Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2022

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

Powder House Island

[edit]
Nominator(s): jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an island that simply couldn't stop exploding. When I first created it, it was a tiny little geostub with a funny name, but when I got access to better sources, I figured out that there was a whole litany of historical drama centering on it. I even managed to find some halfway-decent images. I have never made a featured article nomination before, so I'm not quite sure what to expect, but hopefully the explosion isn't audible from Cleveland. jp×g 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Sdkb

[edit]

Hi JPxG! Skimming the article, here are some initial thoughts:

  • Okay, so first, on the infobox image. I sympathize that the availability isn't really something we have much control over, but still, that grainy satellite photo is...not ideal. My practical suggestion would be to, first, reach out to the nailhed blog author or anyone else who's taken a photo of the island and see if they're willing to release the license. If that fails, try posting at the Michigan WikiProject page and place {{Requested image}} on the talk page here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sad: I went through a whole trove of images on Commons, found nothing, looked for higher resolution aerial/satellite photos in the public domain, found nothing, et cetera. I've messaged Nailhed, and I'll see if he has anything to say about it or if he's interested in releasing photos at all (I sure hope so, since he has taken thousands of photos of all kinds of great stuff around Michigan). Otherwise, I dunno -- I do have a good camera and some good lenses, but none of them have quite the range necessary to be useful here. I may find myself in Michigan at some point in the next year or so, in which case I have a lot of photos to take. Else, I think it may be possible to use a survey map or something (or scale down the image display in the infobox). In the meantime, I've left a message on the WikiProject talk page. jp×g 21:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the 2016 aerial photo, consider using {{Overlay}} to identify where the island actually is. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unknown: I'll have to figure that out (I think I experimented a little with image maps and overlays when I originally put that panorama in there, but gave up). jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb and JPxG: I have tried my hand at {{overlay}}—how does it look? (Incidentally, I had added image notes to it on Commons a few days ago, but it doesn't seem those are easily convertible in any way.) eviolite (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good! The only tweak I'd suggest is maybe giving Powder House Island a different color to help it be even more easily identified. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: done by changing all the other ones to black, though feel free to change if you think a different color looks better. eviolite (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this owns. In fact, the illustrativeness makes me wonder if I shouldn't just use a larger crop of the original image (which is File:Amherstburg, Ontario (21711771721).jpg); I'd cropped it small to make it easier to find the island, but if there's an image overlay, I can also include Trenton, Lake Erie, etc. jp×g 00:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous version was 1:3 aspect ratio, here is a version that's cropped to 3:5 (same width), but shows Trenton and Lake Erie. I don't know if it would be too tall, but it might be worth considering. jp×g 00:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have put both versions of the overlay panorama here, what do you all think? jp×g 02:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the lead, if there's something more standard to give the sizes of the explosions than the window shattering/audibility distance, that'd be preferable. Was there a TNT equivalent estimate or anything? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done: per the court documents, the 1906 explosion comprised 20 tons of dynamite. According to TNT equivalent, the relative effectiveness of dynamite is 1.25 (i.e. the explosion was equivalent to 25 tons of TNT); the table in that article, however, is uncited. It's also unclear what type of dynamite was being used (the 1.25 figure is for Nobel's ratio of 75% NG and 23% diatomaceous earth, but they were manufacturing it themselves, so I have no reason to believe they were getting it spot-on). jp×g 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Livingstone Channel construction image, I'd suggest minor cropping to remove the border—images on WP already have borders through the software. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date format isn't consistent in refs. I'd suggest adding {{use mdy dates}} (and {{use American English}} while you're at it) since this is a U.S. article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All date formats have been unified. I hate mdy dates, but if it's necessary, I will change to them. jp×g 22:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 30, fix the all caps title. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. jp×g 22:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blog post in the external links doesn't really give a sense of what it is. Consider adding something other than a linked title. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: I must admit I'm not familiar with best practices on formatting "external links" sections, and I've been unable to find many good examples. What would be a good way to do this? jp×g 21:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest "Island Hopping" from Nailhed, an urban exploration blog, which tells readers what to expect at the link. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There we go. jp×g 00:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the last paragraph of the lead, "uninhabited" I believe means that no one lives there, which has always been the case. I think we mean "unused" instead. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. jp×g 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as of 2015, the island was owned by the State of Michigan. It is currently managed by the Department of Natural Resources' Wildlife Division This is a little funky. If the island's ownership is unstable enough that it needs to be qualified with a date, then use the {{As of}} template and don't say "currently" for the management (see MOS:CURRENT). On the other hand, if it's fairly stable (and I think you could make a good case for that), then just say "The island is currently owned by the State of Michigan and managed by the Department...". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyedited a little, which I think looks better in this regard. jp×g 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the infobox, you should mention the river somewhere, perhaps in the location field. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. jp×g 00:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for the infobox, the island's construction date and the entity that built it are key pieces of info that should appear. It doesn't currently look like {{Infobox islands}} can handle this, so you might want to open a discussion there asking for those fields to be added. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Requested on talk page. jp×g 21:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. This is certainly a niche topic, but it's always amazing how much information there ends up being when you dig hard enough, and this is testament to that. Best of luck with this nomination! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'll get to it. I have never done one of these before -- the typical way people do it with GA reviews is to just leave responses to each bulletpoint under the bulletpoint, so I'll do that here as well (let me know if you'd prefer I leave them all below in one block). The stuff I haven't responded to, I'll get to in the morning. jp×g 10:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Sorry, I seem to have forgotten about this. Surprisingly no one said anything so I just didn't realize for two weeks.
Lead:
  • ", in southeast Michigan." - Is it worth mentioning the country, especially given its proximity to Canada?
  • " It was constructed in the late 1880s by the Dunbar & Sullivan Company in a successful attempt to circumvent an 1880 court order forbidding the company from storing explosives on nearby Fox Island during their dredging of the Livingstone Channel." - I would suggest splitting this into two sentences. I get what it's saying but this currently reads as unwieldy to me.
  • What is the area of the island?
    • The area of the island itself isn't reliably documented; the closest thing I have is the size of the parcel containing the island. This is 0.91 acres, but if you look at the county's website you can see that the parcel is slightly larger than the island. jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In 1906, 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded" - I'd also reword this sentence, given that "In 1906" and "20 short tons" are numerals that are very close together. However, I recognize it may be a little hard to rephrase this.
  • " owned by the State of Michigan. " - State government of Michigan?
  • " Department of Natural Resources'" - I presume state government (as opposed to the national government), right?
    • This and the above thing made clearer (now just says "owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, managed by its Wildlife Division as part of the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, and accessible to the public for hunting and camping"). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Geography
  • " Powder House Island is in Wayne County, and is contained within Grosse Ile Township" - In general it may be useful to mention the state once more in the body. Which leads me to this point: currently, the comma is unnecessary since the second half of the sentence isn't a standalone clause, but if you added "Michigan" after "Wayne County" (i.e. "Powder House Island is in Wayne County, Michigan, and is contained...", then it's no longer unnecessary.
  • " Its coordinates are 42°06′26″N 83°08′09″W[1];" - I don't think you need to cite the exact coordinates inline unless it's particularly controversial. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure we need the coordinates in the prose at all; if the coordinates do need to be cited, they should go after the semicolon.
  • " closer to Lake Erie than to Lake St. Clair, " - Which are relatively to the south and north, respectively?
  • " and around 200 ft (0.04 mi; 60 m) from the water border with Canada" - In this case, I'd definitely include the fact that the island is in the U.S.
  • " Bois Blanc Island" - Still in Michigan? I presume the other islands to the north, west, and south are also in Michigan, but I'm asking since the border with Ontario is to the east.
    • Fixed (I had somehow messed up and linked to the Michiganian Bois Blanc Island in Lake Huron, rather than the Canadian island in the Detroit River). jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (and takes around five minutes to traverse on foot)" - This parenthetical is unwieldy in its current location. Perhaps this should be moved to after the description of the dimensions. (On a side note, it takes less than a minute for me to go 200 feet, but that's irrelevant here.)
  • " gave its elevation" - Above sea level?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: In case you didn't notice the above comments. (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Took a crack at it, what do you think? jp×g 00:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this.
Background and first explosion:
  • "In the late 19th century, the Dunbar & Sullivan Company had a number of government contracts" - Did they bid for them and get the contracts, or did the government just designate it?
    If I ever get around to writing Dunbar & Sullivan Company it may be possible to glean some information about the bidding process for that contract -- it seems most likely to me that it was a competitive contract, but I can't say for sure (none of the sources go into much detail about it).
  • "The resultant shock wave destroyed all structures on Fox Island, leaving a crater 60 ft (18 m) wide and 16 ft (4.9 m) deep, shattered the windows of nearby houses, and was clearly audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north" - I think this should be reworded or split into two sentences. "Leaving...shattered...and was audible" are not consistent verb forms. Unless you meant to say this as a list with semicolons: "The resultant shock wave destroyed all structures on Fox Island, leaving a crater 60 ft (18 m) wide and 16 ft (4.9 m) deep; shattered the windows of nearby houses; and was clearly audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north." Then again this may be better as two sentences anyway.
    Good idea. Done.
Injunction and second explosion
  • "In March 1880, an injunction was issued by the Wayne County chancery court in the case of Walter Crane v. Charles F. Dunbar et al., forbidding Dunbar and Daniel B. Reaume (the operators of the company) from "storing nitroglycerine or any other explosive material on Fox Island"" - First, what was the case about? Can it be briefly explained? Second, I think the parenthetical phrase could be better integrated into the sentence by, I suppose, rewording the sentence so the parentheses are not necessary.
    It was regarding the explosion on Fox Island in 1879, which is about as much as I can get out of the sources here and on Fox Island (Detroit River). Phrasing re: the operators has been fixed.
  • "In order to continue work on the channel, it was necessary to store the explosives somewhere; Dunbar and Reaume requested that the injunction be dissolved,[8] but another explosion occurred at the Lime-Kiln Crossing worksite in September 1880, which shook houses in Amherstburg "to their foundations", and could be felt in Essex Center 16 mi (26 km) away.[15]" - This should also be split into 2 sentences, at the semicolon. I even wonder if it should be 3 sentences, since this is super long.
  • "Essex Center " - where?
    I checked, and the center of the town (not the county) of Essex, Ontario is indeed sixteen miles away, so have amended the link.
A little more later (and more quickly this time, I promise). – Epicgenius (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Whaddya think? jp×g 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Construction of new island
  • " While this allowed work to continue, it was not a permanent solution, and the scow had limited capacity; Dunbar & Sullivan had to purchase raw materials and manufacture dynamite, Hercules powder, and other explosive materials themselves at the work site." - This is another sentence that I think would be better off as two sentences. Is the part about "limited capacity" related to Dunbar & Sullivan's need to purchase other stuff at the work site?
    Indeed.
  • " While Dunbar & Sullivan had been forbidden to store explosives on Fox Island, the location of the worksite meant that there were few other places to do so. " - Few other staging areas, I suppose.
  • " to which the 1880 injunction would not apply (having only stipulated that Dunbar & Sullivan not store explosives on Fox Island specifically)" - This has a small grammatical error, though technically it's correct. The parenthetical phrase applies most closely to "the 1880 injunction" not "would not apply", so e.g. to which the 1880 injunction (which only stipulated that Dunbar & Sullivan not store explosives on Fox Island specifically) would not apply.
    Fixed.
  • "the primary difference between the two sites was that one of them had not existed when the ruling was made, and was therefore (ostensibly) not subject to it" - On a side note, this is hilarious. I feel like it's precisely the type of technicality that the government authorities would approve.
    It's epic, to me.
  • Also, should It is unclear why government engineering authorities approved of this reasoning... be combined with the previous paragraph?
    Indeed.
  • There is a duplicate link to "scow" in the fifth paragraph.
    Fixed.
  • " While it was initially referred to as "Dunbar Island"" - I was about to recommend replacing "it" with something like "the island" since, grammatically, "it" is closest to "the dynamite operations of Dunbar & Sullivan" (the nearest noun phrase). But that would be repetitive. In either case, this sentence should be rephrased.
    Rephrased a bit.
  • " 20 short tons (18,000 kg) of dynamite was stored on the island" - This should be "twenty short tons ... were".
    Fixed there and elsewhere.
  • " "you could throw a cat through the cracks"" - Cracks of the shanties?
    Cracks of the shanties!
    Lmao Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Third explosion
  • " An "immediate cessation of pleasure" occurred among people in the immediate vicinity." - Who is this quote from? If we're going to use a quote rather than a narrative description of how people started panicking like the plot of 2012, there should at least be some attribution.
    Attribution given.
  • " which would need to be rebuilt with many scowloads of stone and mud" - It should likely either be "which would later be rebuilt" or "which needed to be rebuilt", since the fact that the island needed to be rebuilt is in the present, not the future.
    Done.
  • " An article in the Trenton Tribune would later falsely state that the explosion happened in 1907" - Might the date of this article be relevant?
    Indeed.
Second injunction
  • " Henderson requested that Dunbar & Sullivan be permanently enjoined from storing any dynamite in the Detroit River, which was denied by Judge Swan" - I'd recommend using active voice rather than passive voice here.
    Done.
  • Also, who are judges Swan, Richards, etc? Why are their names important?
    They aren't particularly relevant, but I've included Richards's name because he's being quoted for the opinion. Can remove if you want though.
    I would either include their full names or remove the mentions. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a citation for John K. Richards as judge of the sixth circuit court in Cincinatti at the time. jp×g 01:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with some advocating for a total ban on dynamite storage in the area. " - Do we know any approximate percentages, any specific people who advocated for such a ban, etc? It may not be relevant, but is that information available?
    Not that I could find, although I could dig through a little further if needed.
    Yeah, I would do a little more research into this, just to make sure you haven't skipped anything important. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanded a little on it. jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Townsend's proposal for a compromise entailed constructing three additional islands, to store a total of 60 short tons (54,000 kg) of dynamite divided evenly between them" - The comma here is in the wrong place. It doesn't belong after "additional islands", but a comma is needed after "short tons...of dynamite".
    Rephrased.
  • " In the summer of 1911," - Per MOS:SEASON I would rephrase this. Obviously a North American summer, so "in mid-1911" would work.
    I think it's a little relevant (work on the channel mostly happened during the summer, as the Detroit River freezes up in the winter). I can change it if you want.
    Sadly, the MOS recommends against this, even though the summer is relevant. The alternative is "In the North American summer of 1911", which is very awkward, or "During the summer, in mid-1911", which is very redundant. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I did what I could (it says "mid-1911" now). jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In January 1912, a contract was carried out to fill its ice houses" - Why did the island have ice houses? Also, perhaps this should be a new sentence.
    My understanding is that it was to chill the explosives so that they could be handled safely, but I'm not a hundred percent sure. I do know that they were used in the manufacturing process somehow.
Completion of channel and subsequent use of island
  • " would soon come to an end" - I think it suffices to say "soon ended".
    Rephrased.
  • " In the 1920s, it was using nearby Stony Island as a central part of its dredging and excavation operations" - For staging, I suppose.
    For staging...
  • The last paragraph seems abrupt. Do we know anything about when the island was abandoned as a residence, or when the Michigan government took over? Do any structures still exist? The mid-1930s to 1980s is a large era that isn't covered here; were there no sources that talk about the island during this time?
    It's tragic, but I absolutely could not find dick about the island between those years. It seems that once the channel was dug, there was not much of anything going on there -- Wayne County's property records are kind of a pain in the ass so I can't find anything about transfers of the parcel either. I'm not sure what kind of reference work (outside of, say, USGS maps) would even cover random uninhabited sub-acre islands in the Detroit River in a meaningful way.
    Oof, that sucks. Epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, some good news -- I was able to figure out some more kool faktz about some stuff that kinda-sorta went on through the 1960s (mostly the completion of the channel deepening project and a failed 1961 proposal to expand the island). At least it's something... jp×g 03:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG, these are all the comments I have so far. Sorry for making you wait a month, since I tend to keep forgetting about stuff like this. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Gottem. jp×g 07:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Expanded the last section a bit and addressed a couple other minor things, take a look. jp×g 03:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: Just a few more things.
  • For the paragraph beginning "In December 1932, channel-deepening operations began again, this time being carried out by a George Mills Company of Ontario", how many of these quotations can be reasonably paraphrased?
Took a swing at it. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another suit with similar complaints was filed against the Arundel Corporation in 1938." - Do we know the outcome?
Unfortunately, I could not find anything on it. Newspaper results for the corporation aren't very prevalent after this period, as I suppose they didn't get up to any similarly fascinating projects afterward... jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Work on nearby shipping channels would continue through the mid-20th century, including a project to deepen the Amherstburg Channel in the late 1950s" - Why is this phrased as "would continue" rather than "continued"?
Bad habits. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enlarging them up to the boundaries of shipping channels." - Enlarging the islands, I assume?
Indeed. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
– Epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Everything looks all good now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a second look tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For various definitions of tomorrow. @Epicgenius: Check it out. jp×g 08:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Per the outcome of this discussion, would you be willing to remove the template calls to {{tq}} above or replace them with the less costly {{green}}? Hog Farm Talk 15:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sure. I just removed the template calls altogether. Epicgenius (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

[edit]

Lead

  • "Southeast Michigan" in the first sentence of the lead should be capitalized, as it is a proper name (at least, that's how it is handled at Southeast Michigan).

More comments to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one is kind of interesting. I don't think there is a lot of consensus on it being a proper place name (in the decades I lived there, anyone who said it just meant the southeastern part of the state). Some fairly heavy-hitting RSes have it lowercase (the State of Michigan, as well as the two papers of record, the Detroit News and the Free Press). With local news channels it's kind of uncertain: Channel 4 has it uppercase, Channel 2 seems to alternate, Channel 7 has it lowercase. But capitalizing it seems to be a minority position (frankly, I think Southeast Michigan may need to be corrected, but that's neither here nor there). jp×g 20:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to its east, across the Livingstone Channel," This is the start of a new sentence, so "To" should be capitalized.
  • "In March 1880, an injunction was issued in the case of Walter Crane v. Charles F. Dunbar et al." What court was this injunction filed in?
  • "Hercules powder" is not a commonly used term. I suggest adding a wikilink to Hercules powder which redirects to Hercules Inc.
  • "...the new site was only a couple hundred yards away." Does the mention of yards here merit a conversion to metric?
  • "Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals" can be wikilinked.
  • "eventually it became known as "Powder House Island"" Can you be more specific about when the name changed?
  • "Two men were injured; Henry Rogers and Theodore Perry had just left the island" I recommend moving the men's names into the first part of this sentence. Having them after the semicolon makes it a bit confusing as to if "two men" is in fact referring to Rogers and Perry, or referring to someone else.
  • "court proceedings concerning the lawsuit (Henderson v. Sullivan) related to the explosion, state that it took place on July 26, 1906," The comma after explosion can be deleted.

That's all I have at the moment, I'll take a second look once you've reviewed these comments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits have been made, except for a couple. Firstly, I'm not sure about offering a conversion for "a couple hundred yards", because with the lack of precision it would end up being something silly like "a couple hundred yards (a couple hundred meters)". I can't think of a better way to phrase that. Secondly, the name change -- I could not find any concrete sources on that. People just used the two interchangeably for a while; the 1907 court case says "Powder House Island", and it appears on the 1906 USGS map as "Powder House Island" (both of which seem to be fairly official contexts), and by far the predominant name is "Powder House Island". On the other hand, Wayne County's parcel records in 2021 say "DYNAMITE ISLAND". Thirdly, I don't know how relevant this is, but I am not sure about what jurisdiction the Wayne County chancery court fell under in 1880 (whether it was a separate entity to the circuit court or whether it was a subordinate department). jp×g 21:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Will leave comments soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, ping me once you get through Epicgenius' comments, and then I'll review. I don't want run crosspurposes with their review. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Wassap. jp×g 07:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "twenty short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite" - Running a bit of a headache right now, so I'm not able to dig into the convert template documentation, but presumeably there's a way to let twenty be capitalized since this is a start of the sentence
Done. Apparently the way you do it is change spell=in to spell=In (lol). jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the county parcel number really significant information to include, especially since I reckon it's unlikely to ever be used except for surveying or land purchase?
Not particularly, so removed. jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the spelling Lime Kiln Crossing and Lime-Kiln Crossing are both used - is the variant with or without the dash most common? Recommend sticking with one spelling
I have no idea, so I will go with Lime-Kiln. jp×g 08:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it also went by the name of "Dynamite Island"; eventually it became known as "Powder House Island"" - maybe I'm missing it because of the headache, but the name Dynamite Island doesn't seem to appear on p. 46 of the source?
Not in that source; not terribly relevant to what's being said so I have removed the "Dynamite Island" part. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned that "However, no such islands were constructed," is only sourced to the maps. Sometimes stuff that did exist at least briefly doesn't show up on maps (see Martensdale, California, for instance, which I couldn't find on the topos when I expanded it)
This is definitely not ideal. It's pretty hard to prove a negative; I spent quite some time trying to find proof that went either way, but I don't think anything would even qualify as evidence short of a "Project To Build Additional Islands Cancelled" headline. That said, there's not a single source that says anything remotely to the effect that there were multiple islands (and all of them refer to Powder House Island in a decidedly singular sense). I guess I could phrase this differently, like this:
"However, these islands do not seem to have been constructed; future references to the area do not mention these islands, and they are not shown on subsequent maps of the area."
I am open to doing something else, though. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "However, no such islands appear on survey maps from 1906 through 2019"? Hog Farm Talk 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[57] [56] [59] [55] [54] [50] [58] [60] From the 1930s through the late 1960s, Powder House Island is shown largely unchanged on survey maps" - I'm rather confused by the appearance of 8 references at the beginning of a paragraph. Was some text inadvertently removed?
Yeah, this was just a miscellaneous error (which it looks like I got rid of while doing unrelated fixes). jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, Powder House Island is not mentioned in conjunction with these projects" - This appears to be an argument from silence, I think citing descriptions of the projects here would be better than just following this up with the cites to the maps
This sounds smart; have gone ahead anf fixed it. jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in 1987, the company went defunct" - still Arundel?
This is Dunbar & Sullivan (was clearer when the section was smaller, but it's been expanded since so I will rectify). jp×g 08:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Geneaology Trails RS?
I dunno. The only thing it's supporting is that Dunbar & Sullivan went defunct in 1987, which isn't blisteringly relevant anyway. I went looking for some sources to support this, and found this article about them doing something in 1987: "Harbor dredging under way". Kenosha News. Kenosha, Wisconsin. 1987-07-07. p. 7. Retrieved 2022-01-14 – via Newspapers.com.. I dunno -- seems sus. Maybe I can find something else, but for now I will just take it out. jp×g 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Update: They were "winding the company down" in 1989, per this (which says a bit about their history, and some about Stoney Island as well). This talks about where their locations were in 1975 or so. jp×g 08:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do any of the sources happen to mention the type of vegetation on the island?
Nailhed's article does, and has a ton of pictures of it: do you think I should include that as a source? jp×g 08:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Nailhed looks RS, but I'll see what I can find. This says that Sterna hirundo lived there back in 1993, but that might be too old to be worth including. And there area next to the area was apparently a walleye spawning site in 1982. Not really finding anything from the last 20 years, though. Hog Farm Talk 19:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to give this another look-through once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dope. I will get on it. jp×g 07:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG nudge (t · c) buidhe 01:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's up. It's me, JPxG, the guy who always gets around to stuff... jp×g 05:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, here we go. @Hog Farm: Check it out :) jp×g 08:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, if anyone could get a hold of this document, we could probably get another FA out of all this. jp×g 08:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of state right now, will check back up in a couple days when I get back. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JPxG: - I've made a couple replies above, although I'd like to give this another read-through, which unfortunately I don't have time for immediately. I'll try to get back to this in another day or two. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hold off on the second run-through until Ealdgyth's comments below are addressed; a couple were things I was going to comment on as well and I don't want to double dip. Hog Farm Talk 16:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally getting back to this, sorry for the wait.

  • The infobox says the article is 0.91 acres (0.37 ha) but the article says "The island, which is covered in foliage, is approximately 200 ft (60 m) from north to south, and 50 ft (15 m) from east to west, giving it an approximate area of 10,000 sq ft (930 m2; 0.23 acres)"
This should be clarified further, which I'll do. Essentially, all survey maps and satellite imagery agree on it having the same size (≈200' × ≈50'). Wayne County has a parcel recorded for the island that covers 0.91 acre, (as it also includes some adjacent water). This is already explained in the Geography section, so I will remove the infobox data. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in December 1879, the three tons of nitroglycerin" - provide a tons to kilograms conversion?
Fixed. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was therefore decided that an artificial island would be constructed next to Fox Island," - the source is just the printing of the 1880 injunction and doesn't really support the decision here
That cite is more in regards to what the sentence says later about the injunction; I'll add a cite to the Federal Reporter source that goes over more regarding the actual decision to construct the island. It seems straightforward to me that, if the island was constructed, the decision to construct the island must have been made prior to that, but you're right that this isn't backed up by the injunction itself. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The explosion has been the subject of misinformation: some contemporary accounts (such as a 28 June article in the Detroit Free Press) " - this doesn't really support "some contemporary accounts" as only one is cited here
Altered. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stony Island is duplicate linked multiple times
Fixed. jp×g 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take another look once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JPxG, just a reminder that Hog Farm is still waiting for your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate support. I agree with Ealdgyth here that the sources aren't ideal for a topic like this, but like the nominator I haven't been able to find really anything better. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
  • Current ref 1 " U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Powder House Island" lacks publisher information and retrieval data
  • "The southern tip of the limestone piling on Stony Island is around 700 yd" is sourced to https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#13/42.0891/-83.1364 and an offline map - does the offline map really show a limestone piling because I'm not seeing this supported by the online map
      • The 2019 maps can be found on TopoView (all USGS survey maps can). It does not show that the piling is limestone, no -- there do exist sources talking about limestone pilings off Stony Island (from the Dunbar & Sullivan files), but it would probably be easier to simply amend the text (which I've done). jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is covered in brush and foliage" is sourced to the above online map and to https://www.bing.com/search?q=42.107238,-83.135875 (I assumed you meant the satelite view for this) but I'm not sure we can go so far as to call that "covered in brush" ... the image shows foliage, yes, but whether its trees or brush is not clear.
  • So, I'm going to get on my soapbox for a bit here. We're supposed to be using secondary sources for wikipedia. And for FAC, we're supposed to be using "high quality" reliable sources - i.e. not just whatever barely reliable sources we can find (not necessarily implying that this article is using shoddy sources). However, this article is almost exlusively sourced to either geological/topographical sources ... or to contemporary newspaper accounts. The only secondary source I can see is the Arcadia Press book on the neighboring island. While technically newspapers and the geological/topographical sources pass WP:RS, having almost all the article sourced to these sources makes it more of a original research article rather than an encyclopedia article covering how secondary sources cover the island. I know, I know, we allow this, but is there NO secondary source coverage of any of these events? Have local historical societies been checked for their publications? Can more of this be sourced to the Arcadia Press book? Has Google scholar been plumbed for theses and dissertations? I don't want to be a jerk, but this is dangerously close to being what a historian does, rather than what an encyclopedia editor does.
      • I've spent a few dozen hours trying to scrape up sources from everywhere I could think of. At risk of sounding pretentious, I think I may have assembled the sum total of what the human species knows about Powder House Island. Of course, it's possible that it is mentioned elsewhere in sources that aren't available to me (like a non-digitized manuscript in an offline collection that isn't tagged in any retrieval system). Ultimately, what I think it comes down to is that this is a very small island which has only existed since the late 1800s, and even historical studies of the lower Detroit River are unlikely to mention it except in passing. There are indeed some sources available from the Detroit Historical Society that mention the island (mostly in connection with Dunbar & Sullivan), but these are primary sources. The Grosse Ile Historical Society does not appear to have any collections available online, and Google Scholar doesn't give a whole lot either. I will try again with TWL, I suppose. jp×g 04:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is my attempt to find something. In general, the fact that the island was never inhabited (except by the couple illegal fisherman that one time) means it's not going to show up in any ethnographic studies, the fact that it's so small means it's unlikely to show up in ecological studies, and the fact that it's an artificial island means it's unlikely to show up in archaeological or geological studies. jp×g 04:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JPxG any response to these comments? This article has been open for quite a long time and I'm not seeing a consensus to promote at the moment. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: I'll be on it today. jp×g 23:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Okay, I have gone through and made some modifications; what do you think? jp×g 05:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck some and replied to others ... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got those :) jp×g
I've struck the above resolved issues. The issue of the primary nature of the sources, I'll leave out for other reviewers. Unfortunately, while if this was Ealdgyth-pedia, I'd say the use of sources here doesn't meet our high quality standards because I think it's too close to an actual work of history (rather than encyclopedia building), its a gray area and I suspect it's up to consensus of all the reviewers and the coords. I'm uncomfortable with it, but I can't point to any policy, guideline, or FA criteria that explicity prohibits it. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JPxG, any further comments or actions in the light of Ealdgyth's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None beyond the ones I already gave (and the changes I already made) regarding supplementary references from online databases and TWL affiliates. So far I've incorporated everything I could find in all search results from both names on Newspapers.com, the Detroit Historical Society, the Grosse Ile Historical Society, Google Scholar, DeGruyter, Gale eBooks, Gale Academic OneFile, Edinburgh University Press, Cairn, JSTOR, Nomos, Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Oxford Reference, Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford Academic, PNAS, ProQuest, and a normal Google search. jp×g 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Twenty short tons (18,000 kg) of the island's dynamite exploded in 1906 after two men "had been shooting with a revolver" near it; while there were no deaths (and only minor injuries to the two men), windows were shattered 3 mi (4.8 km) away and the explosion was clearly audible from 85 mi (137 km) away." That sounds very exciting but given that there's no finding that they caused the explosion (and the Sixth Circuit said the cause was unknown), is it really worth putting in the lead?
      • I'd been careful to say "after" rather than "because", but if the implication is too strong regardless, it can just be taken out of the lead. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "21 April 1895" Why is day month year being used in an American non-military article? Also other dates.
  • "United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati" This is the Sixth Circuit and I would say so. Also, you don't seem ever to cite the actual case opinion and I'm not sure you've reviewed it, since it contains information about Powder House Island. For example, that the state owned it at the time of the explosion, and that two boys were fishing and their boat was destroyed though they were not much hurt. There may be other info as well. It is here. By the by, you would cite it as: Henderson v. Sullivan, 159 F. 46 (6th Cir. 1908), and if you were citing to a specific page or pages, it would be Henderson v. Sullivan, 159 F. 46, XX (6th Cir. 1908) where XX represents the page numbers or numbers. (the page numbers from the original, which I can't seem to find online, are bracketed in the text). Let me know if you need help with this, since I'm a lawyer, I'm picky about such things.
      • Yeah, when I wrote this, I send my friend esq. a message to make sure I had gotten some of the phrasing right, although I didn't have him copyedit the entire section, so it seems predictable that I would get a few things wrong. I am not sure how to format legal citations, so I could try to figure it out myself (or if it'd be a quick edit for you, that'd work fine as well). Almost the entirety of my information on the court case comes from the several page section of the Federal Reporter citation here, which as far as I can tell contains the same content as the link you've posted, although I'm not sure whether that's an "opinion" or a "ruling" or what. If there is a separate thing, I can look at that as well, but I couldn't find anything that wasn't contained within that original citation (both of them begin with "The storage on an island in a navigable river", "The defendant, Michael Sullivan" ... and both end with "at the place described in the bill as his residence on Grosse Isle"); yours does seem to have some additional information on cases that set precedents, but no additional material about the specific case in question. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of the 1908 injunction seems to ignore that, according to the 1908 decision, the case was filed in state court but removed to federal court (I'm guessing because it happened in a navigable waterway that impacted interstate and foreign commerce, but I'm only guessing). And technically the Sixth Circuit did not grant the injunction, but instructed the lower federal court to grant one.
      • This one, I must profess ignorance of -- I couldn't figure a whole lot out regarding how the case progressed, who filed it, and where it moved around afterwards. That said, I do not have a very good grasp on how such a case moves around anyway, so maybe I did figure it out and I couldn't understand it. Is the citation for this stuff in the Federal Reporter reference? jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Powder House Island is shown largely unchanged on survey maps throughout this time.[60][35][61]" Did you intend for the numbered citations to be out of order?
I'd prefer to avoid it, but on the other hand, they are being given in chronological order (the citations are <ref name="usgs1936"/><ref name="usgs1940"/><ref name="usgs1952"/>). I don't know if there is a way to avoid this, but if there is I'd be willing to do so. jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'll give it another look when you're ready for me to.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'd call an ignorantia juris situation; when I was adding the stuff about the court proceedings it wasn't quite clear to me the proper way to phrase (and cite) everything, so I appreciate the help. I will try to work with what you've given me here, and I'll let you know when I have something. jp×g 21:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject of things that would be easier if I had gone to law school, there is currently a real-life issue I have to make sense of (and a couple Signpost articles I have to write) over the next couple days, so I may not be available for editing much during that time. jp×g 08:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're ready.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. The real-life issue ended up working out fine, somehow, and the other stuff is fine as well. jp×g 22:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I've gone through your comments :) jp×g 23:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get back to this tomorrow. It's the same case, I mis-typed the volume number. Yours is a better link than mine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On another look, I'll Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh

[edit]
Comments
[edit]
  • "It was constructed in the late 1880s" — I would specify 'Island' here, else it appears that 'it' represents the border. Optional suggestion.
  • "to the water's edge", "had been shooting with a revolver" — The lead does not makes clear where these quotes comes from.
  • "within Grosse Ile Township, in Wayne County, Michigan, in the United States" — why not simplify to "within Grosse Ile Township, Wayne County, Michigan, United States"?
  • "audible in St. Clair some 60 mi (97 km) to the north" — I'd replace 'some' with 'approximately'
  • Ref#8 has "p. 46" in the source, but you use ":47" in the {{Rp}}
  • "represented by Dr. David Inglis" — I don't think we refer to people on Wikipedia by there title, Dr. or Prof.
  • Lake Erie, Grosse Ile, Trenton, Bois Blanc Island: linked more than once.

Perhaps, that is it! Nice work! Didn't know that so much can be written about a 930 m^2 island! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at these general comments as well, JPxG? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
[edit]

Will do Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Per Special:Diff/1071059481, do you need further spot-checks in addition to the ones given by Ealdgyth above? I'll be happy to do if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do please, yes. Note the instances above where Ealdgyth wasn't happy that the source supported the text. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, I'll do! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Version reviewed: [2]

  • "It is approximately 500 yd (1,500 ft; 460 m) east of Fox Island" — I am not able to access the source, but the data is cited to, well, maps?
Indeed; some sources mentioned this distance vaguely, but the survey maps are the most reliable indication of what the actual distance is (text sources have given different figures for its area, for example).
I really don't know if maps are the best sources, but as it is from United States Geological Survey, I'll assume they are reliable. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in December 1879, the three tons (2,700 kg) of nitroglycerin stored on Fox Island detonated without warning," — Can you quote a phrase from the source(s) which support that it was "detonated without warning"?
When I say "without warning" here, what I mean is that it wasn't deliberate on the part of the company -- it could also say "unintentionally" and be basically the same.
I've gone ahead and changed it to "unexpectedly".
  • "Their request was denied in November, and it became evident that a new location would need to be found or created." — OK
  • "Regardless, by May 1881, construction was underway: between eight and ten carpenters, under the direction of John P. Jones, were employed in the construction of a scow." — OK, but too similar to the source. For comparision:
    • Article: "between eight and ten carpenters, under the direction of John P. Jones, were employed in the construction of a scow"
    • Source: "From-eight to ten carpenters, under the direction of John P. Jones, are constantly employed in the ship yard in connection with the works, where they are building a new scow"
Article text revised.
  • "In 1904, it was reported that Canadian police had found American poachers, illegally fishing for sturgeon, living in a shack on the island" — OK
  • "Powder House Island was shaken by an explosion "so terrific in nature that the residents of the town and pleasure-seekers on adjacent islands thought it was an earthquake visitation"" — OK
  • "which reversed the prior ruling and granted an injunction (albeit with limitations) in February 1908, with Judge John K. Richards" — I don't see anything related in the source
The source for the opinion is in ref 31 at the end of the sentence ("Appeal to the Courts: Island residents decline to argue dynamite matter"). Ref 30, to the biography of John Richards, is to confirm that he was the judge presiding over that court at that time (the US Court of Appeals for the sixth circuit, from 1903 to 1909). Otherwise, all ref 31 says is "Judge Richards".
In that case, suggesting to move both the references to end of the sentence, to imply that they jointly support the entire statement. But that is a minor point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By March 1910, the dynamite factory on Powder House Island had returned to operation, with an output of 2 short tons (1,800 kg) per day." — Source writed "two tons", we write "2 short tons", are they same?
References to a "ton" in US publications mean 2,000 pounds, but it's necessary to distinguish between this and the British "ton", which can either be 2,000 (short ton) or 2,240 (long ton).
  • "Another suit with similar complaints was filed against the Arundel Corporation in 1938." — OK
  • "As of 2015, Powder House Island (as well as the nearby Stony Island, also formerly owned by Dunbar & Sullivan) was owned by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, managed by its Wildlife Division as part of the Pointe Mouillee State Game Area, and accessible to the public for hunting and camping." — I can't fine mention of "Power House Island" and "formerly owned by Dunbar & Sullivan".
For some reason, the DNR website is not letting me access the map, and the archive link is not showing it either, so I will have to figure out a workaround for this.
Okay, I managed to get a version of the DNR map from the Wayback Machine (had to use a prior archive from 2020 for some reason). It does show that Powder House Island is contained within the game area -- to make this clearer you can look here, where I've superimposed the DNR map on a USGS survey map. I will add a ref for Stony Island having been used by D&S.
  • No opinion on source reliability and/or formatting.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No response from JPxG from a week. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Hi! Thanks for the comments -- I'll be on it tomorrow. jp×g 10:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no issues! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four to six days later... jp×g 21:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right. @Kavyansh.Singh: Check it out now :) jp×g 00:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As long as spot-checks are concerned, they look OK now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Kavyansh.Singh. Sorry to press you, but any chance that you could elaborate a little on the article's source to text fidelity; the extent to which the sources are primary rather than secondary (and the extent if any to which you consider this a problem); and if the sources are "high-quality reliable sources" as required by the FAC criteria. (Rather than "merely" reliable as required for any Wikipedia article.) If you have no opinion on any of these, that's fine - but could you let me know? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, Gog the Mild. So I have read Ealdgyth's source review twice. The main issue here is use of, well, newspapers and other contemporaneous primary sources. In usual terms, it definitely would be a problem for FAC. But, we have a complex case here. Like the nominator and Hog Farm, even I am not able to find any better sources. The main issue which I see is citing facts to maps. Okay, maps are reliable, but I am not comfortable using it for statements like "It is approximately 500 yd (1,500 ft; 460 m) east of Fox Island." For me, it would be the last alternative to do so, only is there is no other secondary/primary source available. Analyzing the map to write statements like that is how we write a high school analytical paragraph, not an encyclopedic article. It appears like WP:OR to me as well; but again, there maybe are no better sources available. As for the news sources, they are fine in my opinion. Not the best sources, but the article uses them just to support the events, as opposed to evaluative claims. So, all in all, I believe that all sources are "reliable sources", but if there are no better sources available, then these have to be of the high quality as well (as there is nothing better to compare it with). So even if we assume this is the best possible article we can get on the topic, sourcing is not as good as generally required for FAC ... But it is a subjective decision. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am closing this as a promote, but would like to remind anyone reading this, or quoting this decision in the future that the best sources available is not the same as "high-quality reliable sources". So it is possible for an article to use the best sources there are, but not meet FAC standards. Happily for the nominator there is consensus that this is not the case here.
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [3].

Lake Estancia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prehistoric lake in the Estancia Valley of New Mexico, a state in the USA. Like many valleys in the western USA, changes in precipitation and evaporation patterns caused the Estancia Valley to fill with water during the last Ice Age: Lake Estancia. It is now gone but its deposits have been used to reconstruct past climates for the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Does a picture like this[5] give an impression of the general are?
Maybe, but it's looking away from the area that the former lake covered. Also, vegetation during the lake stages was quite different from that today; I am not sure how representative it would be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The intro and article bodies should be able to function as separate, self-contained texts, though, so both presentations, abbreviations, links, etc, should be repeated in both. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually the "French" looking spellings that are UK English, such as "colour/flavour/favour" instead of "color" etc., "catalogue" instead of "catalog", "metre" instead of "meter". FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I think this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no present-day reports of fish in the Estancia basin are known" Does that mean there are permanent water bodies still other than lakes, which you say don't exist any more? Otherwise, it would go without saying?
    There are creeks and springs, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be mentioned, if it isn't already? FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that (beyond the playas) they are ever discussed in the context of the lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, could the sources for the info be added to the file description on Commons? I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I made some tweaks. Let me know what you think -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were mammoths occurred at the lake" Specify what species of mammoth if the sources do? I'd assume it was the Columbian mammoth.
    It seems like, but oddly I can't find any explicit statement to that effect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is represented by Rancholabrean species" Perhaps make this clearer, by something like "represented by species that lived during the Rancholabrean stage of the Pleisotcene?
    The problem with that is that Rancholabrean means both a chronology and a fauna, and here it's used more like a fauna. Might Goldberg, Paul; Holliday, Vance T.; Mandel, Rolfe D. (2017). "Stratigraphy". Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology. Springer Netherlands: 913–916. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4409-0_2. work as a definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can work something out from that, would be good to have a little bit of definition? FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Approaching four weeks and just the single general review. Unless further movement towards a consensus to promote within the next couple of days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Imma ping the editors of the last three FACses if I may. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So long as the notification is neutral. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a lot on my plate, so no promises, but I might be able to leave some comments. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry- this one's a bit out of my depth, and digging into it would take a bit more time than I've got. My apologies, but it looks like you're cruisin' regardless! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

Was pinged on my talk page, happy to provide a review over the next few days. First observations:

More to follow once I get to actually read the text :) —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that there are many better places; I tried to work on the caption however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly better. First map still needs a caption for those who don't recognise New Mexico by its shape. ("Position of Lake Estancia in New Mexico").
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an interesting article, but a bit difficult to read. There is a bit much jargon for my taste, and some sentences are overly complicated. For a jargon example: "pliocene" and "pleistocene" just mean "long ago" to me; I have no idea whatsoever how long ago. Try to gloss some of these words so the reader does not have to navigate away from the article to get an idea.
    I did with some of these terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. With the given precision, a footnote is probably fine.
    But please make the lead and body footnotes go to the same place. Look at Template:Efn for documentation; I think you can use a name parameter or something to reuse them. —Kusma (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Do we need all these precise numbers for the water levels in this overview? Also, these are probably heights above sea level or something, so would need context of how high up the land is there.
    I've removed these numbers; that's really information for those who want details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the lead section is sorted in the best way. We currently have location, trouts, water supply, formation, history, context. The trouts are particularly out of place, but generally this could be improved.
    Well, the idea is description [including fauna], chronology and causes. I don't know of any better structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends whether you see the trout as part of the "description" or of the "history".
    I personally treat that as "description". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The trout thingy reads a bit like a random factoid right now, and I'm not too pleased with the flow of the first paragraph of the article. Moving the trout to the end of the first paragraph might help. —Kusma (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a somewhat bigger rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography: How far south of Santa Fe?
    Source doesn't say that, and since we have the distance from Albuquerque which is a major city that seems fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The structure "70km SE of Albuquerque and S of Santa Fe" makes me expect a distance also from Santa Fe. After looking at a msp, I would suggest just to drop the mention of Santa Fe.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... northernmost part of the lakebed ... western and southern lakebeds" is there one lakebed or are there several?
    One; changed the numeral to clarify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect "western part of the lakebed" but you may be right that it is fine. While I'm here: "formerly the New Mexico Central Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway also did" isn't totally clear in what they did. "In the past [when?], the New Mexico Central Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway also crossed the western and southern lakebeds" would be clearer (if it is true).
    Recast that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lake was about 56 km wide: when was that?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you like to say things like "the easternmost pluvial lake in Southwestern North America" I am sure you will join my campaign to rename the Siegerland as "Südostnordrheinwestfalen".
    Yeah, I didn't love this formulation either but the problem is that "easternmost" is still west of the Mississippi so we can't say "easternmost" without a qualifier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distinct[19] shoreline landforms... " is this really the best place for the footnote?
    No; moved it down. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The water level mesurements are quite precise given that they are presented with "may have reached" and "possibly". "Early Lake Estancia" is used as a time period without explaining when that was. "Lake Willard" is also apparently a time period from the way it is used in the sentence, but it is also a highstand? The way you conflate times and lakes here is almost incomprehensible without looking at the map.
    Problem is that the sources don't bother with error bars. I've rewritten this a bit to focus on the time period. One question I am pondering is: Stage or stages? It's typically not known whether a shoreline was due to one or two stages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some formed estuaries" -> better "Some streams formed estuaries"; for a second, I thought the subject of the sentence were the (formed) estuaries.
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... deposits of deltas; the former generated a fan delta" the former what?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Torreon Creek an extant body of water or just some former creek still called "creek" gazillion years after last having water?
    It seems like it still exists, although it carries water infrequently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then it's fine the way it is written.
  • Lacustrine deposits and post-lacustrine dunes: I can't tell whether the section contains anything related to "lacustrine". Try to reduce the jargon. Also, is it "lowstand" or "low-stand"?
    Went ahead and glossed "lowstand" everywhere since unlike "highstand" it's not defined in the lead. And replaced "lacustrine" with "lake" since that's what it means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.
  • Gypsum dunes: sounds cool. Is the Czaja et al citation there to tell us that gypsum dunes are rare? Perhaps you can simplify the sentence structures and get rid of the "today". ("The Estancia Dune Field is a X square km dune field in Estancia Valley. It consists of gypsum dunes, a rare type of dunes. These dunes were generated when the lake dried up and gypsum was blown away by the wind" or something).
    That's much better; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lunette dunes": I had an idea what that could be until I clicked the link. Which architect was involved? And what is a "domal landform"?
    That's all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should change the lunette link to lunette (which mentions the geological meaning) or remove it.
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydrology: "centripetal pattern of streams" does this just mean "streams flowing in from all directions"?
    Yes. Not sure how to spell that out without distracting the reader. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link watershed to drainage basin to unconfuse people thinking that a watersheds are exactly the points that do not belong to a single drainage basin. Are the glaciers relevant here i.e. should we have expected them? Manzano Mountains (which I guess should be linked here even if it was linked earlier) does not mention any glaciers.
    I think yes, given that the lake existed during the ice age and other such lakes had glaciers in their watersheds. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lower temperatures and thus slower evaporation" lower than what and slower than what?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Groundwater leakage may have become significant at high water levels, thus stabilizing various highstands at a similar elevation" ok, I'm lost. Is the water leaking into the lake or out of the lake? How does that stabilize the high water level at a time of high water level? What elevation is similar to what else?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better.
  • "Foraminifera data suggest that the salinity of the lake fluctuated between hypersaline and freshwater;[47] initially it was thought that it never became a freshwater lake" Can you simplify this? "The lake was at times hypersaline and at times freshwater. This was confirmed by foraminifera data that disproved earlier an hypotheses that the lake was never freshwater".
    That is clearer; took it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overflow: "each of these basins were occupied by separate closed lakes[59] although evidence for the existence of such a lake in the Pinos Wells basin is scant" There was a lake in the Pinos Wells basin, but there is not enough evidence to conclude that there was a lake in the Pinos Wells basin?
    Cleared this up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup.
  • Climate: This is the first time that I learn (after the lead) that the existence of Lake Estancia is connected to the Ice Ages. (There was little indication so far how long ago things had happened). A sentence like "Lake Estancia is only one among several lakes in New Mexico that formed or expanded during the ice ages" might not be totally out of place in the "Lake" section.
    Maybe, but the problem I see is that this would be putting climate information in the lake section. I think it depends whether we assume that readers go through the page top to bottom or just hop to the section that interests them; in the former case moving it up makes sense, in the latter not really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the history section has been moved, this is probably moot. (Ideally to be confirmed by a fresh reader!)
  • "Precipitation may have increased around and south of the latitude of Lake Estancia, while it decreased north of it." was that how the weather changed during the LGM? I do not fully understand over which period of time this increase/decrease happened.
    Spelled out that it was during the LGM. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the section is a bit of a mess. The conclusion to the scientific debate, "Rising lakes have been attributed to [various things]. The timing has been debated", which is a bit lacking in actors, is "the area of such lakes is the function of the inflow/recharge of the lake basin minus any leakage divided through the evaporation rate", which doesn't seem all that connected. Also, why do you divide the leakage through the evaporation rate? And doesn't this depend on the shape of the lake basin?
    I've lifted that last sentence into a footnote; it was indeed misplaced. I know about the actor issue but there are too many of them to spell them out all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK.
  • Biota: "There were mammoths occurred" copyedit into English
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fish was present in the lake during its freshwater stages, except very late during their history" The history of the fish or of the freshwater stages? Does this mean the fish disappeared during a late freshwater stage?
    Hmm, not sure myself - I've pulled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternatively, the trout lived " if this is speculation, it should be "may have lived". The sentence also makes it look like the trout were captured in the Rio Grande.
    Rewrote this, but can I have a second opinion on the tense? It looks a bit off to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it is a bit off. "According to an alternative theory, the trout could have been living..."? While we're here, try to do something about the duplicate "it appears to be" at the start of the paragraph.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • History ... : We have had some bits about history before, as we are talking about what happened to a lake during a couple dozen millennia. But "either during the Pliocene, early Pleistocene or middle Pleistocene" would be so much easier to understand if combined with an "approximately Y trillion years ago".
    That'd done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the History section much earlier (I feel like I finally understand what you are talking about).
    Bah, OK, that is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think this makes it much easier when reading linearly.
  • "Lake Estancia may have desiccated 134,000 - 121,000 years ago" is followed in the next subsection by the contradicting information "The record indicates that first shallow lakes formed between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago". Who recorded this?
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I misunderstand the word "LGM". It sounds like a point in time, but apparently it is a couple thousand years long?
    Yes, it's a time period. Specified that in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laurentide Ice Sheet [..] forced the jet stream southward" ice sheets can influence the jet stream? Interesting.
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ice discharge into the ocean was increased and shut down the heat transport" shut down completely? The Heinrich event page is much more careful.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'an event christened the "Big Dry"' who calls it that? Is that a word used only in the context of Lake Estancia or is it in wider use?
    A personal communication by a researcher, and the source itself is equivocal on whether it was limited to Estancia or not - but I indicated that it applies there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mystery Interval is a redlink. Is this word in wide use and in which community?
    It is: Here. This source explains the etymology; does it warrant a note? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that's optional.
  • Drying up 8500 years ago should be mentioned in the lead.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake Meinzer": is this a lake or a period in time when there was a lake?
    Such names usually mean both things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Named for Oscar Edward Meinzer I guess?
    Yes. Linked that, by the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthropology: mention what "points" and "Folsom points" are
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Older research published in 1989 indicates that during the early and middle Wisconsin glaciation, there was no freshwater lake in the Estancia Valley." Several points. So all other research discussed in the article is post-1989? (This is the only time the age of some research is so explicitly mentioned). Is this research in contrast to what you said earlier? Or is it just additional information that during the Wisconsin glaciation, the lake was salty? What does this have to do with the anthropology?
    Ok this one's a tough one ... basically, this discusses an alternative view on the lake's history which hasn't been widely accepted. It has nothing to do with anthropology but the section discusses the scientific importance in general; I've sub-sectioned it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now easier on the brain.
  • '"Lake Willard" has yielded a date of 12,460 years' What type of object is "Lake Willard" in this sentence? I have thought so far that it meant either a lake, a highstand, or a period of time. Neither of these can yield a date. Please clarify.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearer now.

Overall this appears well-researched (but I have not really looked at sources) but in need of improved writing. Too much unexplained jargon, too many sentences that are more difficult to parse than necessary. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

The nominator generously (and very neutrally) requested my comments on my talk page. More that happy to help! Following are few comments, nothing major. Most are just suggestions:

  • "1,939 meters (6,362 ft)" — Optional, but alike previous FAC, my concern yet remains that one quantity in written in full form, other is in abbreviation. I feel there should be consistency as to it being abbreviated or fully written.
    I tried spelling this out everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably having reached it during a possible past overflowing stage." — In this case, I think we should have either 'presumably' or 'possible'. Having both looks bit repetitive, as they more-or-less mean same in this context.
    Removed the first; removing the other one would imply that it's certain that the lake overflowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LGM" is never used again in the lead. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
    That's for the people who don't read top-to-bottom but rather lead-to-section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Last glacial maximum" — our article capitalizes "Last Glacial Maximum" (L, G, and M)
    Standardized to allcaps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a "clarification needed" tag in the lead in this version of the article.
    Yeah, but I am not exactly sure what the problem is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over sixty" — should be write sixth in number?
    See, I believe that such numbers are typically spelled out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a difficulty of writing technical articles at FAC, but I do not understand the following terms: "Dog Lake Formation", "lowstands", "Deflation of the dry lakebed"
    I think "water level lowstand" is clearer? "Dog Lake Formation" is the name of a geological formation. "Excavation" may be clearer than "deflation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on foraminifera data, it appears that the salinity of the lake fluctuated between hypersaline and freshwater" — It appears to whom?
    Recast so that the foraminifera data are the actor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • groundwater, sill, Rio Grande, Intertropical Convergence Zone, Younger Dryas, and ice age is overlinked.
    Un-overlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annual precipitation is less than 300 millimetres per year" — both "annual" and "per year"?
    Cut "Annual". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article capitalizes "last glacial maximum"
    I think that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oday gypsum dunes - a rare type of dune - occur in the Estancia Valley" — should these be em-dashes?
  • "Rising water levels in Southwestern North America - including Lake Estancia - have been variously attributed either to increased precipitation from storm track changes induced by continental glaciation or to decreased evaporation", "The exact timing of the highstands of Lake Estancia - during the LGM or during a warmer wetter period after the LGM - has also been debated" — same as above
  • "higher 41,000 - 38,000 years ago and lower 57,000 - 51,000 and 45,000 - 43,000 years ago" — same (en-dashes in this case). Please check this throughout the article.
    I admit I don't know anything about when to use em-dashes. I think there is a script, I'll see about it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support, pending minor formatting issues which can easily be fixed. Overall, excellent article on difficult technical subject. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Femke

[edit]

No energy for a full review, but I was wondering if the climate section shouldn't use more modern sources.

  • Last year, two papers were published that cast doubt on the existence of the mid-Holecene temperature optimum (the more authorative one). I know it takes time for such findings to trickle down to publications on a local scale (or even into the relevant Wikipedia article), but I thought you may want to consider it.
    Aye, if memory serves "altithermal" is going a bit out of fashion but it's not completely dead. I think the problem is that there isn't really an accepted term for what comes between the Younger Dryas and the Neoglacial that could be used as a replacement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words climate oscillation are losing favour within the climate community for variability that isn't oscillatory/quasi-periodic. A quick post-2010 Google Scholar search indicates that Bølling–Allerød is now followed by the words "warming", "interstadial", "interval". Femke (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by A. C. Santacruz - Pass

[edit]
Take note that between you beginning the review I've actioned Kusma's points and added some sources in the process. Also, what do the numbers in this list refer to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers referred to citation numbers in this version of the article, and I'll check now for any sources added since then. I noted the numbers as a way to help myself keep track of where I was in the source review, but that probably should've been done in a subpage of my userpage and then moved here only the ones where I found issue (it's my first source review so I definitely did things inefficiently). Sources all seem reliable and appropriately cited, comments above are minor issues rather than mistakes of serious consequence.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A._C._Santacruz, can I take that as a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I had to make that explicit. Source review passed, Gog the Mild. For my first source review it was kind of cool to kind of follow Jo-Jo Eumerus's research in this condensed, goal-oriented fashion. I would usually never read geography academia (even though my great-grandfather was a PhD in Basque Geology, which is in the same neighborhood) but I genuinely enjoyed the topic. Interesting stuff! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

[edit]

There are some hyphens in the referencing which should be replaced with en dashes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]
  • I would only use present tense for features that are extant. The lake does not exist anymore so I would write, "Lake Estancia was a prehistoric lake in the Estancia Valley", "The lake was one of several pluvial lakes in southwestern North America" etc. Currently the article uses a mix of past and present tense which is jarring. (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did so, but it seems like most of the article already used past tense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you happy? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment has been addressed adequately, not supporting or opposing. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [8].

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this article in terrible shape last December and decided to rewrite it based on recent research. It went through a very thorough GAN by Vaticidalprophet and a copyedit by Bafflegab. (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

Reviewing this version:

  • First question: If "[t]his article is about the persecution of homosexual men", why isn't it titles "Persecution of gays in Nazi Germany". I know there must be some valid reason (of course), but this question could be added in the {{FAQ}} on the talk page.
    • I would say that most sources use "homosexual" because "gay" only came into common use decades after WWII.
  • "After the Röhm purge in 1934, homosexuality became a priority of the Nazi police state." — priority as in?
  • "the most severe episode in a long history of discrimination" — shouldn't 'episode' be 'period'?
    • I think it meets the dictionary definition of "episode": "an event or a group of events occurring as part of a larger sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation."
  • Weimar Republic (piped Germany) is linked in the lead, but not in the prose.
  • "by a German-language writer; " — should mention his name as well.
  • "after Franz von Papen deposed the Prussian government" — WP:SOB, as well as the article should mention who von Papen was.
    • Added chancellor but I do not know if the SOB should be avoided in this case.
  • Just confirming, "Clemens August Graf von Galen" is his common name?
    • I believe so.
  • "mistakenly believing Röhm would protect them" — There should be a 'that'
    • Fixed
  • "During the first years of Nazi rule" — either 'first year' or 'initial years'
    • Done
  • "more than 600 every week" — should it be 'per week'?
    • Done
  • "In 1945, President Edvard Beneš" — president of?
    • Czechoslovakia, clarified
  • "there was a widespread belief among Germans homosexuality is not inborn but instead could be acquired and spread" — There should be a 'that' somewhere between
    • Fixed
  • ""neighbors, relatives, coworkers, vengeful students or employees, and even angry or jealous boyfriends"" — (1) the prose does not make clear where this quote comes from (2) I think this quote can be paraphrased into the text.
    • Paraphrased
  • "Morality police" redirects to Islamic religious police. I wonder if it is correct in this context?
    • link removed
  • "DAF" is never used again in the prose. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
    • It's one of those Nazis agencies better known by its acronym so I'd say yes.
  • "Police would tell his family why he was arrested" — how about "Police would tell his family the reason for his arrest"
    • Done
  • "during their twelve-year rule" — why not 12 in numbers?
    • It looks weird to me not to spell out low numbers like twelve.
      • Per
  • "first homosexual rights organization","Dirlewanger Brigade", "Hitler Youth", "Mauthausen", and "pink triangle" is overlinked.
    • Fixed most of these. In the first two cases, I think the link helps readers because the mentions are far apart and/or the first one is piped.
  • Few ISBNs need to be hyphenated. Use this tool.
    • Fixed
  • Completely optional, but for the further reading sources, suggesting to add "|ref=none"

Actually, that is it! What a great article on such an important topic, very well written and thoroughly researched! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lautmann, Rüdiger (2014). "Willkür im Rechtsgewand: Strafverfolgung im NS-Staat" [Arbitrariness dressed up in legality: Criminal prosecution in the Nazi state]. Homosexuelle im Nationalsozialismus: Neue Forschungsperspektiven zu Lebenssituationen von lesbischen, schwulen, bi-, trans- und intersexuellen Menschen 1933 bis 1945 [Homosexuals Under National Socialism: New Research Perspectives on the Life Circumstances of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Intersexual Persons from 1933 to 1945] (in German). De Gruyter. pp. 35–42. ISBN 978-3-486-85750-4." — "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLautmann2014."

Second look; version reviewed:

  • "relative tolerance of perceived immorality" — quite honestly, can we rephrase this in simpler terms?
    • Done
  • "The German supreme court ruled a conviction required proof the men had had penetrative sex" — 'a conviction which required' or 'a conviction that required'
    • Rephrased
  • "The Nazis temporarily tolerated a few known homosexuals, including Röhm, but never adopted such tolerance as a general principle or changed its views on homosexuality." — Here, we are talking about 'Nazis', i.e. people with Nazi ideologies. So, I think, 'or changed its' should be 'or changed their'.
    • Reworded
  • "There is no evidence homosexuals were" — add 'that' somewhere
    • Done
  • How did deposition of the Prussian government lead to homosexual bars and clubs in Berlin (Germany) being shut down?
    • The police were run by each state/land in this case the Free State of Prussia. Similarly police in the US are usually not run by the federal government, rather by municipalities, counties, or states.
  • "The Vatican and Protestant churches both praised the crackdown" — How about 'Both the Vatican and Protestant churches praised the crackdown'
    • Done
  • "Persecution of homosexuals was an opportunity for career advancement for lawyers and policemen." — How so? Important to mention?
    • OK, removed
  • "and had to perform especially dirty and backbreaking work" — Harsh reality, unfortunately, but do we need to specify 'especially'?
    • More so than the rest of the concentration camp
  • "Homosexual prisoners did not have to wear a badge [...]" v. "Initially, homosexuals were differentiated from other prisoners with a badge bearing capital letter "A" that was used at Lichtenberg." — Am I missing something?
    • The prisons were separate from the concentration camps; the latter being run by the SS
  • "Although not entirely accurate, this statement captured the view of many West German homosexuals." — isn't it OR to write whether a statement is accurate of not, as a fact?
    • Both Schwartz and Grau say that this statement is an exaggeration

That is it; most of the comments are suggestions. Rest, it is simply a perfect article, fully deserving of that bronze star. Thank you very much for your efforts! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied by the changes made. Very happy to fully support this FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the graphs
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft_-_Bibliothek_1933.jpg needs a tag for country of origin, and could you elaborate on why this is believed to have been under the APC? Ditto File:Buchenwald_Prisoners_Roll_Call_10105.jpg
    • For the first one, the USHMM indicates that NARA and the Magnus Hirschfeld Foundation both consider it public domain but I'm not sure what German license tag would apply. Should I just upload a copy to enwiki? The photograph was found in the NARA archives and my understanding is that German photographs from the Nazi era found in these archives are considered public domain.
  • File:Gestapo_radio-telegram_for_list_of_suspected_homosexuals._Transcribed_for_chief_of_police_in_Dortmund.jpg: not seeing that licensing at the source given?
  • File:§175_chart_of_convictions.png: what's the source of the data presented here?
  • File:Stolperstein_für_Willi_Bondi.JPG: is there an OTRS or something to confirm the licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

Commented thoroughly at the GAN. I left the door open for potential FAC comments, but upon reread have nothing more particularly to say, and I'm sure I've put you through enough at this point :) I support this article for promotion. Given the discussion on talk about further reading (which I saw due to still having the article on my watchlist) I agree with Kavyansh it might be worth making it clear in the wikitext via ref=none or hidden comment that the exclusion is intentional, perhaps explicitly suggesting there the creation of a bibliography article as compromise, but this isn't about article content per se. Vaticidalprophet 03:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lkb335's Proposed edits

[edit]

I made an edit that was reverted. In the edit summary, Buidhe suggested that changes should be proposed here rather than made in the article. Apologies for not knowing this; I had thought that we could just make changes to the article, regardless of proposed FA status. I've never made edits to an FA candidate, and was thus not aware of this. Apologies.

I had changed (and once more propose changing) the sentence "One theory holds the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a backlash against interwar Germany's relative tolerance of alternative sexualities but according to historian Laurie Marhoefer, this played only a minor role." to "One theory holds that the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a backlash against interwar Germany's relative tolerance of LGBT people; however, recent scholarship disputes this." A few reasons behind this:

1. The term "alternative sexualities" seems an odd choice to me. It implies (unintentionally) that all sexualities besides heterosexuality are "alternative," which itself can be considered a loaded term. The idea the heterosexuality must be the norm is one that queer activists have been pushing back on for some time.

2. Marhoefer is not the only historian to push back on the idea that the Nazis rose to power due to backlash against Weimer-era tolerance; to support that contention, I cited an additional source.

3. Given 2., I think "recent scholarship" makes more sense to use.

I had also changed:

"In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats revealed Röhm's homosexuality in an attempt to discredit the Nazis.Adolf Hitler initially defended Röhm but the scandal weakened his place in the party. The Röhm scandal was the origin of the long-lasting but false idea the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals, a recurring theme in 1930s left-wing propaganda."

to:

"In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats publicized Röhm's homosexuality in an attempt to discredit the Nazis and sow dissent within their ranks, though this was already common knowledge among Nazi party members. Adolf Hitler initially defended Röhm but the scandal weakened his place in the party. The Röhm scandal was a recurring theme in 1930s Soviet and SPD propaganda, and was the origin of the long-lasting but false idea that the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals."

My reasons behind the above changes:

1. A key goal of the SPD's outing of Röhm was indeed to try to cause strife within the Nazi party, and I feel as though this section should reflect that.

2. While the Röhm scandal was indeed a recurring theme in propaganda by the SDP and Soviet Union, as far as I am aware, the "gay fascism" myth was part of propaganda used by either the Soviet Union or SDP. This section of the article cites Whisnant's 2016 book, which in turn cites for the relevant information an article by Herzer. The main discussion thread of that article relates to myths of exceptional homophobia within the German left in the late 20s early 30s as compared to other political groups. Herzer does mention many times that the SDP and Soviet Union used Röhm's sexuality as a propaganda piece; he does not refer to them using the myth of "gay fascism" as a propaganda tool. As such, I feel as though the sentence should be reordered to make that clear.

Apologies for any incorrect assumptions above; this area of scholarship is not my specialty.

In their rationale for reverting my edits, Buidhe explained that they were removing "incorrect or excessively detailed edits (Rohm scandal has its own article)." I had not thought that I was inserting any incorrect information or becoming needlessly detailed, but rather fixing errors in the article. For any mistakes I have made, though, I apologize thoroughly.

On another note, we have been discussing on the talk page the potential inclusion of a Further reading section. We have yet to come to a consensus there, and I would appreciate further input.

Thanks, Lkb335 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lkb, the incorrect edit was piping "Czech lands" to "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia", because the Czech lands also include the Sudetenland. As for the other proposed edits:

  1. "Recent scholarship" is very vague and it is not the case that all "recent scholarship" agrees on this point, see [9]. Furthermore, what the backlash was hypothetically against was not just male homosexuality but other "deviance" such as prostitution by women. I've rephrased to "backlash against perceived immorality" in order to be clearer.
  2. Herzer's conclusions do diverge from that of other reliable sources on the same topic. Most agree that the Soviet Union and SPD (and others, such as the KPD or various exiled anti-Nazis) did not just stir up the Röhm scandal but also promoted the Nazis as a whole as corrupted by homosexuality. For example, various Nazi leaders such as Hitler, Rudolf Hess, and Baldur von Schirach were speculated to be homosexual, and the Reichstag fire was postulated as the result of a homosexual conspiracy starring Edmund Heines. See Gay Nazis myth#Origins. I've added another source. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I agree with that justification.Lkb335 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, I feel as though I am too new to WP and inexperienced in FAC discussions to form an informed opinion. Staying neutral. I will, however, note that there are still some awkward phrases in the article that I think should be changed (though this is largely stylistic, and based entirely on personal preference):
Lkb335, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. It is always difficult to judge what is a stylistic preference as opposed to what is "of a professional standard". I note that after consideration you have been able to come to a formal judgement, for which thanks again. Both your comments and your support will be taken into account when this nomination is closed, Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, leaders of the SS that was a rival to Röhm's SA, supported the purge to assert their control over the Nazi police state." The clause "leaders of the SS that was a rival to Röhm's SA" is quite awkward, and really does not flow well.
    • Reworded
  • The sentence "Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party and others, former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims" is less awkward as "Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party, while others, themselves former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims."
  • Done
  • "It was common knowledge among the homosexual community and German youth in general that non-penetrative sex was not a crime so many accused would admit to such expecting to be released." would be probably be better as two sentences: "It was common knowledge among the homosexual community and German youth in general that non-penetrative sex was not a crime. As such, many accused would admit to the lesser charge of non-penetrative sex, expecting to be released."
  • Reworded
  • "the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, or with a student or employee" the way this sentence is currently written, it could be interpreted as saying there are harsher penalties just for being "with a student or employee;" as such, change to "the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, and sex with a student or employee."
  • "From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as one of its top priorities" when reading this sentence for the first time, I thought it was using police as a plural noun, not a singular, and was thus confused by "its" later in the sentence; I think you can avoid any possible confusion here by changing this line to "From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as a top priority." One could argue that that changes the meaning of the sentence; if so, another, different edit could also work. This is really minor and could just be a problem I have that no one else does.
  • Done
  • "Himmler approved of such methods, arguing without them, homosexuality would spread unchecked in all-male Nazi institutions." I'm a proponent of including 'that' liberally; here is one place I would insert a 'that.' "Arguing without them" can be read as Himmler arguing without the methods, whereas "arguing that without them" removes that possibility.
Done
  • "The use of concentration camp imprisonment increased; after 1937, those considered to have seduced others into homosexuality were confined to concentration camps. Persecution of homosexuals was an opportunity for career advancement for lawyers and policemen." These sentences either don't belong together or should be separated by some kind of transition; they're topically different enough to require them, in my opinion.
  • moved
Again, all of my gripes are very minor and could rightly be ignored. It's just personal preference at the end of the day. Lkb335 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More suggestions:
  • "Even castrated men could serve in the Wehrmacht." The "even x could serve in the Wehrmacht" language feels improper here; this is a discussion of military conscription, yes? Making it sound like an opportunity is perhaps not how this should be described. For both this sentence and the one preceding it, I would change the language to something related to the draft or conscription. In addition, unless this sentence refers to castrated homosexuals being drafted into the Wehrmacht, this feels to me outside the scope of the article.
  • Done
  • "The army differentiated between innate homosexuals, who were to be punished, and those who suffered a one-time lapse of self-control." change to "The army differentiated between so-called innate homosexuals, who were to be punished, and those who were said to have suffered a one-time lapse of self-control." This sentence could probably use some elaboration, in addition. How exactly did the military tell the difference between the two?
  • Rewritten
  • "After the annexation of Austria in 1938, the persecution applied to homosexual men in Germany was quickly applied and coordinated by the Gestapo until shortly before the beginning of the war." and the later "The use of regular police after 1939 did not help Austrian homosexuals, and both regular and special courts applied draconian punishments, including the death penalty." Both kind of awkward; I'd combine them into something like "The Gestapo extended the persecution of homosexuals to the newly-annexed Austria in 1938. Gestapo-organized persecution lasted until shortly before the beginning of the war, at which point the regular police took over. Even then, regular and special courts applied draconian punishments to homosexuals, including the death penalty." Even that is somewhat awkward, there might be something better.
  • Rewritten
  • I'd change "Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality almost doubled during the Nazi era in Austria." to "Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality in Austria almost doubled during Nazi rule."
  • Done
  • "the old Austrian criminal code, which was much more favorable to men charged with a homosexual relationship, applied to non-Germans." Change to "the old Austrian criminal code, which imposed less-severe punishments on men charged with a homosexual relationship, applied to non-Germans." Neither code was really favorable to homosexuals.
  • Done
That's enough out of me, I think. I do have concerns that similar awkward phrases appear throughout the rest of the article, but I don't think any possible issues there would detract from the article so much as to prevent it from reached FA status. Support. Lkb335 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments and support! (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize preemptively if these comments demonstrate incompetence or cause offense; they are the most extensive I have made for an FAC thus far. I earnestly believe in them, but as usual am willing to talk about or concede on them. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • German students and Nazi SA [...] The photo this is describing shows exactly two men, one of whom is dressed as an SA man. Revise?
    • Reworded
  • Many homosexual bars and clubs in Berlin had to shut down after police raids. Would it be accurate to more concisely word this as "shut down by police raids"?
    • I don't think the source supports that since it says, "As part of this effort, Berlin’s police force carried out a series of raids against lesbian and gay bars; the police also announced their intention not to issue dance permits to homosexual nightclubs. Business obviously was hurt, evidenced by the fact that some of the best-known establishments, including probably the Eldorado, had closed down by the beginning of 1933."
  • On 6 May, the SA [...] The Sturmabteilung is not linked, nor the acronym "SA" explained; prior knowledge is required what this is an acronym of and what the SA was.
    • Fixed
  • [...] on 10 May in Opernplatz [...] Should be "on the Opernplatz"; it is a city square, not a town.
    • Done
  • They believed they should keep a low profile until the end of the Nazi regime, which was believed to be coming soon. Two "believed"s here.
    • Rephrased
  • There were, however, no systematic persecution [...] Should this be "was" in place of "were", or should "persecution" be plural here?
    • Rephrased
  • [...] convictions remained below the Weimar record set in 1925. How many men were jailed under Para175 in 1925?
    • Added
  • Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich [...] became commander of the SS [...] The SS are, like the SA, also not introduced and explained. Himmler gets something of an introduction later, but Heydrich does not.
    • Done
  • After 1934, the policing agencies were gradually consolidated under the control of Himmler and homosexuality became one of their priorities. Strikes me as redundant, considering From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as one of its top priorities. in the previous section.
    • removed
  • Even castrated men could serve in the Wehrmacht. This fills me with questions.
    • The source doesn't explain why, although I expect it had to do with the desperate manpower situation.
      • I'll strike this off but if in the future one of us or someone stumbles into reading about something that could be used for a footnote here, a footnote here with some information about this would be very useful. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1943, Himmler, who believed the military was not hard enough on homosexuality, [...] Seems to be a missing "that" after "believed".
    • This is another GOCE-ism, changed to your suggestion.
  • Homosexuality was seen as a virus or a cancer in the Volkskörper because it was considered a threat to Germany. This sentence strikes me as being redundant, considering the preceding sentences.
    • Removed
  • The trials were of limited efficacy in their intended purpose of discrediting the church. I recommend replacing "church" with "Catholic Church".
    • Done
  • The police would tell suspects they would get a lighter punishment if they confessed, threatening indefinite detention in a concentration camp if he did not cooperate. Suggest replacing "if he did not" with "if a suspect did not".
    • Reworded
  • An unknown number of men who were found unfit to stand trial were confined to psychiatric hospitals. Do the sources say if this led to any murders of these prisoners via Aktion T4?
    • No information on this, although some homosexual men were killed in Aktion T4 (see "death penalty")
  • The use of concentration-camp detention [...] homosexual concentration-camp prisoners [...] What is this hyphen for?
    • It was added by GOCE; I do not have an opinion one way or another so removed it.
  • Himmler did not consider a time-limited prison sentence was sufficient to deal with homosexuality, [...] The "was" here is unnecessary. And what exactly is meant by "deal with"? If, as the the rest of the sentence implies, he means for a homosexual man to be made heterosexual, why not condense the sentence to "Himmler did not consider a time-limited prison sentence sufficient for eliminating homosexuality."?
    • Done
  • [...] Himmler argued SS men who had served sentences for homosexuality should be transferred to a concentration camp and shot while trying to escape. This doesn't work; was Himmler advocating creating conditions that would entice escape attempts, or arguing that these particularly homosexual prisoners should just be murdered with this as the bullshit justification?
    • I'm guessing the latter but none of the sources that discuss the speech explain what "shot while trying to escape" means, while Westermann's paper doesn't deal with homosexuals at all. We agreed to the footnote at the GAN in order to clarify, and I've also added quote marks around "shot while trying to escape".
  • Zinn said while all homosexuals in Nazi Germany suffered from the indirect effects of criminalization, their lives cannot be reduced to fear of arrest and they retained a limited degree of personal freedom. This feels like there are some missing quotation marks.
    • It's not an exact translation, rather paraphrased.
  • It is estimated 100,000 men [...] Recommend either "An estimated 100,000 men" or adding a "that" before "100,000".
    • Done
Neutrality; voice of Wikipedia
Below are highlighted pieces of prose that I've clipped because I do not find the content within them to be presented neutrally (a disclaimer for the honor of the nominator and my friend: Buidhe's stance on Nazism is "it is a horrible abomination" and her work over the years on this topic has been unerring). These clippings are taken (presumably) from Nazis or otherwise explain their views, which ordinarily we cannot chase with "[which was/this is] the worst shit ever" or a more civil, neutral, and/or comprehensive version thereof.

