three-day game and just under five hours on the other." The close repetition of "day/days" is slightly irking, but I wasn't keen on your suggestion as "the third" might have drawn readers to think it meant day three of the match. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "As of 2023, the defeat remains Somerset's fourth-largest innings loss." They have lost by more? Three times! Good lord.
  • Indeed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "to score his 41 runs." Suggest deleting "his".
  • Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Nichols bowled economically and claimed five wickets". You not gonna tell us how many runs he leaked?
  • Added, although without also saying how many overs he bowled, it is half a story. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The joys of summary style.

• "and with eight minutes to go, Woods bowled out Read." Either no comma, or add one after "and". (Guess which I think works best?)
  • Removed all commas. Ever. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You won't regret it.

• "Woods then collected his fifth wicket of the innings in either the final or penultimate over allowed by the time". You what? I don't think "allowed by the time" does what you want it to.
  • Changed to "in either the final or penultimate over of the day's play", but I'm not sure that solves anything to be honest! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That works. It skips over why this was the case, but non-experts won't even realise it's an issue and fans will understand why.

• "while similar sentiments were echoed". I don't think that one can echo a similar sentiment. Maybe 'while these sentiments were echoed'?
  • Changed to "while similar sentiments were expressed". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps footnotes to explain "to win by nine wickets" and "Lost by an innings and 375 runs".
  • I linked the latter to Result (cricket)#Statement of result on the first appearance in the body prose. I'm loathe to try and repeat that section for all the result variants in the footnotes of this article. I wouldn't be opposed to linking more of the results to that page, if you think that might help? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I liked your note c, and think an explanation somewhere of, just, the two main, non-obvious, expressions of victory - by x wickets; and by an innings and y runs - would avoid MOS:NOFORCELINK: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

Added a couple of footnotes. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest archiving the links.
  • Do you have a link to the auto archiver you use? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

No. For me it's in "page/tools" at the top of the page. I must have clicked something in preferences. I have done it, revert if you don't like it.

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers, replies given. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just two points open I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Further remedial action completed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review/ passed

In half a mo. ——Serial 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Newspaper sources are mostly local, which in the 19th century were thus papers of local record.
• Primary sources galore, almost solely wrt match stats and other contemporary info.
• Missing idents/archives are irrelevant since the papers are hosted by established archival sites.
• Standardise your 13-digit ISBNs in whatever fashion you choose (I'd suggest XXXX-XXXX as that ties in with your 8s).
  • @Serial Number 54129: There's only one ISBN 13 that I can see. All ISBNs are presented in the format they appear in the source. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @Harrias: Bizarre! I must be going blind. You're quite correct, of course, so apologies for holding this up (although FTR, consistency within articles seems generally preferred). Nice article, many thanks! ——Serial 19:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Authors are known authorities. Publishers are respected houses.

The source review is almost passed. ——Serial 17:09, 16 December 2023 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2023 (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 2023 [22].

---

Dorothy L. Sayers

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Dorothy L Sayers was a fascinating person. Although she is best known nowadays as a crime novelist, she had several more strings to her bow – playwright, theological essayist, critic, and – most important to her – translator of Dante's The Divine Comedy. An excellent PR with much constructive input from Tim O'Doherty, Dudley Miles, UndercoverClassicist, Wehwalt and Serial Number 54129. Our grateful thanks to all of these. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Tim O'D

Putting down a marker for now. Comments will address the article past Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924, as I'd already commented about the previous parts at PR. Ping me after a few days if I still haven't commented. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Tim, pinging as requested! - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, had actually forgotten about this (don't take that personally!):

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Cut to the core, etc...

• This one is in the first section but remains my only nitpick left from PR: I think (Nell) needs to be clarified. My point was I didn't really understand what it meant at first: nickname, middle name ... ? I think it is a nickname given that she's referred to as Nell later down: if so, I'd just go with "Nell".

  OK, looking at MOS:QUOTENAME, I think that's probably fair (although I think the brackets works better. Still, the MOS suggests this way, so...) - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• The series of Wimsey novels continued with Unnatural Death in 1927, and The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club in 1928 - is the comma needed?

  Blitzed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• moved from London to the small Essex town of Witham - first time Essex has been mentioned in the body, maybe add a hyperlink.

  OK - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• The scholar George Saintsbury wrote an introduction to the book - wrote an indroduction or the introduction? Not trying to be smart here, if there was genuinely more than one.

  I think either are fine, regardless of the number (and I say that as someone whose immediate reflex is to use the definite article!). By way of example, if you do a search for "with an introduction by", you'll see multiple reliable and grammatical impeccable sources using this form.

• 1930–1934 - any sort of description you can give this heading beyond the years? If it's too artificial and inorganic to invent one though, fully understand why you'd choose not.

  I think this may be forced. Her membership of The Detection Club and the introduction of Harriet Vane into her novels were the two main changes in those years, and it's an odd sort of pairing for a title - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That's what I suspected. Happy with that.

• The Scotsman called it a book to keep the most jaded reviewer out of bed until the small hours - feels a bit quote-y; is it?
• The Liverpool Echo -> the Liverpool Echo

  Gone for consistency within the newspaper titles with a capitalised "The". - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why refer to Wimsey by his surname but to Vane by her forename?

  On this point I'm going to defer to Tim riley who wrote this part. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  It follows Sayers's practice. She occasionally gave him his full title – "Lord Peter Wimsey murmured: 'They all wrote down on their slates'", or half of it – "The Dowager Duchess made her way along the benches and squeezed in next to Lord Peter", but most of the time it's just his surname – "He fidgeted, and Wimsey frowned at him". Harriet is sometimes "Harriet Vane" in full, mostly just "Harriet" and never just Vane. Tim riley talk 09:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  The use in this way is also in line with MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and I think "Wimsey" and "Harriet" are classed as the common names in her work. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s - no notes :-)
• The Daily Sketch -> the Daily Sketch

  As above. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• A 2021 study by Laura Mayall - who is she?

  Sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Christian writing - also found nothing to complain about here, but confirming I have read it.

Will tackle the rest shortly. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Excellent stuff - many thanks. Just one point left for TR to answer. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Philip L. Scowcroft - might want to introduce him.
• "The second man ... seemed to wear the long-toed boots affected by Jew boys of the louder sort." - if this one could be put first while still making sense I'd go for that: we have Sayers being criticised for antisemitism in the first sentence, followed by two anti-black passages and then the antisemitic one last. Makes more sense, to me at least, to have the antisemetic one first as that's what's emphasised in the preceding sentence, followed by the anti-black ones (and, Christ Sayers! someone that religious should know better ... love thy neighbour etc).
• Link whodunit? (reading down I see you've done this in Legacy - do it at first use?)
• and, as at 2023, continues - WGHAT!! THIs ISN AN OUTRASGE!!1 (joke)

And that's me. Happy to support, even without waiting for comments to be resolved. In my eyes deserving of the gold star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Many thanks Tim - much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt

• Support per my detailed comments at peer review, as one very familiar with the Lord Peter Wimsey books.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment

At the end of the section headed "Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924" we learn that at the age of 31 Sayers had a son whom she arranged to be fostered. It strikes me as very weird that she did not wish to live with or look after her own child. This presumably throws some light on the character of this deeply religious woman. I'm surprised this isn't more prominent in the article. Do the sources give more background? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

There is surprisingly little in most of the biographies about the matter. At least one biography omits any mention of the son except in a chronology ("1924: Gives birth to a son.") I think that as a single mother in the 1920s who had a child as a result of an affair with a married man, the scandal would have been deeply felt, particularly by her religious family. I don't think this was as uncommon as you may think for the time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

UC

Support: all that's open here is minor, and the article is in great shape. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by for now in place of a proper review, which may follow:

• When she was fifteen, her parents sent her to a boarding school ... Joining at the age of fifteen, rather than the normal eight, she was seen as an outsider by some of the other girls, and not all the staff approved of her independence of mind. Firstly, does anyone we know which school? Secondly, the ages confuse me a little: in most public/boarding schools, it's normal to join at thirteen from an outside prep school. An all-through school (I'm not sure how many of those there were in the 1900s) may do things differently, but I'd be surprised in the modern day to find a school where it was abnormal to join at that point. Is there any more digging to be done here? People's schools are generally the sort of thing that are a matter of record, if only because the schools themselves tend to remember and commemorate their famous alumni. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks UC. I've tweaked this a little. She was home educated until she was sent to Godolphin, so I've made sure that's clear now.
  In terms of the age of entry, I suppose it depends on the school, but I've tweaked it here to show it was Godolphin's normal age, rather than more generally. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, their article seems to support that (or at least that 8 was normal in the 18th century). I still suspect it was a little less normal than that, but if the source says it, I've only got OR to go on here. A small point: the Salisbury school simply calls itself "Godolphin School", not the Godolphin, unlike the more famous one in London. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Good spot - thank you! Now amended. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi UC, I couldn't crowbar in another edit just to put another edit summary, so I'll answer your question here. Godolphin nearly put her off religion altogether (and didn't want to be confirmed at the time). Her "principal reason for choosing Somerville College rather than Lady Margaret Hall was that Somerville was undenominational", according to Brabazon, and this is partly because of the school. (I think we cover this in the relevant bit, but please let me know if it needs beefing up or tweaking a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes -- to me, that seems like a significant enough influence to stick it in the infobox (not to mention that the school nearly killed her off!). However, flicking through FAs on female writers, it seems pretty unusual to have a school there (or indeed any education at all) -- granted, much of that is because not all of those writers had a school career that we can reconstruct -- so I'm very happy to leave this one to nominator's discretion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi UC, no pressure (honestly!) but were you still considering a more extensive review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm very close to a Support, and would not want the process delayed on my account; my concerns and quibbles are minor. A few more (still not a full review!):

• The marriage, happy at first, grew more difficult as Fleming's health declined: a slightly buried lede; do we know why and how Fleming deteriorated, or indeed roughly how old he was?

I've added a footnote on his various ailments, and (in the body) mentioned he had a stroke and was age 68 when he died. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• a verse and prose translation of the 12th-century poetic fragments The Romance of Tristan by Thomas of Britain.: consider "verse-and-prose" to be clear that it's not a) a verse and b) a prose translation. Do we want an of after fragments to clarify that the original poem isn't a set of fragments, but rather that only fragments of the complete work have survived?

Yes, both done. SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• The series of Wimsey novels: cut series of, perhaps?

OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest wiktionary linking some of the more idiomatic or British terms in the article: shop talk stuck out to me, as did quite a few of the words Sayers used when describing her fellow writers' work in the footnote.

I've added a couple. Unsure of whether to include one for "rollicking" or not, but I think it may be OK from the context. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is it worth somehow clarifying the context of Sayers' comment about "not relying on Chinamen"?

Added a footnote about Fu Manchu. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• hoping to write a notable novel in the manner of: could perhaps cut notable as obvious (nobody sets out to write a novel undeserving of attention), or expand to exactly what she meant (one that would gain public recognition, or embody literary merit...?)

I've cut 'notable' - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Reviews were favourable without being laudatory: while laudatory does or can mean over-praising, I'd suggest a rephrase, as this will read as an oxymoron to many ("favourable without offering praise").

Gone with your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah - that wasn't a suggestion, but rather intended to show the problem! My point was that you can't really be favourable without offering at least some praise. Perhaps "moderately favourable", "favourable, but gave only qualified praise" or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

They really should instal a 'facepalm emoji' button on WP for me, it would be an overused facility, but there you go. Now understood and one of your actual suggestions used. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would consider briefly introducing Waugh; we've set him up as a critic, but it's worth being clear, I think, that he walked the walk as well.

Yes - added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sayers originally intended that at the end of the book Wimsey would marry Harriet: why does Wimsey get a surname but Harriet a forename? This could be read as our article's voice placing more dignity upon the former.

It's per MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and Sayers primarily referred to him as "Wimsey" and her as "Harriet".

• but financial necessity led the author to postpone their union for another five novels while Wimsey provided his creator with a good income: I think this could be a bit clearer: we could have made it slightly more explicit that Sayers intended the Wimsey series to end (which was not a given if he retired: he could un-retire), but then decided against that because she needed money.

OK, that's reworked and the series end made more clear. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sayers had never been conventionally beautiful: I'm a little uncomfortable with such a stark value judgement in Wikipedia's voice, and, to be honest, a little yucky about using that voice to pass judgement on women's beauty in any case.

I've put the judgement more onto Case's shoulders now, as it was her quote. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for these additional comments, which are all dealt with: if any of them need further work, or if you've got additional comments, I welcome them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• three card trick: worth a link, as it's a MOS:IDIOM?

Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• the reviewer in The Liverpool Echo called Sayers "the greatest of all detective story writers", though worrying that her plots were so clever that some readers might struggle to keep up with them: worried is more grammatical here.

Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Kenney comments that much of Sayers's thinking on the mystery novel and literature generally can be gleaned from her reviews, which reveal much about her attitude to art: can we say anything about what this attitude was?

Not from Keeney, who doesn't clarify or expand on the point. I'll see if any of the other sources cover this specifically, without us having to resort to SYNTH or OR. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The introduction to DLS's collected book reviews gives examples of her outlook. According to the editors her reviews "cast light not only on Sayers’ likes and dislikes as regards crime fiction and English prose writing, but also on her unforgettable personality. More than that, they tell us a great deal about Golden Age crime fiction, and its remarkable evolution during the time Sayers was writing". Sayers expected authors to write to the highest standards of prose and in a personal and recognisable style. In one review she set a little test for her readers, inviting them to identify the authors of six short passages. She frequently berated authors for clichéd situations and hackneyed plot devices (indistinguishable twins, voice of the deceased on gramophone record, death on stage from a gun loaded with live bullets instead of blanks and such like). But I think this is all rather too detailed for a general encyclopaedia article. We could possibly go so far as to say something like, "She expected authors to write excellent prose and to avoid situations and plot devices already used by other writers", and perhaps link that the existing footnote 6. Tim riley talk 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good summary. It sounds as though she was mainly interested in the prose being distinctive rather than simply good (after all, nobody expects people to write in bad prose) -- and therefore we come full circle to the point that she seems to have really valued originality and detested regurgitation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, I think I've done what you're both suggesting. Let me know if I've missed something or done it wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Rev Theodore Venables: should Rev. not have a full stop as an abbreviation? I'd consider spelling out in full or using the abbr template.

