Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2019

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2019 [1].

Planet Nine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jehochman Talk 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC), Agmartin (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the hypothetical Planet Nine. This is a specific hypothesis about a specific planet with a projected mass, size and orbit. It is not to be confused with Nibiru cataclysm, an imaginary planet that is the subject of pseudoscientic conjecture (and also an FA candidate at this very moment). The Planet Nine article has cleared a thorough review by several colleagues (in archive 1, and at Talk:Planet Nine). Due to the highly technical nature of many of its sources, I emailed Mike Brown (one of the two authors of the hypothesis) and asked him to review the article for factual accuracy and completeness. Because I am not a professional astronomer, I wanted to make sure we didn't misrepresent or omit anything. He replied, "It's quite good! ...what you have here is remarkably complete. Well done!"

The last planet discovered in our solar system was Neptune on 23 September 1846. Unofficial reports from one of the search teams indicate that there's approximately an 80% chance they have photos of Planet Nine from their recent visit to the Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea. These photos are being processed and analyzed. We expect an announcement, possibly by the end of January. This could be a once in a lifetime discovery. It would be nice if the article was Featured in time for the announcement so that it could appear on the home page during an intense moment of public interest. The actual discovery announcement would not include much additional information, only the location in the sky and distance. It will take about a year to develop detailed information about the orbit. I anticipate that we can quickly update the article to include a discovery announcement without compromising quality; this event should not make the article unstable. Jehochman Talk 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a comment about the more technical aspects of the article which were often mentioned in previous Feature Article Review, that I did not locate until it was archived. First, many of the technical terms are used because they refer to specific things and often there is not a simpler term available. Since the original review they have been better defined and their use reduced. I think including those terms and some of the more technical details included in the article are useful and necessary because they will aid those readers who do have some familiarity with astronomy that decide to follow the links to the cited articles, which are often much more technical than this article. Agmartin (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

I've moved my two sets of (lengthy!) resolved issues to Talk per the guidelines for such things. Also, the collapse box templates were... not cooperating, so they weren't really doing much good up here. In any case, I think my concerns with SPS issues have been laid to rest. I'm going to do a pass on prose here, hopefully much more briefly!

Lead

  • In the past, references in the lead (except to attribute quotes) were actively discouraged, on the grounds that the lead serves as an abstract to the article and the actual referenced text is included below. I always had mixed opinions about that practice, and evidently it is no longer rigidly enforced at FAC. That said, there are quite a few references that are only cited in the lead, which strikes me as incorrect under the lead-as-summary article model.
  • "proposed planet". Well... yes. Is there a reason we're not calling it a "hypothetical" planet. After all, that's what the linked list uses. I'm not convinced this is wrong as written, just curious about the process.
  • "These eTNOs tend to have their points of closest approach to the Sun clustered in one direction". Is it correct to say that "points" are clustered in a "direction"?
I've fixed these three items. There's still one reference that is lede only, but it is a special case. We need it to say that the planet hasn't been discovered as of 2018. That's a fact we want to state up front, and it's not really necessary to repeat it later. Within the next week a new paper will come out that will allow us to clean this up a bit more. For now, I think it is much better than before. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • "conundrum of Uranus's orbit". As I recall, that "conundrum" eventually resolved itself with better measurements? In any case, this introduces a question that isn't ever answered in the article. Perhaps an explanatory footnote here to avoid bulking up this section with a tangential topic?
@Agmartin: could you get this one? Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This bit still needs work. Actually, the sentence in question in currently not quite grammatical, suggesting that the "conundrum of Uranus's orbit" was "named Planet X". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is correct now. Jehochman Talk 08:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a minimum, link Caltech, but consider also using the institution's full name.
Done. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothesis

  • The History section introduces several different models. There's no section lead to §Hypothesis, so it's not immediately clear to a lay reader which of the previously-mentioned hypotheses is being presented here, or why one of them is being favored. I'm not sure the best way to resolve this. Perhaps consider moving the last paragraph of §History to serve as a section lead here, and renaming this "Current hypothesis" or "Batygin/Brown hypothesis" or something of that nature? To be honest, I'm not sure that's the right choice either. There are potentially due weight issues to consider also.
Moved it, renamed sections a bit. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Much improved in this regard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, if it once orbited the region of the gas/ice giants..." I'm not sure that "in fact" is the proper way to introduce a sentence based on a hypothetical. Really, you can probably just cut those two words entirely and be fine here.
removed Agmartin (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the MOS would prefer in situ be italicized (both times).
Done. I think there were three. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...leaving it with a mass lower, or somewhat lower, than that of Uranus and Neptune." I know what point this is making, but a lay reader is likely to find the "lower or somewhat lower" construction redundant or somewhat redundant.
Done. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Although the odds of capture can be higher..." This whole sentence is a bit of a garden path. The initial clause poses a question (higher than what), but the answer doesn't come until the very end. I might consider rewording this entirely.
I've tried to unscrew this. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

  • Somewhat pedantic question. Is this evidence for Planet Nine, broadly speaking? Or is this evidence for the hypothesis in §Hypothesis?
I've clarified it. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it accurate to describe simulations as "evidence"?
Yes. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has some really long subsection titles. The first three subsections are especially noticeable (and to some extent, the fourth). Is is possible to shorten these?
Done. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few subsection titles are still longer than what I'd consider the average for FA articles (or articles in general!), but I don't think they're excessively so. No actionable objection to the current title lengths. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orbits diagram has no caption.
DOne. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You introduce M⊕ here, although you've discussed things in terms of Earth masses previously. Consider moving this to the first appearance so that you can use the short form throughout. Actually, looking further, you really only use that unit symbol in this section. Consider taking a consistent approach.
  • I would move footnote G to immediately following "orbit:", rather than attached to the first entry in the list (as it applies throughout).
@Agmartin: could you get these last two? Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agmartin has fixed these both. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • Again, I'm fairly certain this is reception of only the current (Batygin and Brown) model. Was there any notable responses to the previous models, like the 2012, 2014, or 2015 hypotheses mentioned back in §History. I'm fairly sure at least some of those were ruled out on the basis of further data refinement, but if we've got an RS that addresses it, that would be good if this is going to be a top-level section, rather than part of the Batygin and Brown hypothesis discussion. That said, some of the alternative hypotheses already include reception information. So perhaps the right choice is to bundle an awful lot of this structure into §Hypothesis.
DOne. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate hypotheses

  • Shouldn't this be alternative?
fixed Agmartin (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

  • Is "typically" the right word here? Planet discoveries aren't really typical, after all.
I've added clarifying context. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to gather additional evidence

  • Broadly: What makes something belong in this section rather than §Evidence or §Reception?
This had been where details from new papers discussing investigations by groups other than Batygin and Brown of the effects of Planet Nine were added. Much of what had been in this section has been incorporated into other parts of the article, for example a bunch of the one sentence summaries in the last paragraph under simulations were discussed as short paragraphs in this section in the past. Some were left here because they are disputed, for example the analysis of resonances. The analysis of Pluto's orbit is included because it was looking for signs of Planet Nine, but may have found something else, or it may just be observational errors. It wouldn't really fit under alternative hypotheses because it doesn't offer an explanation for the orbits of the eTNOs. Some are still here because no one found a good place to move them to. I suppose a couple might fit under observations, I'll think about moving them. Agmartin (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have a rubbish bin of random pieces as a section. If this stuff is not important, let's junk it. If it is important, let's sort it to the correct section, making new ones if we must. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done Agmartin (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, I think this restructuring was the most important prose improvement the article has received. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some mighty long subsection titles here, too.
I've chopped those down. This is actually all attempts to help find the thing rather than observe it. The idea is to constrain the search space. I guess that's a reasonably good section title. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the long delay between my last source evaluation and this prose read-through. As far as my preferred outcome, this is still just in comment territory. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: thank you, particularly for your feedback on headings. We’ve made short work of this list, and I think the article has been improved. Jehochman Talk 19:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's one prose issue that still really needs some additional resolution. Also, a second read-through of the source list for formatting problems made me notice that Patel (21 January 2019) is still in sentence case although you've switched other articles to title case. Frankly, it wouldn't hurt to do a quick audit of all of them in case I missed more than this one last time! In any case, I'm probably about out of actionable issues, so this can be deemed a support, conditional on something happening to that "conundrum" sentence. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed and checked the references. The conundrum sentence has been completely reworked for clarity. Mush improved. I think we’re all set. Thank you so much. Jehochman Talk 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Further surveys are ongoing using NEOWISE and the 8–meter Subaru telescope. – can you link these?
done. Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the discovery of Neptune in 1846, there was considerable speculation that another planet might exist beyond its orbit. These theories predicted the existence of a planet, often referred to as Planet X. The Planet Nine hypothesis predicts a specific planet of a certain size and with certain orbital characteristics that are different from past theories. – has no source (possibly resulting from paragraph breakup?)
Jehochman took care of this Agmartin (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would increases the inclinations – increase?
done Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alignment due to the Kozai mechanism – This alternate hypothesis also proposes the present of an unknown planet. It might be helpful to add what the difference between this planet and planet nine would be; why are both hypotheses distinct?
would specifying the circular orbit and semimajor axis in the first sentence be sufficient? Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DES observes about 105 nights per season, lasting from August to February. – source?
that appeared to be quoted from the DES wikipedia article, also unsourced, i've updated the number from a recent article since the survey has been completed. Agmartin (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WISE satellite – spelled out and linked in the lead, but should be at first mention in the body also.
done Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • that in Batygin's opinion, could be covered in – are the commas right? I think either a comma is needed behind "that", or the comma behind "opinion" needs to be removed.
rewrote to remove both commas Agmartin (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where Cassini data suggest Planet Nine may be located – this Cassini data was not previously mentioned, so should be introduced here.
simpler to just say it includes part of the predicted track Agmartin (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An analysis of Cassini data on Saturn's orbital residuals – what are orbital residuals?
done Agmartin (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • with boundaries: right ascension 3.0h to 5.5h and declination −1° to 6° – I suggest reformulating to get rid of the colon and have a full sentence for better reading flow.
done Agmartin (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "An undiscovered planet outside the orbit of Neptune, 10 times the mass of Earth, would affect the orbit of Saturn, not Cassini ... This could produce a signature in the measurements of Cassini while in orbit about Saturn if the planet was close enough to the Sun. But we do not see any unexplained signature above the level of the measurement noise in Cassini data taken from 2004 to 2016." – This appears to be two separate quotes rather than a long quote where something is left out (as indicated by the …). I think it might be best to dissolve the first quote (write someting like "X stated that …"), and just keep the second one.
I paraphrased this quote Agmartin (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observations of Saturn's orbit neither prove nor disprove that Planet Nine exists. Rather, they suggest that Planet Nine could not be in certain sections of its proposed orbit because its gravity would cause a noticeable effect on Saturn's position, inconsistent with actual observations. – Not sure, but might it be more helpful to the reader to place this more general information at the beginning of the section?
moved up to save reader's time since the results discussed are mostly inconclusive Agmartin (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An analysis of Pluto's orbit by Matthew J. Holman and Matthew J. Payne – misses the date. Also, both where already mentioned previously, but without the middle initial. You can just write Holman and Payne without first names, as you did for Batygin and Brown in the same sentence.
done Agmartin (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Konstantin Batygin – Here also, you sometimes give the first name, and sometimes not. Mentioning it at first mention would suffice.
removed one mention, the other is part of list of authors with Elizabeth Bailey, whose first name isn't mentioned elsewhere. Agmartin (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the commensurabilities (period ratios consistent with pairs of objects in resonance with each other) – explanation is difficult to understand. What periods? Would be orbital periods, right?
done Agmartin (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Optimal orbit if objects are in strong resonances – The first paragraph of this section is very detailed in comparison with other parts of the article, and difficult to comprehend.
I removed the objects from their analysis that were not in resonance, does that make it easier to follow? Agmartin (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an article by Carlos and Raul de la Fuente Marcos – I suggest "In an 2017 article"
done Agmartin (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This correlation is unlikely to be the result of – why not "this distribution", to connect to the previous sentence?
done Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of their spectral slopes suggests that the surfaces of (474640) 2004 VN112 and 2013 RF98 can have pure methane ices (like Pluto), highly processed carbon compounds and some amorphous silicates. – What is the relevance of this info for Planet Nine?
not relevant, removed Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarities between the orbits of 2013 RF98 and 2004 VN112 – What are these? eTNOs?
done Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • highly processed carbon compounds – what does this mean? Processed by what? Maybe link "processed" to the correct process?
not relevant, removed Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Agmartin (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked them and it seems like we've done our best. @Jens Lallensack: please let us know if our fixes are sufficient. Jehochman Talk 00:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Save one more issue introduced by the recent edits below, I'm happy to support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open almost six weeks and doesn't yet have the level of commentary and support for promotion that I'd hope to see by this stage; we'll also need a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and an image check (assuming I haven't missed those) so we still have a way to go. At the same time I'm loathe to archive because the nominators have addressed all outstanding issues and have support from the two reviewers so far. I think it'd be reasonable to request the spotcheck and the image review at the top of WT:FAC and that might also generate some additional broader commentary -- or perhaps Cas might be able to bend his experience of astronomical articles to this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We had an image review in archive1, and I think the issues were fixed. A new image review should be quick. Jehochman Talk 12:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Cas is now supporting and we have resolved any issues noted in JJE's image and sources spotcheck (below). What's the next move? Jehochman Talk 01:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're about there now, I'll give it my usual once-over shortly and see if we can't wrap it up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've tweaked a few words here and there but a couple of things:
  • The first para of Observations: Orbital clustering of high perihelion objects ends with an uncited statement that I'd expect to be sourced.
  • There are several duplinks in the article, some of which might be justified for an article of this depth and length but pls check and rationalise where you can. This script highlights dups in red.
I won't hold up promotion over the duplinks but I'd like to see the unsourced statement dealt with before proceeding. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this "Trujillo and Sheppard's hypothesis about how the objects would be aligned by the Kozai mechanism has been supplanted by further analysis and evidence" the next paragraph goes into specific details. Agmartin (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agmartin added a reference in any case. I did a pass to remove duplicate links a few weeks ago. I will do another pass tonight. Feel free to promote the article whenever you like. Jehochman Talk 22:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tks for all that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

(feel free to rejig so coord note section is at bottom) It reads a lot better and looks alot more polished now. Queries below:

  • Should the Alignment due to the Kozai mechanism go in the History section as it antedates the current hypothesis?
@Agmartin: could you look at this? Jehochman Talk 03:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, before the Feature Article Review started the Kozai mechanism was discussed briefly in the first paragraph of Observations (which has since been expanded to to explain the various technical details) with a link to the Alignment due to the Kozai mechanism for those that wanted more detail . It is currently mentioned very briefly in the last paragraph of History, though without reference to the Kozai mechanism. I'm hesitant to push more of it into History (and inclination instability which also preceded Batygin and Brown's hypothesis) as this would add a bunch of technical material ahead of the basic Planet Nine details that most readers would be more interested in. Perhaps a link to the section in History instead would be better? Agmartin (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't realise. ok. good as it is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a line in the lead on alternate explanations of TNOs? especially as Planet Nine is still only a theory?
I’ve added this: [2]. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also saw Planets_beyond_Neptune#Further_searches_for_Planet_X and was wondering why this was not included. I must admit, given both Planet X and Planet Nine are hypotheses, I find their being separated as a little arbitrary but not a strong issue. Actually the last statement of the article explains this well. Wondering whether that should be incorporated in lead.
I’m not sure how to fit this into the lede without adding too much detail. We’d have to explain Planet X. Maybe we could add a statement to the History section that Planet Nine is not Planet X. We’ve already got a hat note atop the article. Thank you, Cas. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
actually strike that. have had a rethink. The one liner you just added is sufficient. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, I am close to supporting on comprehensiveness and prose. Just need to look again and think. It is a tricky subject to encapsulate well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJE's commentary

[edit]
Images:
I’ve added sources for the Earth and Neptune images. The P9 sphere seems to be original. However, we’re going to need to edit this image when the projected size of P9 is reduced officially. There’s a new paper coming out this week. We know what it’s going to say. Jehochman Talk 02:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this image because the latest and greatest scientific paper estimates that P9 is not as large as shown. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot check:
  • 103: I think you may want to give a page number #8; also the source notes that this is apparently an inaccurate way to refer to this phenomenon.
Most sources that I have seen refer to it using this term, the note is included for those who may encounter it in one of those. I don't recall seeing any using her term since. Though I think she is pointing out the first name for it, I've added (perhaps erroneously). Agmartin (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 106: "Precession" is not mentioned in the source. I also notice that at one point the article says "simulation" and at the other "simulations".
added citation that included this bit, rephrased as circulates as that is the word they used, and fixed mismatch. Agmartin (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 39: Does not mention "Planet Nine", which the other source mentions however. I don't think these sources speak of Margots opinion, though, so the in-text attribution seems questionable to me.
The blue box on the upper right has his name, as does the browser tab, it appears to be one of a number of his personal pages. Agmartin (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 125: Seems OK to me.
  • 53: Is it just me, or does this source only explain how Planet Nine relates to comets, without supporting the rest of the paragraphs sourced to them? I am not sure if the other sources fill that gap.
The semimajor range and mass of the Planet 9 cloud are discussed on pages 19-20 of arxiv version. Inclination distribution, including perpendicular orbits are shown in Figure 6. Agmartin (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 38: See 39.
  • 7: Where is the 20,000 year number supported? Also, there are lower mass estimates in the source.
Upcoming paper (next few days?) will include new numbers, this will be better addressed then. Agmartin (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
10,0000-20,000 years is mentioned in a couple of the references in the body of the article. (I assume you are referring to the lede, a previous reviewer thought there were too many references there so the one with that number may have been removed) Agmartin (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this number because it's now obsolete. We know the semi-major axis is projected to be 400 - 800 AU. I could calculate an orbital period based on that range (it's a simple formula), but let's just wait for somebody to publish a number. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15: Seems OK.
  • 102: Seems OK.
  • 76: Seems OK, but what is the source for the next sentence?
probably the Oort cloud wikipedia article, I'll check. Agmartin (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's where it was from. Added a more accessible citation than that article used. Agmartin (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: Seems OK to me.
  • 71: I am not sure if the source discusses perihelial changes. I general this source is quite dense; I am tempted to AGF on it.
It's discussed in section 5.2, though primarily as eccentricity changes. This article on Batygin and Brown's blog was less technical, but was removed during the Feature Article Review because it was a self-published source. Should it be put back in? Agmartin (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the authors of this self-published source recognized experts in the field? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They are astrophysics professors at Caltech. Jehochman Talk 02:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Batygin is the author of that blog post and a co-author of the source article. Agmartin (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 140: Seems OK to me.
  • 50: Seems OK.
  • 66: To me it sounds like the source says that Planet Nine would increase the number of high-inclination orbits. It also looks like #53 does cover much of the content sourced to this.
see 53 Agmartin (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
taking a second look I'm guessing you are referring to the second time it is cited, figure 3 of 66 shows the inclination distributions as lines with a sizable fraction at inclinations greater than 50 degrees, without Planet Nine these nearly nonexistent. 66 also shows relative sizes of Oort cloud in fig 2. Agmartin (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 95: The list of authors in-text is incomplete.
Inclination instability was initially proposed by the two authors in the text. Moved that citation up. Agmartin (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 58: Seems OK.
  • 127: Seems OK.
  • 125: Redundant?
  • 62: Seems OK.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think most of the points have been addressed. Last night a new 92 page paper was published by Batygin, Brown and others. We've gone through the article and removed some stuff that is now obsolete and updated the projected orbit and mass. Some further additions will probably happen over the next few days, but for the moment the article is stable, correct and up to date. Could you let us know which may require further work? Jehochman Talk 15:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to punt this; real life problems and given that the references are now renumbered it'd be a PITA to recheck them again. I'll AGF that the fixes here have resolved the issues. I note that the This is because objects move more slowly when near their aphelion, in accordance with Kepler's second law. isn't referenced but I am tempted to let it slide as it's restating an uncontested law of nature. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. For whatever it’s worth I checked your points independently of Agmartin and made sure they were resolved. The Kepler’s Law statement is provided as context to help lay readers. It is not the least bit dubious. Jehochman Talk 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 February 2019 [3].

Satellite Science Fiction

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite was one of the many science fiction magazines launched in the 1950s, and by no means the worst. Its main claim to fame is probably that it published Philip K. Dick's first novel, The Cosmic Puppets. The publisher, Leo Margulies, was a veteran of the magazine publishing world, and kept it for a couple of years before making the fatal mistake of changing from digest format to letter-size, in an attempt to get more exposure on newsstands. Sales did not compensate for the increased production costs and the magazine was closed down in 1959. Interestingly, the June 1959 issue was in galley proofs when the decision was made, and four copies are known to survive, making it one of the rarest of all science fiction magazines.

A note on sources: the article uses both the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB), and Galactic Central. For the ISFDB I'll repeat the argument I used at an earlier FAC, which was accepted there: "the strongest argument I can make is to quote the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia (SFE3), which is an authoritative reference in the field. They mention the ISFDB in two articles: Bibliographies and Online SF Resources. The bibliographies article in particular says that the ISFDB has superseded Reginald (a standard bibliography in the field); it does give caveats about pre-World War II publications, but that doesn't apply here." For Galactic Central, there is an article in SFE3, which I hope establishes the reliability of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Drive-by comment here. The properly-hyphenated ISBN for the Sherman source is 978-1-61827-298-0. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will review more later. Refs seem fine in general. Kees08 (Talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've replied above but it's my wife's birthday and I'll probably have to wait till tomorrow to have time to make the suggested changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources may all be here, in case it helps. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through old newspapers to see if the topic is reasonably covered. It only takes a second to clip the articles, and I will put them in a bulleted list below. Do not feel like you need to use them, you can if you want, I am only listing them in case it helps you.

For some reason the site is slow right now, those are the only two I saw though. Kees08 (Talk) 03:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these. The first one seems to be similar to the one that Sherman is quoting; I think I'm better off with Sherman since he's a secondary source. The other one is just a casual mention; interesting in the context of the history of sf magazines, but I don't think there's anything there for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I may have given pushback on the use of Internet Speculative Fiction Database, but based on what it is citing, I am okay with it. It is only used to cite the artist names, which might not need to be cited anyways (since presumably they are in the magazine near the front cover). The rest of the sources seem appropriate. I do not know of any other sources that could be used for the topic, and was unable to find any when I looked. Therefore, the source review is complete, and passed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I will take care of this too. Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing 1956 copyright renewals, the first two images are licensed appropriately and the copyright was not renewed (not surprising for a defunct magazine). I found no renewals for the 1959 cover image either, so the copyright is fine there.

Captions are good. Alt text could be added if you want. Should just have to fix the source file and the image review will be complete. Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added the source page. I added alt text; I just made it "photograph" since screen readers will read the caption immediately after the alt text, so there's no benefit in repeating that information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, support on images. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Not sure I will do a full review that ends with a support/oppose, just had a couple of comments and needed a place for them (for now). Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common date format (29 January 2018 vs January 29, 2018)
  • Missing a space here right? reprint:John Christopher's The Year of the Comet

Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would you be willing to spell out science fiction? Sf historian Mike Ashley
    I prefer to use an abbreviation in most of these articles because it can get quite tedious for the reader to read "science fiction" spelled out in full repeatedly. It's less of an issue in the shorter articles, but here there's a quote from SFE3 that uses the abbreviation, so I think it should be introduced anyway; and if it's going to be introduced I might as well use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • The ALT text for the lead image (i.e. “photograph”) seems rather vague, and could benefit from some expansion in my opinion. This comment also applies to the other two images used in the article. Shouldn’t the ALT text describe what is physically represented in the image, as it is at least partially intended to help blind readers (at least according to Wikipedia policy)?
    I'm fine with changing the alt text, but if you take a look at this discussion on WT:ALT you'll see some discussion about this. The alt text gets read out before a caption, so for the picture of Napoleon at the top of WP:ALT the recommended alt text would cause a screen reader to read "Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte in His Study at the Tuileries The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries" which is repetitive and seems obviously wrong. Just "painting" would work there, or a physical description. The linked advice from the talk page is not much more helpful. I was thinking that the key point here is that this is a cover of the magazine, which the caption says, so it made sense to just say "photograph". I don't think it's very useful to describe the details of the cover art, though I'm fine with doing so if someone thinks that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand your point, and I will leave that matter up to other editors. It may be helpful for a blind reader (or one with some sort of visual impairment) to know what the magazine cover looks like, but I do understand your point about it. I have never really delved into the conversations about ALT text so I am not that familiar on how they are really used or even received by the target audience. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following is more of a clarification question than a suggestion/recommendation. For this article, you have included the volume/issue table in the “Bibliographic details” section, though I have noticed this table was placed in the “Publication history” section for other articles, such as The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Amazing Stories. I was just curious about the difference for this particular article?
    To be honest, I put those tables wherever I can make them fit! When the table is small I usually put them in the "Bibliographic details" section, which is probably the natural place. That's usually the smallest section, though, so for magazines with long histories I sometimes have to put them in the "Publication history" section. I try to keep them out of the "Contents and reception" sections, since they relate to the physical magazine rather than the contents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense to me, and I had thought that would be the case. The table placement for this article makes perfect sense, but again, I was just curious to know as it is helpful to learn from different approaches. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only two points that stand out to me, although I would be interested if anyone ever creates an article for the red links in the article (Michael Shayne Mystery Magazine and The New Review). I do not feel comfortable or experienced enough to do a full review, but I just wanted to help out a little. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review anyway. I might one day create either or both of those articles; I have a biography of Margulies that would help with the former, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond to both of my points. From what I read, the prose looks good so I do not see any glaring reasons for this not to pass. I did not mean for my comment to pressure you to create the articles for the red links, as red links are important/valuable in their own right. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]
  • "letter-size", "digest-sized? The discrepancy reads a little oddly to me.
    The intention is that the "-d" form is used when it's straightforwardly adjectival, and the form without "-d" is used when it can be read as a noun referring to things of that size. Does that not work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is grammatical. If you like it, fine. As I said, it "reads a little oddly to me". Short of rewriting one of the sentences I don't have a ready solution, and it's not a deal buster.
  • " In 1958 Margulies was able to track down the 1894–1895 first magazine publication" I am not sure what "was able to" adds. Suggest 'Mangulies tracked down ...'
    Good point; there were two "able to"s, in fact, and I got rid of both. A cousin of "in order to", which can also usually be cut; I'll try to remember to look out for that in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Your second and third images specifically attribute the cover art. The first has a more general "art by". Is there a reason?
    Just trying to vary the language. I went ahead and made it "cover art by" for the first one to avoid the implication that it refers to interior art too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had assumed that you were going to say that he had done the interior art too. I am, honestly, in favour of varying the language, but in this case precision is better.
  • "as a result the accompanying stories were usually very short expositions of an idea or a joke" Consider removing the "a" before "joke" - it makes it seem that the story could be a joke, rather than an exposition of a joke, which I assume is what is intended.
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almost embarrassingly, that is all I can find to pick at. My. meagre, sources don't have anything of note not already in the article. You have done a really sound job. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for the review; I've answered your points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A fine job. I am happy with how you have handled your sources, and so am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I always try to review these sf mag articles if I can. This is up to Mike's usual standards -- my copyedit was light, but of course if any concerns don't hesitate to discuss. The content seems appropriate to the mag's relatively short life, and I have no particular issue with the sourcing -- as Kees suggests, ISFB isn't being used to cite anything controversial, nor is Galactic Central; most of the referencing is to Mike Ashley, and that's the main thing. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

The source doesn't comment, but from my knowledge of magazines, Merwin probably was the editor to whom Clements submitted "Planet for Plunder", so Merwin would have written the additional chapters while he was still editor. It's often the case that the first couple of issues of a magazine under a new editor contain material bought by their predecessor, and this is probably an example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that it was something like that, and maybe there wasn't anything to hand to fill the space created if Merwin's additions were excised. I was hoping for something citable, so I guess I'll have to be disappointed that we can't have something discussing that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 26 February 2019 [4].

1937 Fox vault fire

[edit]
Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if you woke up one morning, and overnight, essentially every movie produced by one of the major American film companies in the last 20 years had entirely ceased to exist, forever. In the age of digital preservation, that seems impossible, but in 1937, that's exactly what happened when a fire at a New Jersey storage facility all but erased the silent-film era productions of Fox Film. Despite the cultural significance of the loss, most discussions of silent films only give a passing reference to the fire itself. I've sifted through both modern treatments of the film industry and contemporary reporting of the fire to craft this article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN

[edit]

Nice one Ossifrage, this is really interesting, and totally gutting. I've got a couple of things, just at first glance, but it's nice and tight.

  • Could the lead be slightly more expansive? It's true that, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, one or two paragraphs suffices for an article this size; but in this particular case, that's also only a few (short) sentences.
  • Lead writing is probably my worst skill as an article editor. Improved a little, hopefully?
  • IB: perhaps swap out the map with one of the B&W images further down? I'm not sure the map suits—I think an image of devastation links better with the article title, and if the map is further down, it can be expanded slightly (using the |upright= parameter).
  • Swapped for the image of the gutted building and piled film cans. I'm not sure I have much room to play around with upright while avoiding sandwiching problems.
  • "Local truckdriver"—is that one word? It may well be an Engvar thing.
  • Nope, it's a typo thing. Corrected.
  • "all of the film in the vaults" —I know what you mean by this, of course; all the film as a single material, which is accurate. But, instinctively, I think most people might read that as "films"—i.e., the discrete items rather than the material—and you'll spend much of the rest of your career here correcting well-meaning typos!
  • Technically, both are correct. All of the films were destroyed because all of the film was destroyed.
  • "followed on December 9"—9 December?
  • Personally, I prefer DMY dates (and wrote this article that way). Along the way, they were swapped to MDY dates per WP:DATETIES, which I admittedly find hard to argue with. So, I believe these are correct as currently written.
  • Written that way to distinguish Kansas City, Missouri (which isn't actually the Missouri capitol) from Kansas City, Kansas. We Americans are very creative when naming cities.
  • "and warm nights"—slightly vague; Any chance of a figure? But perhaps this is all the source limits itself too? (WP:OR--->I ask because I was in NJ many years ago, also in July, and it was baking. And not a heatwave either!)
  • When New Jersey has a heat wave, it doesn't do half a job. But unfortunately, that's all my source provides. Publicly searchable weather archives go back to 1945. I'm sure it would be possible to pull contemporary news sources to determine just how warm those nights were, but I'm not doing so would be strictly helpful.
  • Again "July 19"
  • As above.
  • Tweaked. And added a little bit more to the section while I was working there.
  • ""recent and rather extensive film fires""—also an inline ref.
  • Not sure what's wrong here. Both quoted phrases in this sentence are attributed in-text to the source, which is cited at the end of the sentence.
  • It might just be me, but it looks like you're using a mixture of sfn and (an)other system?
  • Book-format sources are listed in the bibliography and referenced using short-form citations (sfn and Harvard linking). Sources in other formats are directly referenced using their appropriate cite template. I think this should be copacetic; I've used the same standard in several other FAs.
  • I'm also wondering about the audio article; since this is now quite different to the original, is it fair for it to remain? I literally do not know the answer, hence the question  :) on the one hand, removing it may be wanton destruction, and that anything is better than nothing, or, conversely, that it's misleading as to what people are actually listening to?
  • Honestly, I have no idea. I wasn't involved in its creation, and know approximately nothing about the relevant policies. That said, I do believe it's based on the article version after its GA promotion, so it's probably still useful even if not strictly current.
Like I said, though, nice article and an interesting read of something that I bet hardly anyone outside the industry has ever heard of. ——SerialNumber54129
Followed up on most of these, although I'll probably try to take another stab at lead revision here shortly. I know I'm bad at it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Squeamish Ossifrage; as I may have said before—and will probably say again—the lead isn't just summary style, but summary style of summary style. Wow. ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • I have to agree with Serial Number about the ref format. I think it would be all right to mix web cites (inline) with print sources (sfn) but as it stands there are several journal articles referenced inline, which just looks wrong, as well as leading to longer page ranges than would otherwise be necessary. So I would suggest moving the journal articles and book chapters to the Bibliography section.
  • I'll agree that the newspaper article cited as a reprint within a book-format source was... awkward. The reference had been structured that way largely to avoid a (spurious) error in the Harv reference templating system. However, to solve that problem completely, I found the original newspaper article and cited that directly (coincidentally allowing me to correct the pagination, which was incompletely reported in the reprint).
  • However, the general request to move journal articles to the Bibliography is not done. I've had 5 silent-film history articles promoted to FA (and a related list to FL) using this citation formatting system, and have supported the promotion of several others referenced precisely the same way. I'm sorry that you're not as fond of it, but per WP:CITEVAR, I believe this request is non-actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than that, I am not seeing any issues with the ref format.
  • All sources appear reliable.
  • I'm not seeing any additional sources that could be used to expand the article. buidhe 00:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Yep. I searched pretty exhaustively for renewal notices associated with these, so unless it was filed in some truly nonstandard manner, I'm pretty confident there was no renewal.
  • File:1937 Fox vault fire footage.ogv: I admit that I am a little unclear about what steps were taken to secure permission and whether this file adds enough information to the article.
  • I think the historical value of the video is very high. In 1969, Representative Henry Helstoski gave remarks honoring William Zabransky, Jr., which included an acknowledgement, originally published by the Sunday Record Call that the "great fire of 1937" had been "recorded on film" by Zabransky [see Helstoski, Henry (1969-12-09). "Sokols honor "Pop" Zabransky" (PDF). Congressional Record. 115 (28): 38031.]. So far as I am aware, no other major film fire was itself caught on film. That this is color footage is also unusual for 1937; Kodachrome movie film had been commercially available for only about two years at the time of this disaster. As to the rights issue... I've looked a bit further. Fuchs noted (in documentation for a different film, admittedly), that the historical films he digitized and uploaded were donated to the Little Ferry Centennial Celebration Committee (of which Fuchs was the coordinator) by the Zabransky family. With that said, I'm willing to concede that it is impossible to know for certain what rights, if any, were actually intended to be transferred by Zabransky's family (William Zabransky, Jr. himself had died in the early 1990s). However, I don't think there's any realistic chance that the YouTube publication was not made "by (or with permission from) the copyright holder" as WP:NFCC #4 requires. Is that sufficient to satisfy the policy?

