Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2024

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [1].

Tomorrow Speculative Fiction

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a science fiction magazine edited by Algis Budrys in the 1990s. It began as a print magazine and was one of the first to attempt the migration to an online format, but Budrys could not get enough subscribers to make the magazine profitable. It was never a major force in the genre, but it published material by some well known writers, including Ursula Le Guin and Harlan Ellison.

I have a possible conflict of interest to declare: I sold a story to Budrys, and it appeared in the first issue of the magazine. The article does not mention it (nor do I think it should) so I hope this does not amount to a real conflict, but I wanted to make sure reviewers were aware of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

That's all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- all addressed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all addressed and I can't think of anything else. Support. Steelkamp (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Thanks for the review; all responded to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, just checking to see if you have more comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I'm stretched for time, but I'll hopefully be back for another look soon. Directors, please don't hold up the review on my account! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Readership grew while the magazine was free to read on the web, but when he began charging for subscriptions readership plummeted." "readership" twice in the sentence?
  • "In the late 1990s". Typo?
  • "published in print and online in the United States from 1993 ..." But it actually started publication in 1992.

And that's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed; I decided not to explain in the lead why the start year is not the cover date of the first issue -- the body goes into more detail and I think it would be excessive detail to explain that in the lead. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

I'll try to find the time to do a full review. For now, I'll start by noting that the "The" is part of the title of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (they are at times inconsistent in how they present the title, to be sure, but the self-referential entry is titled "Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, The"). TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • The article seems rather brief, though perhaps there isn't much to say about a magazine that had such a short run.
    I don't think there's significant content missing. I do have access to reviews of many individual issues, but other than a couple of general comments that I've already made use of, they consist of analysis of the individual stories and aren't really suited to this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notes that "Nothing of the website remains and detailed contents data have been lost, although much or all of the content is preserved in somewhat disorganized form at the Internet Archive". That the website is defunct (not just no-longer-updated) should be stated explicitly somewhere in the article for comprehrensiveness. That the contents have been preserved is, I think, optional to include.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Publishing history
Contents and reception
Bibliographic details

TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support Looks good to me, though I'm not at all confident that I would be able to pick up on serious issues with an article on this topic. TompaDompa (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Extended content
  • Spotchecked Ashley 2016, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction/SFE but cannot vouch for sentences that cite multiple sources
  • The author of "Replay" looks familiar :)
    Yes, my only fiction sale! I had more or less quit writing by that time, but I'd been in a workshop with Budrys after submitting it to the Writers of the Future competition in about 1988, and when he started Tomorrow he remembered it and asked me to submit it. It was listed as one of the stories of the month in the Locus review, which was nice -- though Kelly also had a negative comment (probably justified) about the story! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

czar 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

czar 03:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One edit you made I would like to revisit -- both Clarion and the Writers of the Future were venues in which Budrys worked with new writers; that's why that "and" was there. I'd like to retain that connection -- any thoughts about a way to phrase it that would make that clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that wasn't a clear connection in the prior phrasing. How about this, assuming it's still supported by the source I cannot access. czar 04:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine. I can't officially check that it's fully supported by the source till Monday but will do so then, though I'm sure it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked and it is fully supported, but the phrase "had enjoyed working with new writers" is identically phrased in the source (and was before you edited it). I've reworked this a little more to avoid that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Just one thing from me. In the Lead, you have "from 1992 through 1999": is this better than saying "from 1992 to 1999"? (which is shorter, says the same thing and is more international in usage, rather than something that sounds odd – to my ear, at least). That's the only query I have. How you deal with it will not affect my

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [2].

Oyster dress

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, Alexander McQueen was known for tight tailoring and sharp cuts. He made dresses, but he didn't make dresses. Then he went to work for Givenchy, where he learned the real art of dressmaking. Channelling his obsession with outdoing British designer John Galliano, he came up with the oyster dress, a riff on Galliano's 1987 shellfish dress that blew the original out of the water. The oyster dress, a full-length gown in layers of distressed beige chiffon that appeared in Irere (S/S 2003), is one of McQueen's most famous designs. Only two copies of the original are known to exist, owned by The Met in New York and Kim Kardashian, respectively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "Contemporary and retrospective reception to the dress was positive" - I would say the noun should be plural, as we are talking about two distinct receptions (although keeping the noun as "reception" is fine)
    • I don't think it should be, but I've rewritten the sentence to split the Gordian knot :P
  • "According to friend Sebastian Pons" => "According to his friend Sebastian Pons"
    • Fixed
  • "The Met has owned their copy since 2003" - singular/plural disagreement
    • Revised the sentence
      • I'm still seeing "The Met has (singular) owned their (plural) copy since 2003" in the footnote. Apologies if my comment above was a little unclear as to the exact point in the article that I was referring to....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, sorry, yeah, there were a few other points where I had "The Met...their" so I had fixed those but forgot the footnote.
  • That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Aside from my usual grumble about the false titles, the following may be of use:

Lead
  • "originated as a riff": a bit casual – may be worth rephrasing so it's a little more encyclopaedic
    • Changed to "as an interpretation of" in both instancees
  • "response to the dress was positive": is this the shellfish dress? That's the last one mentioned
    • Clarified
  • "the famed Galliano original": -> "the famed Galliano original"
    • I'll argue for keeping famed given that it's both supported by the sources, and significant to what McQueen was doing. People notice when you try to top something that's impressive and well-known to begin with. McQueen wasn't interested in outdoing Galliano's mediocre work, he could do that with his eyes closed. He wanted to outdo the guy's best to prove a point (even if mostly to himself) and he blew it out of the water.
Background
  • "[3][24][25][26]": you've got a few places where cite-bundling may be useful to make the reading experience a bit easier
    • I wound up revising these two instances instead to remove or replace references that turned out to be superfluous on comparison with stronger references, rather than cite bundling
Development
  • "The "oyster dress" is a riff": as above

That's my lot – I hope they help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Support. Have made trivial edits. The article is short but comprehensive, clear and pleasingly succinct/ free of puff. The usual high quality sources and prose from this nominator. Wouldn't be my favourite of McQueen's dresses, but fine. Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edge3

[edit]

Just a few comments:

  • "Spring/Summer 2003" and "Autumn/Winter 2006" – Per MOS:SEASON: Avoid using season names, and even if you do use them, they should be uncapitalized.
  • Normally this is correct, but in the fashion world "Spring/Summer" and "Fall/Winter" are used as proper nouns denoting seasons of fashion as opposed to natural seasons, the other two being Resort and Pre-Fall (see [3], [4], [5], [6] for a couple of examples). (Comment copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armadillo shoe/archive1). I've used this format in all my fashion-related articles and it hasn't been an issue.
  • Do we have an article on the seasons in the fashion industry? I think an explanatory footnote would be helpful. For instance, the first link you provided points out that the "spring/summer" season doesn't begin during the spring or summer. My concern is that a casual reader might be confused as to when these seasons occur. Edge3 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have an article, no. I'm not sure a footnote is necessary, it hasn't been a point of confusion so far. All the reader needs to know is that this is for X season, not the intricate details of what the seasons entail. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We shouldn't assume that readers aren't confused simply because they haven't spoken up. MOS:SEASON is written to avoid ambiguity, especially considering that the fashion weeks are all held in the northern hemisphere, particularly in places where there are four seasons (Paris, New York, Milan, and London). Readers who live in other regions would not necessarily agree on when "spring/summer" and "autumn/winter" take place. While I appreciate that you're trying to be consistent with your previous fashion-related FAs, I don't see how this practice is consistent with MOS:SEASON, and the Armadillo shoe FAC didn't really address this issue in depth. And for what it's worth, fashion show uses lowercase "spring/summer" and "fall/winter" in the lead section. Edge3 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking about readers, I'm talking about the FAC reviewers for the other dozen fashion-related FAs I've done, none of whom seemed confused by the notion or brought it up as a concern. The armadillo FAC didn't address it in further depth because the reviewer accepted my rationale and didn't see it as an issue to pursue.
  • MOS:SEASON specifically says "Referring to a season by name is appropriate when it is part of a formal or conventional name or designation" and gives the Winter Olympics, a capitalized proper noun, as an example. The usage of "Autumn/Winter XXXX" is appropriate under this guidance. It is a proper noun designation that does not refer to literal autumn and winter, it refers to fashion's Autumn/Winter season. It cues the reader to know that the clothing was intended to be appropriate for autumn and winter, regardless of whether the reader experiences that season in December or in July. That's as much context as is required for understanding.
  • Finally, fashion show may use lowercase, but it isn't an FA or GA and hasn't been written to any quality standard, so I would hardly take a cue from it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's possible that other FAC reviewers in your previous articles didn't even consider MOS:SEASON, and one brief thread in the Armadillo shoe FAC really doesn't resolve the issue one way or the other. Also, the sources don't agree on whether to capitalize. For instance, Harper's Bazaar, which you cite numerous times, uses lowercase "spring/summer". Edge3 (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It does. Some publications choose to do this, which is annoying. On the other hand, publications I would consider authoritative, such as the websites for two of the Big Four fashion weeks (London and Paris) use capitals. When not stylizing for headlines, the Council of Fashion Designers of America uses proper nouns, as does Fashion Week Online, the main news site for all fashion weeks: [7], [8].
  • In order to clearly distinguish the lowercase natural seasons from the proper noun designation of a given fashion season, I have chosen to consistently capitalize, specifically to avoid confusion between the two concepts, and consistent with industry organizations. The use of uppercased seasons for these articles is perfectly consistent with MOS:SEASONS, which as I've already pointed out makes a clear exception for conventional names and designations. I am not going to lowercase it (introducing confusion with natural seasons) or remove it (literally removing information which is useful to the reader). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that sources disagree on whether to capitalize the season names tells me that the sources are treating them as natural seasons rather than proper nouns. If the seasons were proper nouns, as you suggest, then all sources would use capitalization because proper nouns are typically capitalized. MOS:PROPER.
  • MOS:SEASONS provides the following examples: annual mid-winter festival; the autumn harvest; 2018 Winter Olympics; Times Fall Books Supplement; details appeared in Quarterly Review, Summer 2015; the court's winter term. "Winter Olympics" is capitalized because the word "Olympics" itself is a proper noun (i.e. the name of an event). [9]. Times and Quarterly Review are more problematic because a Google search for "Times Fall Books Supplement" yielded no exact matches (Are we talking about the New York Times, or something else?), and Quarterly Review ceased publication in 1967 and had issues identified by months rather than by seasons. [10].
  • Even if we accept Times and Quarterly Review to be valid examples in MOS:SEASONS, they are capitalized because periodical names are capitalized, and the seasons are part of the periodical title. In this case, "spring/summer" and "autumn/winter" are used to describe fashion seasons, and seasons generally aren't capitalized.
  • Just in case, I'm going to ping @FAC coordinators: to see if we can get extra opinions on the MOS. Edge3 (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments are contradictory. You first argued to remove the season entirely based on a misreading of MOS:SEASONS, including a complaint that it could be confusing to mention seasons because natural seasons are not consistent across the globe. That is correct, natural seasons are not consistent, but a season in fashion is not the same thing as a natural season of the earth.
    Now you appear to have given up stumping for removal, but are arguing for lowercasing the words. This is based on another misreading, this time of of MOS:PROPER, where you argue that if they were truly proper nouns, "all sources would use capitalization". MOS:PROPER does not say anything close to this; the first sentence of that section actually says they are "typically capitalized". Typically, as in usually but not always; the fact that a few sources use a different house style does not invalidate the fact that industry sources use capitalization.
    Regardless, using lowercase would introduce exactly the kind of confusion you were cautioning against originally. In order to prevent confusion between natural seasons and seasons in fashion, it is reasonable for us to make a common sense decision and follow along with capitalizing, in order to clearly distinguish "Spring/Summer XXXX" as referring to a specific season of fashion, not to the natural seasons of the earth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not being contradictory. Rather, my views are evolving as I'm trying to accommodate your concerns while adhering to our own MOS, which trumps any other style guide. Frankly, I'd prefer to get additional opinions on this thread as I think we're at an impasse.
  • Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), which you cited previously, liberally capitalizes any phrase that could be construed as a proper noun: e.g. "Official New York Fashion Week (NYFW) Schedule" would be written as "official New York Fashion Week (NYFW) schedule" under our MOS. CFDA also capitalizes terms like "Fashion Fund", "Travel Fund", and "Fashion Calendar", all of which would be lowercase under our MOS. Similarly, Fashion Week Online is capitalizing terms like "Streetwear", "Avant Garde", "Collection", all of which may be suitable under its own style guide but not for ours.
  • MOS:PROPER states the limited circumstances under which proper nouns are not capitalized. (See MOS:PEOPLANG, MOS:RACECAPS, and the other subsections for discussion of when proper nouns would not be capitalized.) MOS:PROPER is part of the broader guideline MOS:CAPS, whose stated goal is to "avoid[] unnecessary capitalization". MOS:CAPS does not have a specific section directly relating to fashion, but MOS:ACTCAPS (for "activities") states: ....[A]ctivities that are not trademarked or copyrighted are not capitalized (except where one contains a proper name or acronym, or begins a sentence). So "Winter Olympics" would be capitalized, either because it is a trademark or because it's capitalized by convention under MOS:SPORTCAPS. On the other hand, seasons in the fashion context are neither proper nouns nor trademarks, so capitalization is not permitted under our MOS. Edge3 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • "Watt and Thomas both described..." – Who is Watt?
  • Oop, casualty of being a split, fixed
  • Footnote "a" refers to Savage Beauty, which isn't mentioned until the following sentence. I suggesting moving the footnote to the end of the paragraph.
  • Moved

Overall, nice work! Edge3 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I am usually a stickler for such things, I don't see that MOS:SEASONS applies here. The article could say 'his Blah Blah collection, and so long as that is how the sources refer to it it would be correct. Nor do I think that a further explanation for a reader is necessary in this case. I have reviewed previous McQueen FACs, noted the use of seasons, considered that SEASONS does not apply and so not mentioned it. I would expand "The Widows of Culloden (Autumn/Winter 2006)" to 'The Widows of Culloden (Autumn/Winter 2006 collection)' though. I note in passing that as Wikipedia is an unreliable source, another main space article cannot be referred to as a precedent. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild Same question as to SchroCat above. Would you allow capitalization of the seasons? Edge3 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing that. I would not allow it, but require it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; could you please clarify? It's not allowed but required? In any event, MOS:SEASONS disfavors capitalization, and so does MOS:ACTCAPS. So I'm hoping that you could elaborate on your reasoning. Edge3 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with those above saying that the season names are OK and should be capitalized. Capitalization is needed because "Spring/Summer" is not the name of a season (or two seasons); it's a standard term within the industry that takes its name from those seasons. Reliable sources capitalize them and so should we. An analogous case is "Spring 1990" as the date of a quarterly magazine; if the magazine gives itself that date, as opposed to "May 1990", we don't override it and we capitalize because that's what sources on magazines do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Mike said. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even for something as simple as a quarterly publication, the sources are not consistent. Art Therapy uses lowercase "spring issue of", while Art Tour International uses the capitalized version. A quick Google search reveals several more examples of both the lowercase and capitalized versions. One could argue that our MOS requires capitalization per MOS:TITLECAPS, since magazines are a literary work. But we have no such guideline on capitalization for fashion events specifically, and the reliable sources on fashion don't even agree on whether to capitalize. (As stated previously, Harper's Bazaar uses lowercase.)
MOS:SEASON provides the court's winter term as an example, which is probably the closest analogy. It is a court "term" whose name comes from "winter", much like how fashion seasons derive their names from seasons. But we don't capitalize terms, even when the US Supreme Court does. Edge3 (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like eight different people have now told you your interpretation is incorrect, including one of the FAC coords you pinged. How can you not accept that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PMC, you don't have to convince a reviewer; it's the coords who'll decide if this is an actionable comment. Edge3, MOS:SEASON actually uses the example of a magazine title with an uppercase season, so I don't think you can use the MOS to argue it should not be capped. If you think that's incorrect you'd need to start a discussion on that talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 05:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike is correct. (Of course.) In the case of an issue at FAC proving irresolvable, the reviewer flags up which criteria they believe is not met and, briefly, in what way. The reviewer may or may not feel strongly enough about it to also formally oppose. The nominator briefly summarises why they disagree. Both of these commonly consist of "See discussion above". The @FAC coordinators: will then decide the merits of the views when closing the nomination, along with whether a consensus to promote has been achieved. They would usually briefly give their reasoning. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we have been at an impasse for quite some time. Such is the nature of consensus-driven editing on WP; we're not going to agree all the time.
I am opposed, and I summarize my review feedback as follows:
  • I agree with the others on this thread that using season names is appropriate under MOS:SEASON, so the "spring/summer" and "autumn/winter" designations may remain. I withdraw my objection on that ground.
  • I am not persuaded that capitalization of season names is appropriate, especially in light of MOS:CAPS, which discourages "unnecessary capitalization". MOS:CAPS refers to phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources. Additionally, MOS:ACTCAPS states, ....activities that are not trademarked or copyrighted are not capitalized (except where one contains a proper name or acronym...). Although MOS:CAPS requires capitalization for most proper nouns (MOS:PROPER), the substantial majority of reliable sources do not consistently treat fashion seasons as a proper noun.
I would support FA status on the other criteria, as I find this article to be well written and thoroughly researched. Since I'm in the minority position on the MOS, and the other participants on this thread have given their MOS-based arguments in favor of capitalization, the FAC should be able to proceed without further debate. Edge3 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Is it necessary to use two non-free images to show what the dress looks like? The rationales don't indicate that. Nor do they indicate whether it could be replaced with a freely-created image of the dress. I think the ALT text could be more descriptive of what the dress looks like. Source-wise, I don't think The Guardian needs an ISSN, especially since it's not consistently applied. It seems like the sources are partly fairly prominent magazines and books from prominent publishers. Have these sources been inspected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. I believe the two NFCC images are necessary. One shows the actual dress, which is obviously necessary, and IMO it's relevant to show the shellfish dress so people can see just how thoroughly McQueen transformed Galliano's concept. What part of the rationale do you believe is lacking? I clearly explain that the dresses are unique creations, not on public display or commercially available, so it is not possible to create a free image. The same rationale has been accepted for images at every other McQueen article so far.
Alt text has been enhanced and ISSN removed.
At this stage in my McQueen project, I can confidently say I have thoroughly combed every major source that discusses Alexander McQueen, and a significant majority of the minor sources as well. I would be frankly astonished if there were a source in English that discussed the oyster dress in detail that isn't represented in this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NFCC#1 rationale needs to say (in addition to what it already says) that the costume is probably copyrighted and thus can't be recreated as a free image. It is not clear why showing one dress style requires two non-free images; wouldn't one suffice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dress itself isn't copyrighted. Clothing designs are not copyrightable in the US or in the UK ([11], [12]). It can't be recreated as a free image because it's a unique item not on public display anywhere. This rationale has not been problematic in any other McQueen FAC, nearly all of which have used NFCC images of unavailable items.
One image will not suffice. The original oyster dress doesn't look a damn thing like Galliano's shellfish dress. The entire point is to demonstrate visually just how distinct the designs are. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the clothing isn't copyrightable then that opens the possibility that someone might recreate it and make a free photo. Which would make the non-free photo fail [[WP::NFCC#1]]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would understand your argument if this article were about a style of dress, let's say a little black dress - obviously for that article any little black dress will do. But it's about one specific dress, Alexander McQueen's oyster dress. If I were to somehow contrive to produce a recreation of the dress, it would still not be Alexander McQueen's oyster dress. It would be my knockoff of Alexander McQueen's oyster dress. An image of my version would not serve as a visual identifier of Alexander McQueen's oyster dress, it would serve as a visual identifier of my crappy knockoff. Just because fashion can't be copyrighted under a particular legal regime does not mean that this particular dress is not a unique object of art. I cover the uniqueness in the NFCC rationale, an NFCC rationale which has been acceptable at just shy of a dozen fashion FACs at this point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything else you guys are looking for here? The image review has not been responded to in 10 days now and Jo-Jo has been editing, so I have to assume they have no further objections. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for some third opinion, but if the article is more about that particular presentation than about a style your argument works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, just checking - is that a pass for both? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source, conditional (the article being mainly about a particular presentation rather than the style) pass for images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • "in a manner that resembles an oyster shell", "resembling an oyster shell or a mille-feuille pastry". Any chance of an illustration of an oyster shell to demonstrate this similarity to those readers who cannot readily call a mental image of an oyster shell to mind?
    • I feel genuinely silly for not thinking of this, added
  • "Only two copies are known to exist, held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York City and the media personality Kim Kardashian." Perhaps 'Only two copies are known to exist, one held by the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Met) in New York City and the other by media personality Kim Kardashian'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is better

Thanks for your comments Gog, adjustments made. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello PMC, thanks for another fine McQueen article. I have a few questions and suggestions...

top

  • short description - move to top
    • Done

lede

  • The oyster dress is a high fashion dress - per mos:redundancy how about swapping second "dress" to "gown" here (then in next sentence at "McQueen's design is a one-shouldered gown in" go back to "dress").
    • Done
  • high fashion dress/gown - needs a hyphen?
    • I don't think so
  • hundreds of individual circles of chiffon were sewn - chiffon v organza, the circles were organza? see comment below at Development
    • Who
  • The dress originated as an interpretation of a 1987 - It's a reinterpretation? A search seems to indicate interpret is to explain while reinterpret is to render in a different way eg and eg and eg. Thomas p. 326 uses "reinterpretation".
    • Sure, changed in both instances
  • design by British designer - 2x design, maybe creation/created? gown? or change "a 1987 design by British designer John Galliano called the "shellfish dress", which" to something like 'the "shellfish dress" designed by John Galliano in 1987'.
    • I like your second version

Development and runway show

  • The "oyster dress" is as an - remove as
    • Typo, fixed
  • an interpretation of a 1987 design - reinterpretation as mentioned above?
    • Yep
  • Hundreds of individual circles of chiffon were sewn - organza, per McQueen talking in Ref 3, and Sarah Burton speaks of the top being tulle and chiffon and the organza circles applied to the skirt (in quote box)
    • Ah yeah
  • An estimated 180–260 metres - that's a very broad range difference. I can't access p 196 of Watt's book. Does she say only 180? McQueen says "260 meters of organza" for "the circles". So if the sewn-on circles took 260 m of organza, there must have also been x metres used of chiffon and tulle for the boned top and many many more for the base skirt?
    • In order: yes, it is. McQueen was a bullshit artist (affectionate), so I always assume he's exaggerating whenever he gives some kind of figure, hence providing the lower estimate as well. Watt gives 200 yards, which converts to 180 m.
    • I mean yes, but no sources discuss how much fabric and material the rest of the dress took, and the article doesn't make any claims about the rest of the dress, so I'm not sure I see your point.
  • or a mille-feuille pastry - italics per article?
    • Done
  • In addition to the original beige dress, a version with a red bodice and the ruffled skirt in rainbow colours was also created - link bodice
    • Done
  • A version with a red bodice and the ruffled skirt in rainbow appeared in the final phase as Look 49 - repetitive of the above? change "A" to "The"?
    • Trimmed
  • calling it the "Rainbow Cancan" dress - possibly link cancan?
    • Sure

Legacy

  • The Cartner-Morley quote "as soft and close as ripples on sand" - not in Ref 38 Vogue (Mower)? I found it in Guardian here
    • Huh, this is so strange. Everywhere through the history of Irere, the Morley ref was there. Then in the split, it magically became Mower. VE error, I have to assume. Anyway, rescued.
  • early focus on tailored designs and had mastered draping - perhaps link Draped garment#Present day use though it's not really what they are discussing?
    • It actually is, it's just such a shit section
  • the destroyed look of the dress - perhaps pipe Distressing
    • Sure
  • 2004 wedding of his then-assistant Sarah Burton. - "then-" is redundant?
    • I suppose

Extant copies

  • both stagings of the retrospective exhibition Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty - close italics markup
  • archival red carpet wear, noting - possibly link Red carpet fashion, probably should have hyphen ie red-carpet wear
    • I definitely don't think that's correct, but I've done the link
  • Is there a better way to wrap up than talking about Kardashian?
    • Not really, she's the one who most recently did anything notable with the dress.

References

  • Refs 5 and 38 both same Mower article?
    • VE again; fixed
  • Ref 18 Beker, Jeanne - authorlink
    • Fixed
  • Ref 27 Diderich, Joelle - definitely the Brisbane Courier-Mail?
  • Ref 55 Marx, Patricia - authorlink
    • Linked

Bibliography

  • Wilcox, Claire - tweak alpha order
    • Done

Image

  • Is this oyster a better illustration?
    • I don't think so, I don't love the black background

Categories

  • add Category:Individual dresses
    • Done

A delight to read, thanks, JennyOz (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2024 (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) 29 February 2024 [13].