I've added the template, but will demur on the full stop - I think we've consistently not used them throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Miss Sayers' best: I'd MOS:CONFORM in another s here, as we've been otherwise consistent.

Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Sayers, who kept in close contact with her son, sent him an account of the demanding rehearsals for the opening, a milieu new to her: can we have his name again (and was she still pretending to be his cousin)?

I've added the name, but the 'cousin' question isn't clarified in any of the sources, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• to write a drama for performance in Canterbury Cathedral, following the staging there of T. S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral: did both the writing and the performance follow the staging?

I've dated Eliot's staging, which should make it much clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• in the early weeks of the Second World War: could we avoid asking the reader to look this up: did she start the column in September, for example? I'd throw in if possible when the column started and when the war started (mindful that audiences in e.g. Spain, China and the US may have different expectations for the latter).

I've added the dates the articles ran between. As we say that was the early weeks, I think the context should be enough. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• a wry take on the eternal triangle. : I'd never heard it called that before, though I think love triangle is likely to be familiar to most of our audience. Not a problem as such, but consider clarifying.

Doesn't the link clarify things? - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• similarities in his outlook on the lack of faith, declining morality, dishonesty, exploitation, disharmony and other problems.: similarities to what -- her own perspective? Separately, not sure exactly what "lack of faith" means in this context, or whether it's straightforwardly a problem.

Tweaked to cover the 'similarities' aspect. In terms of the lack of faith, as both she and Dante were god-fearing christians, any lack of faith would have been a problem in its own right. (That's a little bit of OR there: the source doesn't expand enough for a clarifying note). - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure she saw the decline of Christianity as a problem, but I'm less sure that we can transfer that judgement into Wikipedia's voice. Compare something like "Wellington discussed his outlook on Irish people and other undesirables" -- we'd rightly change that to stick the judgement firmly on Wellington's shoulders. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Tweaked slightly to make it clear we’re talking about her opinions. How does that look now? - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think we've now got a buried lead (what were those opinions?). Perhaps something like "Sayers believed that her society suffered from a lack of faith [or: the decline of Christianity?], declining morality, dishonesty, exploitation, disharmony and other similar problems, and believed that Dante shared the same view of his own"? I feel as though I can get more out of the sentence if I swap it round (that is, put Sayers first, then Dante). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

• Links: blasphemous to blasphemy and coronary thrombosis?

Added - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• pleased theologians more than it pleased the actors: any idea why she felt it upset the actors?

I've added a quote from her about the "very stale and abstract" nature of the piece. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Notices were excellent: not sure totally what this means: does notices mean the same as reviews?

Yes. I though it was a common enough term, but now swapped out. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• After years of declining health her husband died at their home in Witham: I'd give his name again (it's been a while) and slightly rework the sentence to be clear that this happened in 1950, not merely after.

Now dated (and named) - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Is the image of Jeeves/Holmes really best on the left? I see one image "facing" left, the other (marginally) "facing" right: the strong readability preference is to go with right-align unless there's a good reason not to, and this one looks like a toss-up to me. Could consider swapping the order of the images to reinforce that.

I'll mull on that one. It's there partly to avoid a column of images down the right. I think I tried it in draft on either side (given both images have one party facing 'in' and one facing 'out'), and this looked better. Let me sleep on it - I'm have a preference for the left position on this, but I'm not entirely set on it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Strong_poison.JPG: source link is dead. Ditto File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg

• File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg: as this is on Commons, it needs a tag for country of origin

• File:Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Nikkimaria; many thanks as always for looking over these.

File:Strong_poison.JPG and File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg: Links for both updated (I've archived them as well)

File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg and File:Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg both tagged (hopefully appropriately!)

Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto

Generally excellent, as I would expect given the collective level of experience that has already gone over this at peer review!

Some prose nitpicking:

• "From the mid‐1930s Sayers wrote plays, most were on religious themes": maybe "... mostly on religious themes" would read better
• "From the early 1940s her main preoccupation was translating the three books of Dante's Divine Comedy into colloquial English. She died unexpectedly at her home in Essex, aged 64, before completing the last of the three." I find "the last of the three" a little awkward; perhaps "... before completing the third book"?
• "and college chaplain of Christ Church, one of the colleges of the University of Oxford": is the first "college" necessary? I would simply say "and chaplain of Christ Church..."
• "an amount led Reynolds to describe him as 'far from wealthy'": I think you have a "that" missing here
• "Reynolds considers Sayers was well placed to deal with Dante's rhymed couplets": couplets?!

And one factual query/nitpick:

• "Her first novel Whose Body? was published in 1923. Between then and 1939 she wrote ten more, all of them detective stories, and all but one featuring the upper-class amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey." Is this right? I count eleven Wimsey novels, plus The Documents in the Case and the four Detection Club collaborative novels.

An initial readthrough didn't bring up any concerns about the sourcing, and the article certainly seems comprehensive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Cheers Caeciliusinhorto; all sorted in these edits, hopefully successfully! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • All those changes look good. Doing some spotchecking, no issues with text being supported. I think the first paragraph of §Oxford has some issues with close paraphrasing, though. Compare, for instance, "Somerville had a tradition of nurturing women to play leading roles in the arts and public life" with the source text "Somerville, with its tradition of nurturing strong women who go on to leadership roles in the public arena as well as the arts". Having checked some other text cited to the ONDB article, as well as some from Reynolds' biography, this appears to be an isolated case. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks Caeciliusinhorto. This one tweaked a little to retain the sense but move a little further away from the source. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
• Circling back to support: all my queries seem to have been resolved satisfactorily Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The FAC reviewer's vade mecum

Normally, I'd probably support immediately because "all my points were addressed at PR". But, think only 50% of them were  ;) ——Serial 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, that's because she didn't learn campanology: she read up on it, but still made a couple of errors in the description. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Not to cause trouble you understand, but if you'll allow me to be me for a minute or two  :) ...Well, I think she read up on it sufficiently to "master an esoteric, and, to her, uncongenial discipline", to the extent of being able to "write out on paper a complete touch of Grandsire Triples or Kent-Treble Bob Major from the course-ends and observation calls". Rev Venables introduces the reader (and Wimsey) to C. A. W. Troyte, and she learned from him. It's true that she made errors; she also criticised herself for scientific inaccuracy in the Docs in the Case, and it's well known that her choice of murder weapon in Unnatural Death is almost an impossibility. I think, in the way you touch on thebaxckground to Documents, you should do something similar here; if she just learned French, for example, then it would be completely unnoteworthy, but one of the most obscure practices this country has ever produced, interlinking music and mathematics? Worth a punt (on the Isis, presumably!).

By the way, while I'm here—and I don't want to tread on PMC's toes—but there's some curious cites (now), e,g. 183–186. Just OCLC numbers? ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought it was a bit odd, but they're citing the catalogue entry rather than the books themselves. (Which makes sense as the books are fiction and it would feel weird to cite fiction). It's unorthodox, but I don't see any reason not to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Well, if you think something's odd, ask at WT:FAC, that'll get an answer. The source review is governed by the featured article criteria. In this situation, criterion 2C, which mandates "consistently formatted inline citations". In any case, no exceptions are made for fiction (and in the Sources/Books section, DLS's fiction is fully referenced anyway!). Also, they're not to fiction: Dorothy L. Sayers : a bio-bibliography, a thesis; Hitchman's Such a Strange Lady; Maker and Craftsmen: The Story of Dorothy L. Sayers; Dorothy L. Sayers: a literary biography. This last one, by the way, is most odd: It's Hone, Ralph E. (1979), which is already cited in full. Those are the first four; I'm not going to list the rest, but they're all biographical (and indeed at least one other—the Kenney source—is also already used as a source. AFAICT, there's nothing wrong with the reliability, but the consistency is, off-kilter, to say the least  :) Enjoy. ——Serial 00:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to come off as prickly, but I know what the FACR are and don't need them linked. I didn't ask because I wound up deciding that I did not see it as an issue. The distinction as I see it is that it's not the content of the books which is being cited, it's the OCLC catalogue for publication details being cited. The citations are consistent when they are being used for that purpose, and I think that satisfies the FACR. (I did misspeak when I said they were citations to fiction - I shouldn't reply when I've just woken up from a night shift and only barely remember what year it is). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Coords, I'm waiting for snail-mail source to arrive. FYI, not forgotten  :) ——Serial 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks SN -- btw it's {{@FAC}} if you want to ping the coords... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: But I didn't want to... or need to. This is a Riley-SchroCat production, pure Glimmer Twins, and I know that, where they go, @FAC coordinators: ain't far behind  ;) ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I've added a line that she researched campanology.
  In terms of the OCLC links, these are, I believe, accepted practice and have been used in a few other FAs I know of. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: FTR, not resolved here yet. Cheers, ——Serial 12:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

What's not resolved? I think I've covered your points, but I must have missed something: can you clarify? - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat: You wanna beat me up? You want beat me up? WTF mate?! ——Serial 10:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No - I just want to know what's outstanding! I read through this thread a couple of times and can't see what's still left to do. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I'll still probably end up supporting, because, well: the phenomenon that is WP:SCHROFAC. But I admit to still wanting to know how a) these refs are consistently formatted inline citations compared to the rest of the article; b) if it's referencing the database more broadly, then why does {{Citeweb}} or {{Cite linked authority file}} not do? I'm also uncertain as to how WP:V (ideally giving page number(s)) is met, or WP:HOWCITE, or even WP:PAGENR (the citation must clearly support the material as presented). I think, Schro, more importantly, I'm curious as to why. You've never done it before (well, not in your last dozen articles (one a month for a year, an incredible achievement!) anyway), and it hasn't been done in the last 30 or so nominations more generally, so I'd be interested in seeing these other FAs. Although I'll grant you MEDFAC, who have their own... idiosyncratic interpretations of these things  :) I hope Tim's OK? ——Serial 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it's still about those refs - that wasn't clear. Well, the cites are supporting the fact that books were published. Nothing more than that, and the OCLC, being a doi of the book's existence, is sufficient to support the claim that the book exists. Page numbers etc don't enter the equation - it's the existence of the book that is being shown by use of a recognised doi. However, given you're obviously not happy with them, I'll swap them out.

As to "why", you'll have to ask Tim: he wrote that section and made the choice. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support the article's promotion, apologies, I see this got dealt with, to a certain extent, a few days ago. ——Serial 13:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from PMC - source review

Putting myself down here, give me a sharp prod if I don't come back within a week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - here we go. No spot-check performed. This is on formatting and reliability.

• I notice that some sources have links in the citations, such as 125 to P.D. James and 151 to Contemporary Authors and Gale, but most others with viable links like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography are unlinked. Should be consistent.

  OK, unlinked them all - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 37: ""Special Literary Supplement", Truth, 24 October 1923, p. vi;" - there are several publications with the name Truth, it might be worth putting a location or linking the correct one

  I'll check with Tim on that one as he wrote that section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  • Might want to do the same for The Times and The Daily News, both of which can refer to multiple publications

  I've done the Daily News, but I'll leave The Times I think. They all refer to the best known of all the papers under that name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 89, 202, 203: BBC Genome is more properly called the BBC Genome Project

  I've swapped one of them for the Radio Times reference (which is better), but renamed the other two - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• 213: Is Lesser Feasts and Fasts liturgically applicable to all American Episcopal Churches? If so, why is the St. Alban's one needed? That seems to a user-made post from one random church.
• There are quite a few older newspaper stories but they're generally used to cite their own opinion, so no concerns with reliability
• I've been told not to use state abbreviations like "Boston, MA" in refs. Apparently it should either just be Boston, or the state should be fully spelled out as Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Same for Kent, OH (especially since you have Kent, Ohio, right under it)
  • Ithaca, NY; Malden, MA;
• New York: Church Publishing, Inc. - should be New York City to avoid ambiguity. You have a bunch of these, I'll not highlight them all, ctrl+F "New York:" will pop them
• Worsley, Lucy (2014). A Very British Murder. London: BBC. - properly this is BBC Books
• It's really mostly nitpicks. I don't see any sources that need challenging. We have books from reputable publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Web sources are used sparingly and for basic facts.

That's everything I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks PMC. All done bar the one about The Truth, which I'm looking into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, Truth now linked! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a support; I'll reiterate that I don't see the use of OCLCs as citations as an issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Placeholder - I have a few questions and will try to finish review over next 24hrs. JennyOz (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Tim riley and Schrocat, did I ever tell you how 24 hrs is a different period in southern hemisphere? This was wonderful to read thank you! Some questions...

Early years

• Sayers was born on - I am confused why some bio FAs do or don't include full name at first mention after lede. I had a quick look through some of yours (both) and Brian's and can't see an obvious pattern. For Sayers, in this Early years section, it becomes obvious where the middle name "Leigh" comes from. In other articles the full name is introduced (and cited) after the lede, but in others, not. Is there a formula, or FA discussion etc, I should read?

  There's no guidance on this point (or at least as far as I know!). I know I've included and not included in the past. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• her first cousin and Nell's niece - "and" seems like two separate relationships? 'her first cousin as Nell's niece '?

Schooling

• in an Anglican convent school - convent school redirects to Catholic school - nothing available to fix this contradiction?

  No - I've delinked instead. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• sit for a Gilchrist Scholarship - pipe link Gilchrist Educational Trust
• starting age - enrolment age?

  I think this may be an EngVar thing. I don't think I enrolled at school, although I know I did at university. I seem to remember starting school (although it's a long time ago now!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• religious regime at the Godolphin - remove "the"

Oxford

• Mutual Admiration Society, a literary society - or Literary circle? (appears that page)

  I think either term is possible here, but as the MAS called themselves a society, I think I'll just about edge for that one. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• named Roy Ridley, later chaplain of Balliol, on whose appearance and manner she later drew for her best-known character, Lord Peter Wimsey - partly drew?