All images seem to be reasonably placed. Some don't have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to respond to the above concerns. Also, ALT text added (based on my reading of WP:ALT, I think "refer to caption" should be adequate for the map, although I can do a more detailed text transcription if that's required instead). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Looks interesting, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nitrate fires burn rapidly, and cannot typically be extinguished, they are capable of burning even under water." I'm not a native speaker, but shouldn't the "and" be moved to after the last comma?
  • Comma removed, conjunction added.
  • "and rented it to 20th Century Fox to store the silent films acquired from Fox Film Corporation when the two production companies merged" This seems slightly iffy, since 20th Century Fox was only named so after the merger. Could it be worded differently? How about "after the merger of Twentieth Century Pictures and Fox Film"?
  • I've attempted a slightly different solution here, which I hope reads better.
  • I wonder if the alignment of the images under Legacy could be inverted, to prevent the white space that is now below the lower image.
  • Swapping the two images appears to make the problem worse, not better (because the currently-first image has a longer caption).
Oh, I didn't mean their order, just their alignment. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This could perhaps still be tried. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean. Agreed, and done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the first letters in the footnotes be capitalised?
  • Somehow I had convinced myself that there was an MOS rule about this regarding endnotes that were not complete sentences; however, I appear to be crazy. Capitalized.
  • "For some actors, the fire destroyed all of their work" Could we get some examples?
  • So, Kehr is by no means the only person to make that claim, and it is in fact an accurate one. The challenge is finding a reliable source that objectively states that an entire actor's body of work was lost – much less one connecting it to the 1937 fire. The canonical example is Valeska Surratt, who is mentioned (and sourced) already. But I'm struggling to find an RS stating that the fire got all of her work (although, unquestionably, it did). Let me see if I can dig up anything... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, I will support once you conclude something on this last point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reliable source that explicitly identifies Suratt's entire filmography as being lost, and reordered that section a little bit accordingly. I'd like a source that ties up all the connections with a bow, but I think this is the best I can do; very few sources are willing to commit explicitly to stating exactly what the fire destroyed (because there's never been any publicly-acknowledged accounting of what was in there in the first place). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ian

[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I know a bit about the early history of the American film industry but wasn't familiar with the impact of this event...

  • Been through twice now and copyedited -- assuming no concerns with my last round, I'm happy with prose, comprehensiveness, accessibility and structure.
  • Happy to defer to Jo-Jo re. media licensing and Buidhe re. source reliability and coverage (formatting is also okay AFAIC; I just spelt out the dates in the journal citations).

Well done, SO -- good to see you back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]
  • Support. Nice article - small but perfectly formed, I think. You may just want to check that you've got the date formatting consistent in the sources - you've got "Retrieved 2019-01-25" and "Retrieved January 18, 2019" formats in there, and you should choose one and stick with it. That's about all I can come up with in an excellent piece otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was originally all in ISO dates, but was moved over to dmy because everyone but me seems to greatly prefer that for US-centric articles (as "friendlier"). The handful of ISO dates that were still present were the result of an editor running the IABot process to provide archive links for web sources. I hadn't noticed that those archive dates were posted in the wrong format, but everything should be tidy now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Usernameunique

[edit]

Lead

  • Perhaps worth mentioning the switch from nitrate film that occurred afterwards, and to what extent that was occasioned by the fire(s).

Background

  • they are capable of burning even under water. — Is this because they produce (release?) oxygen as they burn?
Yes. Does this need to be more clearly connected? As to the secondary point here, a quick survey of sources on the topic does suggest that "produce" is preferred here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three semicolons in the second paragraph feels like overkill.
Semicolons are a badly-neglected form of punctuation; I try to give them good, loving homes. On a more serious note, culled a couple of these. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the potential of nitrate film to self-ignite may not have been recognized before 1933. — What happened in 1933?
Went back to the source for some much-needed clarification.
  • Despite the potential for fire — To what extent was the potential recognized? It's not entirely clear if the design was to protect against external or internal sources or fire.
Went back to the sources to clear this up, hopefully. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fire

  • Despite 150 men employing 14 hose streams — Does one employ a hose, or employ a stream?
"Hose stream" is a term of art in firefighting for the stream of water produced by a fire hose. I believe this usage is correct. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building itself was also badly damaged — You could probably drop either "itself" or "also."
Corrected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • more than 75% of Fox's feature films from before 1930 are completely lost. — Is there any sort of authoritative itemization of what films in the archive were lost?
None whatsoever. I know that some film historians suspect that Twentieth Century Fox had such a list, but no reliable source seems willing to make that claim. In any case, no actual itemization of what was lost – authoritative or otherwise – has ever come to light.
  • Atherton Productions, Peck's Bad Boy Corporation, Principal Pictures, and Serial Producing — Worthy of red links?
I've redlinked Serial, for which at least a meaningful stub can probably be written. Atherton was a Poverty Row western studio that only ever produced about a half-dozen pictures. I've opted not to redlink it, because the best it can probably hope for is inclusion in a list in a hypothetical better-quality version of our Poverty Row article. Peck's Bad Boy was even smaller and has absolutely no hope of an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archival material intended for the Museum of Modern Art's Film Library — Why was it in the Fox vault if it was intended for MOMA?
My personal guess is that it had been earmarked for MOMA but not actually transferred yet, but the sources don't clarify, so I'm not sure I can say anything here that wouldn't be original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as was further research into improving the quality of cellulose acetate film to encourage its use as a safer replacement for nitrate film. — When was nitrate film eventually phased out?
Sourced and added.

References

  • #10 — Retrieval date not strictly necessary, since you're citing the underlying source, not the website on which a copy happens to appear.
Agreed. This was actually added by a semi-automated process that checks for dead links. Personally, I don't even think the archive URL is necessary (it is archiving the newspapers.com digitization of the print-source original), but it seems others disagree? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • #17 — Same.
Disagree on this one. I'm not sure whether or not this appeared in the WSJ print edition or not; in any case, I am in fact directly citing the article as it appeared online. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • You might consider switching from lettered notes (e.g., [a], [b], [c]) to the [note 1], [note 2], etc. format. The former tend to blend in with the numbered citations, and are thus easy to overlook.
Contrariwise, I've always found the NoteTag notes distractingly long. I've swapped the footnotes to uppercase to distinguish them from references with multiple backlinks as a compromise, if that's acceptable? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • May as well update notes b and c to 2019 dollars, if possible.
Not yet available. These are handled by templates and so will automagically update to 2019 figures once that data becomes available and the templates updated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, happy to support. I added a comment above about the lead, and there's one that you didn't respond to (not sure if you missed it/didn't think it was an issue/are still looking into it), but these are minor. Nice article, I enjoyed reading it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a line to the lead to hopefully address that request, and tidied up that last bit in §Little Ferry after re-pulling the relevant sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Interesting stuff, and I'm very close to supporting outright, just one question:

  • you write: and interior partitions destroyed by the initial explosion. – This explosion is not mentioned before, yet you take it as granted. Maybe specifically mention that the fire resulted in an explosion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me re-pull some sources tomorrow and see what the conflict is here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Thanks for the catch. That absolutely needed rewording. Clarified the situation based on the QNFPA account of the fire, which should clear up the contradiction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2019 [5].

Lou Spence

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following on (if belatedly) from Dick Cresswell, I present another RAAF pilot closely associated with the Korean War. Like Cresswell, Spence was a World War II veteran who commanded Australia's sole air combat unit in Korea, No. 77 Squadron, and won plaudits doing so -- but whereas Cresswell lived to become No. 77's longest-serving CO in Korea, Spence's light shone but briefly, as he was killed on a dive-bombing mission four months into the war. Whether the cause was ground fire or misjudgement has been debated. Personally I think exhaustion played a part, as the load he carried in Korea seems a good deal more than the average squadron commander. I find it telling that a month after his death the RAAF split off the maintenance, base support, and air transport portions of No. 77 Squadron and put the lot of them under a superior wing organisation, effectively relieving some of the pressure on the fighter unit's CO -- but that's all OR, so take with a grain of salt. Thanks to everyone who took part in the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Disclaimer: I reviewed this article at GAN.
  • All sources assumed to be reliable, either from official sources or reputable publishers.
  • There's an interesting mention of him in this book, although I don't know if that is really offering any new information.
    • Tks for that Buidhe. I know this book but the last couple of times I looked at it in the library for info on other Korean War subjects, I found nothing of interest, so didn't consult it re. Spence. Naturally I find now it does contain something worthwhile, namely the author describing Spence as "increasingly exhausted", which supports my own impression of his state when he died, per my nom statement above. I may see if I can work this in to augment the bit I already have in the article re. his "increasingly heavy taskload".
  • Also this article might expand on the "Legacy" section.
    • Tks for that too. Your link lead me to Vernon Spence's obit, mentioning her later marriage to RAAF Air Vice Marshal Frank Headlam, and her being honoured with the Order of Australia Medal. Despite having developed the Headlam article, I didn't make the connection between Spence's wife and the RAAF widow that Headlam married. That connection may be more appropriate for Headlam's article than Spence's, but I'll see about noting in this one that Vernon received the OAM.
  • Other than that I'm not seeing any sources that would add to the article.
  • No source checks done because nominator has a history of successful FAC nominations. buidhe 08:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nikki! Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I have just a few queries/suggestions:

  • in the lead, we have earning, commanded and receiving. commanding?
    • I think the way I've expressed it might still work best -- happy to defer to Dank if he can stop by...
  • perhaps mention in the lead that he shot down two aircraft in WWII?
    • Done.
  • "whose role had been to defend" but wasn't anymore?
    • Yeah, it's a bit clumsy -- by now there was very little in the way of aerial attack to defend against but I think the role remained so probably fair enough to change "had been" to "was".
  • inclement? But Western Australian emergency of March 1944 says difficult? Difficult seems worse than just rainy. Up to you.
    • No you're right -- tweaked.
  • was he in a staff or instructor role at No. 8 Operational Training Unit?
    • Different sources say different things so I stuck to what they agree on... ;-)
  • regime→regimen?
    • I'm used to the former, and Wictionary mentions "fitness regime" FWIW...
  • the sentence beginning "Prior to the mission..." is overly long. Split?
    • Done.

That's all I've got. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for looking it over, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • Did he have an option of remaining in the RAAF after WWII or was he compulsorily discharged?
    • As a wartime recruit the likelihood is that he would've been lucky to stay even if he'd wanted to, plus source days "demobilised", which in my experience means compulsorily discharged.
  • And why re-join (with a reduction in rank) less than year later?
    • His permanent rank may have been lower but his temporary rank was the same. I don't think my main sources mention his reasons for rejoining; I could see if newspaper archives offer more if you want to pursue.
  • This is really (really) picky, but is "interbellum" the right term? It bring to mind, at least for me, the 1920s and 30s—a period of relative calm between two periods of total war. Post-WWII is a different era and the Korean War didn't have naything like the effect on Austrlaia that WWII did so I don't think most people would think of the period as an interbellum. And I don't know about Australia, but in Britain we only recently had the first year since 1945 that no soldiers were killed in action.
  • one of Australia's military observers to the United Nations commission "observers to" doesn't quite make sense to me.
  • Whether he was hit by ground fire or had misjudged his attack is uncertain Uncertain how? Indeterminable from the state of the wreckage or some other reason?
    • The source says The aircraft was seen to hit the ground and explode—probably hit by ground fire, but no one knows for sure., with the footnote Some accounts say he probably misjudged his pull out, but those who flew with him doubt this as he was an expert in such attacks and had taught many of them. I felt my wording distilled this sufficiently but I could reword, e.g. Accounts differ on whether he was hit by ground fire or had misjudged his attack, which I think is also fully supported by this source (the only one I'm aware of that comes out and says the cause is debated, the others generally just say either ground fire or misjudgment).
  • a tremendous impact... He was very popular I believe ellipses should be spaced on both sides when used in the middle of a quote (MOS:ELLIPSIS).
    • Okay.
  • "appeared destined for the highest levels of the RAAF" You need a ref straigh after the quote. I'd IAR if it was part of a string of quotes from the same person but you've got quotes from several different people here.
  • Spence was recommended for the Distinguished Service Order posthumously?
    • Okay.

Nothing to sweat about; I had to actively look for something to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of you to say so, Harry -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Schrocat

[edit]

Support. Another nicely put together piece. I've not found anything of concern, and consider this meets the FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Gav, and for your edit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • Link Queensland
    • To reduce blue I prefer to link states/provinces if they appear on their own but not if they follow a town name that's linked (the assumption being that if people follow the town link they'll find a state link in that article) -- WDYT?
      • <clears throat>Umm, I have been accused of overlinking in the past, but your point is reasonable, so no problem.
  • What's the difference between acting and temporary ranks?
    • Heh, I sometimes think temp v. acting ranks were created especially to do in the heads of the uninitiated... Military rank#Types of rank covers it fairly well AFAIK. "Acting" ranks appear to be more temporary than "temporary" ranks, more for short-term expediency (similar to acting positions, such as when the XO is in acting command of the unit if the CO is away) whereas temporary ranks can last for years and not necessarily be related to one role/position. Anyway I should probably use that link...
      • Hmm, those distinctions between acting and temporary are Commonwealth only, I think. I don't think that the US had brevet ranks past the Spanish-American War. And I'm pretty sure that the US has used war substantive ranks from WWI onwards. AFAIK, acting ranks in the US have all the responsibilities and authority of their acting rank without the pay. "Frocked" is one term for it that I've seen in the USN. All that aside, a link will suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the war but often faced missing comma?
    • I think we can cope without but don't mind adding it.
  • I looked Spence up in Christopher Shores' A History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940–1945, volume 2, which is pretty much the gold standard for the aerial war in the Med. He also claimed a probable Bf 109 on 15 March '42, p. 61. ISBN 978-1-909166-12-7
    • Tks, will add.
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2019 [6].

Allison Guyot

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a seamount again. This article is about Allison Guyot, a seamount in the central Pacific Ocean and part of a group of sunken mountains known as the Mid-Pacific Mountains. Its history in some aspects resembles that of my previous FACes Limalok and Wōdejebato; it originally formed as a volcanic island that eventually was eroded down and became an atoll or atoll-like structure. Notably, fossils of vertebrates including crocodiles have been found, indicating that during its 12-million year atoll phase. About 99 million years ago it drowned for reasons unknown and lies underwater ever since. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
Could state they're mainly teeth then? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Added one mention. The sources seem to be confident that they can infer that they are crocodilian teeth; given all the extinct animals you have written about you are probably better qualified than I to say whether that's a reasonable assumption or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be possible to classify teeth below the level of just "crocodilian", but as the abstract you used doesn't seem to do so, not much you can do. But since it is only an abstract, it is possible there will come a paper that goes more in depth. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably something we might wait for, but on a quick search I didn't find anything more specific. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy of a mention, you can do it any way you like. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added it to the footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Making a note for myself to act on these comments, as I missed them this morning during my watchlist pass. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see at least three "ization" endings as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are dealth with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

To add to Funkmonk's quibbles, a few of my own Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz

[edit]
  • It seems very likely that the Allison guyot was named after Edwin Chester Allison (1925-1971) a geologist at San Diego State College. A bio is here: http://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/memorials/v03/Allison-EC.pdf He was involved in naming the Darwin Guyot. A species of molluscs has also been named after him. I hope this helps in your search for a source.
  • What is the depth below the ocean surface of the Allison Guyot?

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. @Aa77zz:Tried that source, but no luck: There is nothing readily findable that connects this Allison with this seamount. I guess it might be contained in some gazzetteer but the only ones I know don't discuss the toponym or are offline owing to the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019.
It's probably less than 1500m considering the map in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joerg_Mutterlose2/publication/230892248_Calcareous_Nannofossil_Biostratigraphy_of_Site_865_Allison_Guyot_Central_Pacific_Ocean_A_Tropical_Paleogene_Reference_Section/links/57a84a4608ae455e85478c44/Calcareous-Nannofossil-Biostratigraphy-of-Site-865-Allison-Guyot-Central-Pacific-Ocean-A-Tropical-Paleogene-Reference-Section.pdf but there is no explicit value. The oft-quoted number "1530m" refers to the drill core, not the minimum depth. So, would "less than 1500m deep" work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lingzhi

[edit]
  • twelve instances of "Missing pagenums for book chapter". They all seem to be Proceedings. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi2: Yes, but that's because I am using more than one page from them; the page numbers are given in the actual ref. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. What I meant was, in each article's entrance in the Sources section you might wanna list the page range for that entire article. For ex ample: Baker, Castillo, Condliffe (May 1995) seems to go from 245 to 261. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lingzhi2: Ah, OK. Added some pagenumbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)
    Good, tks. Sorry I was unclear, ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK so I'm out of my depth (no pun intended) but do "anoxic" and "implying reduction" mean the same thing? The former somehow sounds stronger than the latter. Ours: "pyrite indicates that anoxic environments existed on Allison Guyot". Sager & Tarduno: "Pyrite is present, implying reduction, but pervasive bioturbation throughout most of this section indicates that the waters contained sufficient oxygen for shallow infaunal activity" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am checking sources' correspondence to sources, looking at refs cited multiple times. So for each source I mention below, I checked 4 or 5 or more facts:
    • Sager & Tarduno OK aside from query above.
    • Swinburne & Masse OK.
    • Baker, Castillo & Condliffe p. 250 OK.
    • "the deposition of carbonate platforms and a[75] limestone[7] platform grew on the guyot[75]" Does the first note [75] here go with "carbonate platforms" or "limestone platform"? Does the second [75] cover both kinds of platform, or the word "grew", or what?
    • Winterer, E.L.; Sager, W.W. 1995 p. 532 OK
  • @Sarastro1: Pending answers to the minor questions above, I am feeling pretty sanguine about "source reliability etc".  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Aye, "anoxic" and "implying reduction" in the specific context of environmental conditions means the same thing; oxygen is the biggest source of oxidative power in natural environments so its presence or absence does indicate whether they are oxidizing or reducing. See this for example
    I've moved the ref you asked about a little to make it clearer; "limestone platform" is a "carbonate platform" in this context as well.
    @Lingzhi2:Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support tho I was deeply disappointed to learn that Allison Guyot is not the lead singer for an all-female punk band. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
@Nikkimaria: Added a bit about Eniwetok/Bikini; regarding the hotspot caption, I dunno, can we have unreferenced captions at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Captions are subject to the same rules around referencing as the rest of the article, but so are diagrams - if you feel that caption requires sourcing, I would suggest then the diagram would as well. Unless the caption is incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The caption is correct, but it'd have no source in this (Allison Guyot) article. That makes me wonder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure I understand the issue. The caption explains to the reader what is seen in the diagram. The diagram is currently in this article. If the caption, if added here, would be considered unverified (unsourced and requiring sourcing), then surely the diagram is also unverified? That's what I mean by, if one needs sourcing then the other would as well - whether the caption is changed or not, if we accept the logic that we would need to source the caption then we should source the diagram nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The reason the image was included was in order to illustrate the hotspot concept without having to rely on text. I've added a source to the filepage since the file didn't have a source explaining where the concept comes from; now the question would be whether the caption would need a separate source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With a source on the image description page I don't think we'd need an additional source in the caption, although the source you've provided seems to be saying it's just a theory? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:It's pretty much accepted as an explanation for hotspots, although for some hotspots other explanations have been advanced - the reason the source is qualified is because it comes from 1971 when the mantle plume theory had just been formulated. As far as Allison is concerned, the sense I get is that it is the most commonly given theory and that other explanations don't appear to have been proposed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I've added that caption. Any outstanding issue left? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go through; revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • The sequence of events in the lead seems a bit too compressed. According to the account in the body, the island rapidly subsided after its first emergence, to the point where the platform was completely below sea-level, and then either the platform was raised above the sea again, probably killing the reef so that further subsidence drowned the guyot completely, or else equatorial heat or upwelling stopped the carbonate growth. In the lead there's no mention of the subsidence necessary to drop the platform to the point where an atoll-like structure is possible. Also, this sentence: The platform emerged above sea level at some time in the Albian and Turonian ages before drowning about 99 ± 2 million years ago for reasons unknown; it is possible that the emergence damaged the reefs seems to use "emerged" to refer to the original emergence, but "emergence" later in the sentence to refer to the possible additional raising of the platform that may have killed the reefs. Surely those are two separate events that should not be conflated like this?
Aye, rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In trying to find dates for the drill cores I found this page; I think you have everything from it from other sources, but wanted to pass it along in case. Do you know the date of the drilling? From the sources it's clearly no later than 1993, but I couldn't get the exact date. It's a minor point so no need to go hunting for it.
Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of a bathymetric map? The map in this is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I had a look in USGS sources and couldn't find anything.
    No dice; there be plenty of maps but none is freely licensed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You list cores 865, 865A, and 865B, but as far as I can tell from the source (Bralower & Mutterlose 1995), the site is 865 and the cores are 865A, 865B, and 865C.
​Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Oh ow. Now actually fixed that part. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most points struck above; a couple are left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think Lingzhi2 has covered the formatting of sources, but have we had a review for source reliability etc? Sarastro (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to sign off on source reliability. The article is almost entirely sourced to suitable scientific articles; there are a couple of web pages, which are appropriate sources for the material they cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for me. Did spot checks, above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
IB & lead
  • That's possibly the most pointless IB I think I've ever seen, given it has one field which is a repeat of something an inch above it. Is there anything that could be done to make it more useful – moving the map into it would be a start.
    The infobox is literally only there because there is no other way to make the coordinates appear otherwise in the top right corner. I've filled the infobox back up but I hope that someone can fix the {{Location map}} template so that it doesn't blow up when I add a |display=intitle to it. "Infobox formatting" is just behind "citation formatting" when it comes to my "things about Wikipedia that drive me batty" list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you mean - it can be so overly complicated that newbies are scared to go near them as they break too easily. Just for future reference, adding |display=title into standalone a co-ord template {{Coord|18.26|N|179.33|E||display=title}} (like this) will put them at co-ordinates the top of the page. RexxS would be the one to work out how to drop the map in without problems - he's more 'code'-minded than me (not that that's difficult!) - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - the documentation for that infobox leaves a little to be desired. I've moved the location map into the infobox for you and tidied the references out of the coordinates in the title. Hope that's okay, if not, please feel free to revert. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we change the solidus into words (per WP:SLASH)? "...is a guyot (or tablemount) ..." or similar would work;
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we include conversions here (or are there different rules for scientific or geological works)?
    See Mike Christie's comment below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Name
Local setting

That's it, and I'm leaning heavily toward supporting. I don't have a scientific background, so I may be pointing at things that are done differently for these type of articles (for which my apologies) – my review is based on prose and the MoS only, ad per my cop-out statement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I asked Jo-Jo to take out the conversions; as you guessed, they're not needed for scientific articles, and they can clutter up the text. I think it's best to get rid of them where the MoS allows us to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent - thanks for the info. I'm not a huge fan of them (although they can be useful sometimes), so it's a bonus finding out they're not needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I think I got your outstanding concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Happy that this meets the criteria on the grounds of prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

I expect to support, but have a few quibbles. These are from the lead for tonight, will get to the rest over the weekend.

Then say "at that point" for clarity. "commenced" reads odd to my ears. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added a "later". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you could avoid "Guyot is a guyot" that would be great. Either way, we don't agree on a number of points, so crashing out neutral. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil and Sarastro1:Did address some of the other concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, now supporting, good work. Ceoil (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose from Ian

[edit]

I started going over the article with a view to promotion but decided I'd rather recuse from coord duties and review, mainly for prose/style as I know very little about geology...

Lead
Name and research history
Geography and geology
  • The Mid-Pacific Mountains contain seamounts formed when the Barremian and Albian (between ca. 129.4 – ca. 125 and between ca. 113 – 100.5 million years ago, respectively) ages were covered by limestones.) -- um, we do mean Barremian was ca. 129.4 – ca. 125 million years ago, and Albian was ca. 113 – 100.5 million years ago, don't we? I would spell out "million years ago" for the first-mentioned as well as the latter because I didn't parse that correctly the first time.
    I think I got this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also how can an age be covered with limestones?
    Fixed that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Geological history

I think that's about it but please check my copyedit in case I've misunderstood anything, which is quite possible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Ian Rose: Your copyedit seems fine, I've answered the other queries as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, appreciate all that, good to find something on who the real name honours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 February 2019 [7].

Pitta

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:BIRD nomination (not WP:BREAD - does that exist?) this one of a lovely and hard to see bird family found mostly in Asia and Africa (and a bit of Oz). Has an astonishing 6 featured images! Have at it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes; re: those featured images, may I gently draw your attention to MOS:SANDWICH...?  ;) Good luck with this though. ——SerialNumber54129 21:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two places where that might crop up, I've moved them further apart. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Aa77zz

[edit]

Taxonomy and systematics

  • Who first established the family Pittidae? The Taxobox credits Swainson 1831 but this is an error by Bock.
  • So it should be Vieillot?

-Aa77zz (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the etymology of the word "pitta", the article cites Whistler and Jobling's key. Whistler gives "small bird" but Jobling gives "pretty", "bauble" or "pet". Jobling gives the same on page 308 of his book. _ Aa77zz (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main meaning in Telugu is undoubtedly bird. I do not know what Telugu dictionary or authority Jobling consulted - maybe there is a secondary meaning (somewhat like "birdie") but in this context, it is almost certainly not the correct one. I left the Jobling reference as it is correct in identifying the source language. The first use of the Telugu name was in John Ray's synopsis (p.195) where it is transcribed as "Ponnunky pitta" (which would be పొనంగిపిట్) - a citation for that could be Alfred Newton's dictionary - https://archive.org/details/adictionarybird00shufgoog/page/n159 - John Ray has a crude illustration of the bird on File:Madras_Birds.jpg - Figure 10 (bird 12 in Ray's list). The original watercolour (in the British Library) made by an Indian artist is a mirror image. Shyamal (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Jobling reference then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider indicating in the lead how many species are recognised in the family (currently 42 or around 40)
  • Done.
  • In the list of species Siao pitta should be Siau pitta (the name of the island)
  • Fixed
  • The list of species should cite a source (the IOC web site):

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having another look. Although most looks good, I'm still not happy with the taxonomy:

lead

  • "and while initially been placed in a single genus" extra "been"?
  • Fixed

Taxonomy and systematics

  • "In 1816 it Louis Vieillot made" - extra "it"
Fixed
  • "In 1816 it Louis Vieillot made it the type species of the new genus Pitta." This is incorrect. Vieillot did not specify a type. The type was subsequently designated by Gray in 1855 (see the Pitta (genus) article and refs therein).
  • Reworded
  • "Vieillot was also the first to consider the pittas as a family in their own right.[8]" HBW indeed has: "As long ago as 1816, L. J. P. Vieillot had been the first person to use the generic name Pitta for the whole family..." Looking at Vieillot's book he used Pitta for the genus but he also clearly defines families - the genus number 137 Pitta is in Famille 20 - Chanteurs - Canori p.41. (According to Bock p.263, Vieillot's family names are not accepted by the ICZN as they are "not based on the name of a type genus.") Claiming that Vieillot considered Pitta a family is misleading.
  • Removed.
  • "Modern treatments of taxa within the family vary as well. A 1975 " Is 1975 modern - 44 yrs ago?
  • " adopted by the IUCN" - correct - but actually the IUCN now just follow HBW alive.
  • Clarified
  • "A 2006 study of the nuclear DNA of the pittas, using study skins from museums," but not just skins - footpads were used for only 18 out of the 42 species sampled.