The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spy Who Loved Me is an anomaly among the Bond novels, being the least Bond-y Bond of all the Bonds. It's the only one written in a first-person narrative - and it's not even Bond's narrative, nor does he appear until two-thirds of the book is done. It wasn't well-received by the critics or public, for whom there was not enough Bond in the book, but it still has some points of interest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

I've done the lead for now, but will get to the rest when I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • I'd consider making a link to note B after the ninth novel and tenth book in Ian Fleming's James Bond series in the lead: yes, MOS:LEADCITE, but it's not technically a citation, and I think most readers will be confused as to how this sentence can be true.
  • a clear departure from previous Bond novels in that the story is told in the first person by a young Canadian woman, Viv Michel: I'd rephrase this to be clear that the departure is being told in the first person at all (or by someone who isn't Bond?), not being told in the first person by a young Canadian woman, Viv Michel. Cutting the sentence after first person and saying something like "Its narrator is..." would help.
  • Fleming wrote a prologue to the novel giving Viv credit as a co-author: is it worth being absolutely explicit, either here or earlier, that Viv is fictional? At least part of me is doubting myself.
    Fleming would be absolutely delighted, I'm sure! - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story contains themes of Saint George against the dragon, power and the moral ambiguity: the first of these is a motif rather than a theme. Suggest "uses a recurring motif of Saint George against the dragon, and contains themes of..."
  • As the narrator who told : it's fiction, so present tense: who tells ... expresses.
  • Viv is the best-realised and most rounded: no hyphen here (predicative, not attributive).
  • female characterisation: female character, surely? I do wonder whether the (fitting) double entendre of most rounded female character was intentional...
    Ha! No it wasn't - and I suppose it's too late to claim it is now. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a later letter to his editor: we don't actually have any sense of when this was, either in the article or the lead, though F's use of has sounds to me like it was fairly soon after he read those reviews.
  • Following the reactions by critics and fans: I'd go with reactions of, and perhaps negative reactions of: we haven't actually said that the fans disliked it yet.
  • Fleming attempted to suppress elements of the novel where he could: cut "when he could": we'd hardly expect him to attempt to do something he couldn't attempt to do.
  • he blocked a paperback edition in the United Kingdom and when he sold the film rights to Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli they were permitted to use only the title but none of the plot of the book: a run-on sentence. Could cut after United Kingdom and drop the and -- otherwise, though I know it'll be anathema, comma off: and, when he ... Broccoli, they were...
  • In the tenth film in the Eon Productions series, released in 1977: elegant variation, but it isn't quite clear that this is indeed The Spy Who Loved Me. Suggest something like "in the film that bears the book's name, the tenth in the Eon production series..."
    Went a slightly different way, but should hopefully have the same outcome. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • only the character of one of the villains, Jaws, is loosely based on a character in the book: are other things closely based on characters from the book?
  • in daily comic strip format in 1967–1968: I'd do between 1967 and 1968 to avoid the awkward repetition.
  • and a British paperback edition was published after Fleming's death: of the novel, or the comic strip?
    Both, actually, but I meant the novel, so now clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be a major loss to change the verbose as well as a clear departure from previous Bond novels in that the story is told in the first person. into simply as well as the only Bond novel [story?] told in the first person.?
  • arriving as a deus ex machina: the Latinist in me isn't totally happy with the literal meaning of this -- Bond, of course, isn't actually a god and doesn't actually come out of the scenery. Could change the link text to something "arriving at precisely the right moment"? Separately: in the body text, we've presented this as Bold's individual, subjective opnion: we've promoted it to a matter of fact in the lead.
  • Viv is the best realised and most rounded female character in the Bond canon: I'd be happier if this subjective statement were phrased more objectively: "Viv has often been called..." or something.
  • Following the negative reactions of critics and readers: I still think we need to say, somewhere in the previous paragraph, that readers didn't like it either: perhaps something about how badly it sold? It's not uncommon for a book to be critically panned but commercially beloved.
    I've cut the readers out of the equation entirely: there isn't enough in the sources to say that (even through undoubtedly correct), but I'll look again to see if I can see something about sales being less than previous works. - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first person story: hyphenate first-person when used attributively, as here.
  • Link James Bond in the blockquote as first mention in body?
  • With the manuscript was a note signed 'Vivienne Michel': I'd use double-quotes here, as the blockquote doesn't actually have quotation marks around it. Likewise in the following quotation.
  • Would link Official Secrets Act in the same quote (you may need to find the right one)
  • Vivienne "Viv" Michel, a young Canadian woman, narrates her own story, detailing her past love affairs, the first being with Derek Mallaby, who took her virginity in a field after being thrown out of a cinema in Windsor for indecent exposure: a long sentence (would break at love affairs). Would link indecent exposure. I can see an argument for rephrasing "took her virginity" to something that presents this as more of a team effort and doesn't have the connotations of defilement, but am not coming up with much at the moment.
    I've taken out the virginity aspect (so to speak) and just gone with the more bland "had sex in a field". Does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was hesitating in case it mattered that this was the first time, whether within the world of the story or for the audience, but no objection to removing that if it's not particularly important. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • when Mallaby sent her a letter from Oxford University: was he a student there? The phrasing seems almost to be trying to imply that he wasn't.
  • to work at "The Dreamy Pines Motor Court",: ominous-looking scare quotes: would drop and go with "a motel called the Dreamy Pines..." or similar.
  • Link mobsters to something appropriate? Likely to be tricky to non-native speakers.
  • "secret service" going to "MI6" is a bit of a surprise (the link text suggests that it's going to be talking about secret services in general): could we rephrase somehow? One option would be to push the link to cover "British" as well, but that has the tradeoff of moving "British" to strictly modify "secret service" rather than "agent".
  • Bond tells Viv that he is in America in the wake of Operation Thunderball and was detailed to protect a Russian nuclear expert who defected to the West and who now lives in Toronto.: the tenses are a bit tricky here: grammatically, I think they're all correct, but the sentence could probably do with a look for clarity.
  • eight books in the preceding eight years, seven novels and a collection of short stories: comma after years should be a colon, as those are the eight books.
    I think both are OK here, but swapped over. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He found writing The Spy Who Loved Me easier than any of his other books: better as "he later said he found..."? We can't ever know his mental state for sure, and people don't always remember or retell their own difficulties accurately.
    He said this at the time of writing (when he sent his manuscript to the publisher). - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • thoughts of killing off Bond: perhaps slightly colloquial?
  • had second thoughts: would rephrase per MOS:IDIOM.
  • This, writes Lycett, may have been a reflection of Fleming's state of mind at the time, particularly his ongoing marital difficulties, as he was having an affair with his neighbour on Jamaica, Blanche Blackwell and his wife, Ann was in a relationship with Hugh Gaitskell, the Leader of the British Labour Party.: would cut this run-on sentence after difficulties. Also needs a comma after Blackwell.
    Went with a colon instead. Does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • working on a film treatment which eventually Fleming published as Thunderball: the novel? I assume so because it's not linked, but slightly doubting myself over "film treatment".
  • Would push the link on "novel series" to "the novel series" per WP:LEASTASTONISHMENT
  • Ivar Bryce's Black Hollow Farm: who/where is this?
  • Viv was seduced by Derek: is seduced
  • Her time with Derek in the area around Cookham, Berkshire, is similar to Fleming's time at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst.: probably not relevant, but this is challenging both my impressions of Cookham and of Sandhurst! Similar in what ways?
    Reworked: it's not the area that is similar (they're not!), but Fleming's activities. - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and is the out-door type: hyphen reads strongly archaic to me. Why not just "[enjoys] outdoor activities" -- what exactly is the outdoor "type"?
  • the character of Viv—by demonstrating a naïve view of life—reinforces: better as who demonstrates, I think (it's Viv, not her character = personality).
Thanks again UC; this lot all covered - again, hopefully satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the full panoply of a Bond novel, animated by his presence is absent: comma after presence, surely? Even if not in original, MOS:CONFORM could be argued.
  • Black 2005 citation: capitalise from as it's after a colon (and therefore the start of a subtitle).
  • 'hooks': double quotes per MOS:QUOTE (the MoS doesn't really approve of, or legislate for, scare quotes, but this is also in a sense a literal quote). Could be more formal and replace (with a link) with narrative hooks.
  • Benson considers that the sweep: a nitpick, but we capitalised Sweep before, so should do so here (or decap both): it's the Sweep, so a proper noun.
  • As with several other Bond stories: could we have some examples? Is it made quite as explicit elsewhere?
  • The question of morality and good and evil : what's the difference between "morality" and "good and evil"?
    One is the thought, the other the deed. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not come across that distinction before; I don't think many readers will have it in mind. Could do "good and evil actions", "people", or similar, or perhaps rephrase to draw a more explicit distinction between intentions and consequences? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone for the path of cutting "morality" - it makes the section stronger and is probably slightly truer to the sources too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He raised his fee from the 200 guineas (£210) he had charged for Thunderball, to 250 guineas (£262.50: either lose the comma or stick another after fee.
  • no paperback version appeared until after Fleming's death in 1964: it's a bit odd that this is said twice, but we only actually find out the date on the second mention.
    Where's the first mention - I must be missing something here? - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, gotcha. Reworked it so there's only one mention of it now. How does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the heightened sexual writing: I'm not sure this is quite idiomatic.
  • the company that administers all Fleming's literary works: Fowler's calling out for us to omit all here.
  • which sold 517,000 copies before the end of the year: was that good? It sounds like we're implicitly saying Fleming was wrong about the book being disliked.
    Difficult to say. I think people couldn't get hold of the limited supply of hardbacked versions, so bought big when it came to the paperback (all the publicity about the salacious aspects wouldn't have hurt sales either!) This is all OR, as the source doesn't examine the whys and wherefores for the sales levels. - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any way to contextualise it versus previous/future Bond sales, that year's bestsellers, or similar? I've not really got a sense from the article that this was "buying big". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: This is, as far as I can see it, the only comment that needs a response: any thoughts on it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, UC: I had missed your response entirely. Let me have a think and I'll get back to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've added a quick line about it being one of the top paperback sellers of Fleming's work. How does that work? - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very nicely, though I've made a small CE around. Moved to support: nice work all around. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release of the bowdlerised series was for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel: perhaps beside the point, but if they kept "the sweet tang of rape", what did they decide to cut?
    There are no sources that cover that bit, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh Dear Oh Dear Oh Dear!: needs a MOS:CONFORM treatment: would suggest mass-decapping and sticking commas or dashes in between.
  • thought Fleming was finished: MOS:IDIOM.
  • Can we do anything to explain "cornography"?
    Not without going into OR. I think we'll have to let the context and a reader's intelligence do some of the work here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered the novel to be "a morbid version of that of Beauty and the Beast": this quote hasn't quite transposed correctly: the that of in the quote suggests that he was originally talking about the novel's plot vel. sim.
  • the customary sexual consummation is associated with the kill.": I think MOS:LQ would put the full stop on the other side, but have never really understood that one. Certainly, this is the pattern followed elsewhere in the article.
    It's a complete sentence and the full stop is where it is in the quote, so the full stop goes inside the quote marks. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the battleship-grey Bentley and Blades Club: did the author really draw the line at capitalising Battleship?
    Yes. Somewhat surprising, I know, but I guess that's part of the description, rather than The Thing. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the discovery that the cruel, handsome, scarred face of James Bond does not turn up until more than halfway through Ian Fleming's latest book.: missing close quotes.
  • The first paragraph of adaptations is a little repetitious and generally clunky: could I very unhelpfully suggest another look for general prose and panache?
    Reworked; how does that look?
  • Title of Parker 2014: Was is a verb, so should be capitalised in title case.
Thanks UC; all covered in these edits, hopefully satisfactorily. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow.

That's my lot. Not planning to do a source review, but no concerns: everything looks to be high quality. Nice work and thanks for getting to the previous comments so sharply. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks UC; I've covered what I can. There are a couple of points which you may want to look at again where I've reworked bit (Adaptations and the Pan paperback publishing). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments and effort here, UC. It has been very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Signing up for this :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not much to complain about through the plot section; I like the way you've structured it to mirror the novel.
  • Minor gripe: "Pressuring the two men, he eventually gets the gangsters to agree to provide him a room." Could probably be condensed to "Bond pressures the gangsters into providing him a room."
  • I love that Fleming somehow thought that writing about a beautiful woman having a bunch of sex and getting rescued by James Bond would be a cautionary tale
  • "considers the character of Viv—who demonstrates a naïve view of life—reinforces Fleming's" - the sentence doesn't quite flow for me. Remove the interlude and you get "considers the character of Viv reinforces Fleming's", which at least ought to have a "that" in there, as in "considers that". Alternately, you could revise around the interlude a bit. Something like "...Bold considers Viv's naive outlook as further evidence of Fleming's misogynistic portrayals of women..."?
    Tweaked slightly ("depiction" rather than "character"), which should overcome the issue. The "that" isn't needed in BrEng (I've just gone through through the 2016 version of Fowler to confirm. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The other characters in the novel are given less attention" - by Fleming or by critics
  • "Chancellor considers" the absent "that" again makes the sentence awkward
    As above. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a love romance story;" - intentional?
  • link deus ex machina in the body
  • " Viv refers to Bond's appearance directly connecting Bond to the medieval legend" - I think this might be better in its own sentence (although won't die on that hill). Whether or not you split it, I think it might work better reversed - "Viv directly connects bond to the medieval legend when she describes his appearance:"
  • It's a crime that "cornography" hasn't entered the wider lexicon
    It's a fantastic word that should be applied to about 95 percent of most written sex scenes in novels - it's something that should be the basis of the Bad Sex in Fiction Award - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last note - the fact that Horror has steel teeth isn't noted until the very last sentence of the article, which feels odd when the lead takes the time to note that Jaws was adapted from one of the book's villains. If you could find a way to mention the teeth in the plot summary, the connection might be more clear for readers

That's all I have for you! Lots of fun. Ping me if you do more of these - I assume you're trying to up the GT to a FT? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC. All dealt with except where noted in these edits. It's already an FT (they don't all need to be FAs to get there), but it would be nice to have them all finished off as FAs at some point. If you enjoyed it, I have On Her Majesty's Secret Service at PR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, I'm a support. I rarely comment at PR but I will put the FAC for that page on my watchlist for when it goes blue :) (I think I was looking at the old GT nomination, so I didn't see it was upgraded to an FT - great work on the lot) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text

Comments by TompaDompa

[edit]

How interesting! I'll try to find the time to do a full review. For now: the note in the lead doesn't really work, as it omits Thunderball. TompaDompa (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot! Now amended. - SchroCat (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • The article seems comparatively brief.
Lead
  • The current note works so-so. "These are the novels [...]" is a rather odd way of saying it when what is meant is that it follows the listed works. I might also put the note immediately following the comma rather than at the end of the sentence.
    • Reworked. I don't like breaking any sentence with a footnote (it's bad writing as it distracts the reader too much), but particularly in the opening sentence, which should be as clear of impedimenta as possible, so I've left it at the end. - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's probably clear from the context. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the shortest and most sexually explicit of Fleming's novels" – it is noted in the body that it was banned in some markets due to sexual content, but the comparison to the other novels does not seem to be there?
    Clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reviewers were largely negative" – the reviewers were, not the reviews?
Plot summary
  • Not sure about the verb tenses here.
    We're following the tenses of the novel. She look back and tells her past life in the first third, then moves into the present. I think this is the correct way to follow it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background and writing history
Development
  • The "Characters" subsection seems a bit out of place under the heading of "Development". It's mostly character reception/analysis.
  • "The historian Jeremy Black notes that while she has been a victim of life in the past, she is wilful and tough too." – is "wilful" the word Black uses? It's a rather uncommon adjective to apply to people.
    • Is it? I think I've only ever heard it applied to people. Either way, yes, it's a term used in the source - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the most common collocation I have come across is "wilful ignorance" (though "wilfully ignorant" may be even more common), and other than that I have mostly heard/read it used to describe actions. Seeing as it's the word used by the source, however, there is of course no problem here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The academic Christine Bold considers the depiction of Viv—who demonstrates a naïve view of life—reinforces Fleming's misogynistic view of women" – I see that this has been discussed above. Whether this phrasing is strictly speaking grammatical or not within certain varieties of English, I find that it makes the sentence awkward to read. I think it's safe to say assume a fair proportion of readers will too, considering that two different reviewers do, and this seems like a good reason to rephrase it to avoid the issue (I suppose we could call it an application of MOS:COMMONALITY).
  • "Chancellor considers the novel's lack of a supervillain makes this one of the weaker works." – as above. I'll state for the record that don't speak or write either British or American English.
(Unsolicited peanut-throw) Is "supervillain" quite the right word here? I appreciate it might not have always been so, but most readers nowadays will assume it to mean "a villain with superhuman powers". Would "primary antagonist" or something slightly flashier (perhaps with a link to Bond villain?) work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "primary antagonist" gets to what Chancellor was saying. The Bond novels are known for their supervillains (These are just the sources on IA that link "Blofeld" with "supervillain" - and that's just one of the characters in the series). Lots of novels have villains/protagonists: Bond has supervillains - beating them is what makes him Bond. - SchroCat (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes -- I'm trying to find a way of saying "bond villain" without using the supervillain word, which gives the wrong idea (Blofeld, after all, does not have superpowers like a superhero does). Admittedly, this might not be a huge problem: thinking on it, there are plenty of more conventional superheroes (the Joker, for example) that don't have superpowers, but nobody would have a problem with using that word for them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One might describe these types of villains as "larger than life" or "over the top", but I don't know if that gives the right impression either. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Style
  • "The literary analyst LeRoy L. Panek observes that The Spy Who Loved Me is a love story" – MOS:SAID; "observes" is rather conspicuous here.
  • "When viewed from the romantic viewpoint, the threat of Viv's rape from the two gangsters is held in counterpoint to the consensual sex between her and Bond." – should not be in WP:WikiVoice.
    It's still Panek's point: do you want me to include his name a third time in this short paragraph? - SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have any strong opinions about how to avoid WP:WikiVoice here. Using a pronoun would be one option, as would rephrasing. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced the current wording is in the Wikivoice, given we say "Panek argues that there are strong elements of romance" and the following sentence starts "When viewed from the romantic viewpoint". The context is clear that we're talking about the same point, and not in a Wikivoice. - If you insist on it being changed, I'm sure I can put in something that is more wordy more cumbersome and less readable. Just let me know. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems a bit needlessly snide. We have three sentences, the first two of which use in-text attribution and the third does not. The first two also have the same reference (number 41 as of my writing this) whereas the third has a different one (number 42). This is to say that I think it's reasonable to interpret the third sentence as being intentionally presented matter-of-factly/in WP:WikiVoice. There are plenty of ways to address this; I might replace "Panek" with "He" in the second sentence and add "Panek writes that" or similar to the third. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing snide there. I'll stick to the current wording, as it's not really necessary to push the 'Panek' name for the third time in a three sentence paragraph on an entirely related point. - SchroCat (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication and reception
Yep, fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The critic for The Times was not dismissive of Bond [...] Rather, the critic dismisses the experiment [...]" – citing the same source thrice for two sentences (that could be one with the judicious application of a semicolon) is overdoing it a bit; I gather that it was done this way because of the quotes?
    One sentence would be a little long, so two is probably better, and yes, the citations are after the quotes. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What aggrieved him most, however, was that "the worst thing about it is that it really is so unremittingly, so grindingly boring"." – "What aggrieved him most" and "the worst thing about it" are kind of redundant to each other.
    Trimmed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead-up to the quote is now "was that", and the beginning of the quote is "it is that it really is". I think the first three words of the quote should be trimmed, making this was that "it really is [...]. TompaDompa (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adaptations
  • "the newspaper turned down the opportunity to publish The Spy Who Loved Me as being too unlike the normal Bond books" – this seems ungrammatical. They turned down the opportunity, but it's the book that is unlike the normal ones, no?

Neutral I'm not familiar enough with the topic or the sources (nor have I checked the sourcing) to be able to say with confidence whether this meets the comprehensiveness criterion. The article seems rather thin on thematic analysis and the such based on my intuition and experience with similar articles, but I can't point to anything in particular that is missing. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little in the sources about the themes. What there is in the sources is discussed in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

My few and minor quibbles were dealt with at the peer review. Rereading for FAC I have no further quibbles and am happy to support the elevation of this article. It is an excellent read, clear, evidently balanced and well sourced. A pity there are not more pictures available, but that's the way it is with articles about works of this vintage, and I'm sure SchroCat has done all that can be done in that line. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 13:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thought and input at the PR Tim, and your further readthough here. I am, as always, much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Igordebraga

[edit]

Support as this continues to prove Nobody Does It Better than you regarding the articles on 007's novels. igordebraga ≠ 16:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks igordebraga - kind of you to say so. I hope you're keeping well! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. What makes "James Bond: The Man and His World" and screenonline a reliable source? Is the publisher of "Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films" correct? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, Jo-Jo Eumerus. In order of the points raised:
  1. It's an official publication of Ian Fleming Publications
  2. It's a site published by the British Film Institute
  3. Yes, It's I.B. Tauris (seen on the front cover here)
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi SchroCat, such an interesting discussion of this book, tempts me to read it. But first, some comments and many questions...

lede

Plot summary Me

  • by whom she would eventually become pregnant - tense? by whom she eventually became pregnant

Them

  • so that he can make a profit on the insurance - profit suggests a difference? I think we would just say make an insurance claim but perhaps Engvar?

Him

  • the wake of Operation Thunderball and was detailed to protect a Russian nuclear expert - just during the operation or still protecting him? ie had been detailed? ("wake of" suggests finished)?
  • Sluggsy and Horror set fire to the motel - did Bond put the fire out?
    It's a detail sort of overlooked, but Bond doesn't put it out, no. - SchroCat (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background and writing history

  • outlined in Books and Bookmen magazine - why not direct link to Books and Bookmen?
  • Michael Howard, his publisher at Jonathan Cape, to explain - MH was his editor not publisher? (is called editor in Publication section). Move link for Jonathan Cape to here (or intentional)?
    I've duplicated (as I think we are now allowed): once on first mention, once in the Publication section (where it makes most sense)

Plot inspirations

Characters

  • Benson notes that while she has been a victim of life in the past, she is wilful - swap first "she" to Viv?
  • camping, fishing and outdoor activities - insert 'other' before outdoor? (camping and fishing are outdoors) or 'who likes outdoor activities such as camping and fishing'
  • The claim was one for which Fleming criticised - was criticised?
  • Macintyre's opinion is that - who is Mac? intro, add Ben, link
  • Kurt, is a caricature of a German—a cruel racist with little capacity for love or affection - Crikey! Gbooks won't let me read Black p. 73, is that a quote? If so, add quote marks. If not, can we really say in that in wikivoice? Could add 'Fleming's version/idea of a caricature of a German' at minimum? or 'Kurt, is a caricature of a German—a cruel racist with ...' (We already know he's German.)
    I've added it's Black's view of the character. Fleming used "German" as a shorthand for bad/evil - which his post-war audience would have understood straight away, so I think the German bit is needed. I agree that it shouldn't be in a wikivoice though - so Black's name should explain that bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Black, the two thugs - move Black intro, name, link up to here from next section
  • novel's lack of a supervillain - 'absence' of better word?
  • makes this one of the weaker works - Fleming's weaker works?

Style

  • most sexually explicit of all Fleming's novels - I'm not sure if there should be another "of" here. Ie 'of all of Fleming's novels' or 'of all Fleming novels'
  • When viewed from the romantic viewpoint - 2x view, when contemplated/seen/considered from or similar?
  • In last para of Style section the novels aren't linked Casino Royale, Diamonds are Forever, Goldfinger, and Dr. No (Thunderball has links elsewhere in prose) - Is that because they are linked in notes?
    Yes, that's correct. (Actually linked twice in the notes) - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Publication history

  • UK on 16 April 1962 as a hardcover edition by the publishers Jonathan Cape; it was 221 pages long - infobox has 198 pages
    You really do have a sharp eye! - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The artwork included a Fairbairn–Sykes commando knife; - has pipe to article name but caption has no pipe - intentional?
    Yes, but I can't think what it was. Maybe I was just going for just some allowable variation. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fleming borrowed one owned by his editor, Michael Howard at Jonathan Cape, as a model for Chopping - could pipe link "model" to Reference#Arts
  • In the US the story was later published - was also later published
  • so bad that Fleming requested that there should - are both "that"s needed?
  • Fleming requested that there should be no - is "requested" strong enough? Surely JCape couldn't say no to him? stipulated?
  • there should be no reprints or paperback version of the book - nor paperback?
    I think either are fine, but the "or" just sounds cleaner to me. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the British market no paperback version appeared until May 1967, after Fleming's death in 1964,[61] when Pan Books published a paperback version.- "paperback version" repetition, something more like this to fix? 'For the British market a paperback version did not appear until May 1967, after Fleming's 1964 death, published by Pan Books.'
    Worked it round a bit as that make it look like Pan published Fleming's death. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release of the bowdlerised series was for the 70th anniversary of Casino Royale, the first Bond novel - timed for the 70th?
    Went with the more simple "was on the 70th anniversary". - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Adaptations

Notes

  • Note e - Benson considers the motif appears all the novels - missing word 'in' all

References

  • ref 45 - Sternberg 1983 pp. 174 – 175 - tweak dash

Sources Books

  • McLusky, John; Gammidge, Henry; Lawrence, Jim; Fleming ... Omnibus - give Jim Lawrence an authorlink per above

Sources Journals and magazines

  • Sternberg, Meir (Spring 1983) ... PA - expand state to Pennsylvania per the 5 other US states

Sources News

  • Books: Of Human Bondage - should that be cite magazine for Time?

Categories

  • add Category:First-person narrative novels

Misc

  • the knife on cover is discussed (but not eg the carnation) is there any tie in? ie did thugs or Bond or Viv use one?
    Nope! I suspect it was trying to mix the romance and violence aspects, but there's no flowers anywhere to be seen. - SchroCat (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horror and Sluggsy are labelled as mobsters x2 (which links to gangster), gangsters x3, thugs x2 and killers x1 but not the word that comes to my mind about such operatives, henchmen?
    I try and avoid it as it's become a bit of a cliché term. If there was a proper villain here I might consider it, but they are the ones who actually in the book, so they get the (slightly) elevated titles.

And with that I think I've asked all my questions. JennyOz (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2024 [14].

Markham's storm petrel

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Jens Lallensack (talk), Therapyisgood (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was first FAC nominated by Therapyisgood last year, who withdrew it, but with their blessing, I and Jens Lallensack have since worked on it because it was a shame to let the good work go to waste. It has been greatly expanded based on additional sources and more images have been found, so we now think it's ready for a renomination. FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All three maps would benefit from being scaled up
Maps have been upscaled. FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Great to see this here.

  • Uncited quote in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE: 'The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation.'
Added citation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it was classified as Near Threatened in 2019" By whom? I'm guessing IUCN, but from the sentence a reader might guess it was a Chilean body.
  • 'Conspecific' needn't mean 'biologically identical'. It just means a member of the same species; it might still be biologically distinct (e.g., the populations might be different subspecies).
Changed to "to be the same species as". FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is nested within Oceanodroma" Is 'nested' jargon? I understand it; other readers might not!
Changed to "grouped within". FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a very strong opinion on this, but my sense is that the general opinion at FAC is that {{Interlanguage link}} is discouraged; why would a reader assume that [fr] means 'click here to read about this in French'? (This is especially the case when we have an English language article.)
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their distribution was positively associated with features such as mean temperature of the wettest quarter and of the driest quarter, and solar radiation" This is a little technical.
The source is poorly written and quite hard to understand. I think me misinterpreted this part, and that sentence has actually nothing to do with the genetic clades. I therefore removed it. It is discussed in the paragraph on climate change in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like other storm petrels, Markham's storm petrel is" A bit of a singular/plural shift here (also in next paragraph), but it might not be an issue.
I can not yet see what you mean, could you explain? We always use "Markham's storm petrel" in singular as far as I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. My mistake. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Ecuador, as of 2018, the species is classified as Near Endangered." Could you name the agency or body that is assigning the classification? (The Ecuadorian Endangered Species Commission or whatever?)
Added. Also provided a better link.
  • Is 'garbage' slang? It's very ugly to my (British) ears, but if it's considered formal in American English, so be it!
The source (Barros, 2019, and repeated by the IUCN) says "garbage" several times, so I'm not sure what to do, other than trying to find some synonym? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'refuse', perhaps? But I'm not going to insist on it. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reads really well. I've not looked closely at sources or images. Please double-check my edits, which will (hopefully) be non-controversial. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Many thanks for your helpful comments. They should all be addressed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming no sourcing or image issues are identified. This article compares well with other FA-quality articles about bird species. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke

[edit]
  • For accessibility, please add {{lang}} constructions where non-English words are used. Screen readers will then know how to pronounce it. For instance for Pampa de Chaca
I tried. I was not always sure, however, for which cases these are appropriate and for which they are not. I tagged all colony names accordingly, at least. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread the MOS:FORITA, it seems a few "italics=no" need to be added, as the Spanish terms are all proper names. It's appropriate when the terms are uncommon in English, for instance if they're not found in an English dictionary. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead it quite difficult.
    • I don't think a type specimen belongs in the lead, as it's overly technical (per WP:EXPLAINLEAD).
I think it's necessary to state what the common name means in the intro, but since it is named for a person because he collected the type specimen, I'm unsure how we can avoid mentioning that without it looking like an oversight? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, conspecific is unnecessary, one can just say, belongs to the same species as.
Changed to "to be the same species as". FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe even the name of the family in the first sentence is unnecessary jargon; this information is already available in the infobox for bird experts.
Mentioning the family in the intro is standard for animal FACs, though, and infoboxes are sometimes collapsed on phones by default. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to solve this by moving the family name out of the first sentence and adding the common name "northern storm petrels" for it. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saltpeter is an unfamiliar term. Is it possible to give context as to what this is in the lead and body?
Added "salt crusts rich in nitrates" as explanation. There are two types of saltpeter (potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate), and it seems that both are minded to some degree. I therefore decided to keep it general, and removed the link to the potassium nitrate article we had previously. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • cephalopods --> difficult word, would help if you give some examples of which cephalopod they eat.
I re-wrote the entire lead now, which should hopefully fix all these issues, and more. Let me know how this looks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a gorgeous rewrite!! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph on the effects of climate change, can you explain how their nests would become unsuitable due to CC?
A very good question, but the cited study does not address it. They simply determined which environmental variables can predict the current location of the colonies. They then used climate models to predict how these variables (all related to min, max, or mean temperatures in different parts of the year) will change in the future. However, they do not say why these temperature changes make the habitat unsuitable, and that's a bit frustrating. I added "changes in temperature" to the text, but we do not seem to have any more explanation to add, unfortunately (unless, maybe, we look at other papers, but then we need to by careful with WP:Synth I guess). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These birds may venture as far north as southern Mexico --> "The birds .. " sounds better to my ears.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tried with 58,000, if that makes sense?
Yes, it does :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close to supporting. Two final comments

  • Is singly jargon for alone?
Changed to "alone". FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In molecular phylogenetic studies published in 2004 and 2017 the genus Oceanodroma was found to be paraphyletic (not a natural group), as the European storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) is grouped within Oceanodroma --> It took me a few minutes to understand this sentence, despite being able to guess what each invidiual words meant. I think my confusion is with the words "nested in" or "grouped in", as the problem is that the species is not grouped within the genus, but should be based on biology. Spelling out what paraphyletic is should make it easier, but still . Maybe something like this: "In molecular phylogenetic studies published in 2004 and 2017 the genus Oceanodroma was found to be paraphyletic, a grouping that includes some but not all descendants of a common ancestor; This was because the European storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus) was missing." Not as elegant as the rest of the text, but should hopefully be more clear? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried my best to reformulate this to be easier to understand: In 2004 and 2017, genetic analyses found that the genus Oceanodroma must be merged with the genus Hydrobates, because the only member of the latter, the European storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus), was found to be nested within Oceanodroma (i.e., some species of Oceanodroma are more closely related to the European storm petrel than to some other members of Oceanodroma). What do you think? Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes complete sense :) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grungaloo

[edit]

I'm just reviewing prose/style, AGF on sources.