  The source suggests it's pretty much a full portrait of him she used (and she used to get annoyed later in life with his "exploitation of his likeness to Wimsey", according to Reynolds. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I only asked because elsewhere "Eric Whelpton, who was teaching English there.[30] She had been in love with him at Oxford, and he was among the models for the appearance and character of Wimsey". No problem though. JennyOz (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Covered all the above, unless explained otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924

• Hull High School for Girls - pipe to Tranby School? (Sayers is mentioned in that article)
• In 1921 Sayers began a relationship with a fellow writer, John Cournos, which intensified after her return to England shortly afterwards.[30] - this started in France or was a distance thing? Where was Cournos before and after her time in France?
• products including Guinness stout and Colman's mustard - is separate link to stout needed? The Guinness article is about the stout, and there isn't a separate link for mustard?
• come as anti-climax to disappoint expectations - definitely no 'an' before "anti-climax" in that quote?
• She was known to him at first as Cousin Dorothy, - quotes on name?
• writing it before joining Bensons - Benson's with apostrophe per elsewhere

Early novels, 1925–1929

• married a divorcé, Captain Oswald Arthur (known as "Mac") Fleming - middle name not Arthur? Atherton per ibox and redirect at Oswald Atherton Fleming?

  Both are sort of correct. I've added a footnote in the two places to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  All done down to here, except where commented on. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

1930–1934

• The Documents in the Case - link
• raise money for the acquisition of premises - did they purchase or hire or book places for their dinners?
• organised by Sayers, was Behind the Screen - link The Scoop and Behind the Screen?
• she worked on The Documents in the Case - link
• a notable novel in the manner of Wilkie Collins - introduce Collins eg 19th-century author?
• Wilkie Collins, whom she admired - whose work she admired?
• a longer serial for the BBC, The Scoop, - link per behind the Screen above?
• Murder Must Advertise (1933) - in caption the year is 1932
• She edited a third and final volume of Great Stories of Detection, Mystery and Horror - should that be Great Short Stories like the first two?
• adopted his first person narrative technique - hyphen/s?
• As her portrait of the Rev Theodore Venables "tenderly evoked" her father, "unworldly, self-effacing [and] lovable", as Reynolds puts it. - Is "As" correct at opening of this sentence?
• She spent considerable time researching campanology which gave - this needs context? To understand I read The Nine Tailors article and found "She also was inspired by her father's restoration of the Bluntisham church bells in 1910.[11]". Perhaps, "The rectory in which Wimsey and his manservant, Bunter, are offered refuge after a car crash, resembles that in which Sayers grew up" might include a mention of the church's bell tower? Or start the sentence "As the story featured a bell tower, she spent considerable time...
• Kenny ranks it below the final three Wimsey - Kenney

Last novels and early religious works, 1935–1939

• her biographer David Coombes - Coomes

Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s

• life of Christ, The Man Born to be King (1941–42) - cap Be per elsewhere

Detective stories

• caption Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson - Holmes is on the right, swap names?

Feminism

• according to Sayers's biographer, Catherine Kenny - Kenney
• everyday readers"[179] Sandberg considers - missing full stop

Biographies and other books about Sayers

• Header - some of these aren't books, change to works or writings or... ?

  I think all those under "Books" are books - which ones are in the wrong part? - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I think I must have read "biographical sections" as Sayers having a section in wider biographical collections. My fault. JennyOz (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• executor, Muriel St Clare Byrne, that - St.

  Not in BrEng (MOS:PARTSAINT, among other bits) - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, that was a consistency comment, it has a dot at first mention (Oxford section) as does her article. Google search shows multiple of both punctuations. This Somerville piece has both in first two paragraphs! This has dot as does the cover of The Lisle Letters. Need a detective:) JennyOz (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Well I've now made it consistent on this article, at least. - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

• first used by Brabazon in his 1982 biography - 2 paras up it has 1981

Legacy

• installed a blue plaque at 24 Great James Street, Bloomsbury, - per image (caption "The door to 1 Brewer Street, Oxford, where Sayers was born") there is also a plaque there but is not an official English Heritage one?

  The image next to that bit of text is the English Heritage one in Great James Street. I don't have any details on the Oxford one (possibly the local council, maybe an appreciation society, who knows): I'll have a look. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Consistency

• The Divine Comedy v the Divine Comedy v Divine Comedy (are intentional?)

  Yes. Dante published Divina Commedia, which translates as Divine Comedy. Sayers's translations were published as The Divine Comedy, complete with definite article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Image alts

• alt=Book cover with title, author and mention of earlier "Clouds of Witness"]] - swap quotes to italics
• alt=book cover of Strong Poison, with name of author and the words "A new "Lord Peter" Detective Novel - needs closing quotes

Notes, references and sources

• note 15 including the 20th century poets - hyphen

References

• Ref 84 Coombes, p. 118 - Coomes
• Ref 182 Kenny, p. 152 - Kenney

Categories

• Burials at St Anne's Church, Soho - were her ashes taken from Golders Green Crematorium to St Anne's Church, Soho? Such does not appear at Golders Green Crematorium#Ashes taken elsewhere?

  Yes, according to this and this. I'll add. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Anglican saints - ?

  No... removed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

That's it. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• As always. thanks very much, JennyOz! The changes all made in these edits. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've added 3 replies above. Nothing important so am very happy to s'port. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks JennyOz! As always, I'm delighted to hear your thoughts and comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I have already commented at PR, but will have another look through.
• It seems curious that the cause of death is not given. The New York Times at [23] says it was coronary thrombosis. Is this not correct?

  Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• As a personal opinion, I think sources such as the ODNB article should be listed in the sources section for the benefit of people using it for further research.

  I've been mulling on this one, as there is some merit to it, but I think if we move that into the sources, it would be inconsistent with the other web sources, so we'd have to move everything out of the body and into the sources section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "because of its practice of cultivating its students take prominent roles in the arts and public life". "to take"?

  Yes - added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Kenney describes the book as "flawed but brilliant", and ranks it below the final three Wimsey novels—The Nine Tailors, Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon—in terms of its literary status in relation to more manifestly serious fiction of Sayers's day." This sentence seems too convoluted to be clear.

  Reorganised to get rid of the parenthetical clause: does this work any better? - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Pedantry point. It is not correct to say that a sub is required for access to the ODNB Sayers article. It is free access, which seems to be a new thing on ODNB for some articles.

  So it is - how pleasing! Subscription template now removed - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Another first rate article from SchroCat and Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Many thanks Dudley. All duly attended to, except where commented on above. Thanks also for your PR comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I cannot see any justification for treating web sources differently from other ones and would have a section for them in the sources, but that is for the nominators to decide. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I will do a source review this week. Poke me if I don't get this done --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks In actu: PMC has already done one above, but happy to go through another if needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Johnbod

• Excellent article, now much dug over. I won't add, except that I share UC's doubts about 8 being the "normal" starting age for her boarding school. Even more than boys, girls tended to stay at home until 13, unless the school specialized in parents working around the empire. A junior section, up to 13, would usually become much larger at that age. But I won't withold support for that. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks Johnbod. I agree the "usual" part is a bit of a wrinkle. The school now takes girls from age three, but whether in the 1900s it was "usual" for entry at 8, 11 or 13, the main source doesn't say and I can't find any other sources that confirm or deny what the "usual" intake age was, so I think we'll just have to rely on the source as it stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (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) 18:19, 13 December 2023 (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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2023 [24].

---

Israeli citizenship law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that recent events have brought this region of the world top of mind for many of us, I wanted to put this article forward for FAC again. This article is about the history and regulations of Israeli citizenship, unique with its basically immediate grants to Jewish immigrants from any part of the world. I completely rewrote this article two years ago and took it through a GA nomination successfully at that time. This article obviously covers a sensitive topic (even more so at this current time) so if there is anything even remotely close to not being sufficiently neutral, please point that out.

Thank you @Artem.G: for your review on the GAN and @BigDom: for your feedback on the first FAC, would be grateful for any further comments you had this time as well. Horserice (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from a455bcd9

Hi, a few comments:

• Lede: All male and female Jewish citizens, as well as male citizens of Druze and Circassian descent must perform compulsory military service; other non-Jewish citizens and Haredi Jews are exempt from conscription.: how does this relate to the topic? Especially in the lede? We're not going to mention all obligations of Israeli citizens. (same for the "Rights and obligations of citizens" section?)

• Removed.

• Other states imposed quotas on the number of Jews who could immigrate from the Soviet Union at the request of the Israeli government: which states?

• Specified the US and Germany as destination countries.

• The Supreme Court further elaborated on this in 1970, when it determined that persons who are born to Jewish mothers but do not practice Judaism are considered to be part of the Jewish people as long as they have not converted to another religion. and Both the Chief Rabbinate and Supreme Court consider followers of Messianic Judaism as Christians and specifically bar them from right of return,[44] unless they otherwise have sufficient Jewish descent. seem contradictory to me. Did I misunderstand something?

• These regulations can be a little strange but this is not contradictory. If a Jew or someone descended from a Jew converts to Messianic Judaism, they would be ineligible for the right of return. However, Messianic Jews descended from Jews and who have never been adherents of Judaism themselves would be eligible because they never actively converted away from Judaism.

• Children born overseas are Israeli citizens by descent if either parent is a citizen, limited to the first generation born abroad.: what if kids from the second generation are born in a country without jus soli: they're stateless?

• Added detail on second generation births.

• Do we have data on the number of people who become citizens per year and per route (Law of Return vs Naturalized non-Jews?)

• No, the Israeli government only provides information on the number of immigrants arriving in the country rather than the number of new citizens, so there is no information on the number of naturalised non-Jews.

• Do we have data revocation based on citizenship "fraudulently acquired"?

• This information also doesn't appear to be disclosed anywhere.

• Between 2003 and 2015, there were 8,308 people who renounced their Israeli citizenship.: do we know their reasons?

• Added reasons.

• Male spouses under the age of 35 and female spouses under 25 originating from the Palestinian territories are prohibited from obtaining citizenship and residency.: what does "originating from the Palestinian territories" mean? If a French citizen born in Ramallah marries an Israeli citizen, can they get Israeli citizenship? What if the spouse "originating from the Palestinian territories" converts to Judaism? What if the spouse has Palestinian Authority passport even though they were born outside Palestine and/or have another passport? What about Palestinian spouses who want to immigrate to Israel at the same time as their Jewish spouses?

• Added more specific language describing that the restriction is on anyone ordinarily resident in those areas.

• Are there any comments/criticism/supports from "experts"/civil society/politicians on the above restrictions? How many Israeli-Palestinian couples are impacted by this? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Added the number of affected Palestinian spouses and briefly elaborated on legal challenges to this legislation. Since there is already an existing article on the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, additional coverage on the views of concerned parties would more appropriately be added there. Horserice (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for all the edits. It looks good to me, although I don't know enough about the topic to support. (also: super interesting article!) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, I found these sources that may be interesting:

  • Just 5 Percent of E. Jerusalem Palestinians Have Received Israeli Citizenship Since 1967
  • REPORT ON CITIZENSHIP LAW: ISRAEL (already cited but there are other interesting bits): "there are several restrictions on dual citizens. First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. Second, dual citizens cannot serve as members of the Knesset or fill sensitive security positions. [...] Third, dual citizens must enter Israel with their Israeli passport." "The total number of dual citizens in Israel (with all countries) can be estimated at between 800,000 and 900,000 - about 10% of the country’s population" "For decades, the Druze population of the Golan Heights (about 21,000 persons today) has retained its ties to Syria and its Syrian citizenship. The Golan Druze may apply for Israeli citizenship through naturalisation. Traditionally, very few have done so for fear of being labelled as traitors to Syria. In recent years, however, there is evidence of growing - albeit still small - interest in Israeli citizenship." "East Jerusalem Palestinians may apply to be naturalised as Israeli citizens. Since 1967, however, relatively few of them have done so. This is explained not only by the difficulty of the naturalisation process - which requires knowledge of Hebrew and numerous documents - but mostly by a nationalist-inspired resistance to ‘normalising’ and accepting Israeli control of Jerusalem. [...] Since the mid-2000s, demand for Israeli citizenship has dramatically increased. By 2017, about 20,000 of the 300,000 Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem have become Israeli citizens, and there is a long backlog of citizenship applications (Shaham 2018)." "Since the 1990s, the number of ‘illegal’ workers has steadily increased, as did the number of children who were born and raised in Israel to labour migrant parents (Kemp 2007; Elias and Kemp 2010). These Israeli-raised, Hebrew-speaking children are referred to as ‘sabra-ghost’ children (Willen 2005): sabra [prickly pear] is a slang term that denotes native Israelis, and the ‘ghost’ refers to their non-recognition by the state where they reside. In response to the increase of these children and civic activism against their deportation, the state formulated two ‘one-time’ naturalisation arrangements in 2005 and 2010, which legalised about 1,000 children."
  • Non-Jewish Minorities and Their Access to Israeli Citizenship
  • The New Second Generation: Non-Jewish Olim, Black Jews and Children of Migrant Workers in Israel: about labour migrants and their kids

  a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking over the article. I added a bit more information on East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the direct effect on residents' citizenship. However, coverage on labor migrants seems best covered in the Palestinian workers in Israel and African immigration to Israel articles. Totally no pressure for you to take a position one way or another, but would be happy for your support if you find yourself doing so later on. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. At least a link to these articles about labor migrants could be added, for instance the one focused more on policy: Israeli policy for non-Jewish African refugees.

  I think a mention of honorary citizenship and "commemorative citizenship" for Righteous Among the Nations is also missing: "The Yad Vashem Law authorizes Yad Vashem "to confer honorary citizenship of the State of Israel upon the Righteous Among the Nations, and commemorative citizenship if they have passed away, in recognition of their actions."" source

  Raoul Wallenberg was the first person to receive honorary Israeli citizenship: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/17/world/raoul-wallenberg-is-granted-honorary-israeli-citizenship.html

  An example of commemorative citizen is Gino Bartali: https://www.timesofisrael.com/legendary-cyclist-gino-bartali-gets-honorary-citizenship-ahead-of-giro-israel/

  It even seems that Righteous who settle in Israel are granted "real" citizenship: At least 130 Righteous non-Jews have settled in Israel. They were welcomed by Israeli authorities, and were granted citizenship. In the mid-1980s, they became entitled to special pensions. Some of them settled in British Mandatory Palestine before Israel's establishment shortly after World War II, or in the early years of the new state of Israel, while others came later. Those who came earlier often spoke fluent Hebrew and have integrated into Israeli society.[7] Children and grandchildren of Righteous Gentiles are entitled to a temporary residence visa in Israel, but not Israeli citizenship.[8] (Righteous_Among_the_Nations#Righteous_settled_in_Israel)

  The article honorary citizenship also mentions (with dead source): In 2010, legislation was passed by the Knesset to confer honorary Israeli citizenship to all members of the Israeli defense forces and paramilitary organizations that operated in Mandate Palestine who died between 29 November 1947 and 31 December 1948.[4]

  The source I quoted above says First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. (I can't find this information in the Wikipedia article). However, what are these "enemy countries"? For instance Daniel Barenboim was the first person to hold Palestinian and Israeli citizenship simultaneously a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Will get around to adding in honorary citizenship info but wanted to answer this question first about enemy states first. If you look at the end of the "Relinquishment and deprivation" section in the article, you'll find the relevent info there. Israel recognizes that there should be a Palestinian state established but does not recognize the current governing authority as a legitimate state, and so would not be listed under the current definition of "enemy state" in Israeli law. Horserice (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. So do Israelis have the right to travel to Palestine or to obtain Palestinian nationality?