I'll read on further tomorrow. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - changes look good - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

A fabulous group of birds, I'm disappointed that I've only seen Indian and Rainbow. I'm pleased you mentioned Goode's excellent book. A few minor quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He placed the Indian pitta in the crow family and genus Corvus. Ten years later it was placed in the thrush family, due to similarities of morphology and behaviour, before being placed in its own genus, — three "placed"s
  • Changed when I rewrote the begining
  • The checklists of Sclater and Elliot at the end of the 19th century contained 48 and 47 species each. —"respectively", I think
  • Fixed
  • One species not recognised by the Handbook—I think Handbook should either be italicised or lower case
  • Fixed.
  • stout bodied—hyphen
  • Done
  • In general however the sexes '—I'd lose the "however", but if you keep it it should be between commas

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I'll review soon, but first, I'd think all higher level taxon articles should have cladograms. A good deal of higher taxon articles go into the relationships within a group, and the group's relationship with other groups, so though some people might not like them due to taking up much space, cladograms are essential for making such understandable. If you know of a recent stable cladogram, you can request the code at: WP:TREEREQ FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They don't really have to take up much space (you can determine the text size), and you can format them in various ways. They can also be aligned the way you want, in for example Archelon, it is left aligned and framed, and creates space for more images on the right. Coupled with the fact that they're the best way to show interrelationships, I'll say that I love them, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per below, cladograms have been requested and now provided courtesy of Loopy30. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The cladograms look great, and certainly help the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking very good and non-intrusive, I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a good deal of duplinks, this script can highlight them:[8]
  • "The first pitta to be described scientifically was the Indian pitta" Give the scientific name then.
  • I had it, removed it per Josh's comment below,
Hmm, I see he first recommended adding more. In this case, the very first sentence, it seems like you are leaving out information that is pretty crucial for understanding the sentence. You are talking about the type species of the family, so it is more important than any other binomial elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I went with not including them across the board to make it cleaner to read. I personally think it's possible to acknowledge the importance of binomials without overusing them in an article for generalist readers. In this instance I'm not convinced its important, but I need to go so will come back to address this after thinking. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping J Milburn to see if he agrees this warrants an exception. It is pretty important to be clear and unambiguous about the taxonomic origins of the group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken; how about something like: "...was the Indian pitta, which was given the binomial [whatever]". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can add it, but which binomial and where? The point in the text that goes "...was the Indian pitta" - it wasn't given the binomial it has now or even given a binomial at all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, if Linnaeus named it, it would be the sentence "placing it with the Corvidae in the genus Corvus". I would say something like "placing it in the family Corvidae, as Corvus brachyurus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placing it with the Corvidae as genus Corvus" In genus might be more fitting. Now it could read as if it was thought to be the genus Corvus to people who don't know it what the genus contains. Or better yet, give the full, recombined binomial.
  • Wording changed
  • "Ten years later it was moved to the thrush family Turdidae" under what name?
  • "This type was later assigned to a new genus Pitta" It became the type species, it wasn't before, so should be rewritten accordingly.
  • Done
  • "Vieillot was also the first to consider the pittas a family in their own right" What other species did he include at that time? You can also give a number, which you now only do much later.
  • Neither of the books I'm using say.
  • "The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the other suboscine birds (suborder Tyranni), and particularly the Old World suboscines" A bit vague, since when, proposed by who?
  • "The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the" Seems a "been" is missing.
  • Fixed
  • "and his team from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro" Why do we need all this detail? Other recent studies you mention don't even mention lead author in text, here you present the whole team...
  • I was trying to just liven up a succession of studies. Removed
  • "and spread through into Asia" Did you mean to say either through or into?
  • Fixed
  • It is quite inconsistent whether you state the title of a publication in-text or not.
  • I am. I throw it in where I think it's important or, well, just because. Or I leave it out cause digging it up would take a ton of research.
  • "and Brachyurus for the shorter-tailed species" What is this today? The rest of the article doesn't mention the genus, and it has no article.
  • It's one of a long line of abandoned genera, mentioned to make the text more than "Bob has seven genera, but Sally only three". Is it important to elaborate?
Not necessarily (though I would specify that genus is now abandoned), just wonder what we can redirect it to. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indicated it is abandoned, struggling to work out where it should redirect to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The family was not well studied using modern anatomical or phylogenetic techniques" This comes after summaries of what seems to be very extensive genetic studies in the "modern age", so it is unclear what you mean here. I guess you could be clearer than just "Modern treatments vary as well." And say something like "Modern treatments of taxa within the family vary as well."
  • I think it's a leftover from when there were much fewer studies. I liked your suggested wording and have adopted it
  • Reading the taxonomy section makes a cladogram even more of a requirement, because you don't name any of the species you discuss in the paragraph about interrelationships. For example sentences like this seem like a tease: "they are all generally small species with small tails, extensive amounts of crimson or red on the underparts, and greenish or blueish backs."
  • "with one listing just 24 species" Give date, which you do with the other examples.
  • Done
  • One thing that should be a must in higher taxon articles, what defines a pitta to the exclusion of other birds? Is it the combination of features listed in the description? r are there overlooked osteological features? If sop, they should be briefly discussed.
  • There are some assemblages of combinations mentioned in the Erritzoe. I'm in two minds about including them. Isn't it rather old fashioned in an area where genetics is the final word on whether something is or isn't a particular taxon? I'd be interested in other opinions as well as your own. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genetic studies are usually guided by morphological work that has come before (even though it might sometimes overturn it). In the case of pittas, it doesn't seem like the traditional classification of the group among other birds has changed overall, so they must have had a pretty solid morphological definition. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the description of morphological characteristics of the family, I'm deeply unimpressed. Almost every statement is highly qualified; Most spp. with bright contrasted colouration, Some spp., etc etc, and my personal favourite sexes alike or unalike! So there really isn't anything that says "this is a pitta and nothing else". Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the northern subspecies of the hooded pitta (cucullata)" Seems inconsistent to name a subspecies when you insist on not naming species.
  • Subspecies don't have common names though. I can just remove it if you think that's better.
Some subspecies do (including many of those that were once considered full species), but of course might not in this case, and I'd just leave it out for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • In the footnote, everyone gets full names, except Swainson for some reason. Also, Bonaparte gets the full presentation (French naturalist) the others don't.
  • Changed.
  • " size from 3000 m² in the African pitta to 10,000 m² " Since you convert other measurements, theawe should be too.
  • Done.
  • "although fights between rivals have only been recorded once" Is this the incident mentioned just before as "attacking other species and even their own, although such behaviour has not been observed in the wild"? Otherwise seems contradictory.
  • No, they seem to be more aggressive in captivity.
  • "although a few species created a "doormat"" Why past tense?
  • typo, fixed
  • "The eggs of pittas are ovoid" Most readers probably don't know what this means.
  • "name jewel-thrushes" Why italics? And shouldn't it be listed as a common name in the intro?
  • It's more a colloquial name than a common alternate name, so I've de-italisised and clarified.
  • "subject of the book The Jewel Hunter" Give date?
  • Done
  • "On hatching the parents of at least two species" Why not give the names?
  • Weirdly the sources only list one so I named it, not sure where the two came from.
  • The two species found in Africa" Likewise, when only two species are mentioned, it isn't excessive to name them. Leaving them out just makes such sentences less informative.
  • Done
  • "which is responsible for a number of extinctions across the Pacific" Specify if this is extinctions of species other than pittas.
  • Clarified
  • "similar in general structure" Seems a weird way of describing a bird, how about "appearance"?
  • I'd quibble that its fine for what I meant but appearance works too, changed
  • "and have often been placed in a single genus" Often or just initially? The taxonomy section doesn't really explain this either.
  • Initially worked better
  • "although, as of 2009, they are now" Is "now" needed?
  • fixed
  • "a large spherical nest" You don't describe it as such in the article body, best to be consistent.
  • Done
  • Species names should be linked in image captions.

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Annoyingly it's the only nesting photo I've seen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • "Within the Eurylaimides another 2006 study placed the pittas as a sister clade to two clades of broadbills and asities." This doesn't really work - the study wasn't/isn't "within the Eurylaimides".
  • clarified.
  • "oon afterwards, Philip Sclater's Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum brought the number back down to three." Reference?
  • Broke into a paragraph without fixing refs, refed now
  • Could I recommend including specific names at first mention of a species in-text? I note a few in the last paragraph of taxonomy section. Or if you're not doing this, could I recommend not doing it consistently?
  • Not doing it as a rule, removed an instance of doing it
  • "although authorities like the IOC have recognised only 10.[15]" Authorities like the IOC, or simply the IOC?
Good catch, made more explicit till I check other authorities
  • "This varies in the fairy pitta across its range, it can be found up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) in Taiwan but stays at lower altitudes in Japan." It's unclear what the this refers to, and this looks like a comma splice!
  • Clarified

I read up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", editing as I went - please double-check. The species list strikes me as a little bare. I've seen it done before with common name, specific name, authority, range, and picture - that might be worth considering? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, hopefully addressed. I'm not keen on expanding the list as described - although it might work if split out. We certainly don't have enough images of all the species, especially the new species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which holds its legs straight and bows to a rival on the edge of territory," Is there a missing word, here?
  • It took me a strangely long time to work out what it was, but you're right. Fixed.
  • "a study which found that they have the largest olfactory bulb of 25 passerines examined" Presumably, this was a study looking at a particular species of pitta, rather than pittas generally?
  • Clarified
  • "some, such as the rainbow pitta, use the root of a tree to do so" Does your reference state that some including the rainbow pitta do this, or simply that the rainbow pitta does this?
  • Clarified
  • "although a few species created a "doormat" of sticks (sometimes decorated with mammal dung)[32] by the entrance" If that ref is for the whole sentence, could you move it to the end? If it's just for the mammal dung bit, perhaps it should be inside the brackets?
  • Done
  • "There are 42 species of pitta in three genera according to the International Ornithological Congress' (IOC) Birds of the World: Recommended English Names.Gill, Frank; Donsker, David, eds. (2019). "NZ wrens, broadbills, pittas". World Bird List Version 8.2. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 12 January 2019." ?
  • Is the Handbook of the Birds of the World literally a book? You're a little inconsistent in how you cite it. I'd suggest citing it as an edited collection.

I did some more copyediting. I've really enjoyed reading this article. I commend you for the work you've put into it! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looks good and on target for FA star....a few quibbles...

  • It would be good to have some explanation about why the 2015-16 studies came up with a different tree to the 2006 study (and why they are seen as more correct) - and were the studies morphological, molecular...etc.
  • Let me elaborate on that - why the studies came to a different conclusion, I can't say. I don't say that they are more correct, merely that they disagree with the earlier study and corroborate each other. I have indicated that they are both DNA studies now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atypically for forest-floor species,... - a little bit jargony...I might say, "Unlike most forest floor species,.." 0r "Unusually for forest-floor species,..."
  • Done
  • Earthworms form the major part of the diet of pittas, followed by snails in order of importance. - last 4 words redundant here

Coord note

[edit]

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but formatting seems OK to me. Without spotchecking, are Emu, World Bird List Version 8.2. and Forktail reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 February 2019 [9].

Fall of Kampala

[edit]
Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the fall of Kampala, the capital of Uganda, to Tanzanian and Ugandan rebel forces in April 1979. This marked the first time an African state had captured the capital of another African state, and meant the overthrow of Idi Amin's murderous regime. If this article passes FA (particularly before the 40th anniversary of the event) then it would herald a great improvement of our coverage of the Uganda-Tanzania War and Africa topics overall. This article has passed a MilHist A-class review (including a source review). Most of it was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda: The Legacy of Idi Amin, with additional information from contemporaneous newspaper reports. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Excellent, interesting article. Happy to see some African history. I only have few minor nitpicks/questions:

  • The article pretty much takes the "invaders" perspective, with little information on what the Ugandan side did. I guess this is owed to sparse sources?
    • Quite so. The bulk of this article was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda. Other sources about the war often cite them and recognize their book as one of the few in depth works on the conflict. Avirgan and Honey traveled in one of the 19th Battalion's tanks as the unit entered Kampala. They give a mostly Tanzanian/Ugandan rebel perspective, though they try to compensate with seized Ugandan government documents. The only real Ugandan-perspective sources about the war are the interviews published in the Daily Monitor and The Citizen and Major Bernard Rwehururu's memoir. Unfortunately, I've found no extensive interviews with any of the soldiers who were in Kampala, and Rwehururu claimed to have been in Sembabule at the time.
  • Lieutenant Colonel Salim Hassan Boma led a detachment on a security sweep, and on the edge of the city they discovered Luzira Prison. – what is a "security sweep"? Anything to link it to? And why was the prison "discovered" rather than "located"? Was its position held secret by the Ugandans?
    • Essentially a mopping up operation. Perhaps I should excise "security"? As for "discovering" the prison, Avirgan and Honey word it such that Boma and his men did not intend on finding the prison, but stumbled across it. They did not have maps of the city and had to rely on a confused guide, so its quite possible the Tanzanians did not know about the prison, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was secret. They just hadn't intended on locating it.
  • This strategy failed (two civilians were accidentally killed in the pandemonium), and eventually the Tanzanians were authorised to seize a radio and a watch each from abandoned homes. – I don't quite understand what the second part of the sentence has to do with the first part. Why were they authorised?
    • Sentence break at the comma added. Avirgan and Honey don't really explain why, but it seems Msuya felt that it was ok to let his soldiers do some minor looting in the context of the local population basically destroying their own city.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • I think it would be good if the origin of sources for the documentation of the battle (i.e. mostly Tanzanian) could be incorporated into the article somehow.

Otherwise, nothing really to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • Confused about the Amin image - this appears to have been published before the Flickr upload, why would the uploading organization have the right to release as CC? Unless they were only released rights to the scan, in which case we'd need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: The scanned booklet from where the photo came was a published record of a British Commonwealth meeting, but it was printed in Uganda, and I don't think that is compatible with Ugandan copyright law. I've changed it to a photo taken by an official Israeli government photographer which meets the condition of the Israeli PD license, but I'm not sure if a US PD license is also required (the other license says nothing about further compatibility with US PD being necessary). -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this at A-class and found it engaging, well-written, and well-researched. I considered that it met the FA criteria then and was pleased to see it nominated here. African history is an under-represented represtend subject at FA level. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you deciding which statistics to use in the infobox, given the variance?
    • Changed Ugandan killed to "Dozens of Ugandan soldiers killed", as this is more ambiguous and there appears to be more consensus for this, even if the exact number may have been in the low hundreds. The other casualty estimations aren't so disputed.
  • FN15 should include agency
    • Done.
  • Fn46 returns server error. Same with FN76
    • Archived version added to 46, direct link to Time.com instead of proxied database added to 76.
  • Don't use proxied database links, as in FN73
    • Link removed.

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Please revert any copyedits you don't agree with.

  • the Tanzanians revised their offensive designs for Kampala: "revised" makes it sounds as though they had prior offensive designs for Kampala; if they did, they haven't been mentioned. Would "made offensive plans for Kampala" be correct, or were they really revising an existing plan?
    • They had already drawn up plans, and this is mentioned in the article body. Clarified lead to say the Tanzanians revised their existing offensive designs for Kampala.
  • Tanzanian artillery bombarded certain sectors of the city: this seems vague. Were they actually targeting specific sectors, but the source doesn't say which sectors? Or would it be enough to just say "bombarded the city"? The same phrase is in both the lead and the body.
    • Changed to parts of the city. Avirgan and Honey only say that "shelling was going on". I think it would be inaccurate to imply that the entire city was being subject to artillery fire, since large portions of it had been occupied by the TPDF and UNLF at that point.
  • The infobox says "several dozen" Ugandan soldiers were killed, but we also have "killed 80 Ugandan soldiers" in just one action by the 201st Brigade. If the latter is not definitely a reliable number (as appears to be the case from the discussion of casualties in the "Aftermath" section) then I think we should say so.
    • I suspect that most if not all casualty estimates for the battle do not include these statistics. Even Avirgan and Honey treat the roadblock clashes as something more or less "away" from the battle, as they took place to the north, outside of the city. Thus, I have not included them in the infobox, but I included the info in the body text because it's certainly germane to to the topic at hand. This of course leads to difficulty in determining whether it can be said that the 201st participated in the actual battle. Pollack for his part considered the Tanzanian attack a "three-pronged assault" and seems to generalize that the brigade was indeed a combatant in the battle. The mention of "3 Tanzanian brigades" under the strength= parameter of the infobox is further complicated by the fact that the Daily Monitor mentions that elements of the 205th were in the northern section of the city on 11 April, which Avirgan and Honey make no mention of. The last time they mention the unit is when it was deployed in Sembabule in March (the town probably fell around April 5 or April 6), which means the Daily Monitor's claim is possible. I could go either way on cutting the infobox strength down to 2 brigades.
      I don't have enough background in MilHist articles to be comfortable recommending one or the other, so I'm striking this, but perhaps this is something Ian might comment on if he closes this FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Msuya was eager to complete his battalion's objectives before nightfall in two hours: suggest "Msuya was eager to complete his battalion's objectives in the two hours remaining before nightfall".
    • Done.
  • with various sectors responsible to certain battalions and commanders, most of which had already dispersed: slightly confused phrasing. Perhaps "with various sectors assigned to certain battalions and commanders; most of these forces had already dispersed." The problem with "most of which" is that it's not clear whether it refers to the battalions or the commanders.
    • Both most of the troops and most of the commanders had fled.
      OK, but I still think it doesn't read smoothly. How about "...a detailed plan for Kampala's defence which specified the battalions and commanders responsible for each sector; most had already dispersed." I'm guessing you have "battalions and commanders" at the end of the sentence in order to connect more naturally to the "which" in the next clause, but this inverts the sentence order (and you have sectors responsible to commanders rather than vice versa), and it doesn't fix the problem anyway because the reader wonders whether "which" refers to the battalions or the commanders or both. Putting "each sector" at the end of the clause, as I'm suggesting, makes the first part read more naturally, and then the semi-colon is necessary because we have to avoid the reader from seeing "each sector had dispersed". The semi-colon puts enough of a break in for the reader to go back to the main subject of the previous clause. That's my theory, anyway. I'm not going to oppose if you don't use my wording, but I think you do have to at least fix "sectors responsible to...commanders", which is upside-down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boma ordered over 1,700 inmates held to be set free: If this means there were 1,700 inmates, all of whom were set free, I'd suggest "...they discovered Luzira Prison, where over 1,700 prisoners were held; Boma ordered them all to be set free."
    • Done.
  • Is there a link (a red link would be fine) for the Daily Monitor? I see we have an article here, but that article is about a newspaper founded in 1992.
  • He estimated that the total statistic could be as high as 500: "statistic" is an odd word to use here; I think "count" would be more natural.
    • Done
  • Baldwin Mzirai stated that 300 corpses were found: suggest saying who Mzirai is -- a journalist? A combatant? A historian?
    • The back of his book reveals that he was a journalist for two Tanzanian state-party newspapers. Clarified his profession.
  • Is "undernourishment" a bowdlerized way of saying Sabuni was starved to death?
    • Umm, yes I would suspect. However, the source is not clear as to whether this was deliberate or an unintended consequence of poor treatment.
  • The sentences from "Caught unprepared..." to "...struggled for power." seem to be a paragraph on the political aftermath that has been inserted into the middle of more specific details; I'd pull this out and make it its own paragraph, possibly joining it with the last two sentences of the section, starting with "Nyerere's decision...".
  • The first paragraph of "Legacy" doesn't flow very well. Could we cut the quote from Kiwanuka? It's vanilla, and the preceding sentence makes the unprecedented nature of the battle clear. Obasanjo's comment also seems unremarkable.
    • Kiwanuka's comment quote expanded moved to its own quote= section. Obasanjo's comment was included to emphasize the controversial nature of the event. Revised to say Olusegun Obasanjo shared similar concerns.

Overall this looks in very good shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 February 2019 [10].

Jomo Kenyatta

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent figures in twentieth-century African history: Jomo Kenyatta, the first President of Kenya. A prominent anti-colonial activist who spent time in both Britain and the Soviet Union, he later underwent several years in prison, accused (likely falsely) of masterminding the Mau Mau Uprising against British colonial rule. On being released, he was elected Prime Minister and soon transformed Kenya into a republic with himself as President. A conservative who pursued a Western-aligned path during the Cold War, he is often known as the "Father of Kenya". Since getting the Nelson Mandela article to FA status a few years ago, I have worked on improving articles about other African post-colonialists. This article was brought to GA status in November 2017 and I believe it now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_entrance_to_the_Nairobi_Railway_Station_in_1899.jpg is not own work - looks like the uploader's had a number of other images on Commons deleted due to copyvio
  • File:Julius_Nyerere_cropped.jpg: when/where was this first published?

Sources review

[edit]

A couple of minor MoS points:

  • ISBN formats should be standardised
  • Publisher is missing from the Murray-Brown book

Generally: I don't have access to most of the sources (the Elkins book, which I do have, is alas only "further reading"), but as far as I can see the range, quality and reliability of the sources useed is beyond question. I note that among the biographical works the most recent was published in 1972; is there no more recent study of Kenyatta's life that could be used?

As part of due diligence I will spot-check some of the JSTOR articles. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the 1972 biography of Kenyatta by Jeremy Murray-Brown is the most recent monograph to explicitly present itself as a one-volume biography. However the two volumes written by W. O. Maloba and published in 2017 and 2018 are, essentially, a biography of Kenyatta, even if they are not explicitly described as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now formatted the ISBNs in the Bibliography section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I've also added the publisher location for the Murray-Brown book! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checking reveals no further problems: all sources issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you add hyphens to some ISBNs you should add them to all, or remove the hyphens. Maybe this is not required, just something that stuck out to me. Kees08 (Talk) 02:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's review

[edit]

Ooof, this is big. But no one else has taken it on yet, so I'll have a go. May take a while.

  • Childhood: c.1890–1914 - in the first paragraph, it might be worth noting that he was given the name Kamau at birth - since it isn't obvious.
  • they were shamba folk, shamba is not linked or defined but it is in italics- some help here for non-experts?
  • Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys, with Wambui deciding to take her youngest son to live with her parental family further north. a slight non sequitur - if Ngengi was harsh against all three boys, why only take one, and in fact leave two that were not his own with him?
  • Several months after arriving, Kenyatta was taken ill with tuberculosis.[16] this doesn't really link to anything, is it needed?
  • The order of the paragraph starting Kenyatta's academic progress was unremarkable, is a little disjointed - it jumps around temporally.
  • There is a general problem of "so what?" about some of this early life stuff. It would be nice to provide more context as to why it matters or possibly how it ties in with his later philosophy, if its possible. Example In 1913, he underwent the Kikuyu circumcision ritual; the missionaries generally disapproved of this custom, but it was an important aspect of Kikuyu tradition, allowing Kenyatta to be recognised as an adult. It would be nice to be more explicit about how it was his choice, as clearly he placed some importance on his maintenance to his customs over western ones.
  • The English is a touch choppy too, and perhaps a touch archaic or old fashioned? - example Asked to take a Christian name, he chose both John and Peter after the eponymous Apostles in the New Testament. The missionaries however insisted that he select only one, and so he chose Johnstone, the -stone being selected because it was a Biblical reference to Peter.[23] Accordingly, he was baptised as Johnstone Kamau in August 1914 might be better as Asked to take a Christian name for his upcoming baptism, he first chose both John and Peter after Jesus' apostles. Forced by the missionaries to choose just one, he chose Johnstone, the -stone chosen as a reference to Peter.[23] Accordingly, he was baptised as Johnstone Kamau in August 1914.

Okay I'll continue to review later. On the whole I'm impressed by the level of work that's gone into this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many is doing a lot of seemingly contradictory work in these two closely related sentences. At the time, the British Empire was engaged in World War I, and the British Army had recruited many Kikuyu and and like many Kikuyu he moved to live among the Maasai,
  • a Church Mission School. should this be in caps if not referring to a specific one?
  • the suspension was in response to his drinking I assume that this was just drinking while the member of a dry Christian sect, rather than some form of alcoholism, but it would be good to clarify
  • Kenyatta lived in Kilimani, maybe clarify that this is a )posh) neighbourhood in Nairobi.
  • Various political upheavals occurred in Kikuyuland Kikuyuland as a region/territory is neither explained or linked here.
  • In the summer of 1929, he left London and visited Moscow via Berlin, alleging that the trip had been financed by an African-American friend. He returned to London in October. Re: my theme of significance above, is there anything significant about this visit? If not, why include it?
  • Traveling so widely in this period was fairly uncommon; even more so for an African. For that reason, I think it has some pertinence. It is something mentioned by he biography and my concern would be that, were it omitted, another editor would come and re-insert it, perhaps without the appropriate citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • issue and Thuku's exile, with the atmosphere between the two being friendly.[70] Following the meeting, Grigg convinced Special Branch to monitor Kenyatta. I think an in spite of this might link the two sentences together )in front of following. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, Sabine's Sunbird. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. There are a few points that I have yet to address as I wish to consult the sources, but I will get to them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He was soon joined at the mission dormitory by his brother Kongo;[19] the longer they stayed, the more that many of the pupils came to resent the patronising way many of the British missionaries treated them in the context of the sentence, the they seems to imply that the brothers were responsible for all students coming to resent the missionaries.
  • During his time in the country, Kenyatta also visited Siberia, probably as part of an official guided tour. This sentence seems out of place in the start of the paragraph it is in which is mostly around Afro-Soviet relations, and can probably be moved to the previous paragraph for better flow.
  • the structure of the two paragraphs on Facing Mount Kenya is a little off. The critical reception/impact of the book is split up into two places, towards the end of the first and then second paragraphs. It also seems a touch weird to lead with the photo on the cover when discussing it, possibly the least important thing about it.
  • they were assisted by Kwame Nkrumah, a West African who arrived in Britain earlier that year. why not Ghanaian? Better yet "Gold Coast (Ghanian) activist"
  • To be honest, I'm not sure. As far as I can recall, the RS didn't go into any depth on the issue. Kenyatta was clearly someone willing to change his mind on various things, particularly if it suited his political advantage, and this should probably be seen in that light. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also more generally, why is there no article on these boards to link to? (No action required, just a question)
  • A lot of Wikipedia's coverage of Africa-themed topics is very patchy. Obviously, this is probably due heavily to the comparatively low levels of internet usage in much of that continent, but hopefully will be corrected over the coming decades. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Presidency of the Kenya African Union: introduces two extra wives (along with the one added in UK) again it would be interesting to track the development of his social thinking in this area, given that he felt compelled to have a proper Christian wedding for his first, assuming any sources can be found
  • founded as the only political outlet for indigenous Africans in the colony what does this mean and why was there only one? It seems odd that no other parties would have been founded before this.
  • I'm not 100% sure but I think that earlier groups might have been shut down by the government. I've changed the wording to "at that time it was the only active political outlet for indigenous Africans in the colony.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • party business was conducted in Swahili, a language spoken by many groups. the last bit is a touch odd, maybe Swahili, the lingua franca of indigenous Kenyans.?
  • Kenyatta publicly distanced himself from the Mau Mau. and in private? It's not clear from the following sentences what he felt in private, some suggest his private views matched his public, others are more ambiguous. Whatever Kenyatta's views on these developments, suggests he it may not be known - if so this should be made explicit.
  • In the section on the trial, it would be nice to put some contextual information around the two locations as they are both noted as being far from anywhere in Kenya - example Lokitaung, in the far North West of Kenya or Kapenguria, a remote area near the border with Uganda that the authorities
  • They assembled an international and multiracial team of defence lawyers, maybe "The defendants" instead of "They"?
  • he faced government harassment and death threats. I'm guessing he didn't receive death threats from the government so maybe rephrase slightly
  • and the others were freed in July 1953, although immediately re-arrested. "Only" might work better than although"
  • It is likely that political, rather than legal considerations, informed their decision to reject the case. on the one hand this seems massively understated, on the other I can't shake the feeling that the opinion needs an attribution. It's a shame no one has dug through British records to confirm what seems manifestly obvious
  • Ghana's President Nkrumah—who had met Kenyatta during the 1940s— earlier in this article it was stated they did more than meet. Moreover, as we are reintroducing him it may pay to elaborate on that somewhat - Kwame Nkrumah - Kenyatta's fellow activist from the 1940s and now president of a newly independent Ghana or something to that effect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Just starting this,

  • I might try to be a bit less verbose in the opening paragraph. Since he was the first prime minister, he is self-evidently the first head of government, indiginous or not.
  • Infobox: Wouldn't the president's predecessor be the Queen?
  • "exiled in" Is he exiled if it is in Kenya?
  • "he was given the honorary title of Mzee and lauded as the Father of the Nation, securing support from both the black majority and white minority with his message of reconciliation." this has a bit of a feeling of hagiography.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look at your responses, and say something if I have more to say. Otherwise assume I'm satisfied.
  • " Wambui bore her new husband a son, whom they also named Muigai.[10]" A fine point, they had not named anyone Muigai, so the also is a bit dicey. If you feel it is fine as is, don't feel obliged to make a change.
  • I don't really mind either way, but having "also" perhaps just helps to make it clearer that this isn't the same Muigai mentioned shortly before (not that anyone should confuse them, but you never know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys," I might say "the" for "these", there are no other boys mentioned.
  • "Having completed his apprenticeship to a carpenter," I would say "the carpenter" as you have mentioned a specific person before, the mission's carpenter.
  • "World War I" maybe "the First World War", if this article is written in British English?
  • "who had refused to fight for the British war effort.[30]" Do you fight for the war effort or fight for the British?
  • "After the British Army conquered German East Africa, Kenyatta relocated to Nairobi " what is the relevance of the conquest of GEA? And when was this? Our articles seem to focus on the military campaign and do not make it clear when there was effective control.
  • "Kenyatta wanted a wife, although his first attempt failed when it was revealed that his proposed bride was related to his clan.[35]" can it be made clearer why this was not allowed? "in violation of custom" or similar is probably enough.
  • The reliable source does not actually make this clear; it simple says that "Kenyatta's first bid for a wife failed as she turned out to be related to his own clan." On further thought, however, I'm not sure that this sentence is really necessary at all, so it might as well be removed altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she initially moved into Kenyatta's family homestead,[35] although joined Kenyatta in Dagoretti when Ngengi drove her out.[35] " I think you need a "she" before "joined".
  • "Christian civil marriage" isn't this a bit of a contradiction?
  • "shillings" advise pipe to East African shilling lest there be confusion with the historic British currency.
  • "regulate land exchange". I'm not sure exactly what this means.
  • "which treated Kikuyu land as a collective entity" maybe "which treated Kikuyu land as collectively-owned"
  • "translating things into Kikuyu" Maybe cut "things".
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grigg's administration could not stop Kenyatta's journey but instructed London's Colonial Office not to meet with him.[63] " I don't think a colonial governor had the power to tell the Colonial Office (effectively, the Colonial Secretary, one of HM's ministers) what to do.
  • "Drummond Shiels, the undersecretary-of-state" of the Colonial Office?
  • "unaware as to the nature " I might say "unaware of the nature"
  • "As Secretary of the KCA, Kenyatta soon met with church representatives." I might cut "soon" it isn't clear what it refers to.
  • "and John Arthur—the head of the Church of Scotland in Kenya—later complained about what he described as Kenyatta's dishonesty during the debate, expelling him from the church.[85] " Maybe after the second dash "later expelled Kenyatta from the church, citing what he deemed dishonesty during the debate" or some such. I think the expulsion should come first, in other words.
  • Just out of my curiosity, did Kenyatta have contact with Jinnah while in London in the late 20s and early 30s? No action required.
  • "Geneva, Switzerland" just Geneva is enough. The reader knows.
  • I'm not sure on this one. Those of us living in Western countries would surely be familiar with where Geneva is, but would the same be true of someone who might be reading this from Kenya or Tanzania, or somewhere else like that? I'm not too fused either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to which both Padmore and Kenyatta were affiliated." I would expect the first word to be "with" but it may be an engvar thing.
  • Are Robeson's political leanings worth mentioning?
  • I'm certainly not averse to doing so, but at the same time I'm not sure how to best go about it given that I'm not sure if Robeson and Kenyatta actually discussed political issues (although it wouldn't surprise me if they did). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pursuing a gradual campaign for independence or whether they should seek the military overthrow of the European imperialists.[168] " I know in India the question was independence by constitutional means, or by violence. If it's the same in East Africa, I might put "gradual campaign for independence" as by constitutional means.
  • Going back to the RS, it refers to "gradualist" and peaceful approaches, but not to constitutional ones. Of course, there is going to be a great deal of overlap between these things, but there could perhaps be gradualist and/or peaceful methods which were not exactly constitutional, like non-violent direct action protest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kenyatta received a call " from who and how? I am sure the telephone is not meant. And to do what?
  • " Edna was pregnant with a second child, although she expected to never see her husband again;[173] Kenyatta was aware that if they joined him in Kenya their lives would be made very difficult by the colony's racial laws.[174]" The relevance of the parts of the sentence to each other is not terribly clear.
  • Was the Koinange school simply for locals or were there white pupils as well?
  • I'm afraid that I don't know, and I've just re-checked the RS, and that doesn't specify who the pupils were either. Given the situation in the country at that time, I suspect that it would have only been for black students (and of those, only those who could afford to pay) but I do not know for sure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Nehru's response was supportive, sending a message to Kenya's Indian minority reminding them that they were the guests of the indigenous African population.[191]" Did Nehru say that or was that the implication?
  • The wording used follows the wording of the RS comparatively closely; it refers to Nehru "reminding Indians in Kenya that they were there only as guests of the Africans". On that count, I'm not sure if he stated this explicitly or merely strongly implied it, but I would have thought the former (given that choice of wording). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Kenyatta was their principal enemy, an agitator with links to the Soviet Union and who had the impertinence to marry a white woman.[192] " I would cut "and"
  • "Eventually, they charged both him and five senior KAU members with masterminding the Mau Mau, a proscribed group.[212]" I would cut "both"
  • "British lawyer and Member of Parliament Denis Nowell Pritt.[212]" I might call him a barrister rather than a lawyer, if only to prevent a repetition of a word you just used. Is it worth mentioning that it was a multiracial defence team?
  • Happy to change "lawyer" to "barrister" there. I've also added "and multiracial" after "international". 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In your account of the trial, you mention that the principal witness perjured himself; you give the same information in the imprisonment section. Do we need it twice? And it might be wise in the trial section to mention the strongest point made by the prosecution. There must have been something in their case if it satisfied popular opinion enough, in Kenya and Britain, to keep Kenyatta locked up.
  • I think since you've only mentioned Nkrumah from his London days, mentioning him as President of Ghana in my view could use either a second link, or a reminder that the two knew each other.
  • "Kenyatta had kept abreast of these developments, although refused to back either KANU or KADU,[261] instead insisting on unity between the two parties.[262]" I might toss a "he had" before "refused"
  • "illegal oathing" While there's a reference earlier to oaths being sworn in Kenyatta's name, you haven't developed this point in a way it's going to be meaningful for the reader to see this.
  • I've expanded this to say "the illegal oathing system used by the Mau Mau", which hopefully gives a bit more necessary context. Ideally we'd have a separate article on Kikuyu oathing systems more broadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it would prevent a strong central government implementing radical reform.[284] " Using the term reform is a bit POV. Everyone says what they want changed is a reform.
  • "and a likeness of his face was also printed on the new currency.[298] " I might cut "a likeness of"
  • "advanced powers of arrest" I would say "broad" powers of arrest
  • "To prevent further military unrest, he brought in a review of the salaries of the army, police, and prison staff.[316]" I would be more direct. He caused them to be increased, right?
  • "Hugh Cholmondeley, 3rd Baron Delamere" I would suggest some mention of who he was.
  • "The government sold or leased lands in the former White Highlands to these companies, who in turn subdivided them among individual shareholders.[371]" are companies referred to as "who"?
Resuming with "Foreign policy".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly following the assassination of Pio Pinto in February 1965.[306] " I might add, "which some based on Kenyatta."
  • "The killing sparked riots in Nairobi,[425] and ethnic tensions were stoked across the country.[434] " the second half of the sentence strikes me as vague.
  • " Kenyatta had introduced oathing, a Kikiyu cultural tradition in which individuals came to Gatundu to swear their loyalty to him.[436] " that's the sort of explanation that's helpful when oathing is first mentioned.
  • I've gone back to the first mention of oathing and changed it to the following: "and they included his name in the oaths they gave to the organisation; such oathing was a Kikuyu custom by which individuals pledged allegiance to another." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not clear to what extent Kenyatta was personally involved in the efforts to suppress the opposition. The passive voice is used, in my view, excessively.
  • In a lot of ways, I don't think it is clear what role Kenyatta personally played here. By the latter stage of his life, Kenyatta's affairs were increasingly overseen by a clique around him. When it comes to questions of who committed certain acts, I think there is still much research to be done by historians. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to include a hatnote, or some brief text in the Pan Africanism section explaining what it is.
  • "Grace Wahu died in April 2007.[524] His daughter, Wambui Margaret, became his closest confidante.[525]" The return of the storyline to Kenyatta needs to be better signaled here.
  • The legacy section, even with some detractors at the end, strikes me as on the hagiographic side.
  • I've been reliant on what the reliable sources say, and yes, there is perhaps an argument that they lean on the adulatory side of things. (I've had the same issue with Julius Nyerere). I'm not really sure how to move away from this unless new reliable sources appear that provide a more nuanced take on Kenyatta's life. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prose still seems a bit rough in places, but that's not enough to hold up a very comprehensive article. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by SarahSV

[edit]

Hi Midnightblueowl, I have a concern about the paragraph on FGM. A minor correction first: Stumpf was a missionary, not a nun.