The approach taken in this article seems be to let the Nazis and speak for themselves and likewise the odious character of their ideas. This is the approach I too would take. But. The euphemism "enhanced interrogation" is presented, rightly, in quotation marks, but "shot while trying to escape" is not. Some Nazi nonsense such as "voluntary" castration is presented with quotation marks, others are not.

So, I believe that the way to include these things but divorce them from the voice of Wikipedia is to use more quotation marks or reword certain sections to make explicit that what is included without the use of quotation marks are Nazi, not Wikipedian, ideas (like [...] it was initially seen as a temporary re-education measure.). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vami, part of this is that MOS:SCAREQUOTES are not supposed to be used. Although clearly I did not follow this 100%, I guess it can be difficult to demarcate the opinions associated with the article topic with the non-opinions of the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 12:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] and those who suffered a one-time lapse of self-control. As is, this Nazi viewpoint is given in the voice of Wikipedia. I recommend quotation marks around "suffered a one-time lapse of self-control" if that can be substantiated by the source or a rewording ("The army differentiated between those whom it believed [..]") if not.
    • Well, I'm not sure this is 100% a Nazi viewpoint. At this time, it was not unusual for straight-identifying men to engage in homosexual acts on occasion. The Nazi persecution is often considered as being directed at "homosexuals" or "homosexual and bisexual men", but it was based on behavior rather than difficult to measure internal sexual desires.
  • The Göring Institute offered treatment to homosexuals referred by the Hitler Youth and other Nazi organizations; by 1938 it claimed to have changed the sexual orientation in 341 of 510 patients and by 1944, it claimed to have cured more than 500 men of their homosexuality. The institute intervened to reduce sentences in some cases.[96] The converse of the Nazis' persecution of homosexuality was their encouragement of heterosexual relations, including extramarital sex, for racially desirable people. I recommend quotation marks around "treatment" and "cured", as of course homosexuality is not a disease, or some rewording such as replacing [...] it claimed to have cured more than 500 men of their homosexuality. with "it claimed to have eliminated homosexuality in more than 500 men."
    • Partly done, used your suggested wording without scare quotes.
  • Meisinger believed "enhanced interrogation" of homosexuals was appropriate because they conspired in the same way as communists. Is "conspired in the same way as communist" quoted from Meisinger?
    • Not exactly. Removed sentence
  • [...] among other prisoners to keep [homosexual prisoners] under control. I would perhaps word this as "to [socially] isolate [homosexual prisoners].", as "under control" without quotation marks reflects Nazi belief and with them is vague, with possible meanings ranging from, again, "under control" according to Nazi belief, to planning insurrection.
    • Done
  • In May 1935, the Prussian police detained 513 accused homosexuals in protective custody. The article thus far would suggest that this custody was anything but protective.
    It's mentioned 3 times and linked on the first mention. (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah shit, didn't notice. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] Hitler argued homosexuality in the Hitler Youth should be punished by death to protect youth from being turned into homosexuals [...] It is made clear this is Hitler's take, but I feel everything after "punished by death" should be cut.
    • Done
Thanks so much for your detailed review! I'll let you know when I've got through all of these comments. (t · c) buidhe 01:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply] Very pleased to Support now :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll pick this up. I look forward to forensically dissecting the sourcing tomorrow, UTC. Are spot checks required? SN54129 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have insufficient German to focus on those references.[reply]

  • Kathrin Braun's chapter needs page numbers (77–98).
And that's that. As for the sources themselves, the books utilised are all published by respected houses (LIT Verlag, Campus Verlag, Der Gruyter, Bloomsbury) or university presses (Cambridge, Toronto, Nebraska, Yale, Columbia, Harvard, and I suppose even Oxford), and likewise are the full-length works the chapters are extracted from. Likewise, the journals are all established peer-reviewed academic publications. A thorough search of library and scholarly databases indicates no substantial commission of any work that one otherwise expect to be used. No spot checks; coords get paid for that sort of thing.
Source review = pass.
Obviously, though, I must oppose this article's promotion on the grounds that it has far too many footnotes.
Cheers, SN54129 17:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After an editor's first successful FAC spot checks are not usually required, but any reviewer can check any sources they wish, for any or no reason. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [10].

Tell All Your Friends

[edit]
Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primary contributor: MusicforthePeople

Happy holidays, Wikipedia. This article is about the debut album by seminal emo band Taking Back Sunday, released in 2002. Although it received little radio support and charted very modestly, it sold at a steady pace, and became the band's best selling record. It became a gold record in America in 2009. In addition to its singles, it featured the emo staple "Cute Without the 'E' (Cut from the Team)" and the album was likened to Linkin Park's Hybrid Theory (2000) as an exemplary effort for its genre.

I am not the primary contributor to this article. That honor belongs to MusicforthePeople, who initially nominated this for good article status five years ago. As it turns out, I was the one who reviewed that nomination, but I have been mostly hands-off since then, with anything I've done being very minor. From the attitude I got earlier this year at the FAC talk page, I believe this should not be a problem.

MusicforthePeople and I are close colleagues, and we had a chat earlier this year about how both of us have so many good articles but neither of us can really take much credit for a Featured Article. They began making preparations to make this a featured article, but decided the process was not worth the hassle. I then offered if I could begin the process in their stead, and they accepted the offer. Me fulfilling this nomination and seeing it on the front page one day will be fulfillment of a dream seeing his work there. This will also be my first FA attempt in four years; my last attempts ended in failure, so hopefully I have learned from there. I appreciate any reviewers' time! dannymusiceditor oops 01:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I'd link demo in the first instance in the lead and the article.
  • Done
  • Done
  • I have a question about this part, DeJoseph was unable to tour extensively because of personal issues. Do we know what these "personal issues" are? I'm only wondering as the current wording is rather vague.
If I recall correctly we attempted to investigate this issue at GAN but were unable to find anything further than what we've dug up. I will give it another look to see if anything has surfaced since that time. dannymusiceditor oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. If further information cannot be found, then "personal issues" is fine. It could be a case where this was not disclosed to the public (which is perfectly fine and probably the healthiest thing). Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, with Victory Records sales/A&R representative Angel Juarbe, I'd link A&R as some readers may be unfamiliar with this concept. I'd also say sales and A&R as the slash looks a little too informal in my opinion.
  • Done
  • In this part, quiet verse, loud bridge, big chorus, repeat, breakdown, chorus, ending, I'd also link bridge and chorus.
  • Done
  • Done
  • In the "Touring" section, there is a sentence with four citations. I'd avoid that per WP:Citation overkill.
  • Done
  • I am uncertain about the current structure of the "Critical reception" section. It has a lot of great information and citations, but it does not have a clear sense of structure. It somewhat comes across as a list of critics and their opinions, and does not support the sentence from the lead (i.e. positive reviews mostly focused on the album's mix of music styles) as well as it could. This kind of section is difficult to write, and I'd recommend looking at the WP:Reception essay for advice. Again, all the information and citations are there.
Aoba47, got a question here. I'm reading the essay and working on it now, but point number two seems rather difficult. I had an idea, but don't know if it falls afoul of original research. I was going to lead it off with Reviews of Tell All Your Friends dating from near the time of the album's release were generally positive. but the guideline seems to discourage that and I don't know what I'd look to do instead. This album was not collected by Metacritic, which is what I typically source that opinion to. dannymusiceditor oops 17:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be safe to add a sentence about the album receiving positive reviews since this section is almost all positive reviews (with some mixed ones but not any outright negative ones unless I have missed them). I would work on the wording though. The "dating from near the time of the album's release" part is unnecessarily wordy. I'd use something like Tell All Your Friends was generally well received upon its release. I hope that is helpful, but please let me know if I can clarify anything further or anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is an entire sub-section on the album's influence and retrospective reviews, I'd include a brief part about that in the lead.
  • Done
  • I'm uncertain about the title of the "Accolades, influence and retrospective reviews" sub-section, specifically the "Accolades" part. It seems like that part is referencing how the album was placed on best-of lists, and while that is something worthy of including and is nice overall, that does not really fit my first impressions of accolades (which I associate more with awards like Grammy Awards, etc.).
I've switched this to "Best-of lists, influence and retrospective reviews" – is this better? MusicforthePeople (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a clearer header to me, but I would also see what other reviewers say about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I will look through the article again when all of my above comments have been addressed. Let me know if you have any questions, and have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We will be sure to follow up on this. dannymusiceditor oops 20:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Take as much time as you need. Just so you know, it is discouraged to use the done template as it can slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I have done some significant retooling of the article's reception, hopefully in accordance with the essay you provided me. I also added some new information I thought would be not only pertinent, but helpful and important background. Is my work enough to garner your support? dannymusiceditor oops 01:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the ping and the update. The section does look better. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose as done in this part (and awarded the record four out of five stars) as it does not add much to the prose and this information should already be in the table. Once that is done, I will look through the section again. I hope you are having a great 2022 so far. Aoba47 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with my review. Everything looks good to me now. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Might a non-free music sample be justified?
  • That might be a good idea, actually. I have a song in mind which would work, and I know what I need to do for the licensing and rationales once the file is uploaded, but I may need assistance with actually creating the sample itself - is there someone I could look to for that, if MusicforthePeople doesn't do it here? Also, I hope you're alright with me making a section out of your heading, since Aoba's list was rather long. dannymusiceditor oops 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has only picked up a single general support. Unless it attracts further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "After that, Nolan and Cooper left Taking Back Sunday and replaced by Fred Mascherino and Matt Rubano" => "After that, Nolan and Cooper left Taking Back Sunday and were replaced by Fred Mascherino and Matt Rubano"
  • "By that point, a music video was released" => "By that point, a music video had been released"
  • "highlighting its mix of music styles" => "highlighting its mix of musical styles"
  • "and has sold 790,000 copies as of 2009" - 2009 was thirteen years ago. If no more up-to-date sales figures are available, change it to "and had sold 790,000 copies as of 2009"
  • "Lazzara asked if they need a permanent bassist" => "Lazzara asked if they needed a permanent bassist"
  • "Reyes stated the main complaint" => "Reyes stated that the main complaint"
  • "O'Connell suggested the group needed a bassist" => "O'Connell suggested that the group needed a bassist"
  • "Among these offers was one from Triple Crown Records, who was apprehensive" - either "which was" or "who were", but not "who was"
  • "having to miss on one-to-two weeks of recording time" => "having to miss one to two weeks of recording time"
  • "Villanueva had contributed guitar work and co-mixed the recordings with Rumblefish" - who is/are Rumblefish? A person? A group?
  • "they realized the studio staff had altered the recordings" => "they realized that the studio staff had altered the recordings"
  • "mentioned the intro to "Great Romances of the 20th Century" was similarly altered" => "mentioned that the intro to "Great Romances of the 20th Century" was similarly altered"
  • "They wanted [...] but was" - plural/singular disagreement
  • "For Nolan, several instances filtered into this lyrics" - "this lyrics"? Should that be "his lyrics"?
  • "the falling-out with Lacey, who he had known all of his life" => "the falling-out with Lacey, whom he had known all of his life"
  • "while at Lazzara's dad's house" => "while at Lazzara's father's house"
  • "which was hoped would increase sales" => "which it was hoped would increase sales"
  • "Cooper felt this drove a wedge between their friendship" => "Cooper felt this drove a wedge between them"
  • "The band's scheduled appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! and a stint on Warped Tour was cancelled" => "The band's scheduled appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live! and a stint on Warped Tour were cancelled"
  • "frontman Fred Mascherino, who had had known for years" => "frontman Fred Mascherino, whom he had known for years"
  • "Siebelt compared the album to All and the Descendents, retaining "enough of its own identity" " => "Siebelt compared the album to All and the Descendents, saying that it retained "enough of its own identity" "
  • "As of April 2010, the album has sold over one million copies worldwide" =? "As of April 2010, the album had sold over one million copies worldwide"
  • "the Waiting Process, who they were friends with" => "the Waiting Process, with who they were friends"
  • "Though the feud has been viewed as overblown to begin with Nolan received a thank-you credit in the liner notes for Your Favorite Weapon, and the same for Lacey in the liner notes for Tell All Your Friends." - this isn't a complete sentence, are there any words missing?
  • That's what I got. This was a really engaging read about a band I'd not heard of (not really my scene :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • All of those are high quality, else they wouldn't even be there. This is an indie record which barely cracked the charts and had almost no radio airplay, what are you expecting? Billboard journalists in 2002 weren't going to pick up some random Long Island indie label's debut record and put it in the magazine. Some of these you've questioned are actually (or at least once were) print-published sources. Those kinds of sources didn't appear until years later after the band became successful. The one I could see an argument for removing was the Allmusic biography; we already have another source covering the information, and I see it is supposedly a last resort per WP:ALLMUSIC. dannymusiceditor oops 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely being a print source does not make a source reliable for wikipedia purposes - if that was so, WP:DAILYMAIL wouldn't exist and we'd be using The Daily Mail. As for the fact its an indie record, I did actually take that into account. The subject matter does dictate whether the sources given are going to be high quality or not. I clicked through to all the sources if they were available (not just the ones I"ve questioned), or checked out the wikipedia page on a source if available. Some of the above may meet the bar for "high quality" but it's not clear to me that they do. You can demonstrate their high quality by showing that they are experts in the field, or that other high quality sources use them as sources, or in other ways. It's not impossible, but it's also part of the FAC reqs for sourcing to be "high quality" - with that of course having some leeway for subjects - I certainly don't expect academic journals or university presses for indie records, but I do expect them for historical or scientific articles. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you asked, Jo-Jo Eumerus. I'm not sure there is a strict by-step process, but they are generally thoroughly discussed (or not if a source obviously isn't usable), and background checks on the sources actually come down to proving they are "experts in the field", as Ealdgyth mentioned. Ultimate Guitar, CMJ, Rock Sound, Drowned in Sound and AbsolutePunk in particular gained consensus that they have established credentials; see the linked discussions for those. The others I would be happy to show you, what exactly are you asking me to look for? If they weren't "experts in their field", I would not expect them to be listed there, but if there's anything I can do to show that, I will. dannymusiceditor oops 15:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So... I go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for the first source I questioned - CMJ New Music Monthly - I assume it's "CMJ" on the chart - which links to a "2014 discussion" Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49 in this archive. However ... there's no discussion in the discussion. I searched the page for "CMJ" and there is one mention on the page - in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 49#What makes a single a single? where it's listed in a bunch of other external links. Okay .. so lets see the second one - Rock Sound - the chart says Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_32#Review_publications:_Rock_Sound,_Spin,_Metal_Hammer,_Vibe,_Mojo,_Kerrang!_and_Q a 2009 discussion - which is not exactly showing how this is a "high quality" source for FAC purposes. Europunk's not on the chart. Absolute punk's on the chart, but says "only use staff reviews" - which isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of its reliablity, much less being "high quality". Ultimate punk's listing says "Only cite articles written by the "UG Team" (list of staff writers) or any writer with reliable credentials elsewhere." - which, again, isn't a ringing endorsement of its meeting WP:RS, much less being of a higher standard. ChartAttack has no listing of any discussion on how it got added to the chart. (oh, sorry for the bad pun). Punknews says "use staff reviews only". Drowned in Sound says "only use staff reviews". The Fader has no discussion linked in the chart. Nor does Melodic.net (I"m assuming that's "Melodic" on the chart). I'm going to take it that the allmusic source will be removed. I'm not trying to shoot down the nomination - just trying to make sure the article is the best it can be, and that includes using the highest quality sources possible for its subject. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that some of these don't have discussion, I just wanted to point the others out. The Allmusic biography indeed has been removed, but I still believe the album review is perfectly valid. As for the others, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree. The BBC loves Rock Sound, among others, and that is a sound endorsement (ba dum tss) in my opinion. Punknews, Drowned in Sound, Ultimate Guitar and AbsolutePunk had/have a forum and the ability to self-publish content, which is to be ignored; this is what is being alluded to in the discussion of staff, and just because that is allowed should not mean the sources should be excluded from consideration of expertise. I believe such clear-cut portions of the site designated usable and to avoid should validate its use here. On the AbsolutePunk discussion, did you actually click on it and read the whole discussion? I remember MusicforthePeople and I participating in that discussion, with them doing the most heavy lifting. If better sources exist for the same content, I would be happy to replace them, but I'm not seeing the issue here. If there are any publications I haven't addressed in your previous reply I'll get back to you on those. I believe that this article is the best it can be, among source choices. dannymusiceditor oops 18:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, though. I can see Rock Sound - the BBC usage pushes it enough to make it "high quality" for the subject matter, but the others are not convincing to me. The bar isn't "reliable" .. but "high quality". We're looking for experts writing for them, that other sources thus use the source for their coverage. Just because the Album project decided to list some sources on a page (and keep in mind, that page isn't for "high quality sources", but just the plain "reliable sources") doesn't make them high quality unless we can see why they meet the FA criteria. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's where we hit a brick wall - I think that for them to be listed, they are considered "high quality sources". In any case, would credentials of staff at these websites on other publications sway anything? According to founder Jason Tate's LinkedIn, he oversaw the company while it was a part of SpinMedia, who also operated Spin and Stereogum, among others. I would think that to secure such a publishing agreement, the company would have to be recognized as legitimate enough that they would be experts, right? Still working on the others, just wanted to give an update on that one while I found it. dannymusiceditor oops 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Danny, wearing my FAC coordinator hat, it seems to me that Ealdgyth is right and you aren't. Unless Ealdgyth has any further input I would suggest that you take that on board before I look to close this nomination, which will be in the near future. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest with you, Gog, I feel like I'm not being paid enough attention to. I am actively trying to work out solutions and I'm waiting on a response - did you look at the evidence I provided below? dannymusiceditor oops 05:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following this - but it said in the hatted section "More on other sources will be coming" so I assumed there was ... more to come. Nothing I saw below was hugely game changing, but I was waiting on the totality of the information rather than rushing to oppose on sourcing issues. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I was assuming I might get some clarification that I was at least on the right track before I completed it. Sorry to keep you hanging. Anyway, I've completed the list, but Melodic might be moot. dannymusiceditor oops 19:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was a bit delayed - I had a husband home for a few days and spent some time with him. I've struck a few above - the main issue is punknews - and give the other issues being resolved (the lists helped a lot, so it wasn't wasted at all), I think I'm comfortable saying that other reviewers can decide for themselves on these last ones. Marking this one complete in my book and unwatching. Thank you for the effort and listing, may I suggest you copy these over to the album project page for future reference? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source backgrounds from DannyMusicEditor

AbsolutePunk

  • As previously mentioned, founder Jason Tate operated the company under oversight of SpinMedia.

Ultimate Guitar

  • Amy Sciarretto – see bottom of the CMJ section

Drowned in Sound

Punknews.org

  • Aubin Paul (co-founder) has worked for Exclaim! (source: [27])
  • Brian Shultz has worked for Vice, The A.V. Club and Substream Magazine (source: [29])
  • Ben Conoley has worked for Alternative Press and Exclaim! (source: [31])
  • Bryne Yancey has worked for Alternative Press, Bandcamp Daily (source: [32] / [33])
  • Chris Moran has worked for The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, Yahoo, and a few others (source: [36])
  • Xan Mandell has worked for AMP (source: [39])
  • William Jones has worked for AMP and Skratch Magazine (source: [40])
  • Brian Cogan has worked for The New York Post, Chunklet; written or co-wrote the books The Punk Rock Encylopedia, The Encylopedia of Popular Culture, Media and Politics, and co-edited Mosh the Polls: Youth Voters, Popular Culture, and Democratic Engagement. (source: [44])

CMJ

  • Michael Tedder has worked for The Village Voice, Spin, Salon, The Orlando Sentinel, few others (source: [52])
  • Christopher Weingarten has written a book for the 33 1/3 series (source: [55])

Chart Attack

  • Jordan Darville has worked for The Fader (source: [57])
  • Jesse Locke has worked for Vice, Pitchfork, Bandcamp Daily, The Ringer, Exlcaim!, Now, Slant, many others (source: [66])
  • Charlotte Cardin has worked for Exclaim!, Fashion (source: [67])

The Fader

  • Nick Felton - see the top of the CMJ section
  • Brandon Callender has worked for Pitchfork (source: [72])
  • Salvatore Maicki has worked for i-D, NPR, Paper, various radio stations (source: [75])
  • Matthew Trammell has worked for The New Yorker, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, few others (source: [77])

Melodic

  • Ola Gränshagen has worked for AOR Classics, RockUnited (source: [84] / [85])
  • While Johan Wippsson and Nick Anastasia have mostly focused their journalism career working for Melodic, they have worked with the publication for extended periods - 22 and 16 years each with the business, respectively. (sources: Nick and Johan)
  • Azerrad, Michael (1994). Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-47199-8. lacks a publisher location, which is given for all the other books in the sources.
  • Per MOS:ACCESS, we shouldn't use pseudo-headings like '''Footnotes''' - best practice is ===Footnotes=== This applies in the body of the article also.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

I'm very familiar with the album and saw TBS live a couple of times, and saw Nolan with Straylight Run more times than that. My comments:

  • The background section could be the background section for the TBS article. Can it be focused a bit more on TAYF? Do we really need to know where DeJoseph's final show was?
  • " A Yahoo! Group with over 1,300 Taking Back Sunday fans could download demos of "Bike Scene" and "Head Club", which it was hoped would increase sales.[47] " Not sure this makes grammatical sense.
  • "on the bus". I'd guess that to be the band's tour bus; did Nolan overhear?
That's about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2022 [88].

Papuan mountain pigeon

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a species of Papuan pigeon. There isn't all that much research on it, so a rather short article, but there is an interesting breeding display described. AryKun (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "Schrader Range, but may breed throughout the year across its range." Can the dual use of "range" be avoided?
    • I can't really think of another word to use instead.
  • "although some can sometimes have as many as 80 individuals." perhaps "though some groupings can have as many as 80 individuals"
    • Reworded.
  • "Gymnophaps" can the two discussions of this genus in the Taxonomy section be consolidated?
    • I don't get what you mean by two discussions?
The two times the genus name is mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Papuan mountain pigeon is found on New Guinea, its surrounding islands, and the Bacan Islands in the Maluku Islands." Is there an extent to which this is duplicative of what has been said before? Also the end reads oddly.
    • It isn't really duplicating anything before it, earlier mentions of distribution were subspecies-specific. Removed "in the Maluku Islands" to help it read better.
  • "but a juvenile and a male with enlarged testicles have been collected in June elsewhere" This reads slightly oddly. Is this one bird or two? If two, possibly the word "adult" should be tossed in there. And do juvenile birds breed?
    • I've added "adult male", to help clarify that it was two birds. Juveniles don't breed themselves, but do indicate that there was recent breeding activity.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support---Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, there's been an image added since you did your review, could you check? AryKun (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I've read through twice and can find nothing substantive to criticize. One minor point is that you don't give a publisher location for Gibbs, Barnes & Cox, but you do for the other two books you cite; it's best to be consistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added location to the Gibbs ref. AryKun (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
Changed.
  • "G. a. albertisii Salvadori, 1874: The" v. "G. a. exsul (Hartert, 1903): It is" — why is '(Hartert, 1903)' in parenthesis, but 'Salvadori, 1874' not?
Parentheses are used to indicate that a species was described a genus different from the one it is currently classified in (eg exsul was originally described as Columba albertisii exsul) Added footnote to make this clearer.
  • "to pinkish red" — "to pinkish-red"
Done.
  • In the external link section, I'd suggest making this change.
Done.

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! A citation for the note added might be better, but that is a minor point. Rest, supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "is a species of bird in the pigeon family Columbidae." - source?
This probably falls under WP:SKYISBLUE, also the fact that it's in Gymnophaps is cited, and Gymnophaps is in Columbidae.
The fact that Gymnophaps is in Columbidae is not cited either here or in the Gymnophaps article, and is not common knowledge for non-experts. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added bit in the taxonomy section, although I still feel this is excessive. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Papuan mountain pigeon was first described as Gymnophaps albertisii by the Italian zoologist Tommaso Salvadori in 1874 on the basis of specimens from Andai, New Guinea." Primary can confirm that he described the bird, but not that he was first
Removed first.
Removed url and archives for the two books.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2022 [89].

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I run towards the end of articles on the Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years' War I hope to get to FA, I am hoping to go out with a bang. Described as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War", a modest Anglo-Gascon force set out on a major raid through south-west France. Six weeks later the French believed they had them cornered and, refusing to negotiate, attacked. The battle of Poitiers is for another article, but the campaign concluded with the French king being escorted back to Bordeaux as a prisoner. This went through GAN a little while ago and I believe it ready for the rigors of FAC, so tilt your lances at it and let us see who is last editor standing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, note that I have added a new map which you will wish to check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's fine. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Another fine article on the Hundred Years' War from Gog. A handful of very minor carps and cavils on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "Do we need the words "carried out" in the first sentence?
Expurged.
  • "a long drawn out battle" – I don't dispute Gowers's maxim "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I think you want two of them here, though I may be wrong (or mad).
These are not mutually-exclusive propositions. Hyphenated.
  • "captured the French King" – capitalised "King" here, but uncapitalised in the first para.
I have uncapitalised in both instances when when his name is immediately given, and capitalised in both cases when "French King" is used to mean "John II". That's my understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES. I may be wrong; I am certainly mad.
  • Background
  • "The only significant French possession" – and what did it signify? I think you mean important, substantial or some such.
Signifying nothing, used in the sense of "important, notable" which my Oxford dictionary claims has been a usage since 1761.
This is Fowler on significant:
The dictionaries give important as one of the definitions of significant, but to use it merely as a synonym for that word is to waste it. The primary sense of significant is conveying a meaning or suggesting an inference. A division in the House of Commons may be important without being significant; the failure of some members to vote in it may be significant without being important. There is no important change in the patient's condition means that he is neither markedly better nor markedly worse. There is no significant change in the patient's condition means that there is no change which either confirms or throws doubt on the previous prognosis.
And this is Gowers:
This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large when one is dealing with numbers or quantities or other mathematical concepts. For one thing it has a special and precise meaning for mathematicians and statisticians which they are entitled to keep inviolate. For another, it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
How depressing that a venerable usage should be swept aside by a modern fad, but who am I to stand in the way of progress. Both changed.
  • Chevauchée
  • "All of the fighting men were mounted" – no need for the "of", surely?
Removed.
  • "to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely" – I think perhaps you mean "dispersing" here.
I keep doing that! Thank you.
  • "the destruction being wracked in south-west France" – according to the latest (2015) edition of Fowler this should be either "wreaked" (preferably) or at a pinch "wrought". (Personally I prefer the latter, but I rarely presume to argue with Fowler.)
Having consulted two dictionaries, one with "Oxford" in the title, it seems an inoffensive use of "wrack". Nor am I sure why we should switch to the past tense. But changed.
  • Clashes along the Loire
  • "ordered them to also move towards Tours. He was also willing to fight" – you could lose one or both the "also"s here.
I use that too much. Both gone, plus two others.
  • "He still hoped to cross the Loire River" – we don't need to be told again that the Loire is a river.
I thought it a useful reminder for the inattentive reader, but gone.
I find it unimaginable that any reader could be inattentive when reading this page-turner of an article. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creep!
  • "search for passages of the Loire, but the River Loire, but as before were unable to find passable fords" – some extra and unwanted words have sneaked their way in here.
Oops. Desneaked.
  • "The camp fires of the French army" – the OED hyphenates "camp-fire"
Done.
  • Other English offensives
  • "attempts … were still underway" – should be "under way" – two unhyphenated words – according to the OED.
I suspect the OED to be a little behind the times there, see eg its Cambridge competitor, but changed.
From Alan Bennett's Forty Years On:
FRANKLIN: Have you ever thought, Headmaster, that your standards might perhaps be a little out of date?
HEADMASTER: Of course they're out of date. Standards always are out of date. That is what makes them standards.
And Chambers' Dictionary is with the OED: it goes straight from underwater to underwear. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strategy
  • "there were no significant French forces" – what would these forces have signified?
In the sense of being "important, notable", see above. Significant, like many English words has several meanings.
  • Battle of Poitiers
  • "aiming to defeat them in detail" – I have not run across this phrase before and would be glad of an explanation of its meaning.
Defeat in detail, now linked.
Thank you. I've learned something today (in addition to all the interesting facts in your article, I mean). Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, they were dependant on the agreement" – when used as an adjective the spelling is "dependent"
Well, well. One of those that is smack your head obvious - once it has been pointed out. Corrected.
  • "senior advisors" – strange, and not especially welcome, to see AmE "advisor" instead of the customary English "adviser" here.
  • Post-battle
  • "over laden" – "overladen" according to the OED.
D'oh!
  • Aftermath
  • "Clifford J. Rogers" – we've been introduced to him earlier, when he was plain "Clifford Rogers" (and we don't need a second blue-link).
I completely agree and have removed it, but note the, erm, forceful opposition of Sandstein here
I think you have done the right thing, both as regards common sense and, which is not necessarily the same thing, the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but neither was inclined to change their attitude" – singular verb with plural pronoun
Changed.
  • Notes
  • "one of John's closest advisors" – another AmE "advisor"
I blame my misspent youth. Corrected.

Those are my few quibbles. I'll look in again in confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you once again Tim. I breathe my usual sigh of relief at your having knocked the nonsense out of my prose. See what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly knocking the nonsense out! My cavils were so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye. I'm very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Clear, concise, well and widely sourced, highly readable, and, as far as I am any judge, comprehensive. And beautifully illustrated as usual. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. A pleasure to review; I shall be sad when there are no more new FACs for Hundred Years' War articles. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you do cheer me up, Mr riley. One of the things working on the Hundred Years' War has been preventing me getting to grips with is a dozen or more articles from the Second Punic War - Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, elephants etc. Hopefully you will enjoy them as much. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed

[edit]

I'll do this in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the sources, Harari's name is written out differently for his two publications and the second one of the two is Wikilinked. It seems that only the first of the two should be Wikilinked.
Name standardised and Wikilink moved.
  • Rogers's author-link (the 1994 publication) goes to a redirect.
And so?
And so I thought that was an issue until I read WP:NOTBROKEN just now. But for the sake of standardization, I think the author's name should be consistently either "Clifford J Rogers" or "Clifford J. Rogers". Since the period is used in the title of the article about him, that seems the logical choice. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Done.
  • I see Rogers author-linked (editor-linked, actually) a second time as an editor (of his own 2004 book), but not as a primary author. This looks like the right choice to me, but I thought I would mention it unless you actually felt otherwise, but hadn't noticed.
I hadn't noticed. Like all Wikilinks, one usually only links once per article. So I am inclined to remove this second link, but won't if you feel that I shouldn't.
I think you should feel free to follow your heart if you can't find clear guidance in the MOS (I couldn't), but if you want me to tell you, I would say leave the first author-link as well as the editor-link. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Left.
  • The external link to Rogers's 2004 publication brings up a Google book version of the correct volume with a search result for the phrase "battle of bergerac", but not to correct starting page. Seems to me that it would be better to use this simplified link.
Done. Thanks.
Page numbers added.
Er, because of sloppiness? Fixed.
  • Rogers 2014: The external link goes to a PDF of just chapter 11, but the source listing is for the whole book.
Link removed.
  • Sumption 1990: I'm seeing library and Google Books listings for this book indicating that the title of the book is The Hundred Years War, and that the first volume has its own title: "Trial by Battle". This tells me that the volume parameter should be "I: Trial by Battle" and that the title parameter should be "The Hundred Years War". Using the series parameter in this way doesn't seem right given how the book is listed elsewhere on the web. See the book cover and title page here.
  • Sumption 1999: Same comment.
I am looking at a hard copy of the 1999 volume. The front cover reads "Trial by Fire: The Hundred Years War II". The title page reads "The Hundred Years War [line break] Volume II: Trial by Fire". I have gone, as best I can, with the cover version. WHich achieves what we both think is sensible. I could switch to the title page version if you think that preferable.
I looked up both volumes again in WorldCat using the ISBN and I find both books listed under the series name as well as under the volume name, so I think you're free to follow either, especially given your greater familiarity with the actual books. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sumption 1990: The "The Hundred Years War" title appears in Google Books and in WorldCat without the apostrophe in "Years".
  • Sumption 1999: Same comment.
Both apostrophies removed
It is usual to give each reference to an encyclopedia or dictionary as a separate entry. The first one is listed as a book because I am not referencing an entry in the encyclopedia.
  • When I click to edit the Sources section, I notice that some of the source listings are written out with multiple line breaks and others are not. Is that a problem, or am I just being silly?
The latter.

Also – and I did not do a thorough check of your inline citations – I did notice that citation 18 is lacking a page number.

That is defensible, but inconsistent. Standardised.
Found another! citation 132. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha. Fixed.

After looking into the publications and authors listed, it appears that they are all high-quality and scholarly. I'm also seeing a good spread of names and publication dates mostly within the last 30 years or so, which tells me that it is less likely that outdated perspectives are reflected in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dugan, that is very good of you and much appreciated. All of your comments addressed, a couple with queries. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Only two issues remain dangling: the period following Rogers's middle initial and citation 132. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Sorted. I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. I consider this article to have passed my review of the source listings, in terms of formatting and quality. Ping me if something else needs my attention on this review. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The Black Prince is linked twice in the first paragraph.
Fixed.
  • "Edward launched a further campaign". As the Black Prince is also called Edward, I think it would be clearer if you always referred to the king as 'King Edward'.
  • I find the figures confusing. In the lead you say "Between 12,000 and 14,000 French troops, including at least 10,400 men-at-arms, attacked". In the infobox the same figure, so presumably just the battle, not the whole chevauchée, but this is not made clear.
Good point. Tweaked.
  • 4,500 nobles killed or captured seems much too high in an army with over 10,400 men at arms out of maybe no more than 12,000.
I have just finished bringing Battle of Poitiers up to (what I hope is) FAC standard, and have better figures for participants. A minimum of 14,000 French, with a minimum of 4,500 men-at-arms killed or captured. (Plus 3,800 commoners.) This is very well sourced and there is no hint of a suspicion that the numbers are exaggerated.
I have realised that my confusion over the figures was due to assuming that men at arms means common soldiers as opposed to nobles. Perhaps clarify for the benefit of ignorant people like me. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. You are very far from ignorant on this area. I have clearly committed the classic error of getting too close and assuming that specialist knowledge is generally known. I have added a footnote at first mention, do you feel that addresses the issue sufficiently?
  • In the main text "The French army, of 14,000 to 16,000 men, was also divided into three battles or divisions, plus a further 2,000 men-at-arms in reserve", higher than in the lead, and you do not say so far as I can see how many were engaged.
Yes, that is unclear. Thank you. Rephrased. I have removed mention of "engaged", as you say, this is about the chevauchée, not the battle.

You say "2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms. 2,500 French nobles were killed", but no figure for those captured as in the infobox.

Er: "John was captured; as was the oriflamme; one of John's sons, Philip; and according to different sources 2,000 to 3,000 men-at-arms."
Yes I misread this, partly due to starting the sentence with a figure, which I understand is considered bad practice. It helps to have a capital letter at the start of a sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I don't understand why, but it is frowned on in the MoS. Fixed.

2,500 nobles killed still seems too high as the lead implies that there may have been no more than 1,600 in total (12,000-10,400) engaged.

Nope. The sourcing is clear. The dead included the King's uncle, his standard bearer, the grand constable of France; one of the two marshals, the Bishop of Châlons and about 3,300 common soldiers. Those captured included the King, one of his sons, the archbishop of Sens, the other marshal of France, and the seneschals of Saintonge, Tours and Poitou. Hence Rogers describing it as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War" and France collapsing into the Jacquerie.
  • "The same year the Black Death reached northern France and southern England,[13] eventually resulting in the death of approximately 45 per cent of the population". This is dubious for several reasons. It is one source in a highly contested debate, so not definitive. The source says "Comparing the relative amounts of high medieval (copious) to late medieval (much scarcer) pottery suggests that the pottery-using population across eastern England was around 45% lower in the centuries after the Black Death than before". So it is usage of pottery in only one part of England, whereas you imply that it is the figure for the population reduction of France and England. This is drawing far too broad a conclusion from one of many measures. The figure compares high with later medieval pottery, so it would also cover later outbreaks of plague. You acknowledge this point by saying "eventually resulting in the death" but it is only the first outbreak which is relevant for the chevauchée.
I had not realised that the figures were debated. Although I could have been more precise in my phraseology. I have reworded and replaced the source with two of the leading scholars of the Hundred Year's War, each of whom are discussing the number of fatalities in volumes specifically on the war. Note that both link the death rates they quote to just the period 1347-1350. Both indicate a death rate in Southern England during this period of around 45%, but I have fudged this in my revision.
  • "bridging train". Is there an article you could link to in order to explain this term? Does it mean a set of pontoons for a temporary bridge?
There is no such article that I am aware of.
I don't know. The modern sources all simply say "bridging train". I would guess that they are all using the same Medieval source which is similarly uninformative, but that is OR.
If you are not sure what a bridging train is I would delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am entirely sure what a bridging train is. It is a set of mobile equipment with which one can bridge a river. Why would one wish to know any more? This is summary style. One may as well say don't mention horses if one does not know their breed. Etc.
I misunderstood you. I thought "I don't know" meant that you do not know what a bridging train is. So how about "bridging train (mobile equipment for bridging a river)"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a footnote. How is that.
  • 1356. I found the start of this section confusing at first with "Further information: Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356" and then what seemed like the start of the chevauchée. Maybe move heading 'Prelude' up to directly after '1356' and 'Further information' down two paragraphs to head "Seeing an opportunity, Edward diverted an expedition planned for Brittany..."
It seems to me that that would further confuse rather than clarify. I have removed both "Further information: Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356" and the sub-heading 1356. Does that help?
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox is unclear. The heading is the chevauchée, so the details should be for the entire campaign, but they seem to be just for the battle. Also there does not seem to be any citation for figure of 4500 nobles killed or captured. Why the vague figure for common infantry killed and wounded when you say 3300 killed below?
  • I still find the figures confusing. In the lead you say "Between 12,000 and 14,000 French troops, including at least 10,400 men-at-arms". This implies - if I now know what I am talking about - that there may have been as few as 1600 common infantry, yet you say 3300 were killed. In the main text you says 14 to 16000, with 2000 men at arms held in reserve under the king, which suggests you excluded the reserve in the lead, but it should be included as you say the king did fight. In the infobox you say the strength was over 14000, so there are 3 different versions of French numbers. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think that I now have my head wrapped round it. The figures given in the lead and the article for French participants and casualties in the Battle of Poitiers should match. Those in the infobox do not. This is because the infobox is for the whole campaign, for which no sources attempt even an estimate of French participants and casualties. So all I can say is that they were more than those we know to have been present at Poitiers. Similarly for French casualties. I am open to suggestions for other ways of addressing this. (I considered taking French participants and casualties out of the infobox altogether, but this seemed a counsel of despair.)
All of your comments to date now addressed I think Dudley. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If no sources try to estimate the number of French participants and casualties, I would not try to come up with that estimate ourselves. Better not to give any number in the infobox and let the reader know what is known later in the article.
Infobox amended accordingly.
Also there's a harv error: Wagner, 2006e & 53–54. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation. (t · c) buidhe 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I added that source! I assume I forgot to click Publish or edit conflicted myself! Thanks Buidhe. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French army, of 14,000 to 16,000 men: 10,000–12,000 were men-at-arms, 2,000 were crossbowmen and 2,000 infantrymen". So there were 4000 common soldiers. "Approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed, as were approximately 3,300 common soldiers.". So over 80% of the common soldiers were killed? That seems very high, or was it not unusual for the period? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly on an OR basis, they seem a little high to me too. I wonder if the modern sources have been over generous in accepting contemporary figures. It is possible that the chroniclers' estimates for the dead weren't too far out, but included camp followers, miscellaneous civilians (farriers, armourers, blacksmiths etc), pavise bearers and others not included in the 4,000 combatants. I stress that this is pure OR, there is no hint of this in the modern RSs. And it is not actually inconceivable. The losing side in Medieval battles typically took horrendous casualties - pursuits were devastating - and common infantry usually had a high death rate, often much higher - it was unusual for prisoners to be taken and the wounded would be killed out of hand. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is estimated to have killed a third of the population of Western Europe, although the death rate was higher in England". I am still doubtful. Most estimates I have seen are higher than that. I would leave out. You describe its impact as disastrous and you do not need get into actual figures.
Dudley, forgive me being frank, but your dubiousness is not relevant. I have sourced the numbers to two impeccable sources. Both using them very much in a military context and both specifying that the figures apply to the period before the chevauchée. I fail to see why if we have a scholarly consensus for something we should deliberately obfuscate in what we tell the reader. Re the numbers seeming low, I agree. But these only apply to the first outbreak of 1347-50, they do not claim to be the total of fatalities of all outbreaks of the Black Death. As you say above "it is only the first outbreak which is relevant for the chevauchée". Plus I have deliberately fudged the sources, slightly vague, claims of 40-45% fatalities in this wave in deference to what I took to be your disbelief that their was agreement that they were so high.
The Black Death is one of my subjects and I have read several books about it. There is no scholarly consensus. See for example Black Death#Deaths. Estimates for Eurasia vary from 75 to 200 million. Also notes g and h: one historian says 45-50% of the European population, but varying between 75-80 in Italy, southern France and Spain and closer to 20% in Germany and England, another historian says 60% in Europe. The lead has the best summary with 30-60% in Europe, but this would be difficult to source as it is a summary of the views of different historians. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Dudley. Curious, me too. Interesting that we should have come to so different opinions about it. Obviously the death rate varied, it would have been strange if it hadn't. Sumption, one of the sources I offer, gives 50% for Bordeaux and 25% for Paris and explains why they differ. I don't see that this distracts from his summary. And, surprise, Wikipedia is not a reliable source: you probably noted that the source for many of that article's fatalities was this. If this were an article on the Black Death it would be sources at noon. As it isn't I shall with great reluctance deprive readers of the clear consensus of military historians of the death rate in Western Europe in 1347-1350, which seems to be broadly supported by the wider modern scholarship. (A third high quality military historian who gives a number for this period, Harari, goes for "at least a third" for France and "up to a half" for England. Ie, the same as Sumption and Wagner. A moderately thorough search of the literature doesn't throw up any others.) See what you think of my revision. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John Kelly, The Great Mortality, p. 11, n. "Estimates of the Black Death mortality rate fluctuate almost as often as the stock market." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously have different opinions on whether the mortality rate is a matter of debate among experts. I can easily find sources giving figures ranging from a third (Philip Ziegler) to 60% (Ole Jørgen Benedictow). BTW some experts say that the rate was higher among the old and young, and lower among young adults. I wonder whether this would affect the views of military historians. But as you say, this article is not the place for a detailed debate on the Black Death. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Taking this a sign from God" "Taking this as a sign".
Oops. Thank you.
  • "or the Treaty of Guînes" I would delete or give the alternative name at the first mention of the treay. Used here it is ambiguous whether you are referring to another name for the treaty or to another treaty.
I hadn't seen that. I have rejigged with this edit. Does that work?

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many thanks Dudley. It probably needed a good kicking. See what you think now. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Placeholder, should be done tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, finally got to finish my nitpicks. Enjoyed the read and surprised, for someone who knows next to nothing about the Hundred Years' War nor military terms, that I understood most. My inner 14-year-old did get a bit confused at mention of "Edward" -when you mostly use Prince- and wondered if Edward III had turned up (eg "Edward set out on 5 October", "Edward would march south", "with either Edward's or Lancaster's armies"). Here's my laundry list (sshhh), move it to talk page if necessary.

lede

  • out in 1337, but a truce - wlink Truce of Calais?
Done.
  • English possession of Gascony 675 miles - the Gascony link should be to Duchy of?
I see the logic, so if you insist I will link it to Duchy of Gascony#Within the Duchy of Aquitaine (1053–1453), but as this is only four lines I feel it less useful than the current link.
No problem. I only mentioned as I saw it at "marched from Bordeaux in English-held Gascony 300 miles".
  • attendants of minor land owners - usually one word ie landowners
Done.
  • They needed to be able to equip themselves - able to afford to?

Background

  • held by the English in France was Gascony in the south - Duchy of
See above.
  • spare few resources for its defence - funds and/or men busy elsewhere?
Probably. Possibly. The sources don't opine. I get the impression that Edward was firefighting pressing threats and opportunities closer to home and it was a few years before he say down and actually came up with a proactive strategic plan. Gascony didn't get serious attention until it was on its last legs. But that's OR.
  • garrisoning - wlink
IMO this is waay into MOS:OVERLINK, but done.
Only thinking of the 14-year-olds.:) Happy for you to remove link.

Black Prince arrives

  • with plenipotentiary powers - wlink
Done.
  • assemblage of bridge making equipment - bridge-making or bridgemaking
Done.
  • treacherous Charles II, king of Navarre - cap K?
Not IMO. We are noting that he is a king of Navarre, not referring directly to him as the King of Navarre.
  • moved to Rouen with - wlink
Done.
  • re-victualling - wlink
I have linked it to victual, which redirects to food which seems to me less than helpful, even leaving overlink aside.
Again for 14s but agree that link is not worthy. Victualler is slightly better but I'm happy for no link.
  • Verneuil - wlink
Oops. Done.
  • bring the English to battle and they escaped. [55][56] - remove space before refs
Done.

Prelude

  • command of an army in Languedoc - wlink
Done.
  • John's fifteen-year-old son John, Count of Poitiers - count of Poitou or just city Poitiers
Linked.
  • of one fifteenth of all of - hyphen ie one-fifteenth
Done.
  • Bretueil was the last fortification - typo Breteuil
D'oh! Fixed.

Heading north

  • Map alt=a map showing the route of the BlackPrince's divisision - space after Black, typo division
Oh! Good spot.
  • would not be able to be adequately defended - simplify? eg would not be adequately defended
Ho hum. OK.
  • seneschal of Gascony - seems to need a cap S (using it here as title)
True. Done.
  • devastate x2 close together - another word?
I would much prefer to leave them as is. I am trying to stress that it is the same thing, which may be lost if I synonymise.
  • extremely brutal ... methodical - proper ellipsis, ie brutal ... methodical
  • The populace of most towns fled - plural ie populaces?
Done.
IMO it is not close enough to either to merit a link. I could red link it?
  • which persuaded them to vacate the town. The French army promptly marched south, as all available forces were concentrated against the Black Prince - is there a connection?
Between what? If I am reading you right then John was under immense pressure to march against the Black Prince, but felt committed to capturing Breteuil before he did. The moment he paid the Breteuil garrison enough to persuade then to leave his army was off on its main job - protecting France from the English.

Retreating south

  • The same day the Dauphin entered Tours - move introduction Charles V of France up to here?
Very good point. Done.
  • its back to the Loire in an area with few supplies - comma after supplies
I am never going to understand some schools of commaisation. I swear they look as if they are scattered at random, or the result of a speech defect. But I trust you, so done.
Done.
  • was eager wipe them out in - insert to before wipe
Done.

Battle of Poitiers

  • other way that seems best to him." - move full stop?
Er, why? I assume you are thinking of MOS:LQ[?] and we are interpreting it differently. "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark. For the most part, this means treating periods and commas in the same way as question marks: keep them inside the quotation marks if they apply only to the quoted material and outside if they apply to the whole sentence." would seem to indicate that my usage is at least permissible.
Was just checking LQ as I couldn't see source. No prob.
  • a truce, but as his army's supplies were already running out the - needs comma after "out"
You are having fun with me. Yes?
Always! Nah, I dislike over "commaisation" too. (I swear some editors would type "Last night, I slept.") I was actually surprised at some you did include. The two I mentioned seemed to need pairs.
  • the French sacred standard, the oriflamme, - move lang template to this first mention?
Thinking about it, surely Oriflamme is a proper noun? If so it should not be in italics and should be capitalise. Either way I have been inconsistent.
The arbalists in question were not using arbalests, a later development using a steel rather than wooden prod. The Wikipedia article rambles off talking about a sub-set of arbalists, as Wikipedia articles often do, but as its lead says "An arbalist, also spelled arbelist, is one who shoots a crossbow" and it is the only article which covers all crossbowmen.
  • One contemporary chronicler states that - stated (ie tense per prev "A contemporary chronicler recorded")
  • one of John's sons, Philip - wlink Philip the Bold?
Ah, I did, but then lost it in a footnote. Thanks. Done.

Post-battle

  • paroled some of their prisoners - wlink Parole#Prisoners of war (or do we know terms of parole?)
Linked.
They were many and varied. Each captor negotiated individual arrangements with each of their prisoners. So, basically, no.

Aftermath

  • causing the Treaty to lapse - lower case treaty
Done.
  • Taking this a sign from God - could insert "as" after "this" (or someone prob will)
Done.
  • In October 1359 Edward led another campaign - link Reims campaign?
Added.

Notes

  • ref 51 Rogers 2014, pp. 342, 244. - is that 2nd page 344?
You are truly eagle-eyed. It is. (There is a map on page 343
  • Prestwich, Michael - add authorlink

Extra

  • Gog, pls check south west v south-west v southwest (maybe just the 2 word instance in infobox and the one word need tweaking?
Nice. I had messed up in the infobox. (I think. I am being stalked by a new editor who "improves" a hundred or so infoboxes every day.) Someone else seems to have "helpfully" changed south west to southwest. Both sorted. Thanks.
  • you intended to change the 2 x advisor to adviser?
I did. I thought I had. Done.

Thanks for the article and your patience. JennyOz (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, wonderful stuff Jenny. Yet again I don't know how I can thank you. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK Gog, I have added some notes to your comments above simply to explain my thinking. Thanks for the tweaks and explanations. I am happy to sign my support. JennyOz (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: May I post a second nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 February 2022 [90].

Katrina Kaif

[edit]
Nominator(s): AB01 and FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Kaif's success could very well be the plot of a Bollywood film. Born in Hong Kong, she started modelling in London and impressed a filmmaker who cast her in his disastrous film. She soon became one of the most well-known faces in India. What she lacks in acting abilities, she makes up for by being a fantastic dancer, which is crucial in being a successful Bollywood heroine. In case you forget her name, you can get your answer here; it seems 200 million people did forget it.

I have closely watched this article's progress. Back in 2015, when its main contributor AB01 made it a GA, I felt that with some work, it could become an FA. Fast-forward six years later, it is still at that status. With my recent return to Wikipedia, I did some extensive further research to make it FA-level comprehensive. Sadly, its main editor hasn't been around for about five years, but to acknowledge his contributions, I am including him as a co-nominator. FrB.TG (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Most licensing looks OK, but File:Katrina Kaif and Vicky Kaushal.png is marked as still needing review. (t · c) buidhe 23:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. Hopefully, a Commons reviewer looks at it soon although given the amount of images still needing review from January 2021, it is kind of worrying. FrB.TG (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sourcing

[edit]
  • The article cites some sources rated generally unreliable at WP:RSP (International Business Times and Daily Express). There is also widespread citing of Times of India (see its RSP entry), which I would say is considered minimally acceptable for culture. However, I'm not sure it qualifies as a "high-quality reliable source" per the FA criteria or if there are better sources available. (t · c) buidhe 20:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the IBT and Daily Express refs, but TOI is considered a reliable source when it comes to reporting on the Indian film industry. Not to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FA-class biographies of Indian actresses. Looking at RSP, it says TOI is biased when it comes to its government but in this case, it is mostly critics reviewing her films. FrB.TG (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "These were followed by a series of commercially failed releases" - "commercially failed" isn't valid as an adjective. Just saying "These were followed by a series of commercially failures" would work
Replaced with "commercial failures"; I don't think "commercially failure" will work since "failure" isn't an adjective.
Yes, an ironic typo in my comment :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She said her father had no influence on her or her siblings while they were growing up, and they were raised by their mother" => "She said that her father had no influence on her or her siblings while they were growing up, and that they were raised by their mother"
  • "On her father's absence in her life, Kaif said although" => "On her father's absence from her life, Kaif said that although"
  • "Kaif's enactment of a supermodel" - "Kaif's portrayal of a supermodel" is probably more natural
  • "to her unawareness of Indian audience's" => "to her unawareness of Indian audiences'"
  • I got as far as 2005 but need to log off now. I'll carry on with this review later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have made these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • "In 2006, she appeared with Akshay Kumar for the first of many films in Raj Kanwar's unsuccessful Humko Deewana Kar Gaye" => "In 2006, she appeared in Raj Kanwar's unsuccessful Humko Deewana Kar Gaye, the first of many films in which she appeared with Akshay Kumar"
  • "in which Rishi Raj Singh of The Hindu called her performance "marvellous"" => "for which Rishi Raj Singh of The Hindu called her performance "marvellous""
  • "The film narrates the story of three friends on a bachelor trip, and how the workaholism of one was overcome with the help of Laila (Kaif)" => "The film narrates the story of three friends on a bachelor trip, and how the workaholism of one is overcome with the help of Laila (Kaif)"
  • "reprised the role of Zoya in the Ali Abbas Zafar's action thriller film Tiger Zinda Hai" => "reprised the role of Zoya in Ali Abbas Zafar's action thriller film Tiger Zinda Hai"
  • "her second collaboration with with Aamir Khan" => "her second collaboration with Aamir Khan"
  • "Kaif is filming the comedy horror film Phone Bhoot" - source is more than 18 months old, is she still filming it?
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. These are the changes I made in response to your comments. Do let me know if you there's anything else that needs to be done. FrB.TG (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
Done, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

I would like to start by saying that I have never heard of this individual, but that is unsurprising since I am an American who is 100% unfamiliar with Bollywood. Despite studying film in college, I have actually never seen an Indian film. I will try my best to do a thorough review. I will be focusing primarily on the prose as I do not have the expertise to really comment on the sources. My comments are below:

As a non-Indian myself, I do enjoy the occasional dose of Bollywood entertainment, though I suggest if you start watching a Bollywood film, you should not start with her films. She is a solid dancer though. You might enjoy Andhadhun; it's an engaging thriller.
  • Thank you for the recommendation! It is quite intimidating to jump into a completely different culture of film so having a suggestion for an entry point is very helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming the citation in the lead is used to support the fact that she is a British actress who works in Hindi-language films and that this controversial in some way? If that is the case, then the citation makes sense, but I still wanted to get your feedback as I did not want to operate under assumptions like this.
It's just some fans that keep adding "Indian" to her nationality, but you are right. I have removed the extra source from there and left a comment there to not change it unless it is backed by a reliable source.
  • Just to be clear, I did not have any issue with the citation in the lead. I was more so wanting to confirm my assumption. From my rather limited experience with biography articles, I have seen nationality having these kinds of issues (as it is somewhat reminds me of genre wars in music articles). Either with or without the citation works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand but I find it absurd to source that in the lead (when we generally don't do it) just to please some fanboys.
  • When you mention her birth in the lead, shouldn't the Hong Kong link be more explicitly British Hong Kong to avoid an Easter egg. I initially thought that this link was for the Hong Kong article.
  • I do not think the London link is necessary for the lead as I would imagine a majority of readers are already familiar with the city. This is something touched on in MOS:OVERLINK with linking locations.
  • I have a question about this part: While in India, Kaif received modelling assignments and established a successful modelling career. Couldn't it be shortened to: While in India, Kaif established a successful modelling career. I am not sure if the part I removed is entirely necessary.
Agreed.
  • I think it may be worthwhile to link Bollywood for readers like myself who are not very familiar with that film industry. I can see how this could be seen as over-linking, but I still wanted to make this suggestion.
  • The ALT text for the infobox image calls it a head shot, and I do not think that phrasing is entirely accurate. Whenever I hear the word head shot, I associate it with a more specific context of using it as part of a resume for either modeling, acting, or some entertainment-related field. I would not describe a photo of a person taken at an event as a head shot.
  • In the "Early life" section, you link to Hong Kong and not to British Hong Kong.
  • Be consistent with either using the Serial comma or not. This listing uses it "named Melissa, Sonia, and Isabel" while this one does not "named Stephanie, Christine and Natasha".
  • While I was reading the subsection on her early life, I was wondering if Kaif was ever part of a larger discussion on biracial actors in Bollywood. You did a wonderful job with the prose about her heritage, but it did make me wonder about the industry as a whole. It may not fit this particular article, but I still wanted to ask about it.
There is some commentary on her finding success inspired many future foreigners to debut in Bollywood. I have added an analysis from the book Indian Film Stars: New Critical Perspectives in career section, i.e. she was cast in her first successful film mainly due to her biraciality.
  • The "Early life" section says Kaif did not grow up in London (i.e. only spending three years there), but the lead makes it out like she did grow up there or at least spent a more significant amount of time there (at least in my opinion).
  • For this part, "after an Asian friend suggested they take a trip there", I am guessing we do not have more information than just "Asian" for the friend?
Unfortunately not.
  • Boom should be linked in this part, a role in the English-Hindi erotic heist film Boom. I understand that this would cause a sea of blue, but the film should be linked in the prose so I would revise this part to avoid having so many links close together.
Boom is already linked in early life section and I though re-linking it would be OL.
  • You are correct. That would be over-linking. I somehow missed the original Boom link in the article so apologies for that. Please ignore this suggestion as I was incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about how this sentence is worded: Although Kaif was offered a number of modelling assignments, filmmakers were hesitant to cast her because of her poor command of Hindi. It is operating from this belief that a woman who has an active modeling career would automatically get the attention of filmmakers, which is untrue. In fact, it can be the opposite as some filmmakers may not take models seriously in terms of acting.
I think it might have to do with the fact that a great number of successful Bollywood actresses started out as a highly successful models who won international beauty pageants, but that is just presumptuous and would need to be explained here. I have removed the connection between the two sentences.
  • Thank you for the explanation. There are a great number of successful models turned Hollywood actresses, but there are also a great number of successful models who could not make that leap (either do skill or a number of other reasons). I think it was best to remove this connection because while it is possible, it is not as automatic as the original wording suggested (at least in my opinion). Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know what was meant by "inconsistent performer"? Was it in terms of her skill as an actor, her grasp of Hindi, or just her professionalism (i.e. not arriving on set or knowing her lines, et.c).
  • I have a question about the Malliswari salary. It comes across as quite a surprise that she would get the highest for a South Indian film actress when her first film bombed commercially and critically and the previous paragraph brought up how filmmakers were hesitant on working with her. Is there any information on how she managed to get this big of a salary?
  • I am confused by this sentence: Kaif followed with a small part in her second Telugu film, Allari Pidugu. The Wikipedia article for the film says she is one of the stars. In all fairness, the article is in rough shape, but it seems to contradict the information here. Also, is there more information about her performance in this film?
Well, she was billed as the heroine of the film but she did not have much of a role other than look pretty and do some dancing here and there.
  • If she is billed as the film's heroine, then I am not sure how that would gel with the "small part" description. Were there any reviewers that identified her role in the film this way? Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the length of my comments so far. The prose is very engaging and I am very much enjoying the article. These are my comments up to the subsection about her breakthrough. I will continue my review once everything has been addressed above as this seems like a good stopping point for me. I hope this is helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I am glad you enjoyed reading her article. No apologies needed for the length of your review; if anything, it shows how thorough you are and your comments are certainly very helpful. Unless I have stated otherwise, I have taken on board your suggestions. I look forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. I only have one question about the Allari Pidugu sentence, but other than that, everything looks good to me. I will post the end of my review momentarily. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be more consistent with how critics and publications are referenced in the prose. For instance, there are times the publication is only referenced, like with Sify, and times when the writer and publication are mentioned, like Nikhat Kazmi of The Times of India.
  • I am uncertain about this: Before New York, Kaif's voice was dubbed over by voice artists. It seems rather jarring to introduce New York here as it is not until the next subsection that the prose explains what this film is. As someone who is unfamiliar with her career, I thought I might have missed something.
  • Would it be worthwhile to link languages of India in this part, "and other Indian languages"? It may be over-linking, but I wanted to ask anyway as I had thought about it while reading this part.
  • The article discusses how critics disliked her roles, specifically the inclination to male-dominated films and repetition of glamor roles, but how much of that was really her choice or within her power? Was there any discussions on how she was being typecast by the film industry? I was just curious about this since it seems like the critics are specifically going after her as if it was all her doing.
You could attribute it to Bollywood's sexist portrayal of the leading lady as a mere decorative prop, whose existence lies almost entirely around pleasing the male character. However, with a few exceptions, she has actively and repeatedly sought out such roles, even around a period where more actresses are pushing the boundaries. She intentionally ignores riskier roles in indie films, as they are, in her own words, "morose … which no one will watch". I have added her own response to this ("When criticised for her reluctance to appear..") and a general observation of this sexism, not mainly focusing on Kaif, by a critic ("In a BBC article criticising Bollywood's sexist portrayal of a female character.."), but it does praise her for being an action herione in Tiger Zinda Hai.
  • Thank you for the wonderful and thorough response. That clears it for me, and it explains why the critics were directing their criticism towards her in particular. I actually really like her morose comment as there is something a little odd in my opinion that actresses are taken more seriously in less glamorous roles. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain of what you mean by "similar isolation" in this part, Having undergone similar isolation because of her skin colour. Would something like "discrimination" be more appropriate?
Yes, that is a much more elegant way to put it. :)
Not sure. The source says, "Kaif's role, shaped by India's top female director, Farah Khan, has been likened to Keira Knightley's breakthrough part in Pirates of the Caribbean." It's unclear what was exactly compared. I did not find anything else on this. If it is too vague, it can certainly be removed.
  • I would remove this part as it is not really clear. My best guess is that the source is more so comparing the actresses and not the characters, but since the citation is not particularly clear, I would remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify this part, Kaif was brought up to practise all faiths? I am guessing that she was not brought up to literally practice every single faith that is out there.
  • Does she consistently visit Siddhivinayak Temple, Mount Mary Church, and Sufi shrine Ajmer Sharif Dargah before each film? Just curious because that would seem like a lot.
She did at least do it back in 2009. It's been a long time ever since and I doubt there will be any source confirming she still does it. However, it says that the report is from 2009, and at this point the readers should decide themselves if she still does do it.
  • I do not think "several times" is necessary for this sentence: Kaif's personal life has been the subject of extensive media attention several times.
  • For the final paragraph of the "Personal life and other work", I would be careful about having quite a few sentences with "In X year" as it can make the prose appear more like a list or a resume and makes it less engaging as a result.
  • This is super nitpick-y, but is "nail paint" another word used for nail polish? It was just something that caught my eye and I was curious about it.
There is a small difference but they are almost always used interchangeably; I went with the source which says nail paint.
  • Do we have any further information on Kay Beauty, specifically how it is doing financially?
Aside from an article listing the prices of her products and her collaboration with Nykaa, I did not find much, at least not anything related to the brand's financial status.
  • For these two sentences (She is one of the most-followed Bollywood celebrities on Instagram. and According to a Forbes India estimate, her net worth is ₹2 billion (US$27 million).), I would specify "as of X year" in some way as these items are subject to change in the future.
  • For the Instagram sentence, I think it is worth specifying that she is the tenth most followed Bollywood celebrity.

This should be the end of my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support on the prose. Thank you for all the work you have done on the article. It was truly a fascinating and engaging read that I very much enjoyed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for such a thorough review. Like always, unless I have stated otherwise, I have done what you have suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything! I appreciate your responses and your patience with my review. I am more than happy to support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I really should work on more biographical articles in the future. I would be mindful about the article's length in the future as Kaif is still relatively young and has an active career (but that should not be a concern for the FAC). I hope you are having a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your wonderful review and your support. I’ll add the upcoming films. You’re right about the size that it’s not a concern now but might be in five years or so. I hope to see you tackle a biography soon enough. FrB.TG (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar

[edit]

I'll begin my first read through soon. ♦ jaguar 20:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jaguar, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I've been set back due to illness - I'll leave my comments tomorrow. ♦ jaguar 22:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She is involved with her mother's charity" - a description of the charity would be useful to the reader. It is infanticide prevention?
  • "Kaif called Shroff's comments "hurtful", and said it is evident she is not 100% Caucasian" - might be better to rephrase this to something like Kaif denied this, calling Shroff's comments "hurtful". The "not 100% Caucasian" part comes across as slightly informal
  • "Therefore, Kaif and her siblings were home-schooled by a series of tutors. She says" - this should be in past tense since the extract is from 2010
  • "...and appearing regularly at London Fashion Week" - the London Fashion Week (a 'the' is placed before Indian Fashion Week later on)
  • "Boom (2003) had its first screening at the Cannes Film Festival, and was heavily promoted at the event" - condense to Boom (2003) had its first screening at the Cannes Film Festival and was heavily promoted,
Made a slight change to "..the Cannes Film Festival, where it was heavily promoted".
  • "Kaif also appeared with Mammootty in the Malayalam crime thriller Balram vs. Tharadas" - WP:SEAOFBLUE here
  • "She had difficulty filming her scuba diving scene because of her inexperience in it" - condense to She had difficulty filming her scuba diving scene due to her inexperience
  • "The film released on Christmas weekend" - on the Christmas weekend
  • "She and actor Vicky Kaushal got married" - reads awkwardly after jumping from her relationship with Kapoor. Rephrase to Kaif married actor Vicky Kaushal
  • " A life-size, wax figure of her was installed at London's Madame Tussauds" - I think 'in' sounds correct

That's all I have after my read through. Overall the prose is solid and I could find no issues with the sources. ♦ jaguar 22:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Jaguar. I hope you are feeling better now. See what you make of these changes. FrB.TG (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it's looking a lot better. I'll be happy to support this FAC based on prose as I have no doubt now it meets the 'well-written' part of the criteria. Well done in all the work you've put into this one, it was good to read. ♦ jaguar 20:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shahid

[edit]
Lead
  • A previous version of the lead mentioned that "Though Kaif has received mixed reviews for her acting prowess" - I wonder why it's been removed, because I for one think it's very much in place, considering her achievments are mentioned, including awards and other qualities she is noted for, and particularly because it is prevalent throughout the article and the lead should reflect that. I'd combine it with the sentence "Though Kaif has received mixed reviews for her acting, she is noted for her dancing ability in various successful item numbers."
One editor objected that it is a repetition of the last line of he second paragraph but I would have to agree with you here. Firstly, mixed opinion is not the same thing as criticism. Secondly, the criticism is aimed at only a set of films not all of her films. Therefore, it is definitely not repetitive and is justified there per your suggestion. Added back.
Early life
  • "According to the actress" - redundant - it's obvious that every piece of information about her family is given by her and no attribution is needed unless it's very contentious.
  • More importantly, please avoid using "the actress" to refer to Kaif, it's very journalistic and non-encyclopedic.
  • "Isabelle Kaif is also a model and actress" - first, in the previous sentence you spell her name Isabel, so pick one. And no Kaif is needed to refer to her.
  • "On her father's absence in her life, Kaif said that although she occasionally wished for him to be supportive, she chooses not to complain and is instead grateful for the things she does have." - I'm sorry it's a little too much and sounds WP:UNDUE, because she doesn't say anything here other than describe her approach to life in general. It would be notable if she had actually admitted to have been affected or unaffected by his absense but she does neither of the two.
  • "Although Kaif is thought to have grown up in London", I think it doesn't matter where she is believed to have grown up. We state the facts.
Acting beginnings (2003–2005)
  • Ziya U. Salam -> Ziya Us Salam
  • "attributed the weak performances of the film's leading ladies to their inexpressiveness." We don't immediately gather Kaif is one of the leading ladies, and the entire part of attributing a weak performance to... is confusing . I'd write "wrote of the weak performances by Kaif and the other female stars, criticising their inexpressiveness."
  • "the highest for a South Indian film actress at the time" - she is not South Indian. I suggest, " the highest for a female lead in South Indian cinema at the time".

More to follow. Shahid • Talk2me 13:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough and rise to prominence
  • I can't tell you how much I dislike the use of "rise to prominence" (very magazine-like and makes it sound as though she gained political power and won some elections) but it's my personal thing and not the problem - my question is what's the difference between this and a breakthrough? I think one should be picked, and breakthrough is better.
  • The same applies for the next section where "widespread recognition" is used - first, widespread is subjective. And what is recognition in this case? Critical, commercial? If it's all about stardom why not just write "mainstream success" instead? Sounds fair and factually sound.
While she gained some critical praise for the first time during this period, there were also some bigger-than-ever box-office hits. So your suggestion to change to "mainstream success" is very good.
  • "which marked the first of her many films" - I think I'd switch "many films" with "frequent collaborations".
  • "... and tells the story of two like-minded" - you mix past and present tense within the same complex sentence. I'd recommend starting a new sentence because it's just too long.
  • "Kaif also appeared with Mammootty" - remove "also" (the use of which should be as minimal as possible) -> "The same year, Kaif appeared"
  • If her performance was hailed as "marvellous" isn't it essential to write more about her part? After all, she isn't called marvelous for her every turn and if such positive feedback is provided then the reader should know why and what's going on here.
The only other comment in the source on her performance is, "Katrina Kaif is learning the tricks of acting fast". Do you think it's something worth including?
  • "...for her role of a spoilt British Indian" - since this is such a special role in her career and a sort of turning point as the paragraph suggests, I'd mention her character's name as follows "for her role of X, a spoilt...".
  • " a remake of Hitch which also starred" -> "which co-starred"
  • "minuscule roles" - were they really minuscule or just unimportant?
  • "Her performances were also largely criticised." - such a short sentence with that "also" I think you can combine it with the previous sentence if you like: "critics noted that she played minuscule roles in them as they were generally male-dominated,[29][67] whereas her performances were largely criticised".
  • Very good section overall; some paragraphs are excellent.

More to follow. Shahid • Talk2me 14:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments, Shahid. These are the changes I made in regard to your suggestions. Looking forward to the rest of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took the liberty of copyediting the career section myself instead of posting here prose-related comments even for smaller issues. I still have questions, but those will be later. The article is in very good shape now, but I need to read the following sections.
Thank you, I appreciate your efforts.
  • Just one quick comment before we move on. For Zero, it says she "eventually decided to 'take the leap', hoping that 'it pays off'". It really says nothing, becasue she doesn't actually say why she decided to take it and just gives us the trivia of what she hopes for (which is obvious and redundant in the text). I tried entering the original recorded interview on DNA but it doesn't work for me. If you can address this, that'd be great. Shahid • Talk2me 11:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborated on it. FrB.TG (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • General comment - the section is good, but while the part with Salman Khan is okay, the one with Ranbir Kapoor struck me as quite tabloidish ("photos ... were leaked", "the media interpreted"), although I'm really not sure because it is well-sourced, and the open letter seems quite notable. Anyway don't mind me I'm just really sensitive to such reportage on WP.
Normally, I am also against such inclusion. Often times I combine career with personal life because it tends to become gossipy when it's a standalone section. However, the Stardust photographs went viral, and the subsequent open letter addressing this is notable, as you say, so it might be useful to give some background info on this.
  • My only comment is thus the repetitive use of "extensive media attention".
It looks like you addressed this point yourself. :) FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Media

Source review

[edit]

I'm afraid koimoi.com is not a reliable source, or not the best available at the very least.