  Also: Israeli citizenship may also be revoked from citizens who illegally travel to countries officially declared as enemy states (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran): what does "illegally" mean here? Can Israelis legally travel to these enemy countries without risking to lose their citizenship? And what happens to Syrian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Iraqi Jews, and Persian Jews when they move to Israel and get Israeli citizenship: do they have to renounce their other citizenship? Can they still visit their relatives or friends in their home country? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

So do Israelis have the right to travel to Palestine?

Normal Israeli citizens cannot enter the Gaza Strip or Area A of the West Bank. Israeli settlements in Area C of the West Bank function as if they were part of Israel proper, even if are supposedly intended to be gradually transfered to Palestinian control under the Oslo II Accords. So the answer depends on the definition of Palestine in the context of the discussion, but I don't believe this content falls in the scope of this article.

What does "illegally" mean here? Can Israelis legally travel to these enemy countries without risking to lose their citizenship? Do they have to renounce their other citizenship? Can they still visit their relatives or friends in their home country?

You would need exceptional authorization from the governments in question (i.e. you're a diplomat). Even if a normal Israeli citizen could get authorization, considering that they were chased out of these countries in the mid-20th century, their presence does not seem welcome. And no, they wouldn't have to renounce their citizenship because these individuals would have acquired Israeli citizenship by right of return, which does not require renouncing previous nationalities. Horserice (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You wrote "And no, they wouldn't have to renounce their citizenship because these individuals would have acquired Israeli citizenship by right of return, which does not require renouncing previous nationalities." but the REPORT ON CITIZENSHIP LAW: ISRAEL says: there are several restrictions on dual citizens. First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. Second, dual citizens cannot serve as members of the Knesset or fill sensitive security positions.

I get that acquisition of citizenship by right of return does not require renouncing previous nationalities but how is this applied with the ban on dual citizenship with enemy countries (which I assume only applies to those who emigrated via the Law of Return as others cannot benefit from any kind of dual citizenship anyway).

Another question: does the obligation to renounce any foreign nationalities apply only in the past or also in the future? Can a naturalized Israeli citizen get a foreign citizenship later? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The ban is on newly acquiring citizenship of those countries, as stated in section 11a of the Citizenship Law. This is more intended to prevent Arab Israelis from receiving citizenship from those places. The condition to renounce foreign nationalities to acquire Israeli citizenship is only a requirement at the time of acquisition; naturalized Israelis are free to acquire foreign citizenships if desired. Horserice (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the infobox:

• Dead link: SH 95 146

• Ugh this is not actually dead, but it seems the Knesset site now requires connecting from an Israeli IP. Unclear if temporary but probably related to the war.

• Title: "Citizenship Law, 5712-1952", even though the article is broader then just this piece of legislation (especially the 1950 Law of Return?)

• Yeah I think it's fine. It's the main piece of legislation concerning this subject. The Law of Return technically contains nothing on citizenship requirements and almost all other laws covered in scope are just amendments to the Citizenship Law.

• "Repeals Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925": is this legally correct? I don't think so as The Order remained in effect until 14 May 1948, when the British withdrew from the Mandate, and Palestinian citizenship came to an end. ("related_legislation =" could be used instead?)

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Article 18a specifically repeals the Palestinian Citizenship Order. Even though the courts ruled that Palestinian citizenship had ceased at the dissolution of the mandate, the law was not explicitly repealed until 1952. Horserice (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, in this case it needs to be sourced, in the infobox or in the text (I think in the text is better, what you wrote is super clear and could be added: Even though the courts ruled that Palestinian citizenship had ceased at the dissolution of the mandate, the law was not explicitly repealed until 1952.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is already written and sourced in the Post-1948 transition section. Horserice (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oops indeed, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Process discussion moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I wondered: are there discussions about reforming/changing the law? (for instance people who want to apply the law of return only to the first generation?) Do RS also address how the law would be impacted by a one-state solution or two-state solution? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

• Article looks good to me.

• ☺

• Obligatory typo: "fradulently"

• Fixed.

• Is there a difference between Law of Return and Right of Return?

• The Law of Return is the piece of legislation granting the entitlement for all Jews to enter Israel as olim. This entitlement is described as the "right of return".

• "This law was amended several times" To what end?

• Changed content to describe changes.

• Link sovereignty

• Done.

• Consider hatnoting Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Horserice (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Hawkeye7, 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) 19:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support I thought the "Support" above would be sufficient. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "a specific meaning encompassing the national constituency": I think this means something like "a broader definition of what qualifies a person as an Israeli national"; is that right? I don't think this is very clear as written to those unfamiliar with the topic. If I have that right, the next sentence gives the relevant details so perhaps this whole sentence could be cut to "In the Israeli context, nationality is not linked to a person's origin from a particular territory but is more broadly defined".

• Rephrased.

• "Any person born outside of these conditions who held no other nationality and were": tense mismatch between "any person" and "were".

• Fixed.

• "Despite Britain's sovereignty over Palestinian territory, domestic law treated the mandate as foreign territory." Suggest "British domestic law" to avoid a reader initially assuming this refers to Palestinian domestic law.

• Rephrased.

• Is the 1952 Citizenship Law worth a red link?

• Hmmm I lean towards not doing this since I think that overlap with this article would be quite high.

• The sentence starting "Male spouses under the age of 35 ..." doesn't make it clear if this restriction ceases to apply once the spouse exceeds the given age, or if this is defined as of the age at marriage.

• Added "until the relevant age".

• How did the 2003 prevent cohabitation for those couples? Surely all it could do was make it illegal, or discourage it by applying penalties?

• Added elaboration.

• "which would lapse on the death of their spouses or if they fail to receive": tense/mood mismatch. "or if they were to fail" would work.

• Fixed.

• " The court further ruled that because Israel was in a state of war with the Palestinian National Authority ..., that Israel held a right to": the second "that" is redundant. Cutting it would make the sentence hard to parse so a rephrase is probably in order.

• Rephrased.

• "until the law's expiration in July 2021, before later being reimplemented in March 2022." Suggest "before being reimplemented by a new law in March 2022", to make it clear this was a legislative reimplementation. And "later" is redundant since you give dates.

• Rephrased.

Overall this looks in very good shape and I expect to support once these minor issues are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Horserice (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Image & source review

Is File:British Colonial passport for Palestine issued by Albert Montefiore Hyamson in 1929.jpg a work by the Israeli or by the UK government? ALT text, placement and licencing are OK. Viz sources, it seems like the article is using distinct types of sources so different source informations are to be expected. Some sources have only a JSTOR and others both DOI and JSTOR. It seems like the sources seem to be appropriate ... but I can't help but notice that the article has very little discussion on commentary on the law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure how you would classify the image since it would have been a work of the government of the British mandate in Palestine. The Israeli government obviously didn't exist at the time but is a successor state to the mandate.

Regarding the note about commentary, any particular area you think would benefit from more color? Horserice (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, critiques or support for the law, change proposals and who makes them, why and who supports or opposes them, etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Israel was formerly administered by the British Empire as part of a League of Nations mandate for Palestine". This is unclear. 1. It does not make sense to say that Israel was part of a mandate. If I understand correctly, it was part of the territory covered by the mandate, which also covered what is now Jordan. 2. Presumably modern Israel is larger than the area which was under the mandate. This is obviously not for the lead, but should be briefly covered in the main text.

• Slightly changed lead and added sentences on the application/exclusion of the mandate on Jordan and French mandate on the Golan Heights.

• "citizenship refers to the set of rights and duties a person has in that nation". This seems to me misleading. You can say that someone holds joint citizenship in Sweden and Peru or that someone has joint Swedish and Peruvian nationality. Dictionaries show the words as near synomyms in their primary meaning but with different secondary meanings. This does not apply of course to their specific Israeli usage.

• Which is why the preceding sentence mentions that this usage varies by country. For example, you could not say that someone holds dual UK/US citizenship as a synonym for dual UK/US nationality since it is possible to hold both UK and US nationality without being citizens of either place.

• 'Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption' section. This section presumably applies only to non-Jewish citizens. This should be clarified.

• The descent portion applies to Jewish Israeli citizens born overseas. Regulations on adoption would still apply in cases where an adoptee is Jewish because the new parents still have to establish themselves as parents.

• "Male spouses under 35 and female spouses under 25 ordinarily resident in the Judea and Samaria Area or the Gaza Strip (excluding Israeli settlements within those areas)". This is out of date as there have been no settlements in the Gaza Strip since 2005. Also, very few non-Israelis will understand Judea and Samaria Area, so it would be helpful to add "(West Bank)". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Tweaked phrasing. Horserice (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I think that the article should state that citizenship and nationality are often used as synonyms, but that is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Not sure this is actionable, and while I realise this is an article on legal status, I find it very dry and lacking context. The page lists a lot of judgement, but does examine the reasoning. This is not an oppose, just a question on scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To note have been closely following the FAC (since requested to cmt by the nominator), and have made minor edits, and think it is FAC worthy as is, but just think that more historical and political context would move it from "good" to "really good" status. Sorry for the relatively vague demand! Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: FYI still doing some reading to try to add more color to the article. It was relatively easier with the Irish nationality law article since a lot of the disputes with Britain specifically dealt with citizenship, but with Israel it’s a bit harder to do so without sounding biased so this will take a bit of time. Horserice (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did feel lost at times, wondering what drove particular rulings. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Support on the FAC criteria. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe

I believe the reference to the Golan Heights is misleading. It is administered by Israel and was purportedly annexed by Israel (the correct term to use in terms of international law—eg see here), but its claim is not considered valid by virtually every other country in the world. It is even less correct to refer to it as part of Israel as referring to Crimea as part of Russia. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Horserice, any response? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Slipped through the cracks, my bad.

@Buidhe: I've added some elaboration on the status of these areas. Horserice (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but it is also the case that Israel's purported annexation of East Jerusalem is not generally recognized by the international community either. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence mentions both territories. Is that not sufficient? Horserice (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2023 (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:52, 12 December 2023 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2023 [25].

---

My Little Love

Nominator(s): NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Adele's song "My Little Love". I know my reputation is spoiled here due to the godawful Meghan Trainor songs, but sometimes I really enjoy great jazz like this one. Don't be fooled by it not getting a commercial single release, this song very much forms the heart of 30 along with tracks like "To Be Loved" and "I Drink Wine". Just trust me on this and do play it once! Also, it features voice notes of Adele's child. (How has Meghan Trainor not done this yet?) I have been very lucky to receive DYK and GA reviews from Aoba47 and Pseud 14, respectively. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Media review (pass)

• File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png - appropriately licensed
• File:Adele - My Little Love.ogg - has appropriate FUR and permissible per WP:SAMPLE.
• Although not raised in the GAN, have you considered perhaps adding a media file? Since I figured one of the highlights of this song are the voice notes/conversations which embellished the song. I think it would be of value IMO. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get back to you on the sample point.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion with Aoba below, I have added an audio sample to the article.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That completes media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I think it may be worthwhile to link steel guitar since items like bass are also linked. Also, does bass in this context refer to a bass guitar? If so, I would clarify that in the prose.

• Information about which bass instrument it is is not available, unfortunately.

• Thank you for the clarification. I know that liner notes can unfortunately be ambiguous at times so I understand this situation. I was just curious since Greg Kurstin is credited as playing the bass guitar for "Easy on Me", but I also see that he is credited as playing just bass for "Oh My God" and "I Drink Wine" so it is likely just a case of inconsistency with the liner notes and credits. At least, there is some information here. I have a physical copy of Bluebird of Happiness, and the only thing in the liner notes are the songwriters, producers, and samples. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• For this part, (at the EastWood Scoring Stage in California), I think it would best to specify the city, especially since earlier in the same section, No Expectations Studios is specified as specifically in Los Angeles.