The paragraph gives the impression that Kenyatta opposed FGM (which was known as irua): "He expressed the view that although personally opposing FGM, he regarded its legal abolition as counter-productive, and argued that the churches should focus on eradicating the practice through educating people about its harmful effects on women's health." This is sourced to Murray-Brown 1974, pp. 143–144, and Berman & Lonsdale 1998, p. 25. The latter doesn't indicate that he opposed it, and I can't see the former.

Kenyatta did tell a British House of Commons committee in 1930 that he was doing "his best to turn people away from the custom" (Janice Boddy, Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 245). But according to Boddy, he later backed the position of the Kikuyu Central Association that irua was "essential to Kikuyu identity" (Boddy 2007, p. 246). In Facing Mount Kenya (1938), Kenyatta seems to express strong support for FGM. You can see the relevant chapter here. First, he calls it clitoridectomy, although it's clear that he's describing Type II FGM and perhaps even Type III. Boddy calls his use of the term clitoridectomy an "apparent obfuscation" (Boddy 2007, p. 359, note 54).

He wrote, for example:

The missionaries who attack the irua of girls are more to be pitied than condemned, for most of their information is derived from Gikuyu converts who have been taught by these same Christians to regard the custom of female circumcision as something savage and barbaric, worthy only of heathens who live in perpetual sin under the influence of the Devil. Because of this prejudiced attitude, the missionaries are at a disadvantage in knowing the true state of affairs. Even the few scientifically minded ones are themselves so obsessed with prejudice against the custom that their objectivity is blurred in trying to unravel the mystery of the irua.

SarahSV (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, SarahSV. I'll take a look at what the Murray-Brown book says and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It seems that Kenyatta was known for his defence of it. For example, see Silverman 2004, p. 428: "Today, few anthropologists would dare merely to describe clitoridectomy (e.g., Mayer 1952) or to defend it boldly as Kenyatta (1959, pp. 153-54) famously did. But, as Kenyatta's oft invoked apology for the practice demonstrates, all statements about the topic are embedded in complex colonial and postcolonial histories ..." (Kenyatta 1959 refers to Facing Mount Kenya.) SarahSV (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah. I've corrected the reference to Stumpf; you are quite right, she was a missionary. Regarding the issue of Kenyatta's views on FGM, I feel that the present article text does fairly reflect what the RS (in this case the Murray-Brown biography) says. On page 144, it makes clear that at that specific meeting in 1930 or 1931, he did express opposition to FGM. The source quotes a February 1931 letter from Arthur to MacLachlan relating that at that meeting, Kenyatta said "that for himself he was opposed to the practice but that the thing could only be done away with by education." The biography also relates (on that same page) that Kenyatta had previously said much the same to the Overseas Committee of the Church of Scotland. Certainly, it appears that around this time, Kenyatta was telling church leaders that he was personally opposed to FGM, even if he thought an outright ban would be counter-productive. Clearly, this differs from the very pro-FGM he took later. The article also notes this; in the fourth paragraph of the sub-section "University College London and the London School of Economics: 1933–1939", the text has the following: "The book also reflected his changing views on female genital mutilation; where once he opposed it, he now unequivocally supported the practice, downplaying the medical dangers that it posed to women." I hope that this helps to clear this issue up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl, sorry to take so long to respond. Thanks for clearing that up and for fixing Stumpf. SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, SlimVirgin; thanks for taking the time to read through the article. Would you consider lending it support as an FA? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Midnightblueowl, I focused only on the FGM aspect. I'm not able to read and review the whole article right now, but I wish you all the best with it. SarahSV (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

[edit]
This version reviewed; no other reviews read.

A few niggles that jusmped out on a skim. Great article, talk about comprehensive. Congratulations!

  • "have lived in in Nginda"—2x in?
  • Should "among them washing the dishes" have acomma after "them"?
  • "...and paying taxation without..."; would've thought "taxes" would be easier?
  • For what it's worth, "communists" redirests to "communism".
  • "...attended a much publicised mass meeting..."—hyphenate?
  • "let Mau Mau perish for ever"; I know it's a quote, but shouldn't that be "forever", as that's the sense (presumably) in which he meant it?
  • "...formulated along a cell structure". H'mmm.
  • "and John M. Lonsdale however argued..."—commas around however? It may be a matter of taste.
  • ""a showman to his finger tips"—fingertips?
  • "s can for instance be seen", I think some commas required
  • " in 1965 he for instance received medals", ditto.
  • Jay O'Brien for instance argued ", ditto.
It may well be, of course, that these are stylisms rather than errors. Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 15:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for you thoughts, Serial Number 54129. Did you have any further comments on the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my skim read brought everything up (mostly commas I realise now!) that I could find, Midnightblueowl; it's an excellent and informative read—and a worthy counter to WP:BIAS! ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, Serial Number 54129. Would you consider giving the article your support as an FA? (No worries if you'd rather not!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you already have! My mistake. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]
  • Muigai—travelled through the forest – I found "through the forest" somewhat irritating, maybe "through a forest" since it is not specified or mentioned before, or just remove?
  • an exception was among white Kenyans, whose assumptions about the Kikuyu it challenged. – seems a bit vague, are these positive or negative assumptions?
  • I suppose it would be possible to state "negative assumptions" here, but perhaps a more apt term would be "primitivist assumptions". Then again, "primitivism" has artistic connotations which are not appropriate here. Accordingly, I've gone with the following wording: "an exception was among white Kenyans, whose assumptions about the Kikuyu being primitive savages in need of European civilisation it challenged." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have two times the spelling "Masai" and four times "Maasai". What is the difference?
  • A Luo anti-colonial activist, Jaramogi Oginga Odinga, was the first to publicly call for Kenyatta's release – maybe add a date here?
  • Kenyatta shut down the Lumumba Institute – Maybe interesting to add what this institute was doing?
  • His name looks like as it is derived from the name Kenya, but later you state its derived from a belt. Maybe move that last bit of information up to the point where his name is first discussed (there, you only mention that he chose it as it sounded African).
  • I believe that the similarity between "Kenyatta" and "Kenya" was a bit of a happy accident (for Kenyatta himself, that is). I've gone back to the source that mentions the beaded belt (Murray-Brown 1974, p. 75.) and unfortunately it doesn't make it crystal clear that Kenyatta took his name from the belt. It implies it, and it seems to be obvious (at least to me), but it doesn't state it outright. Accordingly, I'm not really comfortable with making a statement in the prose that I can't directly support with an RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kikiyu – is this a typo?

Coordinator comment: We are getting close to wrapping this up. Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need at source review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Looking at sourcing, per coordinator comment:

  • I'm not sure why Jones 1940 is cited in such a different manner (inline in the reference) than other book-format sources. Also, an OCLC would be nice here.
  • The "Wahu Kenyatta mourned" reference has a number of problems. First, it's a "hand rolled" citation instead of formatted with a cite family template, so it doesn't match the styling of the other references. Also, it appears to be the only article title given in sentence case instead of title case. Additionally, it's an incomplete citation; the article was bylined by "Samuel Otieno and Maina Muiruri".
  • The Business Daily reference is also incomplete (it has an author: Kiarie Njoroge).
  • ISBNs should ideally all be presented as properly-formatted ISBN-13s. Many of the ISBN converters online will help you tidy these up.
  • You have quite a few book and journal entries in the Further Reading section. That's not necessarily a problem, but I'd like some insight into the philosophy of why they're not useful as actual references but are worth being listed.
  • There are different reasons for the different sources. In the case of Donald Savage's article, for instance, it is basically the academic publication of a primary documentary source. Of use to historians examining the period, and thus worthy of being listed, but perhaps not so useful for the purposes of Wikipedia sourcing. In the cases of the books by Delf, Macharia, and Watkins, the issue was one of access. These are rare, out-of-print books; they are not so old, however, that they have fallen out of copyright and thus become readily available on the internet. I was able to access some books by either buying them cheaply second-hand or by visiting libraries, but in other cases I just wasn't able to secure access. Hopefully someone else may be able to gain access to them in future. The Elkins book is about late colonial Kenya in general; it could be cited in the article, and should be of interest to anyone who wants to delve into the subject more deeply, but isn't really essential sourcing for an article about Kenyatta specifically. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a different question about The Black Man's Land Trilogy (and, for that matter, the Kenyatta Profile short film in the EL section). If there have been films featuring the life of Jomo Kenyatta (especially notable films), is there a reason that's not covered at all in the article body? I would think that a "Cultural depictions of Jomo Kenyatta" section might be appropriate. In any case, if the film remains in §Further Reading, it needs to have a properly formatted citation to match the other sources cited.
  • I wasn't really sure what to do with this. In the end I think that the best thing to do, at least for now, is just to get rid of it altogether. If reliable sources become apparent that discuss it, then we can use them to describe the film in the article body. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the external links, I have no problem with the British Pathé newsreel (although I might prefer you provide a little more context/bibliographic information to its listing. On the other hand, I'm pretty dubious whether the two other external links meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not sure exactly what the "Mzee Jomo Kenyatta" link is, but it begins with: "Disclaimer: Please note that this information is taken from a variety of sources, and I cannot personally vouch for its accuracy.", which doesn't really make me think it's a useful resource for readers. Likewise, I don't really see why the Kenya Travel Ideas website is an authoritative source of additional information...
  • Sources cited appear reasonably comprehensive. There are fewer Kenyan authors cited than I'd consider strictly ideal, but to some extent that may be simply unavoidable. I'm unqualified to determine if that has any negative effect on neutrality or depth of coverage. One potential additional source that I identified is:
Muigai, Githu (2004). "Jomo Kenyatta and the Rise of the Ethno-nationalist State in Kenya". In Berman, Bruce; Eyoh, Dickson; Kymlicka, Will (eds.). Ethnicity and Democracy in Africa. James Currey. pp. 200–217. ISBN 978-1-78204--792-6. [note that there's also a University of Ohio Press edition of this; I can't vouch for page numbers between editions!]
I think that the lack of Kenyan authors (or African authors more broadly) is a fairly endemic problem in providing coverage of African history here at Wikipedia. We're dealing largely with developing countries that have not had the opportunity to build large scholarly communities with the resources to produce substantial research outputs (South Africa is a little bit of an exception). Hopefully, that will change over the coming decades (and I actually hope that better coverage of African history on Wikipedia will provide some small assistance in that) but we're definitely not there yet. I don't think I can access the Muigai book that you cite at present, but I'll add it to the Further Reading and if I can gain access in future then I'll incorporate its findings into the article. Thank you for finding it! Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random spot checks against sources I had available doesn't reveal anything particularly worrying in terms of source misuse or copyright violation, so I think this can also be considered an Official Source Review™.

Lean support here. The reference-formatting issues are pretty trivial fixes, although a couple of my other concerns might be marginally more substantive. Sorry to raise obnoxious issues at the 11th hour, honest! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I appreciate you taking the time to look at the article and assess it, thank you. I've responded to your various points. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [11].

Sissinghurst Castle Garden

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tryptofish, KJP1

Sissinghurst Castle Garden was created by Vita Sackville-West and her husband Harold Nicolson. Begun in the 1930s, by the time of their deaths it had become one of the world's most famous gardens. Its landscaping approach, a series of "garden rooms" within a formal structure, was innovative and remains influential. Its plant collection, particularly of roses, is renowned. A joint nomination from Tryptofish and myself, we are grateful for the detailed peer review, and for Hchc2009's excellent plan of the garden. Any and all suggestions for improvement are most welcome. KJP1 (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I was one of the peer reviewers and made my few comments at that stage. The only points I can see now that I missed then are very minor indeed:

  • the OED makes two words, not one, of York stone (footnote j). I see our WP stub article has it as one word but a swift dip into Google Books suggests support for the OED's view. I don't mind either way, and I just mention it for the nominators' consideration.
Done - now two words.
  • In the lead we have "30 years" but in Cottage and Herb Gardens we have "one hundred herbs" and in footnote p we have "forty years". Probably best to standardise on words or figures throughout.
Done - now words throughout.
  • In the references you sometimes refer to "the Telegraph" and sometimes to "the Daily Telegraph".
Done - Four DTs now Ts.
  • In the sources I'm not sure of the thinking behind linking titles to WorldCat entries. As ISBNs or OCLCs are all provided, that should be enough of a bibliographical link. To my mind, a title with a blue link implies that clicking on it will take you to an online text. Just ending up at WorldCat or the Google Books bibliographic page is a bit of a let down, and faintly irritating. Doubly so for books with OCLCs rather than ISBNs, where the link in the title and the link in the OCLC take you to exactly the same web-page. But others may disagree with me, and I may be missing a point.

Sissinghurst is a wonderful place, and when I started reading the article the first time I thought, "This had better be good". It is, and meets the FA criteria in my view, and I am very pleased to support its promotion. – Tim riley talk 12:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley - firstly, many thanks indeed for your detailed survey at Peer Review and for your further input here. I shall look in detail at the comments over the weekend but can say now that I think you, and the OED, are right on York stone. On the vexed issue of Worldcat links, I fully appreciate that some editors whose opinions I greatly respect dislike them. Personally, I think they are of some assistance to readers in making the source immediately accessible and verifiable in a single click - although I acknowledge the OCLC does this too. Can we see if others have a view, although if Jim turns up we're going to be sliding towards a minority! Lastly, Tryptofish and I both hoped we'd work up an article that came somewhere near doing the place justice. We're pleased you think we have. KJP1 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexed? I didn't realise. I hadn't run across it before as far as I can remember. I don't press the point even gently. I just mention it and leave it for your consideration. It certainly doesn't affect my support for this singularly delightful article. Tim riley talk 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
St Donat's Castle where both you and Jimfbleak indicated that you found the links disappointing and a bit pointless, as you expected them to give you a book snippet and they didn't. But I appreciate your stance. KJP1 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Tim. I agree with your first three bullet points, but will leave them to KJP1, who is closer to those issues than I. About WorldCat, I had never seen that linked before working on this page. I'm more familiar with Google Books, which some of the time does give some page views. I'm flexible as to whatever we decide. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Happy to support and sign off, with gratitude to Tryptofish and KJP1 for encapsulating the glory of Sissinghurst. Tim riley talk 21:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now all done, including the book links. KJP1 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Hi Nikki, thanks very much for looking in. The model is displayed at the castle. Tryptofish raised a flag about it a while back, Talk:Sissinghurst Castle Garden/Archives/2020/January#Image of Sir Richard's house, and I took it to Yann over at Commons. We're hoping all's in order, as it is helpful to the reader to get a sense of what the house looked like in its Elizabethan heyday. KJP1 (talk) 06:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had wondered, myself, about where at the castle it is displayed. I'm guessing that it is in the Big Room in the West Range, but that's just a guess. If there is sourcing, I think it would be useful to add the specific location at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. It certainly wasn't there when I visited, many moons ago. I doubt it's in the Big Room, I suspect it is in some kind of visitor centre. I will do some digging. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[12] This is quite a nice view of it but tells us nothing more about where it is. This [13] is what I'd really like but it's NT copyright. KJP1 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source that describes the location of the model. It is [14], which also looks like a good source on the Bakers and the early history in general, and on page 46 it describes: "We were informed that the left end of the long Tudor House was a stable in Sir John's day and the right range was the servants' quarters. The stable is now a library and the right range is Nigel Nicolson's private quarters, not open to the public. We viewed the long library and wondered if Nigel was in residence. The staff did not know. We went through the front courtyard and entered the octagonal, twin towers. On one floor we found the writing room of Vita Sackville-West with her writing desk and furnishings. On another floor we found prints on the wall of how the castle looked at various periods of time and a scale model of the grand, Elizabethan manor that had been built by Sir Richard Baker, Sir John's son, who inherited Sissinghurst from his father. We climbed to the top to the upper-level observation area for a panoramic view of the garden, buildings, and surrounding area. I took pictures of the full, 360-degree view." I'm not entirely sure, but I think it sounds like the model is in the Tower. KJP1, what do you think? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The same source says on p. 30 that Queen Mary also visited Sissinghurst, in 1557. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly sounds like it's in the Tower. Which is plausible, when one thinks about it. But I don't personally think we can use the source, as I don't think it would meet RS in the Source review. Although it looks impressively detailed and researched, it is, in essence, a self-published family history blog. I think it unlikely the author is an historian and the "tone" of the book reads a little like a cross between a family history and a travelogue. While we might get away with it for referencing an uncontroversial detail such as the location of the model, I don't think it would pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right about that, and I struck part of what I had said. I do however think it is reliable simply to support that the model is there, and in the Tower (see also here). If you can find a better source, we should certainly use that instead, but if not, adding this only to the image caption seems acceptable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria - sorry to trouble, but could you just confirm we're ok on this image? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although as Tryptofish notes it would be nice to be able to say more on where it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, Tryptofish - Nikkimaria, Many thanks indeed. Tryptofish did actually find a source that indicates it is in the tower but I was concerned that it wouldn't meet RS as it's a web-posted family history, although an unusually detailed and well-researched one. We shall think about that, or perhaps look for something else, but thanks for confirming it's ok for FAC purposes. KJP1 (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks from me, too. The source I found, [15], is described just above. Nikkimaria, if you believe that we should go ahead and use that source, I would be interested to know that, but otherwise I'll defer to KJP1 that it isn't a sufficiently reliable source. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

I've little to add to Tim's comments above except to note that Polyanthus is italicised in the Primula article to which it's linked, but not in your text. You have already anticipated my objection to the pointless and time-wasting links to non-full text book sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim - many thanks indeed for the comments and the Support. I'll leave Tryptofish to deal with the Polyanthus naming issue as he's the horticultural expert. I understand your stance on the linking issue and, as noted above, I appreciate it irritates some. We'll certainly give it further thought. Thanks again and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the feedback. I looked into the polyanthus issue, and decided to leave it unitalicized at the Sissinghurst page, and to instead remove the italics for that word at Primula. The reason is that primula and polyanthus are both members of the genus Primula, so polyanthus is not a Latin genus name, but rather a common name for some garden plants, just as "primrose" and "cowslip" would be. (source) Also, Tony Lord, in the book we cite at the page, puts it in lowercase and non-italics. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]

I was happy with the article when I reviewed it at PR, and a subsequent re-read shows no further issues I can see. The only side issue (which doesn't affect my support), is that I find myself in agreement with Tim and Jim re the Worldcat links: I advise you to get rid of them, but leave it down to you whether you do or not. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - Thanks very much for the Support and for the PR . All greatly appreciated. I would strongly recommend a visit - it is a gorgeous place. As to the book urls - my collaborator isn't wedded to them, and all of our current Supports loathe them, so it would seem ungrateful in the extreme to retain them. Therefore they're gone, except where they link to a snippet or a pdf. This should not be taken as a guarantee as to future practice, nor as an assurance that I'll remove them from previous FAs! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I've given your Support a header, for ease of editing. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

....entirely using Sackville-West's money. - does this mean "only using Sackville-West's money." or "using all of Sackville-West's money."?
.... and the garden was a wasteland - POV writing. It sounds like it was a thriving forest of weedy grasses by Vita's quote. Either leave "wasteland" in quotes or describe more what was there. As a gardener I am interested in the latter.
  • Have expanded a little using Scott-James. See also below. "their "planting inheritance" as "a grove of nut-trees, some apple trees, a quince (and) a tangle of a rare, old gallica rose now identified as 'Rose des Maures'". The physical assets on the site were "four buildings of beautiful mellow brick, part of a moat (and) various fine walls". Does this meet the need? KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...Clearing the site took almost three years - any extra info here would be good. Did they keep anything at all? Any old walls/trees/shrubs - or was it a scorched earth type procedure worthy of modern renovation shows?
  • Not quite, but close! The real assets were the Elizabethan walls remaining from the house. These were built up to provide the structures for many of the individual gardens. The base of the wall supporting the Purple Border, for example, is original, but reconstructed from that base by Powys. I've expanded it a little - see above. KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...The collection of rose varieties at Sissinghurst is considered to be extraordinary as well as to encapsulate Sackville-West's approach to gardening - "extraordinary" doesn't really clarify why it is - Presumably "large and/or diverse" (in which case just say "large and diverse")
  • I had tried to make a topic sentence by sort-of cloning from the last two sentences of the Rose Garden section, which quotes Scott-James: "one of the finest collections in the world", and Brown: "the essence of Vita's gardening personality, just as her writing-room enshrines her poetic ghost". KJP1, since you have those books and I don't, perhaps you can give me some adjacent language to cite, since we obviously should not just repeat the same quotes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about any other plants - any really rare plants her collector friend found from somewhere exotic and introduced to England? Any specimen trees? (no trees are really discussed)
  • And again here. I am confident it covers all of the main sources that report the garden, from Nigel N in the 60's to Raven in 2014. Another point is that one has to be selective - when we were discussing plants while working on the article, I noted that Raven's index alone has fifteen entries for crocuses, and a page and a half for roses! And we're already at 101K bytes for article length. KJP1 (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comes across as a little light on the plant side of things but if there is nothing else really then that is ok. Otherwise it sits well prosewise and is on target for a shiny star....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber - Many thanks indeed for having a look at it. Shall get to your comments this evening. KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if the preference is for more on plants, that's very pleasing to me! I'll look into trees and rare plant varieties. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah...it is a garden after all :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed! I've added an introduction to the Plants section, addressing the issue of rare plant collecting, and a subsection about Trees and hedges. I hope that addresses your comments, and thanks so much for your advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better - the new bits really help. Happy now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm glad. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed for the excellent suggestions and for your support. KJP1 (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments

[edit]

I'm not reading many articles these days, but I couldn't resist this one which, for the most part, is beautifully put together. I have a couple of initial points:

  • The lead ought to provide us with a summary of the whole article, but as written it seems to me to fall rather short of this, and is more like a brief general introduction to the subject. Could you look again at this aspect?
  • The lead states thus: "Over the next thirty years they, along with a series of notable head gardeners, turned a farmstead of "squalor and slovenly disorder"[3] into one of the world's most famous gardens.". This seems somewhat contradicted in the "Building a garden" section, which states that "... by 1939 the garden was largely complete, with the exception of the White Garden." Can you clarify?

I'm reading on, and may have a few further points which I'll raise as I go through. Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton - Brian, absolutely delighted this one has whetted your appetite. Shall look at your comments to date and look forward to more. I very much hope you are keeping well. KJP1 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I made an initial revision of the "thirty years" sentence in the lead, to make the sentence more clearly about more than the initial building of the garden, but I doubt that it's the last word. The way I see it, the gardens have continued to evolve even after the initial few years when much of the work was done, and even after Sackville-West's and Nicolson's death. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish - we also need to consider BB's wider concern re. the lead. Here or the article Talkpage, to do so? Better the Talkpage, and bring it here when we're done? KJP1 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely, so the talkpage it is. (I was only attempting a small change, and I think you have a better perspective than I do about the subject as a whole.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton - Morning Brian, we've undertaken an expansion of the lead in response to your concern that it fell some way short of a comprehensive summary. We think we've now covered all the most salient points re. the garden's history, design and importance. Your comments on this, and on the article as a whole, will be very much appreciated. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 06:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The lead is now more informative and reflective of the main article. I have completed my read-through, and have not found snything else to quibble over. As I said earlier, the article is beautifully put together, with excellent illustrations, and will be a first-class addition to our featured articles stock. Brianboulton (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton - Brian, really appreciate the Support and the kind words. The lead's much improved for your intervention. This one's been a great collaborative effort throughout, from first expansion, through PR to here and we think we're much closer to the article the garden merits. Take very good care and all the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me too! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Mitchell

[edit]

If you're about to rewrite the lead I'll hold off on a thorough read-through, but just few bits for you to consider:

  • This might sound silly, but what is is Sissinghurst Castle Garden? The lad tells us where it is and who created it and we can obviously infer that it's a garden, but that could mean somebody's front lawn or a huge tourist attraction.
  • What is Sissinghurst Castle? Is it the name of the garden, or is the garden attached to the castle, or something else?
  • The garden is not a listed building as state in the lead, it's a registered garden (which is similar, but different; they go on a different list, the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in England). I haven't checked the other list entries in the infobox.
  • Don't put wesbites in the |work= field in citation templates (eg Rhs.org.uk), just leave it blank and put the publisher in |publisher= (eg |publisher=Royal Horticultural Society). Neither the URL nor the publisher should be in italics.
HJ Mitchell - Harry, hoping these are now as per your helpful examples. Could you sample check one or two, just to make sure they're right. Many thanks KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, for news websites the work is the name of the paper (eg The Guardian, not www.guardian.com).
See above. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historic England is not a person so shouldn't be cited as "England, Historic" (FN44)
Hoping I've sorted this but do please check. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use {{NHLE}} for Historic England list entries.
Again, hope I've now done these as per the template but do please have a look at one or two to confirm. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry - good to see you and thanks for taking a look. Sorry for the slight delay in responding - work suddenly got a bit frantic. To take your first three points, not an odd query at all. You'll see from the Talkpage that the article name was the subject of discussion when it was moved back in 2004. The rationale for using the SCG title then, and I think it holds good now, is that it's the title the owners, the NT, use. Unfortunately, I can't link to it just now as the NT website's down for maintenance, but this Google search page shows what I mean, [16]. The underlying reasoning, I think, is that what remains of the actual castle - a title it only received in the 18th century - is pretty fragmentary; the West Range, the Tower, the Priest's House and the South Cottage; and the whole is enveloped by the garden, often literally given Sackville-West's use of the walls as vertical axes for climbing plants. The entire site (buildings and land) was developed as a piece by the Nicolsons, as living accommodation certainly, but principally as a frame for the garden, and it is this entity that has the Grade I listing shown in your link. We've actually called it a Grade I listed structure in the lead, rather than building, which I think is appropriate. I agree the infobox uses the term building but I'm not sure the template allows for that to be changed. I'm no template expert however, and I'd be pleased to be shown I'm wrong. As to the other listings in the infobox, and in the text, these cover the castle fragments mentioned above. I'm confident that they are accurate but a check would be very helpful. As an aside, almost without exception the book sources simply call the site "Sissinghurst" but that option's not available to us.
On your referencing points, I take all of these on board and will attend to them. My co-nominator and I are going to expand the lead to seek to address BB's concern that it doesn't fully cover the article content. We'd be very grateful if you'd return and give the whole thing another viewing when that's done. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just with regard to listing, "listed" and "listed building" (and variants) have a specific legal meaning. A registered garden is not the same thing as a listing, or a scheduled monument (which is something different again). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harry - absolutely fine to call it a "Grade I registered garden" if you think that's more accurate. But I've no idea how to reflect that in the infobox. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's accurate. I changed it for you in the infobox because it took me a few minutes to work out how (there's a list of valid parameters at Template:Designation, which is called by the infobox template). I'll pop back at the weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I've intentionally left all of this to KJP1, who knows more about those aspects than I do. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harry - Many thanks. I shall get on and take a look at those refs. We're working on an expanded lead and it should be ready in a day or so. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell - As you'll see, we've expanded the lead to try to address BB's concern. I've also redone the refs., including the NHLE ones, which I hope meet the need, and turned 'listed' to 'registered' as appropriate. Your thoughts on these, and on the article as a whole, would be very welcome. Glad you liked the bear! KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've laready got a few thorough reviews and there's really not a lot to criticise so I'll just pick up a few things that piqued my interest:

  • A nearest city/major town might be helpful for those of us not familiar with Kent geography
The problem is which? Cranbrook, Kent is the nearest town, but it's not notable. Royal Tunbridge Wells is 13 miles away. Would that help people place it?
  • Why was Vita so adamantly opposed to giving the property to the NT? Was it something to do with the NT, or just heer desire to hold onto it?
The sources I have don't say but my guess is a mix of a desire for immortality and her loathing of losing Knole, which went to the Trust in 47/48. She was reconciled before she died, writing to Nigel (59?) that she would understand if he took the course he subsequently did.
  • Do we know why Nigel was so determined to give it to the NT? And why not (for example) the RHS?
Again, there's nothing in the sources I have. My guess is that the close connections to the NT were an influence. Vita was on its Gardens Committee, and Harold was on its Executive Committee, a very aristocratic affair!
  • You use a lot of explanatory footnotes, some of which are quite lengthy. Just bear in mind that this is supposed to be summary style, we're not writing a book.
Yep - I concede we've perhaps gone a bit overboard on footnotes this time. But there was so much to "cram, cram, cram" in!

Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry - really glad you liked it. I've responded above. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought (this had slipped my mind, but my mrs was listening to No Such Thing as a Fish last night and Sissinghurst was mentioned; it always makes me feel clever when I know what they're talking about!): How would you feel about moving the last section of the history (1967–present) to the bottom and renaming it something like "Sissinghurst today" so we have a conclusion at the end (rather than in the middle) that brings us up to date? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - Harry, always happy to help bolster your self-esteem! I see what you mean, in that it would "finish" the article with the most up-to-date material. But it would also have the effect of splitting the flow, in that we'd have History / Description / More (recent) History. That wouldn't follow the approach I've previously used, and there was a discussion at Chartwell which ended in a clear consensus for History, then Description. Let me see what Tryptofish thinks, but I'm leaning agin. Now, while I've got you, can I plead for your stated support? I get the sense from your comments that you think it meets the FAC, although I appreciate you might like a re-arrangement. I'm hoping to close this up reasonably quickly, as I've two other projects on the go now and, as a simple soul, I struggle with more than one article at a time. Thanks again and all the very best. KJP1 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No Such Thing as a Fish? I suppose I should take umbrage at that. But on a more serious note, I think I agree with KJP1 about splitting the flow. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Well, I think the article as-is lacks some sort of conclusion to tie it all together and bring the reader into the present day. But you guys are happy with it, the content is excellent, and I'm in a minority on a fairly small issue. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap

[edit]

I'd echo the comments above, that there's really very little of any substance to find fault with in this article.