  • 15: it doesn't say she "credited her for starting" the trend but merely fitted it.
  • 16: OK
  • 17: a) Nowhere does it say it's an erotic film. It's called a heist film (the film article describes it as "black comedy thriller film"). b) source does not support "anticipation surrounding her Bollywood debut".
  • 20: "reports of a relationship with actor Salman Khan first emerged in 2003" - not supported by the source, not that it first emerged in 2003, and not reports but just rumours.
It might not say that the rumor "first" emerged in 2003 but seeing as the article is from that year. One can assume that the rumor was being circulated at least that year.
  • 28: author missing
  • 52: books need no accessdate.
  • 60: The source does not really support that Masand found her "insufferable and her acting insufficient"
  • 72: OK
  • 84: WSJ doesn't work; use archive
  • 85: OK
  • 86: OK
  • 95: Page not found; please fix The Telegraph link.
  • 102: "one of the most awarded films of the year" isn't supported, although it's true. Either add another source or change the prose.
  • 103: OK
  • 122: Page not found; use archive.
  • 133: doesn't support "critical failures"
  • 135: doesn't work (and no archives)
  • 147: OK
  • 148: OK
  • 150: author missing; remove Times of India from the title parameter.
  • 161: OK
  • 168: use the archive, otherwise good.
  • 180: Page not found, use the archive.
  • 182: link Vogue India
  • 194: Mishra is mentioned in text but missing in ref.
  • 197: The source doesn't support that it is her comment on her "outsider image", neither does it support anything related to breaking stereotypes (it actually talks about her being steretyped).
  • 200: OK
  • 202: OK
  • 203: OK
  • 214: author missing
  • 224: author missing
  • Shahid • Talk2me 11:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these, Shahid. I believe I have addressed your concerns in these edits. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good, you have my support for promotion. 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Hi, any status update on this? FrB.TG (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for the further short read promised by Shshshsh Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, he already did and supported here. FrB.TG (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read that as for the source review and not for the general review. Shshshsh, could you clarify? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild: I support the nomination for promotion based on both the general and source reviews. :) Shahid • Talk2me 22:38, 25 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [91].

Robert de Umfraville

[edit]
Nominator(s): SN54129 19:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance to our Caledonian colleagues! This is a fellow—a 15th-century "hero" no less—who wanted "good rest and peace" in England while sending fire ships into Scotland—who may have plotted against Henry V but probably fought at Agincourt as well, who contemporaries saw as "an ideal knight" yet whose biggest claim to fame was that he raided Peebles on market day, burnt the place and nicked all their gear. A piece of work, one way or another. I'm welcoming all your comments and suggestions for improvement to this article. Cheers! SN54129 19:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • "Beginning his career under Richard II, he probably fought at the Battle of Otterburn with Henry "Hotspur" Percy in 1388. After King Richard was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke in 1399": I think we don't need "King" here, given that we just gave him a post-nominal in the previous sentence. You might consider making it "Henry IV" instead of "Henry Bolingbroke", since after he acquired the title at the moment of deposition, and since readers unfamiliar with the history will wonder why Richard was deposed by someone who did not succeed him.
    Both good points.
  • "and the earl rebelled again, albeit unsuccessfully": why "again"? Unless I misunderstood the text, we have not mentioned a prior rebellion. Was the Earl involved in Scrope's rebellion?
    Easier to just remove I think (yes, he was, but since de Umfracville wasn't, I'd say it was a distraction).
  • "the high standing in which he now stood": can we avoid two forms of "stand" so close together?
    Went with the much shorter "and reflecting his high standing with the King".
  • "De Umfraville was the only Percy retainer that King Henry made an effort to reconcile;": to my ear this would be better as "reconcile with".
    Yes...I want to make it clear that it's a political reconciliation rather than a personal one though; I've gone for "reconcile to him", but perhaps "reconcile to the new regime" would be better?
  • "At the same time, he saw his diplomatic work with Scotland also increase as the result of the Percys' fall." Do we need both "at the same time" and "also"? Are they doing different work?
    No and no!
  • Suggest integrating note 2 into the text; that changes the meaning quite a bit, and reader who doesn't follow the note won't understand that this doesn't mean "evil".
    Okay, I ended up splitting the sentence; how does it look now?
  • "de Umfraville inherited the Redesdale and Kyme estates and $400": dollars?
    D'oh!
  • "He also continued to keep the peace in his home county as well": as above do we need both "also" and "as well"?
    Actioned.

Just a few minor points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking in, Mike Christie—I addressed your points in this edit. Perhaps you could check a couple of my suggestions above? Have a good weekend. SN54129 16:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All looks good now; interesting article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Why does "marcher" link to Welsh marches?
    Bizarre: changed to Scottish.
  • I am not sure that "semi-permanent warfare" is a thing. Perhaps near-permanent?
    Nice, thanks.
  • When de Umfraville's name starts a sentence, should the d not be upper case. Or do the sources consistently use the lower case? The MoS "As proper nouns, these names are almost always first-letter capitalized. An exception is made when the lowercase variant has received regular and established use in reliable independent sources. In these cases, the name is still capitalized when at the beginning of a sentence, per the normal rules of English. Minor elements in certain names are not capitalized, but this can vary by individual: Marie van Zandt, John Van Zandt. Use the style that dominates for that person in reliable sources". I note that elsewhere you do use "De", so possibly a typo?
    That was very long! Your last four words apply  :)
I get paid by the word.
  • Is there a reason why Otterburn is mentioned twice but its outcome isn't?
    Well, he wasn't captured or particularly suffered personally, so I didn't consider it germane. Still, since you mention it.
  • "He subsequently defeated a large Scots army". Who is "He"?
    Guess. Done.
  • "Earl of Northumberland came to a head, and the earl rebelled". "Earl ... earl"?
    Done.
  • "Gilbert had married Ralph, Earl of Westmorland's daughter Anne". That momentarily sounds a little racy. Perhaps 'Gilbert had married Anne, the daughter of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland'?
    I must be losing my touch, writing racy material and not even realising it! Used your form of words, thanks.
Clearly your default writing mode.
  • "Admiral of the seas". Either lower case a or upper case S.
    Unlike, and pace, Tim riley of this parish, I would (almost) lower case everything  :) but the sources always upper case A of the S, so this is effectively a typo.
  • "destroyed Scottish shipping sheltered in the Firth of Forth, capturing 13 or 14 of them, possibly using fire ships". "destroyed" or "captured"? And how does one capture ships using fire ships?
    Tweaked, to clarify (basically inverted the sentence).
  • Lead "and took part in the Battle of Agincourt"; article "and perhaps the Battle of Agincourt". Which?
    Added the qualifier to the lead.
  • "The 'Southampton Plot,' service in France and return": the first paragraph of this section leaps around chronologically. Is it not possible to retail events in the order they happened?
    Right, good call. It was difficult to write originally, I remember. I've pretty much re-worded the whole thing, though, and shortened it too; could you take a look at the new, chronologically-friendly version and see what you think?
Looks good to me.

That is all I have, apart from noting a disappointing lack of impenetrable footnotes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for commenting Gog, always appreciated; I've actioned your points in this edit, and if you could look at the new paragraph. Thanks for your copy edits, by the way.
I am losing my touch—my most recent article has only one footnote, of seven words! :o SN54129 19:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I shall peruse the MoS to see if I can oppose it on that basis alone. Clearly standards are slipping.
Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "more recently his family had married into that of the Percies, a powerful local marcher family" - source? Generally, check that details in the lead are cited either in the lead or in the body
    Check; clarified that it was his nephew, which discussed in §Royal service
    Still seeing some issues with lead claims not being supported - for example Robin Mendmarket (body supports Mendmarket but doesn't mention the Robin piece). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes—I meant to check the spelling first. Done that now, see it was also spelled archaically (note note). SN54129 11:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
    I put Raine in its place.
  • Rose: Worldcat indicates that the Phoenix edition was published 2003, the 2002 edition gives a different publisher - can you double-check? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, yes: this is indeed the 2003 Phoenix ed. rather than the 2002 Weidenfield & Nix: I changed the date and specified the edition.
Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria. Hope you're well! SN54129 12:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source and full review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
  • Sources
    • Beltz, although very old, is used sparingly and only for uncontentious facts (who had which Garter stall, something that's not likely to change)
    • Burke, although old, is used for just the coat of arms
    • Hardyng, although very old, is not used except to note what he himself noted. I'll note that the short footnote says "Ellis 1812" but it's listed in the Bibliography under "Hardyng" - inconsistent.
      • Yes...it's a bit tricky, and stems—ironically enough—to a former source review I received, because the alternative (in this example) {{sfn|Hardyng|1812}} looked odd (not quite as odd as Shakespeare 2012 of course, but it seemed misleading to suggest that Hardyng was writing books 300 years after his death. The problem though, as you have pointed out, is that Harding remains the author alphabetically. I'd like a way to square the circle, but coding...
    • Raine, although very old, is only used to source a colorful quote.
  • Spot checks - (since I may be the only person besides SN who owns a copy of some of these works... it's just their luck I finally got them back up on shelves where I can find them...)
    • "Henry IV died in March 1413 and was succeeded by his son, Henry of Monmouth, as King Henry V." is sourced to Allmand and is supported by the source. (I think that's the first use of that book in ages for me...)
    • "De Umfraville was indentured to join Henry IV's invasion of Scotland in 1400" is sourced to this EHR article which is supported.
    • "This reflects a contemporary image of him as a fifteenth-century hero: in 1426 the royal council, on behalf of the then-four-year-old King Henry VI, wrote to him, thanking him for his "great and notable services… to your most renowned honour and praise and to the advantage of us and our whole realm"." is sourced to the ODNB article, and is supported by the source.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
    Thanks very much for the source review Ealdgyth; there's just one thing, regarding Hardyng and a modern date if you could see what you think?
  • Lead:
    • "acting both as a bulwark against Scottish incursions and at the forefront of English aggression" hm... this seems a bit POV to me. Suggest "providing both offensive and defensive military actions against the Scots"?
    Tweaked.
  • Background:
    • "Robert himself, a minor at his father's death, served his wardship under the first" "served his wardship" ... suggest "was a ward under" or "had his wardship assigned to"... I don't think I've ever seen a wardship referred to as "served his wardship under". Also, suggest linking the name so we have a clue who he is later when he's introduced.
    Tweaked to your wording, also fully linked Ralph.
  • Early career:
    • suggest giving a quick description of "indentured" besides the link - as most folks will be thinking "indentured servitude" rather than the medieval military meaning of the term.
    Added a short footnote with the legal background.
    • "part in the crushing of the Scots army" suggest avoiding the POV feel of "crushing" and use "defeat" instead
    Indeed! I wouldn't want Girth Summit come seeking revenge  :) SN54129 18:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the King's son, [[John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford|John, Duke of]] Bedford. instead of the King's son, [[John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford|John, Duke of Bedford]].?
    My fault for using Visual Editor I expect! Properly titled now.
  • Royal service:
    • "who retained him for life" suggest at least a link to explain this
    Linked.
    • "Ralph, Earl of Westmorland" .... I know we linked him, but it was an easter-eggish link - ?
    Resolved with that earlier edit hopefully.
    • "olde dogge [that] hath grete joy to bayte his whelpe" - might need an explanation of what "bayte/bait" means here
    Explanatory footnote added.
  • Southampton plot:
    • "following year when he indentured with the King to serve there until 1417." serve where though? Agincourt? France? Normandy?
    Went with Normandy since HV didn't go anywhere else, and Agincourt might be too precise.
That's all I have. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied above about the footnote - and I'm happy to support this. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth, I accept your reasoning. Thanks very much for your help! SN54129 16:19, 24 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [92].

A Canterlot Wedding

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode. Though it may not be thought to discuss Stalinism or Marxism (cough, "The Cutie Map", cough), critics still think it's awesome and scholars think it discusses feminism. This article was brought to GA-status back in 2012 and I have since expanded its reception and production sections. I nominated it for FA status back in October of last year, but that was archived after over two weeks of absolutely no comments. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from O-D

[edit]

Placeholder; I'll take a look in the next day or two. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead: "Additionally, the episodes have been subject to feminist analysis" – I think this needs a bit of elaboration.
    • Expanded
  • Suggest adding context to character names when first mentioned in the plot. (E.g. "the unicorn Twilight Strong", "Princess Celestia, the ruler of Canterlot").
    • Added
  • I don't think a comment on DeviantArt is a high-quality RS.
    • The comment is from the show's creator, Lauren Faust, and Wired confirms that it is Faust's account here
      • I'm still not sure it's a "high quality" source per FAC criteria. Since it's the only such source, I could be ok with it in the body, but I don't think it's due weight to use it for the lead ("she worked on the story's inception").
        • Removed
  • "compared the plot twist to those of the science-fiction television series Fringe" – needs a bit more context to justify why this is in Themes. (The source talks about the plot's darkness.)
    • Removed
  • This paper (pdf link on the right) mentions a thematic connection to an earlier MLP episode in p. 11; could be interesting to add.
    • I can't really find anything significant to add... it just says:

      There are many notable narrative and thematic continuities between My Little Pony 'n Friends and MLPFIM, and episodes of the recent series parallel the female-centered nature of the original. ... "A Canterlot Wedding: Part 2" culminates in a battle with a changeling army assuming the uncanny appearance of the six main characters, representing the "substitution of a mechanical double," a theme humorously revisited in "Too Many Pinkie Pies."

      and I have barely any idea what this means. I've googled "substitution of a mechanical double" but there's nothing that I can find that provides more context...
      • I assumed it was something MLP-related, but I guess not. This is the only other scholarly source I could find, so I think the article is comprehensive in that sense.
  • The quoted "princess stereotype" does not appear in the source. (Perhaps you meant "princess culture"?)
    • Fixed
  • "A Canterlot Wedding" in quotes is a bit confusing when interspersed with quotes from sources (in Themes); suggest replacing some occurrences with "the episodes".
    • I've replaced the second instance as the first doesn't seem like that much of a problem. IDK about "This Day Aria" though
  • "triple-digit and quadruple-digit year-to-year delivery gains" – without further context, it's unclear why both of these are mentioned (rather than just quadruple-digit).
    • Revised
  • "As of November 2013, it has drawn" – should probably be "had drawn".
    • Not a grammar guru but I think it's correct as, per the WP article, it is "used to express a past event that has present consequences" as opposed to "an action that occurred prior to an aforementioned time in the past"
      • Unless I'm mistaken, the source is taking about viewership until 2013, not after 2013. How about the simpler "As of November 2013, it was the most viewed program on the Hub"?
        • I think it's the viewership of the original airing, not anything after, like re-runs, etc. I don't think it should be "was" because that, at least to me, implies something surpassed it, which is unconfirmed...
  • "considering it to be one of the reasons she felt Friendship Is Magic was one of the best children's programs" – the "one of"s feel a bit repetitive.
    • Fixed
  • "commended the episodes' ambition, complexity, captivation, and enjoyability" – captivation feels out of place. (Perhaps "commended the episodes' ambition and complexity, finding them enjoyable and captivating".)
    • Revised
  • "The Friendship Is Magic fandom initially chastised..." – reading this sentence, it sounds like they chastised this episode but later changed their minds. Needs clarification.
    • Revised
  • When combining comments from multiple critics, I'm not sure if you can use quotes without individual attribution. Also, in lines like "The episodes' music also garnered critical praise, having been called "one of the best things about this show" and "just breathtaking".[13][19]", the two quoted critics are actually mentioned by name later. Suggest either summarizing these statements or attributing.
    • Revised
      • I meant that quotes like "one of the best things about this show" should be attributed by name to the specific critic (or magazine) who made that statement.
        • Revised
          • Some more occurrences: "surprisingly complex"; the "biggest, most expensive, action-packed ... episode ever"; the "bouncy and fun, filled with real joy and heart" wedding
            • @Olivaw-Daneel: Ooo, I think this one gets a bit messy, because there are two quotes from Daily News. I guess, per WP:INTEXT, "It is preferable not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal"? IDK if this applies, though...
              Re-ping: Olivaw-Daneel. Pamzeis (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the relevant guideline is MOS:Quote#Attribution: "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" (italics in original). Re. two quotes from Daily News, you may want to re-arrange to make it less messy. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Olivaw-Daneel: I've removed it, given it doesn't add that much. Pamzeis (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short sections such as "Home media release" are discouraged per MOS:PARA. Suggest merging to one of the others (perhaps Production).
    • If I'm reading this correctly, short subsections (i.e. anything under a level-3 header or less) are discouraged, not short sections. I don't think the section would fit anywhere else in the article either.
  • In some of the references, "publisher" should be changed to "work": Shout Factory, ComicBook.com.
    • Fixed ComicBook.com. I don't think Shout! Factory is a work, though.

That's it from me; interesting episode. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Olivaw-Daneel! I've hopefully responded to them all. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of remaining comments above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivaw-Daneel: Responded to the above :) Pamzeis (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on all criteria except 1c, where I'm neutral due to the DeviantArt citation. I'll wait to hear other reviewers' opinions. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to full support now that DeviantArt has been removed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

Maybe you can leave comments on other FACs to possibly attract reviewers. Or perhaps leave a message on some users' talk who are familiar with this show (or at least television work in general). Anyway, let's do the honors:

  • "'A Canterlot Wedding' is the title of the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth episodes of the second season of the animated television series My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, which are the fifty-first and fifty-second episodes overall." This is a bit long for MOS:FIRST. And the "which are" is followed by the mention of the show (which is singular), making it sound almost grammatically incorrect. Also, the two mentions of the number of episode make it a little confusing read.
    • How about ending the first sentence at the mention of the show and starting a new one with something like "The fifty-first and fifty-second episodes overall, they were directed by..."? Wording may vary depending on what's best.
      • Revised
  • "'A Canterlot Wedding' was series developer Lauren Faust's final involvement in the show. She was involved.." - usage of involve in close proximity.
    • Fixed
  • "As pressure from the ceremony mounts, Twilight's friends dismiss Twilight's claims." Why not "As pressure from the ceremony mounts, Twilight's friends dismiss her claims."?
    • Honestly, IDK. Fixed.
  • "This included a microsite with games and story-themed digital content, and previews of the episode were posted on social media, including The Hub's pages on Twitter and Facebook." Isn't what you have on Twitter an "account" instead of "page"? For Facebook, "page" is correct though.
    • Fixed (assuming you also have an account on FaceBook)
True, but in this case it's a page.
  • "New York Daily News' David Hinckley compared" - shouldn't it be The New York Daily News'?
    • Revised
  • "VanDerWerff stated Twilight's anger at Shining Armor for not informing her about his wedding sooner is "a great example" of the way children, while working towards their futures as adults, cannot completely understand their elders' activities"." The quotation mark after "activities" is misplaced or incomplete but because it does not have a beginning or ending depending on what it is supposed to be.
    • Huh, I don't know how that got there. Fixed.
  • "He likened Chrysalis's retrogression to evil Disney queens and noted; "matriarchal.." - I think a colon or a comma is more suitable than the semi-colon after "noted".
    • I put that; hopefully, that fixes the issue.
  • "It was viewed by 475,000 people aged 2" -> "It was viewed by 475,000{{nbsp}}people aged{{nbsp}}2"
    • Done
  • "As of November 2013" - MOS:NBSP
    • Fixed

That's it. Nice work. FrB.TG (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, FrB.TG! I'be hopefully addressed them all. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any other issues. Pamzeis (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for addressing these. If possible, I would appreciate comments on my FAC although I totally understand if you don't have the time or interest.

Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Mike Christie - Pass

[edit]

I see above that Guerillero had concerns about the sources, and that you've responded by trimming some primary sources. The plot, which of course is taken from the primary source, is about a third of the article, so I immediately wonder if there's enough here for an article, or if perhaps this material should be included in the season article.

I'll go through the sources and list them here with any concerns. I'm using this version, just to be be clear what footnote numbering I'm using.

1. Primary source, just used to identify the character by name. Doesn't seem like there's any doubt about it; I think this is OK.
2. Same as above, for the same reason; OK.
3. Academic article by Fletcher. Looks fine; would you be able to email me a copy of this?

I... don't know how to email images, but here's a link to a PDF

4. A post on DeviantArt. This is pretty hard to validate. First you have to be able to show that this poster is Lauren Faust, then it has to be clear that this is the episode she's talking about, and if that's resolved this is no better than a blog post. I would cut this.

We can validate this (see above), but the comment she was replying to has been deleted, so I've removed it

5. An interview with Entertainment Weekly. Reliable; he only references it as "the aria" in season two. You presumably know he has to be referring to this, but I don't; can you cite something that demonstrates this?

Well, there's only one aria in season two, but no source discusses this so removed

6. Entertainment Weekly; this is reliable.
7 & 8. Begin's book on the art of the show. Used to source descriptions of the development of the character art; I think it's a reliable source for that.
9. Press release. Primary source; this is used twice. The first time is to cover the publicity campaign; I think the press release is only a marginal source for that. If another media outlet found the campaign worth mentioning, e.g. as a sign of the popularity of the show, then OK -- and in fact the second time you use this source you do have another source, and I think it's OK for that. I think you should consider cutting the first use of this.

Done

10. Entertainment Weekly coverage of the wedding announcement in the NYT. Reliable, and no problem at first use. The second use is to source "The New York Daily News' David Hinckley and Entertainment Weekly's Hillary Busis found the episodes ambitious, complex, captivating, and enjoyable, saying they would appeal to all audiences." Busis says the show is "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining" and Hinckley says "charming and surprisingly complex". I think "appeal to all audiences" is a bit of a stretch, though both sources imply the appeal goes beyond the original target audience. I think you should pull this back a little; I wouldn't name Busis or Hinckley inline, unless they're well-known journalists. How about "Review in the New York Daily News and Entertainment Weekly described the show as "charming and surprisingly complex", and "ambitious, absorbing, and thoroughly entertaining", which avoids paraphrasing issues and can't be accused of synthesis.

Done

11. Yahoo News. Reliable. OK for the bridle shower coverage, though I'd remove material from those two sentences that can only be sourced to the press release.
12. Daily News. Not a great source but this is a review so we're just sourcing the reviewer's opinion, and it's OK for that. OK for the uses you make of it, but see 14 below.
13. Commonsensemedia. Used for a review, which is no problem, but see 14 below.
14. The A.V. Club. Suggest linking also to his author page on avclub.com to explain the name change from Emily St. James, since you link to a WP article under his current name. I'm not expert on this site but I know it's treated as reliable by WP:ALBUMS, and looking through their old discussions it seems to get referenced by other reliable sources, which is a good sign. It's only used here as a source for a review, so I think this is OK. However, you use three reviews (12-14 in this list) to support the first three sentences of the "Themes" section. I think you could regard the A.V Club piece as sufficiently in-depth for this purpose, but the other two pieces are a bit flimsy to be used in this way. I would suggest dropping this paragraph of "Themes"; you might be able to move some material to the "Responses" section, though you already have some of the material there as well.

Moved

15. Fletcher again; as above, would like to see the article if possible, but no doubt it's a reliable source.
16. Valiente & Rasmussen. Reliable source; would like a copy if possible.

Here's a PDF link

17. Entertainment Weekly. Just used to source the statement that multiple outlets mentioned the William & Kate connection. No problem.
18. Press release. I would change the statements you use this for to say "claimed", since it's publicity material.

Added "according to"

19. A.V. Club. This is used to source "As of November 2013, it has drawn the most viewers of any program on The Hub"; the source says "The two-part “Canterlot Wedding” drew the most viewers of any Hub program". I don't think the source is inherently unreliable, but this is vague -- the most that week? The most ever to that date? Given that you have (claimed) numbers from the press release just before this, I think I would cut this.

Done

20. Entertainment Weekly, quoting a fansite founder about fandom's opinion; OK for how it's used.
21. & 22. SF Weekly; used for review coverage. OK.
23 & 24. Wired and the DVD distributor; the first is reliable and the second I think is OK given that all it sources is what's in the boxed set.

That's it for the sources. I'll add more comments once you've responded. I would also say that I think the plot should be trimmed -- it's over 600 words, and the rest of the body of the article is only about 1000 words, and that's before any cuts you might make as a result of my comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mike Christie. I've hopefully resolved your comments. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look good; this passes source review. I added a chapter page range for Fletcher but otherwise the formatting looks fine. I'll read through again and do a content review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content review from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Hasbro felt that Dart's design was not intimidating enough, so Dart reared the character upwards and made her more upright to appear more commanding": I've copyedited this a little from what you had, but I have a question -- what's the difference between rearing the character upwards and making her more upright? Could we combine these by saying "so Dart gave the character a more upright stance to make her appear more commanding"?
    • Done
  • The way you're using Fletcher's "retrogressive" comments doesn't jibe with my reading of that paragraph. I think his point is that evil queens are a Disney stereotype that is retrogressive because it makes a powerful female character the source of evil; and that Russ's assertion that sf often treats matriarchies as termite social structures is retrogressive because it makes female power hierarchies appear alien and unnatural; and that "A Canterlot Wedding" could be seen as retrogressive because these elements are both present. Fletcher then argues that the aria makes it clear the show is aware of the stereotype that women "can't have it all", but because the singer of the aria is evil the show also implicitly criticizes the idea that women can be powerful. (You're only citing p. 30 but this argument runs over into p. 31.)
    • Revised; let me know if it is sufficient
  • I think you need to define "alicorn" somewhere. I see that alicorn takes you to unicorn horn, so I would link directly to winged unicorn instead, or even put a gloss or footnote inline.
    • Linked

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with. I think this is now pretty close to FA quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Responded to your comments; sorry for the delay. Pamzeis (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The "Themes" section could probably be smoothed out a little more, but I think we're over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass

[edit]

Source for "It has also been praised by multiple reviewers and will show the reader how the fight was "colourful and fun" as well as Pinkie Pie's usage of Twilight as a gun so they are not left questioning what it was. "? Also File:William and Kate wedding.jpg is a pretty low quality image. ALT text is so-so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources; replaced William and Kate image (though there don't seem to be many high-quality images of their wedding). Can you specify what you mean by "so-so" for the ALT text (like, is it clunky or not descriptive enough or something)? I'm having a hard time figuring out what to fix... And which image(s)? Pamzeis (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"So-so" means that they are super long and seem to be describing the image's content rather than serving as a replacement of the image for those who can't see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: trimmed. I'm not sure if it is sufficient, though... Pamzeis (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better, I think. This passes on licence and use review, but if anyone else has objections to the ALT text they should be considered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "further cheering up Twilight." What has previously cheered Twilight?
    • Revised
  • "She meets a cold and distant Cadance, however, who has no memory of". Suggest deleting "however".
    • Done
  • "Twilight's friends dismiss her claims". What claims?
    • Elaborated
  • "and explains the apparent reasons for Cadance's behavior." Er, is there a reason why you don't tell us what these are?
    • Uh... no. Added
  • "implores Twilight and her friends to recover the Elements of Harmony to stop the Changelings. However, they are captured. As Chrysalis celebrates her victory, Twilight frees Cadance". "Twilight frees Cadance", but you have just said "Twilight and her friends ... are captured." So how can Twilight free anyone?
    • Revised
  • Link The Hub at first mention in the main article.
    • Done
  • What is "Flash animation"?
    • Linked

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild: Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun
  • And I continue to be amazed by the depth of our coverage on My Little Pony...
    • Well, if you're a brony you'd/you'll probably understand why... but a lot of the appeal of this show also comes from childhood nostalgia...
  • Why isn't Princess Cadance linked in the lead?
    • Why do people keep asking questions like "Why is this like that" or "Why isn't this like that"? Am I just meant to say "Oh, I dunno, I've done that now" if it's a silly mistake? In all seriousness though, since Shining Armour (nope, I'm not going to use the American spelling, because I don't want to) is linked and his link goes to the same place Cadance's does, so it's a duplink, right? And now I've unlinked Cadance in the body
  • "Unicorn Twilight Sparkle" → "The unicorn Twilight Sparkle"?
    • Done
  • Perhaps link Ponyville in the body at first mention?
    • Done
  • "during season one, and as consulting" → Comma unnecessary.
    • Fixed
  • "surprisingly complex", and "ambitious" → Comma unnecessary.
    • Fixed
  • Nice work on this, only found a couple very minor issues. AryKun (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nothing else to quibble about and a really nice article overall. AryKun (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated.
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 24 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2022 [93].

Operation Berlin (Atlantic)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers a successful raid into the North Atlantic by two German battleships between January and March 1941. It was everything the much better known raid attempted by the Bismarck was meant to be: the German ships ranged across the Atlantic, evaded powerful British forces that were searching for them, sank or captured 22 merchant vessels and returned to port unscathed. This victory proved short-lived, as the Germans failed to realise just how risky the operation had been and the British learned from their mistakes. All up, the article covers a pretty dramatic period of World War II and discusses some interesting issues regarding the tactics both sides were using.

I did most of the work to develop this article during a COVID lockdown last year. It was assessed as a GA in August, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in November. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited, and I'm hopeful the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this; it's well-written and well-constructed. A couple of minor points that don't detract from my support:

  • "Admiral Hipper departed Brest on 1 February to begin its raid into the North Atlantic." The last time Admiral Hipper was mentioned the plan was to attack convoy routes between Gibraltar, Sierra Leone, and the UK, so apparently the plan changed?
  • "Ships of the Home Fleet were sortied again in response to the presence of German raiders in the Atlantic." Does this refer to Scharnhorst and Gneisenau? If so I think we should say so.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Works consulted should be in alphabetical order.
  • "It was the last victory achieved by German warships in the Atlantic". Probably I wasn't looking hard enough, but could you indicate where this is covered in the main text?
    • The 'Subsequent operations' section, which describes the failure of the only other two subsequent operations: the Bismark's attempted raid and the aborted raid by the Lützow. I've tweaked the text to note it was the last victory against merchant shipping in the North Atlantic, as there were some successful operations against warships and convoys in the Channel and the waters off France involving smaller vessels. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am no doubt being unaccountably slow, but could you quote the main article text which you summarise in the main text as "It was the last victory achieved by German warships against merchant shipping in the North Atlantic"?
The second para of the 'Subsequent operations' section describes the failure of the last two such operations, and the end of them. I've added a sentence to make this more explicit, and tweaked the text a bit. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's technically grammatical and means what you want it to. I am not wild about using a relatively obscure expression when a more common one is available, but it is a style choice, which is why I ended with a question mark.
  • In Assessments you say "Operation Berlin was a considerable victory for the Germans". Yet in Historiography two of the four historians you mention disagree with this and the other two are at best equivocal. I am left confused as to what the consensus of scholarly opinion is in this respect.
    • I've removed 'considerable victory', as it probably was WP:PEACOCK in this context, albeit supported by the source. The historians generally agree that the raid was a significant tactical success (the battleships sank lots of ships and escaped without a scratch), but that it contributed little to the overall German war effort as the underlying concept was a bad, especially by this stage of the war. Roskill squares the circle quite well: he admires how the Germans pulled the operation off, but notes that they got lucky and it's not surprising that the attempt to repeat the operation a few months later ended in failure. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.

This trivia is all I can find. An excellent article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun to read and almost nothing to pick up on - my pleasure. One minor query left. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

[edit]

(Placeholder) SN54129 17:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay, Nick-D; just wasted half my afternoon having to refute non-ANIable low-level disruption that nonetheless I have to devote a massive screed to...anyway. SN54129 17:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my suggestions are those of the non-subject expert WP:READER  :) SN54129 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems odd, perhaps, not to mention the names of these mysterious "two German Scharnhorst-class battleships" in the lead, particularly as you do name Bismark?
  • Can I ask what the difference is between "German surface raiders" and the German navy? (Ah, does it include the Luftwaffe too?)
  • "one of the convoys" -- only one?
    • Yep - see the 'First attempt' section. The source doesn't explain why, but the battleships would have been low on ammunition and faced some very angry British warships if they had shot up one of these large convoys. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a view shared by historians" -- perhaps "generally shared"; the historiography section suggests that there's a fair degree of criticism also.
  • "in February 1942" -- in February the following year might add a couple of words, but would avoid repeating month/year.
  • "The Scharnhorst-class battleships were capable of sailing for 9,020 miles...This meant that they needed to regularly refuel from supply ships during long voyages" -- This reads slightly funny to me. It seems instinctive that, if you can sail a massive amount of mileage (as it sounds like), then you have excellent fuel capacity, and by extension, wouldn't need regular resupplying. But if they did, I suggest the addition of some form of words such as "since this was only a small proportion of the distance they were expected to cover" or something.
    • Tweaked. The sources are a bit vague about the reason here, but all agree that the range was too short for the ships' intended raiding function. The reason was likely that the ships would have used up their fuel much faster if they entered combat and had to sail at top speed, and they needed a healthy reserve of fuel at all times (this was one of the reasons for Bismark's sinking, as she had to take a shortcut to France after being damaged in battle, which made it easier for the British to intercept her). Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the resultant extensive damage" -- any details as to what the nature of the dame was? (being so extensive.)
  • Link Ultra
  • "Six German merchant raiders also operated against Allied shipping in the South Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans" -- Does rather sound as if the Germans had six merchantmen covering over a hundred million square miles of ocean  :)
  • "The goal for this operation was for" -- could get by with "Their goal was", eliminating repetition of "operation".
  • "Lütjens embarked on the later ship" -- latter ship? (Also, he didn't just embark, he sailed on/travelled on/commanded the operation from... perhaps swap out "embark").
  • "to the north-east to evade the British" -- to/to. Can the sentence be tightened? "The battle group evaded the British by turning northeast into the", or something?
  • Perhaps mention earlier that the ship Lütjens sailed on was his flagship.
  • (Not actionable at all, but out of curiosity, do you know how a storm damaged Scharnhorst's gun turrets?!)
  • Do we know the nature of the ships' serious mechanical problems?
  • "During this period, Admiral Hipper departed Brest on 15 March" -- Meanwhile, Admiral Hipper had departed.
  • "Raeder acknowledged his error after the war" -- saying what?
    Thanks for this Nick-D; a really interesting article. Just a few nitpicks here. Cheers! SN54129 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for these comments. I think I may now have addressed them. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed you have, Nick-D, and I especially appreciate the detailed background you gave here. Cheers! SN54129 16:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 20:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 February 2022 [94].

Apollo 17

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the final, at least until now, crewed mission to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to join Wehwalt in the nomination. Look forward to your review and comment. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

Oh wow. We're up to Apollo 17. Guess that coverts all the Apollo missions. Comments:

  • "James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9" Suggest "commanded Apollo 9"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Apollo 11 crew had had one" Suggest "had only one"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest mentioning that Overmyer, Fullerton and Parker were from NASA Astronaut Group 7? (I would source from Compton, Where NO Man Has Gone Before, p. 377 instead)
    Have updated the source; thanks for that. However, Parker was in Group 6. I took your suggestion to imply the Group 7 commonality as something worth mentioning, so I've left that be for now. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest stating that the 1969 US election was in November 1972.
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would source this from Logsdon, After Apollo?: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program. Haven't got the book here, but I will get the page number when I return; it would benefit the reader looking it up because there is a good discussion of this there, and how the Apollo 13 failure spooked Nixon.
    I actually don't have a copy of this one on my shelf (though it looks to be an interesting read), so will defer to Wehwalt/you on completing the discussion and referencing it properly. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to download a copy. What are you suggesting should be sourced to it, Hawkeye7?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it's the Nixon thing. I've added more on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right - I just thought it would be a more useful source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Preparation subsection uses abbreviations that have not yet been defined. Suggest moving this subsection down to the bottom of the "Spacecraft and launch vehicle" subsection where they are.
    Would like to give a bit of thought as to how to rearrange; it's a good suggestion, but some of the other non-equipment related discussion (e.g. timing re: the '72 election) should probably go elsewhere if the subsection moves down. Putting a pin in this one for now. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I have moved the bit on the spacecraft and launch vehicle prep and assembly down to the "Spacecraft and launch vehicle" subsection as you suggest. Have also moved the bit about scheduling above to the renamed "Scheduling and landing site selection" and have added just a bit of context there to help with flow. I trust this addresses the comment, but certainly happy to consider any follow-up. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is a subheading for orbital science, suggest creating one for lunar surface science too, with the ALSEP and "other lunar science" subsections under it.
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why footnote 72 needs to repeat the id number? Or why the book is not in the bibliography?
    Have cleaned up the citation and moved to the bibliography. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 116 is bung
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NASA navbox doesn't list Apollo 17, so suggest dropping it.
    Flipping through the various other Apollo articles, I found that it was included in all that I had clicked on (five or six others), so I am inclined to leave simply for consistency within the series, but I certainly don't feel strongly about it either way. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll work on this tomorrow unless Tyrol5 gets there first. FYI, Apollo 6 is awaiting a FAC slot and Apollo 1 and 10, I haven't had time for yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me as well. Had some downtime in between commitments this evening, so have addressed many of the points above. Would like to mull over point 6 on organization. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could note that the prime and backup crew assignments were officially announced on 13 August 1971. [96] (The replacement of the backup crew was announced on 23 May 1972 [97]) I think this would give the reader a better idea of the timeframe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slayton ultimately chose Cernan and Evans. This passes quietly over the fact that Schmitt was not the only controversial crew member; the selection of Cernan raised eyebrows because he had flown a helicopter into the Indian River. (see the 18 October entry in the above link) There is an account of this in Kraft, Flight: My Life in Mission Control, pp. 346-348 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good spots. Both of your suggestions above have been incorporated. Thanks again for your input, as well as for your support. Very much appreciate both. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 03:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One strange anomaly. The References say Chaikin was published in 1995, but you override this to create a reference to Chaikin 1998. (My own copy is the 1994 Viking edition.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. It is 1995. I'll change that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
I've shortened the infobox somewhat.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

Will try to take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Short description: "6th and final Apollo space" — I'd suggest not starting a sentence with a number. Better would be 'Sixth'
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:SMALL, small text should really be avoided in infobox.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the length of the article, the lead can have four paragraphs.
Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several crewed spaceflight records" — suggesting to pipe 'spaceflight' inside the link
done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "110.52 kilograms or 243.7 lb" — upto you, though I'd prefer either keeping both the unites in abbreviations, or both in full forms.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during an EVA of any type" — what is EVA? Extravehicular activity?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • kg is converted to lbs, but km is not converted to miles
That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'EST', 'LRV', and 'CSM' are never used again in the lead. Do we need to define abbreviations?
I see no harm in familiarizing the reader with shorthand that will be used later in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "NASA saved the time, money and effort" — oxford comma after 'money'?
No. I prefer not to use it and I think we're consistent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the flag of the United States" v. "of the U.S. flag" — consistency needed
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it would have no effect on President Nixon's re-election campaign" — I'd mention his first name, Richard, as well.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have both "as on Apollo 15 and 16" and "Apollo 15 and Apollo 16"; suggesting to be consistent whether we need to repeat 'Apollo'
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and they didn’t object." — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "confirm Einstein's" — I don't expect there would be anyone who doesn't know him; still, I'll suggest adding his first name, Albert
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximately two meters (6.6 feet)" — better write '2'
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These flashes, described as "streaks" or "specks" of light," — described by whom?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Apollo 14, 15 and 16, the " — oxford comma missing, I think
See above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Approximately 500,000 people were estimated" — well, here, do we need both 'Approximately' and 'estimated'?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, the "Mission events" section is very interesting!
  • Not doing a complete source review, but just few formatting issues:
    • When Sfns are used almost throughout the article, why is Ref#104 ([98]) using {{Rp}}?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Few ISBNs need to be hyphenated. Can use this tool.
Those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref#119: "p. 10-37" — should be pp. and en-dash
    • Ref#123: "p. 10-38" — same as above
    • Ref#75: "pp. 26-1–26-14." — I don't understand which page numbers are cited
    • Ref#118: "pp. 10-34–10-38" — Mixture of hyphen and en-dashes
For the above four, this is NASA pagination, where there are double barreled page numbers (in the Mission Reports, most prominently). The pages in Section 1 start 1-1, 1-2, etc, then when you turn to section 2, it's 2-1, 2-2, and so on. As far as I can tell, we are consistent here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely optional, though I thing that "New York, New York" should really be "New York City, New York" —
Generally, I've rendered it "New York, New York", many times (and I was born there). I'm inclined to leave it that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, I absolutely trust your judgement! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotten the majority. I'll be back for the remainder probably tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good! Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that if you amend an existing u template, it doesn't work right, so just in case, Kavyansh.Singh--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, I just did general review, as I mentioned, Not doing a complete source review, but just few formatting issues. I'd appreciate if someone else can take a separate look just on sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks for the clarification. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Usernameunique

[edit]

Comments to follow. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "after the only launch-pad delay in the Apollo program" — The body qualifies this claim ("caused by a hardware issue").
Good point. Adjusted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mission broke several records for crewed spaceflight, including the longest crewed lunar landing mission (12 days 14 hours), ... longest total lunar surface extravehicular activities (22 hours 4 minutes), largest lunar sample return (approximately 115 kg or 254 lb), longest time in lunar orbit (6 days 4 hours), and most lunar orbits (75)." — Are these claims in the body of the article?
No, thus they are sourced in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Got that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

  • LMP and CMP are unexplained.
  • Where did the "one-sentence job description" come from (e.g., was it NASA'a official description of the job)?

Mission insignia and call signs

  • CM? LM?
  • Who was McCall?
McCall was an artist, who was noted for his work on space imagery. I've added he was an artist. I'm reluctant to do too much of an aside here. The other ones above are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling and landing site selection

  • "a Soviet spacecraft could easily access the site" — Why would it be easy for one to do so? And why was that a problem?
    The concern was that if a Soviet spacecraft could easily access and retrieve samples from the area, an Apollo mission there might inefficiently duplicate efforts. I've added a bit of clarification, though neither the source nor the meeting minutes from the selection board itself are explicit, so I think we may be somewhat limited in what can be said there. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link first instance of Taurus–Littrow in the body. Also, looks like it takes an en dash, not a hyphen.
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the Apollo Site Selection Board?
    Have added bit of a description, and have added a cite to the minutes from the final meeting. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Training

Spacecraft and launch vehicle

Preparation and assembly

  • Has "SM" been introduced?
    Introduced here. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KSC?
    Kennedy Space Center. Have eliminated the abbreviation as suggested below. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does it mean for radar to lock up?
    It's a radar malfunction. Rather than adding more technical detail here, have just referred to it as such. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent (and out-of-order) abbreviation for Lunar Roving Vehicle.
    Introduced abbreviation at first use. I think it's helpful to the reader to re-introduce the Lunar Roving Vehicle in the "Other lunar surface science" section, where it is discussed in greater detail, but I don't feel strongly about it. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, there are a whole lot of acronyms, and I'm not sure that all of them are helpful. For example, VAB is used only twice after it's introduced. Why not spell it out the second time, and just say "in the building" the third time? KSC, too, is used only twice—why not just call it "Kennedy"? There are also other acronyms that probably aren't needed.
    Have eliminated VAB and KSC as you suggest. A number of these acronyms refer to the full names of lunar surface or orbital experiments/scientific packages, which would be quite cumbersome to type out (and read) again, even with just one or two uses. Would want to avoid using informal shorthand to refer to them as well, as I think it would become unclear as to what is being referred to (as opposed to having a previously defined abbreviation). Will take another pass-through, though. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar surface science

  • "All powered ALSEP experiments that remained active were deactivated on September 30, 1977" — Kind of odd to start the section by saying how it ended. I might be inclined to drop it into a footnote.
I moved it to the end of the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heat Flow Experiment, or Heat-Flow Experiment?
I'm not finding this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you're getting at. NASA generally did not hyphenate compound adjectives in naming its gear.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of, it's another acronym that's used only twice.
Since it defies a one-word descriptor, I think it's worth keeping as is. The use of the acronym is in a short area of the text, it's not like we mention it again after a lengthy gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of acronyms that are barely used, this section alone has LSG (used once), LACE (twice), LSPE (once), and LEME (once). There are better ways of doing it—for instance, the LSG can just be called the "gravimeter".
I've called that a "lunar gravimeter", which takes care of the LSG. On LACE, I'm not able to think of a shorthand description that suits. I could call the "LSPE" a "seismic device" but that would clash with the word "seismic" a few words after. On the LEME, I could, I suppose, call it a "dust detector" but there was a different dust detector that flew on earlier missions, so I'd rather not. Open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar Surface Gravimeter, or Lunar-Surface Gravimeter?
See above comment re compound adjectives.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the equipment was to be left on the moon, how come the Heat Flow Experiment had been flown multiple times? Multiple copies of the same instrument?
I think from the mentioned fact that the Apollo 15 one had been emplaced, it's clear it's another device of the same type.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The LEME had a set of detectors to measure the characteristics of the dust particles it sought." — Kinda redundant. What about giving a sense of its results, as you do in this paragraph for the other instruments?
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other lunar surface science

  • Other lunar-surface science?
Are you saying that there should be a hyphen? I'm pretty indifferent on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Surface Electrical Properties" — twice given an acronym, which is used only once. Also, inconsistent capitalization. Also, why is an "E" for "Experiment" included in TGE, but the Surface Electrical Properties experiment is SEP instead of SEPE (and for similar reasons, why isn't "Experiment" capitalized")?
We are using the official NASA names and acronyms (they were very big on acronyms). It was the SEP. We add "experiment" for the sake of the text. I'll look at the acronym use later on today.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the inconsistency. Again, I feel it would be difficult to find a synonym for the acronym that would be intuitive to the reader, given we refer to the unit a couple of times over the course of the subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biological cosmic ray experiment

  • Biological cosmic-ray experiment?
  • Was "BIOCORE" the actual name of the experiment?
The acronym. BIOlogical COsmic Ray Experiment. That's NASA for you!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who died: Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum, or Phooey?
Good question. The one who died was the third in numerical sequence, so presumably it was Fo. That being said, I don't have a source that says that the astronauts knew each mouse by an individual name, or whether that was how they referred to them as a group.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific instrument module

  • Scientific-instrument module?
  • "that has been reflected" or "that had been reflected"?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Light-flash phenomenon and other experiments

  • "one astronaut" — Which one?
Evans, at least on the outward passage. Is it worth mentioning?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just "Evans wore" rather than "one astronaut wore"? It's shorter and more precise. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did the experiment work? Did the astronaut record when he saw light flashes, and they then looked to see if this corresponded to the passage of cosmic rays?
One wore a device over his eyes used to measure cosmic rays while the other two wore eyeshades. I did not think it was worth the space to get into the nuts and bolts of this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evidence supports the hypothesis" — What evidence? Evidence taken from the Apollo 16/17 experiment?
See below.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This might just be lack of sleep talking, but do the two sentences about lunar gravity have anything to do with the rest of this subsection?
This section is something of a catch-all, to encompass experiments that don't fit into the other categories. That experiment was one of the ones that was in the CM.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "to map this phenomenon", is "this phenomenon" the light-flash phenomenon?
Not, the MASCONs.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any results from this experiment?
The entire conclusion was "In summary, available results are consistent with expectations based upon geometrical considerations and upon the Monte Carlo calculations. First, evidence shows that, at least in part, the flashes seen by astronauts are correlated with charged particles traversing the retina. Further, since the flux of these particles is sufficient to explain the entire phenomenon, it is likely that all of the flashes originate in this manner. From our sample of two coincidences, we find no contradiction with the ability of the observer to discern in which eye the event occurred. Finally, the ALFMED technique has been demonstrated to be effective as a procedure for study of the light flash phenomenon.". That's what we got.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Launch and outbound trip

  • "This pause was the only launch delay in the Apollo program caused by this type of hardware failure" — Three issues here. First, whatever type of hardware failure it was hasn't been described. Second, previously it was said to be "a minor technical error", which doesn't sound like a "hardware failure". Third, is it really that surprising that this pause was the only Apollo launch delay caused by this type of error? It's not like the Apollo program had hundreds of launches, where you might expect to see repetition in errors.
    Have clarified this. The "hardware failure" is meant to refer to the sequencer cutoff, so have added a bit of description. Have also brought the descriptions into better alignment with the way the source describes it and have clarified that this was the only hardware failure-caused delay of the Apollo program, rather than on account of just this particular type of error. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is 1:31 a.m. when it launched?
    No; the launch time was 12:33 am, as specified in the penultimate sentence. The launch window closed at 1:31 am. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a rest period" — How long?
    It was a sleep period until the next flight day, so I have revised it to say as much. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scientific instrument module" — Defined above, defined below, yet spelled out here. Should be defined only once, and not spelled out after.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar landing

  • "Approximately ten minutes after the ignition of the DPS engine and the initiation of the powered descent that would land the astronauts on the lunar surface" — Could this not be just "Approximately ten minutes later, ..."?
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar surface

Split.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parker jokingly dubbed him that NASA's switchboard had lit up seeking Schmitt's services for Houston's ballet group" — I think you mean something other than "dubbed" here.
Fixed.
  • "in history to-date" — as of 2022? If so, {{as of}} can be used.
"As of", as I understand it, is to be used to ensure a future update. There is no question the Apollo 17 article will be updated if the Artemis or other lunar program advances, and I don't think a reminder is necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to award them honorary lifetime membership" — Upon their return?
The source isn't clear on when the president of the auto body union did this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solo activities

  • "having been assigned" — This implies that the reason he remained in orbit was that he was assigned observational and scientific tasks to do, when I'm sure it was the other way around.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath and spacecraft locations

Wehwalt & Tyrol5, finally finished up. Left comments on the lead and infobox, and a few follow-up responses. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Missed this. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swift doesn't seem to be a space specialist certainly, but he's published several books and we're citing him for matters of fact which he covers and could if necessary be covered by NASA sites, which we're trying to cut back on. And judging by the Amazon page, his book got favorable reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That site was discussed here and the consensus appears to be that it is reliable and high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does "Extravehicular Activity". NASA. Retrieved January 6, 2022." have NASA in italics and the other NASA sites don't?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the short footnotes it's "Press Kit" but in the Bibliography it's "Apollo 17 Press Kit". Same for "Mission Report"/"Apollo 17 Mission Report" and "Preliminary Science Report/Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report".
Since these are short footnotes, and we don't cite from the other missions' materials, I don't think there's a risk of confusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yeah, but it's inconsistent and I'm not sure why fixing it is that big a deal that it's not going to be done. It looks ... unprofessional that we can't synch these up properly.
Just to be sure I understand, you think we should put "Apollo 17" before each of them? Just want to know before I do the work of doing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either put "Apollo 17" in front or change the bibliograpical entry to plain "Press Kit" - we should match what the source says for the document. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to be consistent and link all the "Lunar and Planetary Institute" short footnotes - some are, but some aren't. And is the LPI part of NASA?
I've standardized them. They are not part of NASA although there is a close affiliation.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so ... at a rough guess, at least half the sources in this article are primary sources from NASA - not just lacking independence, but from the time of the mission. This brings up issues of not just using primary sources, but undue issues - if we're not basing our coverage on what the independent secondary sources cover, we're not following WP policies. We're verging into doing the job of historians, rather than being encyclopedia editors. Yes, we are allowed to use some primary sources, but when the sourcing for an article is over half to primary sources, then perhaps we have a problem. I'm not quite to opposing this but ... it's troubling.
I remember you made a similar point regarding the Apollo 12 FAC. Most of these are hybrid primary/secondary sources and we've avoided using too much of the ones that most resemble pure primary sources, the transcripts and the like. A number of the references to nasa.org are from far later materials, the Phinney book and similar, but probably the bulk are the descriptions of the equipment and experiments carried by the mission. Those are what they are. --Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did. And I'm making it again now. And it's worse here... I don't think making an effort to cut down on the use would be bad - because yes, we shouldn't be covering data/information that isn't considered important by independent secondary sources - we need to get away from the idea that we should do the historian's job, and instead stick to the encyclopedia editor's job. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see what Tyrol5 can add.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly understand the concern in principle. I have made a pass through, moving away from NASA sources in a few places, where practical. It seems to me the bulk of the references to the sources in discussion are (1) clear primary sources (e.g. Press Kit, NASA data pages) in support of factual information about mission hardware, timelines, and experiments and (2) references to the Apollo Lunar Surface journal in support of particular details about events touched upon in secondary sources (Chaikin etc.) and key mission events whose centrality to the mission I think is not in dispute (geological traverses etc.).
In the case of (1), I don't think we (Wikipedia) are quite interpreting or providing historical analysis of or commentary on the primary sources we do cite, which are the most definitive and complete source of such factual information (as Wehwalt notes), and the details they support (hardware, experiments, etc.) are I think self-evidently important to this J-type mission whose focus was on surface and orbital scientific objectives. Coverage of the mission would be incomplete without such information. In addition, while the Preliminary Science Report was assembled and published by NASA, it is actually a collection of individual research papers, some authored by NASA scientists and others by university-affiliated academics, interpreting and summarizing the scientific findings of the expedition. In this sense, the Prelim. Science Report is a unique source functionally more akin to a secondary one.
In the case of (2), I view ALSJ as functionally a secondary source, and a hybrid one at worst. It is non-exclusively licensed to the U.S. government (where it is hosted online by NASA) and edited independently by Eric Jones and Ken Glover, who provide interpretation and commentary throughout based on interviews, research and their review of primary sources. While I can appreciate the concern, and have gone through to take a closer look at a few of the sources in view of the encyclopedic principles Ealdgyth quite correctly outlines (and will certainly continue to do so in the spirit of continuous improvement), I think the sources currently cited are encyclopedically appropriate in context. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with primary sources doesn't just lie in interpretation - but in weight. We should be summarizing what the secondary sources find worthy of mentioning. If no secondary sources cover this information - it really begins to be an undue weight issue. If the only place that considers some detail is the primary source - it probably isn't encyclopedic to mention it and it's verging into OR territory to cover it in a tertiary source such as wikipedia. Secondary sources protect us from undue weight problems by making that selection for us. A bit of usage of primary sources is not going to make too problems but ... this article heavily relies on the primary sources ... that's a problem. And I'm concerned enough that I think I am leaning towards opposing unless I can see that OR isn't taking place in what is being reported in the article. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example: "The launch vehicle was a Saturn V, SA-512, the twelfth Saturn V to fly, and the tenth taking astronauts to orbit. It was similar to the earlier ones that had flown on every mission since Apollo 8." which is sourced to the Apollo 17 Press Kit. If no secondary source chooses to comment on the fact that the launch vehicle was similar to all the ones before, by including this information, research is being done - it's pulling a fact out of the primary source and making it part of the information stream. It's also interpreting page 93 - which does not mention "twelfth Saturn V to fly" or that it was the "tenth taking astronauts to orbit". Or "Sector one of the Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay. The SIM bay housed three experiments for use in lunar orbit: a lunar sounder, an infrared scanning radiometer, and a far-ultraviolet spectrometer. A mapping camera, panoramic camera, and a laser altimeter were also included in the SIM bay." is sourced to page 56 of the press kit. Again, we're highlighting things that may not have been felt worthy of being noticed by actual historians of the spaceflight. There is a LOT of detail in the article that is chosen by the editors of this article, not by secondary sources. Is it too much detail? Too little? We rely on the secondary sources to help guide our coverage but when so much of the article is sourced to primary sources, it's hard to tell if the article correctly summarizes the secondary literature. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely some of the press kit material can be sourced to Orloff & Harland. I'll work on it tomorrow. Historians of the program may mention things like you've mentioned, but they may mention it in more detail for Apollo 15, the first J mission, and by the time you get to Apollo 17, they're focusing on other things. It's a series of judgment calls. And I'll defend the use of things like the press kit. It's no trouble at all to source the items carried in the ALSEP to secondary sources, but they may list them and not explain exactly what they are for. To explain to the reader what they are, we go to the source that was designed exactly for that, the press kit. It's what it was designed for, and it's hard to see that it is a poor use of a primary source.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orloff '04 covers much of the statistical and technical information as well. I've made a few tweaks to the text and the sourcing within "Mission hardware and experiments", but I am generally in alignment with Wehwalt's view. Nonetheless, I'll certainly plan to also have another pass through in the next day or so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 03:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... Here's another issue with using the press kit: "Measurements were taken while the TGE was mounted on the LRV, and also while the device was placed on the lunar surface." is sourced to the press kit. The press kit was released BEFORE the mission launched, but here the article says that "measurements WERE taken" ... saying what happened in the mission but sourcing it to something that came out before the mission launched. We have this issue again with "It measured the quantity of neutron flux found in the top 2 m (6.6 ft) of the lunar surface." and "Placed during the first EVA, it was retrieved during the third and final EVA. The astronauts brought it with them back to Earth, and the measurements from it were compared with the evidence of neutron flux in the core that had been removed from the hole it had been placed in." "In addition, as on Apollo 14, 15 and 16, the S-band transponders in the CSM and LM were pointed at the Moon to gain data on its gravitational field. Results from the Lunar Orbiter probes had revealed that lunar gravity varies slightly due to the presence of mass concentrations, or "mascons". Data from the missions, and from the lunar subsatellites left by Apollo 15 and 16, were used to map this phenomenon." and "The launch window, which had begun at the originally-planned launch time of 9:53 pm on December 6, remained open until 1:31 am; " etc.

Oh, and I missed https://www.drewexmachina.com/blog/ - what makes this a high quality RS?

According to the author's resume, here, he is a "freelance writer specializing in astronomy, astrobiology and the history of spaceflight with over 500 contributions to books, websites and print magazines including Scientific American and Sky & Telescope Also maintains the Drew Ex Machina website which regularly posts articles on various space-related topics with over 130,000 unique visitors annually." I would tend to say that makes him per WP:BLOG a "well-known professional researcher writing within their field", especially in view of his scientific credentials.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a word count - I exported the article as a pdf, highlighted those parts only sourced to NASA sources, and then counted the words that were highlighted. Approximately 3181 words of the approximately 9324 words of the article are only sourced to NASA sources. That's ... waaaaayyyy more than we should be using such sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the predictive nature of the press kit (the launch windows were set things and would not change). Regarding the word count, I think much less than that is sourced to primary sources of the Apollo era, and those mostly describes such things as the nature of equipment. As you've suggested, we've cut back a good deal on their use. There should be no objection to later matters from sites sponsored by NASA. Tyrol5 points out the independent, reliable nature of such works as the Lunar Surface Journal. Some portion of what you cite is attributable to the use of the books which are hosted on the NASA site (Phinney's, largely), and I don't think the use of these should be held against the article. NASA published the work, but the author was a former NASA employee, not a current one. In general, the later sites are setting out facts, and NASA has no vested interest in spinning Apollo, which for good or ill is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When counting, I did not count as "NASA" anything that was double cited to a NASA source AND another independent source. I purely counted things that had only a NASA source given for the information. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. But part of the field of secondary sources we're using are either NASA sites, was sponsored by NASA's History Division, or has been acquired by NASA after original publication so that it can be released into the public domain, the ALSJ and a number of books. Those inevitably have nasa urls associated with them. I don't think we're using them inappropriately.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to about 2468 words exclusively from NASA sources, but I'm still concerned about this. I think we're getting into problem territory - we're getting into too much detail sometimes and the intricate detail is sourced to primary or non-independent sources, so it's causing not only some issues with use of primary sources but also undue weight. At this point, I'm going to opppose based on the problems just of undue weight and primary sources and non-independent sources. Besides the use of NASA primary sources, there's a lot in here sourced to contemporay newspaper accounts and to websites that I'm not convinced are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up. In general, I must register disagreement with the suggestion that there is undue weight given, as my sense is that much of the primary sources correspond to text which colors items otherwise discussed more broadly in the secondary sources. I think we also disagree on interpretation of UNDUE in this context; to me, the principle driving that aspect of policy is the desire to avoid misleading the reader. In this particular case, I could hardly consider the provision of additional—non-editorial, matter-of-fact—detail to help further the reader's understanding of the subject as encountering that threshold. To describe it as an UNDUE concern strikes me as a somewhat formulaic application of a policy that is, in my view, aimed more towards balancing conflicting viewpoints so as not to mislead the reader. I am sure we disagree on that point of subjective interpretation so, more productively, do you have a breakdown by section from the analysis you're looking at? I think we are diverging on what we are considering primary versus secondary sources (e.g. ALSJ, etc.) in addition, as you've not really said what you are considering as such. The only contemporary newspaper account that I'm seeing is The Toledo Blade, to which the text about the replacement of the backup crew is cited (together with two secondary sources). With clarification on the section-by-section and sources points, I think we can look towards tackling concerns in a more targeted manner. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 14:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to thank you for the review. I also must register my disagreement, for similar reasons. The NASA cites are about things that there are not likely to be disagreements. A gravimeter is a gravimeter is a gravimeter, and as inexorable as the law of gravity is its function, and a NASA-related source is not likely to describe it differently from a source thirty years after the fact in a book from a New York publisher, except that the NASA source is more likely to be accurate. I would also like to see specifics, the sort of thing that might be subject to bias if in a NASA-related publication, in each section, as suggested by Tyrol5.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to ping the other substantive reviewers (excluding the image review), Balon Greyjoy, Hawkeye7, Usernameunique, and Kavyansh.Singh to see if they have thoughts on this matter. It might also be worth pinging those who have performed source reviews on the other Apollo FAs, but I dislike pinging too many people at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose easily, it's not something I like doing. But, it is an undue issue. Wikipedia covers what is in the secondary sources. We summarize those secondary sources. The Apollo 17 Press Kit, which is dated November 26, 1972, or the Apollo 17 Mission Report, which is dated March 1973, are primary sources. They are what the secondary sources use to write their accounts. When we use them so extensively (And my count did NOT count when these two sources are used as "backup sources", only when they are the ONLY source for the information), we are not doing what we're supposed to be doing. Instead, we're doing the historian's job. As for undue weight - consider this bit in the article (and this is just one example) - "The instruments in the SIM bay functioned without significant hindrance during the orbital portion of the mission, though the two antennas of the lunar sounder as well as the mapping camera encountered minor issues. The indicator on the instrument panel for the extension of one of the sounder's antennas was not functional and the second antenna suffered an apparent stall during its extension. Despite these technical difficulties, both antennas were deployed fully and the sounder achieved its planned observational purpose. Similarly, the extension and retraction of the mapping camera took longer than planned (about four minutes, longer than the nominal two) and, though deployment and retraction was not otherwise hindered, the use of this piece of equipment was reduced to avoid exhausting it by overuse." this is sourced to pages 10-32 of the mission report. Does it not strike anyone that this is entirely TOO much detail about a camera in an encyclopedia article? This is why we rely on the secondary sources - they will help us avoid getting lost in the weeds. I'm afraid there's a whole LOT of this excessive detail throughout. And that leaves aside the problems of the use of some other sources (https://news2.rice.edu/2012/09/13/a-legendary-tale-well-told/ or http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/spacecraft/apollo17/timeline.html) where we're not sure where they got the information or places where information isn't quite supported (such as "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to photograph and plans to visit the landing site, where some of the mission hardware, such as the LM's descent stage and the LRV, remains. In 2009 and again in 2011, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the landing site from increasingly low orbits" is sourced to https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html ... but the "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to ... and plans to visit the landing site" is not supported on that page that I can see. (As an aside, the other contemporary news reports is from the New York Times). I've given some examples, but they run throughout all the information and sourcing.
To make it clear - it's not that I think there is BIAS in the undue concerns, it's that by using primary sources, the article suffers from too much detail. We use secondary sources to help determine what should be covered. And to help us from getting lost into the weeds of too much detail. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is about "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text," from WP:UNDUE. That's my concern, not necessarily some sort of political/etc bias. On the primary - see WP:PRIMARY, where we're enjoined to "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Ealdgyth (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. The text you cite from the WP:UNDUE page is the first sentence of the second paragraph; it contextualizes what was stated in the first paragraph, which identifies the underlying principle behind the policy—in particular, the avoidance of undue weight given to contrary viewpoints. This, to me, is what "undue weight" refers to, and that sentence you cite identifies ways in which it may arise. Secondly, as to your reference to WP:PRIMARY, we are not citing the entire article to primary sources, and I would certainly take issue with the suggestion that such sources have not been used with caution (though I am interested in the views of the other reviewers as well). You've also not provided breakdown of what you are counting by section, which I think would be helpful (my apologies if you are working on this already) to ensure we are on the same page, nor whether you are considering such sources as ALSJ to be primary. As an aside, with respect to the page numbers in the mission report, "10-32" is one page, in Section 10, page 32, rather than a cite to 22 pages of the report. A finicky way to number, to be sure. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 15:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to "Since Apollo 17's return, there have been attempts to ... and plans to visit the landing site", this is meant to refer to the PTScientists' plans to send a robotic spacecraft to the landing site. I will rework this a bit to clarify to what it refers. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 16:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning on doing a PR here in the FAC, so I don't have plans to breakdown my count by section. I did not count the ALSJ - just the Timeline from the NASA history division (which is minimal), plus the Press Kit, the Mission Report, and the Preliminary Science report (which, again, is minimal). 2000+ words cited to mainly the press kit and the mission report is a hefty chunk of the article, and yes, I do consider that excessive use of primary sourcing. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Preliminary Science Report is a secondary source and should be acceptable. We will work to minimize use of the Press Kit and the Mission Report, though. I trust that if we did that sufficiently, it would satisfy your concerns?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the ping, and having taken a detailed look at the discussion above and the article's sources, I think the sources look fine, and I appreciate the fact that the editors took the time to balance the details that could be sussed out of NASA's own publications with the desire to not go overboard. In addition, I think the source review struggles to identify concrete issues with the sources, and does not engage with valid points raised by the editors in response.

There's a lot to unpack in the oppose, not least because it seems to have started with one reason, pivoted to another, and then shifted to a third. The first reason offered was that many of the sources are "lacking independence", and that there are "undue issues". Three comments later, and the review claimed, for the first time, that the article has "a LOT of detail". And then the review turned to the idea that "I'm not convinced [the sources] are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using"—which was not just a new critique but also an improper one, because the relevant standard asks for high-quality sources, not the highest-quality sources.

With that said, the source review seems to have coalesced around the idea that there are too many details, a claim which rests primarily on the article's use of NASA sources—which the review interchangeably terms primary sources. These are used for "at least half" of its prose at the first "rough guess", which was not reason for an oppose then, although it apparently is now, when the article is down to (it's said) 2468 of the 8877 words, or 28%. There are at least two problems with this approach. First, by its own admission, it ignores the structure of the article, which contains sections (such as "Mission hardware and experiments") which of course are going to be heavy on the details and lean more on NASA publications, as well as sections (e.g., "Aftermath and spacecraft locations") which are not. In any event, from my own review above, I thought it was clear that the details really are given in summary style—hence why I at one point asked for more details on how an experiment worked, and was told "I did not think it was worth the space to get into the nuts and bolts of this." The second problem is that the approach draws no distinction between NASA sources, and primary sources—which can be, but are not necessarily, the same thing. This was pointed out at least six times above (1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6); the source review has so far ignored it. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might read my review without trying to paraphrase it for others. I noted that the primary sources are the Press Kit and the Mission Report. The other NASA sources are not independent, but I did not label ALL the NASA sources as primary. I did not "pivot" to another reason then a third. I added additional reasons as I dug deeper. I at first "guessed" then in response to the queries from the nominators, went to the work of actually breaking it down by numbers so that I had more than a guess. After the nominators eliminated some solo usages of the primary sources (Press Kit, Mission Report) I then recounted the words. I have several reasons for opposing. (1) the use of primary sources (Press Kit/Mission Report) extensively (2) which leads to too much detail that is only (I assume, since it's not sourced to other sources) from the primary sources (3) the worries about some other sources, including contemporary news reports, the Rice University press release, dexmachina source. I'm glad that you don't see the source use as a problem. I do. I've pointed out where policy backs my interpretation up, in my eyes. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what analysis is supposed to do: summarize, and respond. By contrast, one of the things that made the above review so difficult to parse is that it frequently does not engage with its responses. For instance, you asked "what makes [Drew ex Machina] a high quality RS?", and an editor provided what looked like a reasonable answer. You did not respond to that answer, but now cite it as a "worr[y] about some other sources", as if the answer did not exist. Too, you said that "there's a lot in here sourced to contemporay [sic] newspaper accounts and to websites that I'm not convinced are necessarily the highest quality sources we could be using." I noted, immediately above, that asking for the highest-quality source is improper, because the actual criterion asks for high-quality sources; you then repeated your criticism of "contemporary news reports", without responding to the fact that you applied an improper standard. (For that matter, you said that there are "a lot" of sources to contemporary newspaper accounts, then stated that there were only two. Two is not "a lot".) Nor does your above response engage with the point I made that more detail-specific issues will vary by section, and so supplying a single word count will not account for the fact that some sections, understandably, will have more sources cited to NASA sources. The point is, it is clear that you "have several reasons for opposing", as you say. But the above source review does little to move beyond these reasons to engage with what frequently seem to be very reasonable responses. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now very few uses of the Press Kit or Mission Report, and what there is, is for the most part description of equipment, which is not "too much detail" in my view, but explanations of what the equipment is, and some of the events leading up to the launch, which are simply facts and would not differ no matter who reports it. I do not understand what the issue is with the contemporary news coverage, which is reporting such things as the change of backup crew. If you don't like the Drew ex Machina source, we can change it for this, but all it's reporting is that there were three deep space EVAs and there haven't been any more (hardly controversial since no one's been there since Apollo 17. I do think that even if use of primary sources was excessive (we can agree to disagree on that), this is no longer the case. I'd appreciate a reassessment in a day or so, and if necessary a punch list of what you feel remains to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there's no Rice University press release, it's a report on a talk given by Gene Kranz about his involvement in Apollo 13, and this has been used, unquestioned in the FAs Apollo 12, 13, 14 and 16, added before the FAC and unquestioned in the reviews (I just looked at the Apollo 12 source review to refresh my recollection). It simply sources the job description of the mission director, certainly something Kranz would be able to speak reliably on. And there is only one contemporary news report left, from the New York Times of 1/9/1970, stating that NASA was stretching the remaining Apollo missions to no more than two a year, which is what eventually occurred. I don't think this is greatly excessive or controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're down to about 1500 words and while I'm not real happy about 1500 out of 9200 words, it's not so egregious that I feel the need to oppose (and I did look at what the text is sourced to those things as well as sheer word count). I remain concerned but I'll leave it up to other reviewers to consider the issue for themselves. Unwatching now.(unsigned by Ealdgyth)
Thank you for taking another look and for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy

[edit]

Article looks very thorough, congrats on getting to the end of the lunar missions! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew and key Mission Control personnel

  • "Meanwhile, Harrison Schmitt, a professional geologist before becoming an astronaut," 1. This doesn't need "meanwhile" at the beginning. 2. Isn't Schmitt still a geologist, especially in the capacity of this mission? This makes it sound like it was something long before the mission, rather than the reason Schmitt was an astronaut.
    Fixed. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In September 1970, however, Apollo 18 was cancelled." The "however" isn't necessary.
    Deleted. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "objected strongly to Cernan's selection" Is there a difference between "objected strongly" and just "objected?" It seems like adding "strongly" doesn't fit, unless there was a way that McDivitt objected that made it out of the norm.
  • "but ultimately acquiesced to Schmitt's selection" I think this could just be "but acquiesced to".
I've rewritten the passage at issue in the above two comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Apollo 16 and 17, the final Apollo lunar missions, NASA selected backup crews consisting of astronauts who had already flown Apollo lunar missions, thus taking advantage of their experience. The alternative was to train astronauts as backup crew members who most likely would not have an opportunity to put their lunar mission training to use in-flight. By using lunar veterans, NASA saved the time, money and effort which would be involved in training rookies for these dead-end positions." These three sentences could be consolidated; they use a lot of words to describe NASA's reasonable rationale for wanting veteran astronauts. My take is: ""For Apollo 16 and 17, the final Apollo lunar missions, NASA selected backup crews consisting of astronauts who had already flown Apollo lunar missions to take advantage of their experience, and to save the time and money that would be involved in training rookies who were unlikely to fly."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slayton created the support crews because Jim McDivitt, who commanded Apollo 9, believed that, with preparation going on in facilities across the US, meetings that needed a member of the flight crew would be missed. Support crew members were to assist as directed by the mission commander." Does this mean that the support crew will attend the meetings? The second sentence seems more in line with what my understanding of a support crew is.
    If directed to do so by the mission commander, I would suppose so. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a confusing way to word it; I would shorten it to start with saying that the support crews backed up flight crews at the discretion of the mission commander. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I've reordered and clarified a bit. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flight plan kept Evans busy almost constantly" It's redundant to say "busy" and "constantly", as they both communicate he had a lot to do. I would just say "The flight plan kept Evans busy, making him..."
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Planning and training

  • " Additionally, following the cancellation of Apollo 20 in early 1970," Doesn't make sense to have "additionally" and "following"; I would scrap "additionally".
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nixon had been deeply concerned about the Apollo 13 astronauts, and, fearing another mission in crisis as he ran for re-election" The first part of the sentence makes it sound like a personal concern, but the rest of the sentence (and the preceding one) makes it sound like it was a concern over reelection.
  • "Some sites were rejected at earlier stages." Is this referring to the sites mentioned in the next sentences, or are these different? It's not clear.
    Clarified per below. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thus, a landing in the crater" No need for "thus"
    Replaced with "For instance..." Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are 3-4 sentences in a row that begin with "A landing". Could these landing site sentences be rephrased or consolidated?
    Have varied the language a bit. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the elimination of the above sites, three sites made the final consideration for Apollo 17:" Since the previous sentences describe the elimination of sites, this sentence can just start with "The three sites that made the final consideration..."
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mission planners took into consideration the primary objectives" Easier to say "mission planners considered the primary objectives"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This would allow the scientists in the geology "backroom" to adjust the tasks planned for that site, which would be transmitted to the CapCom and then to Cernan and Schmitt. According to William R. Muehlberger, one of the scientists who trained the astronauts, "In effect [Schmitt] was running the mission from the Moon. But we set it up this way. All of those within the geological world certainly knew it, and I had a sneaking hunch that the top brass knew it too, but this is a practical way out, and they didn't object." This is confusing. The first sentence makes it sound like the backroom geologists have a lot of control. But the Muehlberger quote makes it sound like that wasn't the case.
    Have clarified that what Schmitt reported on was what the backroom geologists relied on in planning tasks. Schmitt didn't have time to do so himself on the surface, but the general thrust is that Schmitt had a lot of leeway in what he reported on, and could influence the backroom in this manner. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans was trained regarding lunar geology" Wordy; maybe "Evans was trained in lunar geology"
    Done. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 12:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission hardware and experiments

  • "Although this was not the final time a Saturn V would fly (another would lift Skylab to orbit), area residents reacted as though it was, and 5,000 of them watched the rollout," I know this information is from the source document, but it seems like there aren't any details on how area residents acted like it was the last Saturn V launch, other than 5,000 people came to watch the rollout. Is this a lot more than a normal rollout? Was there any sort of event indicating people treated it like the last launch? It just seems like an odd thing to mention when there are no supporting details other than the number of people coming out to see the rollout.
The attendance of locals in such numbers was presumably the manner in which they acted like this was the end of an era.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Apollo 17 was the third mission (the others being Apollo 15 and Apollo 16)" Apollo 17 is previously lumped together with 15 and 16 in this article. I don't think they each need to be named here.
I'd rather keep the mention, but I've shortened it and made it more natural.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As gravimeters had proven to be useful in the geologic investigation of the Earth" 1). "had proven to be useful" could just be "had been used" 2). "geologic investigation of the Earth" is redundant and not very informative; maybe something like "to study Earth's internal structure."
I've rewritten this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sector one of the Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay." This is the only mention of one of the SM sectors; it's confusing to have the sentence start that way since there's no mention of them beforehand. As there aren't any later mentions, maybe something like "The Apollo 17 SM contained the scientific instrument module (SIM) bay, which housed..."
  • "data pertaining to the composition, density, and constituency of the lunar atmosphere" Couldn't it just be "data to study the composition..."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was designed with the intention of measuring the altitude" Wordy, maybe "was designed to measure the altitude"
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that penetrated closed eyelids" I feel like it should be "that penetrated their closed eyelids"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Apollo 17 crew conducted an experiment, also conducted on Apollo 16" Repeat of "conducted"
Varied.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission events

  • "and observers in Miami, Florida, reported a "red streak" crossing the northern sky" Was this anomalous? I've never been in Miami and watched a launch, but I would assume it is usually visible once the rocket is high enough.
I don't know. I've never seen one from my home in Palm Beach County, but I've never looked for one either. It could be because the launch was at night. The Apollo daytime launches might not have been visible from Miami.
  • There should be a little more information about the launch (any anomalies, normal information about its timing/staging/achieving orbit). The first paragraph is mostly about the launch window, then next paragraph is about the attendees, and then it cuts to "In the hours following the launch"
I'll look into this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on this. There don't seem to have been any anomalies worth mentioning.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the launch delay, Apollo 17 would arrive in lunar orbit at the planned time" This reads strangely, as everything else is written in the past tense. Maybe something like "Ground controllers chose a faster trajectory for Apollo 17 than originally planned to allow the vehicle to make it to lunar orbit at the planned time, despite the launch delay"
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The crew also encountered a few issues during the outbound journey; one of the latches holding the CSM and LM together was found to be unlatched." This mentions multiple issues, but then only names one of them directly.If there aren't any other specific issues to name, maybe shorten it to "During the outbound journey, the crew discovered that one of the latches holding the CSM and LM together was unlatched."
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans worked on the balky latch. He was successful, and left it in the position it would need to be in for the CSM-LM docking that would occur upon return from the lunar surface." The description of Evans working on the latch could all be one sentence, "Evans successfully repaired the latch, and left it in the position it would need to be in for the CSM-LM docking that would occur upon return from the lunar surface."
    I don't feel too strongly, but I am inclined to leave as-is. "Evans worked on the balky latch" is actually the independent clause of the prior sentence. Consolidating as you suggest would, I think, make the entire sentence a bit unwieldy. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deleting a planned visit to Emory crater." The use of "deleting" making it sounds like it was data being removed from something, maybe something like "cancelling a planned visit"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The latter were later detonated remotely, explosions detected by geophones placed by the astronauts, and also by seismometers left during previous missions." 1). "The latter were later" reads awkwardly 2). I feel like there needs to be another words before "explosions". Maybe something like "The explosives were detonated remotely, and their explosions were measured by geophones and seismometers"
    Revised. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made of a stiff type of paper called "cronopaque", and clamping the "replacement fender extension" onto the fender." The "cronopaque" is the "replacement fender extension" right? It's confusing that it was two quoted names. Additionally, "cronopaque" doesn't come up again, why not say "made a stiff piece of paper by taping four maps together and clamped it onto the fender"?
    Have worked with this sentence a bit. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This did not prove to be the case; Shorty is an impact crater, but the orange soil is the remnant of a fire fountain" The timing on this is vague. I'm assuming this discovery was made after the mission, but it's unclear from this sentence. Maybe something like "Post-mission analysis revealed that Shorty is an impact crater, but the orange soil is the remnant of a fire fountain"
    I have worked with this language a bit. Indeed, per the source, it was post-mission analysis that led to the revelation. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused about the volcanic information given about Shorty crater. It says everyone was excited that they may have discovered a volcanic vent, but then says it wasn't a volcanic vent, but an impact crater with a fire fountain, which seems like it would still be categorized as a volcanic vent if it is spewing lava.
    I've clarified the description a bit. A fire fountain existed there long before Shorty did, leaving the orange soil. This soil was then buried until excavated by the Shorty impact. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 17:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The improvised fender had remained intact throughout, causing the president of the “Auto Body Association of America” to award them honorary lifetime membership" I'm assuming the award didn't occur during the mission, but this reads like it did.
The source is unclear. The president of the association was moved by the improvised repair to award the memberships. It's not certain whether this was during or post the mission. This seems a minor point on which the focus is on that it happened at all, and there is no need for a specific timing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some {{nbsp}} in between "December" and the date.
  • "docked with the CSM, in which Ron Evans had remained," I don't think Ron Evans needs a mention, since the entire section before this is about his time alone in the CSM.
I've rewritten this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The unoccupied ascent stage was then remotely crashed into the Moon on purpose in a collision recorded by seismometers" I think saying that it was "remotely crashed" implies its impact was on purpose. Something like ""The unoccupied ascent stage was then remotely crashed into the Moon, and its impact was recorded by seismometers"
Done, more or less.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Misc comments

That's all I have; nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I think we're up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent effort Wehwalt and Tyrol5! It's an easy decision to support this nomination. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments

[edit]
  • a.m. or am? Could you standardise. I have already tweaked an AM. And maybe check pm/p.m.? Thanks.
    Have standardized to a.m. and p.m. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seem to be a number of hyphens in works cited which should me en dashes.
    Believe I've converted them all, as appropriate. You might see that there are hyphens in lieu of en-dashes in some of the page number ranges, namely for the Preliminary Science Report (see, e.g., FN 82). This was intentional, as the page numbers refer to a section number, and then the page within such section (i.e. 26-1 is page 1 of Section 26). Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 22:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2022 [99].