Great work with the article as always. After reading through the article once, I could only find two three very nitpick-y points (well, technically three since the first point has two comments). Once both points have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Just to be clear, I am only looking at the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. What do you think about the potential inclusion of an audio sample in this article? I was being more conservative after the "Easy on Me" nomination but there might be a stronger case to be made for one here.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think an audio sample would be justified here as the voice notes are such an integral part to the song, from its creation all the way down to its reception. I believe it would also help some readers better understand what the prose is conveying as some people may not be as familiar with voice notes or would not fully understand how these messages are interwoven into the song itself. Thank you for addressing everything. I will read the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that you will address anything that ChrisTheDude brings up in his review below. Hope you have a happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "Kurstin plays bass, mellotron, piano, and steel guitar; Chris Dave plays drums and percussion; and David Campbell arranged and conducted the strings" - the tense changes from present to past mid-sentence
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "melisma"? I for one have no idea what it means.......
• "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed they may" => "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed that they may"
• "In the United Kingdom, "My Little Love" debuted at number five on the Official Audio Streaming Chart" - might be worth clarifying that this is not the main Official UK Singles Chart (the UK's equivalent to the Hot 100). It actually missed the UK Singles Chart completely, although this will almost certainly be down to a bizarre rule that no artist can have more than three songs in the chart in the same week.
• That's what I got. Oh, and don't ever feel the need to categorise songs you like as "godawful". They're not bad songs if you derive enjoyment from them. The other day someone told me that my favourite album of the last six months was "absolute garbage" and I just ignored him because hey- I really like it and that's all that matters :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• All done. Thank you so much for the review! I haven't heard the whole Zach Bryan album but the Kacey Musgraves collab was awesome. You should definitely not pay any mind to anyone criticizing you for enjoying it, lol. Hopefully he'll join Trainor and Miss Adkins next year.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re: the first one, I can see that you've split it into multiple sentences, but it still reads a little oddly (to me at least) that David Campbell conducted the strings but Kurstin plays bass. I would suggest it should all be in the past tense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done!--NØ 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Addressed comments from Gog the Mild

"Music critics compared the production of "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye". Did they, or did they 'compare[] "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye'? "an emotional progression for Adele." I am not sure what this means. (What does it mean?) The critical consensus was along the lines of "Adele delves further into her usual emotional subject matter; gets more emotional than ever". Open to suggestions on better ways to articulate this. " Critics also highlighted the inclusion of the voice notes, praising the songwriting and lyricism." This reads as if the songwriting and lyricism of the voice notes were praised. Is that what is intended? Switched to pre-GAN wording. "and entered the top 40 in some other countries." Maybe "some" → 'several'? "Adele began working on her fourth studio album by 2018. She filed for divorce from her husband". It seems odd that she was working on the album more than a year before the event which inspired it. Odd but true. Maybe she did not conceptualize it as a divorce record initially.--NØ 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) "mended her estranged relationship with her father" reads a little oddly and I am unsure it is grammatical. 'improved her relationship with her estranged father' or similar may work better. This sentence has already passed a few FACs and seems to pass my grammar checker as well. A similar sentence is cited as an example of correct usage of the word on Collins: "People who have conflicted or estranged relationships generally do worse after a bereavement." "The years following the divorce plagued her" doesn't work. Plague in this context means, according to Wiktionary "To harass, pester or annoy someone persistently or incessantly." A period of time cannot harass etc. According to Oxford dictionary, plague in its verb form can mean "to cause pain or trouble to somebody/something over a period of time". I've reframed the sentence along your suggestion, though. I don't think I made a suggestion, but I like the change - it is now tied to something specific. "These inspired her return to the studio". Perhaps you could say prior to this that she had ceased studio recording. And, if known, state when and why. Hmm, I was able to locate some stuff about her announcing she will never tour again in 2017 but nothing about ceasing recording. I think "return" here just means she went back to the studio for a new record cycle, not necessarily that it was after a long break. "Adele released "Easy on Me" as the lead single from the album, entitled 30, on 14 October 2021." Why is this here, rather than the latter part of the last paragraph in this section, with the other details on release order and dates? "Adele co-wrote "My Little Love" with its producer, Greg Kurstin". This jars a little, and thinking about it, probably because you are jumping chronologically. When they co-wrote the song, it was not known that Kurstin would produce it. Suggest deleting "its producer" - which also resolves issue of "producer" and "produced" in the same sentence. Kurstin's role as producer is already covered in the next section. "which Annabel Nugent of The Independent described as "smoke pluming from a lit cigarette perched on an ashtray"." I doubt that she did. Perhaps "described as" → 'likened to' or similar. "and thought it marked an emotional progression for Adele." As above. ('and considered it even more emotionally wrought that Adele's previous work'?) Suggest "spectate" → 'see'. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the comments. Done with replies about some of the grammar stuff above.--NØ 21:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hi Gog the Mild, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. NØ 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This comment made me giggle. 😂 FrB.TG (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) All looking good. I'll give it another read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Take 2

• Any reason why Adele is described as English instead of British?

• English seems to be consistently preferred on biographies of singers like Amy Winehouse, Ed Sheeran, Ellie Goulding, and Adele's own so I've stuck to that.

Do you mean on Wikipedia biographies?

? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Gog! I mean Wikipedia biographies! As in the wording stably in place on her biography over the past five years (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018). Would you like me to change this? It would get swiftly reverted without there being some sort of consensus behind it. <3 Also, I really apologize for the joke above. I don't think you liked it.NØ 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The joke was great. It gave me a belly laugh.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. What happens in one, or even many, Wikipedia articles sets no precedent for what should happen in any other. I was just asking an open question and was anticipating a policy based response. As I didn't get one I looked it up myself. MOS:NATIONALITY says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident". I think it is clear that it is looking for the country of which the subject is a citizen or national and one cannot, since 1707, be a citizen or national of England. However, the addition of "region" confuses the issue, as, to a lesser extent, does England being a country, albeit not a sovereign one; I think this adds enough uncertainty for me to let it go, in spite of my personal feeling that it does not comply with the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I share your willingness to have the MoS-based wording in the article. However, I would also like the same correct wording reflected on other articles like Adele, Ed Sheeran, or Amy Winehouse and hence talk pages of those will be the avenue to achieve the change more broadly.--NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe mention the son's age at first mention of him?
• "She recalled that creating it cleared up some of the chaos that was obstructing her ability to express her feelings." perhaps '... emotional chaos that was ...'?
• "Some praised the lyrics". You then go on to only mention positive opinions. Were any less fulsome?

• There were no negative reviews about the lyrics. Removed the "some" wording.

• "The song received a Gold certification in Brazil." Why the upper-case G?

I capitalize the names of these award titles like I would with any other awards like "Grammy Award", "Video of the Year", etc. The official award titles have them in caps and it makes sense imo since "gold" here is not referring to the metal.--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The "official award titles" are proper nouns and so should be capitalised. I am not at all sure that a "certification" is an award or otherwise deserving of upper-case initials. (Eg, if I were a certified MMA instructor, I would not say that I had 'received Instructor certification' with an upper-case I.) What is the full "official award title" for Brazilian gold certification?

Here's the formal discussion about this a few years ago which ended in a sort-of consensus to leave it up to individual editors but encouraged capitalizing when the certification is referring to a single country (Brazil in this instance) and not needing to do it in a sentence combining certifications from several countries, e.g. "the album was certified gold in five countries." I, of course, have capitalized them on all song articles I have worked on and have a preference for that for the sake of consistency.--NØ 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing that consensus: I see two against capitalisation, one for and two, including you, offering no opinion on this specific issue. Similarly the 2007 discussion you refer to, which only attracted two contributors, ends with "if you want to say "They received an RIAA Gold plaque" then fine, but normally lower case would be fine". Is there an official title in Brazil that goes along with such certification? Is the gold award certification trademarked? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Gold is not trademarked by Promusicae as far as I can tell. They refer to the certification as "Oro" (capitalized) in Portuguese on their website. Even if you are not satisfied with that discussion, I would say there is a soft consensus the caps usage is okay from all of my own song FAs. Taking Blank Space as an example (admittedly, the other 1989 FAs don't seem to follow this), "multi-platinum" is lowercased when referring to multiple countries grouped together: "It received multi-platinum certifications", then capitalized when referring to individual countries: "Australia (8× Platinum), Canada (4× Platinum), New Zealand (4× Platinum), and the UK (2× Platinum)". You're welcome to start a new discussion about this but said discussion would fall out of the scope of this particular FAC considering there are 10+ other FAs utilizing the caps. Best, NØ 14:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Three hours after posting this, you changed your mind and made the change. Which is fine, you are allowed to change your mind. You are even allowed to change the article just to get an irritating reviewer off your back. But could you just confirm that going forward you are committed to this version of the article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On this article, sure.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thankss!--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why have you collapsed my addressed comments but not those of other reviewers? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Because this is the longest review (mostly because of my replies). I would prefer to collapse my reply about the certification titles too after you agree Take 2 has been satisfactorily addressed.---NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok. Re take 2, I would prefer you didn't. The closing coordinator may not be as generous as me around MOS:NATIONALITY, so I would like it to be readily see it so they are aware they need to come to a judgement on it. Similarly I would prefer the discussion around G/gold to be easy to spot for the reviewer and for anyone subsequently referring to this discussion. Just one issue above I would like a little more clarity on before supporting. I'm sorry if this FAC has seemed unusually gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement in that last sentence. Descending into lengthy discussions about larger MoS issues affecting several different articles on an FAC about an extremely short article has been unexpected, to say the least. I'll leave take 2 unhatted.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request and cautioning that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Some dates are in parentheses and others aren't. I don't get the impression Otherwise it seems like the sources are formatted consistently. Everything I see appears to be sourced to typical pop-culture sources that I've seen on other FACses on these topics - magazines, news, typically prominent, from what seem to be professional writers. Note my caveat that I am not deeply familiar with any of them. Is Dutch Single Top 100 an official chart or anything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this one and all of the other source reviews you do, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Similarly to the Mckenna Grace article, dates format outside the parentheses when author names are not available. Unfortunately, this is not something I can fix unless the authors for those articles become known. The Dutch Single Top 100 is indeed an official chart recommended by WP:GOODCHARTS.--NØ 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass, then, with the caveat about source unfamiliarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• 3 I don't see anything about her mending the relationship with her father?

• "Their relationship had long been strained. [...] Adele did go to see Evans before he died. 'I know he loved me, and we actually got our peace before he died.'"

• 4 OK.
• 16 Where is "sentimental"?

• I have now successfully learned that "emotional" can not be swapped out for "sentimental".

• 21 OK
• 24 OK
• 25 OK, but is "low register" a subjective or objective claim?

• Musical register is a technical term so objective. If another journalist said she was singing in a high register they would be objectively wrong.

• 27 Quote's not in the article.

• It is but there are also lyrics in a bracket. Try a search for: "Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child (“Mummy’s been having a lot of big feelings lately”) or blubbering into her phone during bouts of insecurity"

• 30 OK
• 33 OK
• 34 Can I have a quote that supports the sentence?

• "This being an Adele track, Mummy’s a bit blue. 'I don’t really know what I’m doing,' she sighs, to which her nine-year-old squeakily replies: 'At all?'" sort of supports that she feels confused and lost, but the Entertainment Weekly source also cited right after this sentence definitely backs up the whole sentence.

• 40 Can't find the "astonishingly moving" part.

• Switched it out for direct quote "incredibly touching" now

• 44 OK
• 46 OK
• 48 OK
• 49 OK
• 52 OK
• 55 OK
• 57 OK
• 58 OK
• 59 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Much thanks for investing the time for a spotcheck.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Coord comment

This review has been stable for a while so I had a look with a view to promote but I'm a little curious about some of the language, particularly something like the song being "complimented" for its "sentimentality". First off, unless there's an EngVar thing, I'd expect a person to be complimented, not a thing; secondly, I'm used to sentimentality being viewed as more pejorative than praise (or perhaps I'm just not that into pop music). Normally I'd recuse and review myself but I'm doing that on a couple of other articles so I wonder if I could take Jo-Jo up on the offer of a spotcheck, and after that call on Mike Christie for a review, mainly of the Reception section as that's what sparked my comment. MaranoFan, please don't make any changes based simply on what I've said here, it's really a drive-by -- let's see Jo-Jo's and Mike's takes before anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just to be clear, "complimented" was one of only five suggestions made at the GAN, that I probably incorporated on a whim. It should not be indicative of any larger problem with the article. The GA reviewer also did spotchecks in case you find that relevant.--NØ 19:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I should be able to pick up the review; I have a house guest at the moment so it might be three or four days till I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks all, I will aim to take another look at this in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I can nominate another one right?--NØ 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not yet, I starting going through again last night and still have concerns that might impact future noms as well as this one -- pls be patient. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am quite shocked. The rest of the sections are very recently written and ironclad in my opinion. Curious for you to outline the issues.--NØ 12:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Just looking at the reception section.

• "Critics complimented "My Little Love" as one of the most sentimental songs on 30": the sources don't use "sentimental" -- it appears you're using it as a synonym for "emotional", to avoid close paraphrasing concerns. The source phrases appear to be "undoubtedly the record's hardest gut-punch", "one of the most emotional songs on her new album", and one of the two songs described as "its most emotionally wrenching material". I don't think "sentimental" reflects these accurately.
• "considered it even more emotionally wrought than Adele's previous work". This is an odd use of "wrought"; the word's only common figurative use is in the phrase "wrought up", meaning "in an anxious and upset state". The sources have "Adele takes her signature brand of musical heartache to new depths", "Adele gets vulnerable like never before", "Adele has returned with 30, taking bigger risks and revealing enough hard truths to make this her most powerful album yet" (though this is about the album, not this song in particular), and "The song is profoundly vulnerable, and hearing Adele reassure her son that she loves him conveys a truer sense of sadness than any of her past songs about heartbreak." I think vulnerability is the common thread here, rather than a more generic word such as "emotional".
• The rest of the paragraph covers individual comments by reviewers about the emotions and honesty of the song. I think this paragraph (and the whole section, looking further down) has the "A said B" problem. I think you and I have talked about this before in reviews, and if I recall correctly you disagree, but I think keeping the full names of both the journalists and source publications in every case, rather than relegating them to the footnotes, makes it very difficult to write engaging prose. Also, why is Lipshutz's comment here? The source has "never been bolder in her song construction"; I don't understand what he means by that, and rephrasing it as "most intrepid song construction ever" is probably not far enough from the original. I think it's one of those vague phrases that's hard to rephrase because of the vagueness. Similarly, why is Mullin's comment in this paragraph? That comment is about thematic evolution, not emotion and vulnerability.
• I haven't looked at the sources for the second and third paragraphs in as much detail, so I have no comments about the citations to individual reviewers, but the "A said B" problem is definitely there too.

The construction of the section seems sensible to me -- comments about the level of emotion, then the voice notes, then the lyrics. I think if some reviewer and source names were trimmed, and some opinions combined via paraphrase and summarization, it would be shorter, more engaging, and smoother. I am not going to oppose as I have not read the whole article, but I would not be able to support with this section in this form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, how is this my first time realizing you wrote WP:CRS. Highly impressive. @Ian Rose and Mike Christie: I have now significantly reworked the article / section in line with MC's comments. The opinions expressed in paragraph 3 are too diverse to be merged in any meaningful way but done on the others. Cheers.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- I sometimes think that essay is the most influential thing I've written on Wikipedia; it's nice to see other people refer to it.

Here are two options for improvement. I wrote the first set of notes and then realized it's not what I think is the best choice, so I wrote additional notes. I think if you follow these first suggestions it would help, but what I'd do in your shoes is take the second option.