  • Distribution map - should use a colour square to denote non-breeding range rather than the word (see Snowy plover). Also you can drop "Description: ".
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near Threatened" in the lead doesn't need to be capitalized.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a British explorer and naval officer who collected the type specimen off Peru." - "off the coast of Peru" or "at sea near Peru".
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markham's storm petrel was subsequently for many years considered" - Move "subsequently" to the front of the sentence.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly, the ornithologist Reginald Wagstaffe considered Tristram's storm petrel a subspecies of Markham's storm petrel in 1972," - Move "in 1972" to after "Similarly" at the front of the sentence, otherwise it sounds like they were considered subspecies in 1972 only.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2004 and 2017, genetic analyses found that the genus" - This is a pretty complex sentence that's hard to follow. I'd recommend a rewrite to be more generally understandable. Also - is "must be merged" the right language? Since taxonomy is to a degree arbitrary, usually these are phrased as "should" and then generally accepted by the community.
Puh, this is already my attempt to write it as understandable as possible, per Femke's comment below. I improved it slightly, but I am not sure what else I can do here; phylogenetics is not easy. Could you could explain what specifically is not understandable? Regarding the "must": Yes, if a clade is nested within another one, the latter is paraphyletic, and therefore, per definition, not a natural group (clade). Consequently, if we assume that the genetic analyses are correct, it must be merged, it is not a matter of opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I saw Femke's comment after I posted this - apologies for piling it on! I'm striking this one, on a re-read I think it works and thank you for the clarification on the wording. grungaloo (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this has not been followed by other authorities" - This seems to imply that some authorities do accept this, but it's not clear if that's correct or who they are. Could probably just drop "other".
clarified ("has not been followed by subsequent studies" is what we wanted to say). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A genetic analysis by Wallace and colleagues" - Who's Wallace? Can they be wikilinked, and if not do we need to list their name at all? Alternatively, shouldn't it be Wallace et al to more clearly indicate this was a published study?
Ok, removed, to be consistent with not providing author names. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with its eighteen[11] species" - MOS:CITEPUNCT, this ref should be at the end of the sentence.
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in a characteristic three-colored pattern of the wing" - "three-colored pattern on the wing".
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From Leach's storm petrel, it differs in its more pronounced tail forking and its longer wings and larger size." - Run on sentence, need to split along one of those "ands".
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similar birds within its range include the..." - There's a decent MOS:REFCLUTTER at the end of this paragraph, and no cites throughout. I'm assuming this was the only way to stitch the info together in a way that flowed, but probably worth a second look to see if you can split those cites up somewhere within the paragraph itself.
WP:REFCLUTTER refers to too many citations; you instead seem to be concerned with the precision of their placement? The reason I put them in the end of the paragraph was that not all of them agree on all those observations. I tried to extract the least common denominator out of these sources, which is why I need to cite multiple sources for each sentence. Hope that makes sense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, thanks! My main concern was that four refs tagged to one paragraph raised a bit of a flag that maybe things could be restructured. Given that the rest of the article is well structured I figured it was just a necessity of the information you were working with, and just wanted to confirm. grungaloo (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adults in nests were found to vocalize when a recording of Markham's storm petrel vocalizations was played at the entrance." - Explain what "entrance" this is, nests aren't describe in this section so it's not clear what it's referring to. Could just write it as "the entrance of the nest cavity."
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markham's storm petrel inhabits waters of the Humboldt Current in the Pacific Ocean off Ecuador, Peru, and northern Chile" - Only Ecuador is wikilinked here, for consistency wikilink all three countries, or none.
Removed wikilink.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A survey published in 2007 found that during austral autumn (the non-breeding season)," - I would drop "austral autumn" and just use the gloss.
I think it is important to mention though, also because "non-breeding season" is quite vague because this differs markedly from colony to colony. I removed the gloss, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. grungaloo (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are typically located within 25 km to the sea" - "within 25 km of the sea". Also, 25km should have a convert to miles.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The egg is incubated by both parents in shifts of up to three days, during with the other partner is feeding at sea." - "during which the other partner"
Omg, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated the population of Markham's storm petrel in 2019 as between..." - Four different estimates are listed here, three of them are IUCN listings of which a further 2 are historical counts. Do the historical IUCN estimates need to be listed - presumably they're superceded by the most recent estimate in 2019?
I tend to think that this information is interesting, as it shows how large the uncertainty is. Let's see what FunkMonk thinks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good for me either way. If it does stay, maybe consider calling out that they're old IUCN estimates, and you could write it so that it shows the changes over time. grungaloo (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in this case I think it's an important reflection of how little was known about this bird historically, and how recent much of its known population data really is. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Near Threatened" doesn't need to be capitalized.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saltpeter mining directly destroyes nest holes" - destroys
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work overall! Ping me if you have questions about what I said. grungaloo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Awesome article and thanks for the detailed replies! grungaloo (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed review! I fixed the last outstanding minor points now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

[edit]
  • Nice to see birds at FAC so regularly; I made a minor c/e to correct what I saw as trivial errors, but feel free to revert and discuss any you disagree with here.
Yeah, let's try to keep that up, having regular bird FACs! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without any nest material" I usually see this written "nesting material" in the literature.
Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No professions mentioned for Boie and Reichenbach?
Now added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Therefore, all...Markham's storm petrel." Specify that the IOU, whose taxonomy we're following in this article, chose to do this. Otherwise, the contrast you raise in the next sentence, with the 2004 article following a different taxonomy, doesn't really make sense.
Added "which was accepted by the International Ornithologists' Union". FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a 2017 study" Same study, so "of the 2017 study"
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Markham's storm petrel is a member of the genus Hydrobates" You say that Hydrobates is the only genus, so is it really necessary to specify again that Markham's storm petrel is in said genus?
Rephrased. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "researcher Rodrigo Barros and colleagues" to "researcher Rodrigo Barros and his colleagues"
It's the common way of saying it (alternative to the more techical et al.). FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gloss allochronic speciation.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image showing habitat suitability is hard to understand; what exactly do the colors convey?
To be honest, I am a bit of a loss here. The paper is poorly written, and the text does not even refer to the figure, apparently. So they didn't publish a legend (as far as I can see). I would guess that purple colors (close to 1) indicate habitat suitability and lower numbers (close to 0) indicate less suitable habitat. But if we are not sure, I would now even consider removing that image entirely. Let's see if FunkMonk has an idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also assume 1 is suitable and 0 is unsuitable, would also match with the yellow areas being in the periphery of habitats in both versions. Blue is always at the centre. I've added that to the caption. FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: After yet another look, I still don't know what exactly the scale from 0 to 1 means. I fear that if we guess, we likely get it wrong. I now think that we should just remove those diagrams. Maybe we can add Fig. 5 of the paper instead, which has a legend at least? Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend removing it; at thumbnail size, it's almost impossible to see differences between each of the cases anyway. AryKun (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think about fig. 5 here[15] as replacement, @AryKun:? FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a bit odd-looking since they keep switching the underlying map, but better than the current map I suppose. AryKun (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added that map, caption could perhaps need some work. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing, the IOC list ref could be updated to 14.1, and the archived version should also be updated. AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is there a 14.1 version for petrels? The current petrel page[16] seems to be 13.2. Can't say I know much about the sites workings, though. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC isn't going to finish updating all of the pages until March apparently. Support from me then. AryKun (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 20 upper

[edit]
  • The bird is named in honor => The bird is named after. No need for the word "honor"
Changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • who collected the specimen that in 1883 led to the scientific description of the species. Needs better phrasing
Improved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a wingspan between 49 and 54 cm (19 and 21 in). => with a wingspan of 49 to 54 cm (19 and 21 in). 
Any reason why your wording is better than the existing one? I don't see it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems more natural to me, but no need to fight over small issues like this. 20 upper (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remove The ornithologist in all instances. I don't think it's important to point this out.
There are different opinions here at FAC whether or not such information should be given. I agree that "ornithologist" is not a particularly exiting information (but still helps for context), but we also have the "British explorer and naval officer", so we should give occupation for the others too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then that should be removed as well. 20 upper (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most bird articles use these kind of occupations mentioned, because otherwise you end up with a bunch of scientists being mentioned with no context as to who they are. AryKun (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah – for the understanding of the paragraph, it is important to know whether the mentioned person is a naval officer or a scientist. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • fresh plumage is all-black => fresh plumage is black
Ok, changed, probably better.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With wear, the plumage becomes browner overall. Doesn't sound right, suggest rephrasing
What does not sound right here? I do not see the issue. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd to start any sentence with "With wear". 20 upper (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really in this context. AryKun (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and as far west as 118°W. As far west as which place?
No place that is of importance for the bird (it is somewhere in the Pacific). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, we would want to know what that place is and why they are going there. 20 upper (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They go there because it's their habitat. I am not sure what you want us to add here, please elaborate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What island/land is this? Cause I know for a fact that they don't directly live in the Pacific Ocean. If it's not that important, you can remove it. 20 upper (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do indeed directly live in the Pacific Ocean, as stated in the article. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but they do come ashore for breeding. 20 upper (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, some pairs will begin breeding much earlier than others => However, some pairs will begin breeding much earlier
This information is important, otherwise the reader will ask "earlier than what?". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. 20 upper (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Predators of adults probably include larger birds such as skuas and large gulls. Probably => may
This changes the meaning. We need the "probable" to indicate uncertainty in this assumption. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional research is crucial for effective conservation efforts. Doesn't fit well in a species article, please remove.
I think it is an important point to make in the context of conservation, because the bird is so poorly known: Colonies can't be protected as long as their location is not known, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not needed; what value would a reader find in this? 20 upper (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the sources emphasize this point for this particular species, and there is no good reason to not mention it here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Good job on the article. 20 upper (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All addressed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all. 20 upper (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Addressed" means responded; whether you agree with them is your call, of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks good now. 20 upper (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request; I imagine that the varying source formats are due to the various sources having different available information. There may be more usable sources at this page. Is Robert Cushman Murphy Robert Cushman Murphy? Do darwinfoundation.org/ and birdsoftheworld.org have an editorial staff somewhere? I think Princeton university press is written in all uppercase. Do these three newspapers and Sarah Gilman have a reputation for reliability? I don't have much familiarity with the reliability of Peruvian newspapers. Castillo de Mar uenda probably has an excess space. Some of the Spanish sources could be linked to SciELo, e.g Breeding of Markham's Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma markhami, Aves: Hydrobatidae) in the desert of northern Chile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of the World is run by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and is essentially an updated, digitized version of Handbook of the Birds of the World. Each species account is a peer-reviewed scientific publication. AryKun (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Added one paper we missed, but FunkMonk wants to have another look. Did the small fixes you suggest (author-link, uppercase etc.). Removed the newspapers; while I think that newspapers generally count as reliable sources especially for uncontroversial information, they may not really be representative for the complete picture. The Atlantic is a well-known and reliable source, regardless who the author is. The Darwin Foundation is only cited for the fact that the species is listed as threatened. Regarding the SciElo, the url field is already occupied, and there does not seem to be a dedicated parameter in the cite journal template just for SciElo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added another paper. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2024 (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) 29 February 2024 [17].

2020 Seattle Sounders FC season

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is my first foray into a season article, describing the shortened and strange 2020 season for Seattle Sounders FC, an American soccer team and defending MLS champions. The season opened with a local COVID-19 outbreak and continued through lockdown bubbles and limited travel to finish with yet another MLS Cup appearance for the team, although one that ended differently. This article was massively expanded last year in the style of a few British season FAs with modifications to account for the league's American quirks; it has been a GA for a few months, but with some finishing touches I believe it's FA-ready. SounderBruce 07:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Comments from Chris

[edit]
  • "while teams returned home a month later " => "and teams returned home a month later "
    • Fixed.
  • "Brian Schmetzer, formerly an assistant under Sigi Schmid," - might be worth clarifying that he was assistant under Schmid at Seattle as technically it's not 100% clear as written
    • Fixed.
  • "Manager Brian Schmetzer also led" - no need to restate his position or full name so soon after talking about his appointment
    • Fixed.
  • "to fill in for Torres" - I would say "replace" rather than "fill in", as "fill in" makes it sound like it was only a temporary arrangement and that Torres et al would eventually return
    • Fixed.
  • Lodeiro image caption needs a full stop
    • Added.
  • "Jordan Morris scored two goals—the latter in stoppage time" - think that dash should be a comma
    • Fixed.
  • Don't think the "see also" link to MLS is Back is needed, as it's linked in para 2 of the prose
    • Upgraded to a main link, as the section is solely about the tournament.
  • " and was followed by two goals in the second half by Morris scored a minute apart" => " which was followed by two goals in the second half by Morris scored a minute apart"
    • Fixed.
  • Stadium image caption needs a full stop
    • Added.
  • "A home match against the Colorado Rapids on October 14 was initially postponed due to a COVID-19 outbreak in their squad" - Colorado's squad?
    • Fixed, and split up to avoid confusion.
  • "Seattle played on Decision Day" - what's Decision Day?
    • Linked, will create an article soon-ish. It's the final day of the regular season, where all teams play their conference rivals in simultaneous matches while jockeying for playoff positions.
  • IN some places a flag is accompanied by the country name (or trigram) but in others it isn't - would it be better to be consistent? Not 100% sure whether the use of flags without accompanying text violates MOS:FLAG.....
    • I think this might be a discussion better suited for WT:FOOTY given that there's so many articles that use flags in a similar manner to represent a team's nationality and player/staff nationalities. For example, {{Fb cs staff}} doesn't have an option for displaying the nationality in a separate column, so I've gone ahead and replaced it with a new table.
  • That's what I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Stevie fae Scotland

[edit]
  • In the infobox, I'd add a note to the attendances explaining that only two matches were played with supporters and that the rest were behind closed doors due to Covid.
    • Added.
  • Preseason and CONCACAF Champions League- could we link scrimmage at the first mention to Exhibition match? I wasn't aware it also had that meaning so it would help avoid confusion.
    • Linked, though a scrimmage in American English refers to a non-standard match format (such as 30-minute halves or unlimited subs) used for practice and training.
  • You mention the Cascadia Cup not being awarded in the prose but there's no mention of the Heritage Cup. I see it's linked in the match list so it would probably be worth mentioning it in the prose as well.
    • I can't find a reliable source for the Heritage Cup being officially awarded in 2020, so I've decided to remove it entirely. It's a very minor "trophy" that isn't often acknowledged by either team, as they have more important rivalries; the Heritage Cup was essentially created to give Seattle a paper rival while waiting for Vancouver and Portland to join MLS two years later.
  • There are a number of MOS:ACCESS concerns with the footballbox collapsible which makes it unsuitable for featured articles. These include some parameters not producing a caption element, column and row headers are omitted and the fact it uses tables for visual positioning of non-tabular content. There are a few other ways of displaying lists of match results that you can use, it's entirely up to you how you style it. A lot of the current featured season articles use this style or you could use this style to retain the colours. Template:Football result list league and Template:Football result list cup are also available.
    • This probably needs to be discussed at WT:FOOTY, but I think that making the existing footballbox ACCESS-compliant would be far easier to implement than changing hundreds of season articles and losing valuable information (namely cards [which accumulate and have knock-on effects], referees, and venues [as MLS teams can sometimes play in more than one home stadium]).
  • I notice as well that the reference style is inconsistent. There are a lot of bare URLs which don't appear in the list of references at the bottom. You should have a full list of references so these should be changed to full citations.
    • The footer citations are built into various templates (including the standings table) and don't seem to support traditional citations. Again, probably needs to be discussed at the project level.
  • The Roster table is sortable but it's impossible to tell that because of the colours in the header row. Same with the On loan table but there's only one player so the sortable function isn't necessary.
  • Appearances and goals- is there any point in the US Open Cup columns given the competition was cancelled?
    • Removed.
  • Aftermath- Have Seattle reached the MLS Cup final since 2020? It would be worth mentioning if this season was the most recent for them to do so. That can be updated once they get there again.
    • Added, hopefully I will have to update it again in December.
  • That's my thoughts. I enjoyed reading through that, it's well-written. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Stevie fae Scotland: Thanks for the review. I will need to work on a solution for the fixture tables and standings citations that is consistent with FOOTY standards, as I do think this will require some level of consensus, but re-litigating the earlier issues with converting footballbox into other styles is not something I want to dive into. SounderBruce 07:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries and thank you. I can understand the confusion but the standings tables do support full citations, you can see an example here. Re- footballbox: those styles are only examples, there are other ways that fit with MOS:ACCESS that you can explore. For example, I don't know soccer the same way you do so those tables could be adapted to fit more information that you feel is relevant and shouldn't be missed out. I wouldn't be able to support this while the template has the Access deficiencies though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Stevie fae Scotland: I've converted the standings citations into standard templates, as they don't seem to throw up Lua errors as feared. Upon further investigation, I don't think the linked examples or other table types I've seen are sufficient, especially for MLS season articles; losing the venue information is especially problematic for the 2020 season, which was full of non-standard venue situations because of the pandemic travel restrictions. I have made a proposal at Template talk:Football box collapsible to add the result in a readable form and will look into getting that implemented. Beyond that, I need to see evidence of what exactly the template violates in MOS:ACCESS in plain language, as I can't glean anything useful from the discussions I've read. SounderBruce 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I'm not always the clearest at explaining it. It's probably easiest to understand from this discussion which includes things I wasn't aware of at the time. Just as an example, this would be compliant with MOS:ACCESS and I believe it includes all the information you're looking for. I've not included links just to save time and the only reason I've not included attendances in this case is because it only affects two matches (I'd add a prose outlining why instead). Personally, I don't think you need the discipline column and consensus at WP:FOOTY is similar (most recent discussion, granted only six contributors). Don't get me wrong, I hope you are successful with your proposal but it might take a while given how many times it has been raised in the past and hasn't been resolved. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Stevie fae Scotland and SounderBruce: is there any more to come from either of you on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I've said above. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we're at an impasse until an ACCESS-compliant version of the template is made, as the alternatives offered are completely unsuited to MLS articles. I don't think this is the right venue to re-litigate yet another template faction war, and am disappointed that this nomination has become a victim of it. SounderBruce 05:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Frustrating as it may be, this nomination is three weeks in and has just the single general support. Unless it makes further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Teratix

[edit]

My background is more in Australian rules football but I'll take a look at this if it means possibly avoiding an archival... – Teratix ₵ 11:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • due to the pandemic's spread in the Seattle metropolitan area could link the pandemic's spread to COVID-19 pandemic in Washington (state)?
    • Added.
  • saw the departure of winger Víctor Rodríguez alongside defenders Román Torres and Kim Kee-hee were these considered significant or minor departures? Was their absence expected to greatly affect Seattle's season?
    • Added context for the players, they were all starters or regular subs.
  • lacked replacements in several positions which ones?
    • Added using existing source.
  • between MLS and the MLS Players Association surely this can be rephrased to avoid doubling up "MLS"
    • Used "the league"
  • they had signed Brazilian midfielder João Paulo given he was a Designated Player I'm guessing this was a significant signing – how did commentators, fans, analysts react? Was he expected to greatly enhance Seattle's chances?
    • Couldn't find a good source with reactions to the signing beyond what the team and coaches/staff said about him.
  • his option was initially declined link option contract or similar
    • Added.
  • In the CONCACAF Champions League's round of 16 would it make sense to abbreviate to "Champions League" on further reference? I think from context it's unlikely to be confused with that other one.
    • Shortened the two instances in the same section, but retained in the Aftermath due to how far down it is.
  • The original 2020 season schedule was to be 34 total matches in the regular season, during which why not just "Originally, 34 matches were scheduled for the 2020 regular season. The Sounders would..."
    • Shortened even further and moved the year to the end.
  • Due to the expansion of the league and the resulting unbalanced schedule -> "Because MLS's expansion had caused an imbalance in the schedule". Also, the link should go to the section on its 2020 expansion. Actually, now I reflect – what exactly does an "unbalanced schedule" mean in this context? Too many teams to fit into too few games?
    • "Unbalanced schedule" is a common phrase used to describe leagues where a full round-robin is not used (which is the case in several American sports, but not typical in global soccer). I've linked the section and added the number of teams.
  • The first regular season match but it wasn't the first regular season match, it was Seattle's first.
    • Fixed.
  • that was called off by the referee might be AmE, does this mean "called as offside"?
    • Fixed, "called off" is used sometimes in American English to mean any goal that is scratched.
  • The first match was played Why not "Seattle played its first match", which also highlights location ahead of the part about a "local outbreak"?
    • Changed to use the date to emphasize its place in the timeline.
  • Public Health – Seattle & King County "the county's public health department" or similar seems a more natural phrase, using the dash feels odd
    • Changed to "public health authorities" in the pipe; as it's the consolidated city/county department, using either name would be inaccurate.
  • during the prior week while in contact with local health officials can't put my finger on why but the sentence seems to reads more naturally if these parts are swapped
    • Swapped and it does read better. Intuition is a funny thing.
  • a "care package" that included a soccer ball link seems overkill
    • Removed.
  • and other precautions does this clause really say much if we're not listing what these other precautions were?
    • Added PPE in place of the clause.
  • The sessions resumed two weeks after most MLS teams the intended meaning here is clearly something like "the sessions resumed two weeks after most MLS teams resumed their sessions" but it has been a bit mangled by the grammar.
    • Switched to "later".
  • would be at greater risk of complications from COVID-19 I think this should be "would have been", even though Morris presumably still carries greater risk, because it's specifically referring to the risk incurred by attending the training sessions, which took place in the past.
    • Fixed.
  • retirement from professional soccer in June to pursue a business degree. [break] In June 2020 close recurrence of June is a little jarring
    • Switched to "the same month".
  • players and staff were isolated in a "bubble" do we need the quotation marks as well as a link?
    • I believe that phrases that could be confused with other, normal words are allowed to be in quotation marks, regardless of whether it is linked.
  • required extra preparations for players due to the 9 a.m. start time what were these preparations?
    • Added one example from the source.
  • due to the uncertainty of holding events -> "because it was uncertain whether further matches would have to be called off"?
    • Fixed with some tweaks.
  • signs ... were installed ... and paired with tarps over empty seats and recorded audio from previous matches using "paired with" to link three different measures is confusing
    • Split into two sentences.
  • to "simulate" a matchday environment why the quotes?
    • Removed.
  • who were using a rotated lineup is there an article on the concept of sports rotation we could link here?
    • The closest article would be Starting lineup, which I have linked much earlier.
  • earned two penalty kicks within five minutes this sounds like it means the five minutes immediately after kick-off when it was actually much later in the half
    • Reordered to remove that implication (which would be funny).
  • within five minutes, including a handball that required video review, in the first half that were converted by Lodeiro all these modifiers make the sentence unwieldy and exhausting to read
    • See above.
  • added a strike in 82nd minute missing "the"
    • Fixed.
  • options for rotating players for -> "options to rotate players for"
    • Fixed.
  • won 3–1 through a trio of goals in 12 minutes early in the second half "in 12 minutes early" is a bit garden-pathy
    • Fixed.
  • called for a foul by Yeimar Gómez Andrade this reads like Yeimar himself called the foul
    • Added "committed"
  • due to an unequal number of matches played by MLS teams -> "because teams did not play the same number of matches"
    • Fixed.
  • only conference semifinalist that they had drop "that"
    • Fixed.
  • ages listed for each player is calculated age?
    • Fixed.
  • most minutes of any outfield player, at 1,890 minutes ... maybe "most minutes of any outfield player: 1,890 minutes ..." to avoid recurrent commas?
    • Fixed.
  • The transfer section doesn't say anything about fan/analyst reactions to or reflections on the Sounders' transfers.
    • The section is meant for statistics, like most of the bottom half of the article; if there were reactions to the transfers, they'd be placed in the summary, but I struggle to find sources that aren't just parroting the team or league.
  • The MLS season has two transfer windows "had", since we're talking about past windows?
    • Present tense is used because the league continues to use the two-window system.
      • Then could register new players should be "can register", and who required an International Transfer Certificate should be "who require" – but in my view using the past tense will hold up better for future readers, what if MLS changes their system ten or twenty years down the track? – Teratix ₵ 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • dates listed are when Seattle Sounders FC officially signed the players why the sudden reversion to the full club name (recurs through the rest of the paragraph?)
    • Fixed.
  • The aftermath section doesn't really say anything about fan/analyst/club reactions to or reflections on the season.
    • Will add something soon; the most reliable "fansite" recently purged many of their old posts, so I'll have to look through old archives.
  • Do we really need the MLS navbox? We've already got three.
    • Forgot to remove it ages ago; far too many articles use the league navbox as a general navigation tool rather than something more specific.
  • There's quite a few duplinks throughout the article, only really egregious one is The Sounders were scheduled to enter the 2020 U.S. Open Cup when it's immediately linked above, the rest I leave to your discretion.
    • I think it's appropriate to leave the link from the main template, as this format is used in many articles when a section has a summary that ties into another article.
      • I agree, my point is you don't need the link in the main template and also the link in the section's first sentence. I suggest deleting the link in the first sentence. – Teratix ₵ 11:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • References are reliable, consistently formatted and were spotchecked at the GA review.
  • I won't make any extended comment on the accessibility question because I am not at all familiar with the dispute, but it's not an issue specific to this article and really should be discussed at project or template level rather than at FAC. If opposition solely hinges on this issue, the coordinators should disregard it unless a broader forum finds consensus the templates are problematic. – Teratix ₵ 09:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't quite understand. The template used has documented ACCESS issues as the nominator accepts. This has been brought up as an issue at this stage before resulting in alterations to improve articles, such as this featured list. There are plenty of ways to do this which do work with ACCESS so it is easily fixable and I, personally, don't understand the reluctance not to do so. (Apologies also if this is not the correct way to reply, I'm new to this and tried to find what the correct etiquette was but couldn't find guidance). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reluctance stems from having to choose a side in the partisan fight over this; if the template is the issue, then fix the template instead of blowing it up. The alternatives have not addressed my concerns about the amount of information that would be deleted in such a switch without compromising on aesthteics. Something that majorly affects thousands of other articles but is otherwise not a core part of the FACR should not be used to derail an FAC. SounderBruce 05:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either the template is okay to use, or it is not okay to use. If it is okay to use, it is okay to use in this article. If it is not okay to use, it needs to be rewritten or deprecated, and the appropriate place for that discussion is on the template talk page, a WikiProject talk page or even a broader project forum if necessary.
An FAC discussion is not a suitable place for resolving the issue – its purpose is instead to discuss issues specific to the candidate article and its audience is not large enough to decide consensus on project-wide disputes. I am not saying one side of the dispute is right and the other is wrong, merely that it's not possible to decide the issue in this particular venue. – Teratix ₵ 07:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given support conditional on no larger-scale discussion finding the footballbox template is unacceptable to use – I haven't seen any such discussion in progress, so I'm still supporting. – Teratix ₵ 04:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]

Seeing the users above have left some remarks, I will add mine:

  • I would add (MLS) after "twelfth season in Major League Soccer", just to make perfectly clear what the abbrevation alludes to as you're using MLS onwards in the article.
    • Added.
  • Maybe you could add some text about that season's Sounders' kits (home and away jerseys are in the infobox but no mention of them in the body of the article)?
    • Added a paragraph to the Background section.
  • Words like "shutout", "header", "penalty" (in "earned a penalty") could be linked.
    • Added links on first use.
  • "saved a penalty attempted by Carlos Vela" ==> could omit "attempted" here
    • Fixed.
  • "As of December 2020" ==> this won't change, so it's better to move the reference below the table and put "Source:" (or whatever) in front of it. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

Do we have sources for the kits? Image licence and placement seem OK. ALT text is fine. Spot-check upon request. I think MLSsoccer.com, SoundersFC.com and SoundersFC.com can be replaced with the actual name of the websites. Seems like source formatting is consistent, but I must wonder, are there non-web, non-newspaper sources too? Is MLS Humanitarian of the Year Award prominent enough to merit mention solely on the basis of a press release? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The kits in the infobox are already described in the Background section with sources; the infobox does not have a parameter that allows for a straightforward citation, but I presume that under MOS:LEADCITE it should be fine. I'm not sure that there is a more appropriate name for MLSsoccer.com, as it has some level of editorial independence from the league's communications department (this paywalled 2010 source on its launch explains a bit); for SoundersFC.com, it's mostly a matter of separating out the press releases from other coverage. For the MLS Humanitarian Award, the winner seems to get decent non-local coverage; I tacked it on to the end of Roldan's mention as the team's humanitarian of the year due to the overlap in league/club awards. SounderBruce 05:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just wanted to follow up on this review. SounderBruce 08:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding MLSsoccer.com, I was wondering if the website has a name that's distinct from the domain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not and is simply referred to by the website name in other outlets (such as Soccer America and The New York Times. SounderBruce 19:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SB, perhaps I've missed it but could you point out to me where the data in the following tables are cited?
  • Preseason
  • Match results
  • MLS Cup Playoffs
  • Round of 16

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: The match results are cited from the "Report" links in each of the uncollapsed match entries. SounderBruce 04:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did miss it/them -- okay, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2024 (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) 28 February 2024 [18].