Regine Velasquez

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Filipino singer Regine Velasquez who has achieved commercial success in some Asian territories. This is the third nomination at FAC, following a failed attempt in 2020. It underwent a GA review in July 2021, and I have been nursing it up to address the points raised during the second nomination, including a copy editing recommendation. Two rounds of copy edits have since been done among other improvements done, and I have consulted with the reviewer before renom. I feel ready to bring this back for another go. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Damien Linnane

[edit]
  • "She is known for ... the unorthodox voice training she received during her childhood, where she was immersed neck-deep at sea." I understand she went through this unorthodox training, however, it is accurate to say this training is one of the three main things she is known for? Is her training common knowledge and a common discussion point when she is talked about?
That's correct. It's a widely known fact/detail and a common discussion point that has been written and mentioned in almost every coverage of Velasquez in Filipino pop culture. Here are a few examples [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]
  • "She explored Manila sound and kundiman ..." I'd consider clarifying to the reader that these are genres. I.e "She explored the genres of ...". I'd similarly consider clarifying that Ang Bagong Kampeon is a contest.
Done
  • "was subsequently certified twelve-times platinum" - Should you clarify this was achieved in the Philippines? Honest question as I'm not sure if it should be assumed you're talking about the Philippines by default when mentioning a Filipino national.
Done, I've clarified this as being certified in the Philippines only.
  • "Velasquez is the best-selling music artist of all time in the Philippines." - Do you mean she is the best-selling Filipino music artist of all time? If so please clarify; correct me if I'm wrong but I assume many Western singers have sold a lot more than 7 million albums in the Philippines.
You're right, I've reworded to clarify.
  • "the nth variation of Roman Holiday" - Why not wikilink Roman Holiday?
Linked
  • "She left the show for health reasons" - This is a bit vague, but I'm assuming you couldn't find anything more specific on the health issues?
At the time of publication, her pregnancy wasn't confirmed yet, but the article only mentions due to "severe migraine attacks". This was brought up in the prior FAC as well and that 'health reasons' would seem appropriate in this context. Let me know otherwise what you think?
  • The personal life section is a bit thin, though I remember you explaining you had trouble finding sources for that at the last FAC.
That's right. Per the last FAC, it was very short-lived, some time in 1994. Finding WP:RS was a challenge since no article or publication has really detailed it and nothing archived as well.

That's all I found in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane: Thanks for your review. I have the addressed the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with changes, and to support on prose. Well done on the improvements with the article since the last FAC. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Damien Linnane: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

For context, I have participated in the first FAC and the second FAC. I am happy to see the article back in the FAC space. My comments are below:

  • For this part, which became the new label's maiden release, I think the "maiden release" word choice is rather awkward. I think saying "the new label's first release" would be clearer and simpler.
Reworded
  • I have a comment about the "2017–present" sub-section. The sentence structure is somewhat repetitive, and the last three sentence start with dates, as shown here—On April 25, 2020, she, Later in June, Velasquez, and On February 28, 2021, she was— and I would avoid that so the prose does not come across as listing dates and events.
Reworded sentence structure
  • I am not sure about the "the film's critical failure" wording in this part, Despite the film's critical failure. Maybe something like "Despite the film's negative reviews" instead?
Done
  • For this part, she briefly appeared in the iWant comedy series, I do not think iWant should be in italics.
Changed
  • I would link R&B in this part, style and R&B influence, since it is linked in the lead.
Linked
  • Why isn't Love Was Born On Christmas Day mentioned in the prose? From what I can see, it is only mentioned in the list in the "Discography" section.
Apart from the lack of publication/articles about it, the holiday album did not receive much attention, I've removed it from the discography section as well since it's already in the discography article.
  • There are several "harv warning" issues in the citations. Look at Citation 254 for examples of these.
Not quite sure what "harv warning" issues you are referring, I may be unaware I used the incorrect citation format. What I did use for references like citation 254 is WP:CITEBUNDLE in order to avoid visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes, esp for awards count. A format I referred to from an FA [107] Let me know if I misunderstood the point you raised.
  • Apologies for that. I used the Harvard citation style in my articles so I have install something that flags citations as having errors if it does not fit that. However, since you are not using that, it is not an issue. Just ignore the above suggestion. Apologies again for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense now, I do recall your citation formats now that you mentioned it. Thanks for clarifying,
  • For the citation in another language (like Citation 133), I believe an English translation of the title is necessary.
Trans-title added

I hope these comments are helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article again to make sure I did not miss anything. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for your review! I have addressed the above comments and also have some clarification on one item re citation use. Happy to address it once you clarify. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the article based on the prose. Unfortunately, I do not feel too comfortable going further into the citations as I am an American and I am not familiar enough with these publications to say anything meaningful about them. Best of luck with the FAC! It would be great to see more Filipino articles in the FA space. I do have one quick question. What was your reasoning for the image used in the infobox? I do not have any issues with it and it does not affect my support in any way, but I was just curious about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: much appreciate your time in reviewing! On the infobox image, I thought it'd be much better to use something much more recent that I could find (2010) and replace the old image taken in 2005, and thought it looked better (in my opinion). Pseud 14 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way to be honest, and I trust your judgement as you know more about this person than I do. Again, best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "which sold more than seven hundred thousand copies" - write this in digits.
Done
  • "a further million and a half" - 1.5 million would be much simpler.
Done
  • "partly because of her lack of experience in musical theater, and because she wished to remain with her family" - repetitive prose. because.. because
Reworded
  • "She worked with songwriters including Glenn Medeiros, Trina Belamide, and John Laudon." Be consistent with the placement of a comma before "including". Either do it everywhere or don't do it at all.
Fixed
  • "The album had sold more than 700,000 copies regionally, including 100,000 in the Philippines" - I am confused here. Wouldn't 700k sold copies regionally mean that all 700k were sold in the Philippines, considering she is from the country? Did you probably mean 700k copies were sold worldwide or continentally?
I've removed the the mention of 100k to avoid confusion. The article says 700k sales overall and 100k of those were sales in the Philippines. Nevertheless, just mentioning the total would be consistent with what's in the lead as well.
My issue was with the word "regionally". If the source says it sold 700k copies overall then I take it to mean worldwide and not regionally. So my suggestion would be "The album had sold more than 700,000 copies worldwide, including 100,000 in the Philippines." FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Changed to your suggestion Pseud 14 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For her seventh studio album Retro (1996), Velasquez recorded cover versions of popular music of the 1970s and 1980s from artists including Donna Summer, Foreigner, and the Carpenters." Same as point number four. Do check for other instances.
Fixed this too and reviewed the rest of the article for consistency.
  • "Commercially, R2K sold more than 40,000 copies in its second week of release, earning a platinum certification,[47][a] and was certified four times platinum a year after its release." Repetition of "release" in close proximity.
Reworded
  • "The following year, Velasquez worked with Filipino songwriters for material on her eleventh studio album Reigne.[61] The album and its lead single "To Reach You" were released in December 2001." The mention of the December 2001 release makes "the following year" redundant.
Reworded
  • "Gonzales called the album "an adventurous set" and praised the quality of the songwriting.[61] Two other singles, Tats Faustino's "Dadalhin" and Janno Gibbs' "Sa Aking Pag-iisa", were released from the album.[64]" You should probably place the review at the end of the paragraph. As it is, it reads a bit awkward, talking about the album and its lead single, then the review and then you jump back to the mention of the other singles from the album.
Good point, I've revised the sentence structure.
  • "That year in November, she had a concert residency named Songbird Sings Streisand, a tribute to American singer and actor Barbra Streisand, at Makati's Onstage Theatre"
Done
  • "Its songs were originally recorded by Filipino male artists and was her most expensive cover album to produce due in part to the cost of securing licensing rights for songs by local songwriters,[80][81] including, Ariel Rivera's "Minsan Lang Kita Iibigan".." Unneeded comma after "including".
Fixed
  • "In 2007, she became co-host of the reality television show Celebrity Duets, an interactive music competition based on the original US show." Perhaps add an "eponymous" before "original" to clarify that the original show has the same title.
  • "The Philippine Daily Inquirer praised the album's maturity and wrote; "[Velasquez] no longer.." Why the semi-colon? A comma works just fine.
Fixed
  • "After receiving the Magna Award at the Myx Music Awards 2011,[102] Velasquez took a hiatus from public engagements following the confirmation of her pregnancy." The first part of sentence says the break was followed by the awards, then you say it was followed by her pregnancy. Maybe "After receiving the Magna Award... and the confirmation of her pregnancy, Velasquez took a hiatus from public engagements" would be better.
Agreed, made the change.
  • "For the third consecutive year" - "for a"
Done
  • "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera, Angeline Quinto, and Erik Santos." Maybe mention what was it that they did before that they were reunited here. Her prior collaboration with Nievera is clear but Angeline Quinto and Erik Santos are mentioned for the first time in the article.
Revised the sentence structure to clarify. Thanks for pointing out.
Now it reads "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera, with whom she had collaborated with on previous concerts, and also features Angeline Quinto, and Erik Santos." My issue was not with how she got reunited with Nievera, as he is mentioned several times throughout the article. It's not him whose previous collaborations need to be mentioned here but rather Quinto and Santos. However, now I see you have completely omitted the reunion part with these two. Another issue: "with whom she had collaborated with on previous concerts" (double use of with, I suggest removing one, preferably the second one) although I suggest removing this altogether because, like I said, her previous work with Nievera does not need to be clarified. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying this, I must've misunderstood. I've reworded and made it simple to "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera and also features Angeline Quinto and Erik Santos", let me know if this works Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the end of the music career section. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: thanks for your initial review. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if I missed anything Pseud 14 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the replies except where I have stated otherwise.

My final batch:

  • "On several occasions, Velasquez has cited Barbra Streisand as her main influence and musical inspiration, saying; "I look up to [Streisand] not just because of her enormous talent, but because of her fearlessness and dedication to excellence, her willingness to take risks and to be different". Per MOS:LQ, the full stop should be placed inside the quotation mark if the end of the quote coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. So it would be in this case "I look up to [Streisand] ... and to be different." Also why the semi-colon? A comma works just fine.
Done.
  • "She described how she developed her musical style, saying; "I was.." Same as above; use a comma instead.
Done
  • "Elvin Luciano from CNN Philippines wrote: 'During her [initial] phase, she proved that Filipino love songs don't have to come pre-packaged in the kundiman-rooted love ballad'.[197]" MOS:LQ
Done
  • "During the mid-1990s to early 2000s" - "From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s" or "During the mid-1990s and the early 2000s"
  • "Velasquez said; 'I don't mean to..." Comma please.
Done
  • "Many critics complimented her work, often singling out Velasquez's influence; Luciano, writing for CNN Philippines, described her "legitimacy" as "enough to secure a space in pop culture" and said her musical career "continues to influence generations of OPM patrons and songbird wannabes up to this day",[197] while according to The Philippine Star, "If one were to go by records and distinctions made, Regine Velasquez would win, hands down".[27]" This is an incredibly long sentence. I suggest putting a full stop where you used a semi-colon instead.
Done
  • "Manila Bulletin said; 'Most of our.." I think you know what I am asking of you here. I am not sure if the use of a semi-colon is wrong in such cases but it's rather unusual and the use of a comma suffices in all of these instances. Besides, you yourself mostly use a comma in these cases anyway.
Done. I'm trying to recall if the change was made by me or a result of the copy edits. Appreciate you pointing out these!
  • "According to Boy Abunda, 'Most of the young female singers currently making waves in the industry are cut from the same biritera [belter] cloth as Regine Velasquez'.[211]" MOS:LQ - place the full-stop within the quotes.
Done
  • "American singer Brian McKnight who co-headlined a concert with Velasquez, has complimented her singing, stating; 'I got to sing..." Same as above.
Done
  • "She has signed advertising deals with several other brands, including," - wrong use of a comma after "including".
Done
  • "Velasquez has sold more than seven million records in the Philippines and a further million and a half in Asia" - 1.5 million
Done

This should conclude my review. To make sure you don't miss them, I have left replies under some of yours and need further clarification. Once these concerns are resolved, I'll have no reason not to endorse this article's promotion. Happy to see you bring it to FAC again after all these years. Hopefully, third time really is the charm. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: I have addressed the outstanding items in your initial review and have made the changes on the additional points you raised as well. I really appreciate your time in reviewing, these have been extremely helpful. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

Let's not screw this up

  • "became her highest-selling album to date with its lead single, "In Love With You"" — I'm having trouble understanding this. To me, it sounds like "In Love With You" is solely responsible for the album's success. Clarification would be appreciated.
I've clarified that the success of the album was generally aided by the single, as it is also mentioned in the body.
  • "including three Entertainer of the Year wins), 22" — MOS:NUM; consistency between figures vs spelled out letters
Fixed
  • "in her first singing competition on" — does any source discuss when?
Ref 13 doesn't explicitly mention the year, but it mentions how old she was (six years old), which is stated in the beginning of the paragraph that discusses how she started training going towards her first singing competition.

...I'm sorry, but I'm going have to call off this review. It's been feeling like an obligation for a while, which it should not be... I've been stressed trying to complete it... I'm really sorry... Pamzeis (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: no worries at all, any comments are appreciated. I have addressed the above points you raised. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Beginning shortly. Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed: [108] (first take)
  • [109] (second take)
Formatting
  • What's the point of "University of Michigan" in the Jeffries ref?
Thanks for catching this, I have removed the above which has been added in error.
  • All of your "cite AV media notes" refs are giving me a hidden maintenance note. Technically the "others" parameter should only be used if the author one is already used. I suspect you did this so as to not have Velasquez appear first since she did presumably not write the AV notes? I don't know if there is really a solution here, but I though I'd make you aware of this
    • This being said, are you sure there is no writer of the liner notes credited in any of these? Including them as well would be ideal, and solve the minor technical issue above
I have fixed the error. Since there is no information or mention of who wrote the liner notes, I have cited and used "corporate author" (the umbrella entity that owns the label that released the record) per the definitions in template parameters
  • Generally for refs in other language, its best to put the native title and then the English one with "trans-title". You are doing this sometimes, though not others—should consistent one way or the other
I've used |trans-title for references with native titles. However, for references with titles that are in English but the content is written in native language, I only used |language=, let me know if I've properly used it or if there's anything I missed.
  • Ricky Calderon is listed twice in ref 16 and the date is missing
Fixed
  • The Nation should be linked in ref 38, if possible
Linked
  • ref 80 (Pizarro, Shirley) seems to be the wrong author, similarly I cannot find the author for ref 79 on the page?
Corrected, should be Jojo Panaligan. for ref 79, I've removed the author, as there is none mentioned.
  • Got through about a third of the refs so far (up to ref 96). Any recommendations on what I can listen to by Velasquez when doing the rest later would be appreciated :) -- I would probably recommend the cover albums, I think you would enjoy R2K, Covers, Vol. 2 or Retro :)
@Aza24: thanks for the initial review, I have addressed the above. Do let me know if there is anything I missed or still needs attention. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 182's archive link doesn't work, but the original link does
Fixed, believe the archive link should work now
  • Ref 188's author is missing
Added
  • Looks good otherwise
Reliability
  • There is a heavy reliance on news sources, but as far as I can tell, there are no higher quality sources available with such information on the subject. The news sources in question seems to be professional and well-circulated sites.
Verifiability
  • Is it possible to include page numbers of page ranges for the linear notes refs?
Added
  • Not fully assessed yet
  • Will get to spot checks later
Spotchecks – Pass
[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I wanted to check in on the status of the nomination after a source review and spotchecks have been completed. Thank you for your time and hope you have a great start to your week. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]

Late to the party, I fear but not too late.

  • "she was immersed neck-deep at sea" Very dramatic but I don't find it supported by the body, "immersed her neck-deep in sea water" This presumably happened with her feet planted on terra firma. Suggest "at sea" be changed to "in the sea"
Makes sense, you're presumption is right. I made the change for both lead and body. As the ref mentions "dagat" training, a Tagalog word which translates to sea.
  • " and competed for her school at the annual Bulacan Private Schools Association competition" what sort of competition?
Clarified, singing competition
  • "Velasquez won the competition and was signed to a record deal with OctoArts International." What is meant by "record"?
Piped record deal to recording contract to provide clarity.
  • "and ended in the American Samoa.[55][56]" I might omit the "the"
Done
  • "In February 2004, Velasquez and Ogie Alcasid performed a one-night show, The Songbird & The Songwriter, at the Araneta Coliseum" Aren't most shows one night, even those on tours?
You're right, reworded.
  • "In November, she staged a three-day concert titled "Regine at the Movies" at the New Frontier Theater.[141]" A three-day concert or the same concert repeated three times?
Clarified. Three-date concert series
  • "For the show, Velasquez won the awards for Best Collaboration in a Concert and Entertainer of the Year at the 32nd Aliw Awards,[143] having won the top honor in 2007 and 2009.[144][145]" Is the top honor best entertainer or something else?
Clarified, as the latter award
  • "on the musical theater production of José Rizal's Noli Me Tángere" I might say "version" rather than "production"
Done
  • " The latter film premiered at the Manila Film Festival in July 2003.[169] In December, Velasquez next starred alongside Bong Revilla in the superhero film Captain Barbell.[170]" Do we need "film" three times in two sentences"?
I've fixed the flow to avoid repition.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: never too late at all and thanks for providing your review. I have addressed the above points. Let me know if I missed any or if there are things that still need attention. Thanks. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Many thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment by Sarasalant

[edit]

Hey, correct me if I'm wrong, but on "2017–present: R3.0, television projects and Freedom" section, isn't Velasquez's live stream concert should be written as Freedom instead of Freedom? – SARASALANT (talk|contributions) 07:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Pseud 14 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2022 [110].

Double florin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a very short lived British coin. Not only was it the curse of barmaids, but the two men who designed it died less than a year after it was abolished, and the conflict over the designs may have contributed to their deaths. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:2_florin_Victoria_-_Obverse.png, File:2 florin Victoria - Reverse.png, File:1887 UK proof set.jpg, File:Golden Jubilee Medal of Queen Victoria MET DP100543.jpg, File:Great Britain, crown, 1891, Victoria.jpg, shouldn't these have a license tag for the coin as well as the photograph? I assume it's covered by {{PD-UKGov}} or something like that.
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I always enjoy Wehwalt's articles about coins, and in this one in particular the interest is as much human as numismatic. My only quibbles on the prose are:

  • in a BrE article (impeccably done by our American colleague) "program" would normally be "programme" if not talking about computers,
Curses. I missed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I'd capitalise "Government"
Nor would I, they only do mischief with the money. Oh. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a BrE article the false title in "Numismatist G.P. Dyer" isn't quite the thing.
See first comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no high opinion of Simon Heffer, but shall refrain from contending that he is not a WP:RS. Very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA: it seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I much enjoyed reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the support. Always grateful for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "The next larger coin in denomination" wording is a little confusing. Should it be "next largest"?
  • "Government discouraged the use of half sovereigns" => "The government discouraged the use of half sovereigns"
  • "the largest denomination coin with which change could be made from a pound" - the British phrase is "change could be given"
  • "to aid in change making" - same here
  • "continuing to be struck in decreasing numbers through 1902" => "continuing to be struck in decreasing numbers until 1902" (the expression "through [date]" is not used in BritEng)
  • "The Numismatic Guaranty Company, a coin grading service, differentiates little between the circulation-issue varieties of the double florin, in all but the highest grades, rating each (in American dollars) at $15.50 (the melt value), rising to between $400 and $750 in near-pristine condition" - should this have an "as of date" appended, as it may change over time?
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

[edit]
  • I don't know much about coins, but I'll try to review.
  • "longtime monetary system" → What does this mean?
It simply means that is how the money worked. If you have better terminology, I'll happily adopt it.
  • Link Gladstone government.
  • Link House of Commons.
  • Link numismatist.
  • "G.P. Dyer" → " G. P. Dyer"?
  • "Eastern trade in 1887." → Here, ref 17 is placed after "trade", so is the ref at the end of the next sentence the citation for the year?
Exactly. The first source discusses the transaction itself but does not mention the year. The second source mentions the transaction in less detail but does supply the year.
Sorry, missed this, will work on this shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. If I haven't specifically responded, it means I've just fixed that issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
I've made some adjustment to the Release, though it means keeping more images on the right than I'd like (with the left facing bust of Victoria, a lot of the images have to be kept on the right). I don't see the issue with the Background/Inception, unless on your browser the infobox is stretching all the way through the background section and into inception. Can you be more specific?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has nothing to do with the browsers (have tried this out on different browsers). However I think I found the problem my monitor is 1440px and on my laptop (which is 1070px) I saw no sandwich while my monitor says somethingdifferentt. Hmm I now am kindconfuseded since Ithoughtt Wikipedia hastandardiseded their images and articles to all kinds of devices and screens. Is there a way tstandardiseise this to get rid of this issue? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this more an issue you are having with articles than specific to this? I see you've posted to a number of FACs and MH A-class reviews. From what I can tell, the images here are well-spaced.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, my monitor might have a bigger resolution than a monitor/laptop, however as far as I know MOS:SANDWICH does not have an exception for screen diversity and sizes. Unless there was a discussion about this in the past with a solution for this issue. I think as long MOS:SANDWICH doesn't give an expeception or is changed the images should still be changed even if the majority of PC users use a format of 1070px. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's good enough since I still have sandwich with the quotebox and File:1887 UK proof set.jpg. but I think this is the best we can get currently. As you said it's indeed a guideline and I don't really mind if the guideline has been ignored once. However I still believe we only can use that 'rule' if there's no other solution left like this article has currently. The majority of readers on desktop and laptop uses 1070px as their resolution and I hope Wikipedia will fixes this issue as soon as possible since there is a small percantege who uses bigger resolution like I am. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Not much to say here. I fixed a minor error; other than that:

  • Seaby looks like it might be self-published; can you confirm it's a reliable source?
Yes, it is a reliable and neutral source, which was sold in shops and the like. I remember seeing it on my visits to Britain, though I think I bought my copy secondhand. Numismatic books in the UK seem to be much more published by coin firms than in the US.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link to Lant is broken.
It works for me, odd.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me now too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting looks good. Ling's script says there's an inconsistency in publisher location, which I think is because the HMSO and Hansard cites don't have locations, but I don't think that's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will have a few comment here. Hog Farm Talk 00:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "and remains legal tender for 20p" - recommend spelling out the currency value (I think pence?) here, as the UK's decimal coinage system isn't super familiar in much of the US.
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the infobox stuff isn't cited - silver content, percent silver, mass, the milled edge, and the diameter. My guess is that the catalog number is self-proving and is fine without a citation
Cited.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " rendering it a token coin, but the change was abandoned" - I think you want the link token money instead of token coin
Swapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the first two external links go with WP:ELNO #1. The online coin club link at least includes extra images of the coin, but the first two don't seem to add anything of significance.
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one's in pretty good shape; just needs a couple more tweaks. Hog Farm Talk 01:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by query

[edit]

Wehwalt, is cite 65 really "col. 84–84"?

Gog the Mild, should be 834, fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [111].

The May Pamphlet

[edit]
Nominator(s): czar 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One spring day in New York City, the irascible Paul Goodman marched into his World War II draft interview with these anarchist essays under his arm as a prop or perhaps totem that would show his country just how unfit for service he was. While the military immediately understood, it would take another 15 years for his country to hear. While largely forgotten today, Goodman was namechecked in Annie Hall as a prevailing public intellectual of the American mid-century: Dutch uncle to the 1960s counterculture, philosopher of the New Left, and the country's most prominent living anarchist. Goodman's career consisted of revealing mystic truths about the need to live out one's own animal instinct and the larger society's unfulfilled duty in fostering those impulses. The May 1945 essays that became known as the May Pamphlet outline Goodman's application of Reichian psychological theory to anarchist politics in the interregnum between the social revolutionary class warfare of turn-of-the-century classical anarchism and the rise of personal politics-focused, late-20th century contemporary anarchism. You can see Goodman bridge the twain in these very essays as he confronts the impossibility of large-scale social change by calling not for a massive social revolution but for an inward reformation: to instead realize one's own innate, individual powers and form a new society by living intentionally within the shell of the old.

Hopefully that's enough exposition to convince you to read this little article I've been incubating for the past several years, with debts to reviews from @Eddie891, Z1720, and Grapple X. It is part of a larger project to better cover Goodman's works and other major written landmarks of anarchism on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think? czar 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments:

This looks very good and I look forward to reading it properly (along with the book itself) in the coming weeks.

  • that footnote about what libertarian meant in the 1940s has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If the term is confusing, just say anarchist instead, or clarify as libertarian socialist. Writing the bulky "libertarian (anarchist)[a]" four or five times is the worst of all worlds.
  • you should add some pictures to the article.
  • An entire paragraph in Themes and analysis is unreferenced.
  • Listing out the individual essays at the start of Synopsis is unnecessary IMO. What is the reader to do with just a bunch of essay names? Much more useful to name them only when discussing their content (which you do in the rest of the section anyway).
  • There needs to be some indication as to how long the whole thing is; I had to open the archive.org link to see that it's only a 50-page work. Maybe adding an infobox to the lead will help get these dry details (also: publication date etc) out of the way quickly.—indopug (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Indopug, thanks! :) The "definition of libertarian" footnote was recommended in the peer review. Given that Goodman himself and nearly all sources on the subject use the word "libertarian" repeatedly, referring to the anarchist tradition, the footnote felt like a reasonable compromise to provide the reader with context. It's mainly for post-1980 readers in the U.S., who would otherwise not understand why the article doesn't talk about free markets.
    • I'm not familiar with any other essay collection FAs but I would think that a table of contents is better off listed than put in prose, and that it's an altogether better reference and reading experience (as signposting).
    • re: images, open to suggestions. There are no free use images of the author. It occurs to me that some of the initial essays might be out of copyright but... let's see how far I get on that expedition.
    • Addressed the other two czar 03:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went copyright spelunking and added some new, free use images; will ping for image re-review after this thread wraps up czar 05:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Be consistent in when/if publication locations are included and how these are formatted
  • Goodway: the link and publisher don't match up with the publication date. Suggest checking others as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, thanks and updated! Goodway 1999 is the same as the linked Google Books reprint. (Earthscan is a Routledge company.) I only linked Google Books for ease of verification but can either remove the link or instead swap the reference for Goodway 2006, which repeats the same claim verbatim, if preferable. Let me know if you would like scans of any of the sources. czar 16:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest clarifying in the citation that it's a reprint. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is not a reprint though—it's correct as written. Only the link is a reprint, and it has the exact same page numbering. Most citation links are a courtesy. I wouldn't remove the page numbers if I linked a web version without page numbers, etc. czar 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

This is a fascinating article! Saving my spot.

The first comment I'll have to give, unfortunately, is that I completely agree with Indopug about the "libertarian (anarchist)[a]" repetition -- it consistently dragged me out of the article as I read. The use in the lead is good, because it contextualizes why a term confusing to a modern audience was applied to this part of concept-space. The following uses would all be net improvements if substituted with "anarchist" (or "libertarian socialist", depending which is contextually preferred for each mention). Vaticidalprophet 05:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet, thank you! And that's fair. I've reworded where context permits and kept the translation/repetition to the few parts where it's necessary to historicize Goodman's words. Tricky stuff, this. czar 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a tricky balance. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets tweaked again a few times in the course of FAC; there are a few ways one could defensibly put it, and not many good models at FA level of articles with similar terminology issues (though I know some at GA level). I'll come back to start leaving comments in...the next couple days at most, hopefully; I'm reviewing a couple articles at GAN too so I'm between a few places, but feel free to drop a note on my talk I don't currently have pings on and I'm not sure if or when I'll put them back if I'm not here by the end of the week. Vaticidalprophet 21:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments
General
[edit]
  • Image query: You mentioned to Indopug earlier that there are no free images of Goodman, but are we actually sure of that? His life overlaped suitably with the periods where image copyright was much harder to secure than it is now, and I imagine anarchists weren't dotting the Is and crossing the Ts of every copyright notice -- you've already been able to find some other PD images under the same principle. Calling this a query, not any sort of request, because it's more of an idea of something that if it pans out could be used to improve the article's illustration than an actual point of contention -- but it'd certainly be nice if it panned out.
    • There are no dust jacket or inside author portraits in the HathiTrust (public domain) scans and the Library of Congress didn't have anything easy on file when I checked. I've been to all of his major archives and no images jumped out as being potentially public domain. These early libertarian/anarchist journals are a little different in that they were tiny so had a high chance of not having their copyright renewed but they also didn't print illustrations (because they were small). I'd like to reach out to his estate eventually and ask but just wanted a little more to show for it first. czar 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footnote dips momentarily into parenthetical referencing, which is no longer good practice.
Lead
[edit]
  • Again, a query: would some reference to the genesis in Goodman's draft interview be due here?
    Eh, I'd consider it trivia for the lede. Perhaps a good hook for FAC, though :) czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have some heavy repetition of "anarchist" here (which is an improvement on heavy repetition of "libertarian (anarchist)[a]", but nonetheless worth keeping an eye on). The reader can be assumed, from the fact the article opens with "is a collection of six anarchist essays", to know the subject matter. I'm specifically looking at the line The anarchist essays were not well known, which is better rendered as simply The essays were not well known.
    Yes, that's leftover from yesterday's changes. I've dialed it down. czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do small, New York and small, anarchist need those commas? (Also look for later uses of similar sentence structure -- I've spotted it in some of the other sections, but not yet combed through them.) This might be a matter of individual dialect, so I'm not certain, but at least from my dialect's eye it looks off.
    It's stylistic. I used to not include commas between adjectives but was once taken to task for that at a FAC many moons ago, so now I do because why not—it adds a little clarity. Nothing in the MoS that I know of, though. czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later sections to come. Vaticidalprophet 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication
[edit]
  • The listing of the two bluelinked journals beside each other in the list of three creates somewhat of a MOS:SEAOFBLUE -- at first glance I read Politics, Why? as the name of one journal (certainly sounded a plausible one...). I note Retort (journal) exists as a redirect, and while not in-depth, there's enough in the way of basic names-and-dates to get value from the link. Alternatively, you could move the names around to prevent the sea.
    Politics, Why? is an acceptable summary of this article. Rephrased. czar 05:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is one-man publisher re. Vinco supposed to be read as meaning it was essentially Goodman's personal imprint he published his own books under, or that it was a (very) small press run by someone else publishing multiple authors, or some intermediate point?
    As small as a press can be, as in barely a press. Do you think it needs further clarification? czar 05:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't so much confused as to how many people were involved with it (the "one-man" part was clear) as to whether the one man was Goodman himself, self-publishing with an imprint, or if it was a different sole proprieter running a small press. The linked source is useful clarification, so it might be nice to add some of that in the article, as it also serves the purpose of explaining why Vimco went out of business/why other people were publishing its unsold books. Vaticidalprophet 06:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done czar 03:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Finding I don't have too many comments :) ) Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis
[edit]

Sorry about the gap -- I've had inconsistent computer access for the past week, but it should improve soon. This section is in good shape (and I find the list of essays defensible; I'm at pre-FAC PR for an essay collection myself, and it really is difficult to figure out how to format that kind of thing). My only query here regards "Revolution, Sociolatry, and War", the fifth essay, was first published in Politics as an anarchist response to Marxist theory typical for the magazine -- should this be read as saying Marxism was the typical allegiance of the magazine, and Goodman was writing an anarchist response to its usual takes, or that the usual take was anarchist interpretations of Marxism? The current phrasing is slightly unclear. Vaticidalprophet 00:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point—rephrased czar 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to support. I read through the remaining sections and couldn't spot any nits I want to pick. This is excellent work and a good read. Vaticidalprophet 01:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "Three of these journals—Politics, Why? An Anarchist Bulletin, and Retort—published half of the essays that would later be compiled as The May Pamphlet." — In what order are these journals listed? I suggest them to be in chronological order of essays, the one in which the first essay was published being the first. Same should be done with the info box images as well.
    • For these listings, I tried to go with what was visually/aurally most pleasing. It's a minor detail so happy to change it if others feel strongly. czar 03:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the exception of "Revolution, Sociolatry, and War", written in October" v. "Another publisher, Alexander Katz, read "Revolution, Sociolatry and War" in Politics and " — Is there a comma after 'Sociolatry' in article's title or not?
  • "After Goodman's death" — I'd mention the year as well.
  • "his literary executor Taylor Stoehr used" — I see this as WP:SOB
  • "Throughout the May Pamphlet" — Isn't 'The' a part of the title? It should be italicized and 'T' should be capitalized
  • " "Free action is to live in present society as though it were a natural society" goes the pamphlet's main maxim." — upto you, though I try to avoid starting a sentence with a quote. There are various such places in the article.
  • "The exact meaning of "free" and "natural" is imprecise in this context yet generally refers to the ability to work in mutual aid without coercive legal pressure to do otherwise." — I think we should attribute as to who believes this. Else, it slightly appears WP:OR.
  • "The essays generally encourage draft and war resistance" — I think here, the essays encouraged Draft evasion, not the draft.
  • Currently, "draft" and "draft dodging" are linked to the same article. The second instance should be un-linked as to avoid duplicate linking.
  • "Notably, the May Pamphlet departed from radical conventions in their absence of class analysis and were closer to writings on Ancient Greek direct democracy than those on Marxist or Syndicalist working-class radicalism" — I see that as MOS:EDITORIAL, though feel free to disagree. (just a suggestion)

That is it. Excellent work on the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, @Kavyansh.Singh! Believe I've addressed your points in the text, when you have a moment to review. czar 03:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I am satisfied with the changes made. Happy to support! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I will review over the coming week. As a first comment, I think that the footnote should be better sourced. I'm sure that we can find academic and footnoted works explaining the relationship between "libertarianism" and "anarchism". JBchrch talk 18:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @JBchrch—looking forward to it! Let me know if you need copies of any of the sources.
re: the footnote, I believe I've picked the best source for the job and I linked to the full article I wrote on the definition for those who want further detail. czar 18:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your offer @Czar. Fortunately I have institutional access to a lot of online sources and a good library close-by so I don't expect to be bothering you too much.
I was hoping you would accept my suggestion because, unless I've missed something, the claim During the time of The May Pamphlet and as invoked by Goodman, "libertarian" was synonymous with anarchism, does not seem to be verified in Marshall 1992. What I’m reading is "The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism" and below "For a long time, libertarian was interchangeable in France with anarchist". The concept of the two words being synonymous in America in the 40s does not appear to be clear from the source. JBchrch talk 21:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Would this addition satisfy your suggestion? czar 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks it does. Do we still need to leave During the time ... with anarchism (anti-authoritarian socialism). in footnote b then? Could it be removed? Also, as a suggestion for improvement, perhaps consider paraphrasing Cohen in footnote instead of a straight quote. JBchrch talk 00:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done czar 01:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm going to be a bit more of an annoyance than Vaticidalprophet above and suggest that you put the last part of the footnote between <ref></ref> tags. WP:PARREF is not entirely explicit on this point, but Template:Harvard citation no brackets#Usage interprets the RfC as saying that harv citations may only be used inside of such tags. JBchrch talk 01:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was about inline parenthetical referencing, not how {{harvnb}} (nb = no parentheticals) could be used. For all intents and purposes, it already is within ref tags—i.e., it already is a footnote—the same as a standard harv footnote just with extra text, similar to how scholarly monographs do it. If you prefer, I can shove the full citation into the note instead of using the short footnote? But having a footnote within a footnote would be an inelegant solution. czar 01:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the template docs for both Template:Harv and Template:Harvnb were updated to reflect a deprecation of their use outside of ref tags (the latter being a transclusion of the former), seemingly without controversy, and thus seem to reflect the implicit consensus on what the rules are... and I'm just the guy doing the source review 🤷‍♂️. I really don't see the issue about references inside of footnotes, though. Looks at this recent FA, for instance: Louis_Rwagasore#Notes. JBchrch talk 02:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went poking through the harv template talk page to see if this was raised before (it was) and what the solution was (this). By that read, use of shortened/harv text within {{efn}} is kosher. (To the issue of references inside of footnotes, I've done this myself in other articles, but it then takes three clicks to get from article text to efn to sfn to full citation, which is what I meant by inelegant, hence why I'd want our readers to avoid that experience.) czar 04:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to this discussion, which I had missed. I'm going to accept that the state of the consensus on harv references outside of refs tags but inside of a Template:efn is not clear, and "pass" that specific citation form. However, I will definitely push for a clarification of the docs after this. JBchrch talk 14:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Czar sorry for the delay, but I've not forgotten this. I'm planning on finishing the overall review tonight and do spot checks over the week-end. JBchrch talk 15:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments:

  • The location parameter is not uniformly filled: sometimes, we have only the city, sometimes we also have the state/country.
  • I have a small reservation about the high quality-ness of Fisher 2010 (i.e. graduate student writing for a radical publisher), but it should be fine since it is always used in connection with another source, except in ref 4. However, that can be fixed by adding Fisher's own ref 14, which is Stoehr's Here How Next.
  • As an advance point of spot-check, I would raise that Widmer 1980 talks about the sexuality of "children" and not of adolescents. JBchrch talk 23:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    re: location parameter, my understanding is that we use the state when the location would be ambiguous without it, e.g., Westport, CT, but Detroit. I'm also amenable to killing this parameter to save on space. Addressed the other two, though I don't think Fisher was that bad. czar 00:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't have a problem with this mode of citation, as it seems to have a reasonable basis. As a suggestion for improvement, though, I would recommend spelling out the state, i.e. UK -> United Kingdom and NJ -> New Jersey, for WP:WORLDVIEW purposes. Besides this, I see no problem with the sourcing: all the sources are all high-quality, all the content is cited to a source, and the formatting is consistent. Spot check will be done between today and tomorrow. JBchrch talk 16:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm beginning spot checks, I see that Stoehr has four works cited, referred to as Stoehr 1977, Stoehr 1977b, Stoehr 1994a and Stoehr 1994b. Logically, Stoehr 1977 should be referred to as Stoehr 1977a? If you agree, I can try to do it myself (I used to know how to do it). JBchrch talk 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! And I struck the locations. czar 03:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
[edit]

Stoehr 1977b

  • 4. The source says “One story has it that he went to his confrontation with the U.S. Army carrying these essays under his arm.” So it’s not really asserted as a fact by Stoehr. I also don’t see the mention of May ?
    This is the result of replacing Fisher, as you requested above. :) I still would prefer Fisher, for what it's worth. czar 04:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The problem is that for me Stoehr is higher quality than Fisher (for the reasons mentioned above). So if the two are contradicting—especially if Fisher says that something happened and Stoehr, who was personally acquainted with Goodman, says that it's "one story"—, I would err on the side of caution. JBchrch talk 18:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this may be splitting hairs. We don't know if Stoehr's "one story" quip is hedging or rhetorical, but he shouldn't have to specify that "Goodman was holding The May Pamphlet" when he says Goodman wrote a half-dozen essays on "drawing the line" as there are no other essays. We don't know what lengths Fisher went through to corroborate his 2010 introduction while Stoehr was still alive (until 2013). This is why we defer to the source in so far as the source is reasonably reliable for the claim. So the question here is what, exactly, is being challenged about Fisher's reliability? Since reliability rests in the editorial process, Fisher's graduate student status does not signify anything about his reliability in itself (though, to be clear, he finished his doctorate in 2015). I know Goodman's draft board story has been repeated and mythologized elsewhere, though I have not the time to dig through dozens of unindexed mentions to find it, which is why I used these sources here as sufficient—sources that I do not see as being in conflict. If, for reasons of rigor, it would be better to label this anecdote as apocryphal or remove elements as being trivial, we can do so. But I think it would diminish the character of a claim that is not controversial or, to my eyes, truly contested. czar 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's important to me that we are not asserting as a fact something which is, as you eloquently put it, apocryphal. I have now consulted Stoehr 1994, p. 31, which is Fisher's second source. This source gives a vivid, though short, description of Goodman's draft interview and yet does not mention him bringing these essays. My question would be: why would we regard as canon an introduction written by a graduate student, published by a non-academic press, in a volume without a scientific editor, whose parts about Goodman's life are sourced explicitly to material by Stoehr (see note 1), and whose own sources (i.e. Stoehr) either don't mention the event or label it as "one story"? What is more probable, that Fisher goofed up and no one noticed, or that he had access to exclusive material that Stoehr did not know about? So yes, sorry for being that guy, but I would prefer to label the anecdote as apocryphal if you'd agree. JBchrch talk 01:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Stoehr 1977b, p. xviii: ... he tried to write out his political credo, in a half dozen essays on ... "drawing the line." One story has it that he went to his confrontation with the U.S. Army carrying these essays under his arm. ... He published most of these essays in Why?, Politics, and Retort, and then collected them as The May Pamphlet, which remains the major philosophic statement of his anarchist position.
    Stoehr's 1977 introduction to Drawing the Line does mention Goodman bringing the essays. For the sake of resolving the impasse, I've added the "one story" caveat to the article. Hopefully in the future I will add the other corroborating references I mentioned when I happen across them. czar 02:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does say that ("One story has it"), which is why we are having this conversation, remember? 🙃 Anyway, this solves this issue and completes this spot check. JBchrch talk 00:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stoehr 1994a

  • 9. OK

Widmer 1980

  • 2b. Don’t see the “small”?
    I'd think that's in WP:SKYBLUE territory—he was a vanguard writer in a marginalized, bohemian community, hence small journals and small readership. If necessary, there are plenty of citations that call them "little magazines" but I think it'd be overkill to add a citation just for that.[112][113][114] czar 04:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that this qualifies for SKYBLUE. Some bohemian and marginalized writers have sometimes lended spots with prestigious magazines and publishers, and the concept that Goodman was relegated to publishing in small anarchist journals is interesting enough to deserve a citation, in my view. JBchrch talk 18:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Graham czar 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c. I find it to be a little more subtle than this since Widmer says that for Goodman, “society was in considerable part an aesthetic issue” (emph added)
    How would you suggest softening it? Part of the difficulty of paraphrasing literary criticism is that it's flowery writing about flowery writing. I'd consider the way I wrote it to be accurate. czar 04:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about largely, essentially or in large part? I wouldn't know anything about literary criticism, though: I tend to write about finance, i.e. dry writing based on even dryer sources. JBchrch talk 05:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (and in that case, writing for WP here would be [an attempt at] clear writing about flowery writing about flowery writing) czar 05:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18. OK (correction above already done)
  • 25c. Could you give me a quote for “sterilization” = denial part?
    [115] czar 04:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't see where it's stated that Goodman means "denial" when he says "sterilization". JBchrch talk 05:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I thought you were asking for Widmer's source for "sterilization". Widmer is describing Goodman as saying that the watering down, or alienation from, or refusal to acknowledge (i.e., denial of) natural life events (birth, death, sex) is what leads individuals to turn away from other natural outlets and act out in other ways, with misplaced motives. I'll leave it as just "sterilization" if that's sufficient for understanding. czar 05:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I think it would be preferable to leave it as "sterilization". JBchrch talk 18:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 31. OK

Honeywell 2011

  • 19c. OK.
  • 19d. OK.

Cornell 2016

  • 22b. The content is verified, just the relevant pages are 163-164. But could you explain why you left out of the article that assertion that “it implicitly posited conscription and antigay discrimination, rather than hunger, as the primary threats to freedom and well-being that should concern anarchists”?
    The "implicit" is inference. That the essays advocated for gradualism is the main takeaway. czar 04:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    👍 JBchrch talk 05:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genter 2002

  • 20 OK
  • 21 OK

Smith 2001

  • 11d OK

Additional spot checks:

Widmer 1980

  • 24 OK
  • 33a OK

King 1972

  • 38 OK

Cornell 2016

Source review is a pass. JBchrch talk 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images have a copyright tag indicating that they were produced without a copyright notice. The source URL doesn't show any notice but I am not sure if they show the cover page of the pamphlets/journals which is where I would expect the tag if there were one. Is there some kind of structure to image placement? ALT is passable but slightly longish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. There are full issues of the journals available online too, which I checked for copyright notices. Politics was the only one with such a notice but I did not find a renewal in the Stanford search. re: structure to placement, I put covers in the lede for basic identification and title pages of the essays near the contents in the order in which they appeared. czar 14:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that only leaves the ALTs. Can they be made shorter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes, done! czar 03:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this is a pass image review wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bilorv

[edit]

Finally found the time to look at this one.

  • "He suggests for individuals to resist such conditions" – Seems more natural as "He suggests that individuals resist such conditions ..."
  • What ideological inclination did Partisan Review have at the time of Goodman's dismissal? Without this context, it's hard to understand why Goodman was fired for his pacifism.
  • "Three of these journals ... published half of the essays" – That would be three essays. Was it one essay in each? Or some overlap? If the former, that could be made clearer.
  • "The author considered the topics to have overlap, both a matter of aesthetics" – Would that be aesthetics the branch of philosophy? Or just the informal term? In either case, if Goodman's reasoning that his anarchist writing was "aesthetics" can be put briefly then that might help, as it's not obvious to me what he views the connection to be.
  • "... and swapped the opening essay in his 1962 book" – Swapped the order of the essays? Or wrote a new introduction to the pamphlet? Or something else?
  • "which expanded to include other political essays" – Might be cleaner as "which was expanded ..."
  • "to which the anecdote is for individuals" – Is "anecdote" right here? Should it be "antidote"?
  • The sentence "The term's definition has become more ambiguous since the late 20th century ..." is repeated almost exactly in prose and in the footnote. I'm not sure the repetition is useful.
  • "The major themes of The May Pamphlet are (1) tools with which ..." – Not sure the numbering in this sentence is necessary or desirable.
  • "the possibility of summoning "natural powers" to invent solutions to social dilemmas" – This sounds a bit supernatural, which I'm not sure is intended. How about "the possibility of using 'natural powers' to solve social dilemmas"?
  • "... his reliance on instinct was sometimes among his most endearing traits, except when he could not identify his deeper instincts and could neither articulate his confusion nor admit it" – Seems like opinion needing attribution rather than something to state in Wikipedia's voice.

Overall, the writing is quite clear and I (think I) understood a lot of ideas that were previously unfamiliar to me. No concerns about structure, scope, sourcing etc. A thought-provoking read. — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, @Bilorv. Addressed your points here. czar 04:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: passes the FA criteria. Thanks for the speedy fixes. — Bilorv (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

Placeholder. It's hard to believe that it's near four years since Czar was kind enough to comment on my own foray into a slightly earlier aspect of anarchist history. Looking forward to this. SN54129 20:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "drawing the line" in the lead: is it a quote? (Being in quotes as it is.)
    It's a turn-of-phrase used throughout the subject and the WP article, so quoted as a term of art czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the ugliness of wartime social conditions" -- could this be clarified? (UIgliness being in the eye of the beholder, and all!)
    I think it's generally accepted that wartime conditions tend to be trying times. The sources do not specify that Goodman is responding to poverty or scarcity or any singular element of wartime conditions. czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He started the essays in advance of his May 1945" -- the first two only? Did he know he was going to be called up in May, and start writing towards that deadline, or was it a coincidence?
    Sources do not specify this detail but they imply that it was related and not coincidental (regardless of when he got his notice, he had to know that he would be appearing for the draft at some point) czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "war-supporting" -- pro-war.
    The former is softer in that it is supporting this specific war rather than being generally in favor of war czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Politics is styled politics, should we not use that?
    We don't use the stylization, per MOS:TMRULES czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each published an essay in what" -- from what.
    This might be a regional preposition usage difference but I think this is fine, i.e., individual essays were published in the compiled collection czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest "Printed by Irving Novick's one-man publishing outfit, Vinco, it sold poorly" -- Or something to remove duplication of print.
  • Yes, I think I would include the material on Blankertz: the fact that it (and others of Goodman's) were deemed worthy of translation is relevant.
    Even when I don't include every other time the work was excerpted in English? I thought it was trivia. czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence re. libertarianism is unsourced?
    It has an extended footnote with its own sources. czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note: I'm mostly not commenting on the synopses, as I don't have the material and it legitimately self-sources.)
    Sounds good but I didn't use primary sources for this section, if that makes a difference :) czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding the above, why is it "a touchstone for" in the body, but "a suggestion for" in the adjacent image?
    It had a different title in its initial publication pre-compilation czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clever use of the possessive to avoid SEAOFBLUE...not sure about it though!
  • We have an article on Draft dodging.
    It's linked in the prior paragraph and I was asked to unlink the second version, though I agree it would have been appropriate to link it twice. czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wrote Goodman's biographer" -- is this also Stoehr? She is only called literary executor when named.
    Yes, he was both czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "like that of unanimity" -- if I've read this right, how is unanimity a theoretical concern?
    It refers to the sixth essay in the pamphlet and the idea that unifying thought it what sharpens its purpose czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first explicitly political works...foremost political writings"
  • Notably, in Wikivoice, is, unfortunately, a WP:OFCOURSE.
    The source remarked on its noteworthiness absence of class analysis in this case czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should The Dilemma be u/c D?
    Proper noun in the source, hence the uppercase czar 18:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SN 1492#5, any further thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Gog, just an FYI, but pings to user talk pages don't give alerts, only user pages themselves. Cheers, SN54129 15:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and Gog: I note that Czar has successfully—with subtlety and delightful politeness—refused to action any of my points. Hah! Imagine if Czar came to my current FAC and I did the same thing, there'd be uproar  :) in any case, my suggestions in these proceedings are rarely more than that—suggestions—so there was certainly no pressure to use them, and indeed, their reasoning for their decision seems sound, so I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. SN54129 16:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [116].

Colossal Cave Adventure

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 1975 a programmer, wanting to make something to connect with his daughters, combined his love of caving with the spoken descriptions of tabletop role-playing games, and the result was Colossal Cave Adventure, aka just Adventure. As the name and year hint at, this one-man project is one of the most influential games of all time: it invented and is the namesake for the adventure game genre (well, the name probably would have been that anyways), but also kicked off the interactive fiction genre and was a precursor to computer role-playing games, roguelikes, and MUDs (and through them MMORPGs). Except it only became all of that through a string of coincidences: that Crowther was a developer for the ARPANET so when he dumped his divorce-therapy game on his work computer programmers all over the country saw it; that one of those players wanted to expand it so he emailed Crowther at every email provider that existed to get the source code; that Woods put his code out with the game so that for the next five years as everyone and their dog made their own "Adventure" games they had the actual code to work from... And as a result, hundreds of millions of people have played what came from a halfway-forgotten text-based game originally played on a teleprinter.

I've been mucking around with early video games for a while, though it's been over a year since I last brought one through FAC, but this article I picked up only this year. It sailed through GAN, and I've been poring over it since, so hopefully it will sail through here as well. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alexandra

[edit]

I intend to review this - please ping me if I haven't done so by the end of the week.--AlexandraIDV 08:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The program acts as a narrator, describing to the player what each location in the cave has" - the wording "what each location in the cave has" comes across as unusual to me. Could we just write that it describes each location?
  • "If it did not understand the player's commands," should be in present tense. There are a few more instances of this like "The player could die", "the game had no ending", "included an entire extra section", etc.
  • Would recommend linking tabletop role-playing game
  • ", he decided to create a text-based game" - the creation is what's important, rather than the decision to create. Would suggest rewording to something like "he began working on a..."
  • "The game did not have an explicit title in it, simply stating "WELCOME TO ADVENTURE!!" as a part of the opening message and having a file name of ADVENT; it was referred to as both Adventure and Colossal Cave Adventure," - Where did CCA come from - was it just a descriptive name that players made up and used among themselves?
  • What does "The game is generally the first known example of interactive fiction" mean? Is it supposed to be "among the first known examples", or does "generally" mean something else here?
  • "that are standard in interactive fiction titles today" - would recommend changing to "that have since become standard in interactive fiction titles" to avoid dating the article
  • "These included Zork (1977)—which began development within a month of the release of Woods' version—by the team of Dave Lebling, Marc Blank, Tim Anderson, Bruce Daniels, and Al Vezza of Infocom, Adventureland (1978) by Scott Adams of Adventure International, and Mystery House (1980) by Roberta and Ken Williams of Sierra Entertainment." - would recommend separating list items with semicolons for ease of reading since the items themselves also contain commas
  • "The Carmen Sandiego series, an early educational game series" - describes CS as a series twice in one sentence
  • "Massively multiplayer online role-playing game" is not a name and should not be capitalized
  • ""xyzzy" is a magic word that teleports" - either capitalize to Xyzzy or rewrite so the sentence does not begin with a lowercase letter

Looks good otherwise, and I enjoyed reading it.--AlexandraIDV 12:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
  • Done
  • Done (whoops, used to be an earlier wikilink to that)
  • Done
  • I have no idea! Pretty sure you're right but I can't find any sources on the drift in the name- it was clearly just referred to as Adventure generally at first, but "Colossal" was thrown around somewhere because by 1982 there was the commercial version Colossal Adventure; I'd guess that the shift happened in part because the 1980 Atari Adventure was more well-known and stole the name, but it's a mystery.
  • Hmm, so what I'm trying to not say is that it was the "first", because Wander pre-dated it, but the thing is that very few people played Wander so it didn't inspire much; CCA "started" the genre(s) without actually being the first interactive fiction game. I think "generally" is making a mess here; rewrote to be "The game is the first well-known example of interactive fiction", which is much cleaner.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done, just capitalized since the original was case-insensitive so it doesn't matter.
@Alexandra IDV: Done all; replied below your comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Beautiful, I now support this nomination!--AlexandraIDV 17:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. This was a pleasure to read. I played this in 1981 on a CDC mainframe, and remember it very well; I never did get the very last point needed to get the maximum score, but I spent a lot of time trying. I’ve read through and made some copy edits; please revert anything I you disagree with. Other than the copy edits I could find nothing to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

This article is very close to featured article quality. I have a few suggestions to really nail down a few small issues:

  • The first paragraph is very long, and it's good to keep the opening as accessible as possible. For readability, I think the lead could be broken into three paragraphs instead of two. There is a clear change in tone / scope at "The original game, written in 1975 and 1976, was based on Crowther's maps..."
  • I know this game isn't strictly the first adventure game, but it may as well be. Based on most of my reading, this game considered the eponym for why we call them adventure games. The article is fairly clear on this, but I think you could make this more explicit, especially in the lead. Establishing the genre is arguably one of the game's most important legacies. (Frankly, I think you could even say this very early, in the first paragraph of the lead.)
  • The "legacy" section is a little long and might be more readable with subsections. I'm stumped about the best way to organize that.
  • There are a few sentences that could be broken into smaller sentences, as they are so long as to interfere with readability.
  • "The program acts as a narrator, describing to the player what each location in the cave has and the results of certain actions, or if it did not understand the player's commands, asking for the player to retype their actions"
  • "The original 1976 version of the game contains five treasures which can be collected, and while based on a real cave system contains a few fantasy elements such as a crystal bridge, magic words, and axe-wielding dwarves."
  • "Woods found the game on a PDP-10 at the Stanford Medical School, and wanted to expand upon the game and contacted Crowther to gain access to the source code by emailing "crowther" at every domain that existed on the ARPANET."
  • "Games such as Zork (1977)—which began development within a month of the release of Woods' version—by the team of Dave Lebling, Marc Blank, Tim Anderson, Bruce Daniels, and Al Vezza of Infocom, Adventureland (1978) by Scott Adams of Adventure International, and Mystery House (1980) by Roberta and Ken Williams of Sierra Entertainment were all directly influenced by Colossal Cave Adventure, and these companies would go on to become key innovators for the early adventure game genre." -> (this one in particular tries to combine too many thoughts into a single sentence. Its influence on other games is also important enough that you can really take your time with each influence.)
  • ... and many sentences that use a semi-colon. I recommend using a full stop where there are two separate ideas. Or using "and" where the ideas are connected.
Thanks for improving the quality of this very important article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Addressed all of these points; I think it's more readable now and the important contributions more prominent. I have a habit of making long sentences, and have chopped up a couple more that you didn't mention. I won't apologize for the semicolons, though I did reduce the number of them as they were a little out of hand. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on the excellent revisions. It's much more readable now. I might still nitpick the sentence about all the games it influenced, but it's partially because I'd be interested for the article to slow down and explain the influence on those games individually. (Particularly Mystery House and its influence on the whole line of Sierra adventure games.) That's more of an after thought, and nothing to stop this from being an FA. Great work and thanks for elevating this subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • In the gameplay section you refer to the "point system", but the caption uses "points system". Both are probably valid but it would probably be best to be consistent
  • "Crowther and his ex-wife Patricia" - was she already his ex-wife at the time? If not, I would suggest "then-wife"
  • "In 1975, after he and Patricia divorced" - ah, OK, ignore the above :-)
  • Teleprinter is linked twice in the Crowther's original version section
  • That's all I got. Great read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done, except for the ex-wife bit; I don't know how to phrase it better. They were divorced when he started the game (so "ex-wife"), but I also discuss the caving which happened before they divorced (so "then-wife"). Open to any suggestions. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jaguar

[edit]

Happy to add my support since others have made fine-tuning suggestions before me. The prose is excellent and the article's comprehensibility does it further justice. It was an enjoyable read. ♦ jaguar 14:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source/img review - pass

[edit]

Passes for source and image. All sources are reliable and consistently and well formatted. Images have appropriate purpose, caption, alts and licences. GeraldWL 17:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 February 2022 [117].

Will P. Brady

[edit]
Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Brady was not, perhaps, the first person you would want to get a drink with. To start with, he was a prohibitionist—at least when running for reelection as a judge. And then there was the so called "legal lynching" of a 16-year-old Mexican boy, whom Brady extracted a confession from while a mob waited outside the jail; tried; and then guaranteed a date with the gallows, meeting with the governor to foreclose any chance of clemency. (18 years later, when Brady's brother, also a Texas judge, drunkenly killed his mistress and himself was tried for capital murder, Brady promptly joined the defense team.)

This article was originally an afterthought written as I tried to learn more about the family of Brady's niece, the philologist Caroline Brady (an interesting story—see the part about Van Egmond). A year and a half later I returned to it and dug in; the result is a detailed snapshot of some of the legal, political, and social dynamics at play in West Texas in the early 20th century, where Brady, the El Paso Herald wrote, was "one of the best known public men". Reviewed by Iazyges last year and refined since, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
  • File:1929.11.15 - The Austin American - Will P. Brady.png Not convinced by the licensing here, the photograph would be covered by any copyright notice attached to the publication.
  • I've taken a look through the paper (both when I added the image to the article, and again now), and there appears to be no copyright notice. From looking at the twelve pages and running text searches (e.g., for "copyright" and "1929"), the only notice I can find is the page-eleven copyright notice for an R. J. Reynolds ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "His parents, James and Agnes Brady,[5] were early settlers of the city, having arrived five years earlier.[6][7] " This doesn't seem that early given that Austin had been the capital, on and off, for thirty years.
  • Per the source (1924 obit of Will Brady's father), "Mr. Brady was a pioneer resident in Austin, coming here in 1871 and for forty years was engaged in the mercantile business." "Early" and "pioneer" are, I think, relative terms. According to Austin's population figures there were only 4,428 residents in 1870, and 42,174 in 1925. I would assume that given that he moved there when Austin was quite small and still around when it was ten times larger, many considered him an early settler. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Brady's graduation from high school require three footnotes? Similar for the college.
  • The years are kind of odd—he graduated high school in 1895, but matriculated at UT in 1894. This seems to have been the way things were done then—a number of his high school classmates did the same—but it seemed worth adding some reinforcing footnotes to show that the dates are correct. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth mentioning up front when you discuss his tenure as superintendent--you allude to it later--that he only had jurisdiction over the rural schools, not those in Austin.
  • Did Brady have to face a primary election in 1900?
  • Are we able to say whether Brady sought re-election in 1904?
  • It seems unlikely; he didn't run in the primary, at any rate. Although speculative, I would guess that he was ready to move on to other things. Also, in the later words of judge Dan M. Jackson, "It's a good Democratic principle to reelect public servants that are efficient and trustworthy, and it has been a Democratic custom in Texas to give second two year terms to efficient men". Thus, there may have been an unofficial term limit and/or expectation of a second term, after which it may have been natural for Brady to expand his horizons. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brady stood for the bar" That's an unusual phrase to me, anyway, as a lawyer. Did Brady pass an examination or was some other mode of admission followed?
  • Changed to "applied for admission to the bar"; "stood for the bar" doesn't sound odd to me, although to be fair, I would normally say "took the bar" (if referring to the exam itself). The source just says "The bar examiners for the Third supreme judicial district are in session in the court of civil appeals. The board has six applicants before it for licenses to practice law. The applicants are: Will P. Brady, T. J. Hollbrook, D. O. Sehilg and J. W. Moffett." (Yes, it says six but lists four). I don't know how the bar worked in 1905 in Texas; there might have been a test beforehand and the application was just the pro forma admissions process, or perhaps the application was the substantive part of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then spent several weeks in Milwaukee with a G. W. Briggs,[88] visiting the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis around the same time.[89]" This implies that it was 1906 but the St. Louis Fair took place in 1904.
  • "On 3 February 1909" Shouldn't this be month-day-year as a US article? Please check elsewhere in article. Used at least twice in 1919.
  • It's just personal preference; MDY has always seemed odd, whereas DMY/YMD at least progress from most to least specific (or vice versa). After a few copy edits, the article is fully consistent in its approach. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By September, however, following a visit to Los Angeles,[257][258] he and McClintock agreed that Brady would handle civil matters and McClintock criminal;[259] in such a case heard that month, Brady issued a directed verdict in a lawsuit over the possession of real property.[260]" This sentence could benefit from splitting.
  • "Spanish flu" perhaps "Spanish influenza".
  • "Ward county" probably "Ward County".
  • "democratic" should be "Democratic" when referring to the party.
  • "a position as assistant U.S. district attorney for the Southern District of California.[340] " Probably "assistant United States attorney" is a better way of putting it.
  • "tax exempt" likely "tax-exempt"
  • Compare " the state Democratic Central committee" and " the county democratic executive committee" Even ignoring the capitalization of "Democratic", I see inconsistencies (not to mention sundry committees, conventions, etc.) Also (later) "Liberty club". Find a consistent way of referring to these.
  • I've capitalized most of these. It's a bit difficult because a) the newspapers have inconsistent capitalization, and b) sometimes it's difficult to figure out what is an official name, and what is just a description. But it should be fairly consistent now. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was the second railroad referred to in the business section, from New Mexico to Pecos, actually built?
  • "By 1906 he was the acting state president of the organization,[367] and presided over the convention in Corpus Christi,[368][369] where he was elected president;[370] he had traveled there with his father.[367][371] " Why do we care about the father?
  • "crowds of more than 1,375 at once" Should "once" be "one time"?
  • "Following his 1915 move to El Paso, Brady remained involved in the social life of his new home." Probably "remained" should be "became" as he was not previously involved in El Paso activities.
  • "Across 1917 and 1918,[416][417] he and other members of the local bar assisted those filling out draft questionnaires.[418][419][420]" "Across" should probably be "During".
  • "The conviction was reversed on appeal the following year.[132][133] Hiles was again convicted of manslaughter in 1915, and the verdict sustained.[134][135]" Reversed would probably mean that the appeals court directed he be found not guilty, and he could not be retried. Possibly "overturned"?
  • "jitne" probably "jitney"
  • "Reum had moved to El Paso around 1900 with her husband Charles,[224] also a physician.[225]" This assumes that Anna Reum was a physician. Was she? Elsewhere, I mean.
  • According to various sources (example), they were both physicians. With that said, it seems to have been a bit of a loose and unregulated term back then; much of the trouble they got into seems to have been due to the increasing regulation of their field. This article about her husband contains some details, and quotes the relevant statute: "From and after the passage of this amendment [in July 1901] it shall be unlawful for any person to practice medicine ... in this state except, First, all those who were practicing medicine in Texas prior to January 1, 1885; second, all those who began the practice of medicine in this state after the above date who complied with the laws of this state regulating the practice of medicine prior to the passage of this act; provided that those who had diplomas recorded sicne January 1, 1891, shall present to the state board of medical examiners ... satisfactory evidence that their diplomas were issued by bona fide medical colleges of respectable standing." --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reeves County Bar association" Is this the proper capitalization?
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything done yet or is there more? Ping me when you're ready for me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Wehwalt. Everything now responded to. --Usernameunique (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt - Have you been able to revisit this one? Hog Farm Talk 01:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought I had. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're past 3 weeks without supports. If there's no progress towards promotion, it may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I'm still responding to the above comments—which I would read as progress towards promotion—but have been swimming in deadlines recently. I'll try to respond more fully in the coming days, but would appreciate a bit of forbearance. It is, after all, a long article, and for that reason alone, it's likely to take a little longer for people to review it and for me to respond. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • 'And "for many years among the front ranks of our business men", as...': I don't think we need the "and" at the start. MOS:CONFORM would allow capitalization of the "F" in "for", so I think it would look OK.
    Reworded. MOS:CONFORM, for its part, does say that "for more precision, the altered letter may be put inside square brackets", which is how I have always been used to doing it. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since I think it's OK, but what I was trying to say was that CONFORM doesn't require the square brackets, so it would have been OK to start the sentence '"For many years among the..."'. Personally I think it looks a little fussy to have the square brackets, if the reader would not be misled by omitting them, but it's a valid stylistic choice so I've struck the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The election was close—the Houston Daily Post reported that "it is impossible to tell tonight" who had won,[50] though the Statesman claimed that Day likely would "be the winner by a fair majority"[51]—but Brady won with 2,679 votes to 2,524.': do we need the newspaper quotes? There are a lot of small details in this article, and I think it would good to trim details that don't tell us anything about Brady.
    Fair enough—dropped it into a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Brady's former colleague McKenzie, was one of the incorporators of the Pecos Valley Southern Railway": if I understand the timeline correctly shouldn't this be "then-colleague", not "former colleague"?
    Brady had been district attorney for a few months at that point. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had traveled there with his father": another small detail I think we could cut.
    It's a minor point, but gives a bit of a sense of the family dynamic. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly a fan of bundling citations, though I know other editors are; I think if multiple sources are needed to establish something, there's no harm letting the reader see that that's the case. However, I wonder if in some cases you're adding valid but unnecessary citations. For example, "By 1916 he was an organizer of a local University of Texas alumni group" is supported by four citations to newspaper articles. Are they all required? If you can reduce the density of footnotes in cases like this I think it would be a good thing. The point of a footnote is not to give the reader as much evidence as possible, it's only to allow them to verify the information cited. Other examples: "Brady also heard cases in November and December 1917" (five cites), "While at the university Brady was involved in committees related to the final ball" (two cites), "and F. T. Maxwell" (two cites), "were named to take his place" (three cites).
    I've removed or unpacked some of these. In some cases, they're needed. With F. T. Maxwell, for instance, one cite gives the names of every member of the Maxwell clan, which adds assurance that the first cite is the obituary of the correct Maxwell—particularly helpful, given that the first name is given only as initials. But footnotes are not meant only to permit a reader to verify the information cited. According to the relevant guideline, this is the first reason for footnotes. Among the other reasons, "[b]y citing sources for Wikipedia content, ... [y]ou also help users find additional information on the subject". For anyone interested, those additional footnotes provide plenty of additional information. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are quibbles, and I think the article is FA quality. It does feel like an accumulation of small details, but the prose merges the details smoothly into a narrative. I've identified a couple of minor points I think could be cut, and there might be more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usernameunique, just checking you saw these comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, Mike Christie—just have had limited time with work and travel. I'll try to respond to the remaining two comments shortly. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I've just become a bit busy myself in real life, but should have a chance to follow up tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie, I've added responses for the remaining comments. Many thanks for the review. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I wouldn't handle the footnotes the way this article does, but that's a personal stylistic preference and not an FA criterion, so I've no hesitation in supporting this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "Brady thereafter obtained a Bachelor of Laws from" - in British English (where I am from) we would say "obtained a Bachelor of Laws degree" not just "a Bachelor of Laws". But maybe US English is different - can you confirm?
  • Lead has a sentence beginning with "And". I was always told not to do this.
  • "This included teaching at summer normals" - I have no idea what a "summer normal" is, is there an appropriate wikilink?
  • "His wife and sister Helen were also present for trial" => "His wife and sister Helen were also present for the trial"
  • "In early 1917 he ran for reelection" - think the last word should have a hyphen
  • "supporting Roosevelt's reelection campaign" - same here

Source review

[edit]

Placeholding. SN54129 23:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey Buidhe, can we put this off for a week, as I've got to take the article to AfD first.
    As Usernameunique is an experienced FACer—this'll be their 21st, I believe—are you requiring spot checks? SN54129 13:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After an editor's first promotion spot checks are always optional. (Ok, bar exceptional blotting of copy book.) Personally I always do a few, and dig deeper if I am not fully happy; but that is not a requirement. (I occasionally do some even if I am not carrying out a source review.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This version reviewed.