  • "the building may have been originally attached to Sir Richard Baker's 1560s house" might be better rearranged as "the building may originally have been attached to Sir Richard Baker's 1560s house".
Done.
Done.
Chiswick Chap - many thanks indeed for taking the time to have a look. I agree with both the second and third points and have amended the article accordingly. I also take the first point - personally (complete OR), I think Vita was disinclined to acknowledge her debt to Jekyll - and shall discuss with my co-nom who is taking the lead on matters horticultural. Thanks again and all best wishes. KJP1 (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hope I'm not encouraging anything OR-ish. I do think we could say, however, that the garden rooms idea seems to have been current before Sissinghurst. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not! But yes, a line or two on earlier precedents, as there also were for single colour-palette gardens, would be useful - and can be soundly sourced. Reiss, Lindsay and Jekyll, all experimented with them. KJP1 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Garden room is a redirect to Sunroom. I'm starting to think that it merits its own page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some preliminary research into the origin of the "garden room" idea. It quickly becomes apparent that one has to be careful to distinguish the "garden room" as we mean it here, from sunroom-like rooms of a house that open out onto a garden. There's a large literature about Pliny the younger describing garden rooms, but this sounds to me like the architectural form, although that may have influenced the garden form: [17] (bottom of p. 10), and [18] (p. 130). Sources that discuss it in terms of multiple gardens within a larger garden do seem to place it in the time of Jekyll and Sackville-West: [19] (bottom of p. 16), and [20] (p. 177). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no doubt that Jekyll used them, and may well have been their originator. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious place for a piece on earlier 'garden rooms"/single colour-palette approaches is the Influences section. I'll have a go at a short para. and we can see what we think. KJP1 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a stab in a new second para. Per Tryptofish's suggestion, I found quite a nice piece on Pliny, though we may decide we need to caveat that a bit. I rather like the Muthesius quote. Does it convey the sense of the pre-Sissinghurst history of these rooms? KJP1 (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's great! That's all I wanted, too. I'm happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - and thanks very much for the support and the most helpful suggestions. I think Tryptofish may still want to caveat Pliny - looking at the literature it's hard to decide if they're garden rooms in the sense we mean here, or rooms looking on to gardens, or rooms designed to look like gardens, with painted trellises, birds etc. And then you start shading into Original Research again! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed I did. From what I've read, it's clear that they are rooms looking out onto gardens via openings (not simply windows), with trellises and the like variously located within the room or within the garden. Chiswick Chap, thanks very much for leading us to add this information! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I see from the FAC talk page that KJP1 is canvassing for a source review here. Bad luck, KJ!, you get me. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a star! Trypto and I have all the offline stuff if you need anything. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beaten to it - you nearly had a disorderly queue forming! - SchroCat (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All these gentlemen callers - my dance card overflows! KJP1 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And they don't come more disorderly than ... no, no, a verray parfit gentil knyght as any fule kno. Do add to my review, below, SC, if you think it necessary.

I have reviewed, using Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC as my guide. I have done no spot checks, but am familiar with several of the published books. The book sources are wide, relevant and authoritative, with a range of publication dates but a preponderance of recent ones, which is generally a good thing. Media sources cited appear responsible and credible. I have a few very minor drafting points:

  • Sackville-West 1991, Forward ix. – You mean "foreword" I imagine.
  • Sackville-West, Vita. "The Land". Gutenberg Project – Order idiotic though it be the publisher is Project Gutenberg rather than the more sensible version you have constructed.
  • Five titles where hyphens should be replaced by en-dashes:
    • Vita's Other World - A Gardening Biography of V. Sackville-West
    • Sissinghurst - Portrait of a Garden.
    • Vita - The Life of V. Sackville-West.
    • Sissinghurst - An Unfinished History
    • Sissinghurst - Vita Sackville-West and the Creation of a Garden
  • The Long Weekend: Life in the English Country House Between The Wars – I don't think you want the second definite article capitalised.

Those minor points apart, I sign off the source review as satisfactorily completed. Tim riley talk 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim - muchas gracias, mi amigo, and all done, I hope. I swear I shall never understand those en-dashes. What is wrong with a bloody hyphen! All done, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinators query

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: We seem to have dried up on reviewers, having not had any new comments since the end of January. We've six Supports, and if Harry's not formally confirmed his, I think his comments show he's not an Oppose. The Image and Source reviews are done. Is there anything else that needs attention? KJP1 (talk) 14:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I will promote this shortly as we have a clear consensus to promote. However, the duplinks could be checked as we seem to have quite a few and I'm not sure that they were intentional or that they are all needed. This tool will highlight any duplication. But that need not delay promotion. Sarastro (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [21].

Xixiasaurus

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a troodontid dinosaur, a group noted for their comparatively large brains and well-developed senses (to the extent that they were once suggested to have evolved into reptilian humanoids if they hadn't gone extinct). This particular genus is not a very remarkable member of the group, but I chose it because, unlike more famous troodontids, it has many free images, and a pretty simple taxonomic history without much controversy. Having been named relatively recently, and being known from few remains, not much has been published about it, so this should be a very complete account of the subject. If anyone wonders, what appears to be the same skull image is used twice because one version includes interpretative lines that obscure details, and the other (used in the infobox) doesn't. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

[edit]

I think I've said before that you make something of a rod for your own back with so much technical language. I appreciate that's unavoidable to some extent, but one example that struck me is "orbita", unlinked and unexplained. I assume it means "eye-socket", so why not say so instead of using a Latinate term? I also note that maxillary process opens three consecutive sentences. More comments may follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one problem is of course when something is linked an explained far earlier, will the average reader remember what a word they never heard of before means after first explanation? In this case, the word is explained in the description section: "The rim of the orbit (eye socket)" But I think I can maybe stick to more informal language after the description section? Without making the article look too inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced "orbita" in the biology section, and made one of the "maxillary process" sentences begin differently for variation. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten that I hadn't finished here. With most minor quibbles having been picked up by others, I couldn't find anything worth nitpicking about, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]
Added ISSN, but I see no other identifiers to add. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reference formatting all looks nice. Well done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber

[edit]

Wading through now - looks okay, I can see where Jim is coming from with worries about technical language, but I am struggling to see anywhere that any plainer words can be slotted in (e.g. "maxilla" isn't quite "upper jaw") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if there are more things I can somehow simplify, otherwise feel free to make suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I glossed "secondary palate", "nutrient foramina", "postorbital bones", and "lacrimal bones". FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some repetition in places, e.g. in lead we have "Unlike other troodontids"...."Unlike in most troodontids" ...."It was unique among troodontids". However I can't see an easy way around this.
I changed one to "Uniquely among troodontids". FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..100 millimetres (3.9 in) long - should that be 4 in?
Added sigfig=1, which did the job. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the front end of the dentary of the lower jaw was downturned - this is hard to visualise - does one of the images illustrate this?
It is actually shown in the image next to that text (fig b is the front of the lower jaw). It gives it a little "chin", and though that would be an easier way to describe it, the source doesn't say it like that. I also tried to show it in the restoration, though it is pretty small. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troodontids had some of the highest encephalization quotients among non-avian dinosaurs, a measure of the ratio between predicted brain size and body size. - I'd put the meaning in parentheses right next to "encephalization quotients"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little to complain about overall Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok then support on comrehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

Disclosure: I copy edited this for GOCE. Not that it needed much.

And thanks for both, this certainly needs a "layman" review in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of comparisons "with other troodontids". An idea of the number of other troodontid spices there are, even if approximate and qualified, might assist readers in judging the usefulness of the comparisons.
I'm always wary of giving a specific number because it will change practically every year. But I wonder if the cladogram (which essentially works as a list too) doesn't get the job done? I also added "only thirteen taxa were known at the time Xixiasaurus was named", which avoids giving a number that will have to be updated forever. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the specific name refers to the Henan Province" I think that the (second) "the" should go.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could process be linked at first mention?
Didn't know there was an article, done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it now links to the dinogloss[22], which has a more specific entry. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2016, the palaeontologists Alexander Averianov and Hans-Dieter Sues did not recover a clade formed of troodontids with unserrated teeth" The word "recover" makes this opaque to the non-specialist. Is there some other way of phrasing it?
Said "identify" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lü and colleagues discussed the previous arguments about troodontid diet" This doesn't really make sense to me; what "previous arguments"?
Refers to the two studies mentioned earlier in the section. How about "Lü and colleagues discussed the previous studies of troodontid diet"? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very solid piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you made some good points, which should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were minor fiddling really. This is a seriously good article. I like the way you have addressed them, so happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I feared it would read like gibberish for non-experts, so I'm glad you liked it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what source(s) support the representations in File:Xixiasaurus_Size_Comparison_by_PaleoGeek.svg and File:Byronosaurus.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations to both. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by IJReid

[edit]
  • Year of discovery known?
Unfortunately, none of the sources give any additional info about its discovery (and only one paper exists that covers this taxon in depth)... Perhaps there is some obscure press release in Chinese, but I wouldn't know... FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(only thirteen taxa were known at the time Xixiasaurus was named)" maybe specify troodontids since its a bit ambiguous when following "small dinosaurs are more common".
Said "troodontid taxa". FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention whatever the Daliansaurus phylogeny mentions for Xixiasaurus or an unserrated clade, before just showing their analysis without any other information.
Sadly doesn't say anything about it (though they are small, Daliansaurus does have serrations, so the issue is outside their focus). FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three subsequent sentences are begun with U- words in the lede, "Uniquely", "Unlike", and then "It was unique". This causes a weird affect of seemingly repetitive beginnings, so I'd suggest something is changed about it but I can't put my finger on what. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded some of it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, that was fast. Article reads great, others have put forward all comments I'd have thought of. I think it's ready. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! One more clade down... FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images

[edit]

Not really much to say; it seems like all sources are reasonable, well formatted and there are no obvious omissions from a Google Scholar search. Image licenses add up and they all seem to be pertinent; no comment on captions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [23].

Planar transmission line

[edit]
Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a form of transmission line widely used in electronics. It is of high importance in the field of microwave transmissions. It has been through GA and Peer Review and is a comprehensive overview of the technology. Electrical engineering is under-represented at FA, as is engineering generally. Hopefully, this article can help to correct that. SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

I was the GA reviewer, and am glad to see this here. It's dauntingly technical, but we need articles on this sort of topic, even though there's a limit to how accessible they can be made. When I promoted this to GA I was confident the material was well-organized and coherently presented, so I'm going to look mostly at prose clarity.

  • ...millimetres. Hence the need for transmission lines within a circuit. We haven't yet said transmission lines are needed in circuits, only that they are used, so I'd suggest "Hence transmission lines are needed within circuits".
  • There are several different types of planar transmission line. The earliest type of planar transmission line was conceived...: some repeated wording here. Since "earliest type" implies there was more than one type, I think you could just cut the first sentence. Alternatively, you could change the second sentence to start "The earliest was conceived..." but I think that's clumsier.
  • Many of these types have a narrower bandwidth and in general they produce more signal distortion than pairs of conductors: suggest "and in general produce more".
  • Is there a suitable link target for "loss" at the end of the second paragraph of the lead? I had a look and couldn't find anything obvious.
  • Lumped passive components are often impractical at microwave frequencies for this reason, or because the values required are impractically small to manufacture. This sentence gave me some trouble in the GA review, and I've reread your explanation there. I think the key point is that lumped passive components are impractical because of their size; the fact that e.g. a desired impedance in a component in microwave circuits could require an impractically small physical size for the component could be relegated to a footnote. How about "Lumped passive components are often impractical at microwave frequencies for this reason, but they can be replaced by a pattern of transmission lines that provides the same function within the circuit", with a footnote for the omitted text if necessary?
  • The most widely used planar types are stripline, microstrip, suspended stripline, and coplanar waveguide. It's not clear whether this refers to the previous sentence ("...planar types of dielectric waveguide") or the subject of the article.
  • Usually, steps are taken to suppress all modes except the operational one: does "operational" mean "having the intended functionality"? If so I think something like "desired" or "intended" would be clearer to a lay reader.
  • ...it can be used at low frequencies, all the way down to zero (DC): suggest "(i.e. DC)".
  • Because of this, ideal TEM transmission lines do not suffer from a form of distortion called dispersion. Dispersion is where different frequency components travel at different velocities resulting in the wave shape (which may represent the transmitted information) becoming "smeared out" in the direction of the line length. Suggest "Because of this, ideal TEM transmission lines do not suffer from dispersion, a form of distortion in which different frequency components travel at different velocities. Dispersion "smears out" the wave shape (which may represent the transmitted information) in the direction of the line length."
  • The conductors consist of flat strips, and there are usually one or more ground planes parallel to the flat surface of the conductors. This is the only sentence in the early part of the article to give a general description of the elements of planar transmission lines. Can we add a little more detail? It seems every design uses a dielectric substrate in some way, for example. A few words here would prepare the reader for later sentences like "Some planar types, notably microstrip, do not have a homogeneous dielectric".
  • ...classified as either transverse electric (TE) or transverse magnetic (TM) (also called respectively H and E modes) according to whether, respectively, all of the electric field, or all of the magnetic field is transverse Can we avoid two consecutive uses of "respectively"?
  • The first paragraph on LSE and LSM modes seems to repeat itself at the end. Could we cut the last sentence, and change an earlier sentence to say "It turns out that the LSE and LSM modes..."?
    • See next point
  • Do we need the last two sentences of that section? We've already used the term "hybrid modes" at the start of the section and we don't use "HEM" anywhere else in the article. Could the definition of "hybrid" be given earlier, instead? Perhaps in the "Transverse modes" section where you say "there is always a longitudinal component"?

-- More when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • Other factors detracting from Q: "detract" is usually used for worth, not numerical value. How about "Other factors that reduce Q" or "that lower Q"?
  • The mixed media of air and dielectric leads, in theory, to...: "leads" sounds wrong to me, since "media" is plural. How about rephrasing: "Since the wave travels through both air and dielectric, the transmission mode is, in theory, not pure TEM, but a thin dielectric..."?
  • The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which detracts from miniaturisation, but is easier to manufacture. The subjects of "detracts" and "is" are not the same; the size is what detracts, but the component is what is easier to manufacture. Suggest "The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which are harder to miniaturise, but easier to manufacture." If "harder" is wrong because it's a limit, not a difficulty, then "The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which limits miniaturisation, but makes the components easier to manufacture".

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • SIW also has high Q and high power handling. Additionally, as a planar technology, SIW is easier to integrate with other components. "Also" and "Additionally" do the same work here, so it might be better to combine the sentences: "SIW also has high Q and high power handling, and, as a planar technology, is easier to integrate with other components."
  • bilateral finline has lower loss for similar reasons to the advantages of bilateral suspended stripline: this isn't quite right; the advantages of BSS are not the reason for bilateral finline's lower loss. I'm not sure how to reword this without changing the meaning, but perhaps "bilateral finline has lower loss, as with bilateral suspended stripline, and for similar reasons".
  • radiation from bends and losses in the dielectric-metal adhesive severely detract from this figure: another instance of "detract" being not quite the right word. How about "losses in the dielectric-metal adhesive significantly reduce this figure" or "significantly lower the attainable Q".
  • However, imageline is not a suitable technology at lower frequencies. As far as I can tell this statement is not further explained; is there a concise reason that can be given?
    • No further explanation, because the source gives no further explanation. Clearly, it won't pass DC (because imageline is an insulator). More profoundly, as the frequency goes lower and lower, the wavelength becomes larger and larger and the field is less and less actually contained within the imageline. In the limit, it becomes no different from transmitting radio waves through the air, and the line is not really acting as a guide at all. Do we need to give a reason? I'll see if anything can be sourced. SpinningSpark 17:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Not required, just curious. I wouldn't withhold support, but I think it's a natural question for a reader to ask, so anything you can source would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transitions between types using unbalanced conductive lines are straightforward enough: this is mostly just a matter of providing continuity... Three qualifiers in a short span: "enough", "mostly", and "just". I think you could cut "enough" and "just" without changing the meaning.
  • The development of planar technologies was driven at first by the needs of the US military, but today it can be found... "It" refers to "planar technologies", so it should be "they", or make it "planar technology", or "...but today circuits using planar transmission lines can be found..." or some similar construction.
  • Do we need to mention Thomas H. Lee in the text? Cutting that would make it easier to join the sentence with the next one, which would flow better: "Harold A. Wheeler may have experimented with coplanar lines as early as the 1930s, but the first documented planar transmission line was stripline, invented by Robert M. Barrett and published by Barrett and Barnes in 1951." The next sentence starts with "Although", so it would be nice to eliminate that "However". Similarly for "According to Barrett". If you feel these are claims that are not strong enough to appear in the text without some qualification, could they be abbreviated to something like "Reportedly"?
    • I'm surprised you're suggesting "reportedly". That's an invitation for someone to slap a {{who?}} tag on it. I wouldn't like to omit the attribution to either claim, unless there are primary documents at the dates claimed from the alleged researchers themselves. At the moment it's anecdote so has to be attributed. SpinningSpark 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      If it needs to be attributed that's fine. I don't think {{who?}} tags are justified where the source clearly gives the attribution, and I remove those where I'm familiar with the source, but I agree some editors will tag that sort of construction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've cut out four "however"s with my copyedits, but more could go -- there are still seventeen in the text. It's a useful word but it's easy to overuse, and I think you should cut some more. Often it can simply be removed with little effect on the meaning.
  • Suggest linking MMIC again at the end of the "History" section; the earlier link is far above and the acronym is unhelpful to a lay reader.

-- That's it for a first pass. I'll think about the unstruck points above some more, and read through again once you've responded to these last points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There are a couple of minor points still being discussed above, but nothing that affects my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Absolutely no idea about the topic, but I will try.

  • working at microwave frequencies – But the first sentence says "Planar transmission lines are transmission lines", and the linked article transmission lines states that they are at radio frequencies.
    Hi Jens, thanks for reviewing. Microwaves are considered a subset of radio frequencies. SpinningSpark 12:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • normal simple interconnections – what precisely is meant by this? Is there an article to link this to?
    There is no special technical meaning here; it is just normal English. It means like the wires connecting your loudspeakers to your hifi amplifier. This came up at peer review as well and the next sentence (With normal interconnections the propagation...) is intended to clarify the issue. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. Any suggestions are welcome. SpinningSpark 12:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but still, a link would help. These "normal interconnections" appear to be the most basic type; they really have no Wikipedia article? What about Electrical cable? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea - done. SpinningSpark 12:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transmission lines are more than normal simple interconnections. With normal interconnections the propagation of the electromagnetic wave along the wire is fast enough to be considered instantaneous – You are comparing transmission lines with normal interconnections. But it seems you are rather comparing different wave length to wire length ratios? Its unclear to me. The problem might be that I don't understand what a normal interconnection is.
    Yes, you are right that when using shorter wavelengths on the same piece of wire it will suddenly exhibit transmission line effects where there were none before, but it is still valid to treat them separately. With a normal interconnection, we don't worry too much about the geometry. As soon as we start considering the connection to be a transmission line, steps are taken to ensure the cross-sectional geometry is constant and well defined along the entire length of the line. SpinningSpark 12:47, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, understood, why not adding this to the lead (I mean, the requirement that cross-sectional geometry is constant)? Because right now, the first paragraph of the lead starts with Transmission lines are more than normal simple interconnections but never explains what the difference is between the two. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done SpinningSpark 13:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other planar types, such as slotline, finline, and imageline, transmit along a strip of dielectric, – can you link these different types, and also "planar types"?
    This article is the best source of information on Wikipedia for all those types. I've linked them in the lead, but they all redirect back here. There is only passing mentions of slotline elsewhere on Wikipedia and nothing at all for imageline. For finline there is finline filter, but that's only a paragraph in another article and there is more information here on the line itself. "Planar types" is the whole of this article. SpinningSpark 22:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get that these are planar transmission lines as well, instead I thought "planar types" are some higher-ranking category that contains planar transmission lines, amongst others. So if one talks about "planar types", these are always planar transmission lines? Maybe write, for clarity, "other types of planar transmission lines"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. SpinningSpark 13:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not fully understand the lead, even with consulting the linked articles. What I got is that planar transmission lines always have two conductors, which for some reasons is better at microwave frequencies. But in the first article section "General properties", this is not even mentioned. The lead compares with "other planar types", "Lumped passive components", and "other types, such as coaxial cable", but without guiding the reader where to place this info. Maybe a reorganization of the lead is needed; maybe explaining point by point with a clear red threat and keeping it simple is better. I'm a bit at a loss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there is anything actionable there. The lead does not say planar transmission lines always have two conductors. It does say that the four main types have a pair of conductors. There is nothing unusual in this – that is the normal number for an electrical circuit. The reason planar is preferred is stated in the second sentence of the lead "...planar type fits in well with the manufacturing methods..." and is expanded on in the General properties section "The principal advantage of the planar types is that they can be manufactured using the same processes used to make..." For "other planar types" these are all now linked, see comment above. "Lumped components" is linked to lumped element model and coaxial line is linked to coaxial cable. SpinningSpark 22:52, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand it now, it was mainly resulting from my confusion (see one point above). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: Jens Lallensack do you have any more to add here? We are struggling slightly for reviews here, but I'm inclined to leave this a little longer as it's a very technical article, and those always struggle to attract reviewers. I'll add it to the urgent list and see if that helps. Sarastro (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spot additional problems, but I must confess that I really lack the expertise here to be able to appropriately assess the article. I give my support, but please note that this cannot be counted as a full review, which I am unable to deliver. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that technically minded editors were involved in the peer review (one of them with experience in exactly this field). Sadly, neither of them seem inclined to take part here, although I have pinged them. However, I am confident that any serious technical boo-boos would have already been picked up. SpinningSpark 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see no harm in pinging them here. The only two editors I see on the PR are Mark viking and Catslash. Do either of you have anything to add here? What we are really looking for is an indication that this article is accurate and represents the subject comprehensively. Even if you don't comment on anything else, it would be a huge help if you could comment on this. Sarastro (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I received your ping and will take a look. I hope to have comments by sometime tomorrow. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been been remiss in not reviewing this article - I will endeavour to do better. Considering the ubiquity of wireless technology today, and its heavy dependence on planar transmission lines, this strikes me as an important article (even if it does not meet project criteria for 'high importance'). catslash (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify that, the article is currently unassessed by either of the wikiprojects to which it has been put in scope. It has not been assessed as low importance. SpinningSpark 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mark viking

[edit]

I looked at this article during a peer review and I must say that both the lead and lead illustration caption are much improved in terms of clarity of the writing and a more accessible prose style. The new lead illustration also addresses my earlier criticisms. Nicely done.

I have read through the article and it looks well written and covers much of the subject well. Below are some comments and questions. Fair warning: I am not an FA guru, so if some requests are nonstandard, that might be me not knowing the FA culture.

  1. I think an FA-class article should have its own short description, rather than relying on the default Wikidata entry. Best to add one.
  2. In the lead, slotline, finline, and imageline links look like (self) redirects. Would it be best to format them as section links?
    • I don't have any very strong feelings on this, but I did it with redirects rather than section links because at least some of them, if not all, are potentially standalone articles in the future. SpinningSpark 13:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the area of completeness, how do quasiplanar transmission lines compare to planar transmission lines? Perhaps they should be mentioned.
    • What exactly did you have in mind? The term quasi-planar appears in several contexts. A planar structure existing within a non-planar structure is described as quasi-planar. The principle example of this is finline which is already covered. I'll add the term to that section. I've also heard bilateral forms called quasi-planar, also already covered, but in my opinion that is being unnecessarily pedantic and would just add confusion to the article. SpinningSpark 14:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A real strength of this article is a detailed summary of all the different geometry and material types and the salient properties of these devices. But there is little in the article on applications of these devices. What are they used for? Why all the different types--there must be different application areas for this variety to coexist. For example, slotlines can be used as antennas, but finlines would be inappropriate as antennas. Perhaps a table or short section giving typical uses for the different types would allow for users to better understand why there is such a variety of different types.
    • If you are looking for circuit function versus line type, I don't think that is really a thing. In general, all formats can support all circuit blocks. The main things driving choice of technology are ease of manufacture, frequency of operation, and to some extent range of realisable impedances and Q. Ease of manufacture favours microstrip, and sometimes coplanar, which I'm pretty sure is already highlighted prominently. The rest is summarised in the table of major characteristics. SpinningSpark 13:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In the area of completeness, there is nothing in the article on how these devices are designed. I get the idea that unlike components like capacitors and resistors, many planar devices are custom-designed according to the application. One cannot go into a lot of detail on design and modeling and remain accessible, but summarizing the main or typical methods used would be a good addition. Are there dominant software packages people use? Do people use analytic/conformal techniques? Do folks do their own EM simulations? Or is a practical, best practices approach typically used, with standard designs and standard formulas in a handbook somewhere?

Overall the article looks very good and the content already present looks accurate as far as I can tell. I cannot see anything else that might need polishing. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Catslash

[edit]

Having achieved Good Article status and additionally undergone peer-review, any short-comings this article may had, have for the most part been rectified. Nevertheless, here are a few new observations (more to follow):

  1. The lede struggles for want of a term for a non-transmission-line. There is a danger that simple and normal could be mistaken for technical terms, and normal is in any case context-dependent (hence NFN). Perhaps Transmission lines are more than simply interconnections for the first instance? The following sentence seems harder to fix though.
    Done on your rewording (although I hope we are not starting to go in circles with this sentence with contradictory suggestions from consecutive reviewers). I've also changed "normal" in the following sentence. That seems to be the word that is causing all the confusion. I don't think "want of a term for a non-transmission-line" is going to be actionable unless you can suggest a term based on RS. SpinningSpark 19:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my comment was unclear; I meant to say that we should not be inventing a term for this. It is clearer and less awkward now. catslash (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the (rather nice) new mode diagrams, the microstip ground plane is unclear, being darker and thinner than the other metallization. As the microstip ground plane is not mentioned in the discussion of the modes, it is not essential to distinguish it in the diagram, and it may be better to depict the metallization consistently throughout the diagram.
    I don't want to change the colours because that colour key has been used throughout the article in all the diagrams. I would also point out that the two layers can really be different colours like this circuit with gold-plated lines. Would making the ground plane thicker and more visible be helpful? The thicknesses aren't really to scale anyway. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, making the ground thicker than to-scale would help. On a small screen, the ground-plane is easily overlooked at present, especially as both the substrate and the ground can appear fairly dark (depending on the display settings). I did notice that the dark brown is used for the enclosure/box in some of the diagrams (such as the suspended stripline). catslash (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Done SpinningSpark 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. From the lede: A pattern of transmission lines ... simply by applying patterns to the existing substrate. Perhaps it would be good at this point to refer to the lede picture which illustrates this very nicely (or perhaps you consider the lede to be long enough already). catslash (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to that, but couldn't think of a nice form of words. The caption says it all anyway. SpinningSpark 00:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right; the caption says it.
catslash (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FA status. Having re-read the article and made as few minor tweaks, I can find no fault. The FA criteria appear to be all satisfied. I have not checked the copyright status of the illustrations, but there is no reason to suspect any problem there. catslash (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo

[edit]
  • Are "Radio TV News" a "New Age International" (there is apparently a similarly named diploma mill), "Morgan & Claypool" and "PHI Learning" good publishers?
    • "Radio TV News". This has not been cited in the article to verify any facts. It is in the bibliography as a primary source for Barrett's work. It is so cited by several RS.
    • "New Age International" are an Indian publisher of technical books. As far as I can tell, they are not associated with New Age International University which has an Italian address. As far as I can tell, they are not a vanity press. SENSE, while not putting them in its top (refereed) ranks, still ranks their output as professional publications for an academic audience. One of the authors of the book in question is a recipient of the Om Prakash Bhasin Award. My personal assessment of the book is that it seems thorough and professional.
    • "Morgan & Claypool" are a digital publisher aimed at an R&D audience. I am not seeing any sign that they are a vanity press. They seem to be respected by the University of California's California Digital Library [24], and by the IEEE [25]
    • "PHI Learning" is an Indian publisher aiming mostly at a student audience. They have been in business since 1963 and there is no sign that they are a vanity press. I've no idea why you even think they are suspect unless it is just because they are Indian. In any case, the phenomenon they are cited for is very well known to those skilled in the art, and really wouldn't need a reference at all anywhere other than Wikipedia.
    SpinningSpark 00:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC), 04:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC) and 16:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally call out sources when I can't find any obvious indication they are good sources. Looking for this "PHL Learning" thing didn't give me any clear indication of its reliability, hence the question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section seems readable enough to me, maybe that subcomment at its end should be put in a footnote like {{efn}}.
    The comment at the end is part of the definition of the scope of the article, so I don't think it should be relegated to a footnote. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Scope of article explicitly requires such minutiae of details of scope to be placed at the end of the lead. SpinningSpark 00:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering if there is history of the planar transmission line more recent than 1976.
    Remarkably, all the major types were described quite some time ago. There may be some minor variants that are more recent, but we don't need that level of detail in an overview article. I did notice, however, that image line is missing from the history section. I'll add something shortly, but that dates back to the 1950s so won't affect the 1976 end. There have certainly been more recent developments in circuit applications, perhaps the most recent field is fractal antennae and filters, but that belongs in another article (distributed element circuit). SpinningSpark 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Folded waveguides, e.g., SIFW [26], seem like a 21st century development. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely not that recent, but you may be right that it's later than 1976. Of the sources we already have in the article, Wu and Kishk say it is recent without giving an actual date or name. The first description of it may have been this 1998 paper, but I haven't got a source that directly says so. Still looking. SpinningSpark 23:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, I've put something in on SIW. SpinningSpark 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN

[edit]

I made some minor grammar tweaks here. Could the lead image be expanded slightly? Image use elsewhere is excellent and your referencing perfect. ——SerialNumber54129 16:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done SpinningSpark 00:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Support this candidature. It clearly fulfills the criteria, and my few concerns have been addressed. 23:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs)

Coordinator comment: I'd like to get this wrapped up fairly soon if we can. We have much more commentary now, just pinging those who have reviewed (Mark viking, Catslash, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Serial Number 54129) to see if they think any more needs doing. For the benefit of those new to FAC, if you believe that the article meets the FA criteria, you can indicate that you support (or oppose if you don't think it meets those criteria). If you don't feel able to comment on all the criteria, and maybe just wanted to indicate that it met for example, 1b or 1c (comprehensive and well researched), that is perfectly acceptable. Sarastro (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

[edit]

The subject is so far out of my ken that I am uneasy about pontificating, but, with the exception that the Engelmann source is misspelled as Englemann, everything in this article looks authoritative to me. I don't go so far as to claim I understood it all, but I found no examples of gratuitous jargon, and the prose is very readable, which can't be easy in such a technical subject. So, with the caveat that I am the layest of laymen, I support the promotion of this article. It is handsomely illustrated and widely sourced (though I see the main author is evidently on a one-person campaign against 13-digit ISBNs). Another feather in Wikipedia's cap. Tim riley talk 15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the misspelling. I didn't realise that 13-digit ISBNs was an issue. Is there a guideline somewhere on how to convert them, circumstances they should not be converted etc? SpinningSpark 15:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement to use 13-digit ISBNs, but per WP:ISBN they are preferred if they're available. I use them when I see them on the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13-digit ISBNs are lumpen things with not a breath of poetry about them, but like Mike Christie I duly follow WP:ISBN when possible. I didn't mean to imply that you should change the 10-digit ones here. Tim riley talk 16:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I think we're almost ready to wrap this up now and I think we have covered all the bases we need to. All that's left is a formal source review. Maybe Mike Christie, Jo-Jo Eumerus or Tim riley could oblige? Sarastro (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a source review at the GA, here; formatting is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus looked at reliability above. This would be SpinningSpark's fifth FA; their last successful FAC was about five years ago -- I don't know if a spotcheck is required but I wouldn't be able to do one as I don't have access to the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dweller

[edit]
There was. Fixed. catslash (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is cited. The relevant paragraph in the history is cited to three sources. All three verify Barrett's priority,
You need to cite important claims more carefully. This should be cited immediately after the claim. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bhat & Koul, "The first planar transmission line, called the 'strip transmission line', was proposed by Barrett and Barnes as early as 1951."
  • Oliner, "The inventor of the stripline concept was Robert M. Barrett of the Air Force Cambridge Research Center."
  • Lee, "In 1951, Robert M. Barrett proposed the realization of planar versions of many classical microwave components using PC board fabrication methods."
The lack of bio details is merely following the pattern in the rest of the article, just giving the names and referencing the primary papers and leaving it to more focused articles to give more details. In any case, I don't think there is much available about Barrett in sources – he doesn't have an article. SpinningSpark 23:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a gift [27]. Barrett isn't just another one of many people in the article, he's the inventor and deserves some special treatment in an encyclopedia article, rather than a technical manual. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SpinningSpark 10:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to the same comment above. SpinningSpark 23:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more strongly. The MOS text you refer to is talking about text in the lead, not some kind of hidden non footnotey footnote. We have an obligation to make things easy for our readers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've reformatted it as normal text. SpinningSpark 09:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing. Support --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, including to a ref or two. I see Sarastro1 has asked for a formal source review, and I looked over this aspect with special care. Like Mike Christie I found this passes on the formatting side of things. I also cannot make spot checks or consider whether it covers every possible source that covers the subject, but I'm going to AGF that it does. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've undone your removal of links in the lead. These links were requested by another reviewer above. The redirects go to a specific section in the article. They could be made direct section links, but they are potentially stand-alone articles so it is better done as a bookmark redirect. SpinningSpark 13:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they should be done with the hashtag to direct it to the right place (per WP:SELFRED). If stand-alone articles are later created, then the links can be tweaked. If they are suitable for stand-alone articles, then it would be worth setting up stubs as starters to have the info there. - SchroCat (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SELFRED explicitly says these kind of selfrefs are acceptable. I should have marked them with {{R to section}}, which I will do shortly. The problem with doing it your way is that the person creating the article does not necessarily know that this article has embedded section links. SpinningSpark 13:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my support. If these terms deserve an article, give them one, but if you just revert a couple of times without fully discussing with the reviewers who are trying to help you, isn't ideal. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last revert was because the links you had inserted were actually broken, so one way or another they would bave had to go anyway. Making an FA dependent on creating another article is a ridiculous position. SpinningSpark 13:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I think we have had a good range of reviews, both technical and from an "ordinary reader" viewpoint; there is no benefit leaving this open any longer as there is a clear consensus to promote. I note the disagreement in SchroCat's review above, but as he has not opposed and the issue seems relatively minor, there is no reason to delay further. The duplinks may need to be checked as we seem to have quite a few; I can see the benefit of having some in an article as technical as this, but I'd appreciate the main editors just looking to see if any are not needed (I removed one that was duplicated in the lead). This tool will highlight any duplication. Finally, I note that it has been some time since the nominator's last FAC. I think we are OK for this article, but if I could ask that one be done for your next nomination, and we can set something in motion much earlier in the process! Sarastro (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2019 [29].