The Structure of Literature

[edit]
Nominator(s): czar 18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite quotes is from the philosopher John Searle speaking in 2010 on French philosophy, in which he says that two famous French philosophers had confided to him that, in France, philosophical writing has to be at least 10 or 20 percent incomprehensible to be perceived as deep and to be taken seriously. I've yet to read a monograph that tackles obscurantism in academia but until then, we have this article.

I started out writing this article about Paul Goodman's disseration as part of a project to document his works. And Goodman's academic career is such a small, passed-over pocket of the very wide range of topics he covered (spanning 21 sections of the New York Public Library), that I had not seen previously written, with such singular clarity, a group of writers converging to say about his academic debut what could largely be said of his larger career, that this book was full of psychological insight and incisive asides, but he eclipsed his argument with impenetrable style issues and jargon.

I've been working on this Goodman project for nearly a decade now because sometimes incomprehensible sociological works have real-world impact, and writing clearly about unclear texts can be hard, interesting, and sometimes rewarding. Please have a look and let me know if the same applies to readers. czar 18:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Cite 35 has a p/pp error.
  • Cite 39: no publisher location?
  • Could we have the year of publication in the first sentence please.
  • "were of mixed favor". What does mixed favor mean? And in the main article.
  • "belles lettres". Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be in lang templates rather than italics.
  • "The author Paul Goodman developed from this tradition". I am struggling to work out what this is trying to communicate.
  • "In the type of writing practiced by Goodman—formal literary analysis—the author breaks". By "the author" do you mean Goodman, or any writer? If the former, perhaps 'he'; if the latter, perhaps 'an author'.
  • "he author breaks the work into parts and describes how those parts interrelate to form a whole and create meaning." Suggest that one "and" is preceded by a serial comma.
  • Is it actually possible to find a "work's formal structure in ... external factors alone"?
  • It may be worth specifying in "Background" which type[s] of literature are considered susceptible to literary criticism.
  • The Structure of Literature is a work of literary criticism." Is it? It seems to be a book about literary criticism. What do the sources actually say?
    • The reviews all cover Goodman's original literary analysis of over a dozen works as he attempts to introduce a form of analysis called "inductive formal analysis". The phrase "literary criticism" appears to be in wider circualtion now than it was at the time but that's definitely how it's categorized today.[19] czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goodman's performs a close analysis of ..." Is the 's a typo? If not, what is he possessive of?
  • "elements like word sound, weight, syntax, tone, and metaphor". Does this article use serial commas or not?
Just looking at the lead, "and" occurs six times, none of them with a serial comma.
If serial commas are commas that precede the last item in a list of at least three, none of those "ands" involve lists of three. Otherwise the "ands" only have commas if they're connecting two independent clauses, which they're not here. czar 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to highlight its psychology of war". Suggest "its" → 'the plays'.
  • "Goodman's early 1934 article". I am not sure that it is necessary to be told that the article was published in early 1934.
  • Why does "Reception" start with an orphaned single sentence paragraph?
    • The other paragraphs are thematically organized, so I felt it more appropriate to have the sentence stand alone than attached to a different set of ideas. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goodman engaged some reviewers with psychological insight". Goodman or the book engaged? If the former, perhaps 'his psychological insight'; if the latter, perhaps 'its psychological insight'.
  • "wrong judgments about "form" and "structure" into uncorrectable "abstracted schematisms". Have you missed the closing quote marks?
  • " with "a certain aridity and addiction to jargon",[3] and "dizzying and not always grammatical shifts from the gnomic to the off-hand" ". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Also elsewhere; in several it may be better to paraphrase into Wikipedia's voice. Eg " the author's tone frequently swaps between "high-falutin' critical terminology" and "quite excessively American colloquialisms"."
    • The spirit of that section it to make sure opinion is attributed, which it is with footnotes. It's paraphrasing from a parent guideline that asks for in-text attribution when the statement would come across in encyclopedic voice as biased. In this case, the quotation is clearly credited to the reviewers cited in that sentence and adds color that paraphrase would not. I could just cut the quote as the paragraph later covers his use of jargon and swings between highbrow and lowbrow, but I think that would make the paragraph weaker. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the paragraph reads well as it is, but the first sentence of WP:SUBSTANTIATE is "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." Sorry, but I think it needs tweaking.
@Mike Christie:, would you be able to weigh in with a third opinion here with respect to Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections? The quotes in the cited instance here add variety and, in my opinion, do not express bias or mislead, as they are clearly put as the range of reviewer opinion. Alternatively, they would be paraphrased here as it wouldn't make sense to add in-text attribution for asides. czar 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to, perhaps tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are opinions. The MoS, which is policy, says "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. "Copyediting reception sections", for all its merits, is an essay. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Goodman's case for formalism, wrote Poetry, required better rhetoric." Why is this not attributed to the writer?
    • In articles on creative works, I use author names when they're independently notable and the publication's name when the reviewer is not independently notable. This helps the reader associate the opinion with the entity they're most likely to remember. This helps avoid distracting readers by introducing a half-dozen non-notable surnames only to never mention them again. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In split opinion". I don't think this is grammatically correct.
I meant, shouldn't it be 'In a split opinion'? :-)
Well it isn't a singular opinion being split, though. If you think it's confusing I could recast the sentence? czar 03:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that could readily be done, I think it would be best.
Rephrased without recasting czar 03:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of Goodman's plot definitions did not hold". Which citation supports this?
    • The latter part of the sentence cites multiple examples of reviewers showing what didn't hold: applied inconsitently, circularly defined, imprecise, etc. czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first quick read through completed. It is probably just me, but Goodman's book brings to mind a sentence from one of Peter Medawar's more aggresive reviews: (from memory) "In spite of all the obstecles the author perhaps wisely places in our way, it is possible to discern a chain of thought in the work." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, @Gog the Mild! Appreciate the edits and have addressed all in the prose. Is there a script you use to find the p/pp errors? I've clarified "mixed favor" as "mixed favor and disfavor" as that's as far as Book Review Digest goes[20]: "The plus and minus signs preceding the name of the magazine indicate the degree of favor or disfavor of the entire review." In this case, most of the reviews had both plus and minus signs, indicating both favor and disfavor in the same review, for which I think the general term is "mixed". czar 19:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good. A few comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on in-text attribution

[edit]

Pulling out a section for the conversation started above since this would overwhelm the bullet point in question.

  • WP:V (which is policy) says "Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate."
  • WP:NONFREE (also policy) says "use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author (as described by the citation guideline)"
  • WP:CITE (a guideline) says in-text attribution "may" be needed for various cases but "should always be used for biased statements of opinion".

Full disclosure: CITE used to argue more strongly than this for in-text attribution, but per this discussion (which I started) that was weakened to be inline with the two policies.

I would take the sum of these to mean that only "biased statements of opinion" need to be attributed inline. I think of biased statements of opinion as something more than just a professional reviewer expressing an opinion of a book. An academic criticizing a rival theory would probably come under this heading.

Gog, you mentioned the MOS statement that "the source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". I think this is out of sync with the three I quote above, but that's perhaps only because CITE was changed to weaken the in-text guidance. Anyway, we have to deal with it as it is. It points in turn to WP:SUBSTANTIATE, though, which once again talks about "biased statements of opinion".

There's no doubt from the above that "biased statements of opinion" have to have intext attribution. Simple statements of opinion, I would argue, do not have to -- that is, statements from sources that have no apparent axe to grind.

I deliberately wrote the above without looking to see what specific statements Gog is asking for attribution for. Looking at the sentences in question now, I think the attribution provided is enough, and in-text attribution is not needed. They certainly are "opinions" but I wouldn't call them biased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild? czar 03:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response. I am unconvinced by the above, but rather than shoot from the hip I wanted to think on it. (If I remain unconvinced I shall (attempt to) explain why then.) I considered IARing the usage to duck the whole issue, but as the second paragraph of the Reception paragraph contains lots of opinions, including two directly quoted ones, this begs the question of why if one paragraph can be felicitously phrased to meet all possible interpretations of the MoS, the other needs IARing. I shall continue pondering, and researching. Feel free to pester me if I do not get back in what you consider a reasonable timescale - although it is not as if the nomination is about to time out. Bar a further nit pick mentioned above I am otherwise happy with the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right. The FAC criterion in question is "It follows the style guidelines". Stripping the code gives It follows the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|style guidelines]]. So it is what the MoS says that matters, not what any other Wikipedia policy says, even if it seems to contradict, or does contradict, the MoS. It would make things easier if this were not the case, but after two weeks I can't see a way round it.
I would like to minimise the extent to which well written prose is messed around to satisfy the MoS, and so would be prepared to countenance some use of IAR. But would like to minimise this. As noted above, the majority of quotations are attributed in line, so there is not an issue in principle.
All of that said, this is a good, well written article and I want to see it promoted. So are the cases where the 'in line attribution really, really wrecks the prose' cases right down to an irreducible minimum?
  • While pondering this, I was struck by "Reviewers remarked on glaring style issues in Goodman's own text: with "a certain aridity and addiction to jargon", and "dizzying and not always grammatical shifts from the gnomic to the off-hand", lacking both in grace and basic clarity." I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Splitting the sentence into four parts - Introduction, Quote A, Quote B, and Statement C - it seems to be that Quote A and and Quote B establish that Goodman's own text is lacking both in grace and basic clarity. So 1. have I understood that correctly, and - if so - 2. is that really what Aiken (1955) and Rodway (1955) are saying?
  • Separately, does 'and in Moore's opinion the author's tone frequently swaps between "high-falutin' critical terminology" and "quite excessively American colloquialisms" ' really wreck the prose? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first clause ("reviewers remarked") has a group citation showing the reviewers who remarked. To add color to that statement without following the "A said B, X said Y" format (that WP:CRS derides), I used examples of those remarks without using Wikipedia voice to portray it as truth—two quotes and one more group citation (Aiken and Rodway). They're written to show as opinions that are clearly refering to the reviewers in the first clause. A rephrase of these quotes, i.e., to use synonyms for "aridity", "addiction to jargon", "shifts between the gnomic to the off-hand", would in my opinion be a greater artistic liberty than using the sufficiently colorful quote. We can remove everything after the first clause and it would still say the same thing, since everything else is just to reinforce the first clause, but my case is that it's then a weaker sentence that says the same thing. Nevermind the fact that breaking it into three sentences is bore to read in a Reception section ("A said B"). This version is certainly more engaging and, in my humble opinion, does not pass off opinion in Wikipedia's voice, which is the spirit of what the MoS wants to avoid. czar 03:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have convinced me on that one. It does flow very nicely - always a joy to see poetic prose at Wikipedia - and one can at least make a case, as you do, that it is in the spirit of the MoS. Apologies if it took me a while to get there.
So, what do you think about inserting "in Moore's opinion"? You do similar elsewhere while ensuring the "prose is engaging and of a professional standard" and it seems to me you could do here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Here) I generally try not to namedrop a reviewer unless they have been made into a character the reader can remember ("who is Moore?" said anyone reading to this point in the article) but it's straightforward to credit the publication and I have less qualms about attributing this direct opinion. This said, I do think it makes the sentence clunkier and that the reader isn't necessarily richer for knowing the name of the publication/person who said the quote. czar 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does the trick. A fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text

Shapeyness

[edit]

A few comments below - theories of literary criticism are completely outside my area of knowledge but hopefully these are some useful points. Shapeyness (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Structure of Literature is a work of literary criticism, a professionalized version of a genre known as belles lettres, for writing that focuses on the aesthetics of literature and is associated with humanistic intellectual discussions (dialectics) I think the term "literary criticism" is probably more well known to most readers than belles lettres, so it might be worth removing that aside. If not, I think splitting this up into two sentences might help make it a bit easier to read. Also, not sure what you think, but do you think the concept of dialectics is necessary for understanding the context of the work here? Just wondering if there is room for some of the more jargon-y terms to be cut out.
    • Recast—let me know what you think
  • Maybe it's worth introducing relevant influences from gestalt psychology and Aristotelianism/neo-Aristotelianism and a description of what they are in the background section as they are introduced without much discussion in the Contents section. This would possibly help to set the stage for the focus of Goodman's arguments as well.
    • Good idea
  • Goodman's book argues for the third, with examples of its application, without slighting the former two I think it's very obvious from context what this means, but it could be confused by the fact that inductive formal analysis is actually the first approach mentioned in the paragraph. Maybe it is better to just state "inductive formal analysis" directly.
    • ✓
  • I find the following passage a bit hard to follow Aristotle's definition of tragedy, Goodman contends, is as if derived from Oedipus Rex. The Aristotelian formal model based on Oedipus Rex, continues Goodman, does not work for Philoctetes, as the play's miraculous divine intervention is a function of its plot, and not simply theatrical artifice. Possibly there just needs to be a bit more explanation on why Goodman claims this and that would be enough to make it clearer. Or maybe the previous point about introducing Aristotelianism in the background section might help.
  • which Goodman rates as pure comic, pure serious and pure comic separated, and serious and comic mixed It's hard to gauge the significance of this - is this the conclusion that Goodman is working to with this chapter? If so, why is it important? In general, I find it hard to identify which parts of the Contents section are Goodman's most important conclusions / the driving force behind his analysis, and which are the little details.
    • Agreed on both points and I've cleaned up the detail. On second read, there were a handful of elements that read as minutiae when a general audience just wants the big picture.
  • Publication section: does it make sense to move this above the Contents section?
    • Normally it wouldn't (since book article introduce the book first) but I can appreciate how it makes sense here
  • No comments on the Reception or Legacy sections, they are both very clear and interesting!
  • Goodman's 1934 article on aesthetics in The Journal of Philosophy Perhaps a cite to that article? It wouldn't technically be acting as a source for the sentence but might be helpful for anyone who wants to dig down and find the paper nonetheless.
    • It's not being cited in the sentence so I've instead added it to Further reading, if that works
  • He argues that Aristotle's method is inadequate to judge the Philoctetes using the formal structure of Oedipus Rex I reworded this slightly - hopefully that is ok!
  • His analysis was thus reduced to techncial interactions and unbased generalities Should this be in Wikipedia's voice? Also there is a typo there
  • Some of Goodman's plot definitions did not hold either Once again, not sure this should be in WP voice
    • It's followed by four sentences of how it's true. Does it need to repeat "Reviewers wrote that..."?
      • The only worry I have is that this is a statement of opinion rather than an objective fact. Wording like below retains the meaning and isn't overly repetitive - what do you think? Reviewers criticized some of Goodman's plot definitions, as being either unfitting, imprecise, circularly defined, or lacking consistency or rigor in their application. Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Here) It's not a hill for me to die on but what I'm defending here is that when four reviewers write in isolation about the same subjective thought (Goodman's plot definitions not holding) and I juxtapose those next to each other, "Some of Goodman's plot definitions did not hold either" has the same validity to a reader with those four citations with or without the preface that Reviewers said so. I could add "Reviewers said/thought/criticized" before most sentences in this section to clarify the subject but would any reader reading to this point not know that "unfitting, imprecise, circularly defined, or lacking consistency or rigor in their application" are summaries of reviewer opinions and not Wikipedia's? This also has the benefit of not appearing as cherry picking: "Reviewers said [words with negative valence]? So what nice things did they say about his plot definitions too?" vs. matter-of-factly grouping four similar citations together as supporting the assertion that some of his plot definitions did not hold. czar 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For instance, while Goodman defines Oedipus and Philoctetes as serious plots, the two are so disparate in final effects that the categorization loses its definitional value Similar comment here, probably best to attribute to Borklund
    • Added
  • On reflection, Goodman said that he had been brought to Chicago to work on aesthetics and his dissertation had been his course in practical criticism, the invention of Aristoltelian poetics synonymous with the Chicago School On second reading I'm finding this a bit hard to understand
    • Rephrased
  • Also, just wondered if there is a reason why sfn templates are used for most citations but not Buchanan 1996, James & Brown 1955, Hejinian & Watten 2013, and Rosenthal 1971?
  • Will try to have a look over some sources just as a final check for comprehensiveness soon
    @Czar: Some replies above. Shapeyness (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shapeyness, replied above :) Thank you czar 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Czar, now ready to support
    Last optional comment: Goodman had hoped that his dissertation's long-awaited publication would bring academic recognition, but it did not, nor was his method accepted by the field. The same applied to Chicago Aristotelianism as a whole, which had minimal effect on analytic method in the field. is a bit repetitious "by the field" followed by "in the field".
    —Shapeyness (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased. Thank you! czar 03:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcdiehardfan

[edit]

I was a bit bold and did a little copyedit to just clarify some stuff, streamline some sentences, and clarify some typos on the Background and publication section. I'll try to organize my criticism as well and go in a top-down manner. Note that this should all be taken with a grain of salt as I'm not an experienced FAC editor and I will do my best to provide my two-cents/review of the article as it stands of now. These will mostly include stuff like prose, grammar stuff, etc and mainly asking for clarification I suppose. Feel free to ask any questions or express any views you may have. And this is just a preference of mine, but if you choose to consider this in a Checklist-type manner, could you please use the visual identifiers of {{y}}, {{n}}, {{done}}, {{fixed}}, {{removed}}, {{not done}}, {{working}}, {{comment}} or anything else of the like since this just makes it easier for me to tell what stuff is resolved as my eyes tend to just glaze over the text in these types of situations.

The WP:FAC intro rules request sparing use of templates to reduce page load times but I'll use text replies czar 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that sounds good and I think strike-through works. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • Pretty solid prose, I'd recommend splitting into 3 paras for a holistic summary. The first is fine as is, the second should contain the content regarding its inception, so include a bit more from the Background para I think so that way it can stand on its own as a para. The third para I envision serving as the Reception overview, meaning it'll include the microcosm of the Reception. I also envision it getting content from the Legacy section to fully pad it out and be a holistic lead. Also, if I ask questions, these are genuine questions that I have or clarifications that I need, so it's not necessarily me trying to critique it; it's genuine but I'm also doing it to express my concern that others may read it awkwardly, misunderstand it, or be confused by it, if you get me.
    • Usually an article of this length doesn't warrant an expanded lede for its own sake—are there any important details that you feel are missing from the current version? For instance, I think the Legacy section (one paragraph) is sufficiently summarized with the one sentence represented. For the Background section, I consider that helpful context for someone reading the whole article but I wouldn't necessarily define Aristotelian in the lede just so that they understand its whole context there (they have links for that or can read on). c
Background and publication
[edit]
  • Just CE'd, don't see any major problems
Contents
[edit]
  • This method, which he calls "inductive formal analysis", entails finding the ... → Calling it "inductive formal analysis", Goodman sought to find the ...
    • I'd prefer to specify the "it" so it's clearly the method and not the book c
  • Just out of curiosity, is there any reason the term "close analysis" is used? Does it have a different connotation from "analysis" or is this word choice specific on your part?
  • apart from that is a word salad, maybe albeit opining or although acknowledging that or something to that effect
    • ✓
  • Could you perhaps elaborate on what you mean by elaborate plot?
    • Assuming that's "hidden plot"—added
  • between the work's beginning and end → throughout/across the work OR as the work progresses, it's simpler and less awkward that way
    • Further simplified at the risk of over-reduction
  • Wikilink diction
    • ✓
  • What does "special problems of unity" mean?
    • It's described further down
  • literary works in three plot types could be rearranged to be three plot types in literary works
    • Preferably the word before the colon (plot types) describes the plot type words after the colon
  • using → citing
    • He is using them as examples here, not just citing
  • from Goodman's own → from his own
    • Since it's opening a paragraph, "his" wouldn't clearly refer to the author
  • but such a structure is inadequate to judge Philoctetes → considering it inadequate/insufficient for evaluating/judging Philoctetes. I think more precision would help.
    • Rephrased
  • Can't you enumerate Aeneid as simply Virgil's epic poem Aeneid to maintain consistency with how Richard II is cited or is this apposition an MOS thing or smth?
    • It's "the Aeneid" so it needs the comma, which I don't think breaks the sentence's parallelism
  • Have some transition word/phrase when going from talking about Serious to Comic plots, such as Meanwhile
    • I clarified that it's Goodman's typology but some FAC reviewers frown on these types of transition words (e.g., However); also it should be straightforward that this paragraph is describing the three plot types in that order
  • He breaks into elements could be misconstrued in some funny ways and is grammatically awkward, so for more direct language, I'd perhaps recommend something like He analyzes lyrical poems through elements such as ... or Goodman addresses lyrical poems by deconstructing them into various elements including/such as or something to that effect
    • ✓ (but deconstruction is something else in literary theory)
      • Ahh, maybe interpret or something of the like could work better to avoid the conflation
  • I think in those works → for those works works better
    • I can go either way but I have a slight preference for "subordinate ... in" vs. "subordinate ... for"
  • Reiterating the "close analysis" thing, any specific reason or?
  • Recommend wikilinking syntax, also what does inferential thought mean?
    • Rephrased
  • I could just be a bit confused by the "problems of unity" thing, but idk if it was actually explained somewhere or if I'm missing it. I also think it's not explained in its corresponding para like specifically, it mainly focuses on the analysis of the book's Chapter 6.
    • Reframed
Reception
[edit]
  • I'm a bit iffy about 1st-sentence paras in general, and especially am not a fan of how it is rephrased from the Lead. I'd first definitely recommend rephrasing the sentence or providing more clarification that already isn't provided in the lead (ie introducing new content), and then seeing if it can be integrated into another paragraph.
    • This is covered in the review above but in short, it stands on its own and does not fit the content theme of other paragraphs. The lede is meant to summarize the article, hence why they're similar sentences.
    • Gotcha on the one-sentence para, I just think the sentences are a bit too similar, but I normally see Lede Reception summaries as being something like of mixed critical reception/reviews or something to that effect. May I perhaps suggest that to distinguish the sentences a bit more while retaining the original content?
      • The sentences are already slightly different but either way the reader isn't going to remember by the time they scroll down :) and in any event, I added a little color to this paragraph on the book overall c
  • The Books Abroad sentence is positioned such that there should be quoted content. I especially do not like how informal these flashes of brilliance sounds, so I'd recommend either directly quoting content from the source to retain the sentence structure or alter it to read as being Books Abroad opined/felt/considered the merit of Goodman's ideas were impacted by his attempts to create an Aristotelian analytic method or something like that
    • That sentence feels needless dry. Looking to avoid the "A said B" pitfalls common to Reception sections mentioned in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections. The quote isn't about the merits of ideas but that the analysis had discrete moments of brilliance that were mired in his attempt to create a rigid method.
      • Right, hence the variation of verbiage and structure and reduction of quoted content, I'll retract most of the first part, but I still think a better word choice could be used instead "these flashes of brilliance", may I suggest merits of various ideas
        • Rephrased c
  • star of his analysis is weirdly worded, recommend: being critical/essential/important to his analysis
    • I think this was clear but changed to "centerpiece"
      • Yea, it's just the wording I felt was a bit awkward, but "centerpiece" works perfectly so I appreciate you for that.
  • Goodman, continued Levin → He further explained that Goodman appeared to be more interested in...
    • What's wrong with the former construction? It's concise and direct.
      • I just feel it's the syntax is a bit odd and don't traditionally see that type of structure in Wiki articles, but I may be wrong and you are right on brevity, perhaps may I suggest Levin elaborated Goodman appears to be ...?
        • Rephrased c
  • What does "approach novel" mean? Also, I'd recommend keeping ppl's quotes packaged together, so I'd say relocate the Widmer approach novel sentence so it's with the other Widmer content, such that the extended Levin commentary doesn't interrupt its flow
    • "Novel" as in "new" but reframed to avoid the confusion.
      • Ahh ok, I interpreted it as "book novel" haha, and was a bit confused there, but thank you.
    • These paragraph are organized by theme rather than by reviewer. If they were organized by reviewer, they'd hop between disconnected ideas, so the trade-off is that theme-organized paragraphs have a cavalcade of reviewer names (because Wikipedia norms lead to overattribution). In so far as is reasonable, I've tried to reduce or characterize reviewer names so that the reader can focus on the substance of the critic rather than their identity.
      • I see, that's another Reception technique I've used in terms of organizing by theme, I also like that too. I'm not sure if reducing the reviewer names is a good idea, but I'll trust that you're doing it well as I like to attribute reviewers, but that could be because I edit more film related articles, so my approach isn't always aligned to more formal literary works.
        • If it helps, I like to think about what's most useful to a general reader who doesn't know reviewer personalities and what will help the text flow without having to maintain a mental rolodex of names without meaning. Sometimes the reviewer is independently notable and I'll use their name and other times they're not and I use the periodical name or the name by which I'd expect the reader to refer to the reviewer. I've found this to work well across all media types with Reception sections. c
  • Rephrase remarked on glaring style to something more WP:NPOV, like Reviewers criticized Goodman's writing style, considering it to be QUOTE 1 and QUOTE 2 etc ...
    • I think that would make the sentence considerably weaker. It is a strong, true statement with ample direct quotes in its footnote.
  • One critic ... impenetrable I'd recommend identifying the critic if possible, and revise the word choice of "impenetrable" if it's not quoted directly from the source since that doesn't seem encyclopedic, maybe something like difficult/confusing/incomprehensible or Critic ABC felt reading some passages was difficult as they didn't enjoy/appreciate Goodman/his style.
    • Per above, looking to avoid "A said B" monotony. In this case, the reviewer's name doesn't aid understanding of the sentence. "Impenetrable" is an accurate summary and I don't think "incomprehensible" would be much different (though it isn't the word I'd choose). Saying that they thought "some passages" are difficult would be an understatement of what these critics wrote.
    • I see, I just associate "impenetrable" in a different connotation, like that of science or going through something, like a forest, not necessarily used in a literary thing but of course, this may be just tenuous argumentation on my part, apologies. However, may I suggest "abstruse" instead, I think that might work better for this particular topic?
  • I don't think the More bluntly statement is really needed, unless you have more content to sort of support that person's claim, such as like why that's the case or an example or smth
    • I think it's weaker without it: It is blunt and it is indeed the case.
      • Fair enough, I think it would work better if it was merged with the "impenetrable" sentence so that way it could be listed in an Oxford manner, like this One critic found some passages impenetrable due to style issues, bluntly stating it obscured his arguments, required the reader to mentally rewrite sentences to understand Goodman's intention, and made the reader doubt otherwise straightforward sentences. Feel free to amend as needed.
        • Sounds good and incorporated elsewhere
  • described a text rife with neologisms and jargon I'm assuming this is referring to the book, this should be made more explicitly. Something like Reviewers described the book as containing excessive amounts of neologisms and jargon should perfectly do the trick
    • Is it unclear? What else would it be referencing?
    • Makes sense in context, I just feel out of context the phrase "a text" might be a bit too broad, hence me suggesting "the book" or "the work" or something.
  • mask → obscure/complicate
  • If "high-falutin'" is correctly quoted, I'd recommend putting a [sic] template there since one could be forgiven for mistaking it as a typing error
    • What would be the typing error? I'd consider the quoted version to be an acceptable variation of the word for the era
  • Among Goodman's analyses of individual texts, some stood out to reviewers → Goodman's analyses of individual texts was discussed/highlighted/commented upon by various critics/reviewers
    • I'd want to avoid the passive voice there
    • True. I think the original works better, I stand corrected.
  • Name the Two who praised his Baudelaire translations if possible
    • See above re: "one"
  • In divided opinion → In a divided/mixed/polarized opinion
    • Discussed with reviewer above
  • Quote "hackneyed" if taken from the source directly, otherwise paraphrase by using a lighter-toned word like "outdated/insufficient/inadequate/antiquated/etc" seems more encyclopedic that way and not as a personal interpretation or smth
    • I don't see a neutrality issue with this word as a summary of the opinion
      • I usually see "hackneyed" associated in a negative connotation, hence my initial concerns, but of course, this could be a bit presumptuous on my part.
Legacy
[edit]
  • at the turn of the 1940s Too informal, try to identify the actual year, otherwise stick to more plain phrasing I'd say, like during the 1940s
    • I'll still stand by this statement, but assume this alludes to the beginning of the decade right? I think the timeframe can be better clarified with different diction.
      • It refers to the portion of time before and after 1940, so the transition from late 30s to early 40s. I think it's a straightforward definition[21] and it's okay if it is a little imprecise because so is the source. c
  • Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is the Chicago School wikilink here not a WP:DUPLINK?
    • It is. Thank you!
  • became known as the "Chicago School" and affiliated with ... → became known as the "Chicago School", and affiliated with ...
    • Removed errant "and"
  • Though Goodman had hoped for academic recognition from finally publishing his dissertation, it did not come, nor was his method accepted by the field. → While Goodman hoped for academic recognition following the book's publication, but did not gain it as some academics rejected his methods. or anything similar.
    • Reframed but I don't think "some" is correct here