Ref # Claim Pass/fail Responses
3b Move to El Paso, 1915 P
4d Ill-health retirement P (although suggest replacing the Find a Grave link) Unfortunately I don't have access to the San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune. Certain libraries do (e.g., here), which I presume is how the copy at Find a Grave was found. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13 Caroline, philology F (no mention of her as philologist) The link to Caroline Brady is doing most of the work in that sentence; the citation is to establish that Caroline Brady was Will Brady's niece. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14d Quote P
37 Geography teacher P
42 Sprinkle residency P
51 Statesman quote re. Day P
58 3-week vacation P
74 Attends STM P
76 Co-leading discussion P
83 Umbrella P
122 Trial of Orner P
155 Pardon of Wright (If Ancestry.com has this source, presumably it's elsewhere?) Per the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, which holds the original copies, the copies are available online on only Ancestry. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
156a DA until 1914, shooting of P
180 Session dates F -Not directly given? (Also, headline is "Terms of New County Court at Law Will Be Fixed Next Tuesday") Fixed the headline. The source says ""The first term of the new court will be held in July, beginning on the first Monday of that month and lasting four weeks." The first Monday of July 1917 was 2 July, and four weeks (ending Friday) gives us 27 July. Cites 188 and 189 say that the court adjourned on Saturday, which I suppose could mean either that it was the first day the court was closed, or the last day the court was open. As such, I've changed it to "The first session of the court lasted the first four weeks of July". --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
191 House to let P
203 $25 vagrancy fines P
214 News ads What is it citing? 217 is the ad in question; it responds to 216, another ad. 214 is just to show whom William H. Fryer was, and why he's red-link worthy. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
224 Unopposed on ballot P
244 Reum, HANA, Leavenworth P
263 Sheriffs conspiring to murder P
265 September in LA P (although seems slightly redundant)
269 Damn P
290 Cruce Oil P
296 Attorney, director - Primary source; mentions director but not attorney. Added another source (298), which mentions attorney. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
297 David Can't see David anywhere! My eyes...? It's a two-page article, with the relevant portion in the second full paragraph on page 8. "The Sunshine corporation is headed by Alfred Tinally, Judge Will Brady, Major D. J. Brady, H. T. Biggs of Pecos and Roy D. Barnum, treasurer." --Usernameunique (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
315 Fiscal relief P
320 Democrat P (note SPS) What is SPS? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
325 Houston delegate P
328 Endorsing Harper P
345 Arroyo Grande P
353 Chair local DNC, Roosevelt nominator P
377 Elected president P
381 Knight's picnic P
385 Knights of Pythias meeting P
388 Railways P
408 Sheppard in El Paso P
428 Liberty Club dance P
433 Mission secretary P
437 His marrying P
451 Home on Fort Boulevard P
458a Wife's death P

I've got a couple of queries that should be clarified—or informed that Benny snake-eyes sees better than me!—but the bottom line is that out of a spot check of ~10% of references, only six are problematic, and about half of them can probably be justified (SPS, PST etc). That's well within discretionary range, considering the sheer number of refs (0.66%, if anyone's counting). SN54129 16:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Serial Number 54129. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from the still-unsourced reference to philology :p I consider Usernameunique's responses to be adequate. More broadly, the quality of the sources would appear to be the highest possible for the weight they bear; as such, I am happy to pass this source review. SN54129 15:00, 11 February 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 15 February 2022 [118].

Cyclone Taylor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The third nomination, following failed attempts back in December 2019 and February 2020. The first real ice hockey star, Cyclone Taylor was once the highest-paid athlete in the world, on a per game basis, and his legacy is quite important to the development of the sport. He also had a fairly notable off-ice career as well working as a Canadian immigration officer. The article went through a Peer Review many months ago, and after much delay I have addressed those comments, as well as those in previous nominations, and believe it should be good to go now. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

I already reviewed this article as part of a peer review early last year. At this point, I think it's really high quality and should be easy to review for anyone who happens to stumble across this nomination. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just minor notes:

  • from 1906 to 1922 (add "for") several teams
  • and retired in 1950. <<<=== doesn't have parallelism with the rest of the sentence. Either start a new sentence or maybe "retiring in 1950"?
  • but as he was not sanctioned to play for them, and rather than play anywhere else ===>>> but as he was not sanctioned to play for them and rather than play anywhere else,
  • , the passengers were refused entry into Canada ===>>> the passengers havinoyg been refused entry into Canada OR ; the passengers were refused entry into Canada
Thanks for taking another look and for the support. I've fixed the above. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

We're now past 3 weeks with only one support. If this does not see further progress towards promotion in the next several days, it may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 19:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to look through this. I'll try to comment in the next few days. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Clayoquot

[edit]

The lead is good. I've read partway through the article and I'm enjoying it so far. The flow and level of detail are just right. Here are some issues with wording:

  1. In 1946 he was named a Member of the Order of the British Empire for his services in immigration, retiring 1950. - This doesn't make sense grammatically. An "in" is also missing before "1950".
Reworded to match what is listed later on, that should be better I hope.
  1. While considering the offer, Taylor was approached by representatives from the Portage Lakes Hockey Club, a professional team based in Houghton, Michigan that played in the International Hockey League (IHL), the first openly professional hockey league. I'd split this into two sentences. Four commas in a sentence is a bit much.
Reworded
  1. However the high wages were unsustainable, and with the decision of the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), the top league in Canada, to allow professional players in 1907, the IHL folded that summer, allowing the players to return to Canada. I think this also needs to be split. Five commas in a sentence is too much.
Agreed. I've changed it around.
  1. Taylor was intrigued by the offer: as Whitehead wrote, "[t]he chance that it could turn into a permanent career job" was important, as a career in the civil service promised job security for Taylor after his hockey career ended. - Whitehead probably shouldn't be named at all as this sentence isn't about Whitehead's opinion. The quote from Whitehead should be paraphrased and stated as a straightforward fact.
Good point, done.
  1. Moreover, when the ECHA had re-constituted itself as the Canadian Hockey Association (CHA) in November 190 - the last digit of the year seems to be missing.
Fixed.

I'll write more later. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I'll be waiting to see your remaining thoughts. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Taylor remained involved in hockey after he stopped playing. - Did you mean to say after he stopped playing professionally? Most competitive athletes continue with their sport recreationally for a long time after retiring.
Clarified
  1. the expansion Vancouver Canucks' first home game - This doesn't make sense. I'm not sure what "expansion" means here.
I removed the word; it doesn't lose any of the meaning without it.
  1. Taylor was offered a position in the Immigration Department - was this the name of the department? Earlier, the article refers to the immigration branch of the Department of the Interior.
This is how it's referenced by Whitehead, but to clear things up I've reworded it to be about the federal government more generally.
  1. Whitehead has suggested that Taylor's abilities may have been embellished. We could use a few words saying who Whitehead is.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done
  1. Taylor was regarded as one of the best hockey players throughout his playing career, and was able to command attention and a high salary anywhere he went. Not every claim requires a citation, but this one does :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, though I can't confirm the salary part easily, so took that out.
  1. His ability... made him a valuable addition to any team sounds reminiscent of a cover letter for employment. Can you reword this?
I made an attempt, but let me know if it needs tweaking.
  1. His ability to draw crowds made him a valuable addition to any team, and in an era when players only signed on for one season at a time, Taylor always had several teams interested in his services, and thus was able to command some of the highest salaries of his time. - I suggest splitting this into two sentences.
Done
  1. The Cyclone Taylor Cup was donated - it seems slightly odd to use the passive voice here. Who donated what?
Re-phrased, as I can't comment on where the Cup actually came from.

This reads really well. I like the balance between the hockey and non-hockey aspects of his life. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll just need a day or two to address everything; I'll ping you once I do. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. and joined the Senators, spending two seasons with the team. In 1909 he signed with Renfrew - This is the first time either the Senators or Renfrew are named. The full names of the teams should be given (e.g., Ottawa Senators) and the names should be wikilinked.
Fixed.

A nice variety of suitable reliable sources are used. Source formatting is consistent. Images have detailed alt text. Copyvio check done using Earwig's tool. I have not yet done spot checks of the sourcing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for taking the time to look over the article. Definitely made an effort to show he had quite the off-ice life, so glad that shows. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
) I have a book on hold at the library that I plan to use for a sourcing spot-check.I'm planning to pick it up and finish my review this week. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot: I also should have all sources here as well (except Coleman, unfortunately), so if you need me to share anything I'll be happy to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Prose issues have been fixed. I spot-checked refs #101,#102, #131, #115, #139, (Kitchen 2008, p. 160), and (Zweig 2007, p. 47). Looks like you've nailed it :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for going through it, I do really appreciate it. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]
@CPA-5: Thanks for the heads up. I don't see an issue on my side (I used two different resolutions), but moved one image down. Please let me know if that works, and if not I'll further adjust. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Sometimes when you start a sentence with "however", you follow it with a comma, but other times you don't - be consistent (I would personally say the comma is correct)
Fixed
  • "reports about with whom Taylor would sign" - "about with whom" sounds a bit weird, any way to reword?
Done
  • "A comparison was made with Major League Baseball player Ty Cobb had signed" => "A comparison was made with Major League Baseball player Ty Cobb, who had signed"
Fixed
  • "During the season one of the most famous legends about Taylor developed: Prior" - last word does not start a new sentence so shouldn't have a capital P
Fixed
  • "While for the first games of the PCHA's inaugural season only had half the tickets sold" => "While the first games of the PCHA's inaugural season only had half the tickets sold"
Fixed
  • "with whom Taylor had played for previously" => "with whom Taylor had played previously"
Fixe
  • "In 1946 Taylor was named as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire" - the lead says Member of the Order, which is a lower rank. Which is correct?
It should be Member, so fixed
  • "A grandson, Mark Taylor, played in the NHL [...] Taylor's oldest son, Fred Jr.," - slight possibility of confusion as to who the Taylor referred to in the second sentence is, so for clarity I would move the information about the grandson to the end of the paragraph
I moved it later on, before the mention of Joan's death (as it refers to Cyclone's own death, I felt that should still remain there; if you think otherwise I'm not opposed to further adjustments).
  • I would merge the last two paragraphs of the legacy section, as both are quite short
Done
Great, appreciate your comments, and should have everything addressed here. If you think anything else should be done just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • "However the high wages proved to be unsustainable and in 1907 the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), the top league in Canada, decided to allow professional players in 1907. Able to play in Canada, many players left the IHL, which folded that summer." I don't follow the sequence of thoughts here. What connects the two halves of the first sentence?
    The IHL (which had the high wages) was based in the US, while the ECAHA was in Canada. Most IHL players were from Canada, so when given the chance to play in Canada they took that up; combined with an IHL that was unable to keep going, it led to the latter folding. If you have thoughts on how to make that clearer I'll be glad to do so (I also removed the second "1907" there).
    As currently phrased it makes it sound as though the high wages being unsustainable is the reason the ECAHA decided to allow professional players. How about "In 1907 the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), the top league in Canada, decided to allow professional players. Many of the Canadian players took the opportunity to play in Canada, and left the IHL, which folded that summer." That eliminates the mention of high wages as part of the reason though so it might need tweaking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that works for me. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might be best to put the caveat about Brice's article naming Taylor "Cyclone" in the main text; the only hint that it is not fully supported is the word "allegedly" in the quote box.
    There is a footnote there about it (the same one used in the quote box), but I added a qualifier to the text. If more's needed please say so.
  • "his previous efforts to challenge for it had been rebuffed": I doubt if "rebuffed" is the right word here; it means he was turned down, not that he failed.
    Modified to a more reasonable "unsuccessful".
  • "during the next game between the two, on March 8 in Renfrew, the Millionaires won 17–2": surely an error? He didn't join the Millionaires till four years later. And is the February 12, 1908 date for his boast correct? We're in the Renfrew Creamery Kings section which should mean we're no earlier than the 1909-1910 season.
    Not exactly: Renfrew was also known informally as the "Millionaires", though I seem to have forgotten that note in the article. I've added a small note about the multiple "Millionaires", but kept Renfrew as the "Creamery Kings" throughout to avoid confusion.
  • You have an ISBN on Coleman but it's too early -- is this a reprint? If so I would use the date on the copy consulting and use the orig-date parameter to give the original edition year.
    It was the original, but I used what Worldcat has. I've switched that out for the OCLC number though, as I think you're right we shouldn't anachronistically use ISBNs when they weren't there.

That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed everything here, and appreciate your comments and edits. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "Acknowledged as one of the first stars of hockey". I see Legacy supports that he was a star, but what source supports the "first" claim?
Addressed that, and added the "professional qualifier" per the source. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author in Bibliography?
Currently by publication date, but if that needs adjusting I can do so.
That's fine, but it's not done consistently - Wong is the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that.
  • Do you have any information about Knights of Winter Publishing?
They're a small publisher, but have released other titles on hockey history, especially as it relates to Western Canada. The book itself has received favourable coverage from the Society of International Hockey Research, the leading scholarly body on hockey. The book also is fully-cited.
Do you have a link to that coverage? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't easily (I'm not a current member so access to their archives is restricted), but I do have a review in the University of British Columbia-based BC Studies (the website formatting is not working properly for me, but the text should be readable still).
  • What is "inc." in the Coleman title?
I'd presume it's "inclusive", but it's not spelt out. I don't have this book physically available see image of similar book for reference
  • What makes Frank Cosentino a reliable source on this topic? Ditto Penumbra Press.
Cosentino (who actually has his own article here has a PhD in physical education, and has written several books on Canadian sport history. I can't speak for the Press itself, but the book is fully-cited to contemporary-era newspapers.
Right, but having citations doesn't in itself make a source reliable - any more info on that source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a favourable review of it in the Canadian Journal of History of Sport Vol. 22, No. 2 (1991). I have a PDF of that if you'd like to check.
Yes please. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a DOI link for it (link), but if you need it sent I can privately share it. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry - I do have access, but that source is about the Cosentino book. I'm wondering about Penumbra. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)I get it, thanks. Far as I'm aware, they're a smaller Canadian press that's been around for some time, with a focus on Canadian culture and history. I can't find any reliable source on that (nothing that would be considered a RS here at least), but that is what I understand of it. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. If we don't have more info on it, do we know anything about this specific author or book suggesting that it would be considered high-quality? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say yes. As noted, Cosentino is certainly reputable, and someone who could be considered high-quality. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not Cosentino - the Penumbra Press title, by Kitchen. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I shouldn't be responding while getting over a cold. Kitchen was an historical consultant for the Ottawa Senators, an NHL team, and a past president of the SIHR. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why repeat work title in the author parameter?
Not sure what this refers to?
Eg Ottawa Citizen + Ottawa Citizen. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I fixed those. However not sure where to sort them now, so I have them alphabetical by title. If that needs adjustment let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - are you satisfied with the changes for that last sourcing point? Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2022 [119].

1992–93 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After seven successful nominations, here's another article about a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C. for your consideration. After working on a number of articles about seasons in which the club experienced success, I decided to torture myself by writing about arguably the club's worst season in my lifetime, when they came within a hair's breadth of finishing bottom of the entire Football League. Happy days.....

As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and most promptly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by Oldelpaso The unanswered question that arises from reading the article is "Why were they so bad that year?" The club had finished mid-table in the preceding season but lost their top scorer, what were the expectations beforehand? Its not an easy one to source (not least because Brian Moore's Head.. won't count as a reliable source), but I'm wondering if things from local press would be available, or if one of the nationals ran a preview of the division. While wary that too much narrative building could veer into original research, I wonder if something from the time of the sacking might ascribe some reasons for the decline.
  • The image of Plainmoor could do with rotating to make the pitch level. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oldelpaso: - I've changed the image of Plainmoor for one which probably more accurately reflects what it looked like at the time and has a more level pitch. I've added in details of a season preview which I found in The Times and which somewhat surprisingly said the team were in with a shout of promotion. I've also added a quote from Richardson at the time of his sacking saying why in his opinion the team failed so catastrophically at achieving this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe I have addressed the above points, but Oldelpaso has not edited since making them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by FrB.TG

[edit]

Trying to expand my horizons as a reviewer.

  • "David Crown was the team's top goalscorer, with 5 goals in the Football League and a total of 9 in all competitions" - shouldn't 5 and 9 be written in words?
  • "At the start of the season, Damien Richardson was the club's manager, a post he had held since April 1989." There needs to be a {{nbsp}} between April and 1989, per MOS:NBSP.
  • "Ron Hillyard, like Richardson a former Gillingham player, was assistant manager." Since "a former Grillingham player" is a parenthesis, a comma needs to precede "a former".
  • "during the summer of 1992" simply could become "during summer 1992".
  • "after being unable to fulfil their first game of the season they resigned from the Football League" - since you have put the dependent adverbial clause before the independent clause, there needs to be a comma before "they resigned".
  • "The team prepared for the new season with a number of friendly matches, including a testimonial match for Bill "Buster" Collins, who had been with the club in a variety of roles since the early 1960s including a long spell as youth team manager." Perhaps try to be consistent with the placement of a comma before "including" especially in the same sentence. Or better use a synonym for one to avoid repetition here.
  • "Gillingham had originally been scheduled to play Maidstone on Boxing Day, but due to the latter team's withdrawal from the League, Gillingham instead re-arranged a game against Bury which had previously been scheduled for late January;[32] Gillingham lost 4–1 in a match in which their opponents wore Gillingham's second-choice kit in the second half after the referee decided that the two team's colours were too similar.[33]" This is an incredibly long sentence. I suggest replacing the semi-colon with a full stop.
  • "Gillingham began March with two defeats, including a 2–0 loss away to Barnet in which" and "Two games later, the team achieved another victory against Lincoln City, in which" - a fairly minor point, but be consistent with the comma before "in which".
  • This can be ignored as this is personal taste but I think you could use the more common "mainly due to" than "due mainly to".

Notwithstanding these minor queries, a fairly enjoyable read. FrB.TG (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: - many thanks for your review. I have made these changes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Excellently written. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate some feedback on my newly-nominated FAC for a British actress. FrB.TG (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru

[edit]
Background and preseason
  • "the division in which Gillingham had played since 1989 was renamed from the Fourth Division to the Third Division" - I almost think this doesn't matter, but isn't this technically inaccurate? As I understood it at the time, there wasn't a renaming, but rather the three top divisions of the Football League remained the same, with the fourth abolished, and every time that wasn't promoted or relegated was shunted up by one division. Thus technically second-tier winners Crystal Palace won the same First Division title which Leeds United had won as first-tier champions the previous season. And in fact, the Championship of today is still legally the successor to what for decades was the top flight.
  • "brought a United team" - I think it's usually preferable not to use a contraction like "United", even where it's obvious what's meant, as in this case. Theoretically it could also mean Maidstone United, whom you mentioned earlier, although quite why Steve Bruce would arrive with a bus-full of Maidstone players is beyond me!
Third Division
  • "would prove to be" - two occurrences of this phrase in one paragraph, perhaps reword one.
  • "the first 13 Third Division games of the season" - maybe "thirteen" rather than "13", given that we talk of "three games" and "six ... matches" in the next sentence.
  • "by now fallen to the bottom of the table" - I wonder if "by then" would work better, since it's not really "now"
  • "would only win one of the next ten league games" - better to just say "won only one of their next ten league games" or similar, rather than another "would"
  • "The defeat meant that Gillingham had gone through an entire season without winning a league game away from home for the first time in the club's history" - parsing this sentence was a little difficult; maybe add a comma after "away from home" or something?
Cup matches
  • "the non-League team nearly achieved a draw" - it might be worth saying a sentence or two about the goals... I initially assumed they were holding on for a 0-0, but it seems it was actually 2-2 by the time the winner went in.
Aftermath
  • "joined Dagenham & Redbridge" - maybe add "of the XXX division" for extra context
  • "who had only played one game" - I might be making this up, but it feels like "who had played only one game" would be better syntax

That's about it. Lead all looks fine. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - many thanks for your review. See what you make of these changes :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: - can I check if you are now happy to support, or if there are any outstanding issues? Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, apologies for not circling back here. All looks good now, thanks. Supporting.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99

[edit]

Great read about an unremarkable topic. Couldn't really find any issues apart from maybe punctuation. Pointed them out below. --truflip99 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "no team containing [David] Crown and [Steve] Lovell is likely to go short of goals." -- MOS:LQ?
  • "I've lost my job on a matter of principle - teaching kids to play attractive football... -- MOS:LQ, MOS:ENDASH?
@Truflip99: - all done (assuming I have interpreted correctly :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure did! --truflip99 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I made a couple of minor copyedits, but can't find anything to complain about. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

[edit]

I could not find anything nitpicky in the prose, but looking at the sources:

  • #15 needs a page number I think
  • #23 does not seem to cover "Defeat at home to Crewe Alexandra"
  • ISBN formatting seems inconsistent, hyphen-wise
  • spotcheck: 3 19 28 30 35 36 44 47 70 72 73 all fine

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your review Edwin. Ref 15 relates to a book which does not have numbered pages. I added an additional ref against the Crewe sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All fine. I Support on prose and source review. Nice work, as always. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to co-ordinators

[edit]
@FAC coordinators: - can you confirm if it's OK to start another FAC? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2022 [120].

Paige Bueckers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Paige Bueckers, one of the most promising women's basketball players and currently a top player at the college level for UConn. She was considered the best high school basketball player in the United States at Hopkins High School in Minnesota, and had a historic first season at UConn, becoming the first freshman to win a national college player of the year award. Bueckers has several gold medals representing the United States in youth tournaments.

This article briefly went through a peer review and I believe it meets the criteria of a featured article. It is comprehensive and well-sourced, illustrated with many good images, and its content does not change significantly on a daily basis. Although it is early in the subject's career, I have been a regular contributor to this article for nearly 2 years and expect to make sure it remains up to date. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 14 awards in the infobox still seems like far too many. (The infobox is supposed to provide basic information at a quick glance; excessive length undermines its purpose). A better approach might be "see the body" and link the body section where the awards are listed. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • Please be advised that I have watched precisely one basketball game in my life, so am approaching this from a decidedly non-expert position :-)
  • "winning all four she was eligible for" => "winning all four for which she was eligible"
  • "She led her team in three-point shooting" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "three-point shooting"?
  • "In seventh grade, Bueckers played for the tenth grade and junior varsity basketball teams at Hopkins High School" - I am not 100% clued up on how grades work in US schools, but the article on the school suggests that it only starts from the tenth grade. Does this mean she played for a school which she did not attend? Is this normal? Did any sort of special dispensation have to be given?
  • "earning All-Metro first team honors" - what does "All-Metro" mean?
  • "She was additionally one of three finalists for the Gatorade National Player of the Year award" - no need to link the award again as you only just linked it in the last paragraph
  • "Bueckers moved to the Minnesota Metro Stars AAU program" - I had to stop for a minute here and think what AAU could be, so maybe put it in brackets where you used its full name before
  • "During her senior season, Star Tribune columnist" - no need to link the paper again
  • "a 63–59 overtime win over No. 1 South Carolina." - in what were they number one?
  • "Bueckers's father, Bob Bueckers, played high school basketball as a point guard." - no need to link point guard again
  • If she's at university, is it worth mentioning what subject her degree course is in (assuming this is public knowledge)? Or does it not work like that in the US?

Support from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA, and again at peer review, hence the quick support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some minor comments:

  • In the first sentence, "Big East Conference (add "in NCAA Division I")"
  • She has experience in 3x3 basketball ===>>> She was a Youth Olympic gold medalist in 3x3 basketball
  • She has a slim build, which encourages opposing teams to force her to play through contact,[109] but displays quickness and agility. <<<=== Maybe restructure or move the last part of this sentence to a new sentence. Also, I think "quickness and agility" is what you might expect from a slim player, so I'm not sure you need the "but".
  • Typically, an awards and honors section goes after all of the prose (see e.g. LeBron James).
  • I think "Footnotes" is usually just written as "Notes", not sure if there is a reason for that.

Also, you need to add alt text for the images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Sources are an appropriate mix of sports news websites/newspapers, local news websites/newspapers, and official team websites. I don't see anything questionable.
  • Since you link most of the sources, you could link CT Post to Connecticut Post.
  • There are a few instances of BIG EAST being in all caps when it doesn't need to be.
  • ESPN is a publisher. It is correct in most sources, but there are a few where it is referred to as a website.
  • Use the User:InternetArchiveBot to archive all of the sources if you can. Otherwise, just archive the ones below using Internet Archive (or replace if not available).

Links not working:

Spotchecks:

  • In [95], "She matched the program record for points in a season opener set by Kerry Bascom in 1989", I see the source says the most points since Bascom, but not that it was a program record.
  • The following sources support the associated statements: [25] (first sophomore to win award), [47] (career stats), [51] (finalists), [68] (Maya Moore), [101] (tournament stats), [114] (signature shot)

Sources appear to be in good shape. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sportsfan77777, just checking that the source review is a pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun

[edit]
  • Like Chris, my experience of basketball consists of half an NBA game and The Last Dance, so a non-expert review here as well.
  • "as well as football" → Maybe specify American football?
  • Link assists at first mention.
  • "selected as Big East Preseason" → "selected as the Big East Preseason"
  • Is there a link for "osteochondral"?
  • I could not find a suitable link.

Although not required, a review at my FAC would be appreciated.

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]

HF - support

[edit]

Will review this one. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • " and has been considered one of the top players of her generation." - See WP:RS/AC; is there a source that specifically says this is a consensus? If not, you'll need attribution
  • date of birth does not appear to be cited anywhere
  • "Bueckers became friends with future National Basketball Association (NBA) player Jalen Suggs while in elementary school" - a bit nitpicky, but the source doesn't support that Suggs in an NBA player, because it was published before he was drafted
  • "Cosgriff nicknamed her Olive Oyl, in reference to the slender cartoon character, due to her thin build" - is this due weight?
  • "She led Hopkins to a 31–1 record, suffering her only loss to Elk River High School " - recommend rephrasing this to stress more that it was the team's only loss, as basketball is not an individual sport As screamed by coaches across the country, "There is no 'I' in team!"
  • "In January 2018, as a sophomore, Bueckers was sidelined with an ankle injury that had been hurting her up to that point in the season" - recommend indicating the start of the HS ball season for comparison (IIRC it's November in MO, not sure about MN)
  • "On March 16, she scored 13 points to win the Class 4A state championship, 74–45, over Stillwater Area High School" - again "as the team won" or some other phrasing; basketball is a team sport
  • "leading Hopkins to another undefeated season and 62 consecutive wins" - it's not specified that the prior season was undefeated, so the use of "another" stands out as odd
  • "Bueckers has been regarded as the best player in Minnesota girls' high school basketball history" - again RS/AC; do either of the sources specifically say that this is consensus? The first one doesn't seem to, and the second one seems to be dead.
  • " the No. 1 team" - is the tool tip needed? If it's considered necessary to give the tool tip, go ahead and spell it out

Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 13 February 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 February 2022 [124].

Röhm scandal

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, there's the Nazi who became the world's first openly gay politician—in 1932. Then, there are the anti-Nazis stirring up a scandal against him, wielding every pre-existing homophobic canard and inventing a new one: that "the heart of the Nazis’ militant nationalist politics lay in the sinister schemes of decadent homosexual criminals". Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is as a microhistory in Weimar-style competitive authoritarianism. When your elected representatives start beating each other up in parliament, that's when you know democracy is dead... I'd like to thank Usernameunique for the GA review. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

Placeholder; will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; most of them are just suggestions, feel free to ignore those which you don't feel helpful:

Lead
  • Are there other historians than Marhoefer who believe that Röhm was world's "first openly gay politician"?
    • None that I can find, but I also cannot find sources claiming someone else earlier as the first.
      • Interesting case! So, in all these 90 years or so after the scandal, we have just 1 scholar claiming the he was world's "first openly gay politician", and no other noting that detail explicitly. Strange! The way you have mentioned that in the article, writing it as Marhoefer's opinion, is just fine and acceptable. But, I'm reluctant to believe that. If that is true, I'd expect a lot of commentary in other sources. No mention of anyone else as the first openly gay politician does not make Röhm the first ... How about removing Marhoefer and the quote, and writing something like "Röhm has been mentioned as one of the first major openly gay politician"? Just a thought. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that is true, I'd expect a lot of commentary in other sources I wouldn't necessarily expect this because it's not the kind of information that tends to get picked up on in scholarly sources. According to my research, all the others claimed as first openly gay/lesbian politicians are all from decades later. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also homosexual, although he tried to separate his personal and political life" — what does 'He' mean here? specify.
  • "and was appointed leader of the Sturmabteilung" — shouldn't "Sturmabteilung" be in italics?
(talk page stalker) From the MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by his Social Democratic opponents" v. "Although the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD)" — (1) Social Democratic Party is linked twice in the lead when it should be just on the first instance, (2) why mention the complete name of the party on both the instances?
  • "Communist Party of Germany (KPD)" — 'KPD' is never again used in the lead. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
  • Homophobia could be linked
  • "Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler" — (1) Hitler is linked twice in the lead (2) the lead already mentions that Hitler is the "Nazi Party leader", I see no need for repetition.
    • Done all
Rest of the article
  • "are placed in men from the cradle … If the struggle" — Add a non-breaking space between 'cradle' and the ellipsis.
  • "For example, in 1927" — I am not sure if writing "For example" in an encyclopedic article is fine or not. Is there a better way of presenting that?
  • "probably, also because of his inclinations... [which] offered a useful point of attack at any time" — Add a non-breaking space between 'inclinations' and the ellipsis. Also check for other instances in the article.
  • "The leader of the Berlin SA, Walther Stennes," — Walther Stennes is here linked to Stennes revolt than his bio article
  • "and his Pupenjungen" (male prostitutes)" — shouldn't the definition and parenthesis be inside quotation?
  • "Röhm-Röhrbein-Ernst Triple Alliance" — do the sources here discuss what the 'Triple Alliance' means in this case? If not, should be we linking it to Triple Alliance (1882)?
    • The source is in German and the German word used (de:Dreibund) seems to be unambiguous in referring to the 1882 alliance.
  • "large circles of Berlin party comrades are informed about the gay clubs" — I'd prefer a citation immediately after the quote.
  • "these Pupenjungen, these damned" — Pupenjungen is linked twice in the prose
  • "possibly Otto Strasser" — probably attribute inline as to who thinks that it was probably Strasser
  • "For example, in September 1931" — same as previous comment on "For example" (also for various other instances in the article)
  • "and the former Nazi Eduard Meyer." — Mostly, you use {{ill}}. Here, it isn't used and "Eduard Meyer" is directly linked to the German Wikipedia? Suggesting to be consistent.
  • "for the forgery" — is the definite article necessary here?
  • "and killed himself in prison" — will using the word "suicide" be appropriate/better in this context?
  • "After this affair," — At the start of a every new paragraph, you'll need to specify what "this" means.
  • "in Heimsoth's lawyer's safe" — I didn't understand this
    • Removed as insufficiently important
  • "The existence of the letters was most likely leaked by a Nazi, possibly Strasser" — who thinks that the main is possibly Strasser?
    • Removed as sources actually disagree on this
  • "It was especially difficult to obtain evidence for a crime committed in private." — does this statement has anything specific to do with the Röhm scandal, or is a general statement?
    • It is true generally but also for Röhm's specific case according to the cited source: "After Röhm’s return to Germany, prosecutors tried at least five times to convict him under Paragraph 175. None of the charges stuck, partially because the evidence for such a private crime was difficult to obtain."
  • "during the 1932 German presidential election in which Hitler was running against Paul Hindenburg" — probably worth mentioning that Hindenburg was the incumbent president.
  • "the SPD printed and mailed 300,000 copies of the pamphlet" — exactly 300,000 or approximately 300,000? (Thanks to Gog!)
  • "On 6 April, shortly before the second round of the presidential election" — can we write it anyway different. It wan't exactly 'shortly', it was 4 days before the second round.
  • "I’ll beat him to death" — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
  • "DVNP" is used just once in the prose. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
    • It is nearly universally used in English language sources and likely more recognizable to English speakers than the spelled out translation
  • " “above all the Reichstag building is not the right place to take revenge or vengeance with a series of ear-boxings" " — fix the quote mark (“ to ")
  • "One of these was Kurt Tucholsky," — avoid starting a sentence by a number.
  • I am assuming that "§175" means "article 175"
  • "In contrast to the left-wing press, homosexual activists emphasized the hypocrisy of the Nazi Party in condemning homosexuality while harboring homosexuals in its own ranks." (emphasis mine) — the sentence is quite repetitive; I have boldfaced everything that is repeated.
  • "carrying their hangman’s rope" — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
  • "in the Hitler cabinet" — "in Hitler's cabinet" would flow better, I think
  • "The worldwide bestseller The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror (1933) — Our article on The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror never tells that it was a "worldwide bestseller". And even if it was, do we need to specify it in this article?
    • Yes, because it shows the prominence of the allegations being made.
  • "killed during what he termed the "Night of Long Knives"" — didn't he termed it "Night of the Long Knives" (emphasis mine)
  • The following source and no corresponding footnote. "There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFReichardtzur_Nieden2004"
    • Reichardt, Sven; zur Nieden, Susanne (2004). "Skandale als Instrument des Machtkampfes in der NS-Führung: Zur Funktionalisierung der Homosexualität von Ernst Röhm" [Scandals as an instrument of the power struggle in the Nazi leadership: on the instrumentalization of Ernst Röhm's homosexuality]. Skandal und Diktatur: Formen öffentlicher Empörung im NS-Staat und in der DDR [Scandal and dictatorship: forms of public outrage in the Nazi state and in the GDR] (in German). Wallstein. pp. 33–58. ISBN 978-3-89244-791-7

That is it for now. An Excellent piece of work. Nice to see this article at FAC withing 2 weeks of its creation! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Ernst_Röhm_(1887-1934)_München,_Germany_(Weimar_Republic)_1924_Hauptmann_Bund_Freikorps_Epp_uniform_Iron_cross_etc_242-HF-0377_001_Unrestricted_No_known_copyright_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from? I'm not seeing it at the source link
  • File:Reichstag_building_in_the_Album-von-Berlin_0041.jpg: is it correct to say no author is credited anywhere in the source? If so suggest specifying that in the author field. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth

[edit]
Otherwise everything looks good. I may or may not be back to review in full. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review! (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the dealt with item, leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching now. Good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • I was just reading about this issue the other day, interesting to see it has a dedicated article. Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if he goes without saying, but link Hitler in the image caption?
  • "Eldorado (pictured in 1932), the most famous gay establishment in Germany[2]" Add to the caption that it was frequented by Röhm, to establish connection to the article?
  • "Both men saw their homosexuality as compatible with Nazism" Any rationales given?
  • Weimar could be linked.
    • Done all of these except the second one. I don't think sources give a straight answer for why Röhm and Heimsoth thought this. The sources do say 1) they opposed effeminate homosexuals, 2) Röhm was a misogynist and supported all-male organizations based on fraternal comradeship rather than fatherhood. Other Nazis saw reproduction as the only legitimate purpose of sexuality. Some of this could be added, but I'm not sure it's directly related to the scandal. (t · c) buidhe 02:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leading Joseph Goebbels to" Present him? Even Hitler is presented, though I'd believe more people know who he was.
    • Done
  • "The allegations against Röhm also found their way into election posters and stickers" Any examples we could show?
    • Good question! I am not finding any with a Google search, and regardless they would probably be under copyright. There are some interesting caricatures here, the first of which will go out of copyright in US in 2027.
  • "The scandal was unpleasant for the Nazi Party,[46][36] but it did not affect the Nazis' electoral performance" Nazis' could just be "their" to avoid repetition.
    • Done
  • "One of these was Kurt Tucholsky" It would almost be relevant/interesting to state he was Jewish, unless the sources don't make this point.
    • Interestingly, although several sources mention Tucholsky's comments on the affair, none of them note that he was Jewish.
  • "they nevertheless rejected sexual denunciation [de] as a tactic" Wouldn't outing be a better destination than this red link? Or perhaps even just make it a redirect? The term outing is used once earlier, but with no link.
    • Done. The term "sexual denunciation" seems to be used much more in German than English.
  • ""Hot Röhm" (Geil Röhm)" Wouldn't geil rather mean "horny" in this context?
    • I'm relying on the translation in Siemens' book which does indeed translate "Geil Röhm" as "Hot Röhm". It's possible that the sources are wrong, but MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE prefers published translations where they exist.
  • "Die Geschichte eines Hochverräters ("The Story of a Traitor")" Or more specifically high traitor, but not sure if this term exists in English (seems it does, looking at Google).
    • Right, this is the translation given by Marhoefer 2015. The term "high treason" is good English, but I don't think I've seen "high traitor" before—it doesn't seem natural to me and appears to be used much less frequently. Someone convicted of high treason I would just call a traitor.
  • "such as the following on the ideal German" from what publication?
    • As a Flüsterwitz [de] it's not originally published. This joke was all the rage back in the 1930s or 1940s and you can find it in several languages. Interestingly, the bit about Röhm does not seem to have been translated. Schwartz also quotes another circulating Röhm joke, which I cannot figure out, possibly due to my imperfect German: "Wandspruch bei Röhm: Nach 4 Uhr laß die Arbeit ruhn und freu dich auf den Afternoon". A third joke he mentions, which operates based on the alternate meaning of "warm" in German and association of Italy with homosexuality ("Röhm fährt auf Urlaub nach Italien und will ein paar warme Tageam Po verbringen") is likely lost on modern audiences so I didn't quote it.
  • "In 1950s West Germany, the Federal Ministry of Justice cited the danger of homosexual subversion (with explicit reference to Röhm) as a reason to retain the Nazis' more punitive revision of Paragraph 175 in the context of the Cold War.[164]" Perhaps good as an addendum to note when this was repealed?
    • Done
  • "and was close to party leader Adolf Hitler. Röhm was also homosexual" Why "also"? Could be read as if Hitler was homosexual too.
    • Removed
  • "Hitler had Röhm murdered in 1934" Could add his friends were also killed.
    • done
  • I think perhaps night of long knives shouldn't be piped, but spelled out, as it's a pretty famous term. Also per WP:easter egg.
    • I don't think it's an easter egg to link the name of an event to a description of what it was. I try to keep the lead concise and there are disputes about whether this term should be used, see my reply to Wehwalt below.
  • Support - interesting article, could be nice to add one of those caricatures, but it doesn't seem their artists are credited, so it'll be hard to determine if they are public domain or not. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • " During the 1932 German presidential election in March 1932," can we avoid the repetition?
  • "Berlin's homosexual movement.[7][3]" Is "movement" the proper term, or perhaps "community"? Also, did you intend refs out of numerical order? (similar out of orders elsewhere)
  • "leadership principle" I'm not sure the English conveys to the reader what is being referred to unless they click on it. Maybe the German? Or at least "führer principle"?
  • "In mid-1934, Hitler had Röhm, along with most of his close political friends, killed during what he termed the "Night of the Long Knives".[151][152]" Hitler called it this? A quick glance at our article doesn't make that clear.
  • Can it be mentioned when Paragraph 175 was repealed?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed most of this. The only points I did not action were
    1. ref order—to my knowledge it is not required that refs are in a particular order, so I don't usually bother.
    2. The term "Night of the Long Knives" is commonly used in English, but Hancock (2011) points out that it was coined by Hitler to justify the purge and "implies acceptance of the argument that the SA did plan a second revolution. These terms lend more legitimacy to what happened than is warranted".
    3. It's not clear that Röhm violated Paragraph 175, one possibility is that he specifically avoided the sexual acts that were criminalized under the law. What he admitted to became illegal after 1935 but when they were legalized again depends on whether you are talking about East or West Germany. So I don't see this point as relevant to the article.
  • Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thought the repeal might be a good way of wrapping things up, but agree not necessary. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: since this has 3 supports, could I have permission for a 2nd nom? Thanks in advance, (t · c) buidhe 03:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 10 February 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 February 2022 [125].

Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An overarching article for a period of the Hundred Years' War where a lot happened - little of it to French benefit. Much of it became known as the English King's annus mirabilis. Francophile readers may wish to look away. This article attempts to summarise a number other articles, set them in context and fill the gaps between them. No doubt I have done all of these imperfectly and I look forward to your pointing out the specifics of this to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Just booking my place. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 16:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a substantial (and excellent) article, and I shall need more than one go at commenting on it. First go:

  • Lead
  • "commenced an offensive" – "commenced" is a bit refained. Perhaps began, launched or started?
Done.
  • "counterattacked Derby's forces" – the OED hyphenates "counter-attack"
Done.
  • Gascon campaign
  • "tie down most of the weak French garrisons in the region" – ambiguous: did they fail to tie down the strong ones or were all the garrisons weak?
Is a response of "yes" acceptable? Fixed.
  • Derby's offensive
    • "defeating them in a running battle" – this is very properly blue-linked to the article on the battle, but though I have often seen the phrase "running battle" I'm not actually sure how such a battle is to be distinguished from a non-running one, and would be glad of an explanation in the text or as a note.
I shall need to see how the sources describe it.
Rewritten, to be a little less summary but hopefully a lot more readily imagined.
  • "Within days of the battle, Bergerac fell" – unexpected AmE-style comma
As you will be aware, I have little truck with the silly fashion for inserting a comma after any mention of time, but in this case it seems necessary for the flow; I find it impossible to read, much less speak, the sentence without pausing there - hence the comma. Is that just me?
That's the nice thing about BrE: commas like this are neither compulsory nor taboo, and if you feel one helps the flow here I'm not going to complain. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several strongpoints on the way" – the OED makes "strong points" two separate words. Occurs again later in the text.
Done.
  • Crécy campaign
  • "many ships deserted. They also captured" – perhaps "the English also captured" rather than the deserting ships doing so?
Ah! Fixed. ("The fleet also ...")
  • Battle of Crécy
  • "These charges were disordered due to their impromptu nature" – "due to" is not accepted in the Queen's English as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to". "Because of" would be better.
I know this, but I can't help myself. Fixed.

I am enjoying reviewing this article. More tomorrow, I hope. – Tim riley talk 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding lot of comments
  • Battle of Crécy
  • "disordered due to their impromptu nature" – another "due to" used as a compound preposition.
  • Fall of Calais
  • "In late-April" – not sure this wants a hyphen
Gah! Removed.
  • Aftermath
  • "England had lost all of its territory in France" – we don't need the "of" surely?
Removed
  • "Calais was finally lost following the 1558 siege of Calais." – the repetition of Calais is rather an anticlimactic end to your narrative. Would "… the 1558 siege of the town" suffice?
It would. Thank you.
  • Notes
  • You seem to have two conflicting methods of citing these four notes: the first two cite Sumption inline; the second two cite Sumption and Lambert in the Citations section. Best be consistent, I think.
How odd. I had missed that. Now fixed.

That's my lot. All very minor quibbles. – Tim riley talk 13:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks indeed Tim, for helping to translate this into English from whatever argot I write in. All done, I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent article, as we have come to expect from this source. Clearly meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I support its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Can't see issues with the ccitations section
  • I think I understand your location naming logic? Could you briefly clarify? Also why "Conn.", seems out of nowhere to abbreviate
I only add to the bare place name if it seems clear that an intelligent reader would not be able to otherwise identify it. You are quite right about Conn. Expanded.
  • Recommend OCLC for Fowler, see here
Added
  • Why "Fowler, Kenneth" vs "Fowler, Kenneth Alan"?
That is how they are given in the thesis and book respectively. Would you prefer me to tweak the former, rather than use the form given?
I wasn't sure if that was the reason, but since it is, it seems fine Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably be "Penguin Books" in Rodger
Done.
  • Is there a reason for both "Boydell & Brewer" and "Boydell Press"? I think the latter was merged in the 70s, so unless you're using books from then, they should all presumably be the former?
"Boydell Press" is what WorldCat has. Both for this and for other 21st C volumes.
Got it, lets definitely trust WC on this one then
  • Also Rodgers is the only time you have just "Woodbridge" for the location (as opposed to "Woodbridge, Suffolk")
Oops. Fixed.
  • You author-link Omrod twice, but don't do so for other repeated authors in the biblio
My error. De-linked at second mention.
  • It should probably be clarified that the dnb source is from the Edward III article. Perhaps "Edward III: Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347"? Or alternatively you could just have it be "Edward III" and then for the short foot note do "loc=Crécy and Calais, 1346–1347".
Quite right. I have gone with your first suggestion.
  • Fowler, Kenneth (1961) seems to need an account for the link, so maybe a url-access= parameter for it?
Good news - you don't need to register to access a thesis; bad news, they don't actually have this one, despite me thinking I downloaded my copy from there. No, any link anywhere to the thesis seems to have disappeared (odd and frustrating - I have used it for half a dozen FAs) so I have removed the link.
Thanks, added.
Reliability
  • No issues, all from established publishers or authors. The dissertation is a PhD so should be usable
And the PhD was by a now Emeritus Professor of Medieval History!
Verifiability
Thanks for the thorough source review Aza24, clearly I have been getting sloppy. All of your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and 'sloppy' is an overstatement, I have seen much worse :) – Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
To simplify a bit, yes. But that is unnecessary detail. If you want I could abbreviate to 'Since 1066', but that seems to beg "What happened in 1066?"
Wouldn't have to be anything detailed, but if accurate, I think something like "through inheritance" alone would greatly clarify it for lay readers with minimal additional text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Good point. I have tweaked the opening to "Since the Norman Conquest of 1066, English monarchs had held titles and lands within France by inheritance. Their possession made them vassals of the kings of France." Better?
  • I wonder if the particular scope of the article is defined by the sources, or if it is a somehow arbitrarily delineated interval?
The period between the recommencement of hostilities after Philip ended the Truce of Malestroit and the Truce of Calais is used by scholars, but usually in a general, difficult to cite way - eg as a chapter or section header. Edward's Annus Mirabilis is commonly cited, usually meaning from the Battle of Bergerac to that of Neville's Cross. (Yes, that covers thirteen-and-a-half months, but allowing time for news to reach England from France it almost works, and I suppose it was just too pat for anyone to get fussy.) I considered naming the article that, and would still have no objections, but running it back a little to the start of Lancaster's expedition and extending the end to the conclusion of the siege of Calais and the truce seemed more natural, and matched rhe timing in the Wiki-template.
Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too? FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I have done that, let's see what other reviewers make of it.
  • Normandy seems to be linked twice, but with two different destinations.
Good spot. Thanks. Anachronism removed.
  • Link cannibalism?
! You think that many readers won't know what it means?
They would, but that article has many other examples of war-time cannibalism for context (almost worthy of an article?), I think that subject is pretty interesting in itself. But no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found willing listeners in September and by the 28th a truce" Could we get the year here for context? I guess this is the natural cut-off point I was asking about earlier.
It is, it is. Good point. Rephrased to stress the date a little.
  • "which served as an English entrepôt into northern France for more than two hundred years." Doesn't seem to be stated explicitly in the relevant part of the article body.
Very good point. The role of Calais post-siege expanded on.
Hi FunkMonk, and thanks for that. Most helpful. Your comments addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers FunkMonk, both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

Great to see this period pulled together so well, Gog. I have a few comments:

  • the infobox has an end date of 3 August 1347, but the truce was agreed on 28 September 1347? This also poses a question for where the Aftermath section should start.
Good question. I am treating the article as based on the English offensives (and partially as an extended version of Edward's annus miralilis). Tend to end this period with the fall of Calais, with the truce as a sort of afterthought. But that is more my take than anything I could point at and cite. What are your thoughts on this.
In general I would think periods of campaigning begin with first shots and end with an armistice, rather than the last action of the campaign. This isn't a war-stopper, just seems incongruous to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Changed.
  • "Although Gascony was the cause of the war" doesn't really follow. In territorial terms, Ponthieu as well, presumably?
Actually not. I can't find a source saying that Ponthieu was forfeited, and it was a recent acquisition, not a centuries old patrimony. And Gascony generated 40-50% of the English Crown's peacetime income, making its status a more pressing matter.
I think you need to explicitly state why it was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As in

Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that Gascony and Ponthieu should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years.

already in the background?
I don't think so. You have explained above (but not in the article to this point) that Gascony was important to England for economic reasons, and stated in the article that Gascony was the cause of the war, but you haven't connected the dots in the article between Gascony's economic importance to England as the underlying reason why Gascony was the cause of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, I keep coming back to this, looking at it, thinking it over, not getting anywhere, and putting it to one side for a couple of days. I'm going to time out if I don't break the cycle. What the RSs say is what I have said in the article. It can't be that bad, as it is my boiler plate introduction to more than a dozen FAs, including several you have reviewed. When sources go into more detail, they tend to do into a lot of detail. Eg Sumption's The Hundred Years' War takes 184 pages to get to the French Great Council meeting. Given that this is deep background I am reluctant to go into the dozen or more areas that led to an increase in tension and eventually to the two countries stumbling into war. Even if I could summarise them, reviewers would keep wanting a bit more detail on each, and they would take over the article. So I write " Following a series of disagreements" to summarise this. The sources all agree that, with hindsight anyway, the threshold that moved things from armed hostility to non-campaigning war was Philip's repudiation of Edward as a vassal and "confiscation" of Aquitaine (Gascony) - without going into further detail as to why this should be a declaration of war. Sumption for example, after 183 pages of background, gives this fewer words than I have just in this response. (I could email it to you.)
Apologies if this doesn't address your point, but I seem to have lost track of what it is. As you can probably tell, I am having something of a mental block on this.
As a reality check I have just reread Wagner's Encyclopedia of the Hundred Years War entry on "Hundred Years' War, Causes of". A partial quote "The immediate cause of the war is generally taken to be PHILIP VI’s confiscation of Aquitaine in May 1337, but the roots of the dispute over the duchy, which is considered by some historians to be the key to the entire war, extend back to the eleventh century when William, duke of NORMANDY, became king of England". He then goes on to summarise 300 years of Franco-English relations. Wagner's article is probably as decent a short summary as there is. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to resolved. I'm happy to put it aside, as others haven't got hung up on it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it operated in northern France" when was this?
Added.
  • wasn't the Truce of Malestroit about Brittany? What is the connection with South-western France?
As so often when one digs, things were not so simple. To quote Wagner in "On 19 January, representatives of the two kings signed a truce in the Church of St. Mary Magdalene in Malestroit. Although the agreement gave Vannes to the pope, who was to hold it for Philip until expiration of the truce, its terms were generally favorable to Edward. Both kings retained their current holdings in Brittany, FLANDERS, AQUITAINE, and SCOTLAND". AQUITAINE in this context means SW France. Icould give more detail if you wish.
Perhaps summarise that in a single sentence? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker, I have been staring at this, and have no objections to making changes, but am struggling to see what they might be that would address your concern and also improve the article. I write "but as the Truce of Malestroit, signed in early 1343, was still in effect, the local lords were reluctant to spend money and little was done." I could add something like 'which forbade fighting between the French and the English', but it seems hugely redundent to me. If you disagree, let me know and I'll add it. Or if you are after something else, could you unpack it a little for my Christmas fodder slowed brain? Cheers.
Nah, forget it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • on second mention, should it be just "l'Isle-Jourdain" or "de l'Isle-Jourdain"?
It should. Fixed. (In a previous discussion you persuaded me to skip the leading de, but not d'.)

Down to 1346. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Aiguillon to Aiguillon, Lot-et-Garonne at first mention
Done.
  • south east→south-east IAW previous hyphenation of sub-cardinal directions
Not done. I use south west, unhyphenated, except when a hyphen is required because south-west is used as a compound modifier.
OK. Presumably that is a style guide thing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have always considered it a normal variety of English. It is only since I have been editing Wikipedia that I have noticed widespread uses of other variants.
  • instead of Note 2, could you go with "the Earl of Lancaster, previously the Earl of Derby," and dispense with Note 1?
Good thinking. Tweaked.
  • "burning every town they passed" and "razed every town in their path" is a bit repetitive. Perhaps for the latter, "Beyond the razing of towns, his soldiers also looted the populace of whatever they could." would be better?
The destruction of the towns was arguably more important than thefts from individuals, and the sources put stress on it. I have left the first mention ("burning every town they passed") and changed the second to "... to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth by razing his towns and stealing the populace's portable wealth." Does that work?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second and third paras of the Crecy campaign section are chronologically mixed. Would it be possible to integrate them better?
Bleh! No idea what I was thinking. Actually it was a real mess. I have shuffled things around and I think that the chronology now flows.
Much better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is Jonathan Sumption?
An ex-member of the UK Supreme Court. Added.
  • same as point above re: "ports of south east England"
Amended.
  • "Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father" we already know he was his heir
Done.

Down to 1347. More to come, tomorrow probably. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • suggest linking mercenary
Done.
  • "A Flemish force of 20,000" presumably English allies?
Clarified.
  • link materiel?
Done.
  • "partly because of the unexpected timing of the need"? what need? He had launched the raids himself.
He launched some minor opportunistic raids. He had not expected Philip to recall the French army. He was correct in this, the army failed to effectively reassemble. It seems clear to me, but I could readily add this detail. Or more?
Yes, I think it needs to be explained. "partly because he had not expected Philip to recall the French Army in response to his raids" (or WTTE) would do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked.
  • "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries found the kings to be more willing listeners" more willing? Had they tried before?
Ah, edited out as I tried for a more summary style. Tweaked.
  • "the Flemish were confirmed in their de facto independence" seems to be new information not introduced in the body?
Indeed. Most of the aftermath is new information. Am I missing your point?
There is no hint earlier that Flemish independence was threatened, so it just begs a question "what threat". Is it really necessary, if so, then I think the threat to Flemish independence needs tro be explicitly mentioned at the point in the chronology that it is first raised during the campaign. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded their first substantial mention to "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France, but in rebellion, allied to the English and willing to send troops to assist Edward."

That's me done. Great work thus far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Peacemaker, your usual insightful review. All of your comments responded to, a couple with counter-queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, always a pleasure Gog. A couple of responses above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker, your come backs all addressed, at least one with a further query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

Back once again with the renegade master. I was looking for something HYW-related, so this is a serendipitous find. A few comments/suggestions.

  • How about a map showing territorial positions at the beginning of the period (base on somthing like this. @Nikkimaria:, what think you of the MOS:CONTRAST of that image?
    Not great, although it could potentially be supplemented with an explanatory caption. (Firefox includes an accessibility feature in its devtools that allows you to simulate different types of colour blindness - useful for cases like this). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I already use that map in Background.
Testing, testing!
  • The reader encounters an image of Philip immediately, but needs must get halfway down the page before he encounters one of Ed?
And so? (There isn't a convenient place to put it any higher up. It needs to be on the left.)
And so, {{multiple image}} is your friend; see, for example, [126].
Done.
  • Should annus mirabilis be bolded? It is not, later on; suggest the {{lang}} template.
I am indifferent, but see reviewer's point above. That template is used at the only other mention.
I probably shouldn't have distracted things by mentioning that template, the MOS point is that foreign terms are italicised rather than bolded: MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
? I know that. The lang template is used.
  • This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War... Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward was able to spare few resources for it... A couple of things. Firstly, it effectively states the same thing twice in a row, if broken by /PARA, and secondly, I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding. (I.e., the war needs to be funded due to the fact of its starting rather than where it started) so perhaps something like This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years./ Although war was now inevitable, Edward was able to spare few resources for it... or the like.
Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony. I think the current wording explains things well - I am enboldened by it having survived ore than half a dozen prior FACs - so could you unpack your objections to it a little more for me? Ta.
Edward could spare lots of resources for the war, just not for Gascony, yes, that would help.
You are losing me a little here. Going back to your first comment re "I don't see the connection between the war starting in any location and the need for its funding" I think most readers would see an issue over a war being started to retain a region and then few resources being sent to it to actually defend it. Re your last comment, you are losing me a bit. Would "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward spared few resources for it" do the trick? Ie, It was Edward's conscious choice.
  • ...formalised in the Truce of Espléchin + "the same year"?
Done.
  • Derby and Stafford are identified by their first names + title, the seneschal by his full name, but Northampton is just Northampton?
Done.
  • Mention of the Treaty of Malestroit in 1343 is slightly jarring, since the reader has recently been told of a Treaty of Espléchin three years before that?
Really? Each mention of each treaty states the year it was agreed. A reader will, surely, expect the Background to be a rapid run through, and not jarred that two paragraphs on in a new sub-section events have moved on chronologically.
  • "; by this time it was impossible..."?
I can't find this quote. When I do, what is the issue with it?
Ah, the quote is actually by which time it proved impossible, apologies.
  • Malestroit encore! If it was tenuous, though, should it be introduced as such the first time (perhaps with a hint as to why also).
I can't do that without jumping around chronologically. When it was signed it wasn't intended to be tenuous. Nor, probably, expected to be. It only became so later, which seems an appropriate point to mention it.
Serious question, when you say "why", do you mean that, or 'the ways in which it was'?
Both, really; but I accept that that may be a level of detail suited to their individual articles rather than per summary style.
  • Stafford carried out a short march north; Stafford marched north to nearby-Blaye, where he left the Gascons to besiege the town. Stafford himself proceeded..."?
"Stafford himself" is a no-no. At least for me. I mean, who else could he be?
True; but how to address the repetition of be/siege three times in ~20 words?
Ah. We now have one "besiege" and one "a second siege". Better?
  • Any examples of the "several minor nobles" who joined the English?
Too much detail. I could readily include some, but who cares?
Nobody cares until its too late.
  • cause them to call for reinforcements "force" might be better here, since it was clearly the last thing Philip wanted, or was able to satisfy (talking of which, tell the reader "although to no avail" perhaps?)
But they weren't "forced", I can think of several other things they could have done. Leaving aside the question of it not being supported by the sources. "to no avail" added.
  • "to increase their mobility," > "for increased mobility"?
I think that the first version spells it out a little better for the uninitiated.
And, presumably, the immobile.
  • Rather than continue a war of sieges he was determined to strike I suggest omitting "was", which changes the tense slightly.
Good point. Done.
  • This section could do with a couple of dates to anchor the chronology; suggest dating the battle of Bergerac here and Duke John's mustering his army (if that's different to the October date that follows).
The date of Bergerac is unknown, other than that it was in August, which I already give. I have added something for the muster, it would almost certainly have occurred over weeks or months. I have added the year at the start.
  • The few French troops not garrisoning fortifications immobilised themselves with sieges This is slightly ambiguous; were they occupied with besieging English-held castles or tied up in defending those besieged by the English?
Tweaked.
  • ...including their commander. Anyone we know?
Yes, but who cares. If I name checked every commander in every battle in the article it would bore the average reader silly. Want more detail? Read the next article down - Gascon campaign of 1345. Or the one on the actual battle. (They're all quite good. ;-) )
  • The surviving French from their field army rallied... Not just of the alliteration, but wouldn't "surviving French soldiers rallied..." be simpler and without loss?
Indeed. Done.
  • Introduce Perigaux as regional capital on its mention in the previous sentence.
Oops. Done.
  • "In March 1346..." > In March that year; or even, just March.
Done.
  • "On 2 April " > the following day.
I made this change, but it then read as if the two were connected, or the first caused the second. So I reverted. I take your point, but do you have any other suggestions for rephrasing? Otherwise what we have may be the least bad.
Fair point re causality.
  • In 1346 Edward again gathered... suggest adding the month si it can tie in with the chronology of the previous section.
Done.
  • and the existence of friendly ports in Brittany and Gascony slightly ambiguous to whom these ports are friendly; suggest "but with friendly ports in..." or some such.
Subtle. Done.
  • To guard against any possibility of an English landing in northern France, Philip VI relied on his powerful navy. This reliance was misplaced given the naval technology of the time; honestly, someone's going to slap a {{why}} template on that! Could you briefly explain the link between relying on a big navy and the failure of current technology? (I assume it means something like, however many ships one had they were never sufficient to patrol the entire channel and they had no other technological aids to do so?)
Fair. Tweaked.
  • at 747 ships?
I am missing your point. (Er, or are you suggesting that I add "at"? If so, in the name of grammar, why?)
  • Most of the population was massacred our own (your own!) excellent article suggests the figure was nearer half; perhaps "around half the pop was massacred..."
You shouldn't believe the tosh they write on Wikipedia. Good point. Half plus one? No? Changed to "Much".
  • Using "mi" abbreviation in the prose. Surely the main use spelt out in full and the abbrv used in the conversion? (I'm sure you're correct, but if you could link to the supporting MOS section I'll know for next time.)
I just a hack writer and simply bung numbers into the templates. But the MoS opines "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, provide a conversion in parentheses. Examples: the Mississippi River is 2,320 miles (3,734 km) long; the Murray River is 2,375 kilometres (1,476 mi) long. See {{convert}}"
Yeeeeas... I see miles is spelled out in full there, and only km abbreviated? (I assume length?) Odd disparity.
  • Note 1: indicate that the earldom of Lanc was the senior title to Derby.
A detail for his bio, not an article where he gets a walk on part.
  • Two days later... but the previous date mentioned was ten days before this one.
Tweaked.
  • "several times the size of the English force" to lose the duplicate "large/r".
The duplication is deliberate.
Hack wordsmithery!
Hey, it was got me more bronze stars than you could point a pointy thing at.
I don't believe that pits are weapons. Nor apparently does Area denial weapon, which does not mention them.
Meh. It literally says In medieval warfare, sharp and sturdy stakes were buried at the bottom of long lines of ditches, pointed end up diagonally, in order to prevent cavalry charges in a given area
That has to be the least helpful link I have ever included, but done.
Done. (Although personally I think it pushes WP:OVERLINK past breaking point.
Ah ha. Good spot. Lost in my boiling down. Removed.
  • "And burned several towns"?
Er, yes? (If you mean what I think you might, I have "burning town" two sentences later and wish to avoid "burnt ... towns ... burning town".
  • ...the normal port of disembarkation --> arrival? (And presumably departure?)
Possibly, but from a military PoV the former was what was important.
  • ...and convinced that Edward had finished...
Reading the whole sentence, that doesn't work.
  • French planning collapsed into chaos...or "had collapsed..."? It seems difficult to see how much less the main gauche could know about what the main droite was doing!
Ah, reread Clausewitz. I prefer it as is.
For this period, your bible would be Vegetius.
  • Your treatment of Neville's Cross seems, perhaps, slightly sparse compared to sat Crécy? I mean, it's true that WP:RANDY is far more likely to have heard of one rather than the other, but strategically they were on a par (WP:DUE, etc).
No they weren't! Where'd you get that from. The Scots were out for loot and would have buggered off come what may with a few monasteries more or less looted. Crécy was, well, Crécy. I think WP:DUE is about right. I have no particular objections to expanding Neville's a little, although the Scottish tactics were unimaginative to the point of there not being much to say, but "strategically they were on a par" - pah!
  • What probability of convincing a militarist that, by the late middle ages, a lawyer was important than a soldier?! :p
  • Is it just me, or does more than 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) read slightly...odd? We can't do anything about our coding, of course, but it looks bizarre! (although I see it ties in with my comment above re. abbreviations.)
If I were to start listing all the things in the MoS that looked odd to me ...
  • the French ability to assemble their army in a timely fashion had not improved since the autumn This is a classic line and worth mentioning in despatches.
And it is highly encyclopedic! :-)
Argh! Why? You think a reader won't know what it means? (An earlier reviewer made the same suggestion.)
  • entrepôt is linked for the third time here.
D'oh! Removed.
  • Is there anything you can link to regarding the fall of France in `1453, or at least that Lancastrian era of the war?
Not that I can readily see, this side of Easter-egging, but I am open to suggestions.
After an hour's ceaseless searching á la Lord Percy Percy, we do have Hundred Years' War, 1415–1453 as a standalone article.
And added.
Cheers, Serial Number 54129, just what it needed - a damn good kicking. (FAC has missed you.) All of your points addressed. Note that some responses are queries and some are "Hell, no!" Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you here Gog the Mild—I got a bit bogged down elsewhere, which involved a massively complex timeline and concomitant trolling at the WP:VPT, which was mildly distracting and hardly conducive to that Chimera we call a 'collegial editing environment'. I hope my replies here range from the usefully sardonic to the "Who the hell is this guy" :p and I look forward to supporting this article's promotion. Cheers! SN54129 14:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once more into the breach, etc. (I never did like those choices; what would a rational army do?) At last, some responses. @Who the hell is this guy Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Edmund, "those people over there, they're not fighting, they're just lying down". Happy to support. SN54129 06:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Gog the Mild It looks like you still haven't responded to Peacemaker's comments on 5 January and Serial's on 11 January. (t · c) buidhe 10:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Given four supports and source and image passes, could I have permission to nominate a further article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead (t · c) buidhe 13:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to promote this, but I realized I have a nitpick that should be fixed first: "The English army is estimated by modern historians to have been some 10,000 strong". The problem with "modern historians" is that it is probably not verifiable that most or all modern historians agree; see WP:RS/AC. So I would rephrase this slightly to avoid that implication, it would be OK to write "The English army was about 10,000 strong" or something to that effect. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Changed.
  • You will have noticed that I have reverted your unilateral edit to the article. As this is at FAC, it would seem appropriate that the pros and cons of wording be discussed here, and that other reviewers have the opportunity to opine. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

This article at first glance looks neat and detailed! If my comments are resolved, I'll strike for support. GeraldWL 09:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "English offensives in 1345–1347"-- "English offensives from 1345–1347" sounds more suitable to me
I disagree. "from" reads unnaturally to me. Do you have style guide support for your suggestion?
Done, but at second mention in the lead. I am concerned that linking the second word of the article, given that this one has no bolding, will mislead a reader into thinking that is the title of the article. I am open to being persuaded that this concern is misplaced.
I can understand your view, but I don't think readers will at all think Offensive (military) is the main subject of this article if it's linked at the beginning of the article. I've seen links in the first or second or third words in an article; they look fine. For example, the article I helped improve to FL (List of Latvian submissions for the Academy Award for Best International Feature Film) has the link to Latvia in the very beginning. Doesn't seem like a problem at all.
  • "which was spectacularly successful." Why "spectacular"?
OK. Now linked at first mention.
At root, because that is my paraphrasing of the scholarly consensus. I can provide quotes of the sources in question if you would like.
Well if it's scholarly consensus then I'm fine with it, but I think it's that information on the war was collected and scholars regard it as spectacular; in that case I prefer "which scholars regard as spectacular."
That's not how Wikipedia works, or every sentence of every article would start with "It is the scholarly consensus that ..." Instead one writes in Wikipedia's voice and uses the cites to support it. As you are querying its use in the lead I have expanded a little in the main article here to support it - including using direct attribution to the words of leading scholars. If you think I have stepped the wrong side of summary style, let me know.
  • "became known as Edward III's annus mirabilis (year of marvels)." annus mirabillis mustn't be bolded, as there's an article on that phrase, thus it must be wikilinked instead.
Perhaps you could discuss this with reviewers FunkMonk, who suggested above that it be bolded, and Serial Number 54129, who also opines on this, to see if you can reach consensus. I am easy either way
Funk's comment was "Might almost be tempting to bold "Edward III's annus mirabilis" in the intro then, as I guess this is the article that covers that as a subject too?" which is definitely false as there is a separate article that covers the term. Serial's comment was "Should annus mirabilis be bolded? It is not, later on; suggest the [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help) template." Please don't take my language as harsh, but I don't think Serial checked Wikipedia for "annus mirabillis". So I think it should definitely be unbolded italicized, then linked. FunkMonk, Serial Number 54129, thoughts? GeraldWL 17:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the issue, the year in question was termed his annus mirabilis, so in the context of this article, that is part of the scope. I am well aware that annus mirabilis is probably a more general term, but here it has a specific meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeahhh I can see the foreignitalic point, although I'm still firm on unbolding. Sadly I still don't understand the "specific meaning" you're referring to, Funk; perhaps philosophically but this is an encyclopedia and not everyone has the same philosophical depth. GeraldWL 17:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd rather have argued that the entirety of Edward III's annus mirabilis was to be bolded, to be specific, but it's certainly not an issue I feel strongly about. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't just opine, I porcupine. IMHO, it's nothing to do with whether we have an article, but whether we bold uncommon non-English terms, to wit: we don't. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is perfectly clear that Latin terms are italicised, and further suggests use of the {{lang}} template to do so, rather than ''...''. I don't know what me checking—or rather, falling to check!—Wikipedia for "annus mirabillis" has got to with anything  :) thanks for the ping Gog, sup?
Having said that, I've already supported, and I won't be withdrawing that, obvs, as it's the broader picture, etc. SN54129 17:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All mentions, bolded and not, are in italics and in lang templates and always have been. This is, I hope, uncontroversial. On the bolding, I am happy to go with a best out of three vote. With some trepidation I also invite reviewers Tim riley and Peacemaker67 to opine. FunkMonk, I am taking your preference as for bolding; Gerald Waldo Luis, yours as against; Serial and others - ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom pass by an opportunity to carp or cavil at FAC, but even so it simply never occurred to me that bold type might be wanted here, and as you are kind enough to invite my opinion it is that I really don't think bolding would be helpful to our readers. Tim riley talk 18:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Tim. I don't understand why it's both such an issue and so easily confusable  :) Still, it wouldn't be Wikipedia without! SN54129 18:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The nays have it. Debolded. Thank you all. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following a series of disagreements between Philip VI of France (r. 1328–1350) and Edward III of England (r. 1327–1377), on 24 May 1337 Philip's Great Council in Paris"-- suggest adding a comma after "1337" for more natural reading flow.
Um, I have a firm position in the Comma wars debate, and adding a comma where you suggest, to me, rather than improve the flow, looks as if one is recording a speech defect. I am aware of the fad for inserting commas after dates, it is not a style used in this article.
  • "and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent during the first eight years of the war it operated in northern France"-- same reason, add comma after "war"
See above, I would also refer you to grammarian Lynn Truss [127].
  • "In 1340, Edward laid formal claim to the Kingdom of France"-- Link Kingdom of France
I am quite sure that this is MOS:OVERLINK, but nevertheless done.
I don't think it's overlink really, since readers with zero knowledge of history might confuse the Kingdom of France with the current France.
I think you are missing the point of OVERLINK, but the point is moot.
  • Suggest linking the image captions of Edward and Philip
Done.
  • "William, Earl of Northampton, would lead a small force to Brittany, a slightly larger force would proceed to Gascony"-- remove redundant comma after "Northampton". Change the comma after "Brittany" to a semicolon.
It is not redundant, the two commas enclose a parenthetical phrase. A comma is more appropriate here than a semi-colon, IMO.
  • "who sailed for Gascony in February with an advance force." Advance or advanced?
Advance. As in advance guard. Or see [128]].

More later.