Kevin Beattie

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk), 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Described by Bobby Robson as the greatest England footballer he had ever seen, Beattie's story is one of tragedy and premature foreshortening in many senses. A complete footballer, an Ipswich legend, back when the Tractor Boys were a European force to be reckoned with, Beattie died a couple of months ago, and with the help of Dweller and some others, we've taken his article from rough start class to GA, and now wish to take that final step. All comments will, of course, be dealt with as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article benefited from a third-party copyedit by Ealdgyth --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ebbillings Unlike all of the other online references, refs 76 (The Irish Times article) and 82 (The Times article) are not archived. ebbillings (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IABot refuses to archive them. I wasn't aware it was part of the FA criteria though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that making these changes was a requirement to meet a criterion; I only intended to note a minor inconsistency. Making this change—as you have done—just makes an excellent article a little bit better and more polished. ebbillings (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, thanks for the pointers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-cranked them in. Yay! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Each of the images included in the article are appropriately related to the article, are suitably licensed, and have succinct captions. None of them use an alt text, which could be added.

  • File:Perry Groves.jpg: Per MOS:ITALICTITLE, the title of Groves' book in the caption should be italicized. Also, the resolution of this file is lower than I would prefer, but this file appears to be best option currently available from Commons.

ebbillings (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I wasn't using it as a title but a descriptor. Hopefully now clarified. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, pity this is all rights reserved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere and/or don't match the text. For example, it states he made four appearances for Colchester but the text says six. (Unless this discrepancy is as a result of the infobox footnote, in which case suggest clarifying that in the text).
    I've got three sources all saying different things, variously 3 (and 1 sub app?), 4 and 6, and no distinguishing between league appearances and other appearances, as required by the infobox, so I've removed that from the infobox but left the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally quotation marks shouldn't be used for blockquotes
    Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes England Football Online a high-quality reliable source? Flown from the Nest?
    I've removed FFTN, as we didn't need it. I think it may be RS, but that's for another day. I've asked WP:FOOTY about EFO in the discussion I've begun here. Watch this space. If they say "no", we've got a bit of work to do, TRM. Thanks, Nikkimaria. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I replaced it in any case. Two uses were for winning the UEFA and FA Cup, easily sourced otherwise, one for the lack of UEFA medal (lost some detail [rules of the day]) but the essence remains. Height is now sourced to Finch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable, fwiw! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11 appears to be a student project - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    Replaced with Grauniad. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2 and 14 appear to be the same source, although with different author name spellings
    Indeed, fixed spelling per source and re-used. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN16: ISBN given at GBooks link doesn't match the one in this citation, can you verify? Also 2009 is sufficient for publication date - GBooks tends to be overprecise
    One is Kindle, one is paper, I've replaced with Kindle and reduced publication date per your requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finch: not seeing much about this publisher online, what is their quality control process?
    I don't know. I wasn't aware that we needed to analyse the quality of published authors' works, or their publishing companies. I'm not even sure where I'd even begin to answer such a question. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Thanks. The Rambling Man and I will take a good look at that lot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to all but two at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria One outstanding query now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All done for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Resolved comments from Giants 2008
Thanks Giants2008, we'll crack on with them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All done, I think, Giants2008 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Resolved issues by Cas Liber
  • Beattie declined into alcohol abuse - sounds clumsy, how about "began drinking heavily", " drinking worsened" or something more anglosaxon?
    done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, "despite having received £50,000 from a testimonial match with Ipswich ... Beattie lived for much of the rest of his life in straitened circumstances" - definitely can be rewritten without quotes. "in poverty" etc.
    done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd switch paras 1 and 2 of Post-football and family life - also makes the mention of wife's illness in para 1 more logical as she has already been introduced.
    I'm inclined to do this except I'm a pedant and think the words in the section heading are therefore in the wrong order. And I can't find a good pithy way to reorder them. Any ideas? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But overall it is an engaging read - all of the above are quibbles really and this is on track for FA-hood. Incidentally, I remember watching that 7-0 thrashing of WBA on the telly (I sorta like WBA as a second favourite team after Spurs...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On it, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber All done, bar one where I've asked a question back to you and another where I'm asking TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On thinking about it, it's not a dealbreaker so support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Resolved issues by JennyOz

- placeholder for now, nearly there. JennyOz (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looking forward --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TRM and Dweller, I've been watching this blossom since its appearance at RD. I have a lot of comments (Dweller don't worry, TRM is used to my nitpicking) but most are simple suggestions for concision. Without access to Finch, I've had to guess some things so ask for clarity and others are more to do with my minimal understanding of how leagues etc work. I'm really happy for you to ignore suggestions not useful. I have a few more questions/comments that I will hopefully add tomorrow, though nothing major.

Lede
  • position - lede says "centre-half" (half), infobox says "Central defender" (defender)
    Hmm. Anachronism ain't what it used to be. Centre-half is old fashioned speak and is what he'd have called himself. I've fixed the infobox. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • team-mates - others are teammate no hyphen
    Great spot! I've gone the other way and hyphennated them all --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The early part of Beattie's life was a tale of rags to riches, - not really early part of "life", early part of career?
    Fixed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • before finding purpose once more - again?
    Not sure what the issue is here --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • new career in later life in commenting - is second "in" needed?
    Nice. Fixed. And I fixed a bit more than that, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the television and radio - is 'the' necessary?
    Hah! Just addressed this before I read your comment. Agreed! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former Ipswich (and later England) manager Bobby Robson -"former" and "later" is confusing, why not just Ipswich and England manager?
    Because that implies two errors. Both that he had the two roles simultaneously (he didn't) and that he still holds them (he's dead). The point is that he managed Beattie at Ipswich, so has the authority to talk about Beattie, and managed England after Beattie's time, so is well placed to contextualise his skill. Is it really confusing? Might need a bit of a headscratch to find a pithy way to explain this suitably for a lead. --15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Early life
Career
Later career
International
Playing style
Incidents and controversies
  • train pulled into Carlisle station - add 'en route' - not knowing train lines/geography "pulled into" can sound terminal but Carlisle just happened to be a stop en route? JennyOz (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Post-football and family life
  • injuries gave Beattie difficulties in later life: by the time - colon should be semi?

That's it for now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, yummy, thanks for that. You've put in a lot of work and the article will be better for it. My onwiki time is limited and only TRM has the book, so it may take a few days to work through it all, but we will. Thanks again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Misc

That's it now. Thank you both for your patience! JennyOz (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz. I'll try to get to some your extremely helpful comments in the next couple of days, assuming I'm not summarily blocked for some kind of implied sanction infringement. My edits are being watched by numerous editors who are looking for anything to get me blocked, ably assisted by a recent Arbcom "clarification". Thanks again for your review! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries TRM, I understand you've been pre-occupied. I've been watching Dweller dealing with some of my suggestions. As I said at top, I'm really happy for you to ignore suggestions not useful! I remain totally confused by the "... England Never Had" bit and look forward to understanding why Finch said that. Regards both, JennyOz (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz apologies for the delay, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to take a look over what we've done so far and see what concerns may remain? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller and TRM, sorry for delay in responding to ping (keyboard problems). I've added replies to comments above and here are a few new minor ones...

  • curtailed bya self-inflicted - add space after by
  • Maggie - "she featured in the Radio Times in a "Footballers' Wives" feature - swap "she featured in" to 'she appeared in' or similar to avoid repetition featured/feature?
  • Player of the Year award.[26] and was - remove full stop after "award"
  • Beattie found himself unemployed at various points - "found himself" is a bit iffy/unencyclopedic. Is 'was unemployed' enough?
  • He also missed part of pre-season for Colchester by "straining too much" while defecating, resulting in a pulled stomach muscle.[16] - is this really worth the mention? Was it widely reported? I'm not being prudish, it just seems a relative nothing esp during pre-season and at a club he only made 6 appearances for.
    I doubt it'd get much coverage - Colchester have rarely made much news. It's whimsical and adds a little, ahem, colour. Could come out, but I think that'd be a shame. It's been sourced imeccably, a team mate who was there. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for dealing with my nitpicks, regards JennyOz (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JennyOz thanks, your latest comments all dealt with bar the last one which I'm going to leave to Dweller to answer. I have to say my mother also questioned the appropriateness of the lurid tale, it might be that now we have so much other material, and enough to substantiate that Beattie led a bizarre and injurious career, we can drop this tidbit. I'll sift through the rest of the comments shortly and see what else I can do to address the outstanding issues. Thanks again for your diligence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz I think I've located and dealt with the other comments you left, if you'd be kind enough to do one more double-check, that'd be great. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grand record of his life and career and a fine example of teamwork from you both. It's been a pleasure to work with you two old-fashioned editors and to learn about Beat and some more about soc football. Thanks Dweller and TRM, I'm happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 12:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]

Taking a look now.....

Resolved spot check by Cas Liber
  • FN 45 used once - checks out ok
  • FN 73 used once - source mentions he was a scout and had a coaching role. Former not in article...? Is it worth mentioning somewhere that he had a soft spot for Carlisle United?
    It's prominent in the Early life section --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    d'oh my bad Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 95 used once - checks out ok
  • I can't see the Finch Book, but Bobby Robson's autobiography corroborates the signing story well (had to remember that Best played for Northern Ireland)
  • Earwigs copyvio has an inflated score due to an appropriately attributed quote, so is all good.

Ok - happy wit what I seen here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cas. If Best had been English, I think England might even have beaten the incredible 1970 Brazilians and won a second successive World Cup. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Chronology career The Times 8 February 1985 p.27: Beattie, who has been playing in Sweden but has returned to England for the winter, has signed for Bury Town. Search results and snippet preview suggest he played for Sandviken in 1984, not later. [30] Cattivi (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cattivi I'll try to look into the chronology issue, but in the meantime, any chance that any of those articles you link there could be translated and used in the article? Looks like a little goldmine there to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having said that, a lot, and I mean a lot of those hits appear to be results listing other English players too. Nothing necessarily to do with Sandvikens. Can you find something concrete for me to work on? Players could obviously return "for the winter" and then go back again (and Bury was non-League so no issue with him playing in both "simultaneously" as it were). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked a friend who has copies of Årets Fotball (A Swedish football Yearbook). He is in the 1985 edition page 173: 1984 Sandvikens IF 10 games 1 goal, but not in the 1986 or 1987 editions. If Beattie returned to Sandvikens, he did it without actually playing in official matches for them. I can't translate anything because I haven't got full access to the articles. I have the same problem with the Norwegian Newspaper Archive. [31] !985-86 Barnet is correct, but he only played 1 game for them. Source: Alliance to conference 1979-2004 the first 25 years compiled by John Harman page 61. Cattivi (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cattivi That may have been the case. Without reliable sources saying the contrary, I'm not sure what to do here. As for "but he only played 1 game for them", well sources differ on that too, so we haven't mentioned how many appearances he made. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks like he played for Barnet part-time after he left 'Boro, and then got a transfer to Sandviken "only two years" after failing to be part of the UEFA Cup winning side. Book's out of order. Adjusted article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Whitworth played his last league game for Mansfield Town on the 14th of May 1985. He signed for Barnet close seaason 1985 (Dave Smith & Paul Taylor of fossils & Foxes (Second edition 2001) page 468. The Alliance to Conference book confirms this, all his league appearances for Barnet were in the 1985/86-1988/89 seasons. I know club historians can include whatever they want in their statistical records. Maybe Beattie played in the Bob Lord Trophy for Barnet or in a friendly. It isn't necessarily wrong to write 'Beattie played two games for Barnet', if you have a source for that. But if you want league only stats, the Arets books and Alliance to Conference are fine. Beattie played a lot more than 228 matches for Ipswich, there are sources for that. But would this mean there really is a contradiction? Cattivi (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is Beattie himself saying he played for Barnet when he did, and it's altogether possible that's the case. And no, only the infobox demands "league only" stats (which is always odd, but this isn't the place to debate that point). I appreciate your investigative work, but it all seems circumstantial and nothing definitive. And to be honest, I'm finding it difficult picking through your various notes to determine what the "truth" you're asserting might be. Perhaps someone else could help here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will stop posting here. One last question: Does Finch mention a specific year when he wrote Beattie joined Barnet? I'm not denying Beattie joined Whitworth at Barnet. In fact, this confirms it was 1985. The sentence is fine, but the dates and chronology of his later career are not. All I tried to do was give some other sources to determine when all this has happened: Not before the summer of 1985. And there is a solid source for Beattie playing for Sandvikens in 1984. Cattivi (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't mention the year he joined Barnet, because had it done so, I imagine this would all have been resolved by now. I'll take another look at this section, it may be that we need to remove the chronology asserted by the Finch book (as noted, the Sandvikens move was "two years after" the UEFA Cup win for Ipswich, and that has already been adjusted in the article to match). It's altogether possible that Beattie just remembered it the wrong way round and Finch just took him at his word rather than checked that particular ordering. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fitch's chronology has Beattie leaving Boro, getting a payout, getting bored and then signing for Barnet. After a hit-and-miss time there, he quit through injury again to work as a labourer. The book then mentions this "it was only two years since I had been part of an Ipswich team .... UEFA Cup" etc, so that would have been the 1980/81 season. At this point (1983 presumably) he played for Harwich and Parkeston. Then he was offered the move to Sandvikens. So it appears that his recollection of moving to Barnet after Boro is probably incorrect, that he did that between Sandvikens and Kongsberg, where he "spent three seasons" before a last season in Scandinavia at Nybergsund IL-Trysil (1988 per an independent source). Perhaps we just add "Barnet and" to the sentence where he is noted to have played for Clacton Town. Also, beyond that Times headline (I can't access the source), there is no evidence anywhere that he actually played for Bury Town. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<-Excellent stuff, both of you. Fitch's book will have been heavily based on interviewing Beattie, whose memory (especially as an alcoholic) may not have been 100% reliable. We don't need to speculate too much. I think we ought to 1) specify hard stats given by RS in the infobox and 2) caveat our narrative with a footnote that explains that there is a lack of clarity in the sources about exact chronology. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Cattivi do you have any more to add? I think we are almost there now, but one thing I noticed is that we are maybe overusing "Beattie" in places, notably in the "Career" section as a quick ctrl-F shows. Sarastro (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, only circumstancial evidence. I see no reason why Nordahl was still managing Sandvikens in 1985 [32] Beattie scored a hattrick on his debut for Kongsberg on 20 June 1987. [33] So he didn't play for them for at least one third of the season. 60 goals is really a lot. Or it isn't when you include the goals you score in practice matches. Cattivi (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 removed a dozen or so instances of Beattie. Hope it hasn't resulted in any confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 Dweller has done a few more. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

[edit]

Demarcating comments below that I began on 14 Jan, and officially recusing as coord... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning the article a few days ago, it looked to me like we were over-quoting, and that some of those quotes worth retaining could use inline attribution. I can try and return in the next 24h to be more specific, or the nominators could start the ball rolling by reviewing and considering whether some quotes could just be paraphrased, and if those retained are opinions that need inline attribution. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dweller added the majority of the quotes, which I think actually enrich the article beyond a bland, characterless biography. If attribution is required then I'm sure it can be added but with the risk of bloating an already person-rich prose further, hence the "overuse" of "Beattie" noted above by Sarastro. As this nomination has been going on for a semi-infinite amount of time, I'm certainly happy to wait for specifics. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose were you going to give us those specifics please? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Let's kick off (pun unintended) with the lead: "cursed by being both injury and accident prone" -- this a succinct opinion of the subject's travails, so probably worth keeping, but it is after all an opinion, particularly the emotive word "cursed", so I'd expect inline attribution (simply to the Daily Telegraph if the journo isn't wiki-notable).
  • I think it's all right myself, but if proper attribution for a quote does make things look clumsy then it may be another reason to paraphrase instead -- or perhaps paraphrase in the lead and save the quote for the main body. Anyway I'm fine with this as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beattie supported his local football team, Carlisle United, and idolised the players. He recalled "I would have loved to have played for the club and although I couldn't afford to see too many games, I always scoured the newspapers for the match reports and often hung around Brunton Park". "One of my heroes ... was the club's star striker Hughie McIlmoyle ... I remember joining a group of other fans after one game in the pouring rain, in the hope that I could get his signature. After hanging around for an age, Hughie eventually emerged ... but brushed past me and brusquely told me he was in a rush." Beattie was "devastated" and resolved to never turn down autograph hunters. -- this para is mostly quotes, none particularly memorable in themselves; how about summarising along these lines? Beattie supported his local football team, Carlisle United, and idolised players like Hughie McIlmoyle. He recalled being "devastated" when McIlmoyle was too busy to sign an autograph outside the club, resolving to never turn down such requests.
  • The poverty Beattie came from was evident when he arrived in Ipswich wearing his father's shoes, as he did not have "a proper pair of his own", so when Ipswich signed him, they immediately bought him some clothes." -- I think you could safely lose as he did not have "a proper pair of his own" and still make the point clear.
  • "I was also able to help my parents at home and began sending them some money each week." -- covered by the previous sentence about supporting his family, and partially repeated in the next quote about domestic violence; it should go.
  • "a combination of the drink and depression" -- is this the biographer, or Beattie himself, or someone else speaking?
  • he began drinking very heavily and was on one occasion, given the last rites when his pancreas "gave up". He considered suicide, before caring for his wife who was seriously unwell helped him get "his life back on the right track". -- couple of issues with this bit beyond the question of over-quoting: the term used by Grove is "packed up", not "gave up", and I don't see Grove making a direct causal connection between Beattie caring for his wife and getting back on track.
  • Following up, after finding by accident these issues with the Groves reference, I decided to spotcheck the rest of the citations to that source. I found one very minor instance where a word was rendered inexactly (which I fixed) but no other probs in that regard. My concern with Grove overall though is whether he should be used as a source for this info on Beattie's personal life or instead be restricted to discussions of Beattie's playing career, since it's a subject on which he clearly has expertise. Beattie's wife's illness and his caring for her is mentioned below, cited to another source, but it seems Groves is our sole source for the pancreatic problems and contemplation of suicide -- I think we need more ironclad references for that sort of thing. The question then arises is whether Finch is that ironclad -- looking at Nikkimaria's source review earlier, I'm not sure if she was fully convinced of his reliability, but perhaps she could confirm and/or offer her perspective on the above... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Finch issue is odd for me, it's a published book which contains effectively a synopsis of a load of interviews with the subject. I don't see an issue with this being used for non-controversial items at all. As for the contemplation of suicide, pancreas problems and pulling himself together to look after his wife, all are covered adequately elsewhere (e.g. here, here, here, here etc etc) so it seems satisfactory to me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear you but would still like to get a reality check from Nikki on the above. BTW, it's fine to say there are other sources for this stuff but I can't see any of them being used in the article at the moment. In the meantime, I've been bold and tweaked the article to at least better reflect what Groves says by my reading of him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, without more details on editorial process (did anything come of the query about the publisher being an imprint?), I'd be looking at this as effectively self-published, and thus not ironclad for replacing/supplementing Groves in that context. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t what to offer you here. If you believe that source to be unreliable then we need to close this FAC as soon as possible as a fail. Nowhere else can such detail be found than in a book which contains the contents of many interviews with the subject. I can’t add anything else to this discussion and given the glacial rate of “progress” here, I’ll leave it to Dweller when he has time to respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the publishing credentials seem fine. Is there any specific issue remaining unresolved now? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure we're all keen to wrap this up. Nikki, just to confirm, you're satisfied with Finch as a source for non-controversial items, but not to replace/supplement Groves re. pancreatic issues, last rites, and suicidal thoughts -- can I just check if you're happy with Groves as the sole source in the article for those? If so, TRM/Dweller, then I'm happy to call it a day here. If not, then I'd suggest you supplement with some of those newspaper sources TRM mentioned earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finch is fine for non-controversial stuff. Dweller, I'm not sure what you mean by "the publishing credentials seem fine" - is this in reference to Finch or Groves? My opinion is it would be better to supplement with newspaper sources, unless there's something I'm missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finch. Is there a particular claim in the article you think needs an additional source? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 01:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pancreatic issues, consideration of suicide, pulled stomach muscle, and wearing his father's shoes. In terms of the other discussions of early financial issues, I'd prefer to see these claims attributed in-text if not provided with additional sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're casting doubt on Groves as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only the stomach anecdote I can't back up elsewhere at this time. I'm not clear what else you need backing up in terms of "early financial issues". Please be specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why his father turned down Aston Villa, for example - is that documented elsewhere, or was that just a young Beattie's understanding of the issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it'll be documented only in his autobiography because his father was non-notable, having a trial for a club isn't exactly something that gets recorded anywhere one could consider WP:RS, that's somewhat obvious as far as I can tell. We can say that it's according to Beattie (Kevin) if that fact really so troublesome. Anything else, specifically? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why his father gave up work (this doesn't seem to be in FN7 that I can see) and why he went to Catholic school. Both would be fine if attributed in-text. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's in the footnote afterwards, because you required a footnote placed in between. Why he went to Catholic school? Because the grammar school was so expensive, as it says. One imagines the Catholic school was either cheaper or free, but I don't see why we need to add "why" he went there. Why is this in any way controversial given he'd been to a Catholic junior school? Perhaps I'm not following what you're trying to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, I'd like in each of those three cases for the article to explicitly attribute the reasoning provided - his father couldn't work due to back problems, he went to Catholic school because grammar school is expensive, and his father didn't play for Aston Villa because he'd make more money doing other things - to Beattie. With that done, and with the stomach muscle bit either sourced elsewhere if possible or removed, I'd have no further objections. Ian, what about you? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think any of those are controversial at all. Not working because of a back problem affects millions of people. We all know that grammar schools were more expensive than state schools (school uniform discussion above too), and footballers of that day weren't well paid. Nothing needs attribution there as all of it is commonplace. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Millions of people don't work due to reasons other than back problems, or choose one school over another for reasons unrelated to the cost of a uniform, or turn down a job offer for some reason other than wages. I don't see a particular harm in indicating that these were the reasons provided by Beattie. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above are in any sense controversial. I'll let Dweller work these out if he has time because this is becoming a little silly now. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My difficulty here is that I no longer understand the purpose of the requests. Why are we being asked to double cite things that aren't even contentious? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 21:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: You aren't. My request was simply for in-line attribution to Beattie. The only item for which an additional citation is pending is the pulled stomach muscle, and really if you'd rather you can just take that out. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to be required here is the repetitive "according to Beattie" in each case, plus a double-cite for something that is now, apparently, no longer a reliable source. My question is do we really need to destroy the prose to accommodate this, or do we just say thanks for the advice and move on? After all, not one single other reviewer has had any problem with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my tardiness... tbh I'm not too fussed about another citation for the stomach muscle thing, which I see as fairly minor compared to claims of depression, suicidal thoughts, etc. OTOH I think the request for inline attribution to Beattie is reasonable, and I don't think it has to be "according to" in all cases; there could be variations such as "as Beattie put it", "in Beattie's words", "Beattie recalled", etc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll make the prose unreadable. Isn't the purpose of quote marks to show it's a quote and the inline citation to show where it's come from? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the time he was a "53 year old grandfather of six", he was "unable to walk more than half a mile" -- this degree of quoting is getting pretty fannish, can be paraphrased as by the time he was 53, he had serious difficulties walking or something similar.
There may be still more quotes that should be attributed or trimmed, but those are the ones that stood out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with actions/responses, just one outstanding at this stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has this officially stalled? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the deafening silence is self-explanatory... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

[edit]
Well; I can see a split infinitive; is fourth round not hyphenated; commas that are occasionally absent or present; and of course it's terribly amusing to refer to the Guardian inline like that :p
I imagine it's purely my ignorance/pettiness. It's a great article, well-deserving to the feller himself. And that's said as one who remembers fortnightly clashes between ITFC and WHUFC. Glory days indeed. Congrats! ——SerialNumber54129 15:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, thanks for that. I'll find and fix the fourth round. Lmk if there are any other things you'd like fixed. To help the coordinators, it'd be lovely if you indicated clearly if you support the nomination. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: I'll probably oppose until you find that split-infinitive ,) ——SerialNumber54129 19:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Serial Number 54129 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
Early life
Senior
Later career
  • A couple of words to introduce John Lyons – for those who don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of Welsh or Essex footballers? "Colchester team mate John Lyons" or similar would provide the hint of context needed
    Added "teammate" as Colchester is implicit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • last coaching position – any idea of a year or season?
    I'll need to look at Finch, laters... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen some crap excuses for players missing matches, but straining at stool is the best I've ever heard!

That's it from me – a nicely put together article that covers all I'd expect to see. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All done bar the Finch one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Happy to support this as it stands. If you could fill in the year of the last coaching position it would stop any future questions on the point, but this is good to pass without that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SchroCat, comments and support much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias talk

  • This may well be referred to above, but forgive me for not trawling through the whole review: is there is a reason only Beattie's Ipswich appearances and goals appear in the infobox?
  • In the Career section, it says "The following season was Beattie's and Ipswich's first appearances in a European competition..." But Ipswich had played in the 1962–63 European Cup as English champions the previous season.
  • "..broke Stoke City's John Ritchie's leg." Not keen on the "xxx's yyy's" construction, it seems a bit clunky to me, but I'm not that bothered if you prefer not to change it.
  • "...he insisted he was able to play in the away leg. Robson disagreed and he was left out of the side for the away leg, and Ipswich were knocked out on penalties." Is the repetition of "away leg" necessary? Again, not a deal breaker.
  • "...he began drinking very heavily and was on one occasion, given the last rites when his pancreas "packed up"." No need for the comma after "occasion".
  • "...and managed to get "his life back on the right track"." Whose quote is that, his or Groves? Would probably be worth clarifying.

Really good article about a player I knew nothing about previously. In fact, I'll own up to initially thinking I was going to be reading about James Beattie! Nothing too major from me. Harrias talk 13:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias cheers, done all bar a couple... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Six supports now, after a near-infinite amount of time, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another two days pass, is this thing still on? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: This has been open a long time (I would have done this sooner but real life has been a little busy and I apologise), and I think we have a consensus to promote. The only issue that has caused some discussion in the sourcing, re the Finch book and the request for inline attribution. Given that we seem unlikely to reach a perfect consensus on this (and there has been so much discussion, it's a little tricky to tell where we are on the issue now), I think it is time to move on. The main thing is that the sourcing is reliable, and while my personal inclination would be to use inline attribution for all the cases, I can see the viewpoint of the nominators. As far as I can see, I think we are following the MoS enough without being too pedantic, and I consider the sourcing issues to have been addressed sufficiently to promote. But perhaps any further discussion on the issue could take place on the talk page after promotion. It may also be worth someone taking a look at duplinks; there are a few but I leave it up to the main editors to decide if they are necessary or not. Sarastro (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [34].

Siege of Aiguillon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A turning point in the Hundred Years' War which has been almost completely ignored by historians. In 1346 Prince John, the French King's son and heir, marched a "huge" army into Gascony, supported by a large siege train, five cutting edge gunpowder cannon and every military officer in the royal court. They besieged Aiguillon, "the key to Gascony". The English commander, the Earl of Lancaster, adroitly avoided battle, harassed the French communications, and repeatedly ran supplies through to the besieged town. After more than five months John abandoned the siege under direct orders from his father, who needed all the troops he could muster to face an unexpected invasion in the north by Edward III. John's army arrived two weeks after the French army of the north had been crushingly defeated at the Battle of Crecy.

This article recently achieved A class status and I am cautiously optimistic that it may be capable of being massaged into featured article quality. @Chetsford, AustralianRupert, CPA-5, and Peacemaker67: Greetings to you all. You were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. It is now up for an FAC and I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chetsford

[edit]

I reviewed this during its A-Class Review and all my possible comments were thoroughly addressed there. I've re-read it and have seen no further changes other than those I would characterize as improvements to an already excellent article. As a result, I don't have much more to add other than to say I believe it meets the FA criteria if — for no other reason — than I'm still delighted, even some weeks later, at having learned what a grand chevauchée is. I strongly support promoting this to Featured status. Chetsford (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chetsford. Thanks for the kind words and for the support. I shall see what further Medieval esoterica I can come up with for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — pass

[edit]

Comments by Buidhe

[edit]
  • The first image breaks across sections, failing MOS:IMAGELOC. I would also suggest reducing the size of the second image, which looks disproportionate.
I get, as you would expect, different results on an iPhone, an android phone, an iPad, my laptop and my PC. Obviously it also varies depending on how I have set the "thumbnail size" in preferences. (I usually use 300px.) Some break the section, some don't. (Obviously reducing the size setting removes the "problem"; while maximising it creates it on all but one platform.)
I can't see a rule about breaking sections in MOS:IMAGELOC. I am quite prepared to believe that I am being an idiot, but could you quote it for me for clarity. Thanks.
Well it doesn't look disproportionate to me (on any of the five platforms). But I would say that wouldn't I - if I had thought it was I would have changed it already. Now shrunk a little - cranked it down to its default setting. How's that? (I agree with you - it does look better at this size.)
  • I would recommend trimming the lede a bit, it seems too long for an article that's only 17k readable prose overall.
Fair point. Edited down a bit, but note Peacemaker's request below for more information in the lead.

buidhe 06:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. Two points addressed, and one query. And thanks once again for the huge amount of reviewing you get through, I am sure that I am not the only editor who appreciates it.. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

My involvement in the Milhist ACR was only an image review, so I'll take a close look through this here. I have a few comments, but it might take a couple of bites:

  • "confiscated the Gascon holdings" didn't he attempt to do that? Clearly it wasn't successful, so perhaps a better description would be "attempted to confiscate"?
Ha. I am trying to get into a short sentence a situation which engaged the finest legal minds of the time for a generation. And was written in Medieval High French legalese! I am open to suggestions here. I think that the word I really want is 'appropriated' (To take to oneself; to claim or use, especially as by an exclusive right) but it seems a bit opaque to me. What do you think?
what about "sought to appropriate"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: I like that and went to make the change. To discover that it has dropped out after CPA-5's request that I amend that section to be more in line with Battle of Auberoche. It has ended up as "should be taken back into Philip's hands". You may wish to recheck the paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, Garonne is misspelt as Garrone on second mention.
Fixed.
  • "Duke John werewas never able"
Done.
  • comma after "By August"
Done.
  • link dysentery
Done.
  • in the lead, perhaps mention that Crecy was fought without Duke John's army?
Done.
  • link Duchy of Aquitaine
Done.
  • suggest "up to two thirds of them would bewere tied down in garrisons"
Only if you insist. I would need to change "could field" to 'fielded'; and, to my eye, it would make the sentence a little clumsy.
  • suggest linking Ford (crossing)
Done.
  • link foraging
I would like to, but I can't find an article on Forage (military) or similar.
  • comma after "During 1345"
Done.
  • I'm not sure about the value of the MeasuringWorth conversion. In any case, being French, Euros would be better than pounds.
People seem to have strong(ish) views on this. I tend towards liking it, and it is permitted by the MoS. I disagree. If the article were on Iran, would you want the modern sum in rials. Surely this is the English Wikipedia and we are writing for an English audience? Why should Euros mean anything to them. (Yes, I understand that pounds may be unfamiliar to many English language readers.) Given that pounds existed in 1346 and that there was an exchange rate, pounds seems to be the currency to go with. Plus, so far as I can see, the template only works on currencies which existed on the base date. The source converts to 1346 pounds, but for Euros I would have to hand enter, which means that it would not adjust in future years,
Happy(ish) to be persuaded otherwise.
  • as I've suggested elsewhere, I suggest using one name for Duke John of Normandy, perhaps Duke John would be best, rather than Normandy etc.
I thought that I had done that, but clearly not thoroughly enough. Now consistent.
  • comma after "On 14 August"
Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "On the 20 August"
done.
  • "Local, Gascon, forces"
Done.
  • 50 miles, wasn't it 60 miles in another relevant article?
It was. That's me dithering over my paraphrasing. Checking the source I am going to go with 50 miles and alter Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346.