Option 1

• The changes are a big improvement but there are a couple of vocabulary choices I'd like to suggest changing. Looking at the sources I think what's happening is that you're making word choice changes to avoid close paraphrasing. It's usually better to restructure to avoid having to do that.
  • I think you could cut "immensely" in the first paragraph -- we don't need an adverb there.
  • How about "love for" instead of "adulation to"? "Adulation" has connotations we don't want here.
  • "imperative addition" -- this is an example of what happens when you try to change words to avoid paraphrasing problems. The source has "isn't a necessary addition to the record"; you have "didn't form an imperative addition to 30". The CLOP example talks about this sort of paraphrase. How about giving the McCormick quote first, and then adding Kaplan's take: "...during bouts of insecurity', and Consequence's Ilana Kaplan agreed that they weren't needed, though they gave an insight into Adele's state of mind."
• Suggest combining Mapes' and Swann's reviews with "and", moving Petridis before or after them instead of between. They're two very short comments and it would vary the rhythm a bit.
• I see similarities between the first paragraph and the positive comments in the third paragraph from Sanchez, Murray, and Piatkowski. (In fact Piatkowski's review comments aren't really praise at all.)

Option 2. Here's an alternative to the above comments. I think it would be better to quote a bit less. I can see the attraction of some of the quotes but I think our job in a reception section is to summarize and identify common threads in the review. The topic sentences for the paragraph do that to some degree, and you've also done it in the middle of the paragraphs, but I think more could be done. The third paragraph is almost half quotes, for example, and the second paragraph is about 40% quotes. There's no target number, but given that most of the remaining text is names of reviewers or publications that seems like too much to me. I think the key points from the sources are:

• naked, honest song-writing -- perhaps excessively so but some found it touching
• voice notes and closing voicemail -- tells us about Adele's state of mind but some reviewers thought it was excessive
• another of her trademark heartbreak songs, and an evolution of her previous work
• praised for creativity, skill, honesty
• Adele's loneliness and vulnerability

I think if we built a couple of paragraphs that assembled these points into a summary of what reviewers thought, without any quotes at all, then quotes could be re-added for illustration. I think that would give the reader a more natural flow that didn't feel like a list of bullet point quotes. (There are a couple of bits of information such as the Rolling Stone ranking that would have to go in a separate paragraph.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for boiling it down like that. This has been incredibly helpful. I've incorporated both, options 1 and 2, and arrived at a Critical reception section that should hopefully be acceptable. Please feel free to copyedit. Cheers, NØ 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a big improvement. I joined two short and somewhat related paragraphs but otherwise didn't touch the prose. Ian, I'm not going to register a full support on prose as I haven't reviewed the rest of the article but I think this section is now fine. Personally I'd trim some of the reviewer and publication names, but I know not every editor likes that approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review. Marano, Jo-Jo's and Mike's comments and your willingness to take those on board have eliminated some of the initial concerns I had re. the language, but I think there's still a fair bit of room for improvement to get to FA standard. I see issues re. expression, repetition, and overuse of quotes:

• Critics praised the raw and honest songwriting of "My Little Love" and found it touching. -- "and found it touching" seems tacked on, how about Critics praised "My Little Love" as raw, honest and touching.?
• Critics thought the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" conveyed Adele's state of mind but was excessive. -- Aside from another paragraph starting with "Critics", this is cited to only two sources, so I'd suggest "Some reviewers" is more appropriate. Further, you repeat "Adele's state of mind" in a quote later. Why not just say Some reviewers felt the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" was excessive." as that appears to be common to both sources?
• The quote from McCormick could use some trimming: instead of wrote that "the weepy voice notes may be a bit too much. Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child..., consider reducing to wondered "whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child...
• Reviewers also commented on Adele's expression of loneliness and vulnerability in the closing voicemail, which they thought was uncomfortable to listen. -- Do you mean "uncomfortable to listed to"? I think you could lose that last bit entirely and finish the sentence on "voicemail".
• ...and more vulnerable than Adele's previous work -- I don't think a work itself can be vulnerable, but you could say it displayed more vulnerability on Adelle's part...
• They thought it was another one of her trademark heartbreak songs which evolved from her previous work. -- You have stuff on heartbreak songs and her previous work later, you can lose this sentence entirely to avoid the repetition.

I'd have to lean oppose as it reads now, but I can see myself changing that if the above suggestions are acted upon, or if you can convince me it reads better as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

All swiftly acted upon. Thanks for helping to polish the prose more. Did this on mobile because I am outside so apologies for any typos. Will correct any when I get home.—NØ 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, Ian Rose. I think you can go through it now. While initially rewriting this section, I was trying to match the exact wording of Mike's bullet points above. I think all of your suggestions are improvements, and I have incorporated them. Always here to take care of anything else. Cheers, NØ 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Update: I've also now ran this through repetition-detector.com and it only detects Adele and the song's name as repetition. I believe the Background and Commercial performance sections are free of repetition and mostly free of quotes. In the Composition section, I think losing Aguirre and Chinen's quotes would be detrimental as the adjectives they used seem integral to conveying the comparisons with Gaye and for integrity; other quotes are too small to seem a problem. Reception has already been extensively covered by you and Mike. To my interpretation, all actionable commentary regarding this oppose vote is now exhausted.--NØ 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Tks MF, I expect I'll drop the oppose but let me have another read and perhaps finetune -- I had noticed some of the wording in the lead was identical to parts of the reception section but was going to leave that till reception was attended to; you might have also addressed that now in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I felt the lead and reception could still stand a few tweaks and trims but happy to discuss if it seems too much. Don't have time now to go through in further detail and perhaps support, but striking the oppose. For future reference, I really think it's worth trying PR for music (or other pop culture) articles, given the challenge of creating balanced yet engaging content -- the more eyes before FAC the better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ian. Just for clarity, you no longer object to the article's promotion after the last round of copyedits, correct? The last support to this nomination was added one month ago and it should probably be closed now regardless of the outcome. Regards, NØ 05:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
        • No, if I still objected I wouldn't have struck the oppose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Query for coordinators

• @FrB.TG and David Fuchs: As a smaller article, this has been lucky to get a rigorous go-through by several experts and two recused coords. Can I please go ahead and nominate a Christmas one for December?--NØ 18:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• @FrB.TG and David Fuchs: I was wondering if I could get a status update on this nomination due to the solid amount of feedback and since the last remaining concerns have also been addressed, and I just can't see anything substantially changing with this now remaining open. Apologies for the double ping and hope you both have a great weekend!--NØ 17:08, 8 December 2023 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2023 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2023 [26].

---

Argosy (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most influential magazines in American history. Argosy was the first pulp magazine and spawned hundreds of imitators and an entire industry that lasted almost sixty years. It was the first brick in the publishing empire built by Frank Munsey, an often-reviled publishing mogul of the early 20th century. It outlasted Munsey, who died in 1925, but the magazine eventually succumbed in 1978, though it has been revived several times since then.

The article has one unusual feature. In researching the history of its editors, I found that none of the secondary sources listed them correctly for a short period in 1942. I sent a correction to one of the sources, and they accepted it and have updated the relevant pages, which the article now cites. I don't think this is a COI in any way but thought I should mention it. It's an example of what we often tell new editors -- if you have original information, get it published and then we can include it in a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I've ever actually had to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

Saw that the peer review closed without any comments. I'll try to find the time to review this, though I make no promises. Leaving this here for now at least. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa, I think this could do with some TLC if you have the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time in the next few days or so. TompaDompa (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The article is rather light on links. It's of course a matter of preference, but I would probably include a fair number of additional links to things like serial (literature) and World War I.

  I've linked those two, and will keep an eye out for more possibilities as I respond to your other points, but if you see others you consider to be omissions please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  WWI and WWII are classic MOS:OVERLINKage; everyone knows what they are, and no one will click on them from this article. Such links add to the WP:SEAOFBLUE, and diminish the value of links relevant to the article. (Not a significant matter relative to FA status, just something to consider.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  We can agree to disagree about that specific example, but it is indeed a balance between including too many links and not including enough. I generally lean in favour of including fairly many. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Similarly, I would likely go for more WP:REDLINKS.

  I've added a couple. I assume you're thinking of some of the early stories, which might have commentary? I think some are likely to be too obscure to have standalone articles so I'm reluctant to start linking the titles, but if you feel confident that some are independently notable then go ahead, or let me know which ones you think deserve the links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "adventure stories of all genres" seems like a contradiction in terms.

  This was meant to refer to the policy described by Bittner in 1928 of printing action stories in any genre, even romance. Looking at the source again Mott doesn't make this clear for the 1896 magazine, which is what's being described here, so I cut it to just "adventure stories", which Mott does fully support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "adapted the series for television" – I would link this as "adapted the series for television" to have less of an WP:EASTEREGG situation, but that's really a minor quibble.

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• See my comments below about the 1979 issues.

  Replied there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Publication history

• I would provide inflation adjustments for the currency amounts to give some additional context.

  I've added a few. Rather that put an adjustment in for every single amount given, which would quickly get obtrusive, I've tried to add them in such a way that amounts quickly following in the same paragraph will be approximately clear from context or very simple ratios such as half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "a juvenile weekly paper" – I gather that this is "juvenile" in the sense of "aimed at young readers" as opposed to "childish". I suspect many readers will not be familiar with this terminology, so I would either link the term or try to rephrase it.

  I made it "a weekly paper for children". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the first instalment" – that should be "installment" in US English, no? This recurs a few times.

  All fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Munsey had bought a pew in a popular church for $1,000 a year" – I'm guessing this is meant to illustrate reckless spending habits, but what does it mean, precisely? Did he pay the church to reserve a spot for him, or what?

  The source is describing Fogler's visit to see Munsey, which included a Sunday, so they went to church: "To the visitor's [Fogler's] amazement, Munsey held a pew of his own, to which they were ushered with attentive bows. It cost $1,000 a year, Fogler was told, and he ticketed church pew and hotel room together among his memories." Munsey had begun to spend more freely when Argosy's became temporarily very profitable in 1887, and evidently this was part of that. How about "Munsey had a personal pew in a popular church, which had cost him $1,000 a year"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds good to me. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason to link both Munsey's Weekly and Munsey's Magazine? The former is at time of writing a WP:REDLINK, and considering it was converted into the latter publication after only a couple of years I would expect it to redirect to that article.

  I checked the history to be sure, and they are generally treated as a single lineage, so I've linked the first. I thought about removing the second link but I think the interested reader would be more confused by the lack of a link to the second one, as they might easily not realize that the two are the same unless they follow both links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hm. I'm not sure what the best solution is here. Not something that would be a dealbreaker for FA status, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In the Panic of 1893" – "in" seems an odd choice of word here. Perhaps "during"?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "it was the first magazine to print only fiction" – if this is true with no qualifiers, I should think it warrants mentioning in the WP:LEAD.

  It's not true, and I've cut it from the body. I found this statement in multiple sources, but The Black Cat (and I wrote that article, so I should have remembered this) was also all-fiction and began publication a year earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to re-add the statement one day as it's widely repeated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "increased their price to at twenty cents" – "to at"?

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The low price, sustained through most of the 1920s, must have been a strong benefit to circulation" – this phrasing ("must") sounds argumentative, and there is no WP:INTEXT attribution. I don't think this is (as much of) a problem for phrasings using e.g. "possibly", "likely", or "perhaps".

  I went ahead and attributed it inline to Moskowitz which I think solves the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Surely Sam Moskowitz should be linked?

  Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Bittner lasted for three years as editor; his successors throughout the 1930s only lasted a year or two each." – Don Moore also lasted three years, did he not?

  Reworded -- I think that wording was left over from before I was able to do more research about the exact transition dates. The subsequent paragraphs (and the tables) give the details so I could just cut this if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• The plagiarism story seems like something there would be a lot more to say about. Is there?

  Bedford-Jones wrote an account of the event here (first page of his article, p. 35) which is quite entertaining and I did think about giving more of the story, perhaps in a footnote. It seemed a bit off-topic and I decided against it, but if you feel it's worth it, I could put a note in giving more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think a footnote is a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the popular Take It or Leave It radio show" – radio shows should be given in italics, right?

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Four more monthly issues appeared from August to November 1979, published by Lifetime Wholesalers, Inc." – I'm confused. Was this a continuation, a revival, or what? This sentence seems a bit tacked on (and maybe out of place?).

  Frustratingly there is almost no information available about these. My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that a completely separate company acquired the name from Popular and restarted the publication, but quickly failed. I can find no references to it beyond the SFE article, which says almost nothing, and I am fairly sure that the SFE article draws its information from the Galactic Central checklist page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Alright. Sometimes we have to accept that we simply don't have the sources we would need to say the things we want to say. TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Contents and reception

• "George Griffith [...] published almost none of his work in the US in his lifetime. The only exception was The Lake of Gold" – I think this needs to be rephrased. As the explanatory footnote says, The Lake of Gold was one of two works by Griffith published in the US, though the only one published in a US magazine.

  Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• I would definitely link both Pearson's Magazine and Stories of Other Worlds.

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom series had begun in All-Story Weekly, as had his Tarzan novels" – I feel like both Barsoom and Tarzan should be in italics here, as the names of series.

  This didn't sound right to me, so I had a poke around in the MoS, and found MOS:SERIESTITLE, which says it should not be italicized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Seems like an area where not all cases would be entirely clear-cut. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Merritt's "The Ship of Ishtar", which was serialized in 1924" – if it was serialized then it is presumably a novel, and should be given in italics. We also seem to have an article that could be linked here: The Ship of Ishtar.

  Italicized and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Garrett Smith's "You've Killed Privacy!"" – I'm guessing that's Garret Smith?

  Yes -- I checked and the mis-spelling is Moskowitz's. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Johnston McCulley had launched his Zorro series" – if "Zorro" is used as the name of the series (as opposed to the name of the character), it should be in italics.

  See above re MOS:SERIESTITLE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Men's magazine era

• "In 1942, in an attempt to revive the magazine's fortunes, the all-fiction format was abandoned and articles about the war" – I can figure out that this refers to World War II, as can likely most readers, but I think it should be made explicit.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Argosy's citation from the Post Office listed stories considered to be obscene; the list included The G-String Murders, a serial by Rose Louise Hovick that began in May 1942, and "How Paris Apaches Terrorize Nazis in Girl Orgies" and "Sex Outrages by Jap Soldiers", articles in the July and August 1942 issues." – no feedback here, I just find it amusing that those titles sound like something someone would make up to poke fun at tabloid headlines.