Nevertheless, congratulations on all the work you have done so far and I'm wishing the best of luck. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appreciate the in-depth review, @Dcdiehardfan. Thanks for making me your first FAC review. Hope you like it and decide to stay. :) Generally FAC is meant to be less like peer review so sometimes that style of edit checklists (especially when long) are either kept on the article's talk page or moved to the review's talk page when resolved. I made some edit edits to the article and otherwise left comments above. If I didn't comment, it was either addressed or I felt the current version was stronger.
On the style and neutrality points, Wikipedia articles err towards a relatively dry and formulaic style while FAs, at least historically, try to highlight "brilliant prose" with a little more color and holding more interest than general articles. Some of the critics writing about The Structure of Literature are certainly more colorful than the text of the book itself, and much of the content of the book is complex to the point of obfuscation, so this is my attempt to capture the clarity and personality that can be extracted without pummeling the article into monotony. It's a tricky balance. If you'd like any sources to check claims against the original texts, just let me know. czar 21:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely @Czar: This is indeed my first FAC review, so apologies if some of the points/criticism was flimsy, tenuous, or anything of the like, and I hope this helped improve the article. I do plan on doing more FACs if possible in the future and intend on becoming more familiarized with the experience haha. Again, hopefully you found the review helpful, and I've went ahead and responded to the arguments above. If there isn't a response to a comment, I deferred to your explanation, but for some, I offer my thoughts here and there, as again, some of my criticism may just be bad or erroneous, so apologies on that. and I'll go ahead and respond to your comments from above. And yea, I understand the difficulties of writing a good and engaging Reception section all to well, I totally understand the monotony of the "A said B" thing, so normally, I vary the diction and syntax in order to freshen it usually. Of course, I understand that you have a better understanding of these concepts than I do so I'll AGF on the sources. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Did I miss something, or does this article not use its subject (the book) as a source period? Are Moore 1954 and The Nation single page sources? I would probably use a different format for the multi-source citations (22, 27 and 33) but I think that's a style question. Otherwise, source formatting is consistent and the sources seem OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's right. It cites secondary sources as preferable to itself (a primary source). Yes, Moore and The Nation are single-page sources. Re: multi-source citations, that's how I've always seen it done and I've always found it the most effective way to succinctly present quotations. Appreciate the review! czar 03:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that omitting the book entirely is compatible with the completeness requirement of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Especially since on things like summary, secondary sources often add small errors. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our MoS holds that secondary sources should rely on secondary sources for all evaluative claims and I trust professional publishers for having better evaluative practices than Wikipedia editors. (This also saves the Wikipedia editor from delving into elements of trivial detail that were not important enough to be picked up by a secondary source.) I've written many articles on creative works (books, games, etc.) and citing the work itself as a primary source is never raised as a criterion for completeness, especially when there is ample secondary source coverage for any necessary claims about the work. czar 16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that creative works articles tend to self-source to a degree. It's a bit of a contentious practice because it's easy to accidentally WP:OR but I don't think that the reliability issue of secondhand information can be easily addressed w/o some degree of self-source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliability issue of secondhand information? Are you suggesting that this article is missing some critical detail for not citing itself as a primary source, and if so, what? If you're commenting on the general practice, I can unequivocably say that I've never seen this be an issue before. czar 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondhand information is less reliable than firsthand. It's not uncommon for secondary sources to misread a primary source, say by getting a number wrong. OR requires secondary sources for analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis, not for everything, which is why many articles on works self-source e.g their plot summary. And yes, I wonder about completeness too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondhand information is less reliable than firsthand is a bold contradiction of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It is far more common for reliable, secondary sources to get it right, which is why the crux of the encyclopedia relies on them over primary sources. I'm not sure what you're advocating for here but it seems like a philosophical point to be taken up on another page.
Novels only self-source their plot under sparing conditions when there is an absence of secondary sources. Importantly, this is not a novel. Nonfiction synopsis should be sourced to secondary sources and here it is, with high-quality sources no less. czar 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is not about reliability. It's about the fact that sourcing analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to a primary source is, essentially, doing your own interpretation. The non-fiction point I'll grant, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, anything else you need to close out your review? czar 22:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that thing about (not) using the work as a source itself is the only issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, what's the best way to resolve that? Perhaps either (1) you could identify what general gaps of coverage/comprehensivenesss you see from not using the book as a primary source, and we can discuss, or (2) you or I could bring it to a wider forum for a third opinion? My take is that there's nothing noteworthy to add from self-citing the book itself. czar 14:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing to add from the book then this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, yes, apologies if that wasn't clear but I see nothing to add from the book that wasn't already covered elsewhere czar 22:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: I think this is ready for you czar 21:50, 27 February 2024 (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) 29 February 2024 [22].

Wildest Dreams (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift. Except that the music video was lambasted for featuring an all-white cast in Africa, the song is pretty good imo. I believe this article satisfies FA criteria and hope to bring the bronze star to it. Ippantekina (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review:

[edit]

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies in advance as I will not have the time to do a full review of either the prose or the sources, but I still wanted to help out where I could. There are only two points that needed to be addressed (i.e. the WP:FUR issue with the audio sample and the lack of a source link with the Taylor's version cover). Once those points are handled, I will be more than happy to pass this part of the review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, many thanks for the media review. I have updated the FUR for the audio and the source for the Taylor's Version cover, so it should be good now imo. Also while I'm at it, would you mind leaving some comments at my current FTC for 1989? It received a few contrary opinions that I deem quite unfair despite my explanations... would be great if I can hear from an experienced editor like you. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Of course, please let me know if anything additional is added to the article during the course of the review. I will look at the FTC momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • "it marked the third time he directed a music video for a 1989 single after "Blank Space" and "Bad Blood"" → not supported in Dyer
  • "As the romance ends, the pair is seen shooting in front of a savanna backdrop in a California studio" → this is supported on Dyer page 308 not 307
  • "wild animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America" → close to the source text "animal conservation efforts through the African Parks Foundation of America"
  • "who shoot a film in 1950s Africa" → "1950s" is supported on Dyer page 307 not 308
  • "The pair gets involved romantically off-screen, as the video features shots of wildlife such as giraffes, zebras, and lions in a broad savanna" → this is on 308 not 307

(suggest reviewing the Dyer citations. I didn't find anything wrong with Keim or McNutt)

  • associated press link is dead
  • mtv news ref is missing author
  • suggest finding a higher-quality source to replace the Good Morning America ref if possible
  • zollo ref should be marked via Medium or Cuepoint

Heartfox (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, I have addressed them accordingly. I found some other articles from Insider or Buzzfeed so I assume Good Morning America is the best we can go for now. Ippantekina (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: nudge. Ippantekina (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, this passes the source review. If you have time, my current FAC would benefit from your comments, even just a media review! Best, Heartfox (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vami

[edit]

Will review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I am about to start my reading :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • A general note, many names come out of the woodwork with little qualifier as to who they are or what they do.
  • Swift included "Wildest Dreams" in the set lists for two of her world tours: the 1989 World Tour (2015) and the Eras Tour (2023–2024). Why say it was in the set lists for two tours rather than, and especially when, you list the tours anyway?
    I believe what the late Vami was trying to say it's redundant to say "two of her world tours" when you name these tours anyway. So to simplify, something like: wift included "Wildest Dreams" in the set lists for her 1989 World Tour (2015) and the Eras Tour (2023–2024). FrB.TG (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I did so to introduce to readers unfamiliar with Swift that those two tours are hers. I think that's not redundant :) Ippantekina (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swift and Max Martin served as executive producers of 1989. Why "of" and not "for"?
  • In the chorus, the melody is accentuated by live strings with what Bylund described as "Coldplay-type rhythm chords". I do not understand this sentence. Are the live strings themselves the Coldplay-type rhythm chords?
  • The first verse sees her observing how the lover makes her feel the lust The lust?
  • and Slate's Forrest Wickman thought that Swift's character was "sort of a [...] femme fatale". Looks like an edit scar.
  • Robert Leedham of Drowned in Sound wrote that the lyrics portrayed her arrogance and confidence to move on to better things This should be a quotation.
  • I feel that there is not a need to repeat that something took place in 2015 in #Release and commercial performance after On August 5, 2015, Swift shared on Twitter.
  • and the European countries Why highlight this? Slovakia and Scotland are mentioned above without this qualifier.
  • that demonstrated Swift's new ways of expressing in her music I feel that "herself" should be added after "expressing". Its absence kind of throws off the sentence for me.
  • Swift's premise for the video was a love story between two actors in an isolated place within Africa and, without social media, they can talk only to each other because there is no other means of communication, resulting in an illicit love affair. This reads somewhat strangely and can be condensed.
  • #Development and synopsis twice uses the word "illicit". As word of God from Swift, the first use is fine; that's her concept for the video. There isn't a need to use it a second time, though. The taboo nature is understood, and the article can avoid repeating itself.
  • She held a private concert for 100 fans in Hamilton Island, Australia, as part of Nova's "Red Room" series; she sang "Wildest Dreams" on an acoustic guitar. This should be reordered; it feels like it was torn from the article on Swift herself, as the song's mention here feels like an afterthought. "Oh yeah, she sang Wildest Dreams."
  • Kornharber found the cover "undeniably lovely", Who?
  • the re-recorded version of 1989, Redundant.
  • remains faithful to the original production. There is a more encyclopedic way to say this. "remains faithful" unnecessarily expresses an opinion in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Murray and Siroky praised Swift's vocals as improved. As having improved?
  • In The Guardian, Rachel Aroesti She gets introduced all the way down here?

Just as promised!! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied above. Thanks much for the cmts! Ippantekina (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by voorts

[edit]

Review to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • I've done a copy edit for some minor grammar things and concision that I don't believe are objectionable, instead of listing everything out here. If you take issue with any of them, I'm happy to discuss.
  • Thanks much!
  • Change "The authors in the book Mistaking Africa" to "In their book Mistaking Africa, the [profession] author 1 and author 2, ..."
  • Please clarify "while the latter dismissed the allegations that Swift had political implications". I think there's a missing possessive of Swift's. Also, that whole sentence is very long and should be split up, and you use "argued" twice.
  • I think the intro paragraph of Taylor's version needs reworking/fleshing out. Here's my take on what happened (based on RSes but not cited; see the cites in the masters dispute article): Swift had tried to purchase the masters for years, but was told she'd need to sign a contract for six more albums, which she found outrageous. Then, Braun bought the company for $300M, and Swift called him a bully. Swift then decided to re-record her back catalog, "Because it’ll feel like regaining a freedom and taking back what’s mine." [23]. Upon re-recording, she didn't gain control over licensing or "substitute" the original masters; rather, she eliminated demand for licensing of the old masters.

Great work! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've addressed your comments above. Let me know if you have further concerns :) Ippantekina (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you split up the sentence startin "Kornhaber and Tshepo Mokoena" further? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh.. do you have suggestions? Ippantekina (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change the first semicolon to a period. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's neat. done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my feedback. Great work. Support. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

I will take a look at this one as well. Just a few quick notes before I do a more in-depth review.

Background and production:

  • Para 1: I noticed that the Out of the Woods article says that "Taylor Swift had been known as a country singer-songwriter until her fourth studio album Red". This article says "Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician until her fourth studio album, Red". Perhaps the wording should be standardized, unless there's a reason for mentioning that she "identified as a country musician" in this article while saying she "had been known as a country singer-songwriter" in "Out of the Woods".
    • I prefer the active voice to the passive and "had been known" is rather vague language. I don't think it should be "standardized" but I could make changes to the "Out of the Woods" article.. Ippantekina (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was mentioning standardization because there's a bit of a difference between "had identified" and "had been known". Like you said, one is active voice and one is passive voice, but identifying as something is not the same as being known for something. To be clear though, standardization of the text is only a suggestion, and I won't hold up my review of this otherwise great article over such a minor matter. Epicgenius (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed it in the "Out of the Woods" article too. (It's true that she both identified as a country musician and was known so, though the wording might conjecture different meanings..) Ippantekina (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "The former played the piano, and the latter played the electric guitar and percussion" - Just so we're 100% clear, Martin was the one who played the piano, while Shellback played the electric guitar and percussion?
    • Yep.
  • Para 2: "Mattias Bylund joined the production of "Wildest Dreams" - Out of interest, in which capacity?
    • It is elaborated in the following sentence: "Bylund played and arranged the strings, and he recorded and edited his performance at his home studio in Tuve, Sweden".

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll wait for FrB.TG to finish reviewing to avoid stepping on any toes. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics:
  • Para 1: "retained some mutual elements with her previous country songs" - This wording feels strange to me for some reason. Maybe you meant the composition retained some mutual elements from her previous country songs?
  • Para 3: "... portrayed the man as her victim.[20] and Slate's Forrest Wickman thought that Swift's character was "sort of a [...] femme fatale".[25]" - Was the period after "as her victim" supposed to be a comma?
  • Para 3: "contrasting with the victim mentality on her past songs" - Nothing wrong here per se, but to clarify, this is saying that Swift's previous songs portray her as the victim?
Release and commercial performance:
  • Para 1: " On August 5, 2015, Swift shared on Twitter that "Wildest Dreams" would be the fifth single from 1989" - I'm not a music editor, so maybe I'm missing something, but were the singles released separately from 1989 itself? Or am I reading this wrong, and "Wildest Dreams" was the fifth single from 1989 to rank in the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100?
  • Para 1: On a related note, the end of this paragraph mentions the song's release to Italian radio. Do we know why its release to Italian radio was delayed? (And if we don't, why is Italian radio specifically mentioned here?)
  • Para 2: "1989 became the album with the most Adult Pop Songs number ones, tying with Katy Perry's Teenage Dream (2010)" - If they're tied, it's technically not 100% accurate that "1989 became the album with the most Adult Pop Songs number ones", as that wording implies that no other album holds that distinction (I know, this is a nitpick). I'd suggest rewording this slightly to something like "1989 became tied with Katy Perry's Teenage Dream (2010) as the album with the most Adult Pop Songs number ones".
Critical reception
  • No issues from me here. (I saw that paragraph 3 didn't organize the retrospective reviews chronologically, but then I realized the retrospective reviews were categorized by theme instead.)
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to try to get through the rest of this today. So sorry for the delay.
Development and synopsis:
  • Para 1: "Inspired by The Secret Conversations (2013), a memoir of the actress Ava Gardner,[72][73] Swift's premise for the video" - As this is a dangling modifier (i.e. the sentence is saying the premise was inspired), I just want to confirm that you did indeed mean that.
  • Para 1: "because they can only interact with each other" - Should this be "because they could"?
Release and reception:
  • Para 1: "Billboard's Natalie Weiner deemed Elizabeth Taylor an influence on Swift's fashion in the video." - This seems less like reception and more like a factual statement about the development (the source says "Taylor [Swift] was clad in what seems to be Elizabeth Taylor-inspired garb"). Unless this was a minority viewpoint, I'm sincerely not sure whether this should remain in the release and reception section, or be moved elsewhere.
  • Para 2: "she regarded it as "antiquated" "- To be clear, this refers to the depiction being antiquated, not the video being antiquated?
  • Para 3: "Lion King generation" - I'm not sure what this means. I assume this means a generation that grew up watching The Lion King, unless there's something else I missed. (In any case, a quote from the same writer, which expresses his concerns in more detail, is mentioned slightly further down, so maybe this can be clarified or removed.)
Live performances:
  • Paras 1, 3: "On the 1989 World Tour (2015)" and "On the Eras Tour (2023–2024)" - Should this be "During the ... tour"? (Not 100% sure about this, though; maybe tours are treated differently when one is talking about a singer "on a tour".)
Ryan Adams cover:
  • Para 1: "Adams said that Swift's 1989 helped him cope with emotional hardships and he wanted to sing the songs from his perspective" - I'd add "that" after "helped him cope with emotional hardships and".
  • Para 1: "He switches and adjusts pronouns in some places; for example, "Standing in a nice dress" becomes "Standing in your nice dress"" - I'm completely nitpicking now, but "a" isn't generally a pronoun; it's an indefinite article.
  • Para 2: "In The Guardian, Michael Cragg said that there were no substantial additions in Adams's cover" - Optional, but was that praise or a lamentation?
Credits and personnel / Charts / Certifications / Release history:
  • No issues
"Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version)":
  • Para 2: "The re-recording of "Wildest Dreams" is "Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version)"". - Should this be "The re-recording of "Wildest Dreams" is named "Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version)""?
  • Para 2: "The release followed viral success" - Should this be "the viral success"?
Production and reception:
  • Para 1: "Robin Murray of Clash said that it contained "subtle stylist[ic] shifts"[176] and Stereogum's Tom Breihan found it more "muted"." - Though WP:CINS is an essay, I would still recommend a comma after "subtle stylist[ic] shifts", per WP:CINS.
  • Para 2: "Within less than four hours" - This should be "within four hours" or "in less than four hours". "Within less than four hours" is redundant in this context ("within four hours" means "in four hours or less" here).
That's all from me; very nice work. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot to ping Ippantekina in my last edit. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all done now! Epicgenius Ippantekina (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Epicgenius (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]

I overplayed the heck out of this song back in 2015. I'll leave comments soon. FrB.TG (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the track four-times platinum." The initialism isn't used elsewhere in the lead so I would just remove it.
  • "Taylor Swift had identified as a country musician until her fourth studio album, Red" - I'm not sure "identified" is the right choice of word as it suggests a personal or self-perceived affiliation with a particular genre, implying a deliberate choice or self-definition. However, when it comes to artistic categorization like being a country musician, it might be more accurate to describe her as being recognized or known as a country musician.
  • "Inspired by 1980s synth-pop, she named the album 1989" - who/what was inspired? Swift or 1989? I suppose neither is wrong (both a person and an album can be inspired) but I think you mean the album and the sentence structure suggests that Swift was inspired. Also, I'm not sure how naming an album after your birth year might be considered an "artistic reinvention". I suppose I could see it as sort of a "rebirth" but it's not very clear to me. Does the source/Swift elaborate on this?
  • "On the album's standard edition, Martin and his frequent collaborator Shellback produced 7 out of 13 songs" - Martin produced two additional songs independently of Shellback, so there's no need to solely count the collaborations they did together just because "Wildest Dreams" was among them. It suffices to say that the song was produced by both of them, without specifying the number of collaborations on the album, which may not be of interest to the reader of this article.
  • "The former played the piano, and the latter played the electric guitar and percussion" - replace "the former" and "the latter" with their actual names. It's much simpler and the reader doesn't have to go back one sentence to figure who is who.
  • "Mattias Bylund joined the production of "Wildest Dreams" after Martin played the track to him. Bylund played and arranged the strings, and he recorded and edited his performance at his home studio in Tuve, Sweden." Instead of making the reader have to read the next sentence to figure out Bylund's exact role, I would suggest directly mentioning it instead of "joined the production". Something along the lines of Mattias Bylund played and arranged the strings after Martin played "Wildest Dreams" to him; Bylund recorded and edited his performance at his home studio in Tuve, Sweden. should do.
  • "In the lyrics, Swift's character pleads with a lover to remember her after their relationship ends, although she is still in love with him." The sentence implies that they haven't broken up yet so her still being in love with him during their relationship isn't a contradiction.
  • "Slate's Forrest Wickman thought that Swift's character was a femme fatale" - this is an interesting take as nothing so far has any indication of a femme fatale. Does the source specify how?
  • "The Guardian's Alexis Petridis felt that the song abandoned Swift's previous "persona of the pathetic female appendage snivelling over her bad-boy boyfriend" and instead portrayed the man as her victim" - I think this sentence establishes what I felt was missing in my previous point so I would write this before the opinion about femme fatale bit.

Down to the end of Music and lyrics section. Moe to come. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checking the femme fatale source myself, it says she is "a sort of ... femme fatale" which is different from "Swift's character was a femme fatale" as the article says.
  • "It debuted at number 76 on the US Billboard Hot 100 in November 2014." There should be an WP:NBSP between "November" and "2014". Check for other similar instances e.g. before beginning an ellipsis. (Another example: "...had sold two million digital copies in the United States by November 2017.")
  • "and Nate Jones from Vulture considered it one of Swift's 10 best songs and specifically lauded the "invigorating double-time bridge".[26]" Perhaps wikilink bridge?
  • "Kahn took inspiration from many classical Hollywood films such as The African Queen (1951), Out of Africa (1985), and The English Patient (1996)." I don't think The English Patient falls within the category of a classical Hollywood film.
  • In terms of chronology, I think you're better off switching the place of the second and the third paragraph in live performances section. I understand the rationale that you're mentioning all tours first but I don't think it would disrupt the flow if you just mentioned everything chronologically.
  • "Prior to the album's release" - "before" (one word fewer ;)) FrB.TG (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Going through now. I've been meaning to get to this; it's one of my favourite Swift songs! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being very pedantic here but I think including the exact date of the Taylor's Version release is recentism. I think the month or even just the year would be suffice.
  • Red incorporates eclectic pop and rock styles Is the present tense prescribed by some obscure MoS subsection? It's jarring to me personally in the middle of a paragraph that's written in the past tense but it doesn't even agree with the end of the same sentence: which led to critics questioning her country-music identity
  • while touring on the Red Tour is a bit tautological (as in Department of Redundancy Department)
  • She was inspired by 1980s synth-pop to create her first "official pop album" and named it 1989 "it" could be taken as meaning 80s synthpop, not the album.
  • Anything more about 1989 being a reinvention/new sound? It was quite a departure from her earlier eras and I'd have thought there would be a sentence or two more we could add here without getting too far from the topic of this one song.
  • Shellback played the electric guitar and percussion Can we be any more specific than "percussion"? That could cover anything from a tambourine to a peel of bells.
  • Likewise "strings" in the following sentence; I assume it's a violin but I'm no music expert.
  • These are adapted from the album's booklet and that's all I get.. strings in this case are most likely synthesized strings generated by the Mellotron and not live strings, so it doesn't matter if it's violin or cello I suppose. Ippantekina (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to know the locations of the studios? To me they feel a little distracting but YMMV.
  • In the lyrics, Swift's character pleads with a lover to remember her Is "pleads" the right verb? The song is about knowing a relationship is doomed to fail even before it takes off. I'd expect "pleading" in a song about a relationship that ended unexpectedly badly (like "All Too Well" or eve "All You Had to Do Was Stay" from the same album) but here she's lamenting an outcome she fully saw coming.

Sorry, I got distracted and now it's now 23:30. I'll pick this back up in the morning! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retrospectively, Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone wrote A year would be helpful here. The song is 10 years old now but we should be writing or audiences who might be reading this in another 10 or even later. And of course there might be renewed interest in it with future events and anniversaries so there may come a a time when today's "retrospective" looks contemporary.
  • I'm not sure the music video controversy needs a subheading; I generally discourage "controversy" sections anyway per WP:UNDUE. On which note, are you happy that two paragraphs in ~3.5k words is proportional to how the source material covers it? Yes is an acceptable answer, I'm just checking you've considered it.
  • Is the classical cover for Bridgerton worth mentioning? (Not my kind of thing but it was the wife's favourite show for a while!)

That's me done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hithanks so much for reviewing the article! As written in my userpage I'm on wikibreak till 16 Feb and I'm slowly resuming my editing. I'm committed to resolving all issues by this Sunday; if by then you don't hear any response from me, do ping me! Regards, Ippantekina (talk) 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in no rush. I saw you were on a wikibreak so I put the article and the FAC on my watchlist. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not in any hurry. I should be finished by the end of the week. Enjoy your wikibreak. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: @Vami IV: @Epicgenius: Thanks for your patience. I have addressed all of your comments above. Do let me know if you have further opinions :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that Vami has sadly passed away recently so don’t be surprised when you don’t see a response from him. FrB.TG (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my... my deepest condolences :( Ippantekina (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, Did you want to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for pinging Harry. In the meantime can I nominate another article for FA? Ippantekina (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2024 (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 2024 [24].

Operation Title

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Title was a valiant but failed Allied attack on the German battleship Tirpitz during October 1942. The attack plan was like something out of a thriller, and partially formed the basis of a postwar movie. It involved a small Norwegian ship smuggling two British manned torpedoes through heavily defended waters. While the manned torpedo crews were superbly trained and likely to have crippled Tirpitz, the operation failed at the last moment when shoddy workmanship caused both of the craft to be lost when they separated from the bottom of the trawler during a storm. The Allied personnel attempted to escape overland to Sweden, with one of the British seamen being captured and murdered by the Germans and the others making it across the border.

This is a return to the topic of attacks against Tirpitz I've been working on over quite a few years, with the others covering air raids on the battleship. I created the article in March 2023 and it was assessed as a GA in April. It passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in December, and has since been expanded and improved. As a result, I'm hopeful that the FA criteria are now met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Gerhard_Flesch_(6983604862).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the tag used by the uploader to Flikr, the National Archives of Norway, which holds the underlying photo in their collection. It seems reasonable to presume that the archives applied the best tag here. It looks like the photo is from a collection of German occupation documents that the Archives holds, and would likely have the legal rights to. Thank you for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
"Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." The last eight words are a relatively recent addition. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case we have "Allied" linked twice in the intro alone, which I think would be considered overkill by any standards. FunkMonk (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trondheimsfjorden (English: Trondheim Fjord)" technically "The Trondheim Fjord", as "en" makes it definite, but of course depends on what the source says.
  • Perhaps show the sinking ship in the Subsequent attacks section?
    • I'd prefer not, as the operation which sank the battleship took place in a different region and was an air attack rather than a submarine attack. I've added a photo of the ship at Kaafjord though, as it illustrates the main focus on this section. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was one of the incidents for which Keitel and Flesch were separately prosecuted after the war. Both were found guilty of war crimes and executed." Is there an article about these trials or what they were part of?
    • Keitel was found guilty at the Nuremberg trials and Flesch appears to have been tried individually in Norway. As these were separate processes and are well covered in the articles on the two men, I'd prefer to not try to shoe-horn a link to the Nuremberg Trials in. Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The battleship was sunk there with heavy loss of life" This implies there could be heavy losses on both sides, but seems to be only on the German side? Maybe say "heavy German casualties"?

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • "Tirpitz sortied on 5 July, but was ordered to return to Narvik the next day". According to our article on the Tirpitz she returned to Altafjord, not to Narvik, so just checking that this is correct. The Tirpitz article does say she later moved to Bogenfjord, near Narvik.
  • "It was not possible to use full-sized submarines as the shallow depth of Fættenfjord meant ...": but the Tirpitz was no longer at Fættenfjord, was she? Per the above she was either at Narvik or Altafjord. The conversation about submarines seems to have started after the attack on PQ-17 so I wouldn't have thought Fættenfjord would be relevant. I see from the Tirpitz article that she returned to Fættenfjord in October, but that would have been too late to influence the planning.
    • The attack was always planned for Fættenfjord, as that was Tirpitz's home base and the British correctly deduced that she was going to return there - the article notes this. While the sources don't explicitly state this, it would have been because each attack required very substantial preparations so needed to be directed at a location where the battleship was based. As the battleship always had torpedo nets around her, conventional subs would have been useless at other anchorages as well - they're not given as a viable option. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough. I had a look through for the where you say the article notes that the British deduced she would return to Fættenfjord and couldn't spot it -- could you point me at the right paragraph? I agree that with that no change is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not excessively long, but I did wonder whether the details of why the British began to research small submarines were a digression. No problem if you want to keep it.
  • I'm surprised to see that we don't have Able Seaman A. Brown's first name -- is it not known?
    • Oddly enough, no source gives this. To make matters worse, his nick-name differs between sources: C.E.T. Warren and James Benson say he was 'Jock' Brown and Robert Lyman says he was 'Slim' Brown. Ludovic Kennedy just calls him Able Seaman Brown despite giving the full names of his comrades! I think that A. Brown is the best of the not-great options here. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including as he believed that": seems an incompletely edited phrase?
  • "He also argued that the use of the craft after the failure of Operation Title was a mistake, including as there was not a strong rationale for the subsequent Chariot operations": suggest "He also argued that the use of the craft after the failure of Operation Title was a mistake, among other reasons because there was not a strong rationale for the subsequent Chariot operations".
  • There are two harv errors showing: Kennedy 1979 and Lyman 2005 in the citations don't link to the works consulted section.