That's me done. Nice work so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67. Thanks for the prompt and insightful review. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I do have some comments for you, if you don't mind (of course) here they are.

Rephrased in a similar way to Battle of Auberoche.
  • Among their cargos were over 100,000,000 litres of wine. Like in the Battle of Auberoche again. No US quarts?
Done.
  • File:Guyenne_1328-en.svg image should use English-controlled not English controlled.
Done.
  • The main wall, 2,700 feet (820 m) long, was modern but incomplete Why was the main wall incomplete? Did the town hadn't much time to prepare itself for an attack?
Ha! It took years, sometimes decades, to wall a town. And cost immense amounts of money. And, as noted in the "Gascony" section, the English had only captured it the previous winter (December) and the French arrived on 1 April. But this wasn't really the issue - this is OR, but fairly obvious if you study the period - it was that it would have taken 5 or more years to build new, modern town walls from scratch; if they had had the money, which they almost certainly didn't. (There was a war on and their most lucrative trade had to go through the enemy (English)-held port of Bordeaux.)
  • See some typos of the name Garonne.
  • The northern wall of the town was protected by the Lot and the western by the Garrone,
  • The army marched down the valley of the Garrone from Agen
  • Aiguillon commands both the Rivers Garronne and Lot,
Well spotted. Thank you. Fixed.
  • I'm not gonna say the name Quercy is overlinked because there are two Quercys linked in the body itself. The first one in By March they were both in the province of Quercy. in the "Investment" section and the second in the Further Gascon forces raided to the east, deep into Quercy, in the "Aftermath" section. But the second one shouldn't be linked.
You are, of course, quite right. Fixed.

You know the FA article itself says FAs are one of Wikipedia's best articles. This isn't one of the "best articles" of Wikipedia, this is just one of the masterpieces of Wikipedia. Cheers. :) CPA-5 (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thank you once again for your painstaking scrutiny. And for your generous - over-generous - words. This is the fourth article I have written from scratch and I think that I am starting to get the hang of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Greetings Gog well you just made some good service here. Only could you remove the During the first half of the 14th century well over 1,000 ships a year departed Gascony for England. sentence's paragraph in the "Gascony" section? Because you just literally have two the same paragraphs. One in the "Gascony" and one in the "Background" itself. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: How very stupid of me. Sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Stafford_1430.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
I have amended the information in line with the one in Battle of Auberoche, amended the tag, and added a live link.
Oops. Added as in Battle of Auberoche. And in a third, and final, article where I have used this map. There is also a request in with the map department for a version of the larger map with the smaller location map inset.

Hi Nikkimaria and thanks once again. Your two points, I believe, both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria. If you could spare a couple of minutes to see if I have got these two corrections right I would be extremely grateful. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both look fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I've had quite a job to find something to quibble at, and the best I can manage is:

  • Operations
    • "the large French army … was entirely dependent on the rivers for their logistics" – singular switching to plural in mid-sentence
Done. It always amazes me how one can check and recheck an article, and still miss the most elementary issues. Thanks.
    • "significant" – this is the fourth "significant" in the text and the question arises in each case, what did it/they signify? A pity to use a precise word as a mere synonym for important or major.
True. Three of the four cases removed.
    • "fourteenth century" – the MoS (regrettably in my view) would have us write 14th-century, as you have done earlier.
Boo! Done.
  • French withdrawal
    • "5 miles inland" – "five" would be more usual for a number below 10 such as this.
Done.
    • "advisors" – a pity to use the AmE "advisors" rather than the traditional BrE "advisers". (This is a losing battle, but I fight it just the same.)
Done. As I have written before, I read too much American fiction and thus forget the lessons I have been taught.
  • Aftermath
    • "modern historian Jonathan Sumption" – clunky false title, which can be remedied by adding a definite article.
I persist in creating false titles. Please keep correcting me. I hope to get the message eventually.

Nothing of any great moment there. This is a splendid article: a good read, evidently comprehensive, well illustrated and widely referenced. Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 14:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Many thanks for saving my embarrassment over these issues, and for the gentle way in which you correct me. I am trainable. I think. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to coordinators

[edit]

Hi Ian Rose and the other coordinators. To my untutored eye it looks as if this FAC may be drawing to a close. If I am mistaken, apologies; as a neophyte at things FAC I am still learning the ropes. However, if it is, could I request permission to nominate my next candidate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I agree this looks very "promotable" as things stand, I just prefer to leave all reviews open at least 10-14 days to give busy editors a chance to comment so, to minimise the time you'd have two noms open simultaneously, how about you start the new one on Sunday (assuming of course no major concerns raised with the current one in the meantime). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose and thanks for the response. That is a very good point. I hadn't really thought about how short a time it had been open for. I shall hold off. It is generous of you to say that I can open another on Sunday. Obviously, as you say, I won't if there are further substantive comments on this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

Excellent work. I can't see anything here that's worth holding up promotion for, but just two very minor quibbles:

  • Throughout the siege small groups of Anglo-Gascons were able to run the blockade with small quantities Maybe try and avoid the repetition of "small"?
Good spot. Reworded.
  • Scholars of chivalry were later to debate what, if any, circumstances honourably justified a retreat from such a situation A few words on their conclusions, even in a footnote, would be nice.
That is about all the source says. Checking the usual suspects I can't find that it was ever resolved. (A similar issue, concerning another French participant was still being debated by scholars in the 19th-century.) I suspect that it became a nationalistic dispute. ereading, it is interesting, IMO, but off topic, so I have taken it out.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for dropping by. And for the comments. Both very germane, both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough to me. Support, gladly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [35].

Cadaver Tomb of René of Chalon

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A life sized sculptural cadaver tomb placed over the resting place of René of Chalon (1519-44), whose deathbed request was that his burial monument would depict his body as it would be three years after his death. His request seems to have been enthusiastically perused by his wife. Neither would have been disappointed by the work of the attributed sculptor Ligier Richier, whose extremely bleak art presents an emaciated and flayed skeleton standing upright as if a "living corpse". [NSFW], but I find the work to be very honest, and quite inspiring. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good edits. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about MOS:SANDWICH, any thoughts? ——SerialNumber54129 14:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only see a problem with the images under "Death of René of Chalon". Perhaps move the image of René to the beginning of the section, and then move the one of his wife down to the third paragraph? Will create more space between them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk, have gone with your suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
Not known by me. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok, working though There now. FunkMonk can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, have the last issues been addressed as well? Since they didn't get replies. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't see those were actually your replies, since you used bullet points instead of indentations, I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, held was meant and has been changed. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the time and help. Ceoil (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...

The tomb was designated as a Monument historique object on... - is "object" necessary as a noun-adjective-noun reads oddly to mine eyes....
The altarpiece beneath the sculpture is made from black carved marble and limestone and measures 105 x 233 inches. - other measuremnts in cm only
''Its top-slap is taken from the former tomb of Henry IV, Count of Bar (d. 1344) and Yolande of Flanders (d. 1395). - slab?
is there a legacy at all - did it influence other sculptures?

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead, such as the monument designation and the replica in the Palais de Chaillot, do not appear to be mentioned in the body or sourced anywhere
  • FN1: not seeing that title at the source link
  • Ranges should use endashes not hyphens
  • FN11 should match format of other book sources
  • FN13 should indicate original French. Same with FN17, 23
  • FN18: that's not an accurate translation of the journal title, and the wikilink definitely isn't right
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Gedo is missing an ISBN
  • Jones: check publisher
  • Replaced
Thanks Nikki, excellent spots. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Ceoil (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll be supporting this, but a few minor drafting points first:

  • Date formats: in the lead we have the AmE style – "July 15, 1544" and in the main text BrE style – "15 July 1544". Better stick to one form or the other.
  • "World War 1" – usually gets a Roman numeral (or, in my view even better as "the First World War", but to each his own)
  • "his uncle Philibert of Chalon[6] grandmother and the uncle of his wife" – I couldn't work out who was who here. I think this sentence needs reviewing and clarifying.
  • "It is 177 cm in height" – we usually give an imperial translation in brackets for metric measurements
  • "Art historian Kathleen Cohen" – clunky false title, which can be fixed by adding a definite article in front of it.
  • "105 x 233 inches" – I think you ought to standardise on metric with imperial in brackets afterwards or vice versa, rather than have metric for the height earlier and then imperial here.
  • "top-slap" – I'm guessing this should be top-slab

That's all from me. An intriguing article. I had no idea such memorials existed. Very pleased to have read it and look forward to supporting. Tim riley talk 15:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all very useful and I think sorted now. Delighted you enjoyed the read. Ceoil (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! Happy to join the supporters. Thoroughly readable, widely sourced and well (not to say scarily) illustrated. Clearly of FA standard in my view. Tim riley talk 18:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from KJP1

[edit]

Ceoil - Just a marker to say I’ll be along as soon as I can. Wonderful, and wonderfully gruesome! KJP1 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "which apparently fulfilled his deathbed wish that his tomb depicts his body as it would be three years after his death" - two things here. To me, "tomb depicts" reads oddly. Should it be "depict". Secondly, I wonder if this needs to be caveated? The body of the text is much less certain that it was Rene's wish, indeed it suggests the more likely source of the idea was his widow.
  • "his heart was held in a heart-shaped reliquary" - is "heart-shaped" required?
Death of René of Chalon and tomb commission
  • "while the rest were transferred to Breda to rest with his father" - to avoid the double "rest" perhaps, "to lie" or "to be interred"?
  • "His widow commissioned Richier to construct a transi to hold some of the remains of her husband. The monument, along with the other relics of the Dukes of Bar, was transferred to the church of Saint-Étienne in June 1790" - I got a bit confused here. The transi is the tomb that's the article subject, yes? And who are these Ducs of Bar, who suddenly appear? Was that a title Rene had? And third, the 1790 transfer comes rather abruptly after the tomb's construction, even though it was 250 years later. I wonder if combing the third and fourth para.s, and ending it with the 1790 transfer may flow more easily?
  • "it is not known with what level of detail her instructions came with" - perhaps, "but the level of detail she may have specified is uncertain"? Not sure that's an improvement, but I do think the double with needs attention.
  • "a realistically depicted and severely emaciated corpses" - singular corpse, I think.
Interpretation
  • "Cadaver tombs, in France known as Transis" - does transi need a capital? It didn't above.
  • "but the heart was broken off and stolen by a soldier in 1793, and with it, the heart was lost" - the "hand" was broken off?
  • "the tomb may represent either a despairing "rotten", or romantic and eternal "lovers", point of view" - sorry, not quite getting this. What is a "rotten" point of view? Is there something missing after it?
ha, Bertrand's text, or at least the English translation of it, is quite impenetrable. Have rephrased as "the tomb may represent either despair or a romantic ideal of the eternal spirit", and found some additional source material that expands upon the notion. Ceoil (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Statue
  • "The outheld hand once healed his preserved heart" - "The outstretched hand once held his preserved heart" - and should we say "may have once held", given this isn't absolutely certain?
  • yes, Done.
  • "and made from black marble and white stone" - specify "limestone"?
  • "twelve small corbel statuettes measuring between 38 and 40 cm (1.25–1.3 in) to in height" - I think the "to" is a stray.
  • "Of these, six were destroyed in November 1793 during the French Revolution" - and the other six?, given that the image clearly shows there are none now.
Have clarified in the text that none remain. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with forensic and unflinching realism" - that reads like a direct quote. Should it be a quote?
  • "which supports two black marble columns and a Corinthian capital" - hasn't each column got a capital, thus, "which supports two black marble columns with Corinthian capitals"?
  • "The hand was replaced and shown holding either a clepsydra or hourglass, obvious symbolic objects for a memento mori" - do we have a date for this. Sometime between the 1793 theft and the 1920 copying but when?
  • Not in the sources I have. There was a lot of looting during the French Revolutionary Wars, and a lot of other French noble / royal tombs were raided. Given the lack of coverage or prominence given to the period of absence in the sources, I'd say the arm was of low artistic value and easily replaced, and this was done was so sooner rather than later; but this is a guess. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometime later this was replaced by less leading, but perhaps dull, current smooth round stone" - bit confused again here. "less leading" - "the misleading" (as I also think it's missing a definite article)? And "perhaps dull" - says who, you or the sources? And is it round? It's not easy to see but, for me, looking at the replica at Chaillot, it appears more heart-shaped than round.
Altarpiece and frame
  • "The black-slab contains two old series of inscriptions which are also later additions" - why the hyphen? And is "old" misplaced? How are they both "old" and "later"? And are they later additions to this monument, or to the slab?
  • "on request by the then vicar of Saint-Étienne, Claude Rollet" - perhaps, "at the request of the then vicar of Saint-Étienne, Claude Rollet"?
  • "The altar holds a glass covered holding for the bones of the royals of Bar" - to avoid "holds a holding", perhaps, "The altar holds a glass- covered reliquary..."? And were the Dukes "royals", as opposed to "nobles"?
Provenance and conservation
  • "a vault which held the hearts of Antoine de Lorraine, René" - but not if the heart was in a reliquary in his hand. Caveat? "which originally/which may"?
  • "Due to humidity and impact with water" - "Due to humidity and contact with water"?
  • " was followed by a health assessment" - pretty poor, I'd suggest, from the look of him! "was followed by a condition assessment"?
Legacy
  • "Epitaph of the Heart of René de Chalon, Prince of Orange" - sure it is, but just checking it is "Epitaph of" and not "Epitaph on"?
  • "The poems includes the lines" - do we know which poem within the collection includes those lines?
  • "in her 1974 autobiography "All Said and Done"" - for other works, you've italicised rather than placed in quote marks.
Alt-text
  • This would be helpful for accessibility.

Many thanks for another great article on a fascinating work. KJP1 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you KJP1 for this detailed review. Working through and will ping when complete. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 have extensively worked on the article based on your guidance and suggestions, can you take another look pls. Ceoil (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking in good shape and pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Hi Ceoil. All the images seemed to be properly licensed, and consistently captioned, and have consistent alt text, except:

  • Death (Ligier Richier).jpg: In the Summary box, the fair use rationale has a lot of missing information.
  • Rene van Chalon.jpg: In the Summary box, Author information is missing. Also, I'm not sure if it an absolute requirement, but the link doesn't take the reader directly to the page where the image is located. The photo was uploaded 12 years ago, so likely it was moved. It may still be somewhere on the website, but the reader needs to hunt around to find it and verify. If the Author information is not clearly available, maybe one idea would be to upload a new version of the image with clearly defined Author information and (would be nice) a link directly to the image? Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown now added, while noting the preexisting "PD" tag; this is rather above the usual requirements. Ceoil (talk)
Mosie, have replaced with File:René de Châlon (ca 1518-44), by Jan van Scorel.jpg Ceoil (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moisejp, looking, gimme a bit to sort out. All done. Ceoil (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see from Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline that what you say is correct: the template is not required. I've removed the unnecessary template, and tweaked the FUR slightly to more clearly satisfy the requirements stated at that link. It all looks good, and the new image René de Châlon (ca 1518-44) also looks good. I'm satisfied. Moisejp (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [36].

Georgetown Car Barn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgetown Car Barn is a historic building in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. that once served as a hub station and storage facility for the city's trolley cars. Construction of the building required excavation of a massive amount of earth, leading to the construction of the Exorcist steps. Gradually, it was converted into office space, housing the International Police Academy, and is now used by Georgetown University. Today, it is one of the most prominent buildings of the Georgetown skyline. Ergo Sum 03:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Ceoil

[edit]
@Ceoil: Done. Ergo Sum 04:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the Capital Traction Company ceased to exist - vague, "merged with the Washington Rapid Transit". Sorry for being so tardy on this. Having another look. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I've rephrased the sentence so that it should be clearer. Ergo Sum 02:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ergo, have broken the lead into three paras - two reasons; logical flow and I wanted to make make the film connection / hook standout more. Ok to revert. Ceoil (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me. Ergo Sum 03:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go further; two hooks I don't think you make enough of, Friedkin's choice of location (there are many many sources on this, and would give a dedicated section in the article body), and the underlying economic and societal reasons behind the the merger, the later of which seems breezed over at present, the former is bizarrely not there at all. In general I don't think the article pokes its head above the larger forces, eg electrification, that shaped its destiny, but is instead two narrowly focused on the effects it had on the specific building structure; this to me results in lost opportunity, and a rather pedestrian, disappointing article. I'm Oppose for now, until the article is somewhat reshaped. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I hesitate to write too extensively on the larger forces at play behind the creation of the building, because those really should be covered in thematic articles, such as Streetcars in Washington, D.C. or Streetcars in Washington, D.C. and Maryland. Since this article is about the building, I think it should be confined to its immediate circumstances. However, if you can identify those sources regarding the choice of location, I'd be happy to include them. Ergo Sum 22:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would put in just a sentence or two more on the merger. Re the steps, a mention that they are also a setting in Blatty's original book.[37] Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

The article looks in very good shape. Just a few points for consideration below:

Lead
  • "Designed by architect Waddy Butler Wood" - to avoid the false title, perhaps, "Designed by the architect Waddy Butler Wood".
History
  • "Thereafter, the site was used to store horse-drawn trolley cars" - this puzzled me a little as we've been told three sentences before that the building had already been converted to hold horses and trolleys from 1861?
Construction
  • "Adjacent to the car barn are a set of stairs commonly known as the Exorcist steps" - not at the time of construction, obviously. Perhaps, "Adjacent to the car barn are a set of stairs now commonly known as the Exorcist steps". And car barn is capitalised elsewhere.
  • "including the well-known cottage of E. D. E. N. Southworth" - what is it about the cottage that makes it well-known? It's not specifically mentioned in Southworth's article. I see Source 7 mentions it. Move it to the end of that sentence to cover it?
  • "The three-story, 180-by-242-foot (55 by 74 m) building" - ignore if, as I suspect, it's an AmEng/BrEng thing, but "storey" in this context has an 'e' in BrEng.
  • "The second and third floors were connected with steel trestles to allow trolleys coming across the Potomac River from Rosslyn serving Washington, Arlington, Falls Church, and projected to serve Great Falls and Old Dominion" - perhaps, "The second and third floors were connected with steel trestles to allow for trolleys coming across the Potomac River from Rosslyn serving Washington, Arlington, Falls Church, and projected to serve Great Falls and Old Dominion"? Or "to give access for trolleys coming across..."
Redesign
  • "the Car Barn thereafter began its long period of deterioration". This puzzled me a bit, as did the lead line, "Not long after its opening, the building began to fall into a state of disrepair". Did it deteriorate because it was poorly designed, or because its design rapidly became unsuited to the changed needs of the time? I think the latter? I wonder if this could be clarified, although I'm currently stumped for a suggestion as to how.
  • Probably a mix of the two, but the way I read the sources, it seems to be primarily the former. Certainly by the mid-20th century, the building suffered neglect. I think I've clarified it in the body of the article. Ergo Sum 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further conversions of track space was converted to office space in 1921 and 1922" - "Further areas....."?
Later uses
  • "In 1992, the owner of DC Transit System, O. Roy Chalk, was foreclosed against" - the ending sounds a little clunky, but it might be the correct legal term. "was made bankrupt"? "went into liquidation"?
Sources
  • I've no knowledge of the building, but the sources look recent and representative. The online ones are also accessible, which is a boon, and will help the Source review.

It's an interesting read. I hope these suggestions are of some help. KJP1 (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry - I completely forgot to come back this. My comments have been fully addressed and I'm very pleased to offer my belated Support. KJP1 (talk) 06:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Mostly looking at sourcing and source entry formatting here, per my usual habit:

  • Websites and italics. I hate this, and the templates don't really help. The "website" parameter applies italics, but that's not always what you want. Historically, best practice on the project has been: 1) if the website is primarily known for a print-format work of the same name that would be italicized, then italicize; 2) if the website and its publisher have the same name, and that's not a name that would typically be subject to italicization in a reference, use the "publisher" parameter instead to avoid italics; 3) otherwise, use the website's name in italics and only include the publisher if it is necessary for clarity. For example, in this article, the reference to The Georgetowner is correctly italicized because that was a magazine before it was an e-magazine, but "Library of Congress" and "Douglas Development Corporation" shouldn't be italicized in their respective entries.
  • Speaking of HABS, I note you cite the document selecting the structure for the Historic American Buildings Survey but never mention that in the text. Should you? Has it received any other designations along those lines?
    • I've added a line about its HABS listing. It is not currently listed on any other historic registries to my knowledge, though it was recently nominated for the National Register of Historic Places, which I don't think warrants inclusion. Ergo Sum 03:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about anything would be a better quality source than Krepp, a book about "haunted places" in Georgetown. You may want to check, but on first glance, I think that may be replaceable with Mike High's The C&O Canal Companion: A Journey through Potomac History?
  • That Jack Anderson source is a mess. The pdf you link to is apparently something like the scanned result of a FOIA request? Based on its appearance, I'm 90% sure that what we're looking at there is a scan of an article clipped from some newspaper. The FOIA document is not a reliable source. The newspaper would be, but that's not what you're giving a citation to. In any case, it's not immediately obvious to me where the Washington's-Merry-Go-Round title originated.
    • I don't see what's wrong with the source. It's perfectly acceptable to cite declassified documents, and this one happens to be hosted on the CIA's website (not that of e.g. some conspiracy theorist). If I could find the article elsewhere online, I would link to it, but I find it nowhere else. I've removed the merry-go-round title, since I don't recall where I found it. Ergo Sum 04:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC) I was able to find the article reprinted in a different newspaper. I've the replaced the CIA source with this one. Ergo Sum 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice if we could do better than the DAVIS Construction source (the commercial website of a general contractor).
    • I agree that if a better source were available, it would be preferable. However, I cannot find one, and the statements cited by the DAVIS sources are brief and contain things within the scope of the company's business. Ergo Sum 04:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Picky moment of the day: ideally, your ISBNs should be properly hyphenated.
  • I don't have access to it, but the American Institute of Architects appears to have a two-page discussion of this building in their book about the city's landmarks. Perhaps that's work investigating?
  • Is there anything to be gained by looking for sources contemporary with any of the building's major events?

A lot of this is just FAC minutiae, but I'm concerned that the quality of a few sources (especially Krupp and, as currently presented, Anderson) don't meet the FAC standards. I'd also like to ensure that this does in fact represent a comprehensive survey of the available literature. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thanks for the thorough source review. This is helpful. I'll go through and see if I can rectify those concerns. Ergo Sum 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Having reviewed what's out there a second time, I think it's pretty comprehensive. The only additional item I found is the recent NRHP nomination, which goes into some great detail about the architectural modifications made over time. I'll see what's suitable for inclusion in the article. Ergo Sum 04:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to support here with the various corrections and the identification of the actual source from the CIA newspaper clipping. Were you able to track down that American Institute of Architects source? At this point, I don't see why it would be essential to do so, but I'm just curious if it was a useful hit. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I tried to get a hold of it through my academic library, but they didn't have access to it. I could try to track it down through a different public library, but if you don't think it's essential, then I'll refrain from doing so. Ergo Sum 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even the FA standard doesn't require consulting literally every potential source. I'm entirely happy to support promotion even absent that one, although I admit that were I in your place, I'd probably try to interlibrary loan that one out of personal curiosity. Regardless, nice work on this article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]

@Sturmvogel 66: I believe I've addressed all your comments. Ergo Sum 04:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [38].

Australasian gannet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I buffed this article in a fit of patriotic pride after northern gannet was promoted to Featured status. I reckon it is within striking distance of FA-hood. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine's Sunbird's comments Support

[edit]
  • Structurally, why are displays split off from breeding by feeding, when the two are closely linked (the displays relate to breeding)?
moved display material into breeding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an Aussie and a Kiwi, I'm complaining and not complaining about the difference in detail re: colonies in the lead. Why detailed Kiwi colonies (like a third of the whole lead) and no Aussie ones?
largest aussie ones added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also why is breeding only summarised as being about coloniality in the lead? And no summary of displays
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The head is yellow, in lead I'd say tinged in buff yellow
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No indication of general range in lead, only breeding sites
whoops! now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the migration section it simply describes the movements of NZ birds - is anything known about Australian birds?
I don't recall seeing anything but will look again. The NZ ones appear to have been much better studied overall... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some indication of what this involves (location of these obscure islands or distance from Oz) would contextualise this
  • Sorry, the above comment is in relation to this section which I somehow didn't include Far-wandering gannets are occasional visitors to Marion Island and the Crozet Islands, . Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ah ok. was pondering this..annoyingly HANZAB doesn't elaborate and many of the vagrant mentions are rather obscure articles I am having trouble tracking down..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough to state that they're in the Southern Indian Ocean! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though implied, start Gannet pairs may remain together over several seasons, until one member dies, although they have been known t with a statement re: their monogamy, ie Gannet pairs form monogamous and long term bonds, and pairs may....
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is generally good, with just the lead needing some work, will do more later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

great! thanks! added... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: finding sources for clarifying the distance proving elusive - anything else to add or any other ideas? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sabine's Sunbird: are you satisfied all your points are addressed or discussed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • The lead structure doesn't follow the structure of the article. Example lead has feeding before colonies and breeding, in article it is after. I'm not going to insist it does, but maybe it should.
reordered Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead still has no information about anything about breeding after the point of breeding displays. Given that over a half of the second paragraph is about breeding colony locations - I think the lead still needs a good rethink. For a lead Nesting takes place in colonies along the coastlines of New Zealand, Victoria and Tasmania—mostly on offshore islands, although there are several mainland colonies in both countries. is sufficient for colonies, then focus on behaviour.
specific colonies removed, breeding info added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The young birds fledge 95–109 days after hatching, before heading to a nearby clifftop and remaining there for anywhere from 6 hours to 3 days before flying. I don't think the before in this sentence is necessary
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike young northern gannets, juvenile Australasian gannets are beginning to fly by the time they fledge and have fully grown primary flight feathers.:"Are able to fly" is probably better than "are beginning to fly" which is a rather odd construction
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may dive from 1–2 m (3-7 ft) above the surface at an angle in water less than 3 m (10 ft) deep or in rough weather. This is a very specific set of criteria - how far can they dive from if the water is calm and deep? I'm pretty sure I've seen them dive from a height greater than a man!
tweaked to clarify - the preceding sentence gives usual height (up to 20 m) - that is just for shallow water or rough. Hope it is clearer now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pilchard (Sardinops sagax) is a popular prey item; Australasian gannets switched to anchovy (Engraulis australis) at Farewell Spit in 1996 and barracouta (Thyrsites atun) in Port Phillip Bay in 1998 after pilchard mass mortality events I think I know what this is trying to say but isn't quite managing it. Popular isn't the same as favoured, and the bit about prey switching follows uncomfortably from the pilchard statement. Are there any studies that show prey selection or composition, or effects of prey switching on breeding success in pilchard die-off years? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
neither study recorded an impact on gannet breeding success and gannets were described as "flexible". Have added the energy rationale. There was a mass mortality event in 1995 though the cause is unclear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Mostly looking at sources and especially reference formatting:

  • Is it worth mentioning records of vagrancy in the discussion of its range? I know it has been reported from Brazil and southern Africa, and the IUCN Red List page suggests that a vagrant breeding population may have been present in South Africa at some point in the past?
added South Africa mention. Brazil not mentioned in HANZAB...will search Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has to be more to say about the gannet in culture than one line about the Maori using them as a food source. Traditional use for the feathers, maybe? Art? Heck, appearance on postage stamps if you have to.
I know! I have been frustrated by the lack of cultural material on it. I will look further. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe use the "relationship with humans" section header instead and find something on the tourism of Cape Kidnappers? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that is a very good idea - I couldn't find any reliable sources with gannet stamps from an initial look.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a few days, I bet I can come up with something there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one starting point - Te Ara mentions Maori use for food, the bones for tattooing implements and feathers for decoration. Nurg (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, choice bro'! Duly added :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As promised. The gannets' presence on New Zealand stamps is easy to source because the New Zealand post has one of the most collector-friendly websites of any nation in the world. The Cape Kidnappers gannet colony has appeared at least twice: in 1958 and 2009. I'm still hunting for a RS for gannets on the stamps of Norfolk Island; I don't have a Scott Catalogue immediately on hand at the moment or I'd just cook up a citation there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
cool! will add! The irony being the main sulid I see on Norfolk Island is the masked booby rather than the Australasian gannet... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian Biological Resources Study source is formatted like a citation to a book, but seems to be a citation to a website? There's either missing bibliographic information here (if this is a book), or the wrong sort of bibliographic information (if this is a web cite).
I removed the location as surplus - otherwise is using the cite web format. Not sure what else you feel is surplus to needs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This looks better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OCLC for Gray 1843?
err, how would I find that? I have never used them before and google isn't coming up with anything... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OCLC 457835439 for the edition that was used to make that scan. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Nelson source, I'm pretty sure it's okay to just have Oxford University Press as the publisher; this longer form strikes me as nonstandard.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Ismar source, Miskelly is an editor, not the publisher.
Corrected. Nurg (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Angel et al. source is missing bibliographic information. Specifically, PLoS One gives that citation as volume 10, number 12, page e0142653, doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0142653
has been added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Stephenson 2007 source, this seems to be web-only material. Or at least being cited that way. So I don't think it needs a publication location. If this is actually a print-form report just being linked to an online copy, is there a report number, ISSN, doi, or any other sort of identifying value to aid in locating copies?
changed to web format - no book identifiers found Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Parks Victoria source is missing the apostrophe in "Pope's".
added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frost 2017 needs some sort of publication information to indicate why this is a reliable source.
added. an NZ gov't publication under the auspices of the Department of Conservation Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Fake gannets" article isn't actually bylined to the "Department of Conservation". Instead of the current approach, it's probably more accurate to have no author, and make the publisher be "New Zealand Department of Conservation". Or something along those lines.
tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like it might have something to add about breeding?
yes and added. I'd seen this somewhere else but Nelson puts it nice and succinctly this time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has a little blurb about gannet flight physics that might not be sufficient to make the cut?
yes this is good too and added. Just pondering if and where to add the bit about rising air currents assisting with lift... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I'm a bit surprised to see only two book-format sources for a well-studied, widely-recognized bird species. That doesn't mean this isn't a comprehensive review of literature, though. Was there nothing important to add beyond what the current sources already handle?
HANZAB and Nelson are by far the two most detailed book sources. Other than that there are lots of guidebooks, but actually alot of journal papers cover the information better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this looks pretty good. I've got a bunch of minor quibbles about reference formats that don't affect the overall article quality. But that Culture section is so thin that it really stands out. Clearly, I'm not asking for one of the insipid "in popular culture" sections of old, but... there's assuredly a happy median to be found. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support here. I went ahead and added the OCLC to Gray 1843. I hope you don't mind. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

This article is in good shape and I can find little to quibble about that hasn't already been mentioned.