Hi Gerald Waldo Luis and many thanks for dropping by. I have addressed your initial batch of comments above and await with interest your further thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for clarifying some stuff; I have to admit I'm an ESL and not much of a war geek, so forgive if I mess up. Anyways, second batch.
That's fine. All well-intentioned comments are welcome. Either I can easily respond to them - in which case fine - or I can't - in which case you may have picked up a real issue.
  • "while the King and his council"-- I suggest removing "his" from the link, as it suggests that the link covers the King's council, when it's about a term referring to king councils in general.
If with your second point you are suggesting that the Wikilink should include the definite article I believe that would be contrary to the MoS. Re your first point, I don't understand. The council in question is Edward's personal or "Royal" council and so "his" seems completely appropriate. It was a meeting of his counsellors, in council, to advise, or counsel, him.
It's basically like this. The link (Curia regis) is "the name given to councils of advisers and administrators in medieval Europe who served kings, including kings of France, Norman kings of England and Sicily, kings of Poland and the kings and queens of Scotland." In this article, "the King" refers to only one king. My concern is that if the wikilink encompasses "his council", readers would think that the link's subject is the council of this king, when curia regis refers to an array of kings, as well as queen. Although if the MoS has no problems with it, then I'll let it pass.
Wikipedia is, of course, an unreliable source. If a reader understood the phrase "the King and his council" to refer to the council of just this king, a reader would understand correctly. If the Wikilink obfuscates this, then I could remove it?
I am aware WP is not an RS; I was just concerned that the definition of a council in that article would be not as what readers thought it was. So if it's "his council" then readers would think that the link is about the King's council, as in just about the council of the King discussed in this article, but then the link is about king councils in general. If it's "his council", then readers would know that Curia regis does not only refer to the council of the king discussed in this article, but councils in general. GeraldWL 03:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done.
  • "of the south-west front on 8 August." I believe "south-west" does not have to be hyphenated, right? Or is it a must in the English variant this article is written in?
Nothing to do with variants. You are quite right, but like any other compound modifier they are hyphenated when appearing before a term. (As in "much small-scale fighting continued".)
  • "and to cause them to call for reinforcements – to no avail." The dash could be easily be replaced with a more encyclopedic comma, with a "but" after that. I feel like dashes are generally used in such cases to evoke a dramatic feeling, something you would see in nonfiction books or novels.
I disagree. A dash is a perfectly normal piece of punctuation. Commas are also used in works of fiction. Dashes are much used in encyclopedias, dictionaries and scholarly works.
Oh, alright then. Guess it was just me new to this usage of dashes, at least within Wikipedia.
  • "Monchamp near Condom"-- well that Cathedral does look like a... condom...
The prophylactic device has to be named after something. Or, in this case, somewhere. (Actually that is probably an urban myth.)
  • "such as a team of 24 miners.––" Why the dashes?
A typo, removed. Well spotted.
  • "In early October a very large detachment"-- add comma after "October"
See above. This article does not use the convention of inserting a comma after a mention of a period of time. Proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to change the former usage when copy editing.)
  • "After a night march Derby attacked the French camp"-- add comma after "march"
See above.
  • "a nephew of the Pope"-- "a nephew of Pope Clement VI". And add a comma after that.
A comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent".
Second batch of comments responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the English no longer having access to a port in Flanders, but with friendly ports in Brittany and Gascony"-- Shouldn't the "having" be "have"?
No. ("having" is used as the present participle.)
  • "His army marched south through the Cotentin" --> "His army marched south through the Cotentin Peninsula"
Done. You don't like native usages, do you?
I have gone with what the sources universally use, and what I am used to seeing. I don't insist that this is "correct" nor easier for a reader. Hence my changing it regardless.
Ehhhh it's not necessarily I dislike, I just thought using an English version (where an official one exists) would be simpler especially for those not native to the language. It's fine though if you don't want.
  • Link River Seine
  • "reaching it on the 7th." I think you can replace "reaching it" with "arriving" for more natural reading flow.
Done.
  • "The French army was very large for the period, and several times larger than the English force." I think you can drop the "and"; that way, "several times larger than the English force" can act as an emphasis to how the army was "very large for the period"
Done.
  • "They continued to devastate the land, and set several towns on fire"-- I don't think the comma here is needed.
If the sentence ended at "fire", you would be correct. As it continues with "including Wissant ..." "and" is needed.
  • "It was also close to the border of Flanders; which was nominally part of France"-- semicolon or colon?
Changed to a comma.
  • "officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury)"-- can't we just use the English name Court of Auditors?
Because that's not what it was. If you don't like using its correct name, how about 'officials at all levels of the French treasury (the Chambre des Comptes)'?
Nah it's fine, sorry I just read the link title and thought that way.
This batch of comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, just to let you know that I am ready for the next batch of comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog, apologies, me and my family were pretty busy yesterday in preparation for Chinese New Year: new clothes, decor, food, so forth so forth. Anyways here's my last batch of comments. Damn its been fun skimming through this article. GeraldWL 07:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These included French and mercenary Italian galleys and French merchant ships"-- two and-s which makes it confusing for me at first read. Suggest changing the second and to "as well as".
  • I agree on linking long tons, but tonne I think is a relatively common measurement and linking it would be overlink. Suggest just changing the "t" to "tonne".
  • "Edward repopulated Calais with English, and a few Flemings." Should it be "the English people" or is "English" just fine?
Just "English" is fine. Adding "people" (no definite article) is not wrong, would would only be used if you wished to clarify that the town was not repopulated with eg horses or budgerigars, so in this context would read (very) oddly.
  • "Two cardinals acting as papal emissaries"-- "acting" sounds like they're fake emissaries; are they? If so I suggest using the clearer "forging" or "faking".
No, acting is the correct formulation. As in the current UN Convention on Special Missions which uses the word 20 times. Eg the title of Article 14 is "Authority to act on behalf of the special mission", or in "Use of terms" there is "the “head of a special mission” is the person charged by the sending State with the duty of acting in that capacity", or

in that capacity" or "members of the special mission acting on behalf of the mission".

Done.
  • Aftermath section looks just fine, altho I suggest removing "end" from the link. So "did not end until 1453" --> "did not end until 1453". This is because the sentence consists of "did not end" and "until 1453", not "did not" and "end until 1453". If I'm even making sense lmao--
No, that kinda makes sense, but I am not sure that it is mostly helpful to a reader. "until 1435" linking to until 1453 seems a bit WP:EASTEREGGY to me.
Seems WP:OVERLINK to me, but done.
  • Sources look good.
  • Images are fine, although I would prefer a more relevant photo for the Fall of Calais one, as the current is just for decoration purposes.
True enough. It seems to me better than nothing, but any suggestions for a better one would be gratefully received.
Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, that is excellent stuff and thank you. I think that I have addressed all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem man, and the article looks more fit for FA now for me. Technically there are a couple of stuff you missed in my comms, but I rereviewed them and at its root there's no problem with those. Support. GeraldWL 01:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: thanks for the support. You are quite right, I missed a couple - apologies. Seine mow linked. Linking tonnes - that is done by the template, which is very widely used - and I am loath to mess with it unless pressed very hard. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 February 2022 [129].

The Shadow (magazine)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the pulp magazine associated with the phrase "The Shadow knows". The Shadow was invented to read a line on a radio show, and ended up as a franchise. A note to potential reviewers: the scope of the article is the magazine itself, not the character or the other media in the franchise, so there's nothing about cultural interpretations of The Shadow -- that discussion is in the article The Shadow, which is about the character himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • The first paragraph could make it clearer what the relationship is between the novels and the magazine. Also could be clearer in the body. One things of a novel as longer than a magazine. While I see that the format is made clear later in the article, it might be better to be clear up front.
    I've added a couple of sentences that I think address what you're asking for -- I assume the problem was that the structure of a single-character pulp was a lead novel about that character in every issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Bibliographic Details" seems a bit repetitive of what has come before.
    I've cut mention of Moran and De Grouchy, who are not important to the history, from the publication details section; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I ask the logic behind the article title? If it bore the title The Shadow Magazine through its glory days, might not that be better?
    It could reasonably be at either location, I think. The sources index it both ways. I picked The Shadow because the source I started with, Tymn & Ashley, has it that way, and that's one of the best sources -- Cook has it the other way but I've found more errors in Cook than in Tymn and Ashley. Hulse and Gibson both have The Shadow, so that seems enough of a majority vote to keep it that way. I did just change the redirect from The Shadow Magazine to point to the magazine article; I hadn't realized it was going to the character article, The Shadow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, just checking you haven't forgotten this.... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, had forgotten I needed to look in again. All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
  • This may be nothing, but I find the first paragraph of the "Publication history" section to be rather long, especially with how the text is formatted around the image. Do you think it would be possible to break this up into two paragraphs to avoid having a rather imposing wall of text right away?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is likely either a browser or an internet connection issue on my end, but for some reason, I can click on the File:The Shadow April 1931.jpg image to pull up more information about it. Is that happening on your end as well?
    Yes; I hadn't noticed it, but that appears to be a side effect of the multiple image template which I used to have the two adjacent images. I could probably get around this if necessary by constructing a single image of the two covers in an image editor and then posting that using a normal image link. I'm not sure if that's a good idea, though, since one is fair use (probably -- since it's mostly a copy it might not meet the requirements for originality in which case it would be public domain like the 1919 image). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that putting the two images together is not a good idea per the reasons you have already stated. Readers can still access the image in a different way so in my opinion, it is not a serious issue. I was more so curious if it was something in my browser or with my internet. It seem to be an issue with the template and that should not be a problem for this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have only done a brief read-through of the article so far. I am only vaguely familiar with The Shadow, but I look forward to doing a much deeper dive into the article. I have made some edits (as shown here), but they are to remove some additional spaces between sentences and add some commas. Feel free to revert anything. I hope my comments for now are helpful. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies about removing the double spacing. I was not aware that it was intentional and preferred by some editors. I have only noticed this point after seeing your message on the User talk:89.164.202.153 talk page so feel free to revert my edits. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I posted on your talk page before I saw you'd commented here, I think this all depends on who taught you typing, though I think the two spaces after a period thing is now mostly older editors. Like me, for example. I'm too old to change that habit, so thank you for the revert. And thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I left a comment to your post on the talk page. I do not think there is anything wrong with two spaces, and it is nice to see stylistic differences on Wikipedia. I will read through the article again later in the week. I do not imagine that I will have that much to add, but I want to make sure I do a good job in reading and reviewing the article thoroughly. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, it does not matter for the reader if you use 1, 2, 3, or as many spaces as you want: the software will display as one space regardless. (There are 62 spaces after the semicolon). (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have made one minor edit (here) to move up the Doc Savage wikilink to the first instance that it is mentioned in the article as it was linked on the second mention. I have read through the article a few more times, and I do not have anything else to add. You have done great work with this article as always, and I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, although I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! I had a read through "Laundromat", and it looks fine; I left a couple of minor notes at the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Looks like a comprehensive piece at quick scroll. I especially like the issue data table; I usually hate numbers but this is beautiful. GeraldWL 16:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "The lead character was The Shadow, a mysterious crime-fighting figure" --> "The eponymous lead character was a mysterious crime-fighting figure"

More later.

Thanks for the review. I think I’m now caught up with all comments. I still don’t have heat at the house but we’re in a hotel so it’s warm enough to type! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome Mike, and I'm glad you've found a place to feel comfortable in the meantime. I also apologize for this late reply, exams are coming up in two weeks so need to crush my mind... anyways, the remainder of my review:

Mostly done; see above for a couple of comments/questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for some of the comments based on misunderstanding/misreads, I think you've responded to my comments well. Support -- great work! GeraldWL 11:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. And I meant to say thanks for the compliment re the issue grid; I use them in lots of magazine articles and I'm glad to hear they're doing the job they're designed for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do love them! I shared it to some of my acquaintances and we all have the same thoughts. I'm currently making a Signpost article about "Wikipedia as art", and I'm planning to cite this article as an example. GeraldWL 11:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright

[edit]

Back soon! Pendright (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • A line from the introduction, "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows", prompted listeners to ask at newsstands for "The Shadow magazine", and convinced the publisher that a magazine based around a single character could be successful.
who or what convinced the publisher?
Changed to "which convinced": it was the fact that listeners were asking for "The Shadow magazine" that convinced them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sales were strong, and Street & Smith quickly moved it from quarterly to monthly, and then to twice-monthly.
Replacing "it" with purblicaion might improve readability?
This was originally "from quarterly to monthly, and then to twice-monthly publication"; I removed "publication" per another reviewer's comment above. I don't mind re-adding it at either place in the sentence but I would prefer to get agreement before doing so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>The word publication is definitive and reader freiedly - thus more apt than it in ths situastion. Pendright (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Publication histry:

  • n 1930, CBS began The Detective Story Hour (actually a half-hour), a radio program that used scripts based on stories from the magazine.
CBS -> Isn't first mention usually spedlled out
Yes, generally, but here I think far fewer people would recognize "Columbia Broadcasting System" than "CBS". Looking at the article on CBS I see it's no longer an abbreviation, in fact -- apparently that ceased to be true in 1974. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>FYI: According to Google, CBS changed its name again in 1997 to the CBS Corporation. I would urge you to follow the generally accepted paractice of first mention as best you can. Pendright (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This had been done in the days of the dime novels, with characters such as Nick Carter and Frank Merriwell, but had never been tried with pulp magazines.
Link dime novels
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • He asked Frank Blackwell, the editor of Detective Story Magazine, to launch The Shadow, and provided him with an old manuscript for a Nick Carter novel that had never been published.[7][8]
for a Nick Carter novel -> "of" a Nick Carter novel
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The publication date was only two months distant, so Gibson began work that night [while] on a train to Philadelphia.[2]
Consider the above addition
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulp historians Will Murray and Robert Weinberg suggest that Street & Smith's expectations for the magazine must have been low, because they re-used old cover art, rather than commissioning something new.[2]
re-used -> reused
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cover showed a Chinese man, with his dark shadow on a wall behind him; according to pulp historian Ron Goulart it was the only cover art the Street & Smith staff had been able to find with a shadow, but in fact the original artwork had a dark background, rather than a clearly outlined shadow.[2][9]
  • Circulation rose quickly, reaching 300,000, a figure achieved by very few pulps.[13]
"The" circulation
This wouldn't be wrong, but it's not idiomatic -- the sources more often omit the article than use it. I'd like to leave this as it is if you're OK with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<>Although the writer must be true to the facts in the sources, it is he or she who chooses the pros and the grammar that will be used in the article. You call it! Pendright (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1935 Ralston and Nanovic began to vary the style of the novels, asking Gibson to write action-oriented rather than plot-centric fiction, and at the same time decided to bring in another author to write some of the novels and reduce Gibson's workload.[6]
who decided?
Ralston and Nanovic -- is this not clear from the structure of the sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new author was Theodore Tinsley, whose first contribution appeared in the November 1, 1936 issue, titled Partners of Peril.[14][6] Tinsley wrote nearly thirty of the lead novels over the next seven years.[6]
In the format used, isn't a comma required after the year?
I'm not certain but I don't think so. For a monthly magazine I would usually say "...in the November 1936 issue, titled..." with no comma there; the date is an attributive phrase. Here the date happens to have a comma in the middle but that doesn't change the fact that it's an attributive phrase, so I think the comma is not needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1943 paper shortages forced Street & Smith to reduce The Shadow from pulp format to digest size.[6]
Tell readers why there was a paper shortage - you did in the lead
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nanovic left at the end of the year, and his place was taken in June 1944 by Babette Rosmond .[12]
  • Gibson finally returned in the August–September 1948 issue, with the dispute resolved.[6][1]
returned "for" the August–September 1948 issue,
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contents and reception:

  • The Shadow had a group of regular associates who featured in many of the novels: Harry Vincent, a young man who acted as The Shadow's aide; Rutledge Mann, an investment broker; Cliff Marsland, a wrongly-imprisoned innocent man; Clyde Burke, a reporter; and Joe Cardona, a police detective.[6][9]
Could add "were" between who and featured
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tinsley's work included more violence and more sexually oriented material than Gibson's, though Murray comments that Tinsley's first Shadow novels were essentially imitations of Gibson's style.
Could drop the second "more"
I think it's OK as a parallel structure to indicate that both are equally true. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were also non-fiction departments such as a regular letter column and a club column.[2]
nonfiction is not a hyphenated word
It is in the UK! You can blame my schooling; fixed for this AmEng article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first four covers for The Shadow (not including the re-used art by Modest Stein pressed into service for the first issue) were painted by Jerome Rozen;[18] with the January 1932 issue, Jerome's brother, George Rozen, took over, and became the magazine's best-known cover artist.[19]
  • Street & Smith's associate art editor, Bill Lawlor, is reputed to be the model for depictions of The Shadow:
Lawlor is supposed to have kept a suitable cape and hat in his office.
Why is and not was?
Historic present; this is supposed in the sources, rather than (or perhaps as well as) supposed at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interior art was often by Tom Lovell in the early years; he was followed by Edd Cartier and Earl Mayan, and then, during the war, by Paul Orban. Cartier returned as an illustrator after the war, as did Orban for the final few issues.[9]

Bibliographic details:

  • The editor was initially Frank Blackwell, with the assistance of Lon Murray; John Nanovic took over with the April 1932 issue and stayed as editor until November 1943.
and stayed as "the" editor
I went ahead and cut the word "editor" completely -- it's there at the beginning of the sentence so I think the reader is not going to be confused. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was pulp format for all issues except December 1943 to September 1948, which were digest-sized.
It was 'the" pulp format
It's more common to see it in the sources without the definite article, though you do see both; I'd like to leave this as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The price began at 10 cents, switched to 15 cents in April 1943, and went to 25 cents with the February/March 1947 issue.
Drop the comma after after 1943
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The volume numbering was entirely regular, with six issues per volume; the last issue was volume 55 number 1.[2]
Could use a comma after 55
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two issues were dated April 1931 and July–September 1931; it was then [issued]
monthly from October 1931 to September 1932, and [it] appeared on the 1st and 15th of each month from October 1932 until the [issue of] March 1, 1943[,] issue, which was followed by [the] April 1943, inaugurating [the] a monthly sequence that ran until January 1947.
Consider this or something like it
  • [Begining] W [w]ith the [issue of] August 15, 1937[,] issue this was simplified to just The Shadow.
    I added "Beginning" at the start of the sentence; I agree that's helpful. The attributive use of the date for the magazine issue is pretty standard and I'd like to keep that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The character has also appeared in comics, and in [the] a 1994 film, The Shadow, with Alec Baldwin in the title role.[26]
Consider these changes
Changed to "the", but I think we need the second comma -- it's a parenthetical pair. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - @Mike Christie: Pendright (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've either made the changes you suggested or have commented above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Supporting! I left a few comments in response to yours - none are contingent on my support. Pendright (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added "publication", but for the moment I'm going to let the other two lie. Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, good luck the rest of the way. Pendright (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

Thanks for the review, Nikki; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Aoba47 (pass)

[edit]
  • There doesn't seem to be the file you're mentioning, and there's no "Summary" section.
  • Ah! I changed the source to similar to the below navbox.
  • Both File:The Thrill Book 1 October 1919.jpg and File:The_Shadow_April_1931.jpg have clear ALT text. The information on Wikimedia Commons looks solid for the first image, and the second one has a clear WP:FUR. The purpose for both images is clear in the article. I already raised this in my prose review, but the second image is not clickable and on second thought, I think this is worthy of further investigation and revision. I have done two side-by-side images for the article on The Emperor's New School and both are clickable so it is possible. I am only suggesting this from an accessibility standpoint as it was somewhat of a pain to access the second image, and I would imagine it would be more of a pain for readers who are not Wikipedia editors and not as familiar with the site.
  • Aoba47, I FIXED IT! :D Turns out it was just caused by a redundant underscore in the image2 parameter.
  • No problem, and yeah I knew there was a rendering problem lmao, hope others would benefit from this (Diff).

I hope this image review is helpful. I just one question about a link in one of the images and a suggestion for improving the side-by-side image layout. Once both comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to mark this image review as passed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [130].

Black-and-yellow broadbill

[edit]
Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another broadbill article, this one requiring less effort since it shares a lot of sources from my last one. Have at it. AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

This is a high-quality article that is a pleasure to read. It is short but appears to be comprehensive. I only have a few minor comments.

  • "in the Asian broadbill family Eurylamidae" - the family is not restricted to Asia - Grauer's broadbill is endemic to Africa
I was using Asian broadbill as a common name, based on how it's used on eBird/BOW (Asian and Grauer's broadbill), although I could replace it with typical broadbills per IOC if you want.
BOW uses "Asian and Grauer's Broadbills". Truncating the name to "Asian Broadbills" is misleading. I suggest you follow the IOC and use "typical broadbills". I notice that BLI also uses "Typical Broadbills", see: here. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to typical broadbills throughout.
  • Cladogram. Perhaps mention that the Visayan broadbill (Sarcophanops samarensis) was not included in the study. (It was previous considered to be conspecific with wattled broadbill - see wiki page and here)
Added footnote.
"The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was then considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Most authorities had split the Visayan broadbill from the wattled broadbill well before 2017, the date of the Selvatti study. See the Avibase entry here The IOC listed separate species in Version 1.0 (2011) (but H&M4 published in 2014 still has the Visayan broadbill as a subsp). Selvatti et al would have been well aware of the split - perhaps they didn't have a sample. How about "The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was formerly considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Link conspecific and the note itself needs references. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.

Feeding

  • "holding on the tree trunks" perhaps "holding onto the tree trunks" But what is special about how woodpeckers hold onto trees?
Not really sure. Mentioned in source, so I guess might be important, and different types of birds probably have unique ways of holding on to trees?

Breeding

  • "The measurements of one nest were 17 cm × 13 cm × 10 cm" - is 17cm the height?
Yeah.
  • Perhaps mention that the incubation and fledgling periods are not known.
Added.

References

  • For consistency I suggest you use "sentence case" for the titles of all journal articles.
Done, I think for all.
  • Ref 3. Raffles 1822. Why not link to the actual page (297) here - rather than to the title page of the volume.
Done.
  • Ref 6. IOC - need to include authors: Gill, F.; Donsker, D.; Rasmussen, P., eds.
Added, not exactly sure what eds means and where that should be added.
  • Ref 10. ITIS - better to cite the IOC here
Done.
  • Ref 13. Bruce et al 2020. The Cornell Birds of the World is behind a paywall. Normally on English wikipedia a simple link from the title is only provided when a page is open access. In this case the doi alone would suffice as it links to the login page. Otherwise one can use url-access=subscription
Done

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref. 9 Lim et al 2018. The link is broken. I can access a scan of the article here.
Replaced link.

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - great work - Aa77zz (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:EurylaimusOchromalusGould.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
Not sure how to do that, could I just replace with this?
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with second image.
Replaced with better image by Cephas which has sources.
Passing review after a double check and some tweaks to get rid of sandwiching (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Done.
  • "but populations from the Banyak Islands and West Borneo are sometimes treated as distinct subspecies" Maybe say "have sometimes been", as it currently seems to contradict the first part of the sentence a bit?
Done.
  • Link cicada?
Done.
  • The image under breeding could maybe be left-aligned so there isn't one, continuous image-wall on the right?
Done.
  • Any stories to tell about the non-subspecies synonyms listed in the taxobox?
Not really, both appear to be straightforward junior synonyms.
  • The external link seems to be dead, and probably of little use anyway.
Removed.
I've added links to cricket and locust, grasshoppers, ants, beetles, and bees are all sufficiently common and well-known that I think linking them would constitute overlooking.
  • "It has also been recorded feeding on molluscs" Such as? I can imagine this mainly refers to snails?
Source just says "small molluscs"
Done.
  • "nests are sometimes places close to" Placed.
Fixed.
  • "defending their nest from Prevost's squirrels" What did the squirrels want?
Added that they were foraging near the nest.
  • Predators of them?
No info.
  • Why is Brunei linked as the sole country?
The other countries are all pretty well-known and linking them would be overlinking, but I'd guess about 70% of people don't know Brunei is a country.
  • Individual countries only seem to be listed in the intro, should also be in the article body then.
Done.

Drive-by from CPA

[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • I see several references to "typical broadbill" throughout the article; at first I thought it had some technical meaning, but now I'm wondering if the common name for Eurylaimidae is "typical broadbill". If so, is there any way to explicitly say so? The word "typical" is not one I would expect to see as part of a taxon name, so other readers might be confused, as I am.
    Having now looked at the other FAC reviews for this, I see it's the taxon name for Eurylaimidae as I suspected. I think if you create a redirect from typical broadbill to Eurylaimidae and link it at first occurrence in this article, that would resolve the issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Created the redirect, but I don't see a need to link as the first mentions are always as "typical broadbill family Eurylaimidae" where the taxon name is linked immediately after. As an aside, typical is a common adjective in the common names for groups of taxa, used to denote taxa that are typical or representative of a larger group (eg typical warbler, typical owls, typical gobies). AryKun (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it's just my ignorance of that fact about taxonomics; if I could think of another way to make this clearer to readers like me I would suggest it but I can't, so I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only issue I can find to complain about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Ref#2: In "Dekker, René W.R.J.", I think there should be space between 'W.', 'R.', and 'J.'
Whether or not a space is placed between initials is a matter of taste and is not specified in the MOS - but it should be consistent in an article. (Fancy software would use a thinspace.) (some editors omit the periods - again a matter of taste.) - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that currently is not consistent. We have both "Zubkova, E. N." (with space) and "Dekker, René W.R.J." (without space) More instances were with space, so I suggested to switch to that format. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
Done.
  • Ref#3: Publisher should just be "Linnean Society of London" (without 'the' definite article)
Done.
  • Ref#3: Not required, but suggesting to add Biodiversity Heritage Library in |via= parameter. (but that should then be consistent with rest of the article)
Done
  • Ref#4: Can you check the link. It links to the work which you cite in Ref#3.
Replaced link
Christopher Helm as the publisher should be sufficient to identify the book. Christopher Helm is owned (an imprint of A&C Black). But at least some libraries use Christopher Helm: see Worldcat and the British Library. Another example: Nature is part of Macmillan, which in turn is part of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group - but Nature is usually considered as the publisher. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Helm's an imprint of Black, since the book was publishes after the buyout I've piped the link to Christopher Helm Publishers, which redirects to A & C Black.
Added IOC World Bird List as website.
  • Ref#7: What makes Avibase a high quality reliable source?
Well, it's managed by Denis Lepage, a subject-level expert, and hosted by the Canadian partner of Birdlife International.
  • Ref#8: "Vol. 2." should not be a part of the title. There is a separate parameter for that.
Fixed.
  • Ref#8: The ISBN needs to be hyphenated. Suggesting to use this tool.
Done.
Added.
  • Ref#9: Looks like you missed "MUHD TAUHID" in the long list of authors.
Added.
  • Ref#10: I don't think "University, Harvard " should be mentioned as an author when it is mentioned as publisher.
Removed.
  • Ref#11: Either full names or space between abbreviated letters. (Russo, C.A.D.M should be Russo, C. A. D. M")
Added spaces.
  • Ref#12: Same as above
Added.
Linked.
  • Ref#16: The source tells that the publishing date in Feb 2020. Can you confirm?
The date of the issue in which it was published is December 2019.
  • Ref#20: URL-access-level should be marked as 'subscription'
Done.
  • The following references are missing url-access-date: Ref#2, #3, #4, #10, #11, #12, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20. My approach is that if there is a url, there should be an access date. Let me know if you follow another (consistent) approach.
My understanding is that access dates are not necessary when the link is to a scanned version of the document. They just add clutter. The cite journal documentation here has: "Not required for linked documents that do not change" and "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." - Aa77zz (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an approach, just use the automatic citations, but as mentioned above, url access dates don't seem to be necessary since all the refs you mentioned are either journal articles or books.
  • Suggesting to add ISSNs wherever possible.
Is there a tool for doing this or will it have to be done manually?
Manually. You'll get the ISSNs at https://www.worldcat.org/ or the Wikipedia pages of the journals. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or can even try [132], though I am not sure if it'll add ISSNs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [133].

Marmaduke–Walker duel

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Confederate generals begin to dislike each other after the botched attacks at Helena, Arkansas. Things boil over during the Union advance on Little Rock, and the two eventually decide to hold an illegal duel. Both show up despite being ordered to stay in camp, and Walker is mortally wounded. Marmaduke is briefly arrested, but is released and suffers no long-term consequences, becoming Governor of Missouri after the war. Hog Farm Talk 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Further to my source review at ACR, the sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. I looked at this at ACR, but let's see what else I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "until he resigned to join the Confederate States Army after the Battle of Boonville". Is it known when this was?
    • Not finding a good resignation date for Marmaduke, so I've specified when the battle was fought
  • "for seniority purposes". I suspect that many readers are not going to know what that means without assistance. I realise that there is a footnote later in the article.
    • I've moved the footnote up to here. Does that help? I'm not really sure how to explain this
  • Is the Battle of Farmington really referred to as "the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi"?
    • I was attempting to distinguish this from the Battle of Farmington, Tennessee, but the source (Warner) just refers to it as the Battle of Farmington here, so I've piped the link to remove the Mississippi
  • "During the attacks". Whose? Union or Confederate.
    • Done
  • Optional: "the reported statements had not been said". I am probably being picky, but this seems a bit clumsy. Feel free to ignore if you disagree.
    • I've tried to simplify this
  • "In the notes, Marmaduke stated". What notes? This is the first time they have been mentioned.
    • Some stuff got out of order when I worked in the material from Trimpi, this should be resolved now.
  • "Model 1861 Colt's Navy Revolvers". Why the "'s"?
    • Removed

That's all I have. Looks good. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • Looks interesting, haven't reviewed an article like this before. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I have a hard time figuring out what the map and its caption conveys. Perhaps clarify that it shows multiple locations related to the incident, if that's the case? Because by just looking at the caption, I'd think it was supposed to show the location of the duel, but it has three dots?
  • Link their names in the captions?
    • Done
  • I wonder if it would look more harmonious with this picture[134] of Marmaduke, as the crop and pose is a bit more similar to that of Walker (and less yellow)?
    • If I can find verification that it was indeed published before 1927, then I will swap out the image
      • @FunkMonk: - I'm not finding publishment of that one from before 1927 to prove PD status, although I did find an engraving in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War from the 1880s that would make a crop of File:John S. Marmaduke.jpg useable. I'm also finding several publishments of one of him without a beard, but as wartime images of Marmaduke generally show him with a beard, I'd rather not use the beardless one. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Helena link to a place when not part of the battle's name?
  • "The communication had occurred through a series of notes" Do these notes still exist? Maybe there are some public domain pictures of them that could be used?
    • I haven't seen anything that states they still exist, and the lack of any images I can turn up supports that indirectly.
  • "It would be fought at a distance of 15 paces" Could we get some sort of conversion?
    • Unfortunately, a "pace" doesn't have a formal definition, so not really. I turned up a source that suggests it was unusually close, so I've added that (possibly b/c Marmaduke had bad eyesight
  • Link duel in intro?
    • Done
  • Support - not much to complain about. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. Well-written and concise. I only have a couple of quibbles, below, that don't affect my support.

  • "The communication had occurred through a series of notes": why "had"?
    • Removed
  • 'and that he had not used the word "coward" but that, in the words of historian Helen Trimpi, "would be responsible for any inference that might be drawn on his remarks".' As written there's no subject for "would be responsible"; I'd either delete the second "that", or make it '"[he] would be" in the quote from Trimpi.
    • I've removed "that"

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 7 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2022 [135].

Interstate 182

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short freeway in southeastern Washington that took 17 years to build and was the compromise for a bitterly fought over routing debate. Unlike many urban freeways, this one was coveted by its eventual host cities, who did everything in their power to get part of the Interstate Highway System to their doorstep. This freeway is a companion to Interstate 82 (an existing FA) and would complete half of a featured topic on related routes. SounderBruce 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support form truflip99

[edit]

Will provide comments later. Hoping you can provide comments for my nom as well! truflip99 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The new freeway would also include construction of a Richland–Pasco bridge, proposed since the 1940s at the site of an earlier cable ferry that ran until 1931. -- this sentence is awkwardly placed. Perhaps place at end of the paragraph?
    • Fixed.
  • The final sections of the freeway, between I-82 and Richland, were opened to traffic in March 1986. -- omit "were" for better continuity
    • Fixed.

Route

  • The constant use of "I-182/US 12" seems superfluous given that the lead states they're concurrent for the entire route. Maybe establish this fact and just refer to the article topic afterwards?
    • Fixed.
  • They then cross over the Yakima River and intersect SR 240 -- should be singular if referring to the "concurrency"
    • Fixed.
  • I-182/US 12 passes a golf course and cross the Columbia River -- inconsistent due to aforementioned issue, won't point out moving forward
    • Fixed.
  • It is also part of the state government's Highway of Statewide Significance program -- "It" should be lowercase
    • Fixed.
  • who conduct an annual survey -- "which conducts" is better, IMO
    • Fixed.
  • and also has two park-and-ride facilities -- perhaps omit "also"
    • Fixed.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • The Tri-Cities section signed as part of US 410 -- not familiar with highway terminology, but is it not "was signed"?
    • Dropped the term, but it usually means that a number was assigned to a highway and posted with a sign in the real world instead of merely being an on-paper number.
  • with an alternate route over the Yakima River bridge through Kennewick -- "but an alternate route... also existed." would clarify what is trying to be conveyed here
    • Fixed.
  • replacing an earlier bailey bridge and helping relieve Hanford traffic -- is this the aforementioned bridge? if so, needs to be combined somehow
    • Clarified that these are separate bridges and locations.
  • Link waterfowl
    • Done.
  • the 7.6-mile (12.2 km) western half from I-82 to Road 100 in western Pasco with four interchanges; -- switch these to commas
    • Done.

Couldn't find many issues. Great read overall. --truflip99 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: Thanks for taking the time to review this. I think I've addressed all your points. SounderBruce 04:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Since often I see FACs being stuck at source reviews, let me try and do one in the meantime. Reviewed version. Sources are reliable and verifiable, as stated in the GAN.

Besides the above issues, most citations have consistent formatting. No major issues. ZKang123 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Citations are only linked on first use to avoid overlinking. I've fixed References 34 and 76 and linked the first use of the Tri-City Herald, which is available online but with a library card that does not permit easy linking; as there is no requirement to have online sources, I won't be linking them, but would be happy to provide copies if needed for spotchecks. The Associated Press is the news agency from which these stories are originally being sourced from, so the parameter is being used appropriately. SounderBruce 08:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted then. Issues above were satisfactorily addressed. Passed. ZKang123 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5 is throwing an error that needs to be corrected --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As @SounderBruce said in an offline chat: also there's a warning on Citation 5 because CS1 got changed and screwed up a lot of norms. I supposed its more of a template technical issue ZKang123 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fredddie

[edit]

Carving out a spot to do a review. –Fredddie™ 23:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead
  • I moved map data to Commons, so there will be a small performance boost to the page.
    • Thanks!
  • Do you think I-182 is entirely concurrent with U.S. Route 12 (US 12); it also intersects State Route 240 (SR 240) and US 395. sounds better than what you wrote?
    • Sounds better, but I re-added the mileage figure.
  • a Richland–Pasco bridge → a bridge between Richland and Pasco
    • Fixed.
Route description

Looks good, maybe some word repetition

  • Freeway in ¶2
    • Fixed.
  • "Housing subdivisions", while accurate, is a bit stuffy to read twice in the same section. (¶1,3)
    • Fixed.
History
  • I think a map would be handy for illustrating the different proposed alignments.
    • Working on an interactive version, but I haven't found a detailed planset so I am guessing based on newspaper drawings. I'll look into whether the newspaper copy is able to be uploaded to Commons, as it was before the 1989 PD cutoff for copyrighted works without a notice.
  • In the first sentence of the Construction section, two of the length figures are in the adjectival form and the third is noun form.
    • Removed the last figure, as it didn't really fit; it was only a section of the longer Pasco Bypass, hence why it was in noun form.
  • In your inflation conversions, make sure your significant digits match up:
    • "$150 million (equivalent to $399 million in 2019 dollars)" → $150 million (equivalent to $400 million in 2019 dollars)
    • "$16 million (equivalent to $35.2 million in 2019 dollars)" → $16 million (equivalent to $35 million in 2019 dollars)
      • Fixed using a workaround. Turns out {{formatprice}} can't handle it.
  • "Construction on the east side of the river near Pasco began in early 1982,[95] with grading work completed by the end of the year.[96][97]" I would replace that ", with" with a semicolon and then add a verb into the sentence fragment.
    • Done.
Overall
  • I don't know where the best place is to put it, but some general direction of where the Hanford Site is would be beneficial since it affected the highways of the Tri-Cities. If it's in there, I missed it.
    • Added a mention in the Predecessor section.
  • Check over the history section for comma+verb-ing, i.e., a comma and then a verb such as crossing, utilizing, allowing, etc. which is something I've been fighting for a long time. Parallel structure is a good thing.
    • "It serves as a connector from I-82 to the Tri-Cities region, crossing the Columbia River on the Interstate 182 Bridge between Richland and Pasco."
    • It serves as a connector from I-82 to the Tri-Cities region that crosses the Columbia River on the Interstate 182 Bridge between Richland and Pasco.
      • I think I managed to get most of them, but there could be a few stragglers. Thanks for the link, it'll be something I'll look out for while writing.
  • Did you take some of the photos for this article through a windshield? Compositionally they're fine (which is rare among pictures of roads taken through windshields), but some color correction may be in order. Westbound in Pasco and near SR 240 in Richland stick out to me.
    • Yep, both were done from the passenger seat. Went back and tried to correct both, but it may be my monitor settings that are warping things.

Otherwise this is a great article and is a good example of a well-researched road. –Fredddie™ 04:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredddie: Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all of your points except for the map, which I will continue working on over the weekend. SounderBruce 06:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to add the newspaper map, as it seems to be eligible for PD use, as the entire newspaper edition for that date did not have a copyright notice for news content (only advertisements and inserts from other magazines). @Buidhe: As this image was added after your review, I'd like to get your opinion as well. SounderBruce 05:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I can't view the entire issue but am skeptical, most newspapers and magazines in this era were copyrighted. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a query for "All rights reserved", "copyright", and the copyright symbol, and it didn't turn up anything attributed to the newspaper itself, only the aforementioned advertisements and inserts. The front page has no such notice on the masthead, and neither does the editorial page where it'd be commonly found. SounderBruce 05:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get the copyright status of that map figured out, but if we have to remove it, that's not going to change my support of this article. –Fredddie™ 06:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if you did a thorough search like that then I'll accept it per WP:AGF. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • [...] the Interstate 182 Bridge between Richland and Pasco. [...] The Columbia River bridge [...] Are these the same bridge?
    • Re-used the official name.
  • [...] near the entrance to Tri-Cities Airport. Should be the Tri-Cities Airport.
    • Fixed.
  • [...] Richland to Kennewick in 1951, which replaced an earlier bailey bridge [...] I suggest replacing "[...], which" with "that".
    • Done.
  • [...] bypass the Tri-Cities by turning south [...] business leaders in the Tri-Cities began [...] serve the Tri-Cities area [...] The article uses both "the Tri-Cities" and "the Tri-Cities area"; suggest sticking to one.
    • Dropped "area".
  • The state highway commission also approved the general [...] Which state?
    • Fixed.
  • [...] in early 1980 due to a national inflation crisis. Recommend expanding the link text to "[a] national inflation crisis".
    • Done.
@Vami IV: Thanks for taking the time to review this article. I've implemented all of the changes that you suggested. SounderBruce 09:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:19, 3 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 6 February 2022 [136].

Laundromat (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Laundromat" is a R&B/pop song with lyrics that use the laundromat as a metaphor for the washing away of an old relationship. While I love these gimmicky songs, I am far less happy that R. Kelly was involved in pretty much every aspect of this one (to the point that even his absence from the music video was discussed). "Laundromat" is a single from Nivea's 2002 self-titled debut album, but I first heard about it when Solange Knowles covered it at an actual laundromat in 2013. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The Knowles image is causing some layout issues, displacing the heading and causing whitespace before the table
  • Thank you for the image review. The sample uses the album version of the song. How would you recommend representing that in the sample? Also, thank you for moving the "External links" section to the right position. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Apologies for that as I had a brain fart. I believe that I have addressed this, but let me know if this information can be better represented. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "in which Nivea breaks up her boyfriend" => "in which Nivea breaks up with her boyfriend"
  • "to show 2003 allegations Kelly carried out sexual abuse" => "to show that 2003 allegations Kelly carried out sexual abuse"
  • "number 89 on the Scottish Single Chart" => "number 89 on the Scottish Singles Chart"
  • "During this time, she worked with R. Kelly on the songs Ya Ya Ya"" - opening quote mark missing
  • "but noted Nivea did not follow" => "but noted that Nivea did not follow"
  • "Taylor wrote after the opening, "Laundromat" moves into "dreamy vocal layers"" => "Taylor wrote that, after the opening, "Laundromat" moves into "dreamy vocal layers""
  • There's so sentences at the end of the music and lyrics section which link back to reviews which were mentioned earlier. Would it not make sense to put these sentences with the earlier ones? I stopped for a minute and thought "who's Taylor?" before realising that his review had already been mentioned much earlier in the section.
  • That is a very good point. I have rearranged this section to address this point, and I have split the first paragraph to avoid it from being overly long, but please let me know if further work would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according Billboard's Carla Hay" => "according to Billboard's Carla Hay"
  • "Nivea did not perform the single with Kelly and told audiences" - audiences at concerts?
  • I decide to ultimately cut this part as I do not think the quote adds that much. The sentence already says Kelly was not present at her performances of this song, and her quote for the performances does not really add anything further about the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a semi-colon after Hot Wax but then you start a new sentence
  • "AllMusic's Any Kellman" - his name is Andy
  • "In 2007, Vibe's Sean Fennessey wrote Nivea" => "In 2007, Vibe's Sean Fennessey wrote that Nivea"
  • "Chistie Leo of the New Straits Times said "Laundromat"" => "Chistie Leo of the New Straits Times said that "Laundromat""
  • "Music journalists pointed to the single's success to discuss how allegations Kelly had carried out sexual abuse were not damaging his career" => "Music journalists pointed to the single's success when discussing how allegations Kelly had carried out sexual abuse were not damaging his career"
  • "In a USA Today, Steve Jones reported the song" => "In a USA Today, Steve Jones reported that the song"
  • "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Sonia Murray said 14 months" => "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Sonia Murray said tahat, 14 months"
  • "In Scotland, "Laundromat" peaked at number 89 on its single chart" => "In Scotland, "Laundromat" peaked at number 89 on its singles chart"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review! I made a great deal of rather silly mistakes while writing this article. Please let me know if there is anything that could improve the article further and I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "In 2013, Solange Knowles covered "Laundromat" in a laundromat; her performance was praised by critics, who enjoyed the song choice and the laundromat venue." Perhaps try to vary this sentence a bit to avoid the use of "laundromat" three times.
  • "During this time, she worked with R. Kelly on the songs "Ya Ya Ya", "The One for Me", and "Laundromat" for the album; these were the last songs to be added to Nivea prior to its release." Songs ... songs
  • "While writing for Vibe, Laura Checkoway referred to "Laundromat" as "an R&B jam-meets-detergent jingle"." You can lose the "While".
  • "While reviewing the former, AllMusic's Andy Kellman praised "Laundromat" as one of the album's highlights." Same as above.
  • "While discussing Kelly's absence, author Mark Anthony Neal wrote; "A man accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with minors obviously cannot show up in a music video cooing in the ear of a teenager"." Same case here. Nothing wrong with its use in any of the cases but if they convey the same meaning, then we should opt for less words. Also why the semi-colon instead of a comma before the quote? One more thing, if the sentence within the quote also ends in the quote, the full stop should be placed inside the quotation marks, per MOS:LQ.
  • Any particular reason for the use of semi-colon before the quotes? The common punctuations I know that precede are either a comma or a colon. I don't know if it's wrong to use a semicolon like that but I haven't seen this usage before.
  • I am actually not sure how this got there. I usually use a colon before full quotations so I am not sure how the semi-colons got there (or why I would have used them). I have revised all the instances to make the colons instead, and I have hopefully fixed the MOS:LQ issues, but let me know if I somehow overlooked anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a USA Today" - either a noun needs to follow USA Today ("article", "review"...) or lose the "a".
  • "The contributor for Fuse said they may have enjoyed it "mostly for the fact it was performed in an actual laundromat".[42]" I think this quote can easily be paraphrased.

This should conclude my review. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review and apologies for some of the rather silly mistakes in the article. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. If there is anything else that could be improved in the article, I would be more than happy to address it. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with your changes and replies. Happy to support this. FrB.TG (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Realmaxxver

[edit]
  • Thank you for the comment. I appreciate any feedback. Critics praised R. Kelly for various things. Some reviewers said that his songs were highlights from the album, another specifically pointed to the production in regards to how Nivea sounded on the song, and yet another talked about his vocals on the track. I do understand your point and I have expanded the caption to hopefully further clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Heartfox—pass

[edit]
  • What makes the Phoenix New Times a high-quality source? (e.g., what about Troy Farah makes their opinion relevant for an encyclopedic article?)
  • I'm curious for Music Week 2003a why via= is present when there is no link? You can add the link by using the accession number of the article. e.g. |id=EBSCOhost 9835914. Then you don't need via= at all.
  • To be honest, I was unaware of how to format EBSCOhost citations as I have only started to use that resource recently. I have used your suggestion. Thank you for that as it clears up a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • checked fn 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 24, 31, 32, and all were good
  • I would add via= for the URLs from Google Books and World Radio History
  • "Nick Cannon plays Nivea's boyfriend and lip syncs to Kelly's vocals." not seeing this in the source cited
  • I don't think we can make generalizations like "received mixed reviews from critics" or "Kelly was praised by reviewers" or "Critics praised Knowles's performance" without a specific source that says so. It's frustrating for me too, but ultimately there are some reviews we can't access.
  • I see your point about the mixed reviews. It is a generalization and I have removed that part from the lead and the article. But, I do think the part on Kelly's contributions and Knowles's performance is supported as the article has positive reviews focusing on these aspects. The article is not saying that everyone loves these parts or they are universally loved, but that they were praised by some critics who are included in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hay article (published in February 2003) says "Laundromat" "has been released" but the release date given in the article is the UK one of April 28.
  • I can understand wanting to only provide the available specific date in the infobox and prose, but then the sentence should indicate that April 28 is the UK release.
  • ""Laundromat" was made available as a 12-inch single and a CD single" → Music Week 2003b says a cassette was also released (MC 9254824)
  • "It reached number 98 on the European Hot 100 Singles chart" → in the "previous week" column it was number 89.
  • Actually the previous weeks' issues only list "Don't Mess With My Man" so I would stick with the 98.
  • "When discussing her performance with Fuse she said: "This laundromat has me feeling the drama queen, so excuse my theatrics."" → the article seems like she said that during the performance, not in an interview afterwards
  • Fuse 2013 the writer is Nicole James
  • "her record label Jive delayed the release of her self-titled debut album to the following year" → the Nivea 2001 ref cites the inlay cover from an album that wasn't released until a year later?
  • Nivea was released in 2001 internationally with a different (and in my opinion better) track list, and the album had a US release in 2002. The Kelly tracks, such as "Laundromat", are only on the US release. I could include this information in the article, with a citation to the international version of the album as I could not find coverage that explicitly discussed Kelly's tracks only appearing on certain releases. I wanted to get your opinion about this first. Aoba47 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence should specify it is referring to the US release.
  • Revised and I have added a sentence with a citation to the international version about these differences. Maybe one day, I will come back and work on the album article as its development is interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it so far :) Heartfox (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the source review! I appreciate it a lot, and you have helped to improve the article immensely. Apologies for the silly mistakes on my part. I am not sure how I missed those lol. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I have addressed most of them, and I have tried to leave responses for everything. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Apologies for the second ping. Just doing this as a follow-up as it has been roughly five days since your last message and I wanted to check in on the status of the source review. Thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching this. I am not sure how that happened. I have revised the citation. I will address your other (very helpful) responses later tonight. Apologies again for the double-ping and I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laundromat" is a four-minute, 24-second R&B and pop song" → in the track listing section, none of the lengths shown are 4:24, which is what is cited from AllMusic. Also, Billboard gave 4:25 in the same sentence's ref. If the physical single/album has track lengths then that would be more reliable to put in the infobox/prose
  • Thank you for bringing this up. I went with your suggestion and used the physical album as the ultimate deciding factor on the length, which also matches the Billboard citation so that makes me more comfortable with this decision. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor 2003 title → Nivea is misspelled as "Niva".

Sorry for the delay and continued comments! Also these are just simple things listed above and thanks for being a great editor to work with :) Heartfox (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Heartfox: There's no need to apologize. I appreciate the comments. I want the article to be in the best possible shape so I am more than happy to work on anything for that purpose. Take as much time as you need with the review. Thank you for being a wonderful editor to work with and I hope that we continue to work together in the future :) Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for the source review. Heartfox (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by RunningTiger123

[edit]
  • Everything from "Kelly mixed the song with Ian Mereness..." to the end of the paragraph duplicates info from the "Personnel" section – why?
  • It is standard practice in song article to put the credits/personal in the prose of the article as well as in a separate section. That's why there is a separate section for charts and the charts are mentioned in the prose. In my opinion, it is done because it would be somewhat jarring to not include credits in the prose, but a separate section is helpful for readers who just want to look at that information at a glance. I hope that clears it up, but let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nivea did not perform the single with Kelly" – maybe I'm missing something, but if he didn't perform on the single, what did he perform on? (The album version, perhaps? It just seems unclear.)
  • Nivea and Kelly never performed the song together live. They just recorded the song together. I thought the performed part clarified that, but I have revised it to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not convinced that its inclusion on Flow 93.5 Hot Wax is notable based on the sourcing provided
  • Fair point. I thought it may be notable because it was mentioned in the review of the album, but that alone does not make it particularly noteworthy. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2002" repeated twice in one sentence
  • In several places, "Don't Mess with..." is written as "Don't Mess With..." (note capitalization)
  • Apologies for that. Thank you for noticing as that is less than ideal as consistency is important. I decided to go with "Don't Mess With My Man" as that is the format used in Billboard articles. I originally tried to look at the album itself, but it presents all the songs in lowercase on the back so it was less than helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming this is the same article, replace the NYT source from ProQuest with this
  • Thank you for the link. Somehow, I must have overlooked this during my web search. I have replaced the ProQuest citation as it is better to have something that is more readily available to readers. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not directly related to the article, but should Template:Nivea at the bottom say "Feature singles" or "Featured singles"?
  • The template is on the article so it should be in good shape. It should be "featured singles". Unfortunately, the Nivea articles are in pretty rough shape, but that is too be expected for an artist who is not particularly popular. Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RunningTiger123: Thank you for the comments. I greatly appreciate your help and apologies for the silly mistakes on my part. If there is anything else I can do to improve the article more, I would be more than happy to do so. I hope you are having a great end to your week and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]
  • is a song that was recorded by American singer → is "that was" really necessary?
  • I went with something simpler and just say "is a song by American singer". I have seen the "that was recorded by" sentence structure used in song FAs, but I agree that being concise is important. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • released on her 2002 self-titled debut album. Jive released → repetition of "released"
  • was one of the last songs to be produced for the album. The song → repetition of "song"
  • Link "credits"
  • "Laundromat" reached number 33 → for a better flow, add something by the lines of "further" after "Laundromat"
  • "Laundromat" was supported through live performances and a music video. Nivea did not perform the song with Kelly. → the second sentence could be combined with the first one for a better flow
  • In 2013, Solange Knowles covered "Laundromat" in a laundromat → the repeition seems a little poor here
  • under-performed → isn't it "underperformed"?
  • Billboard's Chuck Taylor reviewed the single as a pop track → just "viewed" would be better
  • I disagree as those words mean different things. I used reviewed here because the song was reviewed under a specific genre, I think that it is important to note. I do not think "viewed" would work in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "chorus" could be linked
  • You can link Billboard and AllMusic in the description of the audio sample
  • who is referenced as Keith → this sounds weird to me; wouldn't something by the lines of "referred to as" or "who plays the role of" be better?
  • as having "a half-spoken and half-sung arrangement", and likened the chorus to a Burt Bacharach arrangement → repetition of "arrangement"
  • for "Laundromat" in a laundromat → repetition
  • As with the sentence about Solange's performance in the lead, I think it is important to emphasize that a song called "Laundromat" is being specifically tied to the venue in the promotion (and in the cover performance). Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were my comments for the article. The other sections look fine as the are, however, do scan for further repetitions. I did not list them here because I viewed them as way too being issues of a way too minor nature, but fixing them would be nice. Other than that, this is a really great article and I also appreciate your work on making a "Citations" and "Footnotes" section Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help. I have implemented most of your suggestion, except the ones that I noted above. I hope you are having a great weekend so far, and if there is anything I can do to further improve the article, I would be more than happy to do so. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adressing everything, I also see your point where you commented. I support the article for promotion and wish a lot of luck Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Journalists cited the single's heavy airplay and its appearance on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart as evidence that the allegations in 2003 that Kelly carried out sexual abuse did not hurt his career." I tweaked the wording a bit but it's a complicated sentence and it would be nice to simplify it. How about moving the success to the front so it can be referred to in a simpler clause, like this: "The single received heavy airplay and appeared on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs Billboard chart; journalists cited this success as evidence that the allegations in 2003 that Kelly had sexually abused an underage girl did not hurt his career." That's assuming that the sources are referring to that instance, but from what I can see in the R. Kelly article there were scandals and an arrest in 2002 as well -- are your sources definitely not referring to those? I see in the body we're less specific than this about exactly which allegations are meant.
  • I had some difficulty with this part as it is rather complicated and builds on a lot of sensitive information and history. I prefer your suggestion, and I have implemented that in the article if that is okay with you. Articles that specifically tied the allegations against Kelly and his commercial success focused on the 2002 child pornography charges. While some articles mentioned his illegal marriage with Aaliyah, the focus was mostly kept on the then-recent charges. I tried to be specific in the article with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution sentence, but I would be more than happy to revise this part to clarify it more. Aoba47 (talk)
  • "and releases had varying track listings": this is the single we're talking about, not the album? So what does "track listing" mean? Isn't there just the one track, maybe plus a B-side for the vinyl?
    Good question. The track listing for a majority of the releases are very similar (i.e. "Laundromat" and "Don't Mess With My Man" being released together), but there are some minor differences like the inclusion of the instrumental, the remix, or the music video so the track listings across formats had subtle differences. I ultimately decided to remove this part completely as I am uncertain if the differences are notable enough to specify in the prose and I could see how it is confusing. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since you've cut it; I think it would be OK to re-add it if you wanted to, perhaps with an explanatory clause such as you give here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. I will think about it further in the future. I actually think the article works better without it as I am uncertain if the rather minor variations across formats is notable enough to mention in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelly and Cannon collaborated on videos..." Why is the information about their collaboration relevant to "Laundromat"?
    I was on the fence about this myself. My rationale was to explain that Kelly and Cannon had a history of working together that was not isolated to just the singular music video. I had added this information to the article in case readers were curious on why Cannon was selected for the music video. However, I would be more than happy to remove this information if it is too off-topic. I could understand that concern, especially since I did not mention in this article that Cannon is a featured artist on the Nivea album for a different song. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck, since I think it's OK to leave it in, but I also think you might compress this a little if you wanted to make it clearer why you're mentioning it -- perhaps "Nick Cannon, who had previously collaborated with Kelly, was a stand-in for Kelly in the video" and then cut the last two sentences in that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the suggestion. I have implemented it into the article with a minor adjustment to avoid repeating "Kelly" twice. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe mention in the first sentence of the section about Solange Knowles that it was a partial performance? Just 'performed part of "Laundromat" ' would work. Without that I was a bit surprised to see further on in the section that she segued out of it in only 90 seconds.
    That is a good point. I agree that it would come across as a surprise as the article does read as if Solange performed the entire song (and while I wish that was the case, it was obviously not true). I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I have; looks in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: Thank you for the review! I honestly did not expect it this quickly. I have revised the bits about R. Kelly's charges, the track listings, and the Solange cover. I would be more than happy to look at how R. Kelly's charges are discussed in the article again. The focus was on the 2002 child pornography charges as journalists were discussing how such a recent occurrence did not negatively impact his career. I have left an explanation about the Kelly/Cannon collaboration parts. I am honestly on the fence about it as I can see why it would be read as irrelevant to this particular article, but I wanted to leave my rationale and hear your opinion about it before doing anything further. Again, I hope you are doing well, and thank you for taking the time to look through this article. I greatly appreciate that as always! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the one point about the allegations left; the only concern I have now is that we still say 2003 in the lead, but you say above that the focus was on the 2002 charges. Would it be best to just remove the year and make it "evidence that the sexual abuse allegations against Kelly did not hurt his career"? If we remove the date and just say "sexual abuse allegations" instead of specifying the charge, it can refer to any charge prior to that point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie: Thank you for the comments. I went back and forth on this one. I ultimately decided to keep the more specific 2002 child pornography arrest in the lead and I have copy-edit the part in the "Commercial performance" section to more clearly reflect that. Since the articles were quite specific with this, I think it would best to reflect that as readers may think more weight was either given to past allegations (such as the Aaliyah marriage) or allegations that came afterwards. I hope that clears things up and apologies for the confusion there. I wanted to really think this through carefully as it is a sensitive issue and I wanted to give it the time and respect it deserved. Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks good; it's now consistent and I think the phrasing is a little smoother. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I will re-examine this part again tomorrow when I have some more time/distance to see if any further revisions would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 30 January 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [137].

I've Just Seen a Face

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by the Beatles, composed by Paul McCartney and credited to Lennon–McCartney. It first appeared in August 1965 on the album Help!, and most people today know it from there, but its first release in North America came as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: NFURs look good, song length is appropriate, images on Commons look good. Good luck with your nominiation! Sennecaster (Chat) 22:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood

[edit]
  • of the December 1965 → "on the December 1965"
  • Thanks for the comments, Therapyisgood. Both "of" and "on" sound fine to my ear, but I'm not especially confident in these sorts of subtleties, so I've changed it per your suggestion.
  • The composition fuses several different styles and is difficult to categorise → "According to musicologist Alan W. Pollack, the composition ..."
  • Changed.
  • I've cut note 9, with Greg Kot's other comparisons, but I find the other notes helpful. In particular, I think notes 1 and 2 detail information that a reader would end up having to research on their own if not supplied in the note, something I think is especially true of note 2. Note 4 adds to the comments of John Kruth and the various authors in the first part of the sentence; in my research, I've found that the three songs being recorded on the same day is one of the most discussed aspects of its recording. Lastly, for note 8, I think it is important because it discusses how folk rock enthusiasts reacted to the album immediately after a discussion of how the opening track reinforced perceptions of album as folk/folk rock. Tkbrett (✉) 17:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "The recording fuses country and western with several musical genres" - this reads like C&W is not itself a musical genre, so should probably be "The recording fuses country and western with several other musical genres"
  • Fixed.
  • ""I've Just Seen a Face" is the key of A major" => ""I've Just Seen a Face" is in the key of A major"
  • Fixed.
  • "Beginning in a minor key" - earlier you said it was in A major? Does that mean it's only mostly in A major?
  • The song begins slightly away from the home key, which ties in with Pollack's comparison of the intro to "Help!" I've reworded that part to clarify the situation.
  • "Music critic Richie Unterberger writes the song has" => "Music critic Richie Unterberger writes that the song has"
  • Fixed.
  • "McCartney later described the them" - "the them"?
  • Fixed.
  • "He judges the song the "most romantic [ever]"" - the literal most romantic song of all time? Or just by the Beatles?
  • The former. This is what he writes: "This edition of Rubber Soul didn't even have the same songs – it began with 'Drive My Car' instead of 'I've Just Seen a Face.' But Rubber Soul became my favorite record – I couldn't even decide which version I loved more, since 'Drive My Car' was the funniest song ever, while 'I've Just Seen a Face' was the most romantic, except almost as funny as 'Drive My Car.'"
  • " He has played the song live on several other occasions, including it in the setlist of his 1991 UK "Surprise Gigs" tour, his 2004 Summer Tour and the 2011–12 On the Run tour, and was included" => " He has played the song live on several other occasions, including it in the setlist of his 1991 UK "Surprise Gigs" tour, his 2004 Summer Tour and the 2011–12 On the Run tour, and it was included"
  • Fixed.
  • "Produced by Rothchild and co-produced by Peter K. Siegel" - who's Rothchild?
  • "writing its use of a pedal steel guitar" => "writing that its use of a pedal steel guitar"
  • Fixed.
  • "Kruth suggests the finished recording" => "Kruth suggests that the finished recording"
  • Fixed.

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

Although I am currently taking an extended break from Wikipedia (for both reviews and my own projects), I still feel obligated to review this FAC since I participated in the first one. As I have said there, I have very little knowledge of the Beatles, but I have a much firmer grasp on song articles both in the FAC/FA context and Wikipedia as a whole. I hope my comments are helpful:

  • This is a nitpick, but the infobox uses country & western while the lead and the article use country and western. I would be consistent with one way or the other to avoid any confusion.
  • I did it to save space in the infobox, but have used "country and western" everywhere else since that's what the sources use. Changed "&" to "and".
  • The quote box in the "Release" section is rather narrow and at least in my browser, cuts into the next section. I believe it would be helpful to make it somewhat wider to avoid that.
  • I bumped up the width from 25 to 30%.

Other than those points, the article looks good to me. I supported the first FAC, although I understood the opposition as this article has to balance out a large amount of coverage, which is understandable given the attention the Beatles had and continue to receive. I usually work on much, much more obscure songs so I have never run into this challenge myself lol. I am glad that discussions took place on the article's talk page after the first FAC. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aoba47, it's very kind of you to return from your Wiki-break for this nomination. Tkbrett (✉) 13:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
Preliminary remarks
[edit]

Doing... Should be done by early next week. JBchrch talk 10:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe one question as I'm doing this: could you please explain your use of the |orig-year= parameter? I'm a little confused. JBchrch talk 14:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've used it to refer to the date the book was first published. For example, Ian MacDonald's book, Revolution in the Head, was originally published in 1994, but I've used the third edition, published in 2007, hence "MacDonald, Ian (2007) [1994]". Should I be using more specificity or just drop using the parameter all together? Tkbrett (✉) 14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that this parameter should be used for a re-publication of the same work. For instance, if Classic Books Inc. republishes An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding in 2022, we would have |year=2022 and |orig-year=1748. I don't think |orig-year= is suitable for subsequent editions, where the content changes. Off-wiki I don't remember seeing reference to the year of the first edition when subsquent editions are cited. So I would suggest dropping the parameter all together, yes. JBchrch talk 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, that makes sense. I've gone ahead and removed them. Tkbrett (✉) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already leaving this comment since I assume it may require a bit of research: do we have a page number for Smith 1972? And who is Alan Smith by the way? JBchrch talk 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Smith is a former editor of NME (New Musical Express), a British music publication which was a much bigger deal back in the 1960s ([138]). An interview he conducted with John Lennon and Yoko Ono was published in the February 1972 issue of Hit Parader magazine, including an extended part where he and Lennon went over every Lennon–McCartney composition to determine "how much was written by who". As one of the few instances where Lennon comments on the composition of nearly every Lennon–McCartney song, it has proven to be a useful primary source for researchers; take for example historian Erin Torkelson Weber, who uses it in her research on the origins of "Eleanor Rigby" (the interview is mentioned on p. 95 of her book and is cited on p. 229).
Smith's extended interview with Lennon has been uploaded to the Internet Archive as plain text here and here. I haven't been able to get my hands on an actual original copy of the magazine, nor have I found a digitized version online, so I have not been able to supply the actual page-range of the piece. I do realize now though that I titled it incorrectly: "I Don't Like All This Dribblin' Pop-opera-jazz. I Like POP Records" was what it said on the magazine's cover, while the piece's title was "Lennon/McCartney Songalong: Who Wrote What". Also, this copy on AbeBooks indicates it was issue 91 of the magazine. Tkbrett (✉) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit that I'm not super comfortable with its use as a source given that all we have access to is a plain-text archive, which doesn't identify the page. Since it's used only once and in addition to other sources making the same claim, is it necessary to keep it? (Also, letting you know that this is the only source I have "quality" issues with at the moment, all the sources I have checked seem fine, but more on this later) JBchrch talk 22:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really necessary. Lennon had an interview with Playboy in 1980 where he provided the exact same information, crediting the song entirely to McCartney. That interview is much more easily referenced, so I've removed Smith 1972. Tkbrett (✉) 22:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quality
[edit]

The article is sourced to high-quality sources that meet the FACR criteria. During the previous FAC, the nom received the advice to tone down the number of sources, therefore I've not attempted to find additional sources that could be used or be cited. JBchrch talk 22:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources" section
[edit]
  • Some publishers are linked, some not. Please harmonize.
  • I've only linked the first instances of publishers. Should I be linking them every time where able?
  • i think so, yes, as—if i'm not mistaken—consistency is more important than OVERLINK.
  • All are now linked.
  • Badman 2001 : The link goes to the Vol. 1 not the Vol. 2.
  • The Internet Archive link is titled incorrectly. The actual content is from vol. 2 (note the top mentions "Original text from: Keith Badman. The Beatles Diary Volume 2: After The Break-Up 1970-2001").
  • Baur 2017: Lacks a page range
  • Fixed.
  • Courrier 2008: Should be 2009 per Worldcat
  • Fixed.
  • Davies 2019: It might be useful to keep the |orig-date=2016 parameter since Worldcat is divided. Also the link seems to go to a book published by a different publisher.
  • Added orig-year and fixed link.
  • Ingham 2009: Link goes to 2nd edition.
  • I used the 3rd edition, so I've fixed this link.
  • Kot 2006, regarding “Sawyers, June Skinner”. Are we sure that Skinner is the middle name?
  • The copyright page lists her as "Sawyer, June Skinner, 1957–"
  • Lewisohn 1988: Looks like the publisher is Harmony Books
  • Fixed.
  • Lewisohn 2000: Let’s specify |orig-date=1992
  • Added.
  • Madinger & Easter 2018. Can you check the publisher? Worldcat gives a different one.
  • The original version was published in 2000 by 44.1 Productions in Chesterfield, MO, while the "Remastered" edition was published in 2018 by Open Your Books in Chesterfield, MO. I've used the 2018 edition.
  • Would you have a hyperlink establishing the existence of this version? I can't find it on my own (probably missed something).
  • The "Remastered" edition was released only as an e-Book, being directly sold from their website. Since there's no print version, I'm wondering if WorldCat would include an entry. I did a bit more digging and see that they actually own the publisher, Open Your Books, originally known as 44.1 Productions. I'm not sure if this makes the source self-published. Tkbrett (✉) 18:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the only source which provides explicit dates for performances, so I've had to remove that information. It's not the biggest loss in the world, so I'm fine with removing it as a source to avoid the headache. Tkbrett (✉) 00:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miles 1998: The year is 1997.
  • Nice catch. Fixed.
  • O’Grady 2008 : Farnham seems to be incorect. Worldcat gives me Aldershot.
  • Shef 2000. Meantion |orig-date=1981 seems appropriate.
  • Added.
  • Wagner 2008: Same comment as O’Grady 2008
  • Fixed.
  • Womack 2009: Are we sure that Womack is the author of the discography? His name doesn’t seem to appear as such.
  • Ah, good point. The table of contents doesn't list a name for the contribution either.
  • Fixed.

You didn't mention it above, but I think Castleman & Podrazik was actually published in 1976, not 1975, as per its copyright page. Tkbrett (✉) 16:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like both are acceptable, since we have a 1976 publication date at the bottom of the page. Whatever you prefer. JBchrch talk 17:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll stick with the 1976 dating. Tkbrett (✉) 18:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Citations" section
[edit]

Doing... JBchrch talk 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC) No issues detected. JBchrch talk 16:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks
[edit]

Doing... JBchrch talk 22:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riley 2002

23a ok
23b ok
23c ok
23.g. Shouldn’t it be specified that Riley refers to the 1976 live album rather than Rockshow? Or am I missing something?

82 ok

MacDonald 2007

1a ok
1d ok
1e ok
17 ok
27 ok
127 ok

Gould 2007

37 Nitpicking here, but the use of « suggests » take a slight liberty with the source material, which does not seem to connect these two things this clearly.

38 ok
55 ok
64 ok
73 ok

Everett 2001

12 Can you please give me a quote?

  • I've fixed this up. Here's 280: "The Beatles returned to the studio on February 15 [1965] for six straight days of work on the new soundtrack. ... Of the eleven songs taped during this week, [list of the eleven songs] ..." I've also added page 296 and 304–305 to the citation, since 296 says, "the Beatles rushed to the studios on April 13 to recorded Lennon's 'Help!'" and pages 304–305 lay out the album's track listing, while also stating "[t]he final contents for the British LP featured film songs on Side 1 and others on Side 2". This makes it clear that six of the seven songs recorded for the film were done during the week in mid-February '65. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22b ok
22d ok
22f Can you give me a quote for Harrison?

  • The first part of the sentence says: "This recording consists of two backing tracks: Harrison's acoustic twelve-string, probably Lennon's Framus ('Guitar I,' ...) ...". It took me a while to understand what this was saying. I initially thought it meant Harrison played an acoustic twelve-string and Lennon played a Framus. That didn't make much sense to me, since the Framus is an acoustic twelve-string, and as far as I knew, Lennon's was the only acoustic twelve-string in the band's possession at that time. I actually emailed Walter Everett a few months ago for clarification. He explained that the part of the sentence I quoted above is actually only talking about one guitar, and what it's saying is that Harrison borrowed Lennon's guitar for the recording. When I reread the paragraph with that in mind, it made way more sense. Tkbrett (✉) 18:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polack

20b ok
20g ok
20m ok
20r ok

Last one for the road : 124a ok. JBchrch talk 16:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source check is a pass. JBchrch talk 14:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Tkbrett (✉) 15:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by CPA

[edit]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

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

  • "McCartney was guided by the need to apply a renewed focus": is "guided" the right word here? Seems like "motivated" would be more apt.
    Agreed. Changed.
  • 'The song begins with a ten measure intro, using delayed triplets to create a sense of acceleration. Splitting the intro into three phrases, its illusion of acceleration is reinforced by a shortened third phrase which quickens the first verse's arrival, anticipating an effect McCartney uses in his late-1965 composition "We Can Work It Out".' This is not an area I know much about, so please pardon my ignorance. I know what a triplet is, but what's a delayed triplet? Having just listened to the intro, I can hear that it's in three phrases; I think we can say that more simply. And do we need both "sense of acceleration" and "illusion of acceleration" so close to each other? How about "The song begins with a ten measure intro, split into three phrases that use delayed triplets to create a sense of acceleration, reinforced by a shortened third phrase which quickens the first verse's arrival. McCartney used the effect again later that year in "We Can Work It Out".'
    This is my very confused wording based on Riley's description. What he says is that the "rhythmic impulses of the intro are half what they are during the rest of the song", and that, rather than beginning with an established rhythm, it "glides into the swing by delaying it with triplet motion." (p. 148) So not at all what I wrote. I've reworded it based off your suggestion, altering it to avoid the incorrect use of "delayed triplet" to instead write: {"The song begins with a ten measure intro. Split into three phrases, the intro uses triplets that are slower than the rest of the song to create a sense of acceleration, reinforced by a shortened third phrase which quickens the first verse's arrival. McCartney used the effect again later that year in "We Can Work It Out"."
  • "Like other Beatles songs, a triplet repeat signals the end of the song – though it differs in using an eight bar chorus rather than only two or four measures": this looks like a typo to me; it's not a triplet repeat -- the source is referring to the fact that the chorus line is repeated three times. I can see you're having trouble rephrasing this to avoid close paraphrasing, but as you have it you're not really representing the source accurately -- his point is that the line that is repeated is eight bars, which is "rather unprecedented" -- almost unparaphraseable, in fact. Sounds like he can't think of another case where the Beatles did this but doesn't want to go out on a limb and say so. You could say that this is rare, or unusual, or something like that.
    Yes, triplets on the brain, I guess. Should be "triple" as you mention. I split this bit into two sentences. I've partially quoted Pollack instead.
  • The "Genre" section suffers a little from the "A said B" problem. You have done some work to vary the rhythm, but the two paragraphs together still have a listy feel. You might try writing this without any reference to which critic said what, so that you get a paragraph that simply tells the reader what these critics think, and make that as readable as possible. Then re-adding the source attributions in line might result in a smoother flow. Do we really need all the attributions, by the way? The reader can find out who said what by looking at the sources, so it might be better to just start with "The composition fuses several different styles and is difficult to categorise", and so on. I know nothing about Beatles scholarship, so perhaps some of these musicologists are important to readers and should be named inline, of course.
    Agreed. The opening line was originally written as you suggested, but you'll see at the top of the FAC that another editor suggested I ought to include the by-line. I think I'd prefer your style/the original though, since it improves the flow of the text. I've rewritten this entire section as you suggested and I'm happy with the result. What do you think?
    Much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Pollack mentions "stumbling" used in the outro, such as McCartney's added "oh!", as further contributing to the effect of falling.' Another difficult one -- I can see you're trying to avoid close paraphrasing but this is awkwardly phrased.
    It doesn't feel like that important a point, at least not as important as the other mention of "falling" in the composition section, so I've cut it.
  • 'Opening with "I've Just Seen a Face" reinforced perceptions of the album as a folk or folk rock centred LP, causing it to be more conceptually unified while also distorting the band's late-1965 creative developments and their original artistic intentions': there are several thoughts packed into this sentence, and I think they could be organized better. How about 'Opening with "I've Just Seen a Face" gave Rubber Soul more conceptual unity, which reinforced perceptions of it as a folk or folk rock centred LP, at the cost of distorting the band's late-1965 creative developments and their original artistic intentions'?
    This is a rather important sentence since it's one of the things almost all sources are first to discuss when the song comes up, so I really want to get it right. I like your version a lot better, since it provides a more logical flow to the sentence.

That takes me down to the end of the "Release" section; I'm out of time for the moment but should be able to finish the review tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • "The album was similarly a commercial success and, according to Gould, served to attract folk-music enthusiasts towards pop music": what does "similarly" mean here?
    I think it's leftover from a previous iteration of the page when things were worded differently. Cut the word.
  • Why is there nothing on contemporary critical reception?
    In short, rock music criticism didn't really exist in 1965 (refer to this talk page discussion). The reviews that did appear offered little in the way of actual criticism and instead only served as track-by-track descriptions. For example, Derek Johnson's review of Help! for NME describes "Face" as "an up-tempo shuffler" made up of a "chugging, railroad rhythm" reminiscent of country & western. That's all he says about it. Richard Green's review of Help! in Record Mirror is similarly shallow. Regarding the US release of Rubber Soul, neither Billboard nor Cash Box seem to have mentioned "Face".
  • I made a couple of MOS:CONFORM edits to initial letter-case.
    Much appreciated.
  • "After signing with Capitol in 1965, the progressive bluegrass band the Dillards recorded a cover of the song. Done between the British release of Help! and the North American release of Rubber Soul, the band hoped to issue the song in the US before the Beatles, though the recording went unreleased." Do we care when the Dillards signed with Capitol? The important point is the timing of the releases; if we drop the opening clause we could simplify this to "The progressive bluegrass band the Dillards recorded a cover of the song between the British release of Help! and the North American release of Rubber Soul; they had hoped to issue the song in the US before the Beatles, though the recording went unreleased."
    Yes, that's fair. I presume it's relevant because it explains how the Dillards had access to the song before the wider American audience, though the source doesn't say that outright and so would be speculation on my part. I've switched it to your wording.

That's it for this pass; only a couple of minor points outstanding now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Mike Christie! I especially appreciate your thoroughness in the composition subsection, since it helped clear up some errors that slipped through early in the writing process. Tkbrett (✉) 15:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 5 February 2022 (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) 5 February 2022 [139].

Armenian genocide

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a delay, I think it's time for this level-4 vital article to come back to FAC. I really appreciate the feedback I received on the last nomination, which I did my best to address, and am looking forward to additional comments. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus

[edit]

Hello. As on the last FA review, I am here just to note some minor details and will not engage in full review.