  I agree -- I thought it was worth including by way of illustration. Incidentally, the link for Rose Louise Hovick goes to Gypsy Rose Lee, which many more readers will recognize. The credit in the magazine itself was to Hovick, but do you think it would be worth mentioning her stage name in this article because of the recognition factor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll defer to your judgment here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; much appreciated. I've responded to some of the ones I could deal with quickly; will continue this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa, all replied to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa, I've dealt with the two additional comments you left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Cautious support. The article looks good, but I am unfortunately not sufficiently confident in my own ability to discern whether an article on this topic is up to WP:Featured article standards or falls short of them to be comfortable endorsing this unequivocally. I have no particular misgivings about the article, I just don't feel qualified enough to assess its quality to such a high standard to give an unreserved appraisal. TompaDompa (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

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

  The LoC link says it's part of the Bains collection, and the rights description link, here, says there are no known copyright restrictions but gives no more details. I had a look around to see if I could find the source but haven't been able to. Is the LoC description not definite enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• The LoC description is fine for the Bains tag, but you've got another tag on there that it doesn't satisfy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this edit fixes that, if you mean the publication date tag. If the Bains tag is enough there's no need for the other tag anyway, though if I ever do find the publication date I'll make a note of it on the Commons page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• File:Metal_monster_sharp.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Nikki, I've added a photo of Gypsy Rose Lee, FYI, in case you see any issues with the licensing there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

References

• Reference numbers are from this version.
• Ordinarily I would suggest linking the short cites to the bibliography (e.g., by using {{sfn}} cites). Though it's normally a matter of preference, here, given the prevalence of anonymous sources, I would strongly encourage doing so.

  I understand the benefits of sfn but dislike it as an editor. I may try switching to it as some point but for this article I'd rather see if I can get the cites in order without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Why are archived versions of Galactic Central being linked to in the first instance? It looks like the site is still live.

  All the pages from that site that have numerals in the URL are subject to change every quarter as the site is reindexed to take into account new content. The URLs will never go dead, but they'll unpredictably change so that the citation information is no longer on that page. I've handled this by marking them as dead immediately and giving an archive link. I agree it's not a great solution but I don't know of a better way to deal with the issue. I'm open to suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Makes sense; that's a better solution than letting them get out of date. The only other thing I can think of would be to email the guy behind the website—I can't see why it would be in his interest for links to his website (whether from Wikipedia or anywhere else) to get dated every quarter. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  He does have a method of permalinking, but the last time I tried to use it (a month or two ago) it was broken. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the cites to websites (there are many) appear to incorrectly give the access date as the source date.

  For Galactic Central there are no source dates that I can find -- I think the rule is to give the access date for that parameter in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  That would just be confusing, because you wouldn't know what the date actually meant. Looking at Help:Citation Style 1 § Dates, the rule is "When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d. or |date=nd". (News to me too—I've just been leaving them blank.) {{cite web}} also gives the intel that "The date of a Web page, PDF, etc. with no visible date can sometimes be established by searching the page source or document code for a created or updated date". The second is certainly not required, but I would do the first, or at least remove the dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this one is still remaining. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, missed this. I'm removing the access dates now. The template documentation for cite web for the source date field says "Full date when the source was published; if unknown, use access-date instead; do not wikilink"; I always interpreted that as meaning "put in the access date", but perhaps it meant "ignore this parameter in favour of the access date". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Usernameunique: I think I've cleaned them all up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• #12, #121, #123 — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• #170 — What is this ("Anonymous (December 1942), p. 20") citing to? There's no anonymous work from December 1942 in the Sources, and the only December 1942 works there are a) have identified authors and b) don't include page 20. (This is another good example of why linked short cites would be better, by the way.)

  Fixed -- three separate errors on my part here: it was by Harriet Bradfield, not anonymous; it was 1943, not 1942; and I had not even added that source to the list of sources. Should be OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• The one-page sources don't need to be listed here, with short cites above; they can be listed just in the References section. For example, "Stone (2007), pp. 15–16" is a useful short cite, because it specifies which two pages out of a 39-page work are being cited. "Abbot (December 1942), p. 6", by contrast, is not; the entire source is on only page 6.

  I'd like to keep these as they are, if that's OK -- I do it this way because then I don't have to remember to change back and forth between citing in the references and the sources if I add or remove a second citation to a source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest linking the source names (e.g., The New York Times), and the publishers

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Anonymous (May 1953)" — The other Writer's Digest pieces use Roman numerals for the volume number

  I'm happy to convert it if you think consistency is worth it, but they did actually switch to Arabic numerals for volume numbers briefly and this volume is one of those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's the way I like to do it too. (The amount of time I've wasted trying to find covers of journals to see how they style the volume number...) It just seemed unlikely because, as you say, it seesaws from Roman to Arabic. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• All the "Tymn, Marshall B.; Ashley, Mike" cites — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Ellis, Douglas; Hulse, Ed; Weinberg, Robert" — Ditto

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Hughes, William; Punter, David; Smith, Andrew" — Ditto

  Done. I wasn't aware of this parameter; thanks for pointing it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Hulse, Ed (2013)" — ISBN not fully hyphenated

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Munsey, Frank A. (1907)" — It should be out of copyright, can you find a link to the source online?

  Found and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Osborne, William Hamilton (1921)" — Seeing as you have a link, you don't really need the OCLC. Small matter, though

  You're right; hadn't thought of that. I guess it might be worth keeping them as the link might fail at some point in the future? Also fine with removing them if you think that's best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Raine, William MacLeod (1921)" — Ditto

  As above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also made a few minor edits while checking. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- I've responded to a couple of things tonight but may have to wait till tomorrow or Tuesday to finish. Thanks for the helpful copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I think I've now responded to all points -- sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie, sorry for letting this slip. I saw one lingering retrieval date given as source date (#19), which I trust you'll clean up—you might want to double check, too, just in case there's another one or two. But it looks good overall, and I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I fixed that one and looked through again but couldn't find others. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Golden Argosy

• "the manager of the Western Union office there": could rephrase slightly as "the manager of the local Western Union office", but your call

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Argosy

• "Top-Notch Magazine was a holdout at fifteen cents": I'm not sure what this means, and it may be a bit too AmEng for many readers

  Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Dewart, Popular Publications

• "for Munsey.[31][49][50][15]" and "50,000.[31][66][67][68][note 5]": any chance of bundling some of the multiple cites into a less obtrusive form?

  Yes, those are rather ugly. Have bundled all the ones where there are four citations together. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done to the start of Contents and reception; more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Not much more to add. Just one comment in the Science fiction and fantasy section:

• "Argosy did print" and "Barsoom series had begun", had appeared': any reason why not "Argosy printed" and "Barsoom series began"?

  I changed the first one. For the second, the series began in All-Story, which is in the past at the point the article is talking about it, so I think the past perfect is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support One final comment (more a point of style than anything else) isn't going to hold up my support on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Munsey kept to the weekly schedule without missing an issue". This seems to be saying the same thing twice.

  The key point is that he didn't miss an issue, but I think "Munsey managed to avoid missing an issue" wouldn't read as naturally. I've made it "Munsey managed to keep to the weekly schedule"; does that convey the point still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  It does. If you want a little more emphasis, maybe 'Munsey managed to maintain the regular weekly schedule' or similar?

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 sample issues". I had to reread that to get the point. Maybe 'Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 free-sample issues' or 'Over five months the campaign gave away 11,500,000 sample issues'?

  I took the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The Argosy" section: perhaps a date before the third sentence?

  Done, but I'm not sure that reads more smoothly -- what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am clearly missing something. The first date in that section is still in the third sentence.

  I misunderstood your comment, though in retrospect it's quite clear. For some reason I thought you wanted me to move the date in the third sentence up to the start of the third sentence. I've reverted that change and added the year to the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "which was retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine briefly" → 'which was briefly retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine'?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1925 Munsey died." A little more detail would be nice, if only his age and the cause of death.

  Done. Britt doesn't say he died of appendicitis; it was probably complications of that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "at least four issues between Fall 1977 and Summer 1978". I don't think you need upper-case initial letters when not referring to specific issues.

  Those are the issue dates so I reworded to make that more natural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The magazine has been revived three times since then." This came as a shock. I had to back track through the previous two paragraphs to realise that you had implied, without expressly stating, that the magazine had ceased publication.

  Reworded the earlier paragraph to make it clearer that it (temporarily) ceased publication.

  Mike, could you quote this for me, my wheels are clearly spinning. I have just reread the three paragraphs in question three times and it still seems to leap from "Argosy's circulation remained over a million until at least 1973" to "The magazine has been revived three times since then" giving me a real 'whaaa ...?' feeling.

  I just realized that "The magazine" is confusing, coming as it does after mentions of the spinoffs, so I've changed that to "Argosy". Perhaps that paragraph should be first in that small section? Here's the sequence of events. Popular ceased to publish the magazine in 1978. Four more issues appeared from Lifetime Wholesalers, dated August through November 1979. I have no information at all about those issues -- presumably Lifetime Wholesalers bought the title from Popular and quickly discovered it was an unprofitable venture. The magazine ceased publication then until the first of the revivals, in 1989. The spinoffs are not issues of Argosy; they're covered here as that's how the secondary sources discuss them. Do the edits I just made help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes indeed. How would you feel about "The last issue was dated November 1979." → 'The last issue was dated November 1979, after which regular publication ceased.'?

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Bittner's comments in 1928 asked for "any good clean story with sound plot, rapid-fire action and strong masculine appeal will be considered" ". The grammar seems out here.

  Fixed by trimming the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am down to the start of "Other genres" and will try to finish the review later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Argosy briefly lost its permit as a result, but did not miss any issues." This seems to beg a question. Having lost its permit, how was it reinstated before an issue was missed?

  The sources don't say. The main source for this is Barbas, linked in the article; she goes into great detail on the case affecting Esquire, which (she argues) was a free speech landmark. From this page it's apparent Esquire didn't miss an issue either, so presumably either the magazines agreed to clean themselves up until the appeals were over or else the removal of the permits was stayed pending the appeal results, but Barbas gives no details for Argosy and I don't see those details for Esquire either (though I might have missed them). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I might be inclined to add 'the reasons for this are unclear' or similar, but that is very much optional.

I'm always hesitant to add notes like that, since I don't want to imply in Wikipedia's voice that "nobody knows the answer". Perhaps the answer is in some source I haven't seen yet. I would have thought the trade journals of the day would have covered it, but I haven't found anything like that yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's it. A classic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2023 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 2 December 2023 [27].

---

John Spencer (snooker player)

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins

This article is about three-time world snooker champion John Spencer. Spencer was noted for his cue action, which featured an unusually long backswing that provided immense cue power, allowing him to develop long-distance shots with deep screw and maximum side spin. According to Clive Everton in Billiards and Snooker magazine, Spencer's play in the 1969 World Snooker Championship final "justifiably caused gasps of amazement" from the audience. We previously worked on the article for Spencer's great rival Ray Reardon, which was promoted as a Featured Article just over a year ago. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins

Image review

• File:Spencer-john.jpg: source link is dead, needs a more extensive FUR

• File:Ray_Reardon.jpg: source file was deleted as lacking permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nikkimaria. I've deleted the Reardon image from this article and from his article. I've expanded on the FUR for the Spencer image, but let me know if more is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• " the first year that the World Snooker Championship was held at the Crucible Theatre" - mention Sheffield here → (done)
• I notice that in a couple of places you inflate amounts of money to current (ish) values, but in most places you don't..?

→ It looks as if the inflation conversions are mostly in the early career section (1967–1971), as I guess it's quite useful to put these seemingly small amounts of money from 50-odd years ago into context for today's audience. I think converting all the cash sums throughout would be overkill and unnecessary. The only other one I can find is at the end of the Declining health section, where it converts the £9K that Spencer got in Feb 1987, this being the most he ever earned from a single event during his career. Compared with some of the sums that the players are winning nowadays, £26,932 equivalent might seem paltry and worth a particular mention? That seems to be the logic used anyway, not sure if you agree? The latest available year that can be used with the inflation template for the UK is 2021 at the moment. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• "he had suggested to Hendry that they play the next match in casual clothes, to which Hendry agreed, with the result that Spencer won their third encounter 6–4" - does the source really attribute the fact that he won to what he was wearing, as the wording suggests?

→ Benny can perhaps check this – maybe a subjective interpretation of the source material? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Burn has "Afterwards [Hendry] told his father that he thought it had been a set-up. '[Spencer] knew that if I was dressed casually', he said, 'I'd play casually.'" As this is Hendry's own account, perhaps a rewording would be in order. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Benny, nice bit of detail to add in. Have reworded/expanded. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• "In the final stages of this event, he defeated then World Champion Joe Johnson 5–3" => "In the final stages of this event, he defeated then-World Champion Joe Johnson 5–3" → (done)
• "he scored just 207 points against Bjorn L'Orange in the second round of qualifying, before losing the match 0–10" => "he scored just 207 points against Bjorn L'Orange in the second round of qualifying, losing the match 0–10" (the use of "before" is ambiguous and could be read as his having somehow scored 207 points before the match even took place → (done)
• That's it, I think. An enjoyable read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Noswall59

Yesterday, I noticed this article here and thought that Spencer's parentage should be included in this article; the information is in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Some details of his early life mentioned in the obituary in The Guardian were also absent. So I decided to add those details. I was then surprised to see today that these changes were reverted by Rodney Baggins, who suggested that improvements should be suggested here. I am not sure that's how this works, but I'd rather see the improvements included. So, here are my suggestions:

• For the first sentence of "Early life", change "John Spencer was born on 18 September 1935 in Radcliffe, Lancashire.[1] He attended Stand Grammar School for Boys in Whitefield." to the following: "John Spencer was born on 18 September 1935 at Bealey Maternity Home in Radcliffe, Lancashire, the youngest child of William Spencer, a night watchman and bookkeeper's runner, and his wife Annie, née Bleakley." This can be cited to the ODNB article.
• Replace "He started playing snooker on a full-sized table at the age of 14 and compiled his first century break aged 15." with the following: "John first played snooker on a makeshift table with tape for cushions and nails to mark out pockets, before his father introduced him to playing snooker on a full-sized table when the boy was aged 14. John compiled his first century break at the age of 15." This can be cited to The Guardian.