That's everything; the article is well and clearly written, and these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]
Lead
  • "manned torpedos": just checking on the variety of English used here. Both BrEng and AmEng use "torpedoes" as the plural
Early attacks

Done to the start of Preparations; more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And finishing off:

Preparations
Subsequent attacks

That's my lot. I hope this is helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi Nick, another fascinating Tirpitz article. A few questions and comments from me...

lede

  • on board a small boat named Arthur - fishing boat? ie emphasize not a naval vessel?
    • Sources just describe it as a small boat or similar. I had it in the article as a fishing boat initially, but on re-checking the sources found that it wasn't actually called this by them! Bishop introduces it as a generic 'craft' for instance (p. 59). Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the other – a British serviceman – being taken prisoner by German forces - is "being" redundant?

Background

Prelude

Plans

  • head of the Norwegian Section of the SOE, Lieutenant Colonel John Wilson - is J. S. Wilson (John Skinner Wilson), was Boy Scout per Bishop and, per this from Further reading that article was "Head of the Norwegian section (January 1942 onwards)" and "attempt to sink the TIRPITZ (1942)".
  • Horton and Wilson were jointly given overall responsibility for the operation - were given joint overall responsibility?

Preparations

Bishop on p. 151 has "Two men, encased in canvas and rubber suits" and on p. 156 "one-piece dry suits and they had earned the nickname 'clammy death'". This is the Sladen Suit. (Its image came from here.) David Grant in A Submarine at War : the Brief Life of HMS Trooper this book on p. 26 has Geoffrey Sladen in 1942 "working on a flexible underwater diving suit that used a closed-circuit oxygen breathing system similar to the Davis Submerged Escape Apparatus [DSEA]. The Sladen Suit, prototype of all subsequent British frogmen's apparel, was to be irreverently nicknamed "The Clammy Death Suit"... and goes on to talk about Larsen and Tirpitz. I don't know if Grant is a RS. I think Konstam mentions the suit on p. 19? There are many results for a search of 'sladen suit tirpitz'. Robert Macklin in One False Move here has "Sladen suit... prototype for the men who would ride the torpedoes at the Tirpitz.

Final planning

Attack

Escape

Assessments

Subsequent attacks

Consistency

  • There are a few places where commas appear contrary to most of the format style. (Eg "On 6 March 1942, Tirpitz", "By April 1942, 30 men had" and "On 2 July 1942, Tirpitz and") whereas there are around 12 other sentences beginning with date phrases that do not have a comma.
  • Likewise some Oxford commas seem contrary. Eg "pistols, and a small quantity of food", "accompanied by Craig, Evans, Tebb, and Strand" and "comprised Brown, Causer, Kalve, and Bjørnøy", but elsewhere eg "including extreme cold, heavy seas and gales", "The Chariot had a crew of two, a commander and a number two"

See also?

categories possible

Thanks for this very interesting account Nick. JennyOz (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is Angus Konstam a good source for WWII? Otherwise, it seems like formatting is good and sources too. Are there any sources here that could be used? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Konstam has been widely published by several major companies and has specialised on the naval war in Europe during World War II. Osprey, the publisher here, has a pretty good reputation. The Google Scholar search doesn't seem to add anything new - I've checked Jstor and Internet Archive for resources. Thank you for this, Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes, with the caveat that spotting not-obviously-unreliable sources in military matters is hardly my strength. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2024 [26].

Felix M. Warburg House

[edit]
Nominators: ♠Vamí_IV†♠ Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another of the great houses that once lined Fifth Avenue in New York. Specifically, this is the mansion of Felix M. Warburg, a Jewish financier who ignored fears of anti-Semitic reprisal to his decided to build himself a big Gothic manor in the middle of New York City. Although the Warburgs no longer remain, their legacy does: the museum is now the home of the Jewish Museum (Manhattan) and the building largely survives as they left it. It's a beautiful building and I hope you will all enjoy it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review later this week. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " After Warburg's death in 1937, his widow sold the mansion to a real estate developer. When plans to replace the mansion with luxury apartments fell through, the Warburgs donated it in 1944 to the Jewish Theological Seminary of America. " - I think it's necessary to briefly state in the lead that ownership reverted from the developer to the Warburgs, or else it doesn't make sense - how could they donate it to the seminary if they'd already sold it
  • " and Gilbert had hired Earr, Thaw & Fraser Co." - per the first of the two sources cited for this, it should be Barr, Thas, & Fraser
    • Fixed. —Vami
  • " Frieda took title to the house in January 1924" - do we know why?
  • "In May 1941, she sold the mansion to developer Henry Kaufman and architect Emery Roth, who intended to redevelop the site into an eighteen-story apartment building." - are you sure the right Kaufman is linked? This is currently linked to Henry Kaufman, who our article says was born in October 1927, so he would have been 13 at the time of sale if this is correct which seems off
    • De-linked. —Vami
  • "Critical reviews of the house's architecture have generally been positive with the exception of the 1963 extension." - but the 1993 extension is stated to have been quite mixed later in the article as well
    • Addressed in lead now. —Vami
  • NYC Landmark Number is never directly cited anywhere
    • Citation added to lead. —Vami

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed now :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work here; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
  • You give inflation conversions for some of the amounts, but not all; is there a rationale for which ones have them? - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No; all cash figures now come with inflation calculation.
IB
  • You have "1109 5th Avenue" here, but "1109 Fifth Avenue" for the article: I know both are probably acceptable, but it may be worth making consistent?
    • Yes; done. —Vami
History
  • "100-foot (30 m) by 100-foot (30 m)" is a little clumsy: "100-by-100-foot (30 by 30 m)" can be achieved by using {{convert|100|by|100|ft|m|adj=on}} (which is the format you are using a bit further down the article)
    • Done. —Vami
Private residence
  • "In addition, A. J. Robinson": the " In addition" part doesn't add or aid anything and can be safely struck
    • Cut. —Vami
  • "Frieda took title to the house": in BrEng we'd say of the house, so just checking "to" is correct in the US?
    • It is. —Vami
  • "within the Warburg House": "in the house" would work just as well and would stop the approaching duplication with "stake in the Warburg House" coming up in the next sentence
    • Done. —Vami
  • "Roth submitted his plans for an apartment house to the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) in July 1941;[32] workers had started demolishing the Warburg residence.[33] However, the developers' plans did not progress further, and the mansion reverted to Frieda": this reads a little oddly to me, and it raises a couple of questions
  • "workers had started demolishing the Warburg residence" needs more to make sense as an independent clause. Had they started before July '41 (in which case when) I think you can also just call it "the building" here: I don't think it would have been anyone's residence when it was being demolished.
  • Done. —Vami
  • "developers' plans did not progress further": why? Were they rejected by the DOB? Developers ran out of cash? Something else? How much had been demolished by the time they stopped?
  • "the mansion reverted to Frieda": how and why? Did she buy it back – how much for? "reverted" sounds like it was just passed back to her, rather than her buying it, so I'm a little confused.
  • Same here. —Vami
  • ​@SchroCat, thanks for the review. Unfortunately, I could not find any info about the extent to which the mansion was demolished, why the work stopped, or how and why Frieda took the house back. Although this isn't in the sources, my guess is that Frieda agreed to sell the house to Roth and Kaufman, but that the sale was never finalized; I can't find official records stating that the house was definitively sold. Roth and Kaufman likely would have made minimal modifications, like removing some decorations. Epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks to you both for your extra effort on this part. Nearly all my concerns have gone with the changes made (and I did think the sources may have run dry at this point). The only wrinkle I have - and it may just be me - is with the use of the word "demolishing", which conjures images of walls being knocked down etc. Is it within the confines of the sources to say something like "Workers can made an initial start on the site by July 27"? Fine if not, and it won't alter my support one way or the other. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think the wording you proposed is supported by the sources (the NYT mentions that demolition was about to begin, but that there were material shortages which would make it impractical to complete the apartment building for a while). I've changed the wording to something like what you suggested. Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that the answers may not be in the sources, but it's all a bit hazy at the moment.

Done to the start of the Jewish museum: more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not much from the rest of the piece:

Jewish Museum of New York
  • "the Jewish Museum's main entrance was relocated": you can use "the museum" to avoid having " Jewish Museum" three times in this para (and twice in the previous one)
    • Reduced this and several other instances to just "the museum". —Vami
Architecture
  • "The Warburg House is located at 1109 Fifth Avenue..." haven't we been told everything in this paragraph already? The only difference is that further up the page the dimensions were given as 100 by 100 feet (so where did the extra 2 feet come in!)
    • First mention of plot dimension cut. Doublechecked the source (NRHP nomination form) in case the 102x100 ft figure was a mistake on my part; it is not. Were I to make an educated guess, I'd say the extra footage(?) came in the 1960s or 1990s. —Vami
Exterior
  • "The house's main entrance": is it worth moving the image of this down to this section – it would help those who cannot picture "a depressed elliptical arch"? (As an aside, I see Epicgenius has uploaded a large number of images to Commons: I think we can use a couple of them in the architecture section to illustrate what's being discussed. Similarly, there is the Jewish Museum (New York City) category at Commons that could have something to sit in the relevant section? Just a suggestion and your call either way

That's my lot – I hope they help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another review :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "The Felix M. Warburg House is a mansion located on 1109 Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street on the Upper East Side of Manhattan in New York City." This reads oddly. I might say it was on Fifth Avenue, or at 1109 Fifth Avenue, or even at Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street, but I wouldn't say on 1109 Fifth Avenue and 92nd Street.
  • I've cut this down to just "...is a mansion located at 1109 Fifth Avenue...". What do you think? —Vami
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Frieda took title to the house in January 1924.[22] ... On October 20, 1937, Felix Warburg died of a heart attack in the house.[23][24] In his will, Felix had bequeathed his ownership stake in the Warburg House to Frieda.[25][26]" I see a contradiction. If she took title to the house in 1924, then there's nothing to leave by will.
  • At some point, you might want to mention what the Jewish Theological Seminary is, especially which denomination of Judaism it is affiliated with. And I've generally heard it referred to as "JTS" rather than "the JTS", and I had some peripheral involvement with it.
  • My approach to acronyms for organizations is to treat them like the full name. So, instead of Addressing the concerns, JTS stated that..., The JTS stated that... —Vami
  • " The museum opened a third exhibition on another story of the house in November 1947." Unless the house story was the subject of the exhibition, rather than its locale, I would say "in" rather than "on".
  • Good catch. —Vami
  • " In the two years after it relocated to the Warburg House, the museum had 175,000 visitors;[46][47] this number had increased to 500,000 by 1952.[48] " The first figure is for two years, but it's not clear if the last figure is an annual or biennial figure.
  • This is another one for Epic. —Vami
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @Wehwalt. I see Vami has responded to most of these, but:
  • Regarding the will: The NYT says he left all of his personal property and other contents of the house to his wife. This is backed up by the NY Herald Tribune.
  • Regarding the visitor counts, it's a cumulative figure (i.e. from 1947 to 1952).
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of the house is different from the real estate. If she took title to the house earlier, there was no real property to bequeath, but of course he could leave her his interest in the personal property in the house. Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I would clarify by saying something like "the total number who had visited" or some such. I'll try to finish my review tomorrow or Saturday. Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments.
  • I changed the part about the will to "Felix had willed all of the possessions and other objects in the Warburg House to Frieda." The bequest was the contents of the house, not the real estate.
  • Would "by 1952, it had recorded almost half a million cumulative visitors" work, or is that still unclear?
– Epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you have made and propose above sound fine. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Source review

[edit]

I think that via parameters are more commonly filled with a description of the webpage than with its domain. The Real Estate Record: Real Estate Record and Builders' Guide needs some publisher information. I don't think that newspapers like The New York Times needs an ISSN. New York Herald Tribune and Newsday are not consistently linked, I don't think that we normally apply OVERLINK to citations as people usually only check a particular reference, rather than reading the section top-to-bottom. Lots of high-profile newspapers, government/agency reports and what seem to be dedicated architecture magazines so I think they pass muster by WIAFA standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator comment

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Regrettably, I have recently learned that Vami has passed away. Given that, if anything else is needed for this FAC, I will be more than happy to see this FAC through. Epicgenius (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just heard this sad news myself via SN's note at WT:FAC. I'm sure Vami would like you to carry on with this on both your behalves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, I agree. I think he would've wanted me to see this through.
On an unrelated matter - and I was going to ask this regardless - may I be allowed to nominate another FAC? (I know that the timing of this request is unfortunate. I have been wondering since last week if I was allowed to have two FACs up at once, but I forgot to ask at the time.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hello Epicgenius, I hope my comments help...

lede

History

Private residence

Jewish Museum of New York

Preservation

  • "Over 1,000 people signed a petition" and "and over 100 people wrote letters" - some prefer 'more than' rather than "over" in such cases. (I am not concerned but expect it will get changed when TFA)

Expansion

Architecture

Reception

Sources

Images

  • Gaze Painting and Feminism Exhibition ... alt=A presentation on feminist art on exhibit at the Jewish Museum in 2020|A presentation on feminism in art held at the Jewish Museum in December 2020]] - the alt is basically same as caption - swap to something like 'A group of people watching a presentation in a gallery'
  • In prose there are 16x "the Warburg House" but also 6x "the Warburg Mansion" - that okay?
  • There are 2x "C. P. H. Gilbert" which probably should have nbsp between initials format per in first line of Private residence section.
  • add portal bar per Harry F. Sinclair House?
  • add default sort?

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny. I will address these over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JennyOz, thanks again. I've fixed all of the above issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those Epicgenius. I just made three minor tweaks, another Gilbert format, gave Chernow an authorlink and, in response to Preview warning: Page using Template:Infobox NRHP with unknown parameter "alt_text" , removed "_text" from ibox alt after checking Template:Infobox NRHP.
I am pleased to add my s'port for promotion. JennyOz (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Happily promoting this work, even as we remember the passing of Vami. FrB.TG (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 24 February 2024 [27].

Battle of Cane Hill

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem familiar to those who reviewed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Van Buren/archive1 in 2022. Essentially, Confederate forces under Thomas C. Hindman made an abortive push into SW Missouri (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Battle of Newtonia/archive1) but fell back into Arkansas under Union pressure. Hindman tried again later than year in a campaign that had its first major action here at Cane Hill, met stalemate at the Battle of Prairie Grove, and then ended in the aforementioned Van Buren fiasco. Cane Hill itself was a running cavalry battle that stretched over miles of Arkansas forests and mountains. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • The infobox image, why is it cited? (Usually such information goes on the details page in Commons.
  • The last image's caption: why is it "A 19th-century engraving" rather than 'An 1866 engraving'?
And yes, I am aware that I didn't mention these at ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The Battle of Cane Hill". That upper-case B, do the HQ sources consistently use it?
    • Not consistently, changed to "battle of Cane Hill" in the lead
  • The first paragraph of the lead: After the first sentence, events are not retold in chronological order are they? If that's so, it may be helpful if they were - I have just read it twice and am struggling to get a grip on what happened.
    • I've tried to rearrange this
That works.
  • Should there be a hyphen in "rear guard action"?
    • Not for sure; I've added one as a caution

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - does the first paragraph of the lead look better now? Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In December 1860, the state of South Carolina ... occurred to the north in Missouri during 1861." This seems both over-detailed, and not detailed enough. in that it skips Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina seceding.
    • So - would you recommend I cut down the detail or just bring in another source that mentions TN, VA, and NC? I think some form of context as to why Americans started shooting Americans is necessary here
They need an excuse? I thought it was the national sport. If t'were me, I would trim the detail. I agree, but something a bit more general should suffice. But it's your call. I shall support now anyway, and leave it to you to trim or expand. Ping me if you want me to look over whatever you decide on.
I've trimmed a bit for now but will think this over some more. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took most of the soldiers and military supplies in the state with him". Really? Or just those on the Confederate side?
    • I've added "Confederate" here, although it is largely true as well because Curtis's Yankees had fallen back to Missouri until late April, by which time Van Dorn had gotten his troops across the Mississippi
  • "advanced his forces back". Well, yes, he did, but it reads funny.
    • I've removed "back"
  • "in early November, Marmaduke's division moved north". Is it known, even approximately, how strong this force was? Did it contain any artillery? ("Hindman decided to push a cavalry force into the Cane Hill".)
    • I've clarified here - 2,000 men and six cannon. I don't think the presence of artillery detracts from this being a cavalry force. The artillery here is merely an adjunct to the main body here
Me neither. I just felt that if there was artillery - and it is clear later that there was - it should be mentioned up front.
  • "However, Blunt actually approached via the Ridge Road". I don't think "actually" is necessary.
    • Removed
  • "On the Federal side, six cannons from the 2nd Indiana Battery." There seems to be no verb in this "sentence". :-)
    • Fixed. As always, I blame the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Come to think of it, there is nothing in the MoS requiring a verb in each sentence, so perhaps I should have labelled that as optional?
  • "the fighting was shifting to the south toward Newburg". Perhaps give an idea of how far away that is?
    • Added
  • "the fighting grew hand-to-hand". "grew"? Perhaps 'became'?
    • Done
  • "visibility became very poor due to smoke". From ...?
    • Clarified - a brush fire
  • Any idea what time the fighting on Reed's Mountain began/ended?
    • Marmaduke decided to stand around 2 pm per Shea; I don't have an explicit ending time but the article does indicate from Shea that this stage lasted about an hour and a half
  • "among participants of the battle". "of" → 'in'.
    • changed
  • "the Confederates did present a flag of truce at the end of the battle as a ruse to give the battered Confederate forces time to break contact and leave the area." Right, so that was the plan. What actually happened? Was contact broken? Did the Confederates leave the area? If so, where did they go and what were their opponents doing while this was happening?
    • I've clarified this a bit - contact was broken while aid was being provided to wounded men
  • "over 12 miles (19 km)[65] or 15 miles (24 km) of ground." 'over 12 or 15 miles (19 or 24 km) of ground' would read more naturally.
    • Done
  • "Shea and Scott and Burgess". Perhaps add a serial comma? And again later in the paragraph.
    • I don't know that that would be grammatical - it's only two objects - Shea and "Scott and Burgess" as a single work
  • Link "preservationist".
    • Linked
  • "with Montgomery stating" → 'and states'; he doesn't need naming twice in one sentence. And perhaps again with Oates?
    • Rephrased both
  • Consider "the reasons casualties were so low" → 'the reason for this'.
    • Done
  • "a decisive defensive battle that his command" → 'a decisive defensive battle then his command'. (Avoiding "that" twice.)
    • Done
  • "The fighting at Prairie Grove ensured that Missouri and northwestern Arkansas remained under Federal control.[/] A portion of the battlefield, about 5,750 acres (2,330 ha), was listed ..." Assuming that you mean Cane Hill was listed, perhaps specify?
    • Yes, clarified

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above. Hog Farm Talk 03:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - spotchecks not done

@Nikkimaria: - thanks for the review! Comments have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

[edit]

Quid pro quo –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vami_IV ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, got busy. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Confederate Major General Thomas C. Hindman had made an abortive offensive into southwestern Missouri earlier in the year, Is there an article that can be linked here?
    • There is not. Prairie Grove Campaign might be worth expanding from a redirect at some point, but that doesn't begin until after the Missouri campaign that ended at Newtonia. For campaignbox purposes, Wikipedia lumps Newtonia into Template:Campaignbox Operations North of Boston Mountains with several somewhat-unrelated actions; "Operations North of Boston Mountains" was created back in the '90s by a federal government battlefield protection commission as a sort of wastebasket taxon for various activities in mainly Missouri and the Indian Territory that didn't fit cleanly into anything else
  • but had withdrawn back into Arkansas. First mention of this attack being launched from Arkansas; "back" undesired. Suggest "had made an abortive offensive into southwestern Missouri from Arkansas..."
    • Done
  • opportunity to attack Blunt while his division was separate from the rest of the Federal Army of the Frontier. Why "separate" and not "separated"?
    • I'm not sure; changed
  • Blunt moved on the offensive to attack Marmaduke on November 27. "on the offensive" redundant; cut.
    • Removed
  • Due to the Federal's artillery advantage, Possessive here wrong; Federal here means only the U.S. government and its arms and is thus plural throughout. Suggest just "Federal".
    • Fixed
  • The Confederate artillery had been withdrawn due to damage and ammunition shortages, while the Federal artillery had provided support for their attacks. Without further context this feels like something that can be safely left out of the lead. As is, it's a unnecessary break in the action, almost a non sequitur.
    • Removed
  • reinforcements from Springfield Surely there is a possible link here?
Background
  • states in the Southern United States seceded from the United States Too many "states".
    • I've piped the the link to "the Southern United States" to "the South", which should remediate part of this
  • To accomplish this rebuilding "rebuilding" superfluous.
    • Removed
  • Hindman was temporarily recalled by Holmes, and in his absence, the two commanders left in charge performed poorly. I feel this could be condensed with no loss in quality. Something like "Hindman was temporarily recalled by Holmes and the two commanders left in charge in his absence performed poorly."
    • Simplified
  • After the defeat, Van Dorn abandoned Arkansas [...] Hindman retained a field command, and advanced his forces into southwestern Missouri. [...] By the end of October, the Confederates had been driven back from Missouri into Arkansas If I'm not mistaken, then, they retreated into Tennessee? When did the Confederates return to Arkansas?
    • I've clarified this a little bit - Van Dorn retreated in Tennessee and took everything with him, and Hindman had to rebuild an army
Prelude
  • area to distract Blunt, and he would then move the rest of his force to the rear of Blunt's force and defeat the Federal division before reinforcements from Springfield could arrive. This can be condensed.
    • Done
  • The Federals cavalry's horses Federal should not be plural.
    • Done
Battle
  • As the infantry moved slower than the cavalry, it was causing a delay. Redundant. That a man on his own feet is slower than a man on a horse's feet goes without saying, unless the reader has no idea what a horse is.
    • Removed. I would hope this is obvious, but you never know these days
  • Six Parrott rifles from the 1st Kansas Battery opened fire on the Confederate position, and Bledsoe's battery and the two mountain howitzers from Carroll's brigade returned fire at about 1:00 pm. Recommend replacing ", and" with a semicolon.
    • Done
  • During the Confederate retreats before Reed's Mountain was reached, Feels wiggly. Maybe "During the Confederate retreat towards Reed's Mountain,"?
    • Done
  • The Federal commander decided to attack Is this Blunt or another commander? If it is Blunt, it seems to me that he decided to attack a long time ago.
    • I've rephrased this
  • At the times, the fighting became hand-to-hand What times?
    • Removed "the" - hopefully it reads better now
  • During other stages of the fighting on Reed's Mountain, the two sides could barely see each other. After about half an hour of fighting on the mountain, visibility became very poor due to smoke, as the brush had caught fire. These two should be combined, I think, or the order swapped around. As presently arranged, the cart is before the horse.
    • I've re-arranged and rephrased this

This concludes my reading. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vami IV: - Thanks for the review! Replies are above - I've tried to make all of the changes in a satisfactory manner. Hog Farm Talk 03:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I guess that Encyclopedia of Arkansas isn't user-generated, as it mentions that it has editors, but who are they? arkansaspreservation.com is the name of the domain, but I'd say that the project name is better for this. Looks like all the sources are journal articles, books from prominent universities and well-cited other books. Formatting seems consistent too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - sorry for the delay; just now saw this. Editors for Encyclopedia of Arkansas are here. They include Mark K. Christ, Thomas DeBlack, Michael Dougan, and Carl Moneyhon, all of whom have published work on the Civil War era in Arkansas through respected universities so I think we're good with reliability on that source. I've revamped the formatting on the Arkansas Preservation source. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
As at Slack, I would much prefer Union throughout. I think that "Federal" is doing the readers a disservice. It made me momentarily wonder if the Mexican police had intervened. I also thought that Peacemaker's point at Slack was right on the money. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Vami IV, who has expressed the opposite opinion; I'll go with whichever one we can get a consensus on. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong feelings either way, but if pushed I would go for "Union" as that's more common in the (not very numerous) sources I've seen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of Slack. Let us cleave to "Union" then, per the consensus there and the old historiography. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped the article over to use "Union". Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stationed in Benton County, Arkansas": suggest "Benton County, northwestern Arkansas", or perhaps even "Benton County, in the northwestern corner of Arkansas" if that's not too wordy. Though if the map you include were a bit more readable neither would be necessary. If it's not possible to generate a map in a more modern font that includes the same places names, could we instead increase the {{{upright}}} parameter to about 1.5 or 1.6 to make the map easier to read?
    • I've made a change to indicate where in Arkansas Benton county is. It's harder to find a decent period map showing Cane Hill than you would think. For now, I've bumped up the upright parameter to 1.5 until I can find an alternate map; the necessary locations are crammed too close together for a location pin map to be useful. Hog Farm Talk 19:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article never uses the name "Boonsboro"; it just mentions in a parenthesis, once in the lead and once in the body. There's a link to Canehill, Arkansas; do we need the alternative name at all? If so perhaps it could be demoted to a note, since it's not necessary to understand the article text.
    • I've relegated this and the Newburg/Clyde explanation to footnotes
  • Could the caption for the battlefield area image say what the three red-outlined areas are? I would guess the northernmost one is the artillery duel between Shelby and Cloud, but can't be sure. I don't know the criteria used for the red outline so if they don't correspond neatly to phases of the battle, this may not be worth it.
    • The documentation for the file says these are "Cane Hill", "Fly Creek Valley", and "Cove Creek" areas of the fighting. "Cove Creek" is the fighting south of the Morrow place. Neither Shea nor Scott & Burgess mention "Fly Creek" so I'm hesistant to try to assign any sort of description in a caption to this. I reckon it's probably referring to the fighting on the slopes of Reed's Mountain, but I don't know. The name of Reed's Mountain does not appear on USGS topographic maps of the area. Hog Farm Talk 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Combining Shea's references to Fly Creek in Prelude to Prairie Grove, I think it's clear that the creek was at the foot of Reed's Mountain, and it's definitely the case that that's where the Reed's Mountain fighting occurred -- the Union artillery were firing on Reed's Mountain from both sides of the creek. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had only skimmed Shea's print work; either Fly Creek isn't in there or I missed it. I've elaborated a bit in the caption
  • "Not long after the artillery duel opened, the Confederate forces withdrew": the only northern fire mentioned at this point is the six Parrott rifles, so was this actually an artillery duel? It sounds like there was northern artillery involved based on Shea's and Hartsell's comments, but unless I'm missing it nothing is mentioned.
  • The lead states the flag of truce ruse as settled fact, but the body says it's debated.
    • The body notes that it's debated among participants - the two most thorough works (Shea and Scott/Burgess) both agree that it happened. For what it's worth, Edwards tends to be an unreliable witness - he's the guy behind the Jesse James myth and the "Quantrill as a good guy" stuff. I'll look over the sources on this a bit more, hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mike Christie - thanks for your review! I've added a bit here about Edwards being an unreliable witness. I think it's okay to keep the lead as is because the major sources agree on that interpretation of events. The article should be ready for another look now. Hog Farm Talk 23:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has Blunt's loss at eight men killed and thirty-two wounded and Confederate casualties similar": suggest "and similar Confederate casualties".
    • Done
  • It's a bit longwinded to say "work prepared by Shea and historians ..." but I can see why you phrased it that way. Could we finesse this by saying something like "In a 2006 Battlefield Guide, prepared by Shea <and names>" for the first mention, and then just say "the 2006 Battlefield Guide" for the second mention?
    • Done

That's everything from a read through. Looks in great shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you overlooked my question about starting "Not long"? And can you confirm that Scott & Burgess is a sufficiently authoritative source for us to describe Edwards' writing as "hyperbolic and careless with the truth"? Otherwise the changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other testimony on Edwards: referring to his writings on Missouri bushwhackers "the end result of Edwards's maneuvering and manipulating of memory was, and remains, inherently and deliberately misleading". (Hulbert, "The Ghosts of Guerrilla Memory: How Civil War Bushwhackers Became Gunslingers in the American West" p. 46). Referring to Edwards' writings on the bushwhackers again, "[Edwards'] book has been described by one historian as "extravagantly romantic in temperament, bitterly pro-Southern in outlook, and completely devoid of a sense of historical objectivity and integrity". (Schultz, "Quantrill's War" p. 130). And lastly, "Edwards' book on Shelby makes for exciting reading, but as a historical source must be used with utmost caution". (Castel, "General Sterling Price and the Civil War in the West", p. 161). Castel then goes on to criticize the O'Flaherty work listed in the further reading for uncritically using Edwards. I think the consensus on Edwards is strong enough to just go with that one source. Apologies for missing the "Not long" comments; I've rephrased this part of the article to hopefully resolve this. Hog Farm Talk 00:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. OK on Edwards and the last tweak; everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 11 February 2024 (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) 23 February 2024 [28].