  • Check duplicated links, there's a few of them.
    • Mostly fixed. I left a couple in where there's a large gap.
  • The only note on the article, "Also known by other names", should have its own section and not be included within the references one in my opinion. A period could also be added. It is pretty short anyway so we perhaps could just remove it.
    • Added period, but an additional section would add too much page clutter (including table of contents) to be worthwhile imo.
  • Article uses both "Armenian Question" (twice, excluding references) and "Armenian question" (once). It'd be better to have consistency.
    • Per MOS:Caps, this phrase is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources so it should not generally be capitalized. However in direct quotes original capitalization is preserved.
  • Could we add the Armenian name of the event in the lead? I imagine this probably has been discussed before and not just not considered at this point, my apologies if so.
    • I don't think so. The entire reason for creating the terminology article was to move the details on alternate names somewhere other than the first sentence of the lead where they're UNDUE (in my opinion).
  • It could be stated that the Armenian genocide is part of the Late Ottoman genocides and not just of WW1 in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 21:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is discussed in the article, but I'm concerned that it would add too much clutter to the infobox, which we've tried to keep simple, as well as not necessarily being understood by the average reader.
    • Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • de Waal, Thomas (2015) WorldCat relates that the 2015 edition is a PHD dissertation, you may wish to make note of this.
    • The ISBN is correct, I copied it from the title page of the (PDF) version I cited. It is not a dissertation.
  • Kévorkian, Raymond (2011) while Bloomsbury Publishing does currently own I.B. Tauris, it was I.B. Tauris themselves that published this before being bought seven years later, you may wish to specify the publisher to them.
  • Suciyan, Talin (2015) same here, may wish to specify to I.B. Tauris.
    • Done both.
  • Ahmed, Ali (2006) the linked ISBN (9781135205089) seems to lead to a 2013 edition per WorldCat; suggest 9781579583880 as used for 2006 edition. If you used the 2013 edition, you may wish to simply insert an orig-year of 2005 (the earliest I can find it). If you used a paper copy of 2006 with the linked ISBN, disregard this.
    • The version I used says it is from 2006 but the ISBN is 978-1-57958-388-0 so I changed to that.
  • Anderson, Margaret Lavinia (2011) listed ISBN of 9780199792764 brings up an error on WorldCat; 9780195393743 seems to be a common ISBN for the 2011 edition. If the listed ISBN is from a paper 2011 copy, disregard this.
  • Ditto Astourian, Stephan (2011), Göçek, Fatma Müge (2011) Zürcher, Erik Jan (2011), and Dündar, Fuat (2011).
    • Replaced with 978-0-19-539374-3 the ISBN from the edition I used.
  • Kévorkian, Raymond (2020 WorldCat seems to have a lot of 2021 editions compared to 2020, double-check that 2020 is the correct year; ISBN is appropriate for both, but 9781789204506 is more commonly used for 2021 editions.
    • I used the Google Book version, which has that ISBN and is from 2020.
  • Mouradian, Khatchig (2018) per WorldCat the current ISBN is somewhat rare for the 2018 edition, may wish to double-check/change to the more commonly used 9780415787444, but default to used copy.
    • Double checked this one and the pdf copy I used says its ISBN is 978-1-315-22591-3.
  • @Buidhe: That is all, no objection to the inclusion of any sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notes (non-issues)
  • Bloxham, Donald (2005) the ISBN (9780199226887) links only to 2009 WorldCat editions, but subsequent searches in the 2005 editions reveal the ISBN as valid for 2005 editions, presume failure of WorldCat.
  • de Waal, Thomas (2015) ISBN provided (978-0-19-935069-8) links to a 2019 edition, but WorldCat confirms valid for 2015 edition.
  • Bloxham, Donald; Göçek, Fatma Müge (2008) WorldCat has no 2008 entry but Google Books and Springer confirm it.
  • Leonard, Thomas C. (2004) no WorldCat entry for this date, confirmed in other locations.

Comments by a455bcd9

[edit]

Thanks for working on this important article. A few remarks:

Lead
[edit]
  • The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of [...] Armenians [...] it was accomplished primarily through mass executions, death marches leading to the Syrian Desert, and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children.: I don't understand why forced Islamization is mentioned here, because from what I understand people who converted to Islam under duress survived. I think this may be more correct: "it was accomplished primarily through mass executions and death marches leading to the Syrian Desert. Many Armenian women and children were also subject to forced Islamization." (as it is written in the third paragraph: "Around 100,000 to 200,000 Armenian women and children were forcibly converted to Islam and integrated into Muslim households.")
    • I think it is a misconception to assume that genocide is just killing people. Indeed both the Genocide Convention and reliable sources cited in this article use a more broad definition that considers such actions as kidnapping children, forced conversion, economic dispossession etc. as aspects of a genocide. See for example Akcam and Kurt 2015, pp. 4–6: "Genocide does not just mean physical annihilation. Going even further, physical annihilation is only one detail of the process. How many Armenians died during the course of the deportations or destruction, or how many remained alive—as important as this is on the human level—is just a secondary issue from a definitional point of view; what is important is the complete erasure of the traces of the Armenians in their ancient homeland." The sources cited definitely consider Islamization as a structural element of the genocide.
      • I agree with this definition but what is weird is the current construction: "The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of [...] Armenians [...] it was accomplished primarily through". This could be solved this way (a bit heavy...): "The Armenian genocide[a] was the complete erasure of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it was accomplished primarily through the systematic mass murder of around one million ethnic Armenians in mass executions and death marches leading to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children." A455bcd9 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Revised
  • Prior to World War I, Armenians were concentrated in the Armenian highlands and occupied a protected, but subordinate, place in Ottoman society.: would be great to add the number of Armenians before the Genocide + the % of the total population. Also it should be mentioned that many Armenians lived in Constantinople, in addition to rural areas in the east. Otherwise we don't understand the roundup in Constantinople on April 24 1915.
    • More details on this are given in the body. I get your point that adding more background information could be helpful, but I don't think there's space to expand the lead.
  • Should it be "the empire" or "the Empire" for the Ottoman Empire?
    • I believe "the empire" is correct per MOS:CAPS.
  • to permanently forestall the possibility of Armenian autonomy or independence. => I think it should be mentioned in the introduction that there was an Armenian national liberation movement. For instance after "Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909." something like "In reaction to these massacre..." Otherwise the reader doesn't understand why "the possibility of Armenian autonomy or independence" is mentioned and why there was "fear among CUP leaders that the Armenians [...] would also attempt to break free of the empire."
    • It is actually a really complex question the extent to which these fears were "real". It's true that Armenian revolutionary groups existed, however, their goal was reform not secession in most cases. Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians until after 1915 (see) More widely accepted scholarly explanations focus on how the Armenian question was manipulated in diplomacy and how the loss of Macedonia warped CUP leaders' perception of the Armenian provinces. But, although I agree that you might add something there for balance, I'm struggling to think of any way to explain these factors in a couple sentences (I wrote an entire article Causes of the Armenian genocide).
      • Maybe something like this: "Prior to World War I, Armenians were concentrated in the Armenian highlands and occupied a protected, but subordinate, place in Ottoman society. Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians and most wanted to reform their status. Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army were disarmed pursuant to a February order and were later killed.: how many of them? what was their representation in the Army as a whole?
    • Despite looking, I am not aware of any figures on this.
    Removed. (t · c) buidhe 15:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Turkish government maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as a genocide. I think something like this would be more neutral and would be a better representation of the official Turkish stance (and of Genocide denial in Turkey in general): "The Turkish government describes the "events of 1915"[Could add a footnote: "In 2006, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered government officials to say "the events of 1915" instead of "so-called Armenian genocide", cf. Terminology of the Armenian genocide] as a "tragedy" that resulted in "the loss of many innocent lives" but that cannot be described as a genocide as it maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action under war-time conditions." (source 1, source 2)
    • This sentence has been discussed on the talk page. I'd agree that your longer version of the sentence does do a better job of conveying the nuances in Turkey's current official position. However, there are a couple reasons to prefer the current version: 1) it is more concise, and maintaining conciseness in the lead is very important and 2) it is accurate over Turkey's entire history, whereas the proposed version is accurate only during the last few years. (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. I still think this sentence could be improved for instance to distinguish the position of the Turkish Republic from the one of the late Ottoman Empire: "Although after the genocide the Ottoman Empire publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy, the Turkish government has maintained since 1923 that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as a genocide." A455bcd9 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's important not to give too much weight to the post-Mudros Ottoman government, which existed for only a few years and had little sway outside the capital. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[I'll check the rest later]

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
[edit]
  • The presence of Armenians in Anatolia has been documented since the sixth century BCE, more than a millennium before the Turkish incursion.: this is not directly related to this article but the map in the Anatolia article shows only the Western part and yet here we mostly talk about Armenians living in the east so I think the reader who clinks on this blue link may be confused. Should we change that map?
    • There are different definitions of "Anatolia". But the one used in this article and the cited sources puts the eastern edge of Anatolia approximately equivalent to Turkey's eastern border.
  • The Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society. we could add "(Christians and Jews)" after "non-Muslims" to make it clearer. Or just replace "non-Muslims" by "Christians and Jews".
    • I think "non-Muslim" is better because it's the language used in the sources and included other groups such as Samaritans and Mandaeans. I don't see how it's unclear because this policy actually applied to the non-Muslims in the empire.
  • Around two million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I: what was the total population of the empire and/or the share of Armenians among the total population?
    • Added the total population of Anatolia
  • This section only mentions Armenians in the Armenian Highlands but there were also many Armenians in other parts of present-day Turkey (especially Constantinople) and in other parts of the empire. Because they're not mentioned it's unclear whether they were also killed or not. (Which is by the way a common theme in the Armenian genocide denial: "Look at all the Armenian restaurants, churches, and schools in Istanbul!")
    • I had previously given a figure for Armenian urban population ("According to the Patriarchate's figure, 215,131 Armenians lived in urban areas, especially Constantinople, Smyrna, and Eastern Thrace."[1]), but I don't see how that helps. We already give the main Armenian population (peasants in the east), and the implication is that the other Armenians lived elsewhere. Then, the partial killing of Armenian urban population is discussed later in the article.
      • I think this sentence about Armenians in urban areas would help. Yes, the reader can currently infer that some Armenians lived elsewhere but it's unclear 1/ whether these Armenians lived in cities or villages and 2/ whether that population outside the Armenian Highlands was significant or not. Here we have a reliable figure (which seems quite rare in this subject!) so it would be a pity not to mention it I think. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added
  • Also, don't we have a better map? Or could we make one? I'm colorblind and the current one is hard to read.
    • There are several maps in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire with the % of Armenians by locality before the Genocide. New SVG versions should be created (for instance of this one). General maps delineating the Armenian population in 1915 are also good, see: DW (at the end of the article) and AFP. An even better map would also feature Greek populations (example) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issues with making a new map is that there are no generally accepted figures for the pre-1915 Armenian population. The 1914 Ottoman census is generally considered to significantly undercount Armenians as well as Syriacs/Assyrians, but it is disputed how much. So you could make a map with the figures for the census, but it would not be reliable in terms of the actual Armenian population. A less specific map highlighting Armenian populated areas is possible, however the reality is that Armenians were living in greater or lesser numbers in pretty much every vilayet in Anatolia, and sufficiently precise and accurate statistics for a detailed map just don't exist. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Got it. But why should we keep the current map that is probably not more accurate than the 1914 Ottoman census or a less specific map highlighting Armenian populated areas + that is hard to read (at least for me) + that is not in SVG? And what about these maps (that could be remade in SVG, provided they are based on reliable sources)? File:Armenia between russian and ottoman empires.png, File:Six armenian provinces.png, File:Six Vilayets ethnic groups.png? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        The first two maps are ok since no one disputes which vilayets were designated as "Armenian". (Although this designation does not help much in showing where Armenians in the empire actually lived). The factual accuracy of the third one looks highly questionable to me, the numbers for Diyarbekir do not look realistic at all. Would this map be any better than the current one? I'm not sure about the sourcing but it seems to be a decent rough approximation of where Armenians lived. (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That map is indeed quite nice! If the source is reliable it can definitely replace the current one.
        An alternative is this map which has many advantages:
        • focuses on Armenians only,
        • in shades of blue (no issue for colorblind people),
        • shows both the Armenian populations in both the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire,
        • shows the vilayets and oblasts' borders,
        • the sourcing is sure as it's a scan of an existing map,
        • it's more recent (1896 vs 1870s).
        Someone "modernized" it (here and there), I'm not convinced by the result but we could either use the original one or ask someone else in the illustration workshop to SVGize the old version. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I've put in Armenian population map 1896.jpg for now. (t · c) buidhe 15:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What about this one? It was published in 1917 but based on the figures (in the original map: 2m Armenians in Turkey, ~10% of the population) and the geographic distribution I guess it shows the situation just before the genocide. It is easy to read (at least for me) and it also shows that Constantinople was about 50% Turk, 25% Armenian and 25% Greek which seems in line with File:Ethno religious groups Istanbul.png. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This map is not very accurate, it suggests that a large area around Lake Van was mostly Armenian which is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Too bad :( (btw this map is actually from 1916 and it's interesting because it surprisingly comes "from the Allies' peace terms as stated in their reply to President Wilson's note of 19th Dec. 1916"!) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "Greek Orthodox" link to Greeks in the Ottoman Empire or Rum Millet? I read in "Rum Millet" that: "Its name was derived from the former Eastern Roman (a.k.a. Byzantine) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Serbs, as well as Georgians and Middle Eastern Christians, were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language."
    • I think the link is appropriate as those who were living next to Armenians would have not necessarily been Greek-speaking, but they belonged to the church that is called Greek Orthodox (as opposed to Bulgarian Orthodox Church, a separate millet) and were treated as Greeks during the population exchange. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kévorkian 2011, p. 279.
Land conflict and reforms
[edit]
  • The nineteenth-century Tanzimat reforms abolished the protections that members of the Armenian millet had previously enjoyed, but did not change the popular perception that they were different and inferior.: I don't understand, what were these protections? And how are the two part of the sentence related: how abolishing protections could/should "change the popular perception that they were different and inferior"?
    • Rewrote
  • It's unclear to me whether most Armenians were landowners when I read: The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 disadvantaged Armenians and many now had to pay double taxation both to Kurdish landlords and the Ottoman government. and Armenians faced large-scale land usurpation as a consequence of the sedentarization of Kurdish tribes and the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces.
    • OK, so Ottoman landholding is very complicated. In principle the land was supposed to belong to those who cultivated it, but the wealthy and powerful (in this case rural notables who had previously earned a living from tax farming) had an advantage in the 1858 land reform because they could register land in their own name, then charge rents. It seems to me that some Armenians owned their own land (although land ownership was often gray/disputed as well). "Land usurpation" is described by Suny as de facto violent seizure of land occupied by one family by others seeking control of the land, although the usurpers would often register the property and claim ownership under the 1858 land code.
  • Also: who were these "Kurdish landlords" Armenians paid taxes to?
  • Do these two sentences refer to the same events? From the mid-nineteenth century, Armenians faced large-scale land usurpation as a consequence of the sedentarization of Kurdish tribes and the arrival of Muslim refugees and immigrants (mainly Circassians) following the Russo-Circassian War. and In 1876, when Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power, the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas. Because I read regarding the Russo-Circassian War that: "Circassian resistance continued in the mountainous regions until the 1870s, but the war was officially over by 1864"
    • The source states that land usurpation against Armenians was occurring before the reign of Abdul Hamid II, but under his watch it was legalized and facilitated by the state in order to settle Muslims from Caucasus/Balkans. It's true that the Circassian war was the previous decade but the Great Eastern Crisis, which resulted in another round of Ottoman territorial losses, was ongoing at this point.
  • 300,000 Armenians emigrated in the decades leading up to World War I: did they emigrate to other parts of the Ottoman Empire or outside the empire?
    • The definition of "emigration" is moving to another country. Rephrased to "left the empire"
  • Where Dashnaktsutyun is mentioned, the Armenian national liberation movement could be mentioned and the fact that "Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians".
    • Linked the first, the second is already implied by existing wording
  • This marked the emergence of the Armenian question in international diplomacy as Armenians were for the first time used to interfere in Ottoman politics.: used by whom?
    • Foreign powers, added
  • Although Armenians had been called the "loyal millet" in contrast to Greeks and others who had previously challenged Ottoman rule, Armenians became perceived as subversive and ungrateful after 1878.: do we know why this shift happened? Also, who called Armenians the "loyal millet"?
    • The Ottoman authorities considered Armenians the "loyal millet" because they hadn't rebelled. This perception was challenged by the Congress of Berlin due to fear of European intervention justified as being on behalf of the Armenians. Reworded to make it more clear, but I don't want to repeat "Congress of Berlin" in three sentences.
  • mobs incited to violence: incited by whom? local Ottoman officials?
    • The source states that most violence was not spontaneous and that in some areas, Ottoman officials did not permit killing. Reworded
  • Many Armenian villages were forcibly converted to Islam.: do we know how many? do we have examples?
    • Source doesn't specify how many. This paper goes into more detail but doesn't give an estimate either. I think examples would be more relevant for the Hamidian massacres article
  • whose purpose was violently restoring the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy: this is the first mention of "Christian" in the body of the article: it should probably be mentioned somewhere that Armenians were not the only non-Muslims and not the only Christians. This term could also be linked to Christianity in the Ottoman Empire.
    • Christianity is discussed in the "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" section. I don't see why Christianity in the Ottoman Empire should be linked, as it doesn't cover anything that's not already in the Millet or Armenians in the Ottoman Empire articles.
Young Turk Revolution
[edit]
  • A link to Abdul Hamid II on the first mention of "Hamidian" may be useful (took me a few seconds to understand...) or replace "leading Hamidian officials" => "leading government officials"?
    • Done
  • Should the link to Macedonia (region) be replaced by North Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire?
    • The region of Ottoman Macedonia was not the same extent as today's country of North Macedonia
  • When news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire.: do we know why? Were the Armenians accused of being behind the countercoup?
    • Both CUP and anti-CUP supporters were involved in the Adana massacre, which started as a generic riot but escalated into violent attacks on Armenians.
  • Unlike the Hamidian massacres: there should be a like to Hamidian massacres. Also this is the first time the term "Hamidian massacres" is used but it is not defined and the use of "Unlike" seems to imply that the reader should already know what these massacres are.
    • Replaced with "1890s massacres"
  • putting the Hamidiye in reserve: adding "regiments" after Hamidiye would make the sentence clearer.
    • Done
  • CUP leaders feared these reforms would lead to partition and cited them as a reason for the elimination of the Armenian population in 1915.: I don't understand (but not sure the CUP logic was understandable and/or made sense). They "feared these reforms would lead to partition" and in any case these reforms were not implemented. So how did they justify the genocide based on these unimplemented reforms? Is it that they feared that the implementation of these reforms would lead to partition and in that case thought that the total elimination of the Armenian population was a better solution? If so maybe I suggest we change the sentence to: CUP leaders feared that, if implemented, these reforms could lead to partition and cited them as a reason for the elimination of the Armenian population in 1915.
    • Done. For more on this, see Causes of the Armenian genocide#Armenian question. Many historians believe that the CUP's fears were overblown, given that none of the other states involved, not even Russia, wanted to separate the eastern provinces from the Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman Armenians would have been happy with a reform agreement that protected their lives and property. However, in the past, other agreements had led to territorial secessions in the Balkans.
Balkan Wars
[edit]
  • This map could be used and/or a link to Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1913 on "almost all of the empire's European territory" and/or adding the list of regions after "empire's European territory" (Balkans, etc.) otherwise the reader may not understand "the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans".
    • Added link
  • It is widely accepted that: I think (or hope) most of what is in the article is "widely accepted", so why is it mentioned here? It could probably be removed.
    • Removed
  • Instead, the CUP turned to an increasingly radical ideology of Turkish nationalism to preserve the empire. add link to Turkish nationalism?
    • It's already linked above
  • CUP leaders such as Talaat and Enver Pasha came to blame non-Muslim population concentrations in strategic areas for many of the empire's problems, concluding by mid-1914 that they were "internal tumors" to be excised.: do we know which problems in particular?
    • The source doesn't specify
  • After the coup, the CUP shifted the demography of border areas by resettling Muslim immigrants while coercing Christians to leave: Muslim immigrants from the Balkans? Where Christians coerced to leave the empire or to leave these areas for other areas?
    • Changed to "emigrate" and "Balkan Muslims" for more specificity.
  • Also, what were these "border areas"? Only in the east of Anatolia or all around the Ottoman territory?
    • Both east and western Anatolia. But mainly the border areas.
  • "Aegean littoral": link to Aegean Sea?
    • Done
  • I don't understand Turkish/Muslim bandits in the description of the image. Why not just "Muslim" as in the text? Were all Çetes Turkish? I see in "The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History", Kévorkian, 2011: "There they were shut up in a stable belonging to the mufti, Kuruca Koruğ, where a squadron of Turkish and Kurdish çetes stripped them of their belongings." so I guess some Çetes were Kurdish?
Ottoman entry into World War I
[edit]
  • The same month, CUP representatives went to a Dashnak conference: I guess Dashnak is the adjective related to Dashnaktsutyun? But the term does not even appear in Armenian congress at Erzurum. It would be more clear to have "The same month, CUP representatives went to the 8th World Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation"
    • I don't see how that would be clear? The sources I checked don't even mention which ARF/Dashnak conference it is, they identify it by the location and date.
  • The same month, CUP representatives went to a Dashnak conference demanding that, in the event of war with Russia, the Dashnaktsutyun incite Russian Armenians to intervene on the Ottoman side.: the reader discovers at this point that there were ethnic Armenians outside the Ottoman Empire: how many of them? What were their links (if any) with Ottoman Armenians? I think this point is important and the historic distribution of Armenians in the region (including outside the Ottoman Empire) should be mentioned in the "Background" section.
  • Wartime requisitions were often corrupt and arbitrary, and frequently targeted Greeks and Armenians.: what were these requisitions?
    • As with most requisitions it seems to be anything the army needed or wanted, including livestock, vehicles, goods, etc.
  • Armenian leaders urged young men to accept conscription into the army the link to Seferberlik does not mention Armenian but "the forced conscription of Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, and Kurdish men". So is it correct to have this link here?
    • Seferberlik refers to the entire Ottoman war mobilization, not just specific ethnic groups
  • "Revenge", an Ottoman map published during World War I. Territory lost during and after the Balkan Wars highlighted in black.: maybe add the Ottoman Turkish word انتقام?
    • Done
  • The Armenian soldiers in labor battalions were systematically executed: would be great to have more data on that. Especially, how many Armenian soldiers were there in the Ottoman Empire army? I found this source (no idea how reliable it is): "At the outbreak of World War I some 60,000 Armenians between the ages of 18-45 were conscripted into the Ottoman Army. [...] What followed was the directive of Enver Pasha, Minister of War, to exterminate all Armenian soldiers in the army. More than 60,000 Armenian soldiers were brutally killed on the rear lines." and this one: "On August 1, 1914 World War I started. All the men in the Empire from 18 to 45 were conscripted to the army, among them also 60 thousand Armenian men, who joined those already serving in the Ottoman army. [...] The defeat at Sarikamish became a pretext to blame Armenian soldiers for treachery. On February 12, 1915 by the order of the same Enver pasha the disarmament of the Armenian soldiers of Ottoman army started, then amele taburi-es (labor battalions) and hamal taburi-es (cargo transportation battalions) were formed with the involvement of disarmed Armenian soldiers. At the same time the isolation and arrest of Armenian officers started. This was followed by the order of Enver, Military (War) minister, about the annihilation of Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman army. Thousands of Armenian soldiers and army suppliers were cruelly killed by their Turkish companions-in-arms." Also, looking for source I found this one mentioning that: "While many Armenian men served in the Ottoman Army, some crossed the border to join the Russian Army, and others formed guerrilla bands to fight Ottoman forces behind the front lines." As it is a common theme in Turkish genocide denial that Armenians helped the Russians I think it should be mentioned that most young Armenian Ottomans joined the Ottoman Army. I haven't read this but it may be a good source as well.
    • I'm hesitant to include this 60,000 figure since I can't find out where it comes from and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about the genocide (I looked on Google Scholar and the only one I found was "Approx. 60,000 Ottoman-Armenian soldiers took part in the Ottoman military campaign in the Caucasus in 1914." a footnote in Religious Minorities in Turkey, no source is given) this does not inspire confidence.
    • I don't know if it's accurate that most Armenians joined the army. Suny states that most Greeks got exempted and that Armenian community leaders encouraged recruitment but for Armenians as with other Ottoman communities there were issues with draft evasion and desertion. However, the Armenian units in the Russian Army were mostly made up of Russian and diaspora Armenians, and Armenian guerrilla activity in the empire was relatively minor and/or provoked. However, I wouldn't say the purpose of this article is to debunk Turkish claims but rather concisely summarize what it says in reliable sources.
      • Yes, the purpose isn't to debunk all Turkish claims. However, this is the main one. For instance, all Anadolu Agency's articles about the genocide end with: "Turkey's position on the events of 1915 is that the deaths of Armenians in eastern Anatolia took place when some sided with invading Russians and revolted against Ottoman forces. A subsequent relocation of Armenians resulted in numerous casualties." (example). According to the current version (in "Onset of genocide"): Enver publicly blamed his defeat on Armenians who he claimed had actively sided with the Russians, a theory that became a consensus among CUP leaders. [...] Historian Taner Akçam concludes that "the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents ... have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated". So I understand that there was no Armenian revolt, but did some Ottoman Armenians join the Russian forces? In Armenian volunteer units, one can read: "its ranks were primarily made up of Armenians from the Russian Empire, though there were also a number of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire." (not sourced) Reading that article, I discovered the Armenian fedayi, they may be mentioned as well, as: "Some fedayi groups joined the Ottoman army after the Ottoman government passed a new law to support the war effort that required all enabled adult males up to the age of 45 to either be recruited in the Ottoman army or to pay special fees (which would be used in the war effort) to be excluded from service. The Genocide, committed during World War I by the Ottoman Empire, gave way to the return of the fedayis, who reorganised themselves once again inside the borders of the Ottoman Empire. In turn, tens of thousands of Armenians volunteered to be drafted in several different armies. These Armenian volunteer units were formed inside the Russian army to fight against the Ottoman Empire." (again, not sourced) The French Armenian Legion is also interesting because it apparently included "Armenian exiles and refugees from the Ottoman Empire" but it was formed on November 15th, 1916 so after the beginning of the genocide and when it was almost completed (Based on contemporary estimates, Akçam figured that by late 1916, only 200,000 deported Armenians were still alive.). Were these units used as a retroactive justification for the genocide? This reminds me this other sentence in the article: From 1918 to 1920, Armenian militants committed revenge killings of at most 40,000 to 60,000 Muslims, providing a retroactive excuse for genocide. If there are reliable academic sources about the involvement of Ottoman Armenians in foreign armies (esp. Russian), in terms of both numbers and timing (before or after 1915/1916?), it would be amazing. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, one of the main Turkish arguments in genocide denial claims that the ARF was trying to stage a general rebellion in Ottoman Armenia while simultaneously have Armenians defect from the Ottoman Army (see this paper). According to this argument, the mass deportations were enacted in order to prevent this revolt from succeeding. Akcam and many others say there is no evidence for this theory.
        • I've looked through various sources on the Armenian volunteer units. There were some high profile Ottoman Armenian defectors (eg. Armen Garo) and Akcam in his 2012 book discusses recruitment of diaspora Armenians born in the Ottoman Empire into Russian volunteer units. I also found this (not a reliable source) stating "Deserters from the Turkish army as well as surrendered Armenians were included into formation of Armenian units." But I can't find any statistics on the exact scale of this phenomenon. As far as retroactive excuses goes, pretty much any anti-Ottoman activity by Armenians can be cited for the ultimate disloyalty and untrustworthiness of all Ottoman Armenians. (t · c) buidhe 14:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for checking. Too bad we don't have good sources for that... I just had a look at Kaligian 2014. It just says that "some" Ottoman Armenians joined the Russians: "Lewy, who writes, “Most of the volunteers were Russian subjects, exempt from military service; but some of them came from as far as America and Western Europe, and Turkish Armenians, too, began to cross the border to join these units.” Uras and the other denialist authors do make a valid point concerning the role played by Armen Garo as a commander in one of the volunteer regiments. To have such a high-profile ARF member and deputy cross the border could legitimately be seen by the CUP as a betrayal. But the actions of one individual cannot be generalized to an entire political party, much less an entire people, as these authors are wont to do." I wonder if it could be interesting to cite the example of Armen Garo and to mention that otherwise the Armenian volunteers in the Russian army were mostly Russian subjects and that only "some" Ottoman Armenians joined them. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          I added more info to this section about the volunteer units and Ottoman Armenian attitudes towards the war. (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onset of genocide
[edit]
  • Same remark regarding "Dashnak" here, it's unclear for a non-expert that this is a short-term for "Dashnaktsutyun". By the way, Dashnaktsutyun may be replaced everywhere in the article by "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" as I think non-Armenian speakers struggle to read and understand "Dashnaktsutyun", and the Wikipedia article's title is "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" and not "Dashnaktsutyun".
    • Done
Systematic deportations: Aims
[edit]
  • Ottoman records show the government aimed to reduce the population of Armenians to no more than 5 percent in the sources of deportation and 10 percent in the destination areas.: cf. my previous remark, would be great to know before the genocide the % of Armenians by locality.
    • I'll reply to that above.
  • Some areas with a very low Armenian population and some cities were partially spared from deportation.: what about Constantinople? What explains the current presence of Armenians there? According to the Armenian National Institute (here): "The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the capital city, were spared deportation." and before the genocide there were many Armenians in Istanbul. Would be worth mentioning, for instance: "Some areas with a very low Armenian population and some cities, such as Constantinople, were partially spared from deportation."
    • OK, added mention of Constantinople
  • Map of the Armenian genocide in 1915:
    • What are the dots in the sea (from İzmir, Trabzon, Rize, etc.)? People killed at sea? The legend says "Deportation control centre", it's weird. This should be clarified. And because it is on the map the Armenian genocide in Trebizond may be mentioned: "The method employed to kill was mainly by mass drowning, resulting in estimated deaths of 50,000 Armenians."
    • I'm colorblind and I can't see any difference between "Deportation routes" and "Armenians and Assyrians escape routes"
Administrative organization
[edit]
  • the Directorate for the Settlement of Tribes and Immigrants (IAMM): what does IAMM stand for? I found "İskan-ı Aşair ve Muhacirîn Müdüriyeti". Maybe good to add it otherwise we don't understand why "IAMM" is used (instead of DSTI)
    • There are different ways to romanize the Ottoman Turkish name, but all English-language sources consulted abbreviate it as IAMM, not DSTI. I don't think writing out the full name is helpful to readers.
  • Link to Eastern Anatolia Region could be added?
    • No, that's a modern administrative jurisdiction that is not synonymous with the geographic meaning of "eastern Anatolia"
  • Many perpetrators came from the Caucasus (Chechens and Circassians), who identified the Armenians with their Russian oppressors.: is this sentence also sourced by Kévorkian 2011, p. 810.? Also, instead of "Caucasus" it could be more explicit to write Caucasus Viceroyalty or at least to link to it so that the reader understand that the region was ruled by the Russian Empire, which explains "Russian oppressors". Also, is "Russian oppressors" a neutral term?
    • Yes, both sentences are supported by the same source. I'm concerned it would be original research since the source does not state the Russian administrative jurisdiction. I also replaced "Russian oppressors" with "Russian conquerors".
  • Some Ottoman politicians opposed the genocide, but they faced dismissal or assassination.: some => who? Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian genocide cites a few, could be good to add "such as X, Y, and Z" with links. And also to add "and government officials" after "Ottoman politicians"
  • The government decreed that any Muslim who harbored an Armenian against the will of the authorities would be executed.: should it be mentioned that some Muslims helped Armenians? (cf. Mehmet Celal Bey, the "Turkish Oskar Schindler", source)
    • Their opposition is mentioned in the previous sentence. I expanded to "and officials" but don't think it makes sense to mention individuals, because then there would be a question of which ones to mention. I also haven't mentioned/linked individual perpetrators or victims as examples, so it doesn't make sense to have special treatment of dissenting officials. I don't think appellations like "Turkish Oskar Schindler" are really all that meaningful.
Islamization
[edit]
  • "Islamized Armenians who were "rescued from Arabs" after the war": shouldn't this legend be changed? + a link to Vorpahavak added?
    • The caption can't be original research so I relied on the Library of Congress caption.
Destination
[edit]
  • No link to Deir ez-Zor?
    • Added link
  • In the territory of the Ottoman Fourth Army: what was this territory?
    • Clarified that this was the western Levant
  • All traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased.: This statement is I think factually wrong. There are still several Armenian churches, cemeteries (cf. Şişli Armenian Cemetery), and schools in Turkey so I guess some were not "systematically erased" (cf. Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey) Some were also converted (such as Cathedral of Kars). Some were kept but unused and renovated decades later St. Giragos Armenian Church or Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Aghtamar. Providing numbers could help: "Most traces of Armenian existence were erased: X animal names were changed, Y Armenian places were renamed, out of Z churches before the war only ZZ were still intact after the genocide, etc."
    • Also, what were these Armenian "archaeological sites" in Turkey?
    • Reworded the sentence to avoid the implication that "all" was successfully destroyed. I don't think it's accurate to say that this destruction wasn't systematic but it was selective, since it was focused on the Armenian highlands and wasn't applied at all in Istanbul. (See Suciyan's book) I also deleted "archaeological sites", I believe it's from the Cheterian ref but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This map could be added. It shows how the Armenian presence before the genocide and it seems based on a reliable source.
    • I don't think there's space to add that image unless another were removed.
Death toll
[edit]
  • The genocide reduced the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire by 90 percent.: does this include both people exterminated and people who left (during and after the genocide)? Would be better to be more precise because if we know exactly by how much ("90 percent") the Armenian population declined then we should deduce (based on pre-War Armenian population) the number of people who died I guess. But the next sentence says The exact number of Armenians who died is not known and is impossible to determine.
    • The first figure must be the number of killed + exiled, although the source doesn't say so explicitly. As for the second statement, because of uncertainty over the prewar population as well as the postwar population, the exact number of deaths cannot be pinned down with any amount of precision. I ended up removing it as it's not like we'll ever know the exact number of deaths in the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
International reaction
[edit]
  • The German Empire is mentioned, what about other Central Powers? (Austria-Hungary & Bulgaria)
    • I don't think it's WP:DUE. Almost all coverage is about Germany, mainly because its presence in the Ottoman Empire vastly exceeded other Central powers.
Aftermath
[edit]
  • Add link to Levant?
    • Already linked above
  • Armenians organized a coordinated effort known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children.: were these efforts successful? Do we know how many kidnapped Armenians were reclaimed? (dozens, hundreds, thousands?)
    • Thousands.
  • Although the postwar Ottoman government passed laws mandating the return of stolen Armenian property, in practice, 90 percent of Armenians were barred from returning to their homes, especially in eastern Anatolia.: when were these laws passed? The armistice was signed on 31 October 1918 and the Republic of Turkey was formally declared on 29 October 1923. Were these laws "kept" by the Republic of Turkey? Also: were did these 90% of Armenians go instead?
    • The laws were passed by the postwar Ottoman government based in Istanbul. The issue of Armenian property laws is incredibly complex. But in general the Turkish government have not allowed Armenians to reclaim their properties, although in principle they are entitled to them. As for where the Armenians went instead, see the last paragraph before the "legacy" section. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trials
[edit]
  • Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy: there could be a note here that the Grand Vizier did not and could not recognize the events as a genocide because the term was only coined later.
    • I think that is already clear enough.
  • Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser concludes that by agreeing to the treaty, the international community implicitly sanctioned the Armenian genocide.: I'm not a native speaker and for me "to sanction" means both "to give official permission or approval for (an action)." and "to impose a sanction or penalty on." (Oxford Languages). In this case I guess it's "to give official permission or approval for (an action)." but it's not obvious so I would avoid using the word "sanctioned". Also, I don't understand how by agreeing to the treaty, the international community approved the genocide.
    • OK, I removed the sentence. I think what is usually meant by this criticism of the treaty is it basically confirmed that "genocide works" and enabled Turkey to maintain all of the "advantages" that they got from genocide. Also there are some sources that argue that Germany was inspired by the Turkish example during wwii.
Turkish War of Independence
[edit]
  • Armenian survivors were left mainly in three locations. In the Republic of Turkey, about 100,000 Armenians lived in Constantinople and another 200,000 lived in the provinces, largely women who had been forcibly converted or married and adopted children.: What are these three locations: Constantinople, and?
    • The three locations are supposed to be Turkey, Soviet Armenia, and the Middle East. I reordered the paragraph to make this clear
  • We can read in Armenian diaspora that: "the modern Armenian diaspora was largely formed as a result of World War I, when the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire forced Armenians living in their homeland to flee or risk being killed." And yet the Armenian diaspora is only mentioned in the Legacy & "International recognition" part. I think the diaspora and the thousands of Armenians who fled to the US, France, Syria & Lebanon under French mandate, etc. should be mentioned (could be just in one sentence) here.
    • The Armenian diaspora article does say that but I don't know if it's accurate. We already mention Armenians in the Middle East, and many fewer Armenians went to US or France in the immediate aftermath of the genocide compared to the already mentioned areas so I'm not sure about WP:DUE.
      • According to the Armenian gov: "As a result of the Armenian Genocide, hundreds of thousands of survivors found refuge in various parts of the world, forming what is known today as the "traditional Armenian Diaspora." The Diaspora further expanded due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ensuing economic and regional turmoil." I didn't download the whole book but based on Google Books preview I can read in The Armenian Genocide Legacy (by Alexis Demirdjian), p. 55 (by Pr Lorne Shirinian): "They had lost their Western Armenian homeland. The modern Armenian Diaspora had begun. Armenian orphans including those in Canada would remain in exile." and p. 85 (Dr. Susan L. Karamanian): "Armenian property was confiscated; Armenians were killed or deported; and those that survived traveled mainly by foot through the desert to Syria. An Armenian diaspora would make its way around the world". In The Armenian Genocide by Frank Chalk, Martin W. Lewis (senior lecturer in international history at Stanford) wrote a chapter "The Armenian Diaspora Is An Ongoing Phenomenon" where he argues that the Armenian diaspora started before the genocide and continues to this day but he still maintains that (bold mine): "Today, only about a third of their population lives in Armenia with the rest spread over a wide area... This pattern largely reflects the movements caused by deadly mass expulsions of the early 20th century that most scholars call the Armenian Genocide. As a result, standard reference sources on the "Armenian Diaspora" focus on the deadly Ottoman deportations in the Levant and the subsequent relocation of survivors to the far reaches of the world." So I think that the sentence in Armenian diaspora ("the modern Armenian diaspora was largely formed as a result of World War I, when the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire forced Armenians living in their homeland to flee or risk being killed.") is correct and that such a sentence could be added to the article. For instance: "The modern Armenian diaspora largely reflects the movements caused by deportations and the subsequent relocation of survivors around the world."
        • OK, but most books on the Armenian genocide don't mention the diaspora outside of the Middle East (I checked) so the concern about due weight remains. From what I read there are several waves of Armenian migration into diaspora in modern times, some larger than post-1915: for example the 300,000 who left the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI or the even larger number (c. 1 million) who left Republic of Armenia since 1990. I did add an explicit mention and link to the Armenian diaspora. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
[edit]
  • according to Ihrig: first mention, there should be a link to Stefan Ihrig and maybe the full name => "according to historian Stefan Ihrig"?
    • Done
Turkey
[edit]
  • The nuances in Turkey's current official position should be indicated.
  • Especially, since 2014, Erdoğan has every year, on April 24th, officially sent a message to the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople to offer his condolences to Armenians for the "events of 1915". (source 1, source 2, source 3)
    • This may be something that is pushed by the Turkish media but after thinking about it, I think it would be undue weight to include in this article. Most sources on modern Turkey's handling of the genocide barely mention this at all. It is touched on briefly at Armenian genocide denial#Politics, but the reliable sources that discuss it consider it an extension of denialism in slightly different rhetoric. You can ask how much of a change it really is. For example Galip states that since 2016 several people have been arrested in Turkey for discussing the genocide or peacefully commemorating it, and in 2019 Erdogan essentially said that the deported Armenians deserved it.
      • Yes I understand that Erdoğan's position is probably mostly marketing but at least at that time his declaration was noticed in the media, for instance: "It is the first time a Turkish leader has formally offered condolences for the mass killings." (Turkey offers condolences to Armenia over WWI killings. Armenian sources also report Erdoğan's declaration every year (example). If well-sourced, it could be interesting to add something like: "Turkish genocide denialism has evolved over time and in 2014 for the first time a Turkish leader formally offered condolences for the Armenians who died during WWI. However, Turkey still maintains that the deportations were legitimate." A455bcd9 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've rewritten the section, let me know what you think (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me! A455bcd9 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The position of the Turkish society/public opinion should also be mentioned (cf. Armenian_genocide_recognition#Position_of_Turkey), for instance:
    • "In a 2015 poll for the Foundation for the Memory of Shoah and Fondapol, 33% of people between the ages of 16 and 29 living in Turkey surveyed answered in the affirmative to the question: "In your view, can we talk about genocide in relation to the massacre of the Armenians, by the Turks, in 1915?".[5]"
    • "2014 poll for The Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM), a Turkish think-tank:" "34.2% [consider that] "Turkey should apologize" or "express its regret over the Armenians that lost their lives in 1915"
      • The public opinion is already mentioned, noting that a majority of Turkish citizens (though not all) support the government's position.
  • If relevant and well-sourced, the view of the Armenian community in Turkey could be mentioned as well.
    • I'm not aware of any quantitative studies on this. From Galip, I read that it is not a priority for some/many Turkish Armenians compared to other issues. However, I think that discussion of the different factions among Istanbul Armenians is beyond the scope of this article. (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
International recognition
[edit]
  • As of 2021, 31 countries have recognized the genocide, along with Pope Francis and the European Parliament.: we could add the Council of Europe, to which Turkey is a member.
    • I'm trying to not to proliferate mentions of different international organizations, and the CoE is less influential than the EU.
  • Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria could also be mentioned because their predecessors were allied with the Ottoman Empire and turned a blind eye on the genocide (as far as I understand)
    • There's some wisdom to that, but you can already see them on the map and it is hard to justify singling out individual countries without listing all 31.
  • Map: we could add what the grey area means: "States without an official position on the recognition of the genocide", for instance?
    • I think it's already clear enough that grey means "neither"
Archives and historiography
[edit]
  • The genocide is extensively documented in [...] the Ottoman archives, despite systematic efforts to purge incriminating material.: what are these efforts? Destruction of archives?
    • Done
  • Almost all historians and scholars outside of Turkey, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars, recognize the destruction of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a genocide.: would probably be better to say "outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan". Could we also provide the names of Turkish scholars who recognize the genocide?
    • Individual names are probably UNDUE and some were mentioned already (eg. Akcam, probably the most famous one). The cited sources don't mention Azerbaijan, so I think that would be original research.
  • Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944 vs in Terminology of the Armenian genocide (linked in the article): "The English word genocide was coined by the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1943."
    • There are different dates given, however 1944 is more widely accepted as that was the year Lemkin's book was published.
Overall view
[edit]

The article is great. I read it a few months ago and it is way better now: congrats! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thought about this article again and realized that:
    • The lead mentions With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians, it enabled the creation of an ethnonational Turkish state. however besides one sentence (Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish, Kurdish, and Greek Orthodox neighbors.) it's unclear for the reader that before WWI the Ottoman Empire was a truly multiethnic and multireligious state. For instance the majority of Istanbul's population was non-Muslim before the genocides.
      • I don't think anyone could read this article and not figure out that Ottoman Empire is a multiethnic and multireligious state. Various religions (Syriac Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Jews) and ethnic groups (Kurds, Circassians, Turks, Chechens, Arabs, etc.) are discussed. It's true that this aspect isn't as explicit in the lead but the first sentence of the second paragraph already suggests this.
        • As you said it's not explicit and I think it could be. For instance: "The Ottoman Empire was a multiethnic and multireligious state, and Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish, Kurdish, and Greek Orthodox neighbors." A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done
    • Similarly, the position of the Armenian elite should be explained. Currently there's only Although most Ottoman Armenians were peasant farmers, they were overrepresented in commerce. As middleman minorities, there was a great disparity between the wealth of some Armenians and the overall political power of the group, making them especially vulnerable. This is not clear. What was the overall political power of the group? I don't understand if their political power was strong or weak, especially given that earlier it is mentioned that The Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society.. I can read in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire that: "Historian A. Tchamkerten writes "Armenian achievements in the Empire was not only in trade, however. They were involved in almost all economic sectors and held the highest levels of responsibility. In the 19th century, various Armenian families became the Sultan's goldsmiths, Sultan's architects and took over the currency reserves and the reserves of gold and silver, including customs duty. Sixteen of the eighteen most important bankers in the Ottoman Empire were Armenian"" We don't need such a long sentence but it could be useful to mention that the small Armenian elite held high level of responsibility in the Ottoman Empire and to explain what was their political power.
      • What the sentence is says is that Armenians' wealth greatly exceeded their political power. Even the richest Armenians were vulnerable to the arbitrary whim of the sultan. I've rewritten the sentence to be more straightforward.
    • After reading the article, my main question is: Why? Why did the Ottoman Empire do that? The article doesn't answer this question. I know it is a complex subject but I think the lead in Causes of the Armenian genocide does a good job in explaining it: "Differing views of what caused the Armenian genocide include explanations focusing on nationalism, religion, and wartime radicalization and continue to be debated among scholars. In the twenty-first century, focus has shifted to multicausal explanations. Most historians agree that the genocide was not premeditated before World War I, but the role of contingency, ideology, and long-term structural factors in causing the genocide continues to be discussed." A similar sentence could be included somewhere in the article. It seems especially essential to me to mention that "Most historians agree that the genocide was not premeditated before World War I".
      • I'm not opposed to putting more of this in, but where do you think it should it go? The Background section already discusses the factors that historians consider to be among the short and long term causes of the genocide. I previously had more explicit language in the "onset of genocide" section that CUP leaders decided on genocide in early 1915, but switched it to a format where different developments are explained. The problem is that it's hard to pinpoint exact when genocide begins and different sources have different estimates.
    • Naming: the reader learns at the very end of the article that: Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944, became interested in war crimes after reading about the 1921 trial of Soghomon Tehlirian for the assassination of Talaat Pasha. Lemkin recognized the fate of the Armenians as one of the most significant genocides in the twentieth century. But how did these events come to be known by a term coined 3 decades after they happened? A short "Naming" section at the beginning (with a link to Terminology of the Armenian genocide) could explain that. I think it's essential because one of the main arguments of genocide deniers in Turkey is that genocide is a legal term defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention and that only international courts can decide what constitutes a genocide. Whereas: 1/ even before the term "genocide" was coined, "Contemporary observers used unambiguous terminology to describe the genocide, including "the murder of a nation", "race extermination" and so forth." and 2/ even though the Convention is not retroactive, "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide."
      • I think it makes more sense to talk about what it's called after what it is. The "Legacy" section already discusses contemporary perceptions, which I've beefed up. As for "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide", that would be most historians which is already stated, but Turkey disputes it (on the ground that intent requirement is not met).
        • Got it, makes sense in "Legacy". If sourced, would be great to add to "the murder of a nation" to: It was described by contemporaries as "race extermination", "the greatest crime of the ages", and "the blackest page in modern history". As for "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide", yes historians are mentioned but it would be great to mention the 1948 Convention and the opinion of legal scholars as well, as they consider (I quote Terminology of the Armenian genocide here, assuming it is well-sourced): "Although most international law scholars agree that the 1948 Genocide Convention, which established the prohibition of genocide in international criminal law, is not retroactive, the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide." It provides another academic perspective on the subject (reaching the same conclusion).
          • Partly done. I did not add the sentence from international law scholars because I could not find sources for how widespread a view this is.
    • Aftermath: I understand reading the article that the Ottoman Empire recognized the genocide: Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy[241] and helped initiate the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal. [...] The court ruled that "the crime of mass murder" of Armenians was "organized and carried out by the top leaders of CUP". and Postwar Ottoman grand vizier Ferid said that "humanity, civilizations are shuddering, and forever will shudder, in face of this tragedy". But then it's unclear to me how we went from this Ottoman recognition to the current Turkish denial (which is explained in the "Turkey" subsection). The article also doesn't mention the collapse and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Republic of Turkey. When I read the article I feel like "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey".
      • Short answer, Ferid's government was trying to convince the Allies that the Armenian genocide was caused by a small number of wrongdoers (the CUP leadership) and that only they should be punished. That is why the Ottoman courts-martial tried some of the perpetrators. However, it was always more popular for Ottomans/Turks to see themselves as the victims of WWI. What limited support for Ferid evaporated after the Treaty of Sevres, which was perceived as too harsh on Ottoman Empire/Turkey. The Turkish nationalists operating at the same time were the continuation of the CUP and founded the modern Turkish republic. Therefore, you're not wrong to think "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey". However, most of this is outside the scope of this article.
        • Couldn't this be developed a bit in the "Trials" section? For instance: "Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy. His government tried to convince the Allies that the Armenian genocide was caused by a small number of wrongdoers—the CUP leadership—and helped initiate the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal."
        • The second paragraph starts with March 1923 (immunity) and ends with March 1921 (Talaat Pasha assassinated). Shouldn't it be better in chronological order? In that case the immunity + Lausanne could be mentioned in "Turkish War of Independence":
        • "Turkish War of Independence" could start with something like: "There was limited support for the Ottoman government after the Treaty of Sèvres. The nascent Turkish National Movement, opposed to the Treaty, was the continuation of the CUP. The nationalist movement depended on the support of perpetrators of the genocide and those who had profited from it." then sentences about the war. Then, maybe in a new paragraph (or even a new section "Republic of Turkey"): "On 1 November 1922, the Ottoman sultanate was abolished. on 31 March 1923, the nationalist movement passed a law granting immunity to CUP war criminals. Later that year, the Treaty of Lausanne established Turkey's current borders and provided for the Greek population's expulsion. Its minority protection provisions had no enforcement mechanism and were disregarded in practice. The ethnic cleansing of Anatolia—the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide and expulsion of Greeks—paved the way for the formation of an ethno-national Turkish state. On 29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey was declared."
        • I think it would help to understand the transition and the fact that, in practice here, "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey". Even though (I thought!) I knew some Ottoman & Turkish history, it was not obvious to me at all when I read the article.
        • Between 1922 and 1929, the Turkish authorities eliminated surviving Armenians from southern Turkey, expelling thousands to French-mandate Syria. could be moved at the end of the paragraph to respect the chronological order.
        • Side node: Turkish National Movement or Turkish nationalist movement?
        • Shouldn't the last paragraph of "Turkish War of Independence" be in a new section called "Survivors". I don't see how this paragraph (especially refugees in Russia and the Middle-East) is related to the war? We could add to this section the last paragraphs of the introduction of "Aftermath" about orphans + vorpahavak + the return of stolen Armenian property. The beginning of "Aftermath" could then be a new section "End of World War I".
        • As the British Army advanced in 1917 and 1918 northwards through the Levant, should probably in that case be moved before Ottoman troops withdrew from parts of Armenia following the October 1918 Armistice of Mudros.
        • Overall, I think the "Aftermath" section contains most relevant information but just needs to be reordered a bit. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I believe I've done most of this. As for "Turkish nationalist movement" I've seen both in reliable sources. Also expanded on the refugee issue being a consequence of the TWOI and the rebels' refusal to allow survivors to return. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A455bcd9 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Give me a ping once most of A455bcd9's comments have been addressed, so I am not picking up issues that have already been raised, and I'll recuse and give this a look over. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild It looks like I've addressed A455bcd9's comments! I would really appreciate a review from you if you're still planning to provide it. (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing to review. Feel free to remind me if I have not started in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "the systematic destruction of ethnic Armenians". Optional: "destruction" → 'murder'.
    • This was discussed above. The issue with "murder" is that most reliable sources agree that the genocide was broader than murder and also included forced deportation, cultural destruction, Islamization, etc.
Fine. In which case you need to change "ethnic Armenians" to whatever it is that you are saying was destroyed. Eg, 'destruction of Armenian population and culture' or 'of the Armenian people and identity' or similar.
  • "during death marches leading to the Syrian Desert". Delete "leading".
  • "During their invasion of Russian and Persian territory". Perhaps add 'in 19xx ...'?
  • Perhaps link "deportation"?
    • I think this would be too general term to be helpful.
  • "definitive solution to the Armenian Question". Personally I would remove the quote marks. This is nailed down enough that it can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
  • "death marches leading to the Syrian Desert". 1. repetition 2. suggest removing "leading".
  • "another wave of massacres was ordered". Strictly, you haven't mentioned a previous wave.
    • The first wave was those that occurred further north in 1915 during the death marches. I agree that the wording might be improved but I can't think of an improvement.
  • "Eastern Anatolia"; "eastern Anatolia". Which?
    • Lowercased
  • "with the destruction and expulsion". Suggest "destruction" → 'murder'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "the sixth century BCE, more than a millennium before the arrival of Turkmens under the Seljuk dynasty." Without checking, I thought it quite a bit longer. What date do the sources give for the latter event? (I accept that even 1,500 years meets the criterion for "more than a millennium".
    • This is often dated to the Battle of Manzikert, although I believe there were some Turkmen incursions into present-day Turkey prior to that battle. Would it be an improvement to state "about 1,500 years"?
Yeah, that was what I immediately thought. Personally, yes, 'about 1,500 years', but it is a minor issue.
  • "Following the Byzantine Empire's fall in 1453". I think "in 1453" is misleading. I wouldn't have thought that I would have difficulty finding sources dating it to the 1071 Battle of Manzikert.
  • "On the eve of World War I". Perhaps date this? For the more militarily ignorant among our readers.
  • "towns and villages in the empire". Suggest "empire" → 'Ottoman Empire'.
  • "Conditions of the Armenian peasantry". I think that "of" → 'for'.
  • "In 1876, when Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power, the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas that lasted until World War I." This sentence is a bit long. Perhaps break "This policy lasted until WWI" or similar off hte end?
  • "an opposition movement, the Young Turks, who sought to". Should "who" not be 'which'?
  • "took steps to reform local gendarmes". Do you mean something like 'took steps to reform the local gendarmerie'? Or was it individual gendarmes who were reformed?
  • "would turn into another Macedonia". I suspect that the reference will be missed by virtually all readers. Perhaps unpack it a little? Or rephrase?
  • "by resettling Balkan Muslims". Worth explaining a little with 'by resettling Balkan Muslim refugees' or similar perhaps?
  • "Around 150,000 Greek Orthodox". Is that acceptable grammar? (As opposed to 'Around 150,000 Orthodox Greeks'.)
    • This refers to followers of the Greek Orthodox Church, not all of whom spoke Greek or were citizens of Greece

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWI & Onset

  • "before the Ottoman Empire officially entered the war.[87] On 29 October 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I". I find it a little confusing that after multiple cases of "the empire", the article suddenly starts giving the name in full. (Personally I would always give it in full, but that's your call.)
  • "and therefore largely unable to organize armed resistance to deportation in 1915." I don't personally like this stepping out of chronological order and would suggest deleting this, or moving to the appropriate chronological point.
    • I thought about moving this later in the article but either way it breaks the chronology (then we would be referring to the 1914 call-up in the discussion of 1915 events)?
  • "The retreating Ottoman army indiscriminately destroyed dozens of Ottoman Armenian villages". Why "indiscriminately"? It sounds as if they were discriminating - against Armenian villages.
  • "and others marched away to be killed later". You have already dealt with men, women and children; who constituted these "others"?
    • Rephrased. Source states: "After the men were gathered together and shot, the women were offered to the local Kurds; those not killed or converted were marched away, usually to be murdered later."
  • Maybe a more universally comprehensible word/phrase than "shuttering"?
  • "diverted the Armenians who had previously been removed from Cilicia from central Anatolia". 1. "diverted" suggests that the Armenians were still in transit, were they? 2. "from Cilicia from central Anatolia": the repeated "from" had me reading this three times to understand it.
    • At the time this order was given, some Armenians were already arrived in central Anatolia and others were in transit. Rephrased to improve clarity.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deportations
[edit]
  • " aimed to reduce the population of Armenians to no more than 5 percent". Does this mean 5% of the prior Armenian populatuin, or 5% of the resultant total population? 2. Why "5" and not 'five'?
    • Changed to "five" and "ten", clarified that this refers to the total population not the previous Armenian population.
  • "an ethno-national Turkish state." I think a reader might be a bit vague about the meaning of "ethno-national". May be 'ethnically homogeneous' or similar?
    • Turkey wasn't ethnically homogenous after WWI. There were still Kurds, as well as many non-Turkish Muslims of Balkan and Caucasian origin. The difference here is that Talaat believed he had eliminated the ethnic groups who were an obstacle to building a Turkish nation-state, and that these Muslim groups could be successfully "Turkified" (which turned out only partly to be the case).
  • "the most important war aim". Really? More important than winning the war? Or being overrun by Greece?
    • Kieser doesn't say that this in fact was the most important, only what Talaat claimed upon realizing that he had lost, I guess in order to put a positive spin on things. I've rephrased to avoid any confusion.
  • "On 21 June, Talaat ordered the deportation of all Armenians throughout the empire, even Adrianople ... Following the completion of deportation from other areas, in August 1915, deportation was extended to western Anatolia and European Turkey" If deportation throughout the empire was ordered in June, with Adrianople in Europe picked out, how can it be "extended" to the same areas two months later?
    • Although in June the decision was made in principle to deport all Armenians throughout the empire, it took them some time to put this order into practice (for example the Armenians of Adrianople were deported partly at the end of October 1915 and partly on 17–18 February 1916). Rephrased to be more clear.
  • "The IAMM, under the control of Talaat's Ministry of the Interior and the Special Organization,". Should there be a comma after "Interior"?
    • Yes, added
  • Link imams.
    • Done
  • "killers were entitled to a third of Armenian movable property". Does that mean a third of the property of the specific Armenian[s] they killed? If so could this be specified. If not, could whatever the mechanism was be specified.
    • Neither of the sources specifies exactly how this division was made. For example Kaiser states, "Perpetrators had been allowed to a third of plunder, while local authorities were entitled to another third, and the rest was due to be handed over to the CUP." Since the executions were done by groups of killers working together, one possibility is that after they were done killing they were supposed to add together the property they found on the victims, take one third to split between themselves, and turn the rest over.
  • "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp". Is "nearby" necessary?
    • I think so, to state that these camps were located near the execution sites.
  • "There was a distinction between the convoys from eastern Anatolia, which were eliminated almost in their entirety, and those from farther west, who made up most of those surviving to reach Syria." "... which ... who ..." I think you need to chose one. (Suggest "which".)
    • Done
  • "it is estimated that as many as 2 million Turkish citizens may have at least one Armenian grandparent." Could we hava date in here? (I first thought it meant in 1915.)
    • Done
  • "physical destruction". This seems an odd way of saying 'death'.
    • I kept the wording close to the source because it's not clear if it means "death" in every case or also includes for example deportation to the Syrian desert as a way of dealing with surplus Armenians.
  • "Women and children who fell into Muslim hands during the journey typically ended up in Turkish or Kurdish hands". A synonym for one of the "hands"?
    • Done
  • "presuming that they had ceased to exist"> Might this be clearer as 'it was presumed that they had ceased to exist'?
    • Done
  • "Confiscated property was often used to". I think you mean 'The proceeds from the sale of ...'
    • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Crimes against humanity later became a category of international criminal law after World War II". Delete "later".
  • "Since 1988, Armenians and Turkic Azeris have been involved in a decades-long conflict". The use of both "Since 1988" and "decades-long" seems redundant.

That's all I can see. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, a couple of afterthoughts added above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done both, thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jr8825

[edit]

I hope to give this a read through and provide some feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 14:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: apologies for taking so long to come back to this. I read through the remainder of the article today. I made a few minor tweaks mostly for style, feel free to undo any of them if you think they're not an improvement. I also have a few more nit-picks/comments for your consideration:

  • "These pressures played a key role in the intensification of Armenian persecution, endorsed by the central government already before 1915" – this leaves me wondering what "endorsed by the central government" entailed in the early stages of the genocide's development. Secretly official policy from the top? Openly unofficial policy? Tolerance/acceptance of actions initially developing without official authorisation, even if instigated by senior leaders in government? Or actively encouraged, but not mandated? Are the sources more detailed/explicit about this? More precision/nuance here would be appreciated.
    • Right, this is an analysis of secret cables requesting permission for various anti-Armenian persecutions on a local level, or suggesting empire-wide policies against Armenians. I have rephrased hopefully to be more clear.
  • "Historian Taner Akçam concludes that "the allegations of an Armenian revolt ... have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated" – my understanding is that this is the predominant view among historians/widely accepted. (And that the contrary view is central to denialism and rejected by scholars). I'm aware Taner Akçam is highly regarded in this field, by might attributing this point to a single historian (who readers may not know) risk understating/downplaying it somewhat? Perhaps it can be written in wikivoice first (e.g. something along the lines of "historians agree"/"most historians say"), if the academic consensus is as strong as I expect it is? Then Akçam's quote can be used to illustrate this.
    • I totally agree with you about the widespread nature of this viewpoint, but it may be difficult to find a source that supports the kind of statement you are suggesting. Will look and see what I can find.
      • OK, I rephrased so it does not use a direct quote and does not need attribution. Are you happy with this, or I could spend more time looking for a source that explicitly discusses academic consensus on this subject.
        • I think the new wording is much better, and it conveys the paranoia (and its roots) more clearly. Given that those sentences are now based on factual narrative (rather than a historian's statement) and backed by two sources, I don't think we need to delve further into historiography there. Jr8825 • Talk 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "Armenians gathered in a city prior to deportation. They were murdered outside the city" – the caption here doesn't quite match the caption on the file page ("to be deported and eventually massacred."). It suggests to me those photographed may have died shortly afterwards in the immediate environs, whereas the caption on the file page implies more that the location of their deaths is unknown/may have varied/been far away. I don't have access to the ebook to verify what the original caption is. It'd also be good to know which city the photograph was taken in, if known.
    • The original caption was "Armenians of a prosperous city assembled in front of a government building, by order of the authorities. They are waiting to be deported. Just outside the city they were massacred." I think my caption is a reasonable paraphrase of that. Original caption now quoted and linked in the image description.
  • "Many others were trapped in valleys of tributaries of the Tigris..." – a bit wordy. Perhaps "held" instead of "trapped"? Perhaps shorten to "tributary valleys"?
    • Done
  • "Women and children who fell into Muslim hands during the journey typically ended up in Turkish or Kurdish households, unlike those captured in Syria by Arabs and Bedouins" – I find this paragraph confusing. If "fell into Muslim hands" is referring to the previous two paragraphs (Islamisation, slave labour and forced marriage) I suggest this is made explicit (e.g. "fell into Muslim hands due to Islamization, forced labour or marriage,"). It seems self-explanatory that those captured by Arabs and Bedouins wouldn't end up in Turkish or Kurdish households, so what point is the sentence trying to make, and can it say this more clearly? I think the paragraph's gist is that those who didn't end up in domestic service in Turkey, but still survived, often ended up as slaves, but slavery isn't mentioned until later in the paragraph. The first sentence should explain/summarise this. Is the whole paragraph discussing Armenians captured in Syria, or are the "military commanders" mentioned in the first half Ottoman officers on the journey? (And are we discussing military soldiers or gendarmes here?) I'm not sure how much the sentence on military rape ties in with the rest of the discussion on slavery in Syria; perhaps only the last sentence, about slaves being sold in Arabian slave markets, is about those captured by Arabs and Bedouins? I think a connective (e.g. "Conversely,") would help to distinguish what's being discussed in each part of the paragraph. Also, how exactly were Armenians "captured" in Syria? Were they mostly sold?
    • The point is that the Islamization by coerced integration into Muslim households took place wherever the Armenians were. Whether they became Arabs, Turks, or Kurds all suited the CUP's agenda. I've tried to rephrase to be more clear and altered the paragraphing.
  • "a hundred thousand Armenians protested in Yerevan" – better as 100,000? Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done
      • I'm happy your changes have addressed my concerns. This is an excellent article, and I'm particularly impressed by its concision and readability, which make it very accessible. I think there's scope for further development in the future – perfectibility on a topic such as this is implausible – but I believe it passes the FA criteria and I'm glad to support it. Jr8825 • Talk 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Aza24

[edit]

Though the Cultural depictions has "Armenian genocide in culture" listed as the main article of the section, it doesn't seem to cover the full scope. Essentially the section focuses solely on literature and one film. The biggest omission is Arshile Gorky, who is a hugely important artist and seemingly directly impacted by this event. I feel that at least the fact that music have been created as a reaction to the genocide should be included. Something like "numerous works of music have been created in response to the genocide including pieces by [insert a few of the most notable names here]". Looking at the musicians, I know that Komitas, Khachaturian and Hovhaness are very important composers. Considering how many films have been made, it might be worth noting that as well. Again, not looking for a major expansion of this section, just something like 2–3 more lines; at least one for Gorky and 1–2 for music/film, otherwise, the sole inclusion of literature and a single film doesn't make sense. Aza24 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aza, this is a good point and another area where it's hard to assess due weight because the art/culture (except Musa Dagh) is rarely discussed in general works on the subject. I had a sentence on Gorky, I'll add it back and see what to do about music/film. (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, I've expanded the section accordingly. However, I do believe that Werfel's book—because of its high popularity over a long period of time, and high influence—as well as Ravished Armenia due to its impact on fundraising and influencing Western views on the genocide at an early date are arguably the two most important works to be mentioned in this section. I am not finding as many sources that connect music to the Armenian genocide as with film or other cultural products so I didn't add a sentence on that. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries! I trust your judgement, and am happy to see Gorky be included, as his art seems to directly tied that it would be an omission not to mention him. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John the Janitor

[edit]

Is there a reason that article prefers Erzerum instead of Erzurum? Also, I think archive and historiography part could contain a see also link to Kemalist historiography article.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempt to consistently use the most common Ottoman Turkish romanization. As you can see from this NGRAM, the spelling "Erzurum" only came into use in English because it's the modern Turkish spelling, during the era of the Ottoman Empire it was romanized as "Erzerum". Added a link to Kemalist historiography. Thanks for your work expanding that article! (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking the article. However, I think sticking to the more recent spelling would be better as it seems to be more common since last 40 years, unless Wikipedia has a guideline urging to use the old versions in historical context. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that the general practice is to use the historically accurate English language name. See for example discussion on Constantinople/Istanbul. This is also followed for respellings such as Kiev/Kyiv and Danzig/Gdánsk. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I support the article to become a featured one. 👍 Best regards. 😘--John the Janitor (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography

[edit]

I am willing to make or remake some maps for this article, just let me know what you need --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

All images look reasonably sourced and placed to me. Most images lack ALT text however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

Will take a look at this one. Hog Farm Talk 03:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of 2021, 31 countries have recognized the events as genocide, as do the vast majority of historians." - are we sure this is the right number? Our article at Armenian genocide recognition with the Vatican but not Denmark while File:States recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg has 33 including Denmark but not the Vatican (although Denmark doesn't seem to be highlighted on the map). I imagine the other one that is different is Latvia, who recognized the genocide this May
    • Well, it depends on exactly how you count. For the article statement, I went with what at least one source says about the number of countries, although it doesn't quite match the map. (Otherwise I would have to individually cite each country). Fixed the map to include Denmark.
  • "the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents" - it is unclear what these documents are. Propaganda? Internal CUP memoranda?
    • Akcam considers a bunch of documents, mostly related to the Ottoman military, that have been cited for the claims of revolt, then states"Unfortunately, the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents above have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated". I've removed the reference to "documents" as I agree it raises the question what these documents are.
  • File:Armenian Genocide Map-en.svg - is there a way to make it clearer in the caption that, based on the Commons file description, that the different colors of crossed swords are what indicate greater/lesser resistance, rather than size which might be a reasonable assumption?
    • To be honest, I don't think that either the color or the size of the swords on this map correlates very well with the actual size / significance of the resistance. ~
  • "Following the elimination of the Armenian population in eastern Anatolia from other areas, in August 1915, the Armenians of western Anatolia and European Turkey were targeted for deportation" - Maybe I'm misreading this, but I'm struggling to see how the clause "from other areas" fits in here
    • Removed
  • "paid the exemption task" - Should this be tax instead of task?
    • Fixed typo
  • "that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide" - linking only the word died is a little MOS:EGG-y here, maybe have the piped link be for "died during the genocide"?
    • Done

Good work here on a very difficult topic, I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka

[edit]
  • ...about 1,500 years before the arrival of Turkmens under the Seljuk dynasty. Do the cited works verify this statement? Is the statement necessary?
    • 1) Yes, and 2) it's emphasized especially by Suny so I think it's relevant to include.
  • ...its millet system offered non-Muslims..., ...freedom of worship to non-Muslims... Factually wrong. Christians and Jews were protected and enjoyed the freedom of worship.
    • Well, it reflects the cited source, so I believe the wording is appropriate. Also, tolerated non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire included other groups such as Samaritans and Mandaeans.
  • ...Kurdish landlords... What about Turkish landlords? Perhaps landlords/Muslim landlords?
    • The source is discussing the parts of the country that had previously been under the rule of Kurdish principalities and uses the wording "Kurdish landlords".
  • Conditions for the Armenian peasantry in the eastern provinces regressed from 1860 onwards. Is this sentence necessary? It contains no actual information, but contradicts the previous sentence (about the 1850s) and the following sentence (about the mid-19th century).
    • I don't see any contradiction, but removed anyway.

...more to come... Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider introducing Djemal Pasha.
    • Done
  • Ottoman politicians and officials who opposed the genocide were dismissed or assassinated. Perhaps some examples?
    • I don't think this would be helpful as they aren't otherwise mentioned in the article or significant to the article topic
  • ...Hamidian massacres... Perhaps Hamidiye massacres or massacres by the Hamidiye regiments? (The adjective "Hamidian" is newly introduced in the text).
    • Reworded
  • ...the Tigris, Euphrates, or Murat River... Is this grammatically correct? Three rivers are listed.
    • Reworded
  • ... the Ottoman government also wanted the corpses cleared to prevent photographic documentation. The Ottoman government ordered the corpses to be cleared as soon as possible, which was not uniformly followed. Consider consolidating the two phrases to avoid repetition.
    • Rephrased
  • There was a distinction between the convoys from eastern Anatolia, which were eliminated almost in their entirety, and those from farther west, which made up most of those surviving to reach Syria. For example, around 99% of Armenians deported from Erzerum did not reach their destination. Do we have an example of the survival rate of those who were deported from western Anatolia? Perhaps an average ratio could also be mentioned, because in section Destination 870,000 deportees are mentioned as reaching Syria and Upper Mesopotamia in October 1915.
    • I'm not aware of figures for this. A complication is that some Armenians in Western Anatolia were not deported at all.
      • I think the two figures (99% dead toll during the transport and 870,000 deportees reaching Syria and Upper Mesopotamia) are obviously contradictory, but I think this is not a major issue.
  • ..., providing a retroactive excuse for genocide Definitely not. To whom?
    • Reworded, the sources don't specify exactly who is doing this, but anyone making this argument is trying to deny or justify the genocide (by definition) and it's a fairly common argument in Armenian genocide denial
  • Eighteen perpetrators were sentenced to death, of whom only three were ultimately executed as the remainder had fled and were tried in absentia. Could some of them be listed?
    • The only significant figures to be convicted were the top CUP leaders (Talat, Enver, Djemal, Nazim and a few others), who were in exile, while those executed were fairly insignificant. I,ve mentioned the first three as they're already discussed in the article
  • ...as well as intimidation and threats Perhaps some examples?

Thank you for this thoroughly researched and exceptionally well written article. I hope many people will read it. Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns but one were addressed. I support this nomination. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just noting, particularly for the benefit of fellow coords Buidhe, Gog and Hog Farm, that I'm aware a process of elimination gives me sole responsibility for closing this, and I'll soon be walking through to see where we stand... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking now that the latest reviews seem to have wound up, the origin/attribution of a few quotes are unclear to me:
  • "internal tumors"
  • "liberate Turkish Armenia"
  • "do to them whatever you wish"

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , permission to nominate another article while Ian looks at this one? Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grapple X

[edit]

Had initially started looking at this a few weeks ago before an unfortunate laptop droppage left me working off a phone for a while, so I'm only getting back to leave some comments now. By an large a very thorough and clear article so I don't have much to quibble about but here are my concerns:

  • Most images have no alt text, even a brief description would be welcome for those without
    • I'm really bad at alt text, but I made an attempt
      • That works. There might be some room to offer a summary of the wide map rather than simply mentioning it, but the question would be what to focus on, but as it stands I'm happy enough with them.
  • "Some Ottoman politicians and officials opposed the genocide, but they faced dismissal or assassination"—I'm wondering can we elaborate on this a little. I take it this threat of death didn't come from the state, or it would be deemed "execution", as it is in the following sentence (if I'm wrong here this could be clarified). However I'm not sure if the threat of assassination was in the form of death threats or if there were assassinations carried out, in which case this could be mentioned.
    • OK, after checking the sources I realized that none of them used the word "assassination". There were several officials killed unofficially by Mehmed Reshid's death squads and possibly other CUP hardliners also killed subordinate officials who refused to play along. (Bozarslan et al states: "On sait aussi que ces représentants faisaient immédiatement destituer les fonctionnaires qui rechignaient à appliquer les ordres de déportation venus du centre. Certains l’ont payé de leur vie.") Although Reshid was not prosecuted for these murders, he had no authorization to do so from the central government and the killings were equally extrajudicial as were the murder of Armenians by the same death squads. Do you think "murder" is better?
      • It's less a matter of the terminology (I think either "murder" or "assassination" would work) and more of how they "faced" assassination; explicitly mentioning these deaths as having occurred is what I'd like to see.
        • Rephrased
  • "unfree laborers" feels a little euphemistic, is this the term the source uses? Our article on forced labour covers a few exceptions whereby unfree labour is not considered forced and I don't believe this falls under one of them.
    • I don't really see a difference between "unfree" and "forced" but changed if you think the latter is better.
      • While it wasn't technically the case at the time there's a legal distinction between the two now so I think it does behove us to use what would be the correct term today.
        • Done
  • "Outside of Istanbul, the traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased." The egg link to Animal name changes in Turkey seems to cover changes made in the 21st century; what was changed in the 1910s?
    • The cited source does not go into detail about the dates on this but regardless of whether it happened in 1917 or 2017 it is still part of the consequences of the genocide
      • True, but the implication with "were" is one of relative immediacy, maybe a rephrasing is in order to convey that this has been an ongoing process since the event.
        • Changed to "have been"
  • Under "International recognition", I feel the prose should make explicit mention of some of the information currently only present in the map caption, namely that Pakistan also denies the genocide (the other two nations denying it are covered). It would also help alleviate the brevity of that paragraph.