I have no further comments at this stage. —Noswall59 (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC).

Thanks for clearing that up, Noswall59. I wasn't sure where the material had come from, but will add it back in with ref tags. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Noswall59, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination for promotion? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Noswall59 and BennyOnTheLoose: and Gog the Mild; please have a look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. Because they cause problems in archives, and slow down the load time of the entire FAC page, templates like tq are avoided at FAC. I've switched out a few here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support by SMcCandlish

Overall it reads very well, seems comprehensive of the subject, properly sourced as far as I can tell. I don't see any criteria issues that need work. I wish more of our articles were like this. I made one typographic tweak a few days ago, but see no even trivial issues remaining, so am in support of the promotion. (Disclaimer: I am a participant in WikiProject Snooker, so I'm involved in the general topic area, though I did no significant work on this particular article.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish, it is good to get a specialist review. Should the coordinators take your comments as a support for promotion to FA status? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeps. I guess I should have boldfaced the "so am in support of the promotion", or put "Support" in the heading. I'm not a terribly frequent FAC visitor. PS: As for "specialist", I'm more of a pool than snooker editor within cue sports, but this certainly has everything I would expect from a snooker bio.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Having been open for a while now, this nomination has garnered only one general support, and the last activity was almost two weeks ago. Without substantial advancement towards a consensus favoring promotion over the next few days, I'm afraid there's a risk that the nomination may be archived. FrB.TG (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Pawnkingthree

The article appears to be fully comprehensive and is of a similar quality to last year's Ray Reardon FAC in which I also participated. The only thing I might suggest is that the Daily Telegraph obituary fills in what he was doing after his national service and before returning to snooker - "a variety of jobs including labourer, van driver and betting office settler." Perhaps that could be added. But in any case, it's a support from me. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: Thank you for supporting promotion of this article. I'll add the material you mentioned. I also notice the DT obituary says he did his national service in the RAF, which is notable and worth adding in. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Harrias

• All the tables need to adhere to MOS:ACCESS, specifically MOS:DTT.

• Please see Benny's comments below. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• "..he started National Service at age 18, and did not play snooker again until he was 29." The way this is written, it makes it seem causal, ie that it was because of his National Service that he didn't play for 11 years, but there is no indication that this is the case; I'd suggest rephrasing.

• I've now reworded the early years section to remove this implication, plus added a bit more detail. I hope it's OK now. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd swap the last sentence of the second paragraph with the first of the final paragraph. The second paragraph is mostly a list of his career highlights, and the sentence currently feels like it would fit well there. Similarly, the final paragraph deals with the end of his snooker career, and his post-playing life, and a sentence about his playing style feels like it would fit well there. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss either way, so feel free to leave as is if you think it works better.

• This comment was superseded by major alterations to the lead section, but your suggested change has now been incorporated. Please can you check that the new version of the lead is OK. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• "..Spencer, Reardon, Owen and Bernard Bennett.." While I think it is obvious this refers to Gary, I think it would bear clarifying, as both Owen brothers have been mentioned already in the article. — (done)
• "..against defending champion Pulman.." Try to avoid the false title here. — (done)
• "The tournament that is recognised as the 1971 World Championship was in fact held in late 1970.." I think this is wordier than it needs to be; I think it could just be "The 1971 World Championship was in fact held in late 1970.." — (done)
• "Historian Dominic Sandbrook.." Another false title. — (done)
• "..even though he was feeling exhausted and ill after a major tour of Canada, and had been trapped in a lift ahead of one of the sessions, and involved in a minor car crash on the way to another." Recommend getting rid of the "and" at the start of the bit about the lift to improve the flow. — (done)
• "He had also expended effort in beating Higgins 4–3 in the final of the Park Drive 2000 event the night before the first session of the World Championship final." This seems a weird thing to note given that Higgins was also his opponent in the World Championship final. Did Higgins not expend effort during the Park Drive 2000 event??

• I agree. What do you think Benny? Was it your idea to note this, or was it specifically mentioned for some reason in the source? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• I also agree. (It is, however, supported by the source which says that Spencer's win in the Park Drive 2000 final "drained him dry", coming after his trip to Canada and his win against Charlton. Perhaps there's a bit of hyperbole in the source; in the next sentence, Everton writes that "Higgins played with a sense of destiny..." ) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Removed sentence. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In his 2005 memoir, Spencer made clear that Higgins had produced the better snooker.." I'm not keen on this phrasing, as it seems to turn an opinion into a fact. Maybe rephrase to "Spencer made clear that he felt Higgins had produced the better snooker.." — (done)
• "..he beat Thorburn 9–7 in the semi-finals.." Provide his full name and wikilink on this first mention of Thorburn. — (done)
• "..the two inaugural Pontins events.." I'm not keen on the use of "the", which makes it sound like the reader should know what these are.

• You might argue the same for any mention of an inaugural tournament, e.g. "he won the inaugural Irish Masters at Goffs Sales Room in County Kildare" which could equally look as if we expect the reader to know of the event. In fact, could you not use the same argument for any use of the definite article!? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• "..of 25 points per frame.." This is the first time "points" have been mentioned in the article: could do with a wikilink. — (done)

• Also linked first mention of "frames" for same reason. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• "..to celebrate the firm's £8,000 investment into the sport in the 1973–74 season. Spencer took the £150 first prize.." Previously, you had provided modern equivalences for monetary values, but from here onwards you stop. Is there a particular reason for that?

• Yes, as explained above in Comments by ChrisTheDude. I'm not keen on converting all of them, but for consistency we would have to use "all or nothing". Can discuss a better solution if required. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Spencer's good form was not translated into positive results at the next two World Championships. In 1973, after showing decisive form in defeating David Taylor 16–5 and Williams 16–7, he lost by a single frame to Reardon in the semi-finals, 22–23." Two decisive victories followed by a narrow loss to a good player seems to be two positive results and an acceptable one. Possibly rephrase the opening sentence?

• Have reworded. His good form in 1973 and 1974 (detailed in previous paragraph) wasn't quite good enough to bag the world title in 1973 and 1974 (as one might have expected), but was perhaps a bit unclear. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• "..but refused to blame his defeat on a dose of flu from which he had been suffering.." This gives the impression that Wikipedia's editorial voice is suggesting that his blame was because of the flu; please rephrase. — (done)
• "..won the inaugural Masters event held at the West Centre Hotel in Fulham, West London." Add a comma after "event", to make it clear that it was the inaugural Masters event, not just the inaugural one hosted at the West Centre Hotel. — (done)
• "..before defeating Reardon in the closest of finals." This sounds like journalese, try to rephrase it. — (done)
• "..in one half of the draw, with Charlton himself in the other." As the sentence starts with the word "With", I think this "with" would be better changed to "and". — (done)
• "..highest break of the tournament, a 138, in the.." Get rid of "a". — (done)
• "..defeating Virgo.." Provide his full name and wikilink on this first mention of Virgo. (Currently done on his third, and last, mention.) — (done)
• "The conditions were so hot that Spencer's chalk snapped in half when he tried to use it, because of an accumulation of moisture inside his breast pocket." This comma isn't necessary.

• The meaning would change if you removed the comma: "he tried to use it because of an accumulation of moisture..." which is clearly wrong. I have found a better way to reword the whole sentence. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why is the 147 break stuff out of sequence? Why structure the article chronologically, but then have that out of place? It would even fit naturally between existing paragraphs: surely it would be better moved there?

• I've now restructured the professional career section so that the unofficial 147 part can be more easily incorporated in the flow. I did provide a lengthy explanation for the previous layout but I can remove that now, as superseded/irrelevant. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• "This was to be the last time the two players would face each other in a World Championship match." There is no need for this to be so convoluted: "This was the last time the two players faced each other in a.." Would be fine. — (done)
• "..he startled the audience by lunging forward and striking over the cue ball in his initial address.." I'm a little confused by this: what did he strike above the cue ball? Surely there wasn't anything there to strike?

• No idea. I don't have access to the source. Maybe he lunged because he felt faint or overwhelmed by the occasion? Maybe Benny can help here? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• The source talks about the audience but doesn't quite say anything to the effect that they were startled, and the rest is perhaps a bit too close to the source, which has "Spencer amused himself by lunging forward and hitting over the cue-ball as he addressed it to pot the final black but then settled down to make absolutely certain of the fifth maximum of his career." Looking through some of the press coverage from the time, including the Snooker Scene editor Clive Everton's report in The Guardian, all of which omits this, I tend towards removing this detail. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Removed sentence. Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• Having read the detail in the body of the article, I think the lead needs tweaking to match the article better. "..because the pockets on the table may not have met the required specifications." This gives the reader the impression that the pockets probably were the wrong size; I think it would be better softened to "..because the pockets had not been measured against official specifications." (Or similar.) — (done)
• "The Miles match was to be Spencer's last victory at the Crucible." Again, this could just be "The Miles match was Spencer's last victory at the Crucible." — (done)
• Spell out WPBSA on first mention. — (done)
• Per MOS:SURVIVEDBY, try to rephrase the last sentence. — (done)

That's the lot for the prose I think. A nice biography. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thank you for the thorough review, very much appreciated. I'll start going through your points later today. Most are very useful, but I disagree with a couple and will give my reasons, then we can discuss. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: Thank you. I've split the performance and ranking timeline into three tables to avoid having column headers in the middle of a table, removed some cell colours that didn't add much, added captions, added row and column scopes, and removed breaks. Please let me know if any other table formatting is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: I've dealt with most of your queries, please see individual responses above. I've given feedback on the ones that need more discussion or general agreement. Also marked a couple for attention of User:BennyOnTheLoose. Still working on changes to the lead following alterations by User:HurricaneHiggins, almost completed! Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Harrias: Hello again, just about done now. I think the only thing outstanding is the currency conversions. I would like to keep these to a minimum, so we should probably remove some of them rather than adding in any more. There are 18 monetary amounts given in the article's body and I can't see how we could provide equivalents for every one of those without the whole thing looking a bit cluttered. What do you think? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I'm currently away from home with work, so won't be able to look at this for a few days. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 06:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Harrias, you back on deck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I'm happy to support based on the changes. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request, reviewing this version. How did we come to the conclusion of the footnote t "The winning aggregate score is unknown."? Are Billiards and Snooker. and Snooker Scene. offline publications? Which The Times is source #17 about? What make uk.eurosport.yahoo.com and snookerdatabase.co.uk reliable sources? I am also not sure if the Daily Mirror is a high-quality source for a FA. Kinda wondering about "Turner, Chris. Chris Turner's Snooker Archive.", is that a commonly cited source? I am not sure that the citations #120-#121, #124-#126 provide enough information to track down the source. Source formatting appears to be mostly consistent, except for #35 which has a different formatting from other citations to Snooker Scene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I must have missed the Eurosport thing. As for the footnote, it should cite some sources that were checked. As for the archive, I'll defer to the RSN discussion this time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I amended the note to "The winning aggregate score is not mentioned in any of the reliable sources consulted for this article." - but I can specify two or three (or as many as you suggest) sources instead if that works better. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably better to specify, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've mentioned three of the soruces that would have been most likely to include that information. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is a pass, with my caveat about no spotcheck. It seems like a lot of the coverage is in snooker-dedicated sources, but there are some non-snooker sources too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The winning aggregate score is unknown" changed to "The winning aggregate score is not mentioned in the source."
• Billiards and Snooker and Snooker Scene are offline publications, although Snooker Scene also had a website. Billiards and Snooker was the official magazine of the Billiards Association and Control Council and during the period of the issues cited here, was edited by Clive Everton. Everton, I think it's fair to say, is the most respected authority on snooker history. He went on to found Snooker Scene and continued to write for newspapers including The Guardian as well as being a commentator for the BBC's television coverage of snooker.
• I've added locations for The Times (London),
• Chris Turner's Snooker Archive was discussed as the reliable sources noticeboard last year and although there wasn't wide participation, there were no objections. It is very commonly used in our snooker articles.
• uk.eurosport.yahoo.com - I've never seen any objection to Eurosport as a reliable source. Let me know if this needs to be changed.
• snookerdatabase.co.uk - removed. I'll see if I can find another source for the Pot Black results.
• I've swapped out the Daily Mirror references, and clippings for their replacements and the other ones where you were concerned that there might not be enough information to track down the source.
• I made the source formatting change that you identified.

Comments from HurricaneHiggins

I've made some edits to the article lead, but have not edited the article body itself, which looks great to me overall. It is complete, well written, and well-sourced. No major criticisms or concerns. A few suggestions:

• Some sources say that Spencer was known as "Gentleman John". Should this be included as a nickname, per many other snooker bios?

• I might suggest adding to the personal life section that his wife Margot's maiden name was Sawbridge and that they married weeks after Spencer's first world title, per this article: https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/830132.snooker-legend-gentleman-john/

• Per the Bolton News and New York Times, Spencer was involved in a serious car crash after an exhibition match in 1974, when he fell asleep at the wheel and swerved in front of a lorry. The BN article mentions that he was lucky to escape alive. This is surely noteworthy.

• In describing the same incident, the Bolton Times refers to Spencer's "famous twisted cue" that was 80 years old, which was smashed into four pieces in the crash, leading Spencer to become one of the first professionals to use a two-piece cue. Another detail that could be of interest?

These suggestions aside, I'm more than happy to support the promotion of this article to Featured status.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HurricaneHiggins (talk • contribs) 13:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@HurricaneHiggins: Thank you for supporting the article and for the above comments, which I will address later. I also want to look at your lead changes in detail because you've completely overhauled it since the article was nominated for FAC :) Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries, @Rodney Baggins. I see from your comment above that you disagree with some of my edits, which is fine ... please feel free to revert anything that creates an issue! My goal was to make the lead clearer and more readable, especially for non–snooker fans. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@HurricaneHiggins: Hi there, I've had a good bash at the lead, mostly keeping your new structure intact but trimming and expanding where I think necessary. I've tried to explain my main changes so you can follow the logic. Please can you take a look and highlight anything you don't agree with? Might have to run this past the other FAC reviewers too. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins Great work! I love everything you've done here. One minor thing -- you say he "lost interest in playing snooker for several years" but there was a substantial 11-year period where he didn't play at all. I might suggest "lost interest in playing snooker for over a decade". Otherwise, fantastic job. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2023 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

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