Nicholas of Worcester

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas was Prior of Worcester in the early twelfth century. He was the leading follower of Saint Wulfstan of Worcester and fought for the rights of monks in the church in a period when they were despised by the Norman bishops. He was a source of information for historians such as William of Malmesbury and Eadmer, who held him in great respect. He was of unknown but "exalted" descent, and may have been a son of King Harold Godwinson. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed

[edit]

-- ZooBlazer 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional images after inital review:
  • Used in the newly added infobox - includes alt text, is properly licensed, and its use fits with the information/subject of the article

Support by Borsoka

[edit]

General remarks:

  • I think the article needs an infobox and Wulfstan's picture should be moved from the lead.
  • Perhaps a picture could be added to each section.
  • What about pictures of Worcester cathedral and a manuscript of Malmesbury's chronicle?
  • I think information about Wulfstan should be radically shortened in the lead.
  • Perhaps: "Nicholas was the favourite pupil of Wulfstan/Wulfstan of Worcester, the last surviving Anglo-Saxon bishop, who was influential in transmitting Old English culture to Anglo-Norman England."?
  • The two sentences solely about Wulfstan are "Wulfstan, the last surviving Anglo-Saxon bishop, lived until 1095. He was regarded as a saint in his lifetime, and he was influential in transmitting Old English culture to Anglo-Norman England.". This is just over one line out of nine lines. There is some white space in the nine lines, but it is still well under a quarter, and I think it is important context. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead contains 201 words and 38 words are dedicated exclusively to Wulfstan. Its nearly 20 %.
As a second opinion is asked: I would cut He was regarded as a saint in his lifetime from the lead, but leave the remainder: he was influential in transmitting Old English culture to Anglo-Norman England is justified by the following statement that Nicholas carried this work on: we need to know what it was before we talk about how it continued. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review:

  • Do we know when Nicholas was born?
  • Is Malmesbury's report of Nicholas's exalted ancestry accepted by modern scholars? As far as I remember this was a hagiographic topos in the period.
  • It was a topos about the saints who were the subjects of the hagiographies. William of Malmesbury is the most respected Anglo-Norman historian and he was writing about a friend. No one has suggested that his comments were a topos so far as I am aware. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Mason's theory about Nicholas's ancestry widely accepted or criticised?
  • According to William of Malmesbury, Harold "had a particular liking for Wulfstan, to such a degree that in the course of a journey he was ready to go thirty miles out of his way to remove, by a talk with Wulfstan, the load of anxieties oppressing him. He was so devoted to serving Wulfstan and doing what he wanted that that the holy man was as ashamed to ask something as Harold was willing to comply". Delete (its relevance is unclear and no secondary source verifies its relevance in the article's context."
  • Wulfstan's closeness to Harold is accepted by scholars, and William wrote that Nicholas's father was a close friend of Wulfstan. This is the basis of Mason's theory and the quote illustrates that. I do not cite original sources solely for facts, but translations of them by leading scholars are the correct sources for quotations in my opinion, and this practice has not (so far) been queried by other reviewers of my articles. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Wulfstan's closeness to Harold is mentioned in the following sentence, so we do not need details. (2) As I have been several times reminded during FAC reviews, WP:PRIMARY says: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."
  • I am surprised that WP:PRIMARY is that lax about primary sources. I do not cite them for facts, only for illustration. I think the quote is helpful for that, but I have added a secondary source. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. William of Malmesbury wrote that Nicholas's parents were close friends of Wulfstan, and in the sentence before the quote I cite Mason as saying that Harold was the most likely father as he is singled out as a close friend. The long quote on Wulfstan and Harold illustrates Mason's case. Historians also cite Wulfstan's active assistance in securing northern support for Harold's seizure of the throne, but I have not mentioned this as it seemed excessive detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OR is putting forward a statement or theory based on original research. I do not base a statement or theory on the primary source, just provide it as illustration, and my use is therefore not OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My tuppence here: I see the WP:SYNTH (part of WP:NOR) question, but I think we're on the right side of it here: It's best practice (WP:PRIMARY) only to bring in primary sources for interpretative work (such as this) when they've already been brought in by secondary sources to make the same argument: my impression from the footnoting is that this is exactly what's happened here, though I haven't done a source review to verify. If no scholar has ever cited this passage as evidence of Harold's closeness to Wulfstan, it would be OR for us to do so.
    On a separate issue, though, it is a long quote: this has its own tradeoffs (per MOS:QUOTE) in terms of tone, narrative coherence and focus. I would encourage reducing it to a key kernel and summarising the rest: to me, the bit about being willing to go thirty miles out of a journey is quotable, while the precise wording (as distinct from the point) of the second sentence doesn't add much: I'd suggest something like:

    According to William of Malmesbury, Harold "had a particular liking for Wulfstan" and would be "ready to go thirty miles out of his way" to speak to him, which William wrote would "remove [from Harold] ... the load of anxieties oppressing him".

    UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems a bit clumsy to me. How about just cutting the second sentence and having "According to William of Malmesbury, Harold "had a particular liking for Wulfstan, to such a degree that in the course of a journey he was ready to go thirty miles out of his way to remove, by a talk with Wulfstan, the load of anxieties oppressing him." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, that seems a little verbose, but it's swings and roundabouts as to whether you'd prefer to sacrifice a bit of elegance for concision, or a bit of concision for elegance -- I think either solution would be fine. As the source isn't under copyright, we don't have the WP:NFCC requirement to use as little of it as possible, which would normally push us towards concision. I might be tempted to bracket out "to such a degree that" to "[and]" or "[such] that", but again, there's arguments either way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it is preferable to give a full quote so that the reader can see exactly what the author said, and an ellipsis should preferably only be used to delete an irrelevant passage. Borsoka. I have cut the statement that Wulfstan was regarded as a saint in his lifetime from the lead and UndercoverClassicist is happy on the SYNTH point. I have cut the second sentence from this quote. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know when Nicholas became monk?
  • A date of c.1080 is sometimes given, but the only basis for this appears to be that he was sent to Lanfranc, who was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1070 and 1089, so I thought it better to give Lanfranc's dates rather than repeat the guess.
  • I think all scholars accepting Nicholas' association with Athelstan should be mentioned before listing scholars who reject their theory.
  • I have done this. I have cited at the end of the discussion the only scholar I have found who disputes Darlington's theory. Other scholars treat Æthelred and Nicholas as different people, but it is unclear whether they are aware of the theory.
  • ...and was described by William of Malmesbury as "his revered pupil", and "his particular favourite among his pupils". Could this quote from a primary source be verified with a reference to a secondary source?
  • Nicholas was probably involved in the production of the fraudulent Altitonantis... Could this PoV be attributed to a scholars?
  • William wrote:.... Could the long quote from a primary source be verified with a reference to a secondary source?
  • William of Malmesbury wrote that as prior, Nicholas... Could the quote from a primary source be verified with a reference to a secondary source?
  • Eadmer complained that English nationality debarred a man from achieving high office in the church, however worthy he was. I think the link between this sentence and previous sentences is unclear. Perhaps: "In the period, as Eadmer complained, English nationality usually debarred a man from achieving high office in the church, however worthy he was."
  • Yes, but the relationship between the two sentences is unclear.
  • Benedictine monks became dominant in the English church in the reign of King Edgar, .... they selected William de Corbeil, an Austin canon I think this paragraph could be moved to section Background.
  • ...the queen's chancellor... Who is she?

Thank you for this excellent article on a nearly unknown church leader. Reading about his life allowed me to better understand the history of early 12th-century England. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I cannot support the promotion of this otherwise excellent article because of the two pending issues. Neither do I oppose its promotion so I let other reviewers decide. Borsoka (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "was born around the time of the Norman Conquest and was prior" - I would mention what he is notable for before making the comment about his birth, which I would move into the second sentence
  • "was appointed to the see" - link for "see"? Not everyone will know what this means
  • "was canonized in 1203" - British spelling is canonised
  • "Wulfstan baptized Nicholas as a child" - British spelling in baptised
  • "he would not go bald so long Wulfstan lived" => "he would not go bald so long as Wulfstan lived"
  • "support legal claims by the monastic commnunity " - there's a stray N in the last word
  • "Janet Nelson comments" - can we get some context as to who she is/was? Currently it reads like she was just a random member of the public.....
  • There's a random space before ref 70

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]
  • There's no wikilink anywhere for King Edgar (or some of his family members mentioned in the 'Assistance to historians' section), unless I'm missing it.
  • This might just be my ignorance, but I had to look up the word sedulous. I'm not saying you shouldn't use it, just flagging!
  • Do we know anything about Warin? Is he worth a redlink and/or a line in the section about Nicholas's death?
  • How sure are you about the comprehensiveness of your lists of reprintings of the letters? At the moment, you give the impression that these are the only reprintings.
  • I have checked and I have listed the reprintings recorded by historians, but it is always possible that they may have missed one. I am confident that it is the most comprehensive of any list of his letters. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reads really well; you don't need me to tell you this, but there are some great little stories, and compelling quotes. I made some very small edits, which I encourage you to review. (I've not looked closely at the sources or images.) Josh Milburn (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Interesting article. Not much from me, given this is very nicely written:

Family and early life
  • Is there a reason you have "Life of Wulfstan" (fully italicised), but "Life of Dunstan" (only partially italicised)?
  • Life of Wulfstan is the translation of the Latin title. The title of the life of Dunstan translates as The Life of the Blessed Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury and Confessor. As this is such a mouthful, I abbreviated to Life. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be worth adding a comma after "Life of Dunstan" – "Dunstan an Æthelred" looks like a Saxon-Welsh name (I know it's not, but with "ap" being a Welsh patronymic, it looks like it could be)
Monk
  • "to suppport his case": this is taking the p! Three is excessive
  • I lose you here. What is your point?
  • You have three p's in "supppppport"
Assistance to historians

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

How on earth have I missed this FAC till now! Shall peruse forthwith and report back very soon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 21:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely sorry to say that I have failed to find anything to carp or quibble at in this top-notch article. I wouldn't mind a gloss on the word "vill", but I don't press the point. I am happy to add my support for the elevation of this article. It is a splendid read – fascinating would not, I think, be too strong a word – well and widely sourced, evidently balanced and comprehensive, and nicely illustrated. – Tim riley talk 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your kind words Tim. I have linked vill. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check upon request. It seems like source formatting is consistent, minus several which-information-is-available thingies. Most sources appear from reputable authors, although this isn't a field where I have a deep knowledge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2024 (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 2024 [29].

Bill Madden (soldier)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Madden died in Chinese captivity during the Korean War, the only Australian to do so. He had served in the latter stages of WWII, and in Japan during the occupation, and after briefly returning to civilian life, volunteered for service in Korea. A member of the signals platoon of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, he was one of three unit members captured during the Battle of Kapyong in April 1951. From the moment of capture Madden resisted his captors and refused to cooperate with them. In response they starved and beat him. He died as a result of malnutrition and physical abuse in November 1951 and was posthumously awarded the George Cross. The award was the highest decoration awarded to an Australian during the Korean War. Madden is the third Australian GC recipient (and first non-South Australian) I have brought to FAC, the others being George Gosse and Lionel Matthews. Reviewers should note the critical thread on the talk page suggesting that the article is is one-sided and hagiographical. I am interested in the views of others about those criticisms, and if they are considered accurate, suggestions about what might be done to address them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria. It was almost certainly donated to the AWM by a family member (P. Regan, highly likely to be a child of Madden's sister Florence Regan) and when people donate works to the AWM they transfer the ownership to the Crown (of which the AWM is a statutory body), after which the copyright has expired in the usual manner. Or vice versa, but regardless, the ownership resides with the Crown so the expiration date of 1974 still applies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Do you have a link confirming the copyright ownership is transferred? Their copyright page indicates content they display may be either owned or licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I donated a bunch of photos to them a few years back and they definitely took ownership of them as part of the transfer deed. I'll see if I can find something more generic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK Nikkimaria, [30] this says "Can you confirm you are the legal owner,* and would be happy to transfer permanent legal ownership to the Australian War Memorial?" the strong implication here is that donation involves transfer of legal ownership, otherwise why would they ask the question? If it was licensed rather than owned by the AWM, surely the image description would say that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the asterisk on that question, though: "Legal ownership means having ownership of the physical item. Copyright is a separate issue". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Nikkimaria, but Crown copyright is specifically about ownership combined with the expiration of the copyright. "This image is protected by Crown Copyright because it is owned by the Australian Government or that of the states or territories, and is in the public domain because it was created or published prior to 1974 and the copyright has therefore expired". It doesn't say that the "copyright is owned by the Australian government". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to disagree with your interpretation there: Crown copyright means the copyright belongs/belonged to the Crown. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Nikkimaria, I have clearly misunderstood. If that is the case, if I cannot establish that the copyright was transferred with the ownership, do I need to move it to Wikipedia and employ a non-free use rationale, as while its copyright has definitely expired under Australian law (on 1 January 1998, fifty years after it was taken) and it clearly meets PD-Australia, that is after the URAA date and so PD-US-1996 cannot be used, and no other US PD licence applies? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know when it was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest I can find is 1982 in The Bulletin, and that was the airbrushed version also held by the AWM, but clearly the same picture. It may have been published earlier, but I've checked newspapers etc and no dice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to ping you Nikkimaria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest solution, if AWM is responsive, might be to confirm with them that copyright was transferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've emailed them. Will see what response I get. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and @Peacemaker67: The page for the image on the AWM website says it's in the public domain because the "copyright expired" and has it marked with a CC PD 1.0. Their copyright page notes that they mark each image with the appropriate copyright status, so unless we believe they got this wrong, it should be in the public domain. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi voorts, copyright expiration rules differ between the US and Australia, and for images hosted on Commons we need to consider both. The image is absolutely PD in Australia, but may or may not be in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. I got an answer from the AWM, but not along the lines I asked for. They say "Thank you for your email and for contacting us in regards to the photograph of Bill Madden. This photograph is actually has the status of ‘Copyright Expired’ so you are free to use it. We do ask though that you have a credit line that acknowledges the AWM with the accession number P02580.001 as the original source." I don't think that takes us anywhere, so given this FAC is nearing conclusion, I propose uploading the same photograph to Wikipedia under a NFUR. See any issues with that? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be hard to justify a non-free image given we have the painting as free? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument would be that the painting must have been done from a photograph (given when it was painted) and wasn't sat for in person, so it doesn't really reflect what he looked like as much as a photograph. Personally, given the guy's nickname was "Slim" I reckon the body is completely out of proportion, makes him look like a pinhead with broad shoulders and barrel chest when his head (in the photograph) appears to have been much bigger in comparison to his body. I think it could be argued that it isn't a great likeness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, done. Thanks for your patience, Nikkimaria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but it's listed on their website as under a CC PD 1.0 license, which means that it was PD in Australia and has now been released into the PD worldwide. Additionally, I would assume this image of a random soldier from Australia was probably never registered in the US, meaning it's PD in the US too. In any event, wouldn't the best way to resolve this be to bring a deletion discussion at Commons and see what the outcome is? Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read Nikkimaria’s comments about legal ownership of the copyright above. I have nominated it for deletion at Commons. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and comments by voorts

[edit]

Source review of this version:

All of the above addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horner & Bou lists them as editors; is the article citing a particular chapter written by a contributor? If so, that chapter and the author should be in the citation.
Of course, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also WL The Canberra Times. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I've read through the article and didn't find any apparent spelling/grammar/style errors. Structure and organization is good.
  • Regarding the charge of hagiography, I agree with the talk page editor to the extent that Wikipedia's PAGs produce a pro-Western bias, but for better or for worse, Wikipedia includes only information that is verifiable, not information that is true.
  • That said, phrases like fiercely resisted his captors, heaping abuse on them and maintaining an unbroken spirit are based on eyewitness accounts and should be attributed (e.g., "According to his compatriots ..." at the start of the sentence). The language can also be toned down a bit; "fiercely" and "unbroken spirit" are borderline puffery.
Sure, toned it down a bit and attributed to the award citation and Blanch. See what you think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, voorts. Will get right onto those points. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the suggestions, voorts, I may have addressed your points thus far. Have a look at how I've addressed the puffery and let me know what you think, or if you have anything further? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Blanch observes", "Farrar-Hockley observed" -> change to said or stated per MOS:SAID. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, voorts, these are addressed now. Thanks so much for the review! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Source review passed and support this nom. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating story. Only a few very small points from me:

Lead
  • Is there a reason you don't wl World War II here but you do in the Early life section? (I wouldn't bother with either, personally, but people don't seem to be able to see the term without linking it)
No, entirely agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "with the Militia": lower case m, as it's not a formal title
In this case it was. The title of that initially part-time bit of the Army was changed from Citizen Forces to Militia after the Scullin Labor government abolished the compulsory scheme in 1929 to try to reinforce that it involved voluntary service only. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Capture
  • The "Slim was a real hero" quote should be in line – it's too short to be blockquote and the formatting makes it appear as sort of editorialising, by making it stand out prominently
fair enough, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote he "was so thin that he looked like a skeleton..." should be attributed, as it's an opinion
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot; I hope they are helpful. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, SchroCat, I reckon I might have addressed your comments now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Just some minor prose comments.

  • Since the word "undaunted" appears in his citation, and you already have quotes around "outstanding heroism" in the lead, I would add quotes to "undaunted" -- best to be clear it's the citation, not Wikipedia, saying it.
  • "The beatings included rifle butt strikes to the chest which broke several ribs – he was further punished through restriction of rations – and his physical condition deteriorated." Parenthetical dashes are usually used for interjections, but here I think we're accumulating information about his condition, so how about "The beatings included rifle butt strikes to the chest which broke several ribs, and he was further punished through restriction of rations. His physical condition deteriorated."? Or join that last clause with the next sentence if that's too short?
  • "Having been posted as missing in action, Madden's family did not learn of his death until 1953": needs rephrasing -- as written "posted" refers to Madden's family, not Madden.
  • I think the artist Bruce Fletcher might be worth a redlink, based on a quick Google.
  • "After the war ended, his unit was then posted to Japan": I don't think you need the "then" here.
  • "then south of the 38th parallel – the border between the two Koreas, and by early December": I think that comma should be a dash, to match the previous dash.
  • "In early February, 3 RAR was again in reserve, this time it was in positions around Yeoju, where ...": either cut "it was", or make it a colon after "reserve".
  • What's the copyright status for the long quote from the London Gazette?
  • Can you check the citation against the Gazette version? The commas you have around "purchased from Koreans" are not in the original. I didn't spot any other differences.
  • "It was the highest decoration awarded to an Australian during the war." Suggest "during the Korean War".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Mike, thanks so much for taking a look, and for your comments and suggestions. I think I have addressed them all now. With regards to the London Gazette, it is subject to the Open Government Licence, see the bottom of this page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I made one more edit to address one of the points; hope you're OK with that. These were all minor points and they're all fixed; full support. A nice article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @FAC coordinators: this looks GTG. Can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

[edit]

Hi PM, as usual out of my depth with military content but always appreciate your bios so my questions are...

lede

  • while a prisoner of war of the Chinese forces during - PLA link should be People's Volunteer Army?
  • between the United Nations forces on one side - is United Nations Command better link?
  • The beatings included rifle butt strikes to the chest which broke several ribs, he was further punished through restriction of rations - think it needs a semicolon after "ribs" not comma
  • As Madden had been posted as missing in action, his family did not learn of his death until 1953 - perhaps 'Madden was posted as missing in action and his family did not learn of his death until 1953.' because "As" suggests something unexplained. Unless we say at the end of war or similar
  • the 3 RAR other ranks bar was named - should the bar have a possessive apostrophe ie other ranks'
  • at the Australian War Memorial, in Canberra. - not sure comma needed?
All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military career

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture and death

  • a major prisoner of war collection point - hyphens because before noun
  • Madden had been beaten around the chest using a rifle butt - with not "using"?
  • Madden died of malnutrition and the result of ill-treatment soon after the group arrived at Changsong, around 6 November. - could add or insert aged 27
These done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Madden remained posted as missing in action until 1953 when his family was told of his death - say something about how it was determined in 1953? Liberated POWs?
Presumably, but none of the sources say explicitly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lieutenant General Sir John Northcott - link Lieutenant general (Australia)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Northcott - that he had commanded BCOF just a coincidence?
Yes, it would be usual for the Governor of his home state to present it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the battalion other ranks bar to be named - battalion's?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caption

  • group shot uses unexplained BCOF - so at "After the war ended, he was posted to Japan as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force." add (BCOF)?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  • Gai Brodtmann - are we allowed to tweak this field in Hansard cites? (coincidentally I came across another like this today and wondered) so that speaker=[[Gai Brodtmann]] becomes speaker=[[Gai Brodtmann|Brodtmann Gai]]? (Doesn't matter too much in this ref because she appears alphabetically correctly with either her first or last name.)
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category

  • add Category:People from the Sutherland Shire
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No more, regards JennyOz (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your helpful (as always) comments, JennyOz! I reckon I might have addressed them all now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tweaks PM. What a wonderful smile he had. Thank you for telling his story, I am very happy to add my s'port. JennyOz (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 16 February 2024 [33].

City of Champaign v. Madigan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edge3 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Champaign v. Madigan is an Illinois court case interpreting the state’s public records law. After a city council meeting in Champaign, Illinois, during which public officials were sending private messages on their personal electronic devices, a journalist asked for copies of those communications. The city denied the request, and the case worked its way through administrative review and the courts. The Illinois Appellate Court ordered the release of the records, and the decision was the first in Illinois to hold that private messages were subject to public disclosure. Edge3 (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

[edit]

Marking a spot- hope to review in the next week or so! Please do ping me if I forget MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are:

  • Note period placements after quotes: responding that "private citizen's communications to the Council member's or the Mayor's privately owned electronic devices is not within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act." is shortly followed by were each communicating "in their role as a member of that public body during an ongoing public meeting". Make sure it's consistent throughout and with other quotes ahead; be mindful of MOS:QUOTEPUNCT
    I think the example you gave above is correct because quoted sentence fragments do not include the period, while complete sentences do. See MOS:INOROUT. If you have additional thoughts on this, let me know. Edge3 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank LoMonte, of the Student Press Law Center, regarded - are commas needed?
    Commas removed. Edge3 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bill also would have required public officials - which bill? Two were mentioned in the previous sentence, clarify with "The first/second/former/latter bill..."
    Clarified. Edge3 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothing else, Gog got a lot of the grammar stuff and it's overall well-written as is. Great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your feedback! Edge3 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review. Some initial thoughts.

  • The lead is (very) long in proportion to the length of the article, and at four paragraphs does not align with MOS:LEADLENGTH]]. (Suggest, at least for starters, scrapping the whole of the last paragraph and the last sentence of the third.)
  • "City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, 992 N.E.2d 629 (2013)". "an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses", just checking that none of that applies here?
  • "Attorney General" at first mention in the lead should be "Illinois Attorney General" and be linked. Consider also "Illinois Attorney General" in the image caption.
  • "The court ruled that messages sent and received by elected officials during a city council meeting". Consider adding "and pertaining to public business".
  • "outside the public's view", Well, the sending wasn't, and that the content of the messages was seems so obvious as to not need mentioning.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened the lead to two paragraphs and made other copyedits as you suggested. See this edit. As for the abbreviations, MOS:LAW says that I should cite cases according to the generally accepted citation style for the relevant jurisdictions, which in this case is the Bluebook, and specifically within Illinois state courts, citations to the Illinois Appellate Court's public domain reporter are preferred over the North Eastern reporter.
Current practice among FAs is inconsistent, but weighs heavily in favor of including the citation in the lead sentence. Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. does not include the Bluebook citation, but United States v. Wong Kim Ark, United States v. Washington, United States v. Progressive, Inc., and Washington v. Texas do. In all cases that included the citations in the lead sentence, the abbreviations are not spelled out. Edge3 (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " observed members of the Champaign city council and the mayor using their personal electronic devices to send messages during a public meeting". Is the date knowmn?
    The date is not known. The only clue is that Wade requested records from meetings "since (and including) May 3", until the date of his request, July 15. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An attorney for the city also advised". Advised whom?
    Wade. I've clarified. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of quotations in this. Few of which seem necessary in the light of MOS:QUOTE. ("While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be copyright infringement, and so most of the content should be in the editor's own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".) I suggest paraphrasing most, or all, of them as the MoS suggests. Or just removing the quote marks; eg in "The opinion referred to FOIA's definition of "public records", which includes ..." "public records" in particular is frequently within quotation marks; is there a reason?
    Most of those quotes (like "public records") were for specific legal terminology that I was trying to distinguish. But looking at it closer, I agree with you that the quotation marks are not necessary per MOS:QUOTE. Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Appellate Court later that summer". MOS:SEASON?
    Appeals in Illinois must be filed within 30 days of the lower court's judgment. However, since the exact timing of the appeal is not important to the article, I've removed "that summer". Edge3 (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The court found that members of a city council do not constitute a "public body" when acting individually. Rather, they act as a collective body, after convening a meeting with the other members of the city council". I am not sure that "Rather" achieves the meaning you wish. Perhaps 'However' or 'But'?
    Added "But" Edge3 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Illinois Policy praised the ruling as". Could we be told in line what Illinois Policy is?
    Added a brief explanation. Edge3 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the court recommended that the General Assembly expressly amend FOIA if it intended messages stored on personal devices to be subject to disclosure". Just checking that you got this right. I can't access the source, but it would seem work reasonable that 'the court recommended that the General Assembly expressly amend FOIA if it intended messages stored on personal devices not be subject to disclosure'.
    The Senat 2014 source states: In July 2013, the Illinois Court of Appeals called upon the general assembly to expressly amend the state open records law if it "intends for communications pertaining to city business to and from an individual city council member's personal electronic device to be subject to FOIA in every case." You can also see the quoted language in the appellate opinion itself on paragraph 44: If the General Assembly intends for communications pertaining to city business to and from an individual city council member’s personal electronic device to be subject to FOIA in every case, it should expressly so state. I still think the current article's phrasing is closer to the sources, but I'd welcome your thoughts. Edge3 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the court recommended that the General Assembly expressly amend FOIA". What's "the General Assembly"?
    Added a brief explanation. Edge3 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I enjoyed that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
Apologies. I was looking for "alt", I wasn't aware there was a parameter "imagealt".

Comments from Elli

[edit]
  • Is there a particular reason that Wade thought the messages might be interesting? (Or was it just that they were being used during the meeting, without any idea of what they might contain?)
    I couldn't find any specific reason that Wade wanted those records. In my experience, FOIA disputes are more about forcing public officials to act in full transparency. It's not necessarily the case that there is something noteworthy or provocative within the records themselves. In fact, most public records received through FOIA requests are actually quite boring. However, I was able to find that 24 pages of emails (from the city-owned accounts, not the private accounts) were initially released, so I've added that in. Edge3 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Quinn also a notable case?
    I did some digging, and I don't think so. I couldn't find any scholarly coverage from the 1990s, when that case was decided. Quinn is mentioned by more modern sources only for comparison to the City of Champaign case. Edge3 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There isn't any coverage of what was actually in the messages, even though that was the basis of this case. Am curious if this ever got any coverage?
    I couldn't find any coverage of the contents of those messages. My guess is that they were so boring that there was nothing worth reporting. Makes you wonder why Champaign used so much public resources to fight the case. But like I said above, FOIA lawsuits are often about the principle of transparency vs. secrecy, rather than the contents of the records themselves. Edge3 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense. Is kinda what I assumed but wasn't sure. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is quite a good article and I enjoyed reading it. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I've also incorporated some info I just found regarding the University of Illinois controversy. Since you're such an expert on local/state politics, I figured you might enjoy the additional material. Edge3 (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, nice. Comfortable with supporting now. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Not sure that I like the way #8 is used; the paragraph begins with a reference to a court ruling but then cites a law; I would cite only the law to #8 and use a different sauce for the court ruling. Does #12 have a link? Regarding #14, our page on the think tank calls that think tank "conservative and libertarian" while this article says they are conservative; why the selectiveness? Otherwise, the format seems consistent and the sources OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've used the opinion itself as a citation, in addition to #8 to cite the statute.
  • #12 can be found on the archive of the Illinois Bar Journal. (Specifically, click on page 504, "Illinois Law Update".) However, the article is hidden behind a paywall so I didn't use the link. Instead, I access the article via a university library.
  • I checked the sources for Illinois Policy Institute, and I don't believe the sources support a label of "libertarian". ProPublica uses only the term "conservative", and so does the Chicago Tribune.
Thanks for your comments! Edge3 (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to AGF on the Illinois Policy Institute thing, then. Going to throw my usual caveats about not being familiar with the topic and lack of spotcheck, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've edited the Illinois Policy Institute page to remove the "libertarian" label. Edge3 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ZKang123

[edit]

A rather interesting case. I will give this a look.