That's it for me—not too many points and hopefully all can be addressed or responded to. Good work. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "would also attempt to break free of the empire." This implies that you have previously mentioned attempts to break free, but you have not.
    • Reworded
  • "The Kingdom of Armenia". I assume that this was much larger than modern Armenia. Perhaps worth clarifying that it covered areas now in Armenia, Turkey and Iran, if that is correct.
    • Correct, the borders were very different. But I think this is already implied by discussion of Western vs. Eastern Armenia, the former of which is not at all included in the Republic of Armenia, and the map.
  • "In the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman government instituted the Tanzimat, a series of reforms to equalize the status of Ottoman subjects regardless of religion. This goal was strongly opposed by Islamic clergy and Muslims in general and remained mostly theoretical.[16][17][18] Nevertheless, some Islamists believed that by seeking equality, non-Muslims lost the protection to which they were entitled under sharia law.[19] The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 disadvantaged Armenians" I am not clear what you are saying here. First you say it was a top down reform which was a dead letter, then imply that it was bottom up from non-Muslims. What is meant by them losing protection by seeking equality - that Islamists argued that they lost the moral right to protection by illegitimate demands? When did the reforms start and did the Land Code bring an end to them?
    • There are various points and I'd agree that not all of them are being communicated well:
      • The Tanzimat reforms that promised legal equality of non-Muslims remained in large part a paper exercise, especially outside of Istanbul
      • The condition of Armenians in the east worsened during the Tanzimat era, which was partly due to direct and indirect effects the reforms themselves and partly for unrelated reasons
      • Islamists indeed "argued that [Armenians] lost the moral right to protection by illegitimate demands"
      • The 1858 land code disadvantaged peasants compared to large landowners. Peasants, both non-Muslim and Muslim, were the losers in this reform, especially in eastern Anatolia, but the landowner class was entirely Muslim because it had been illegal for non-Muslims to take on that role.
      • Conflict over land, which took on ethnic dimensions, was one of the most important factors leading to the 1915 genocide.
    • Let me think about how to better communicate this.
  • Yes, I made some changes, but I'm not sure if you think it addresses your concerns. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At least 10 percent of Ottoman Armenians were mobilized, leaving their communities bereft of fighting-age men and therefore largely unable to organize armed resistance to deportation in 1915." 10% seems low. Presumably it was the proportion of young men that mattered?
    • Keeping in mind that the population was pre-demographic transition and therefore a very high proportion were children, 10% probably represented the bulk of young men of military age. I can't find any more detailed figures.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Akçam and Ümit Kurt". You should give Akçam's full name and say that they are modern historians.
    • Done
  • "Outside of Istanbul, the traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, khachkars, and animal and place names, have been systematically erased." Was this done during WWWI? What happened in areas which were not part of Turkey after the war.
    • Clarified that this only applies to modern day Turkey and that it began during WWI and continued afterward
  • "Witness testimony was published in books such as The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (1916) and Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (1918), which raised public awareness about the genocide." I think you should name the authors.
    • The first of these did not have a single author, although it was compiled by Arnold Toynbee. The second names the author already in the title.
  • "While Armenians in the capital faced discrimination". Presumably Constantinople was still then the capital, but this should be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworded.
  • Sorry I missed your reply on Tanzimat. Just one more query: "many now had to pay double taxation: both to Kurdish landlords and the Ottoman government." Surely payments to a landlord are rent and other charges, but not tax? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Dudley Miles, thanks for your helpful comments. Before the mid-nineteenth century, many Armenians paid taxes only to Kurdish rulers; because of imperial centralization they now owed taxes to the central government but the Kurdish chieftains still expected "protection" money and collected it using illegal, violent methods. Clarified with the addition of a new source. (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [141].

Wonderful Parliament

[edit]
Nominator(s): ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A return to FAC after a year away. Where does it go, etc. But here's a thing that was brought to GA by the thorough review of T. Riley, of this parish, and should be ready for the next stage. Another—if slightly later—medieval parliament—the King wanted money, both lords and commons refused until he got rid of a few scroungers, he refused, and all hell burst out. Hey, parliament was nearly invited for dinner and poisoned by the King, how's that for a healthy political relationship? All comments, criticisms welcome; around table, we'll chew the cud. ——Serial 18:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Check caption grammar - full sentences should end in periods, others should not
    • Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Added
  • File:Richard_II_of_England.jpg: source link is dead; is there a reason to have both life+70 and life+100?
    • Westminster abbey changed its file name...re-sourced. Removed PD-old, left PD-US and PD-art.
  • File:ThomasWoodstock.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note So far this FAC has not attracted much review or any supports. If it does not get more attention in the next few days it is likely to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Goodness, is it that time already? Where does the time go? Recusing to review.

  • "was an English parliamentary session" → 'was a session of the English Parliament'?
  • "the King's need for money, it quickly refocussed on pressing for the reform of King Richard II's administration". Perhaps the full name at first mention, and "the King's" at second?
  • "with which to invade France himself." I realise this is the lead, but consider unpacking this a little. 'to fund an army with which to ...' or 'to raise an army in order to ...' or similar maybe.
  • "as he would have expected". What does this mean? If 'as he expected', why not say so?
  • "houses of the Lords and Commons". You know better than me on these things, but I would have expected 'houses of Lords and Commons' or 'houses of the Lords and the Commons', not a mix.
  • "who had benefited—unfairly— ..." It may be me, but who had unfairly benefited' reads better to my eye.
  • "unfairly—from the King's unwarranted". Does "unfairly" and "unwarranted" not restate the same thing
    Yes. Dropped unwarranted completely; technically, no patronage was unwarranted, as the distribution thereof was one of the king's primary duties (R2's real problem was the limited number of recipients of his patronage and the jealousies that inevitably raised.)
  • "They demanded the earl's impeachment". "the earl" → de la Pole'.
  • "sent two lords instead". In what way were these not a delegation?
    Absolutely! Clarified that the king wanted a commons delegation, hence their sending lords.
  • "was restricted to appointing a royal council". I don't think "restricted" is the word you want here.
  • "to receive his choice of counsel". I am unsure what this means. 'to receive counsel from those of his own choosing'? (If so, you already seem to cover it with "and appoint his own ministers".
  • "as to" → 'on'.
    Good spot. This has enabled me to merge the two sentences into one shorter one.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but had been growing in unpopularity". Maybe 'but his unpopularity had been growing'.
    Check.
  • "they observed with dull eyes". Nice, but what does it mean?
Ah!
  • "In spite of these setbacks, parliament faced requests from the King for increased subsidies to pay for the war despite the lack of success." "In spite of these setbacks ... despite the lack of success."?
    Right, dropped the duplication.
  • "particularly de la Pole, the Chancellor". Is there a link for chancellor?
    Ineed! Linked.
  • "De la Pole has been described as a "staunch loyalist," ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    Named the historian, another one for WP:WIR I guess...
  • "and had been elevated to the peerage as Earl of Suffolk only the previous year". Might it be of interest to give the position or station he was elevated from?
    From bugger all  :) the de la Poles were the archetypal parvenus; I've added a couple of sources noting he was the first to be so.
  • "Expeditionary Force". Why the upper case initials?
    BEF I guess, but l/c now.
  • "the immediate cause of the parliament as it was both exorbitantly expensive". This reads as if the parliament was ...
    Check.
  • "the King urgently needed funds to defend both the border with Scotland and the kingdom itself from both Scottish border raids and a French invasion,[13] and the absence of Gaunt probably added to the sense of panic." 1. "the sense" → 'a sense' as this is its first mention. (You may wish to expand on it though.) 2. "the kingdom itself". Delete "itself". (What else would it be?) 3. "both" is used twice; maybe tweak? 4. "defend both the border with Scotland and ... from ... Scottish border raids". Are both needed? 5. In what sense is defending "the border with Scotland" different from defending "the kingdom"? (The use of "both" suggests that there is some.)
    Think I've attended to this bundle of tings Gog-utilised your phrasing suggestions, and also aded a bit about the sense of panic, with cool stuff from Wm Walsingham. Bloody Londoners!

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog the Mild, actioned with this edit, see what you think. ——Serial 19:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good.

  • "attempted to limit him from elevating". Suggest "limit" → 'prevent'.
    Check.
  • "that there was "an atmosphere of political crisis" was apparent to all." "was ... was". Maybe 'an atmosphere of political crisis was apparent to all.'?
    Check.
  • "No successes had been achieved since the previous parliament"> Is this a reference to military successes?
    Yes; the source is slightly ambiguous (there hadn't been any political victories either! But we should keep it simple of course.)
  • "His victory freed then gave him the time"?
    "His victory now gave him the time and resources".
  • "and it was that invasion". Suggest "invasion" → 'army'.
    Check.
  • "the Commons themselves came before the King in the House of Lords." I actually don't know what this means!
    It means I can't spell out that the King sat with the lords rather than the commons. In other news, it's pretty irrelevant, so I swapped it for more relevant stuff about de la Pole's speech (and ergo Richard's intended policies).
  • "four fifteenths and two tenths". This needs explaining. Preferably in line, but at least in a note.
    Right: defined it as a "tax of movable goods" inline, added a footnote to explain more broadly.
  • "appoint his councillors in parliament". What does this mean?
    Hopefully clarified (now under parliamentary oversight)
  • "occultus rumor". A footnoted translation?
    Done.
  • "The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King". I don't understand the "ficticiously" bit. Do you mean thy lied?
    Sir Humphrey looks pained. "We don't don't use language like that, Minister; rather, the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear..."
    They didn't so much lie, as make things up! Hopefully now clarified.
  • "the statute by which Edward [II] had been adjudged". Background needed. (Maybe something like 'In 1347 Edward II had been forced to abdicate under threat of having his son disinherited.')
  • "a masterly piece of bad timing" which was "extraordinarily ill-judged". "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Why are you quoting anyway, rather than paraphrasing into Wikipedia's voice?
    All things being equal, I'd quite like to keep the quotes, if only to show that scholars don't just think it was a bad idea, but a really bad idea; but it involves naming three people, which is... convoluted, to say the least. H'mm.
    I can't help you on that one. If you wish to keep the quotations (and I don't see why; what's wrong with 'or, as modern historians have suggested, a poorly-timed misjudgement' or similar?) I think that you are going to end with a clunky sentence.
  • "PROME". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression:"
    Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog the Mild, and also for the minor copy edits you've been quietly doing en passant, always appreciated. See what you think of the latest series of edits? Cheers, ——Serial 18:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The King soon overturned these judgments; not only was de la Pole soon set free". "soon ... soon".
    Removed one.
  • "gather together and consolidate". Synonyms?
    "consolidate and expand"?
  • "More, he wanted an explicit condemnation of those he held responsible". Held responsible for what?
    For his current predicament?! Clarified who though.
  • Is there a link for "attesting"?
    Then to Attestation clause we go!
  • "although Saul argues that Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicates that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions, thereby turning a political controversy into a legal dispute." I am not following how "Tresilian's subsequent loyalty to the King indicat[ing] that it was Tresilian who drafted the questions" turned "a political controversy into a legal dispute". Surely it was Richard who did that?
    I think I overly condensed that to the point where the narrative suffered; I've split the sentence into three and expanded them slightly.
  • "Chaucer was probably personally affected by the goings-on of the parliament". Could we specify which one?
    Yep, this one.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this Gog! ——Serial 16:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, I appreciate the thorough review! Interestingly, this article has renewed my interest in all things Hundred Years War-related, so I'm off to mooch around. All the best! ——Serial 14:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Personally I think I am coming to the end of my current run on the HYW. I am working to get Battle of Poitiers and its associated campaign to FA and then intend to take a break to work on other things. I may well come back to it, but 26 FAs on the Conflicts of Edward III seems sufficient for now. What you considering for your next? (Merciless Parliament? (I have Battle of Radcot Bridge under consideration.)) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you should mention Radcot Bridge; obviously, I glanced at it in the course of this article, and it's so bloody awful, my fingers got itchy there and then. Three lines on the battle and two massive quotes?! Incredible! As it happens, I have some sources, so. ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and are correctly formatted. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, this section must be overtime  :) ——Serial 15:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I hadn't spotted this FAC until a kind Wiki-colleague drew it to my attention today. I'll be back with comments a.s.a.p. once I've given the article a proper re-reading. Tim riley talk 14:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim riley, thanks for looking in; apologies for not pinging you in the blurb, but, the (great!) GA review was ages ago, of course, and you've moved on, etc. But, cheers!—and hoping this finds you well. ——Serial 18:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First points from a quick canter through for typos etc: these four words need attention, I think:

  • advisors (AmE rather than BrE advisers)
  • targetted (double t not wanted)
  • chronice (missing letter?)
  • KIng (upper case I needs to be lower case)

More anon. Tim riley talk 19:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor points on the prose:

  • single -v- double quotes – I am no expert on the MoS, but I am fairly sure all your single quotes such as those in the epithet 'wonderful' … supposedly 'ancient law' and so on should all be double.
    Thanks, caught.
  • "they observed with dull eyes" – curious choice of adjective; presumably it means they observed without pleasure, or some such.
    Yes, I know what you mean—I think it was probably watching patronage due to them (as they believed) getting wasted on parvenus.
  • "The King was also unpopular due to his choice of advisors" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    Gone for the latter, thanks!
  • "to all intents and purposes" – rather to my surprise, neither Fowler nor Gowers condemns this phrase as a cliché, but I think it is best left for parliamentary draughtsmen and avoided in everyday prose. The Penguin Dictionary of Clichés says it has been a cliché since the middle of the 19th century.
    I replaced it with 'effectively'?
  • "summoned the royal council … decided to summon a parliament" – better to avoid the repetition – perhaps "convened" or something of the sort the first time?
    Excellent, thanks.
  • "the King was planning on having the parliamentary group arrested" – "planning on having" seems slangy to me, as well as less concise than the normal English "planning to have".
    Done.
  • "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer, the Bishop of Durham, and the Keeper of the Privy Seal Walter Skirlaw" – problems with the head-count here. I imagine the Treasurer and the Bishop of Durham were the same person, but it isn't quite plain. And you put a comma after Treasurer but not after Seal. For clarity, I suggest parenthetic dashes: "Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer – the Bishop of Durham – and the Keeper of the Privy Seal – Walter Skirlaw". Rather a blunt instrument, but it removes the ambiguity.
    • Done, but do you think, being parenthetical, the sentence should close on a single dash? (Almost, unclosed, if you know what I mean.)
  • "In what modern historians have suggested was a poorly-timed misjudgement" – can one have a well-timed misjudgement? Looks a bit odd, though your meaning is clear enough.
    Changed it to political misjudgement.
  • "However, notes PROME" – PROME should be introduced and glossed here, at first mention, rather than later, as at present.
    Thought I'd caught that already!
  • "Although the epithet 'wonderful' is often applied to this parliament … it actually applied to the later … 1388 assembly" – if that is so, one wonders why it is used for this article instead of one on the 1388 parliament to which you say it actually applies.
    Yes, quite. This is rather tricky; Perroy's exact phrase is:But this Parliament of October 1386, usually known as 'marvelous'—the epithet mirabilis in the text of a chronicler favourable to the party in fact applies to the assembly in the spring of 1388. He's slightly opaque. I think he means that contemporaries referred to the 1386 session as marvellous and that of 1388 as "mirabilis", but a misreading of a chronicle has led subsequent generations to ascribe the latter description to the former. Does this make sense? If you agree, I'll add something like this instead.
    • I can't, of course, presume to comment on the historical facts, but if I were writing the sentence in question I think I'd fudge the issue, on these sort of lines: Although the epithet 'wonderful' is widely applied to this parliament … the term was originally coined to refer to the later … 1388 assembly"
      • Thanks Tim, have used your phrasing, which has a nice inexactitude  :)

I hope these comments are useful. I have no problems with the content of the article, which seems well and widely sourced, balanced and clear. Not being familiar with the subject I cannot comment on how comprehensive the article is, but I have no reason to think it may not be. – Tim riley talk 18:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks very much for your review Tim riley—there's a couple of points I'd like your further advice on, or confirmation of, but yet again, thanks to you, I've learned more on the nuances of my mother tongue than Leyton Comp ever managed... although that might not be difficult! ;) Thanks again! ——Serial 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple of afterthoughts from another dip into the article: first, "focused" is better spelled with one "s" (though the OED somewhat grudgingly allows the double "ss"); and secondly, capitalisation – an ever-present bugbear – might need a bit of polishing: does "Regency Council" need caps, and even if it does, then does "Council" in the next sentence do so? And I have my doubts about the capital R in Royal prerogative in the relevant section heading. Tim riley talk 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for this also Tim—I've made those adjustments and hopefully caught all the over-caps, I think. I really appreciate you looking in (and the anonymous wiki-colleague who drew it to your attention in the first place!) ——Serial 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Willing to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It seems to me, as far as I can judge, to meet the criteria as to content, and the prose will now suffice, I think. Tim riley talk 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

Mentioned I wasn't sure whether to review this or not, but noticed it falling down the list...Will come back with comments. Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments
General
[edit]
  • Most footnotes are placed after the ref, but a couple (note 2 in "Political background" and note 10 in "Richard's absence") are placed before. I can't on my end see a difference in kind between the ones placed before and the ones after. Is there a reason for this or was it accidental?
    The latter, and snow blindness! Sorted.
Lead
[edit]
  • They saw de la Pole as both a favourite who had unfairly benefited from the King's largesse, and the minister responsible for the King's failures. They demanded de la Pole's impeachment. This wording stood out to me as choppy, but I'm not sure how much that reflects choppiness and how much it's just idiosyncrasy on my behalf. I have the sense nonetheless that the second sentence is overly abrupt and the repetition of "They" as first word avoidable. It might be worth experimenting with alternative phrasings (e.g. turning it into a single sentence, or alternatively expanding on the Houses' perspectives of de la Pole to make it multiple sentences with one focusing on perceived undue benefit, one on failure, and one on the impeachment demands).
    I didn't want to add too much extra detail to the lead, so I went with a rewording: how does Seeing de la Pole as both a favourite... parliament demanded the earl's impeachment?
    Looks good, no worries. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first, the King refused to attend the parliament, instead attempting to dissolve the sitting, although without success. Could "although without success" be better omitted, cutting down on the number of sentence clauses by saying "instead attempting unsuccessfully to dissolve" etc.? The current phrasing takes a while to get to the point.
    Excellent, thanks.
  • Armed conflict broke out between crown and nobility, eventually resulting in de la Pole's exile and death. Though I think generally articles could do with more rather than fewer links, I'm not sold on the "exile" link here. It's a common enough concept you'd expect readers to be familiar, especially if they're already reading a more niche article on an issue that culminated in one. Perhaps more concerningly, if a reader did happen to click through, Exile is in sorry shape and wouldn't be useful to anyone who did want to read more.
    Good point, unlinked.
Political background
[edit]
  • One 20th-century historian, Clementine Oliver, has described la Pole as a "staunch loyalist" is missing a "de".
    Check.
  • Some young nobles—such as the Earls of Arundel and Warwick—had "been kept in good humour since 1376 only by a lavish distribution of Crown perquisites and war salaries, argues the historian M. V. Clarke". Is the closing quote placed too late here? By the source, I assume it's meant to be after "salaries" rather than after Clarke's name.
    Well spotted.
  • PROME's first appearance in the main body of text a section later is spelled out, but its first appearance at all is here, in note 4. It seems worthwhile to spell out its first footnoted appearance as well as its first main appearance, given the footnote is so much earlier (but keeping the main appearance given the uncertainty of whether footnotes are read or not).
    Done, with a hint of cynicism to the poor ole footnotes.
  • The previous parliament had attempted to force a commission upon the King in an effort to reform the royal household and especially its expenditure;[22][21] There appears to be an accidental semicolon rather than full stop here, given the next sentence(?) starts with a capital letter. (I'm also of the opinion refs look better in numeral order.)
    Yeah, swapped that, and also the refs are now numerical.
  • This commission was, effectively, a regency council for the King. Given the sentence's length, does "effectively" need to be set out with commas?
    No, okay.
  • No military successes had been achieved since the previous parliament (for instance, a victory over the Scots would have diverted some negative attention from the King's finances and patronage), so by 1386, "the Commons had no good reason to overlook the excessive generosity of the King or to acquiesce in his government's arbitrary taxation" as historian John Palmer put it. This is a long sentence with a lot in it. The bracketed text is worthwhile contextualization, but might be better footnoted than taking up space in the main body of the article. (That might also allow for it to be expanded on a bit, if the source gives further examples of relevant victories or the benefits they would have had.) Also, this looks to be the only unlinked (whether red or blue) historian -- I assume not any of our John Palmers given what's on that list, but could be linked to the currently-nonexistent John Palmer (historian), or are you confident he's non-notable? (Similar note: not sure on the need for "continues Palmer" in the following sentence, given you've already noted you're quoting him.)
    Ah, complex. You're right about that crappy sentence, so as per your suggestion, I've added an (expanded) footnote regarding why the invasion and the king were unpopular as a result of it, and what benefits he could have expected had it gone the other way. Also redlinked Palmer (must've been an oversight). Not so sure not inline citing Palmer: attribution of a direct quote, of course, but also it just didn't read that smoothly without it... I'm certainly not arguing over it though.
    This is excellent now, good footnote -- and no complaints about the second quote attribution, the clunkiness is mitigated by switching up the preceding sentence as you've done now. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Later sections to kome. Vaticidalprophet 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on the royal prerogative
[edit]
  • With note 8, adult, compos mentis monarch might be better phrased as compos mentis adult monarch, but I'm stopped in my tracks a bit by the specification of "adult". The referent is Edward III, who was of course himself an adult, and as Richard II was himself a child when he ascended the throne and was still very young at the time, it seems to be an unnecessary level of specifics?
  • although the charges themselves were neither "frivolous, trivial or paltry," argues Roskell doesn't seem like something that needs to be quoted rather than own-words phrased. The article quotes quite heavily, which I've no problems with -- great turns of phrase in sources are worth sharing -- but this is a relatively brief statement of facts. Because you're attributing each source inline when you quote it, quoting for fairly short statements as here adds sentence bulk that veers from the point a bit.
    Makes sense—have removed "adult", as you say, since all the parties involved were.
  • This has led some historians to question the validity of the claims against de la Pole; for example, in 1927, N. B. Lewis suggested that they were "trivial or unfounded... merely pretexts for dismissing the chief minister of an unpopular King." -- sneaky WP:LQ there
    Check.
  • This is the event described by Henry Knighton as the "occultus rumor" in which the King invited forty members of that parliament to a dinner—and then dispose of them. Great line, very intriguing to the metonymical bright fourteen-year-old, but is 'dispose of them' a bit too abstract? If he (so they say!) poisoned them, it's more attention-grabbing to make it explicit. (If you do want to keep the current wording, it should be 'disposed of', not 'dispose of'.)
    Well, the sources (both primary and secondary) aren't as explicit as to say exactly what the king was intending to do; Knighton uses the phrase and destroy them, while another chronicler merely suggests that they were told have been arrested (which perhaps I should add?). Tweaked slightly.
  • The Lords spoke "eloquently, if fictitiously" to the King, on how they perceived his duty, which they supported by reference to mythological statutes and traditions. Saul describes these as "outrageous remarks". This is...interesting, but unclear. "Eloquently, if fictitiously" gets across the idea that they were, well, making stuff up, but it's not explicit in what ways they were doing so (and "mythological" is an ambiguous phrasing if someone's coming in without much background -- it could be equally interpreted as "statutes and traditions the Lords made up on the spot" and "statutes and traditions that exist in long-held myths and legends, but not reality"). Is it due to go into more detail about how they were fabulising and what about, past the given example of the supposed "Commons get to go home" law?
    This phrase of Saul's has probably caused the single biggest issue of discussion here! He is vague, and I suspect intentionally so; after all, he wants to interpret the actions of the long-dead, but can't... I've added a few bits, and tweaked my phrasing, which hopefully addresses your point (if, indeed, I've understood you correctly—apologies if not!)
  • In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement,[35][55] the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October. This enraged people all the more. May be some pleonasm here to both suggest this was a political misjudgement and then note it enraged people even more. (They sound pretty enraged by this point, anyway!)
    Indeed. But as my nan used to say, 'things may be so bad that they can't get any better; they are never so bad they can't get any worse'  :) I think I'll keep it, if it's all the same to you—the fact that the king was unable to make the promotions he wanted suggests something pretty extraordinary going on.
  • However, notes the Parliament Rolls of Medieval England (PROME) project, it appears that at least two of Richard's proposed creations—John, Lord Neville and the under chamberlain to the royal household, Simon Burley, to the earldoms of Cumberland and of Huntingdon respectively—were so unpopular that the King was forced to withdraw them. This doesn't seem to be a 'however' matter. Also, I've accidentally introduced an inconsistency on you -- sorry! In the footnote where I suggested expanding PROME, you italicized the full title after expansion, but it's not in italics here -- should probably be consistent between them, one way or another.
    Removed however and italicised.
Aftermath and King Richard's response
[edit]
  • The Parliament is significant in the context of later events. Well, I'm not sure we'd have a 4000-word article on it if it weren't...
    True! The Parliament had long-ranging consequences... etc?
  • One historian has commented that "it is generally recognised that all the constitutional and political troubles of Richard II's reign can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament". Is the inconsistent capitalization here in the source (in which case it should probably be {{sic}}'d) or is it an error in reproduction, so to speak?
    Sic'd, curiously.
  • You kind of drop the thread of de la Pole here. Your last reference to him is in August 1387, at which point he was returned to being the King's closest advisor. Obviously, he didn't remain in that cushy a position forever. You get into all the details of e.g. Tresilian's death, but given de la Pole is one of the major players here and the reader is primed to hear what eventually happens to him from the very beginning of the article, you do need to pick up that thread.
    Great point. He survived by the skin of; have added a few lines after the preceding gory details.
    Nice, although now it produces (on my screen, but as noted probably also many others) a very large paragraph made larger still by the fact it's compressed by an image. Is there a good spot to split that? Maybe from Although the court party was swept from power in 1386. This should be my last nitpick -- happy with what else you've done and to allow what else you've argued to allow, so planning to support soon as we can get that a bit more accessible to the poor smaller-screen reader. Vaticidalprophet 23:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch Vaticidalprophet, split at your suggestion. SN54129 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chaucer's attendance and literary depictions
[edit]
  • This section is formatted as one huge paragraph. Even on my decent-sized laptop screen, it gets a bit wall-of-text blurring together. I imagine it'd not be fun to read on a phone. Is there a good spot to split it in two?
    Recent commentators have suggested ... seems a good spot.

That should be all of it. I've fixed a couple of very minor typographical oversights that would've been more trouble to mention here than to just fix myself (e.g. in1386 missing a space). It's a good read, mostly nitpicking, although the dropped thread of de la Pole's fate needs noting. Vaticidalprophet 21:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Happy to support this excellent article for promotion. Vaticidalprophet 12:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and thanks again for looking in VP! SN54129 14:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Serial Number 54129, just one last issue (don't worry, I won't redact my support pending it, but it seems worth mentioning now rather than post-FAC). Reviewing the note 5 footnote again (the one introduced on my suggestion regarding the failed English invasion of Scotland (1385)), you've managed to accidentally omit the contemporary political perspective -- The invasion was considered a failure by both contemporaries and modern historians. Of the former, while among the latter G. L. Harriss called it "ignominious" and May McKisack, "inglorious" doesn't actually mention the former. Assuming there was some kind of accidental backspace somewhere in the footnote's writing. Vaticidalprophet 02:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. In all my open tabs, windows, pdfs, etc., and the pile of books under the empties, I couldn't for the life of me find the quote (was a quote, of course!) that I was referencing. So, I have recast the sentence with what I had to hand. Hope that suffices! To b fair, I don't think it was a major point I was making anyway, but. SN54129 06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe

[edit]

Reading through this article I just have one query for the nominator. Is "modern historians have been more critical" supported by the cited source or is it possibly WP:OR? Could I have a quote? (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you checking in Buidhe, what with your fellow coords either holidaying or buggering off  :) a couple of quotes for you that hopefully clarify things (inline). It's pretty much the consensus as to the efficacy of the parliament. All the best! SN54129 06:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He advocated making peace overtures to the French; while being—as modern historians have noted—probably the most sensible strategy at the time, this was unpopular with much of the English nobility, some of whom still expected a martial career as their fathers had enjoyed, with the financial and chivalric benefits it could bring the successful" The source does not support the claim that "modern historians" note this, only that the author of the article does. The sentence is also very clunky and "noted" is a WP:WTW issue.
    tweaked to indicate that this is Tuck's view. (Which has, in turn, removed the use of 'noted', also I happen to disagree that it's a WTW when attributed.)
  • "In what modern historians have suggested was a political misjudgement" Is it verifiable that "modern historians" agree, or just the three that are cited?
    Well some do; 'several' with suffice, which as you point out below != two (but, pace, per Merriam-Webster et al'. is more than two.)
  • "modern historians have been more critical" You cite a few examples, but again it's not clear if it's verifiable that "modern historians" agree on this, or whether it's original research.
    The footnote immediately subsequent verifies that at least two historians have summed up the historiographical consensus wrt the efficacy of the parliament for R2's polity.
  • In another place you state, "Several modern historians have been less enthusiastic" but only cite two of them.
    Recast more generally.

Sorry, I'm going to have to oppose unless the issues with original research are fixed. See WP:RS/AC (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • 17 notes is also excessive. Many of them should be axed or integrated into the text. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, and saving your office, this is a matter of opinion, and rather subjective. While in some cases too many footnotes may result in a breach of Wp:FA? #4, a lack of sufficiently relevant footnotes is equally liable to indicate a failure of #1b (places the subject in context). I have reduced the number from 17, per your suggestion, but the remainder, I suggest, are fully justifiable from the point of view of explaining background, the sources, the historiography, broader context or a combination of the four. If it needs to be codified (numerically, percentage of overall byteage, whatever) then I suggest a discussion at WT:FAC for codification purposes.
    Have a good week! Best, SN54129 18:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Buidhe, all obfuscation hopefully removed also! And there was no rush back: I'm a great believer in WP:NODEADLINE, so Gog's well-meant ping was albeit unnecessary, although appreciated. It is not, after all, the first time I've seen my candidate sink slooowly to the bottom of the pile, and I guarantee it won't be the last. All the best, SN54129 18:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "perceived extravagance towards his political favourites". This sounds odd to me on two counts. Why "perceived"? It seems to imply doubt whether it is justified, but there does not seem any doubt below. Also extravagance towards is vague. How about "excessive patronage of"?
    Both sound points; done.
  • "parliament demanded the earl's impeachment". I would capitalise parliament - however, as Tim riley has not queried it I am probably wrong.
    Away from Wikipedia, in private correspondence etc, Tim Riley would capitalise Parliament (and much else) but Tim riley as Wikipedia editor tries to follow the party line, capitalising only proper nouns, and as there are parliaments in several countries I don't think the one in Westminster qualifies for a capital letter. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong, but I note that every edition of Fowler from the first, in 1926, to the most recent, in 2015, uses the lower-case parliament. Tim riley talk 19:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go with Tim and Fowler, if that's alright?
  • "threatened Richard with deposition until the King agreed to return to Westminster and do parliament's bidding". "unless the King agreed"?
    Done.
  • "by one modern biographer". I would name the biographer, especially as you name him a few lines below.
    Done, and removed subsequent duplication.
  • The source details for Tuck are inadequate. You should say that it is Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
    Absolutely right. Can't believe they got through like that!
  • "Popular opinion preferred he used the funds available to him for the benefit of the common weal." This is vacuous. No one would ever say the opposite.
    Fair point—have removed the vacuous Sumption!
  • "they observed with dull eyes the King's distribution of extravagant". What does "with dull eyes" mean here? I would take it to refer to too many late nights.
    Yes, I see what you mean—like a hangover?!
  • "...observed with displeasure".
  • "extravagant, if limited, patronage". How can patronage be both extravagant and limited?
    Have rephrased to clarify that while the patronage was extravagant, its circle of recipients was limited.
  • "Either way, the war with France, such as it was, was the immediate cause of the parliament, being both exorbitantly expensive and demonstrating few military successes for the expense." This sentence is badly constructed.
    Rephrased.
  • "to take more judicious counselling". I do not think that this is grammatical.
    How about The King did not approve of the commission or its advice that he listen to more judicious counsellors?
  • "Most of the criticisms of the 1386 parliament had already been touched on in the previous one". I am not sure what this means.
    Perhaps Most of the criticisms raised by the 1386 parliament had already been complained of in that of 1385. is clearer?
  • "Ecclesiasts". Ecclesiastics?
    Done.
  • "Those that did—such as Bishop Courtenay, brother of one of Richard's most outspoken critics—were probably regarded by the King as a partisan against him." "Those" is plural, so it should be "partisans", not "a partisan".
    Check.
  • "eloquently, if fictitiously". What does this mean and who said it?
    I think everyone has raised this now, and it's officially "doing my head in" (kidding!)— the long and the short of it is that it's Gloucester and the bishop who said it—which I've added, rather than the vague "The Lords"—and means (hard to second guess: it's a quote) they spoke eloquently on the subject of the king's responsibilities, but occasionally verged into made-up stuff to make their points...
  • More rewording! Right.
  • "The King eventually dismissed de la Pole as Chancellor on 23 October, and appointed the Bishop of Ely the next day.[41] Also dismissed alongside de la Pole were the Treasurer—the Bishop of Durham[11]—and the Keeper of the Privy Seal, Walter Skirlaw.[57] In a further political misjudgement,[36][58] the King had promoted de Vere from Earl of Oxford to Marquess of Dublin on 13 October." I think it would be easier to follow events if you put them in chronological order, not 23 October before 13 October.
    Done—and that allowed me to use "ten days later" the second time, instead of repeating the date.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for these points, Dudley Miles—I've actioned almost all, but there's a couple that might be worth discussing. Cheers, SN54129 13:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley. just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wut SN54129 19:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PROME notes". What is PROME?
    Redlinked in the previous para, written out in full?
  • "It has been described as "the worst political crisis of the reign to date". Who described?
    Done.
  • "so much harm to the King and his reign were appointed". 'harm to his reign' sounds odd to me.
    Redux to "except for the Duke of Gloucester and the Earl of Arundel, none of the future Appellants were appointed".
  • What is the logic of capitalising Crown and not parliament? And why is it capitalised in the article title?
    I've uncapped "crown" per "parliament"; the title is subject to WP:COMMONNAME (and a proper name, cf. Peasants' Revolt, First Barons' War etc).
  • Archbishop Neville. You link Courtenay to Canterbury above but do not name him and you mention York above without naming or linking. You should name and link both.
    Done in their previous mentions.
  • "Michael de la Pole, 2nd Earl of Suffolk's tomb in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk; his father was dead three years after the Wonderful Parliament." I do not think you need to repeat when de la Pole died and some readers will not remember that he was the first earl. Maybe: "Tomb of the son of Richard's favourite, also called Michael de la Pole, in St Andrew's Church, Wingfield, Suffolk."
    Thanks, rephrased.
  • "turned, says McHardy" This is the first mention of him so you should give his full name.
    Her full name given.
  • "This ultimately led to the Battle of Radcot Bridge on 19 December 1387. Between who and who won?
    Expanded and sourced.
  • "can be traced back to the Wonderful parliament [sic]" Why sic?
    Because he's the only bugger cited here who doesn't capitalise "Parliament" in the phrase "Wonderful Parliament"!
  • Rm sick; thanks!
  • "This includes both the subsequent military attack by the Lords Appellant on Robert de Vere[69] and those by Richard on the Appellants." The wording implies that you have already mentioned the attacks.
    Now I've expanded on Radcot Bridge, has this been addressed, d'you think?(Although to be fair, the sentence appears lightly redundant; perhaps close the para with the Palmer quote instead?)
  • It has been removed.
  • "who saw themselves as conciliar to the King". I am not clear what point you are making. OED defines conciliar as "Of or pertaining to a council or its proceedings; used esp. of ecclesiastical councils."
    Changed to "who saw themselves in an advisory role"
  • "Arriving in Paris by December 1387, he died there two years later; he never returned to England even after Richard resumed his personal authority in May 1389" This implies that you have already mentioned the resumption. Maybe "Arriving in Paris by December 1387, he died there in 1389 and in the same year Richard resumed his personal authority"
    Excellent, thanks! Done.
  • "McCall and Rudisli" Two more writers who should be named in full as they have not been mentioned before.
    Done.
  • "had come from serving stock" This is an oddly old fashioned expression. Does it mean that his ancestors were personal servants?
    Well, he had "forebears who were gaugers of wines and king’s butlers", so perhaps; but it is old fashioned, so how about "had a lower-class background before attaining..."?
  • lower-class implies to me manual labourers. I cannot think of a good way of putting it but how about "non-aristocratic"? BTW. In the ninth century King Æthelwulf married the daughter of his butler. It had a much higher status then. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, good compromise. Interesting about the status of these positions; certainly by the 15th C., offices such as a butler, king's carver, etc., were almost wholly ceremonial and held by those in favour of the king. Of course, they didn't actually decant the wine or carve a goose—there were minions for that—but it let them sit next to the king and keep him topped up  :)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 3 February 2022 [143].

Hannah Montana

[edit]
Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Hannah Montana, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Miley Cyrus. This was a massively successful TV series and franchise which launched the career of Cyrus. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in December 2020. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging previous collaborators @JAYFAX: @Heartfox: @TheSandDoctor: @LM150: @Some Dude From North Carolina: @SandyGeorgia: @ImaginesTigers: @Casliber: @TheJoebro64: @Allied45: @Panini!: I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you! SatDis (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • Not a requirement, but in the Infobox I'd consider using the "alt_name" parameter for the fourth season title.
  • "streaming service Disney+" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • Again in "fictional girl group The Cheetah Girls".
  • And "Disney Channels Worldwide Rich Ross".
  • "The series finale was initially scheduled to air in spring 2011." violates MOS:SEASON.
  • Another BLUESEA with "1990s teen pop".
  • The Awards and nominations list seems to violate MOS:HIDE.
  • "psychoactive plant Salvia divinorum" is a BLUESEA.
  • This one isn't technically a requirement per MOS:CURRENCY, but every mention of money in the article has "US" preceding the amount with the exception of "$70.6 million" and " $169.2 million", both in the films section. Just for consistency I'd either add it in those two places or remove it in all places, bar the first use (again per MOS:CURRENCY).
  • I've never seen the show so I'm not super notable on the subject itself (if it wasn't obvious already since all my above comments are MOS fixes). I have however, seen all of Suite Life of Zach & Cody, Wizards of Waverly Place, and Suite Life on Deck, and am somewhat surprised there was no mention of the crossover episodes (That's so Suite Life of Hannah Montana and Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana). In most of my experience with television articles crossovers with other series are generally mentioned, anywhere from a passing mention to an entire section. This one also isn't a requirement, more of an observation, but a sentence or two could be useful (it would fit either in the development, casting, filming, or series overview section depending on the aspects covered or how it's written).
  • Reference 4 should have the episode writer(s), and optionally a link to the episode, either in the form of [[Hannah Montana (season 3)#ep76|For (Give) a Little Bit]], or as a redirect. Disney Channel can also be linked.
References
[edit]
  • Same with reference 6, 30, 31.
  • CNET can be linked in reference 11.
  • Reference 22 was published from Topix (website) (no website is listed).
  • Hollywood Reporter can be linked in 32, 49, 63, 113, 114.
  • Reference 40 has an author.
  • Reference 47 date is off by a day (22nd instead of 23rd).
  • TVTonight can be linked in 52, 60.
  • Access Hollywood can be linked in 53
  • Billboard can be linked in 55.
  • CTV News can be linked in 105.
  • New York Post can be linked in 109.
  • 115 needs |url-access=limited
  • AllMusic can be linked in 117, 125.
  • MTV News can be linked in 118, 123.
  • TVGuide can be linked in 121.
  • Variety (magazine) can be linked in 122.
  • Hollywood Life can be linked in 130

(MOS:REFLINK supports duplicate links in citations). TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TheDoctorWho:, thanks for the comments. I have addressed all of the suggestions, particularly the changes to the references you have listed. I also added details on the two crossover specials you mentioned above in the "Filming" section. I was only able to include a short sentence on each, as there are a lack of FA-quality reliable sources on these. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic! The added information about the crossover looks great to me. The article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47

[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder and I will ideally post a review within a week. To be fully transparent, I reviewed the article on the GAN level. As the article is rather long (and that is understandable given the show's popularity), it will take me some time to read through it again thoroughly enough to do a FAC review.

I do have one clarification question. From my understanding, Disney had operated under an unspoken rule that its shows could not air more than 65 episodes (which would be either two or three seasons). Was there any discussion on how Hannah Montana was an exception to that rule? I believe this rule was already thrown by the time Hannah Montana aired, but I was just curious if this was ever brought up in the coverage on the show since it went beyond what was previously limited. Apologies if I have already asked you this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Aoba47:. The 65 episode rule was never brought up for Hannah. I can think of some earlier examples, such as That's So Raven being one of the first to break the rule. And for Kim Possible, fans specifically campaigned for a fourth season after it had already ended. A fourth season was becoming the new normal by the time Hannah was ending. Thanks! SatDis (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes sense. It is understandable that sources would discuss this rule in the context of shows that were either affected by it or those that were the first to break that rule. As you have already said, Hannah was neither of these two things so it makes sense for sources to focus on other things related to the series. By the way, I have done some small copy-edits to the article while I am reading it. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with or ask about it here. I do not want to take up too much space in this review space on smaller matters. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, created the series to continue the commercial musical success of its television network after the premiere of its, reads rather awkwardly to me and I believe it could be phrased better. I think something like, created the series to continue the commercial musical success it experienced with, would be more concise and would read better.
  • Since alter ego is linked in the lead, it should be linked in the article too for consistency.
  • For this part, casting advertisements for the filming of a pilot, I do not think the casting link is necessary as I believe a majority of readers would already be familiar with this concept on some level.
  • For this part, as a new, half-hour live-action comedy in August 2005, why not just use sitcom? It would be more direct and match the linked article.
  • I would trim the quote in this part, Cyrus said she wanted to move on from the series, stating, "I can't base my career off of the six-year-olds ... I have to move on". The "have to move on" part is unnecessary and repetitive of what was already said earlier in the same sentence.
  • For this part, and another commentator described the Miley character as "obnoxious", clearly identify who this commentator is to avoid any confusion.
  • The first paragraph of the "Criticism of Cyrus's public image" sub-section has a few instances of "In X year". I would vary this further to avoid making the prose come across as a list as that may make the information less engaging to readers.
  • There was an interview Cyrus did with Kevin Hart about becoming Hannah Montana. You can watch it here. I have not seen it so take this with a mountain of salt, but there may be some useful information there.
  • Any further news on the prequel or spin-off rumors?

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or if anything requires further clarification. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again and very likely support it for promotion at that point. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Thanks for the comments, all of your copy-edits were fine with me. All of the above has been addressed.
  • For the "another commentator", I struggled to identify who the author of the source was.
  • I would say something along the lines of "a reviewer for DVDizzy.com" so the publication is named in the prose and readers are made fully aware of where this information is coming from. I looked at the quote in the citation by the way, and I think it would be notable to mention that the reviewer finds that Stewart becomes more obnoxious as the series progresses. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, thank you!
  • No further news on the spin-off, it appears to have just been a rumour.
  • Thanks for the reminder of the Kevin Hart source. I have added a few points, but I would appreciate you reading over the changes as I wasn't sure exactly how to include it. SatDis (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for adding the information. I made a small correction to the citation as Peacock is the publisher and YouTube is the platform that they published the video on.
  • Thanks, I fixed a similar Vanity Fair interview video.
  • I have not watched the interview yet, but was there further explanation for this sentence: "Cyrus explained in 2021 that she found it difficult to separate herself from the persona of Hannah Montana."? Was it because the media and fans perceived her this way or was it more on a personal level? I'd keep this part brief, but I was curious if there was more information. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: You are spot on for both of those reasons. I was actually thinking of including "personally and from media attention"? Not sure how to word that without confusing readers. Should I remove the line altogether? SatDis (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I would leave the sentence in the article for now as I do think it is helpful and adds further context, but I would also be interested to see what other reviewers have to say about it. I support the article based on the prose. This is separate, but I would recommend converting File:Hannah Montana Logo.PNG into the SVG format as the tag suggests. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

I'm a very simple-minded creature. All this time I could've sworn that Hannah Montana starred Taylor Swift; I was confused when I saw the name Miley Cyrus everywhere. In hopes to make myself seem less crazy I searched to see if Taylor Swift had any connection to Hannah Montana, and was relieved to see she cameod in the movie. I'll have comments in a little while. Panini!🥪 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and Lead
  • Should the Disney+ release be in the infobox somewhere?
  • The first paragraph uses "Miley Stewart (Miley Cyrus)" and then "Billy Ray Cyrus, plays Miley Stewart's father and manager Robby Ray". To keep things uniform, I think this second sentence can be rewritten as "best friends Lilly Truscott and Oliver Oken, who become aware of her secret, and Miley Stewart's father and manager Robby Ray (Billy Ray Cyrus)."
  • "Television critics praised the show for its humor and music. The program is credited with launching Cyrus's musical career and establishing her as a teen idol." - Pretty short sentences, maybe they can be combined? "Television critics praised the show for its humor and music, and helped launch Cyrus's musical career and established her as a teen idol."
Story and characters and Themes
  • The introduction of a horse came as a surprise to me in the second paragraph. Is there any other introduction details about Blue Jeans that could help ease in the detail better?
  • The first three sentences ("The central conflict...important to her") references source 2 three times; only the last one is necessary and the others can be removed (stray refs).
  • This also applies to the latter half of the first paragraph ("While Miley discloses...of her childhood") and the third paragraph ("Tyler Bickford of...element of childhood").
Production
  • The lead credits High School Musical as the reason for Hannah Montana, but this first paragraph mentions a bunch of other shows. Should they also be included in the lead?
  • The original lead role title, Chloe Stewart, could use a bit more context ("...who auditioned for the lead role, originally named Chloe Stewart...")
  • Wouldn't the second paragraph of Development fit better under Casting?
Reception
  • This starts with "Critics said", but only references source 2.
  • Additionally, this has the same stray ref issues listed above.
  • Also also, "He called the series 'genre-defining'" is a pretty short sentence and could probably be merged.
  • Giving the critical reception section a look-over, it seems that the negatives outweigh the positives and don't really show how the show is one that's "raised by television critics" as stated in the lead.
US television rankings
  • Some of the content in these tables, especially the viewership counts, goes unsourced. It looks like this stuff is sourced in the prose above it, and should be sourced to the best of its ability in the table as well.
Public image and Lawsuits
  • After reading the controversy section, I'm glad this didn't star Taylor Swift.
  • "further alleged he was unfairly terminated by Disney" - Is there a reason why he feels this way in the source?
  • Overall, I like what you did here. Good Job!
Other Media
  • "Billy Ray Cyrus stated the movie would be about the Stewart family's return to Tennessee and that Disney was eager to film on location there." - This sentence sounds like a plot summary and doesn't really add much, so I'd propose a removal.

Overall, solid article! Once these are satisfied I'll be happy to support. Please do reach out if you have any more FACs cooking in the future. Besides, it gets me free points in the WikiCup, which I highly reccomend checking out. Panini!🥪 18:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Panini!: Thank you for the comments, how funny that you thought this starred Taylor Swift. I hope the article filled in your missing information!
  • Disney+ was not its premiere broadcast, therefore I have removed the line altogether.
  • Actually, in the series, Blue Jeans being introduced also comes as a surprise (the horse is only mentioned on earlier occasions).
  • I have changed to "High School Musical (2006) and earlier franchises involving music." to encompass some of the other shows mentioned.
  • Thanks for the suggestion to move the Casting paragraph - I like how it sits now.
  • Upon reflecting on Reception, I have changed the lead to read: "However, television critics found fault with its writing and depiction of gender roles and stereotypes. The show helped launch Cyrus's musical career and established her as a teen idol; Cyrus, however, began to develop an increasingly provocative public image, which led to the series receiving criticism for having a negative influence on its audience." I believe this highlights a large chunk of the negative reception.
  • The television ratings table relies on averages which are referenced in the article for the episodes list. I believe this table should be removed and would like your opinion.
  • For the lawsuit, I have added "alleged he was unfairly terminated by Disney in response to giving testimony within the arbitration". Thanks for picking that up. Thanks for the praise of that section - it is amazing to hear the legal battle was recent.
  • I believe I have addressed everything, please let me know if I missed something. SatDis (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good here, so I'll leave a Support. About the table, however; it seems like every other Disney Channel TV show uses this table (except Shake it Up). However, the TV show MOS suggests combining the average viewership details with the series overview table (with citation for the numbers). I think you won't lose too much if the rest of those details are removed. Panini!🥪 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis

[edit]

Let's not screw this up

  • "after Cyrus began developing an increasingly provocative" — ...when?
  • This was gradual and hard to date.
  • The first paragraph of #Premise (at least in my view) is sandwiched between the image and the infobox
  • It doesn't appear this way in my view; not sure how to fix that.
  • In #Premise, "Miley" is used a lot, with sentences that include "Miley" up to three times. Can this be reduced?
  • I have tried to tweak, but this is tricky when "she" could refer to Miley, Lilly or Hannah.
  • "persona must now be merged" — this sounds kinda like the wording of a PR to me...
  • Reworded.
  • "who was now aged twelve" — kinda awkward
  • Have changed to "aged twelve" as it previously states "aged eleven at the time".
  • "Miley's deceased mother in dream sequences" — another dead Disney parent...
  • I actually think Hannah was an early example of this! Lizzie McGuire and That's So Raven have both parents!
  • "worked on The Cheetah Girls and High School Musical, and helped" — is mention of TCG and HSM really necessary?
  • Yes, as we are discussing the impact of other projects on the development of Hannah. And the musical consistency created by the executives.
  • "Heather Phares of AllMusic described the songs' melodies as strong and Cyrus's vocals as charismatic." — this seems more like something you would put in the reception section...
  • Thanks for picking up. Moved.
  • "which had commenced production by August,[31][56] by which time Disney had optioned the program for a fourth season." — The bit after the comma feels a bit confusing. Perhaps split it?
  • Split!
  • "she would at some stage" — at first, I thought Cyrus wanted to do a live production of Hannah Montana. Clarification is needed, I guess?
  • Reworded.
  • "Some critics found" — only one critic is cited...
  • Thanks for spotting that one.
  • "poll on JSYK, which children voted on, following" — a bit clunky...
  • Fixed.
  • "By 2016, it was reported the arbitrator found US$18 million in under-reported amounts, but the franchise was still operating at a US$24 million deficit so no compensation was owed." — as someone quite unfamiliar with the law, I'm having a pretty hard time following this... why was no compensation owed?
  • Basically they could've received $18million but they were already $24million in debt. So no payment. It's written how the source states it so I'm not sure how I could write that without original research.
  • "The film, titled ... The film, which ... The film grossed" — the film, the film, the film... it gets pretty monotonous
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • "The program remains one of Disney Channel's most commercially successful franchises." — ...as of?
  • Reworded.
  • #Rumored spin-off goes from 2020 way back to 2011, which makes it a tad bit confusing
  • Shuffled.

I think that's it from me, in addition to a few tweaks that you can revert if you want to. Overall, great article! I definitely want to watch the series now. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Best of luck! Pamzeis (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • "Dick, Jeremy (February 4, 2020). "Hannah Montana TV Prequel Is Coming, Billy Ray Cyrus Wants to Return". TV Web. Watchr Media. Archived from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved October 25, 2020." - 1) source identifies as Movie Web, not TV Web. Also, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Removed.
  • What makes DVDizzy a high-quality RS?
  • I have removed the use of this source aside from it being used for reception by a reviewer.
  • What makes BCS Kids a high-quality RS?
  • Removed.
  • What makes showbiz cheat sheet high-quality RS?
  • Removed.
  • What makes TV Series Finale high-quality RS?
  • Removed.
  • I don't think latlong.net is reliable
  • Removed.
  • Help First Foundation is a blogspot website. What makes this RS?
  • Removed.
  • " "Meus Prêmios Nick 2009" [2009 My Nick Awards] (in Portuguese). August 9, 2009. Archived from the original on May 26, 2013. Retrieved February 8, 2013." - self-published blog, not reliable
  • Removed.
  • "Goodin-Smith, Oona E. (2014). "Who Killed Hannah Montana: The Plight of the Disney Female" (PDF). Sprinkle: An Undergraduate Journal of Feminist and Queer Studies. 7: 26–34. Retrieved October 24, 2020." - source link appears to be dead/redirecting. While I can't judge this without seeing the paper, does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Most undergraduate papers/thesis don't
  • Due to this being an undergraduate work, I have removed.
  • Media Research Center is listed as unreliable at WP:RSP
  • Removed.
  • The New York Post is also listed as unreliable there, and it can be somewhat tabloid-y at times
  • Removed.

There's also loads of academic coverage available at WP:RSP. Examples include:

  • "CHRISTIAN AND SECULAR VALUES FOR SALE: THE RELIGIOUS APOSTASY OF CELEBRITY AND DISNEY'S "HANNAH MONTANA" STAR MILEY CYRUS." - Acta Theologica
  • The Blue article in Feminist Media Studies is apparently 16 pages long but is only used in the article to support 2 sentences
  • "Tween Intimacy and the Problem of Public Life in Children's Media: "Having It All" on the Disney Channel's Hannah Montana." - Women's Studies Quarterly
  • "Allegory, Queer Authenticity, and Marketing Tween Sexuality in Hannah Montana" - by Tison Pugh from a book published by Rutgers
  • "The Market Child and Branded Fiction: A Synergism of Children's Literature, Consumer Culture, and New Literacies" - from Reading Research Quarterly

And quite a bit more, just picking out a few.

I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing, given that the article uses quite a few lower-tier web sources at the expense of scholarly literature. Hog Farm Talk 06:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you for the source review. I have removed all of the sources listed above due to unreliability. Thank you for your list of academic coverage - I have actually already incorporated the "Tween Intimacy" source heavily in the article. I would like to incorporate more of these scholarly sources into the article, and I ask if you would be willing to provide another source review once that has been done? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How long do you expect this process of incorporating new sources to take? If it's just a few days, then this FAC can continue, but if it's going to take 2 weeks it's probably more appropriate to archive it at this point and renominate once complete. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: This can definitely be done within a few days. SatDis (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me when you're done, and I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 07:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related point on sourcing: I noticed that many of the sources have long page ranges, such as 66–82, 173–186, 225–241 etc. To improve verifiability, I try to keep all page ranges to 2 or 3 pages at most. According to previous discussions at WT:FAC, ranges longer than 10 pages should not be used. I would also provide a timestamp for where you can verify the information when citing a 20-minute long video. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have added some further scholarly sources to the article and removed the unreliable sources. I have separated the long page ranges as suggested by @Buidhe: above and have added these journal articles to the "Bibliography" section. I have read through some further articles but I want to note that they wouldn't all have importance on this article, and I only want to add sources that have a significant use. The Vanity Fair video also has a timestamp. Thank you for looking over the sources again, and I hope the referencing is now of a higher standard. SatDis (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some spot-checks later, but the only further concern I have here with reliability/sourcing depth is that I'm not sure that DVDizzy is reliable to necessarily be WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion as a review/opinion. Hog Farm Talk 05:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm: let me know and I can easily remove the DVDizzy source. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose, but would still suggest removing the DVDizzy source. Hog Farm Talk 06:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you! I have removed the unreliable source. SatDis (talk) 06:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review by TheJoebro64

[edit]

Lede:

  • Why aren't the actors who play Jackson, Lilly, and Oliver in parenthesis in the lede? Seems a bit odd to do it for Miley and Robby and not them.
  • The Walt Disney Company created commissioned the series... I think "commissioned" is more accurate in this case—Disney just gave the series the greenlight, it was created by Poryes, Correll, and O'Brien.
  • ... to continue the commercial musical success it experienced with its television network after the premiere of the made-for-television film High School Musical (2006) and earlier franchises involving music. I think this should be simplified, as it's a bit of a mouthful and reads somewhat awkwardly. My recommended change would be: The Walt Disney Company commissioned the series after the success of Disney Channel's previous music-based franchises, such as the made-for-television film High School Musical (2006).
  • Cyrus, however, began to develop an increasingly provocative public image, which led to the program receiving criticism for having a negative influence on its audience. I think this could use some tightening as well. You've got two "however"s in quick succession, which is generally discouraged, and "criticized for..." is something you need to be careful of—you're stating in Wikivoice that Cyrus' provocative image being a negative influence on its audience is fact (which creates a WP:NPOV problem, Wikipedia doesn't take positions). I'd revise this to something like After Cyrus began developing an increasingly provocative public image, commentators criticized Hannah Montana as having a negative influence on its audience. (Particular emphasis on "as", since WP isn't taking a position on whether the commentators were right.)

Premise

  • While her schoolmates idolize Hannah Montana, Miley is often tempted to reveal her secret and assume a celebrity status at school. Just asking for clarification: "while" means "as" in this case, correct? I think it might be worth swapping "while" with "as" to avoid potential confusion.
  • No other comments here; pretty well-written. I made a few minor edits that I don't think are controversial (one of which was to fix a typo)

My first batch of comments. I'm just focusing on prose so it shouldn't take me long to do a full analysis. More to come. JOEBRO64 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fictional girl group The Cheetah Girls... The article for The Cheetah Girls describes them as a real girl group. I understand they were created for a book but I'm not sure if "fictional" is entirely necessary or accurate? You don't have to remove it if you disagree, I just think it may be confusing.
  • The section titled "Series overview"—I don't think that's a good section title. I think it could be confused with the "Premise" section, and the lede is supposed to be the "series overview". I think "Episodes" is a more accurate header, and looking over other television articles (e.g. Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., The Sopranos) seems to be the norm.
  • as of 2008, became the highest-selling concert film of all time I'm not seeing this in the provided source.
  • So the last paragraph in the "Conclusion and impact on Cyrus" subsection—I think it makes little sense if you haven't read the subsection about Cyrus's public image. "Miley's unpredictable behavior" isn't discussed until the public image subsection, and the last paragraph in general feels as if it has little to do with the production of the series. I think you should move the entire paragraph down to the public image subsection, as it'd fit much better down there in my opinion. JOEBRO64 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. @SatDis:, sorry for keeping you waiting so long! Once these comments have been addressed you've got my full support. JOEBRO64 15:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • "Hannah Montana[i] is an American teen sitcom created by Michael Poryes, Rich Correll, and Barry O'Brien that aired on Disney Channel for four seasons between March 2006 and January 2011." "...March{{nbsp}}2006 and January{{nbsp}}2011" per MOS:NBSP
  • "The series concluded on January 16, 2011, as a result of Cyrus's growing popularity and music career" - Cyrus', not Cyrus's. While it's fine either ways but I saw "producers'" in the article so you need to remain consistent.
  • Apologies, but there is a specific reason for this difference, and I am quoting from the article Apostrophe and they are different noun forms.
  • Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound - "all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation" - this is for Cyrus's
  • Basic rule (plural nouns) - "When the noun is a normal plural, with an added "s", no extra "s" is added in the possessive - this is for producers'
Ah, yes. That toally makes sense.
  • "Cyrus won a Young Artist Award for "Best Performance in a TV Series, Leading Young Actress" in 2008" - you don't need to put the award category in quotes.
  • "Miley Stewart is a fourteen-year-old middle school student who appears to live a normal life but has a secret identity, pop singer Hannah Montana, an alias she chose so she could to have a private life away from the public spotlight."
  • "The central conflict of the series is the disconnect between the public and private lives of Miley Stewart, and the lengths to which must go" - there is a pronoun missing after "to which".
  • "Disney selected the pilot for Hannah Montana to progress to a series against a potential spin-off of Lizzie McGuire, which was the network also considered during the 2004–05 pilot season." Grammar issue.
  • "The program and its primary cast were announced in August 2005" - NBSP per above.
  • "Miley Cyrus was revealed to be portraying" - "revealed" is not very encyclopedic.
  • Why is Miley Cyrus linked in the second sentence of casting section when she is also mentioned in the preceding one?
  • "At eleven years old, Miley Cyrus was one of over 1,000 applicants who auditioned for the lead role, originally named Chloe Stewart, after receiving the script from her agents." -> "After receiving the script from her agents, Miley Cyrus, 11 at the time, auditioned against 1,000 applicants for the lead role, originally named Chloe Stewart."
  • "She was rejected throughout the audition process for being too young to play the character" - I think "throughout the audition process" is unnecessary. The previous sentence makes it clear she auditioned.
  • "Billy Ray Cyrus was at first apprehensive about being cast in the show but later accepted the role.[8] He did not want to "screw up Miley's show" and suggested a "real actor" could have been cast instead.[8]" I think you can move the reasons behind his reservations to the part before him accepting the part. Something like "Billy Ray Cyrus was initially apprehensive about being cast in the show—he did not want to "screw up Miley's show" and suggested a "real actor" be cast instead—but later accepted the role."
  • "By April 2006, a soundtrack was scheduled for release in the latter half of the year", "The soundtrack album Hannah Montana was released in October 2006" - NBSP per above.
  • "Jeannie Lurie explained that it was important for the songwriting team to capture the character's voice and feelings within each song's lyrics." Who is Jeannie Lurie? There is no previous mention of her so you should explain her significance here.
  • "Production of the second season began in Los Angeles, California, in November 2006,[3] and concluded in September 2007.[53] In April 2008" - NBSP (November 2006), NBSP (September 2007), NBSP (April 2008)
  • "Production for the season began in January 2010" - see above.
  • "Bickford interpreted the theme song "The Best of Both Worlds" as an expression of Miley's choice between her contradictory identities is.." - awkward phrasing as the part with "is" begins.
  • "The series premiere of Hannah Montana was aired on March 24, 2006, as a lead-in to a rerun of High School Musical, and received 5.4 million viewers.", "By April 2006, Hannah Montana had an average of more than 3.5 million viewers" - NBSP
  • "Cyrus performed a seductive pole dance the following year during her act at the Teen Choice Awards; she later defended the dance, saying it "was right for the song and that performance" while Disney representatives did not comment." -> "Cyrus performed a seductive pole dance the following year during her act at the Teen Choice Awards, later defending it as "right for the song and that performance" while Disney representatives did not comment."
  • "The initial proposal was unsuccessful and in August 2007", "A trial was scheduled to begin in August 2008", "In April 2010, Correll and O'Brien filed a lawsuit against Disney Channel", "By 2016, it was reported the arbitrator found US$18 million in under-reported amounts but the franchise was still operating at a US$24 million", "Poryes had filed a similar lawsuit in October 2008" - NBSP
  • There are other instances of missing NBSP in the films subsection.

There is some work to be done but I think it can all be done in a reasonable amount of time. FrB.TG (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks for the comments, I addressed all of the above. And I apologise for the amount of NBSP issues, as I was unaware of it. Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you for the prompt response.

Support on prose, good work. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate some feedback on my FAC. Totally understandable if the subject does not interest you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

This article already has more than 3 supports, but it looks like we're still missing an image review, planned spot checks by @Hog Farm:, and the review that @Pamzeis: was discussing above. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informal spot checks I did came up clean, no copvio or source-text integrity noted in what I checked. Hog Farm Talk 06:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you!!! SatDis (talk)

Image review

[edit]
  • Alt texts are too long—they should be short enough to describe the gist of the image, not a full accounting of its details
  • Free use licenses and FURs all good
  • DefenseImagery.mil isn't loading for me, for the last concert image—looks like it went down in 2019—so I can't verify the source. I'm willing to AGF based on the upload data but it might not hold up to closer scrutiny. Recommend replacing with an image that has been reviewed/archived for longevity.
  • None of the above blocks the FAC criteria so image review passed czar 18:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor

[edit]

I know I am late to the party, but this passes the criteria for a featured article. It is well written and well sourced. Well done, @SatDis:! --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:41, 2 February 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2022 [144].


Nicoll Highway MRT station

[edit]
Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a Singapore MRT station that has a rather dark period during its construction history. Following what I learned from my previous two FAC nominations, I hope this will fit the criteria.ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: licensing looks good, but the external image box is sandwiching with the infobox (I would suggest removing, as the collapse has its own article and the external image could be linked there) and the NCH collapse map.png should be removed or scaled up to be readable (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Has scaled up the image of the map. Still essential to visualise the realignment of stationa and tunnels. ZKang123 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

==== Cmments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) ====

  • "S$270 million (US$150.7 million)" - inflation?
  • 100-by-130-by-30-metre is extremely awkward
  • Please specify "Circle line", "Republic Avenue", "Golden Mile Tower", and more. For example, "Circle line" to "Circle MRT line" with linking.
  • "intended" sounds like reading someone's intent. Removing them would be better for prose crispness, such as "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station..." -> "The platform's dark, polished seats complement the rest of the station..."
  • List is not exhaustive

Overall: I found the article to be a good read, but I have a feeling that the prose can be better. I support the nomination for almost all criteria except 1a, 1c (haven't checked), and 1f (haven't checked). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will review this later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • Are there any more details that can be added to the lead about the station design and name/location?
  • "First announced as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL), the station was incorporated into Stage 1 of the CCL" - When (for both of these)?
  • "claiming four lives" - Should this be "killing four people"?

History:

  • "The MRL consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium stations." - This should be "from the Dhoby Ghaut station to the Stadium station", "from Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station", or even "from Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium". In the second instance, "Stadium station" is singular, even though it's a span of several stations, because it's from one single station to another single station.
  • "and associated tunnels" - Does this mean the tunnels surrounding the station?
  • "From 16 March 2002" - Not sure if this is a WP:ENGVAR thing, but should this be "Starting on 16 March 2002"?
  • "A new overhead bridge was constructed so that pedestrians could cross over the highway between the bus stops and The Concourse" - Did these works end before the collapse?

Station collapse:

  • "the tunnels linking to the station" - This is a similar question to the "associated tunnels" query I had.
  • "creating a hole 100 meters long, 130 meters wide, and 30 meters deep (328 by 427 by 98 ft)" - In all cases, these should be spelled as "metres".
  • "The incident claimed the lives of four people with three injured" - This can be simplified to "Four people were killed and three were injured".
  • "the search for the last victim's body had to be called off" - After how long? This may seem like a small detail, but there is a major difference between calling off a search after several days and making the immediate determination to call off the search.
  • "after the collapse, to minimise further damage to the collapsed area" - The comma can be removed.
  • "Works were suspended at 16 of the 24 CCL dig sites to allow a review of the sites" - This sounds slightly redundant due to the repetition of "sites". Can this be reworded? Also, it may help to use active voice, e.g. "Contractors halted work at 16 of the 24 CCL dig sites so these could be reviewed."
  • "The remaining equipment and material at the site were encased" - The word "encased" is slightly unclear. Was the equipment and material buried under infill? Or were the equipment and material just left in the construction box and sealed off?
  • "such that the new highway" - This can be condensed to "so the new highway"
  • "Through an investigation by a Committee of Inquiry (COI), the report" - The text currently doesn't explicitly say the COI published the report, so I would make that clearer.
  • Some uncommon words such as deflection (engineering) and inclinometer should be linked.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It was decided against rebuilding at the original site due to engineering challenges and higher costs" - I suggest using active voice for this.
  • "while the 1.8 km (1.1 mi) tunnels" -This should be either "1.8 km (1.1 mi) of tunnels" or "1.8-km (1.1 mi) tunnels" (using 1.8-kilometre as an adjective)
  • "The new station site had thicker 1.5 m (4.9 ft) retaining walls reaching 60 metres (200 ft) in height[30] – twice the previous depth.[29] " - Two things here:
    • Does this mean the retaining walls are 1.5 metres thick, or the retaining walls are 1.5 metres thicker? If the former, I would suggest "The new station site had thicker retaining walls of 1.5 m (4.9 ft)"
    • Are the retaining walls 60 metres in height or in depth?
  • "On 29 September 2005, the LTA marked the start of the new station's construction with a ground-breaking ceremony" - The relocated site?
  • What happened between 29 September 2005, and 26 January 2010? That paragraph seems like it lacks detail, at least given how the section about the collapse has much more detail.
  • "Prior to its opening, passengers were offered a preview of the station" - This should be "Prior to the station's opening"; currently, the pronoun "it" refers to the noun "passengers" grammatically.
Services:
  • "that line had to be realigned as the new station did not have provisions for the line" - The word "line" is repeated twice in this sentence, being mentioned a total of three times, so I would rephrase this to make the sentence less repetitive.
  • By the way, has that future line been realigned at both Promenade and Nicoll Highway, or just Nicoll Highway?
  • Are the train frequencies all day?
Name and location
  • "As the name suggests, the station is located near Nicoll Highway underneath Republic Avenue" - For those who are unfamiliar with the area, it would help to add which neighborhood this station is in. More generally (for other MRT stations), it may be worth mentioning which region the station is in, like Central Region, Singapore, unless these regions get changed a lot.
  • "The name of the station was its working name" - This was the name given to the station while it was in planning?
  • "two other names for the station..." - This is also somewhat repetitive, given how it comes right after "the name of the station was its working name". I presume one of these was supposed to be the final names?
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Services:
  • "and has train frequencies ranging between 5 and 7 minutes " - I'd suggest condensing this to something such as "with trains running every 5 to 7 minutes"
Design:
  • "The two-level underground station has a length of 165 metres (541 ft) and the platforms are at a depth of 21.5 metres (71 ft)" - I would also condense this: e.g. "The two-level underground station is 165 metres (541 ft) long and the platforms are 21.5 metres (71 ft) deep"
  • "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station's modern design" - Are these art seats?
  • "The station has two entrances, with Exit A of the station connecting to The Concourse via an overhead pedestrian bridge" - Two things here:
    • "The station has two entrances, with Exit A" should be consistent with regard to entrances/exits. So i.e. "The station has two exits"; however, I realise this could be repetitive.
    • ""The station has two entrances, with Exit A of the station" - The words "of the station" are unnecessary. I would suggest "The station has two exits, with Exit A
    • Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are wider fare gates" - All of the fare gates are wide, or just some of them?
Artwork
This is a decent article, and I didn't find too many problems with it. I understand it may be difficult to find sources about the post-collapse construction and station design, and this looks good otherwise. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All my concerns have been addressed. Though relatively short, this seems like a comprehensive article to me, considering the available coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for over three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it receives further in depth attention by the four week mark I am afraid that it is going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KN2731

[edit]

I'll take a look at this as requested. I've previously reviewed the article for GA status last August. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things at first glance:

  • "the station serves various developments along Nicoll Highway" - "various" doesn't really add value to the sentence since examples are quickly provided. Maybe change to a mix of commercial/residential/industrial?
  • The section titled "Station collapse" should probably be "Tunnel collapse" instead - a reader may get the impression that part of the underground station itself caved in, when in actuality it was the section of tunnels about a third of the way to Stadium.
  • "train frequencies ranging between 5 and 7 minutes in both directions daily" - does it go lower during peak hours? It's been a couple years but I recall intervals being 3 to 4 minutes at around 7 in the morning.

I'll look more closely once you've responded to the other 3 reviewers so I don't end up flagging an issue that's already been raised. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which the government had accepted" → no need "had"
  • "the station [...] would be opened on 17 April" → would open/begin operations
  • "The two-level underground station has a length of 165 metres (541 ft) and a depth of 21.5 metres (71 ft)." Should be "at a depth"?
  • I feel like the realigned "unspecified future line" is almost certainly the DTL but if there's no source supporting that it's fine.

That's all I have. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reviews so far. Addressed them. Well, the LTA in the source never specified which future line, though it's likely the Bukit Timah Line (now DTL2), or actually the Kallang line (the early Marina line plans suggested a branch to Kallang). This will probably remain lost among the discarded LTA archives... ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support at this stage. Great work. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

[edit]

Another nice article from you, and I see you've implemented some of my comments from Chinatown! :) I'll also do a source review too. Gerald WL 11:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "The station was first announced in November 1999 as part of the Marina MRT line (MRL). The MRL consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station." --> "Nicoll Highway station was first announced in November 1999 as part of the Mass Rapid Transit's Marina line (MRL), which consisted of six stations from the Dhoby Ghaut to Stadium station."
Source review
[edit]

The sources are similar to those of Chinatown so I pass this article for its source choices. However, ref 32 seems to have a formatting problem with the website parameter. Remove the urls in website parameter-- "journey.smrt.com.sg", "lta.gov.sg", "mot.gov.sg"-- as they're redundant duplicates of the publisher. Link Singapore Land Authority.

  • Honestly, Im just being kiasu and just had both. But I will hide down. If a subsequent reviewer said to keep, then I will show it.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lmao I get the kiasu dilemma, get that a lot when editing. But yeah I don't think the url names are important, the publisher makes it clearer as to what the source name is. Anyways that's a pass for source. GeraldWL 12:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note

I'll look through this FAC tomorrow to see if it's ready to promote. (t · c) buidhe 11:55, 2 February 2022 (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_2022&oldid=1074558035"