  • Description: link Cape gannet and masked booby
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeding and courtship: 73.15 grams - this is unnecessarily precise -> 73.2 is more than adequate.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Aa77zz (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

[edit]

Like the previous reviewer, I can't find much amiss with this. I note that if someone writes a GA or FA for Cape Gannet, we'll have a Featured Topic! To show I've read it, a few quibbles follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • solan goose.—I'm surprised that a term long obsolete in the UK appears to be still current in Oz, which is what the sentence implies
this is frustrating as the term is still bandied about in texts (but no-one ever calls it that). I've not seen it tagged as such. Will see if I can find so I can avoid OR... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breeding season is generally from July to February — to a Brit, starting with "The..." would be more natural
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Maori were reported to have harvested young gannets for food—the source implies this was mainly before European colonisation, if that's the case, perhaps add that.
it's not clear when it stopped, but it does appear to be historical Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - since this already seems to be getting the necessary support, I'll give an image review. The licensing and sources of the present images are good, but I will give some suggestions for additional images below. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the other images don't specify "commercial use allowed" so I'd have to ask..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the others I linked? They are all Commons compatible, I specifically searched for commercial licences on Flickr, and the Flickr upload bot will accept them automatically. If an image isn't compatible, the bot just doesn't upload them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok @FunkMonk: so flickr upload bot stopped in 2014, so I found Flickr-to-Commons but I can't make it work now.....not sure if I am missing something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new way (which I use) is just following the link at the bottom here:[39] FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should definitely show the chick, here is a good photo of one being fed:[40]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the breeding section is empty, you could show what appears to be rival males:[41]
  • A closer look at a colony which could maybe be an additional image in the colony section:[42] or this of an interesting colony cliff:[43]
  • I personally think this is a better photo of a flying individual:[44]
  • For flavour maybe, an adult grabbing nesting material:[45]
  • As an additional comment, I see some duplinks... FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
problem is, duplink tool does not distinguish between lead and body of text (though I did find and remove one) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are using the old version, the new one does:[46] FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
aaah thanks for thatCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

alt text now added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but also have a question

[edit]
"One clutch of a single pale blue egg is laid yearly..."

Can a single egg be a clutch? I thought clutch meant multiple eggs.Moriori (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

looking at google, it suggests 'yes' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [47].

Yugoslav torpedo boat T7

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a dinky little torpedo boat that served in two wars under four different flags, and ended its career during a run-in with some British motor torpedo boats in the Adriatic in 1944. It is the fourth one of its class to come to FAC (in addition to the class article), so hopefully I have ironed out most of the kinks by now. It is part of a Good Topic that I'm gradually moving towards a Featured Topic. I think I've hoovered up everything available on its career, including in Serbo-Croat, in terms of its comprehensiveness. Especially looking for prose improvements that could be made. Thanks to all who take a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

What we've here, our first FAC in 2019. Wow! Great start! Let's see how I can help you PM.

  • Is there a link for the Naval Technical Committee in the Austria-Hungary Naval Technical Committee initiated?
  • No, and when I looked for sources some time ago, I didn't find enough to assume notability and redlink.
  • Shouldn't the "Bocche di Cattaro" be Italicised, because it comes from Italian?
  • on the Italian enclave of Zara --> on the Italian enclave of Zara (Zadar).
  • Is the "0 in" that important in a beam of 5.8 m (19 ft 0 in)? I don't think it is, or am I wrong?
  • Is the ".0" that important in Her guns were replaced by two 76 mm (3.0 in)? If not please remove it.
  • In the opened fire at 150 yards. how much is 150 yards?
  • In the At a speed of about 12 knots how much is 12 knots?
  • Shouldn't be there a citation in the note?

Hopefully this was useful. Again great start. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, CPA-5! I think I've addressed all your points? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Lead caption needs editing for grammar

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Appears the Cernuschi & O'Hara chapter uses an abbreviated range in the title, in the original
  • Is Barnsley in Yorkshire or South Yorkshire?

Sources generally appear reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • No DABs, external links OK
  • of the Austro-Hungarian Navy built in 1915–1916 Might I suggest "built for the A-H Navy during World War I" And then, later, "Completed in 1916, she performed..."?
  • Giving the boat's full armament in the lede always strikes me as rather redundant and not a summary of the material in the main body.
  • Link sister ship and T3 in the infobox picture caption. In the infobox, link knots, nautical miles
  • I reiterate my objection to the full background section. It's overkill for a ship article and is much more appropriate for the class article. Cut it down to one or two sentences at most; this isn't a particularly complex situation that needs to be explained in this article.
  • I guess you have a broader definition of standing on its own two feet than I do. Given that that's a pretty complete background section how are you going to expand on that for the class article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The class article Background section provides only the bare bones of the reasons for the class being built, as the rest of the detail in this article's Background section is drawn from the Description and construction sections of the class article, specifically about the T-group that preceded the F-group, as well as explaining the genesis of the F-group. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put your cites in numeric order (how pedantic is that?)
  • Move the link for the KSCS to the first use.
  • Is there a class article for the T-boats? If so, link to it.

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Prose looks pretty clean. I've copyedited a little; please revert if necessary. Some minor comments:

  • The first sentence only describes the period between 1921 and 1941. I know that's the majority of T7's existence, but surely we could get the dates of construction and demolition in the first one or two sentences? Either that, or (since you do give the demolition date later in the lead) make it clearer to the reader that the first sentence doesn't cover the boat's whole history.
  • You never actually say that T7 is one of the F group, though it eventually becomes apparent that it is. A half sentence at the end of the "Background" section would do it.
  • They were the first small Austro-Hungarian Navy boats to use turbines, and this contributed to ongoing problems with them: any details available?
  • A prose suggestion: Transferred in March 1921,[8] in KJRM service, 96 F was renamed T7 isn't very fluent. Can we change "she served with" in the previous sentence to "she was transferred in March 1921 to"? That's assuming the other three F-group boats transferred that month too. Then it could be "Renamed T7 in KJRM service, she and the other... were, at the outset, the only...".
  • Up to you, but I'd put the long parenthesis explaining what KJRM stands for in a note, and just make it "(KJRM)"; it's so long it interferes with reading flow.
  • I'm not a MOSDASH expert, but I think it should be May–June 1929.
  • her three former F-group sisters: why "former"? You use "all four F-group boats" without qualification later in the paragraph.
  • ...were then captured by the Italians. T7 was then operated by the Italians...: repetition of "then".
  • "NDH" appears in a caption but is not explained anywhere.
  • It would be helpful if a locator map of the Adriatic could be included showing some of the named locations. I can place Trieste on a map, and maybe Corfu, but Lake Prokljan, Milna, Fiume, Šibenik, Rijeka, and Zara are all going to be unknown to most readers. Not a requirement for FAC, but it would really help readers like me.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's a debatable MOSDASH issue outstanding, and a suggestion for an improved map; neither is worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, fixed the ndash thingo. Will do re: the map. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Placeholder Kees08 (Talk) 01:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Kees08. Nikkimaria has already had a look at the images (above), but feel free to have another look if you'd like. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that. Only two images, so will do it anyways. Kees08 (Talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Yugoslav_torpedo_boat_T3.jpg - could you add the ISBN to the source on the image page? Probably not required, but I was trying to look it up and was not sure I had the right one.
  • File:Independent State Of Croatia 1943 Locator Map.png - NDH is not defined and I do not know what it means (ctrl+F for NDH on the page found nothing). Probably should say what country the map is portraying. Also, is it more northwest than where it is currently indicated? Google Maps makes it look like it is closer to the shore?

That is all, thanks. Sorry for the double image review! Kees08 (Talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Thanks for taking a look! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I worked off the Google Maps coords for Murter Island, which were in the middle rather than the northern end which is where the town of Murter is. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks for fixing those issues. Second image review is a pass from me! Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this looks good to go. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2019 [48].

Emesa helmet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were it not displayed in Syria, let alone hidden in an undisclosed location, the Emesa helmet would be a much more famous archaeological treasure. This rich helmet is crafted so finely as to depict its owner’s face; it is so fine, in fact, that it is unlikely its owner would have risked damage to it for anything other than combat. Between the endpoints of its tumultuous modern history—dug from the earth by looters, only to be placed back underground to protect it from them—the helmet has gained some international attention, but remains an overlooked gem.

This article is concise and comprehensive. It uses all relevant literature, much of it relatively obscure. Already in good shape when it passed its good article review in February, it is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
Just a few things
  • " an acanthus scroll" I've run into acanthus wreaths now and then but what is such a scroll? Made of or depicting?
  • Depicting. The sources don't go into depth on the scroll other than to say it resembles acanthus decorations on Syrian columns. Linked scroll to scroll (art) ("Although forms are often based on real plants, especially the acanthus ... [image caption:] Late Anglo-Saxon scrolls in a Beatus initial, drawing on classical acanthus scrolls"). I think the only publicly available images of the back of the helmet are copyrighted black and white photographs from Seyrig 1952b; I'll check the sources when I'm back home in a few days and perhaps add one as a fair-use photo.
  • "The helmet was then secured for the state collection by Emir Djaafar Abdel Kader, then curator of the National Museum of Damascus.[14]" I might cut "then". I think it is understood that he does not still hold the office.
  • Done.
  • You mention the several unsuccessful restoration attempts twice in as many paragraphs.
  • Largely removed the first. What remains is there to preserve the chronological treatment of that section.
  • "burnt rust" Isn't rust itself the product of oxidation? Can you further burn it?
  • Good catch, changed to "blackened." Here's what the source says: "The silver was now darkened, partly by the burning of the stopping of rust and wax that had been used in a previous restoration to fill the cracks and partly by the blackening of residual rust that remained attached to it. The rust was removed by brushing with 9 per cent oxalic acid."
  • "or manufactured in Syria to the likeness of helmets seen during Roman tournaments.[29][34][11] " are you doing refs in numerical order?
  • More by chronology/importance. There are a number of these in "Function," where Seyrig 1952a is cited before Seyrig 1952b.
Sources
  • Martin-Clarke. Is an ISBN or OCLC available? Ditto Plenderleith?
  • Both are too old for an ISBN, but I added an OCLC for Martin-Clarke (and an ISSN for Bruce-Mitford). Plenderleith already has a link to the book, and I typically only include an OCLC if there's no other identifying information or online copy, since an OCLC is really just a way to find a library with a particular book.
Otherwise everything, including the sources, looks to be in good order.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I've added a photograph of a neck guard and expanded the description section with a new source, which I believe addressed your remaining point above. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all looks good. Thanks for the ping.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! --Usernameunique (talk) 07:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Nice little article.

  • It has been exhibited internationally, although as of 2017, due to the Syrian Civil War, the more valuable items owned by the National Museum are hidden in underground storage. – Maybe add "including the helmet" for extra clarity in the lead.
  • The sources about the museum don't explicitly mention the helmet, hence the article not making this link explicit. The museum appears to have reopened in stages—articles from a few months ago speak about it reopening more fully. There's a decent (but by no means absolute) chance the helmet was placed back on display within the last few months, but I would be quite surprised if it were one of the objects exhibited in 2017.
  • modern-day city of Homs in 1936; I would add Syria here, it can't be expected that all readers know where Homs is located.
  • Changed to "Confiscated by Syrian police soon after looters discovered it amidst a complex of tombs in the modern-day city of Homs in 1936"
  • The helmet was found in a tomb near a monument to a former ruler of Emesa, and, considering its richness, – reads like "its" would refer to the helmet, but instead it seems to refer to the tomb?
  • Rephrased: "considering the lavishness of the silver and gold design"
  • notch was carved into each of the central holes to increase the afforded vision. – I assume the "central holes" are simply the eyes? Maybe state for clarity.
  • Rephrased: "Holes are drilled between the lips and as nostrils; the eyes each have a narrow slit, with three holes in a trefoil design, two round holes outside and a heart-shaped hole in the middle, underneath each eye to allow for a greater range of vision. These apparently were not enough, for a small and rudimentary notch was carved into each of the heart-shaped holes to increase the wearer's vision."
  • Description is rather short while the restoration part is more detailed, but I guess that is owing to the sources. I was wondering about the neck guard (is there an article/glossary to link it, btw?): Was this a separate piece or an extension of the top piece?
Gorget
  • I've substantially expanded this section based on another source (Seyrig 1952c). I've clarified that the functional (iron) neck guard was part of the head piece, but that the decorative (silver) part was placed on top. Serial Number 54129, thanks for the gorget suggestion. They seem to be more about the front of the neck, however, than the back of the neck. Interesting point though, I'd never thought how a neck guard could equally mean protection for the front of the neck. Neck guard, incidentally, is about ice hockey equipment.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
Cool, does it exist yet, though? That page says "Full text document will be published online on December 2019." FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk, it was published in print in 2017, and I got a scan from my library. (Jstor doesn’t even have it yet, probably the journal believing that they preserve their subscriber base if their articles wait two years before being placed online.) Based on the article, I’ve added this line: "Known as Emesa at the turn of the millennium, the city was at the eastern edge of the Roman Empire, and ruled by a client kingdom of the Romans." —Usernameunique (talk) 05:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked in "Function": "Although classified as a cavalry sports helmet..."
Should also be linked in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "and and back" Looks like a mistake.
  • Fixed.
  • "three holes underneath each eye-slit allow for a greater range of vision" Why present tense? The succeeding sentence which talks about its use it past tense.
  • I've changed this section to be almost entirely in the present tense (except when discussing how a hasty modification was made to the eye holes). With old helmets there's a bit of a balancing act between describing what remains and what once was; the Benty Grange helmet's horn plates could hardly be described in the present tense, for example. It's easier with this helmet, which is in remarkable shape all things considered.
  • "Their looting was itself discovered due to the garment shroud of one of the bodies" I actually thought this referred to the bodies of the looters, perhaps specify "bodies in the tomb"?
  • Changed to "the burial shroud of one of the bodies," which I think makes clear that the body was buried.
  • "underwent a number of unsuccessful restorations" In Syria?
  • Added information about the first restoration, in Paris. There was probably at least one more restoration, since the Kansas City Times article states that "After several failures at restoration, it was taken to the British Museum" (emphasis added), but I haven't found a source that says anything more specific.
  • It's already linked at "Digging near the former site of a monument to Sampsigeramus," and I've added it to the lead at "The helmet was found in a tomb near a monument to a former ruler of Emesa".
  • I think you could make it clearer what Emesa was.
  • Do you mean "a previous name for the Syrian city Homs," or do you mean historical and contextual information about Emesa?
Both, but last part doesn't have to be so detailed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you mention bodies in the tomb, is it known which the helmet belonged to?
  • Do you mean which person?
Yep. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The acanthus scroll ornamentation seen on the neck guard recalls that used on Syrian temples" Do we have a picture of one that could be shown?
  • Added a fair-use photograph of the neck guard, showing the acanthus design.
  • I wonder if there would be Arabic sources that give some more context. Again, perhaps Attar-Aram syria knows.
I will try to review it soon. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1

[edit]

Another fine piece on an interesting object. Very well written, with a good flow. A few minor suggestions for consideration, none of which stand in the way of my Support. KJP1 (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and comments, KJP1. I've responded to all your points, adopting most of them. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "covered in silver and molded into an individualised portrait of a face" - Tim's really your man, but if we're using BrEng, and the inline header says we are, isn't this "moulded"?
  • Good catch, changed.
  • "considering its richness, may have belonged to a member of the élite" - considering its richness and cost, could it have belonged to anyone but a member of the élite? I appreciate we don't know, but I'd suggest "would have".
  • Changed to "likely belonged." Perhaps it's overly cautious, but I'm hesitant to speak in certainties about inferences.
Minor point and sorry for not catching it but I agree with SO re. the need/lack of need for an accent on elite in BrEng. KJP1 (talk)
Description
  • "Around the sides runs a diadem in the image of a laurel wreath" - link diadem?
  • Done.
  • "Other features—the eyes and eyebrows, and the chin—are more conventional. These features suggest..." - Isn't it actually the distinctive features, mentioned earlier, that suggest....? Perhaps, "The distinguishing features suggest..." or something similar, "particular", "distinctive"?
  • Good point, changed to "The distinctive features..."
Function
  • "in order to withstand the rigors of ceremony unscathed" - the rigours (BrEng) of ceremony don't sound very rigorous to me. "rigours of contest"?
  • Done and done.
  • "Tournament helmets were robust and manufactured without finesse" - not sure about this. Does it mean they were made in a "crude/basic/work-a-day" way or does it mean they were made without "decoration/elaboration"?
  • It means they less delicately ornamented. Much as the iron core of this helmet would protect its wearer, its with thin silver and gilt exterior would be easily marred if hit. Less so with a bronze piece such as the Ribchester helmet.
Discovery
  • "Their looting was itself discovered due to the garment shroud of one of the bodies" - not sure what the "itself" is doing there?
  • It was because two sentences earlier, it says "The helmet was discovered". Changed to "Their looting was uncovered".
Restoration
  • "In 1956 an account of the process was published by Harold Plenderleith" - do we need a little explanation as to who he was/why he, rather than Maryon, was writing about the restoration? Was he a colleague/collaborator?
  • Done: "In 1956 an account of the process was published by Harold Plenderleith, keeper of the museum's research laboratory."
  • "cracks that had been filled in by a dark stopping substance" - what is a "stopping" substance? An adhesive/a filler?
  • Probably a filler. The source just says "the major cracks had been filled with a dark stopping material in an effort to reinforce the silver".
alt text
  • I'm no expert but I'm not sure the alt text for the two images would be that helpful for a VI reader. They describe what it is, "a colour photo", but not what it shows- "A helmet with a silver face mask and an iron headpiece. The headpiece is decorated and has a central hinge holding the facemask." That said, your very detailed description in the text may mean this isn't an issue.
  • Can't argue with you there, especially for the other photographs (Nijmegen helmet, other grave goods). I've added more to them.

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Fascinating article about a really distinctive artifact I was totally unfamiliar with. However, there are some prose segments that I'm not at all certain meet the FA standard, and a cursory check for sourcing comprehensiveness suggested a couple further questions.

  • You have "élite" in the lede, complete with accent aigu. At least in American English, "the elite" is well-established without diacritics. I'm unaware if British English holds otherwise, but to my eye, this is hypercorrection. "Richness" also reads awkwardly there for me. Although I'm aware that it can be used to mean "the result of being rich", I think it's more commonly used as "the state of being rich". For example, I would write that crown jewels contribute to the "richness of kings", but I wouldn't describe the "richness" of the jewelry pieces themselves.
British English is the same. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • I might retitle the Discovery section, perhaps to "Discovery and Display", as a substantial part of the section covers museum ownership after its discovery?
  • ...from some good feedback below, we now have both a "Discovery" and a "Display" section.
  • "extricated the objects": No "objects" have been mentioned in this section, but the use of the specific article here implies a reference to previously-discussed material. Also, "extricate" typically implies freeing something with difficulty, and may not be the verb you're looking for.
  • Changed "extricated" to "removed", and expanded the section significantly so that it now encompasses the other objects.
  • The next sentence also needs some work. As written, the "small golden plaques" covered the body, not the shroud, which probably isn't what was intended. "Shed onto the earth" is unnecessarily poetic.
"Shedding" is a technical rather than poetic term, I would have thought. Johnbod (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not qualified to make expert pronouncements regarding the field of archaeology, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it's certainly not being used a technical term so far as I can quickly determine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "flaked." It's not a big deal either way, and it isn't being used as technical term: the source (which is more poetic than me) just says "One circumstance, however, deprived them of the fruit of their efforts. Working in the night they came upon a grave whose occupant had been wrapped in a garment studded with small golden plaques. The fabric had decayed, thus setting loose the plaques and letting them mingle with the earth that filled the tomb."
This sentence still reads rather oddly to my ear. I don't usually like to recommend specific wordings at FAC, but perhaps something like:"Their looting was uncovered because the burial shroud of one of the bodies was covered with small golden plaques that flaked off when disturbed."? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Played with the wording again, but feel free to have a go at it if you can think of something better.
  • I might reorder the parts of the museum history, as they're currently achronological, with the Damascus museum reopening introduced before the Syria: Land of Civilizations exhibition. Also, since the helmet started out in the National Museum, it seems a little awkward to say that it is "now" in that collection (implying that's a new state of being); I might instead note that it "returned" there after restoration, or something along those lines.
  • Done.
  • Not to dig on my local newspaper's reportage, but is a Kansas City Times human-interest article the best quality source for the helmet's restoration history?
  • The main source for the restoration is Plenderleith 1956. The Kansas City Times piece is used for two discrete facts: that Herbert Maryon carried out the British Museum restoration, and that there were multiple restorations before the helmet was taken to the BM.
  • Fair point, but it's the only source that I could find for those two facts.
  • Seyrig suggested that there was originally attached fabric. Is it worth mentioning further scholarly opinions on the type of non-metallic ornamentation that may have been associated with helmets of this type? A possible place to start might be: Bartman, Elizabeth (2005). "The mock face of battle". Journal of Roman Archaeology. 18: 99–119. doi:10.1017/S1047759400007236. In general, I think this is the highest-quality source you've overlooked.
  • I added Bartman 2005 on this and another point (laurel wreath as a symbol of victory), although I don't think it adds that much to the discussion of the Emesa helmet. The article is largely about ceremonial helmets, and while this one is related to those, it is an outlier. Moreover, her typology doesn't really add anything to the more detailed one by Robinson.
  • Are comparisons to any other pieces warranted in the context of the Typology section? There's a suggestion that the Emesa helmet is stylistically related to a helmet from Plovdiv, made in: Negin, Andrey E. (2015). "A bearded face-mask helmet from the collection of the National Museum in Belgrade: An example of mutual influences of armament traditions at the Roman frontier". Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt. 45 (4): 535–547. ISSN 0342-734X.
  • The Plovdiv helmet: another underappreciated helmet, that has quite a history and deserves its own article. I've held off to this point because the sources (see footnote 12 of the article you mentioned) are primarily in Bulgarian and German. I've requested the German sources (unlike the Bulgarian sources, the postdate the publication of the Emesa helmet) from my library and should have them in a day or two (I'll read Bartman 2005 in that time too). I think you're right that it's stylistically the most similar to the Emesa example, but I'm not sure how much the sources will go into it, as it's also an underpublished example.
  • I ran across a single source claiming that the Emesa helmet may have actually been a funerary mask. However, despite clearly referring to the same mask based on sources cited, it claimed the mask was gold rather than silver (I guess that gilt was really important to the authors?). Simply on that grounds, I'm willing to concede that it can be safely discarded. But if you'd like to look further: Despini, Aikaterini; Schürmann, Wolfgang; Gisler, Jean-Robert (2009). "Gold funerary masks". Antike Kunst. 52: 20–64. JSTOR 23296850.
  • That's a related find, found in the same complex. See here and here.
  • And that right there is why I don't write archaeology articles! Out of curiosity, though, is that other piece (and perhaps others?) related enough to warrant a brief mention in this article in the context of, broadly, "other stuff from the same place"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think so. I've added some more information about the excavation and the finds from tomb 1 (where the helmet was found), as well as two photographs of other finds.
  • Any idea if the National Museum itself has any commentary on the piece? Their website is entirely in Arabic, and I'm entirely illiterate in Arabic, so I'm afraid I'm no help there.
  • The helmet is shown on their website, but with probably incorrect information (Per Google Translate: Bronze mask of Homs 1. Bronze mask dating back to the first century AD, found in the city of Homs, probably used to cover the dead face.) It's possible there is more information elsewhere on the site. Attar-Aram syria, is there a chance that you would be able to quickly search the website? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have entered keywords in Arabic in the museum's search engine and found nothing. The google translation is more or less correct. The website does not have pages dedicated to particular pieces sadly and I dont expect to find any.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I'm surprised, but had to ask. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Attar-Aram syria.

- Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage, good to have you editing again, and thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think I've responded to everything above, with the most significant change being an expansion of the "Discovery" section. I may also add a few lines elsewhere in the next few days, once I take a look at the article you mentioned, and the literature on the Plovdiv helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. It's good to be back to editing. Especially when that means I can help improve interesting articles like this one, which I think is in quite a bit better state than it was just a couple of days ago. One prose question based on the updated content. Is there a reason to prefer "oxidisation" over the rather more common "oxidation"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is much improved from when I originally looked over it. I think there's probably still a little room for development (especially regarding the Plovdiv helmet), but an article needn't be "done" to meet the featured article criteria, and so I'm happy to officially support. I will note one quibble; at the time of this comment, the last two paragraphs in §Description both start with "The face mask". That probably warrants tweaking, but I'm not going to without support for one easily remedied duplicative phrase. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments, Squeamish Ossifrage, and now for your support. Added a few more comments above—largely about wording—and fixed the double "a face mask." Getting the literature on the Plovdiv helmet is taking longer than anticipated, but whenever I end up with it, I'll add something to the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I've really enjoyed your previous helmet articles.

  • What does "is made in one piece" mean?
  • Changed to "made of one piece of iron and attached decorations."
  • "Known as Emesa at the turn of the millennium" It's not immediately clear which millennium you're talking about
  • Any suggestions on how to reword? It refers to the time when BC rolled over to become AD, which I think can be inferred by the fact that the helmet is dated in the first sentence of the lead to "the early first century AD." The reason for using the somewhat vague language of "the turn of the millennium" is to avoid trying to give a date to when the words "Emesa" and "Homs" entered into (and in the former case, departed from) use. (A similar point, with a similar response, was made here about the Gundestrup cauldron.)
  • Done.
  • "and ruled by a client kingdom of the Romans." Which? (Or is that a silly question?)
  • "removed the objects" What objects?
  • "even as objects appeared on the market advertised as coming from the tombs of Emesa, false stories intended to sell forgeries and unrelated ancient objects" Is this missing a word or two? I'm struggling to follow
  • Yep. Added a word (in bold above), is that clear now?
  • Yes, clearer. It's still a really tricky sentence, though. "false stories intended to sell forgeries and unrelated objects" is a description of some noun, but it doesn't apply to the subject of the previous clause - or, indeed, any noun in the previous clause. The "stories" are the "adverts about the objects", but you don't use the word "adverts", you talk of how the objects were "advertised". I think to make it work you would have to say something like "even as objects appeared on the market with claims that they had come from the tombs of Emesa. These claims were false stories intended to sell forgeries and unrelated ancient objects." Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toyed with it some more, so hopefully it's within the bounds of proper grammar now.
  • "which was then backfilled flush with the level of the surface" This strikes me as jargon. I've read the definition of "backfill", but I still don't know what "backfilled flush" means.
  • Changed to "backfilled to surface level." It just means that a hole was dug in the earth, and then the hole was refilled so it looked as if the ground had not been disturbed. Although "backfill" is frequently used in an archaeological context, it also has a general meaning (see Wiktionary definition), and I don't think is terribly jargony.
  • "identical to those from tomb 11 which led to the tombs' discovery" I don't follow
  • Deleted everything after "tomb 11", and changed a sentence above to "Their looting was uncovered due to small golden plaques that adorned the burial shroud of the body in tomb 11, and that flaked onto the earth when disturbed." I think this makes the link explicit.
  • The final paragraph before the "restoration" section feels a bit out of place. I wonder if it would be worth reworking the section to be more chronological; you could then have a section on the discovery, and a section on display and restoration? You could even have "display" as its own section. Just a thought.
  • Good point. I've turned this paragraph into a standalone "Discovery" subsection after "Restoration."

Other than that, please double-check my edits. I'm struck that the bulk of your sources are very old, but I suspect that this reflects the scholarship on the object? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, with apologies for the delay in responding in full, thanks again for offering comments and a review. Responses are above. Regarding the date of the sources, this indeed is a reflection of the scholarship. This would seem to be proven by the Syria: Land of Civilizations 1999 exhibition catalogue. Though it lists literature for the items, for the helmet it only lists Seyrig 1952b, and a 1959 article by Seyrig about Emesa. The helmet, which seems to have been a centerpiece of the exhibition, is featured on the cover; it seems likely that if there were more recent literature on the helmet, it would have been listed in the catalogue. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support. "Leaning" as time constraints have prevented me looking as closely as I might like! I do think the "false stories" sentence could be clearer, though; I've left a few replies above. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, J Milburn. I've responded to, and attempted to adopt, your suggestions above. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
Roman Empire in 117 AD
  • While I think that a grid-type map of the city would be really cool, I think that a larger-scale map showing where the city is would be useful. But that's a recommendation, not a requirement. I'll check out the additional image.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]
  • Lead: "the latter of which is covered in silver and moulded into an individualised portrait of a face" ?? made of silver, or silver-plated? Was it "moulded" after making? Later, in "description": "The face mask is made of iron, and covered with a sheet of silver" - ok but how "covered" & attached?
  • It's covered with a separate sheet of silver. I've clarified this in the lead ("It consists of an iron head piece and face mask, the latter of which is covered in a sheet of silver"), and added a bit of language about how it was held on to "Description" ("The mask is approximately 2 millimetres thick, of which the silver, which is folded around both the edges and each hole to hold it to the iron, accounts for between .25 and .5 millimetres.") Other than that, there's not much about how the helmet was made, shaped, or covered (in contrast to others, e.g., the Witcham Gravel helmet, where the literature reverse engineers the process of production).
  • Changed to "covered in silver and presents the individualised portrait of a face"; there's nothing that says how the iron (or silver) was shaped.
  • "and would be fastened closed with straps" - reads oddly. drop one?
  • Drop one what?
one of fastened or closed Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the closed. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and shows the rusted impression of what once was a woven and likely colourful fabric" - where did this go? hanging loose?
  • You mean what happened to the fabric? I assume it decayed, though this isn't expressly stated.
No, I mean where did it hang and attach. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not said in the literature. Presumably it's hard to determine due to the decay, just as crests are frequently speculative (see again the Witcham Gravel helmet, and also the Benty Grange helmet). --Usernameunique (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, didn't get back to this, but I would like a response on the points above. The article left me unclear what the make-up/technique of the face piece was. Johnbod (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Johnbod. I've replied and made changes in response to the first comment, and asked for clarification on the others. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, further responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, some more:
  • "The relative simplicity and inferiority of artisanship expressed by the crest and rosette—unlike with the diadem, for example, the background of the rosette was not carefully punched down, but was flattened with a tubular instrument and now presents as a series of rings—suggests repairs made locally,[10] away from the luxury workshops of Antioch." - too long a wait for the verb ("suggests") - should be re-arranged.
  • Reordered.
  • I'd add a phrase to the lead emphasizing how thorough & invasive the BM restoration was - not really coming through at present.
  • Changed to "thoroughly restored." Good point—it would be interesting to know how it would be restored today, given the emphasis on reversibility.
  • I'd move the last photo up a tad - form me it overlaps the notes. We shouldn't make a fetish of starting images within the most relevant section.
  • I've decreased the size, which somewhat ameliorates the overlapping. I'm hesitant to move it; absent a complete reshuffle of the images, the only logical place for it to go would be at "Display," where I think it would seem a bit too out of place.

Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

I'd like to think we can wrap this up shortly...

  • Usernameunique, can you respond to Josh's, Sturm's and Johnbod's queries?
  • Johnbod, did you still want to add anything?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for checking in, Ian Rose. I think we're about ready to go on this. There are two minor points I'm keeping in mind for later—to look for a better map than the one above, and to add a line on the Plovdiv helmet when I can get the literature—but other than that I think we've covered all the bases. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I did notice during my spotcheck of prose that you may be mixing AmEng and BritEng, i.e. I saw "colourful", but also "labeled" -- won't hold up promotion over it but could you pls check over the article and reconcile? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SchroCat

[edit]
  • Support very nice. Well put together and very readable and informative. I've made a couple of minor tweaks (per the MoS); I know little about such artefacts, so (per my cop out) my review is on prose and understandability, rather than technical coverage. - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2019&oldid=885579253"