Early comments:

  • "the part of the office of the Illinois Attorney General" – ""an attorney office of the Illinois Attorney General". Or reword so as to avoid "of the... of the..."
    Reworded to say "bureau of the Illinois Attorney General" Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that is responsible" - "that is" is redundant.
    Changed Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Binding opinions are rare; the Attorney General issues them in only less than 0.5 percent of complaints submitted to the Public Access Counselor. (Most complaints are resolved by non-binding advisory opinions.)" – for the bracketed portion, either make into a footnote or just remove them. Also, I think it would benefit by also explaining what a binding opinion is, or wikilink accordingly.
    I've converted that note to a footnote, and I've added a wikilink to legal opinion. Edge3 (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but rather must be submitted to a public body." – "but must instead be submitted to a public body."
    Changed Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Here, the opinion concluded that it is consistent with the court's ruling in Quinn, by finding that the communications of city officials are not records of the officials themselves, but rather the city." – "In this case, the opinion affirmed the court's decision in Quinn, but asserted that the communications of city officials are considered records of the city and not of the officials individually."
    I like your proposed phrasing. Changed. Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the option of filing in either the Circuit Court of Cook County or that of Sangamon County, the city had to make a strategic decision on where to appeal." – "The city had to make a strategic decision on where to appeal – either the Circuit Court of Cook County or that of Sangamon County"
    Changed. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ultimately appealed the Attorney General's opinion to the circuit court of Sangamon County." – was it said why? Also what would be the difference in where they would appeal?
    There was no reason given. Selecting the venue depends mainly on which county's circuit court tends to rule more favorably towards the plaintiff on this type of case, and whether the appellate case law tends to be more favorable in one jurisdiction versus another. The Illinois Appellate Court is divided into five districts, and each district would have varying precedents that apply to the cases heard within that district. Edge3 (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upheld the opinion that the messages were public records, but on more limited grounds." – what limited grounds?
  • Never mind, I saw these are further elaborated in the subsequent paragraph.
  • "Justices Thomas R. Appleton and Lisa Holder White, the other members of the appellate panel for this matter, agreed to Pope's opinion." – "The other members of the appellate panel, justices Thomas R. Appleton and Lisa Holder White, agreed with Pope's opinion."
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 Thank you for your feedback! I've responded to your comments above. Edge3 (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continued:

  • For the next two paragraphs beginning with "The court found that members of a city council...", "Additionally, the court noted...", I think they can be summarised in one paragraph like:
    • The count found that, while the individual members of a city council are not considered a public body, they collectively form one during council meetings. Through this interpretation, messages sent to a council member's personal device at home are not subject to FOIA, even if related to public business, but messages created during council meetings are subject to FOIA. Additionally, a quorum of individual members constitutes a public body capable of making binding decisions. A communication becomes a record of a public body if forwarded to enough members to establish a quorum, and it may also be subject to disclosure when sent to a government-owned account.
    I like the way you consolidated these paragraphs. Done. Edge3 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The court's decision was the first in Illinois to" – "This was the first court decision in Illinois to..."
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The city announced that it intended to comply with the court's ruling, noting that there were "very few documents" to release. It did not plan to appeal the case any further." – Combine the sentences: "The city announced that it intended to comply with the court's ruling, noting that there were "very few documents" to release, and did not plan to appeal the case any further."
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " that the General Assembly" – "that the Illinois General Assembly". Also remove the bracket portion; I think it's clear.
    I've specified Illinois General Assembly. I also removed the bracketed portion "(the state legislature)". I had initially added it because @Gog the Mild: above asked, "What's 'the General Assembly'?" But now I agree that "Illinois General Assembly" requires no clarification, and anyone who needs more info can click on the link. Edge3 (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Bear in mind MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild NOFORCELINK doesn't require an inline explanation alongside every link, and there's disagreement on the extent to which inline explanations should be required. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#A change to NOFORCELINK. In this article, there is no further elaboration of "Illinois Attorney General" or "Illinois Appellate Court", so it follows that "Illinois General Assembly" should be treated in the same way. It is assumed that the average reader would be somewhat familiar with the term, especially considering that "General Assembly" is used in the name of several U.S. state legislatures. Edge3 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • "John M. O'Driscoll, a local government attorney, advised public bodies throughout Illinois to review their practices and ordinances to avoid having to disclose communications intended to remain private."
    • Rewrite to: John M. O'Driscoll, a local government attorney, has recommended public bodies across Illinois to review their practices and ordinances to avoid having to disclose private communications.
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aldermen" – what's an aldermen?
    An alderman is a member of a city council, but I concede that not everyone uses this term, so I've changed the text to say "council member". Edge3 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthfully you can keep the term if its the established norm or title in context, and wikilink accordingly. Otherwise, you are free to change.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I'll just leave it as "council member" since it's more widely understood. The word "alderman" is often used in Illinois government but it's not necessary. Edge3 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Regarding employees (rather than elected members) of the public body, the applicability of City of Champaign was unclear" – "The applicability of City of Champaign for employees of a public body remains unclear"
    Changed. Edge3 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 2016, the Circuit Court of Cook County clarified the matter when it ruled that personal emails of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel may be subject to disclosure, even when stored on private devices.[18] The judge in that case cited the City of Champaign ruling." – In May 2016, the Circuit Court of Cook County cited the City of Champaign ruling when it ruled that personal emails of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel may be subject to disclosure, even when stored on private devices.[18][19]"
    Done. Edge3 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all.--ZKang123 (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123 Thanks so much! I believe I've addressed the remaining comments, but please let me know if there's anything else. Edge3 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No other comments. Happy to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 February 2024 [34].

Citigroup Center

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another skyscraper in New York City. Completed in the 1970s for Citibank (which once occupied another building whose article I brought to FA status), this tower is known for the stilts at its base and the 45-degree angle of its roof. The tower was also, for a brief period after its completion, perhaps more alarmingly known for a structural flaw that made it vulnerable to collapse if a strong wind hit it from the wrong angle. The tower's strange design partially stems from the fact that it had to be structurally separate from a church building, which occupies one corner of the site and was rebuilt as the same time as the office building itself. Today, the tower is an official New York City landmark and is still partially occupied by Citibank.

This page became a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. Following a much-appreciated copy edit from Dhtwiki, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll take a look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The land lot covers 70,572 sq ft (6,556.4 m2) with a frontage of 200 ft (61 m) on Lexington Avenue and a depth of 325 ft (99 m).[5] block with 880 Third Avenue, an 18-story structure at 53rd Street and Third Avenue." - something seems to have gone wrong with the beginning of the second sentence here
  • "which allowed New York City developers a zoning "bonus" for including open space in front of their buildings" - this zoning bonus is mentioned here and in following sentences but it's unclear what this bonus is until I guess the next paragraph. I'd recommend addressing what the bonus was here
  • "his subway entrance replaces two staircases from the street, which were demolished to make way for Citicorp Center" - I'm struggling to find this in the cited source, but I'm also trying to watch the Chiefs-Chargers game right now too, so I may just be missing it
    • The source says, "In addition, both subway entrances were eliminated from the sidewalk, giving the corner, adjacent to the stairs that lead to the plaza, a much more open feel". Although, I must say it might be verging on original research to say these are staircases (for all we know, these could've been escalators), so I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the Citicorp Center engineering crisis of 1978, workers installed 2 in-thick (5.1 cm) over each joint" - unclear what 2 inches worth of was installed

Stopping here for now; ready for the Interior section. Hog Farm Talk 23:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "From 1987 to 2009, the bank presented a model train exhibition in the space each December" - the source seems to indicate that the 2008 holiday season was the last one for it and that it wouldn't return in '09
  • "The block sits on a pool of oil within a steel plate" - the language in the source is a film of oil on a steel plate which doesn't quite seem to mean the same thing to me as what we have in the article
    • I have changed this to "an oil-coated steel plate", which I think is similar to what the source says.
  • "The equipment cost $1 million to install.[101] By comparison, it would have cost $5 million[101] to reduce the tower's movement by adding 2,800 short tons (2,500 long tons; 2,500 t) of additional steel.[120]" - the [101] source refers to the installation in the future tense and expects that it would cost $1 million, while [120] is written after the installation and provides a cost figure of $1.5 million. I think the source from after the installation would be preferable for the cost figure
  • "The project was the first to be completed under the purview of the Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning since its establishment a decade prior." - sourced to page 113 of the listed source, but p. 113 is a full-page photograph of the interior of St. Peter's
    • My bad again. Page 111 says "the first project influenced and helped to fruition by the Mayor's Office of Midtown Planning that demonstrates convincingly what the Planning Commission's Urban Design Group has been trying to accomplish since its founding by former Mayor John V. Lindsay in 1967"... which I suppose is not exactly the same as what the article says, so I'll remove this for now and rephrase the article later. Epicgenius (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping again for now, ready for the 1980s and 1990s section. Hog Farm Talk 02:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a link for terrazzo?

I don't see anything else; I'll go ahead and support. Hog Farm Talk 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is. Thanks for the review Hog Farm, I appreciate it. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - pass
All images are properly licensed (contributions from editors + one Flickr image). Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami

[edit]

Source review to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

Because of the track record of the nominator, I'll be lazy keep this simple. I will be looking at every fifth citation, starting at a randomly selected citation.

  • [3]: All good.
  • [8]: Errors detected, noted below. All other instances good.
    • Semi supports "The metal panels were fitted with double the amount of insulation considered normal at the time of construction. The aluminum was polished to reflect heat from sunlight." Source reads, "The aluminum panels contained two inches of thermofiber insulation..."
    • Does not support "At the northwest corner of Citigroup Center is St. Peter's Lutheran Church"; not on cited page.
    • Does not support Footnote [a].
  • [13]: All good.
  • [18]: Ditto.
  • [23]: Ditto.
  • [28]: All good.
  • [33]: Ditto.
  • [38]: Ditto.
  • [43]: Ditto.
  • [48]: I can't access this.
  • [53]: All good.
  • [58]: Ditto.

I'm confident enough with this sample size to feel comfortable stopping at 58. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review Vami_IV. I've fixed the issues you mentioned above. Epicgenius (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to support. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "During the Citicorp Center engineering crisis less than a year after the building's completion, emergency repairs were made after the tower was discovered to be vulnerable to collapse due to wind." This is not quite right. A repair is needed to correct deterioration, which is not the case here. Also you should spell out that it was a design fault and high winds. Maybe something like "Less than a year after completion, the structure had to be strengthened when it was discovered that due to a design fault the building was vulnerable to collapse in high winds."
  • What does it mean to say that the site has a depth of 325 ft? I assume this is the maximum depth below the ground the building is allowed to go because of the subway below, but this should be clarified.
  • The second paragraph of the 'Site' section appears to be about ancillary design and does not belong in the section.
    • I thought it fit in this section, since it talks about street lights and traffic signal pylons on the sidewalks around the building, rather than within the building's grounds. The Citigroup Center was one of the only buildings in NYC for which custom traffic lights and street lights were designed, though, so I will think about moving this to another section. Do you have any suggestions as to where this should be moved? Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The facades of the tower and its annex are designed similarly." I had to read this two or three times to get what means. I thing "The facades of the tower and its annex have a similar design." would be clearer.
  • "each window is composed of two panes". No change needed, but in the UK we would say that each window is double glazed. Is this not AmerEng?
  • "The design of the Citigroup Center's plaza was finalized in 1973,[56] though the plaza included many of the same features described in the handbook, such as an outdoor plaza, a covered pedestrian area, and an arcade running for a city block." I think "though" is the wrong word here as it implies disagreement with the handbook. "and" would be better.
  • "as built, these posed a serious structural danger". The article on the crisis says that a 2019 report says that there was never any problem.
    • that is interesting. Looking at the article, the citation for that statement seems to indicate that the danger was less than originally thought. I've removed "as built, these posed a serious structural danger" from this article. Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At Citicorp Center's completion, each tenant received mail from a "supermail" system." This reads a bit oddly, as if mail was only sent once.
  • Done to end of architecture. More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear what the second paragraph of 'History' is saying. It seems to be a disconnected series of statements.
    • I have rephrased it more or less chronologically. Basically, the site was formerly occupied by St. Peter's congregation, but only because it had been forced to relocate from a site eight blocks south, near Grand Central Terminal. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert A. M. Stern and the co-authors of his 2006 book New York 2000 wrote that Citicorp acquired several low- and mid-rise buildings on an adjacent block after its chairman Walter B. Wriston looked out the window and said, "Get rid of those massage parlors."[132] The buildings that Wriston acquired would remain until 1987, when they were replaced with 599 Lexington Avenue." How is this relevant?
  • "The only lot on the block that First National City Bank had not acquired was 880 Third Avenue, which had been completed in 1965, and which the brokers thus considered too new to be demolished." I would delete the word "thus" as superfluous.
  • "Early plans also called for installing stilts underneath each corner.[95] This plan was scrapped". This should be "These plans were scrapped*".
  • Engineering crisis. I think you should mention the 2019 report.
  • "At the time, Citicorp was also developing One Court Square across the East River in the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens.[111][165] The new building in Queens was adjacent to the Court Square–23rd Street subway station, one stop away from the Lexington Avenue–53rd Street station adjoining Citicorp Center and 399 Park Avenue. The arrangement allowed Citicorp to split its offices between the buildings." I think there is too much peripheral detail here.
    • This is somewhat relevant because the subway's proximity to all three buildings, and the fact that the two stations were just one stop or 3-4 minutes away, allowed Citicorp to split its offices between Citicorp Center, 399 Park, and One Court Square. I do not think Citicorp would have split its offices if One Court Square were further away, or if the subway didn't run directly between the three buildings. Nonetheless, I've removed the subway stations' names. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saying that the quality of the tower's design had been sullied by esthetic and practical considerations." I am not sure what this means.
    • I've added the original quote. Huxtable wrote that the tower "has neither romanticism nor structural rationalism but, instead, appears to have been painstakingly invented with a tortured logic through a series of pragmatic and esthetic compromises". I think she's implying that the building could have had a better design if it weren't forced to cantilever over St. Peter's Church. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting article, but I find the arrangement illogical. 'Site acquisition' belongs before 'Architecture' and there should be a sub-section on the city approval process, which is just mentioned in passing a couple of times. I suggest a separate section before 'Architecture' with a heading such as 'Planning'. This could have sub-sections on site acquisition and the process of planning approval. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the feedback. I've split out "Planning" into its own subheader, albeit still within the "History" section. I think the best solution to the rest of your point would be to just swap the "History" and "Architecture" sections; would that resolve your concern? Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it makes sense to put the whole history up to the 21st century before architecture. One possibility is just to move planning and construction to a 'Planning and construction' section after 'Site' and rename 'History' to 'Later history'. Another point is that so far as I can see the only details about the approval process is that the city refused to allow a change of use. I think that the city approval process is important there should be a sub-section on it. Neither of these suggestions are deal breakers, just my ideas. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look for some info about the city approval process, but if I recall correctly, it was relatively straightforward, and the city raised few issues aside from the roof. As for the history, I will consider your suggestion, though I respectfully think it would be better to keep all the "history" subsections together, even after the "land acquisition" section is moved up. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the entire History section up. I think that's the best solution to your first concern, as it keeps the "Site acquisition" section with the rest of the history while also keeping it near the "Site" section.
    As for the approval process, it's surprisingly difficult for me to find additional details about this. The issue with the roof was basically a zoning dispute, rather than a full-fledged controversy. Otherwise, the approval process was pretty straightforward. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker on this. (I'll try and do this in between bouts on the George Town FAC) - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) Done down to the end of the History section, with just one query, which is in the Opening section:[reply]

More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St Peter's Lutheran Church Manhattan
Exterior
Interior
Plaza
  • as a zoning "bonus": You've linked "zoning" here, but not on the two mentions further up the page
St. Peter's
  • The church gets a bit lost in the pictures; it may be worth adding a second image of the interior to illustrate your points about people being able to look into it, which was a bit lost on me in the text. Example of how a multiple image could work shown on the right. It's just a thought – take or ignore at your will.
  • "described by David W. Dunlap": can we describe his expertise on this (ie. "described by the architecture journalist David W. Dunlap" or similar)?

Done to the end of Chevrons. More to come. This is very nicely written – clear and precise so far. – SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical features
  • "floor area taken up by elevators; namely, twenty-six single-deck": the grammar has gone a bit wonky here. A semi-colon should have an independent clause on each side, and the "namely" throws that off here
Reception
  • There are a few people's names used here and, as per Dunlop above, it would be good to understand why we should care about these particular people's comments. A couple of labels along the lines of "architecture critic", "architectural writer" etc would be helpful

That's my lot. Fairly slim pickings considering the length and depth of the article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments SC. I'll have a look at these in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, thanks again, and much appreciated. I have now addressed all of your comments. Epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. I'm not normally drawn to articles about skyscrapers, but this is interesting and very nicely written. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2024 (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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 February 2024 [35].

Morgan Bulkeley

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Morgan Bulkeley, a Gilded Age politician like many another, except that he's in the Baseball Hall of Fame because in 1876, when yet another baseball league was being organized, he was asked to be president, and this happened to be "the league that lasted", as one book about it puts it, the National League. He also had the guts to oppose Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft over the infamous Brownsville Affair, and he spent almost half a century as president of Aetna Life. What more can you ask?Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie

[edit]
  • Interested in reviewing. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He took a job with Lydia Bulkeley's brother, Henry Morgan, leaving Hartford to work for his uncle's company, H. P. Morgan & Company, in Brooklyn, New York, beginning by learning the dry goods trade and remaining almost twenty years, eventually becoming a partner" this sentence might be better broken up, for readability.
  • ditto with "During the Civil War, Bulkeley served as a private with the 13th Regiment of the New York Militia. His younger brother, William Bulkeley, who had also come to Brooklyn to work at the Morgan store, went on ninety day's active service in 1861 while Morgan Bulkeley joined the home guard, presumably so that Henry Morgan would not be deprived of the assistance of both of them"
  • "Despite minimal service in the Civil War, the conflict had a considerable effect on Morgan Bulkeley's life, both because of the change of position in the family, and because after the war, he became deeply involved in such veterans' groups as the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR)" Does this sentence really add anything? You already mention change of position, and later talk about GAR
The death of his brother shifted his life. I think it's worth pointing out, as was the way he tried to make up his rather minimal service by leading veterans' groups.
  • "At a meeting in New York on February 2, 1876, four team presidents from the East, including Bulkeley, and four from further west, " is there a reason East is capitalized, but not west?
Because the reader's conception of the West is not what it was in 1876. The teams were, I believe Chicago, Cincinnati, Louisville and St. Louis. So I'm trying to show the geographic bridging without using dated terminology.
  • "David L. Fleitz in his book on little-known Baseball Hall of Fame figures, stated, " feel like a comma might be out of place here?
Fair enough.
  • " refused to allow his team's scores to be reported where fans not attending the game gathered, something the Chicago Tribune deemed a stupid idea" how would he ensure that happened?
Refused to allow a Western Union typographer and had a running battle with people dropping the score from the top of the bleachers to the street outside. Eventually, he more or less gave up. I'm not sure the reader needs the details.
  • "for the game. and his businesses and other interests," Period probably should be a comma, or and should be removed?
Comma.
  • "Bulkeley, unable to boost attendance, sold the team" I didn't realize that he owned the team?
I've made it clearer that he had an interest in the team.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inflation templates may be beneficial for some of the figures, such as Aetna's assets
I've always had my doubts on this, and since we are taking figures from different times, it may give incorrect inferences about how much he grew the business.
  • "Among the techniques ... Among the new lines of insurance" Suggest varying phrasing
  • "the minimum required return on investment" Required here by?
It doesn't say, but Aetna was regulated under Connecticut law.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He worked to increase his popularity (supplying the illuminations for the opening of the Connecticut State Capitol in 1879)" Suggest breaking up this sentence
  • " According to his biographer, Kevin Murphy," Winslow or Bulkeley's biographer?
  • "Bulkeley suffered from occasional illness in his final years" Presumably, like most people, he suffered from occasional illness his whole life.
Rejigged.

That's a first read through. Interesting work. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've gotten to or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eddie891 Talk Work 16:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Vami

[edit]
Hi Vami_IV, that's a bit enigmatic. Could you unpack it a little for the slow of wit among us? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reply that aged poorly. When I wrote this, the Eddie hadn't reviewed yet, so I was saying that I would also review this article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are reliable. There are some from publishers of no repute, but I know from experience how useful local histories are and the nominator is, uh, Wehwalt. Benefit of the doubt. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I wonder is whether Charles W. Burpee is a prominent enough author, given that S. J. Clarke Publishing Company was apparently self-publishing. Has the history of Ætna Life Insurance Company been cited by anyone else? Seeing as it's implicitly self-published, too. What is "William R. Goodspeed"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't familiar with the Clarke company, I would say Charles W. Burpee qualifies as a subject-matter expert on Connecticut as a prominent local newspaper editor, and WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." The source is used cautiously (once) and then only for a direct quotation.
Regarding the Hooker book, a quick Google Books search shows that it has been cited a number of times, most prominently by the major biography on Bulkeley, see here.
William R. Goodspeed is a publisher that dealt in publishing local histories. Interestingly, the URL is from the Connecticut legislature's site.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check
  • [2]: Only copy of this book that I could immediately access is an epub version on Google Books. I found a mention of six children surviving to adulthood.
Take a look, if you can access it, on page 12, "After Morgan, there were three more children, but of the three only William Henry and Mary Jerusha survived. The sixth and youngest child, Eliphalet Adams Bulkeley Jr. was born in Hartford in 1847, but died a year later. In short, only four of the Bulkeleys’ six children made it to adulthood, and these four were all born in East Haddam." Also dying was the oldest child, Mary Morgan Bulkeley, of a fall at age 20 months. I just cited from the family tree page, but it's all borne out by the text."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10]: All good here. I will note that I found a copy of Hooker 1956 on the Internet Archive. Please consider adding a link in the citation format.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [22]: The quotation used is indeed in the book used (per the ISBN), but it's on page 10, not 9.
Yes, my bad there. I've corrected that.
  • [31]: No problems here.
  • [34]: I can neither confirm or deny the validity of this one because of the epub.
  • [42]: Matching our article to the source caused my head to spin a bit but I've determined that there's no issue here, either.
  • [57]: All good here.
  • [67]: Ditto.

This concludes my spot-check. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I think I've resolved the issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life
  • J.P. Morgan -> J. P. Morgan
  • "joined for a ninety day term": ninety-day?
  • "When Judge Bulkeley died in 1872, his son Morgan": why not just "...in 1872, Morgan..."?
Baseball
  • "selected by lot,[17]": Full stop, rather than a comma, I think.
  • "the game.[25] and": Comma rather than a full top

Done to the start of Businessman and politician – more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Businessman and politician
  • "He worked to increase his popularity..." This is whopper of a sentence, weighing in at over 75 words. It also twists and turns in a couple of places and needs to be read more than once to get its full import. Any chance of splitting?
  • This now has "increase his popularity.supplying": I presume that's supposed to be a comma-space?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Senate seat
  • "Hawley attempted to deny Hawley renomination by the Republican legislative caucus and get the seat for himself, but both times threw his support to Hawley": Hawley did what to Hawley for Hawley?!
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Senator
  • "Morgan Bulkeley was": is the first name needed?
Family, interests and sites
  • "in his honor in 1922 after his death.": the 'after his death' bit feels a bit clunky
I've added a comma. I'm trying to make it clear this happened in 1922, after his death that year, not simply after his death in 1922, if you see what I'm getting at. Both death and renaming occurred in 1922, in that order.
Supplied earlier in article.

That's my lot. Interesting individual. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • The Governor section involves sandwiching
Death with.
  • File:Morgan_G_Bulkeley_(3x4a).jpg: when and where was this first published?
Replaced with image clearly in public domain as from 1906 book.
  • File:Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate.svg needs a tag for the original design.
I've redone the licensing on the commons page.

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding a more specific tag to File:Men_of_mark_in_Connecticut;_ideals_of_American_life_told_in_biographies_and_autobiographies_of_eminent_living_Americans_(1906)_(14774966724)_(3x4a).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's done now. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • Putting baseball in the first and third paragraph of the lead and the long section are over the top in view of his limited involvement and interest. I would cut drastically.
I will address this below.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His mother, born Lydia Smith Morgan, was distantly related to J. P. Morgan." How is this relevant.
That was the most notable thing written about her, regrettably, and I want to cover both parents.
De-linked.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1888, Bulkeley was selected by his party, with his Democratic opponent Luzon Morris" This sounds odd, as if the party selected both candidates.
OK
  • "and found time to benefit the corporation during his official duties". "He also found time for ceremonial duties outside the state". "found time" seems like sarcasm or just superfluous. I would delete.
OK
  • "the newly-Democratic state Senate held he and the other Democratic candidates for state office had gotten a majority" Maybe "held that he"
I've added that.
  • "The stalemate continued the Republican incumbents" This is ungrammatical.
I've rephrased.
  • "However, after the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled Bulkeley was legally governor in January 1892". that missed out again. Is leaving it out AmerEng?
I'm not sure on the rules. It may be AmEng or possibly just legalese. In an excess of caution I've added it.
  • "successfully opposing the president's attempts to regulate the insurance industry at the federal level". This imples that he was personally responsible for the defeat. I think you need to give details if this is correct or clarify if it is not.
The source says " He was a vocal critic of President Theodore Roosevelt’s expansion of the central government’s powers, and he successfully opposed efforts in the Senate to institute federal regulation of the insurance industry." His major biography does not cover this. The ANB does say that Bulkeley felt that the big states such as New York, with its very large insurance industry, would dominate the federal regulatory apparatus, would that help?
I've done that. Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good article but it seems unbalanced to give so much space to his brief association with baseball and one sentence to his thirty year involvement in horse racing. This gives the impression of reflecting the editor's interests rather than Bulkeley's. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more sentences about the harness racing. However, Bulkeley is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame, and his baseball involvement is probably what he is best known for, even though it occupied a relatively short period of his life. The coverage of that in this article is fair, it's mentioned in the first paragraph, which is the executive summary of the article, fleshed out more as we pass through that time in Bulkeley's life in the lead, and is covered in the body with a single section comparable to other sections that cover several years of Bulkeley's life. I think we're in compliance with MOS:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[B] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." If there is any prominent controversy regarding Bulkeley, it's whether he should be in the Hall of Fame, so it's mentioned, the major point pro (first president of the National League) and con (brief tenure and something of a figurehead), all mentioned in the few paragraphs that the reader is most likely to read. Again from MOS:LEAD: "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes long.[1] The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read.[A]" In my judgment, having read the recent sources on Bulkeley, the reader is very likely to be here because he is an obscure member of the Hall of Fame. The recent article in the Courant cited in the article gives much discussion to his baseball involvement and two or three sentences to his harness racing. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all the sources for baseball are by people interested in baseball, not in Bulkeley. (The Courant article is by a journalist who was writing for people who are more interested in baseball than politics and is not a reliable source.) The only exception I can find in the citations is one page in the biography. It is significant in the history of baseball and 'Morgan Bulkeley and baseball' would be a valid article, but it was not a major interest of his (as you make clear) and it was not a significant part of his life, so it should not be in his biography. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball is probably discussed for about six pages of his biography, and the entire book concludes with a discussion of his induction to the Hall of Fame. After his major biographer used baseball as the epilogue to the book, it is difficult to see how you exclude the subject from this article. I tended to use the baseball sources, which are quite valid reliable sources, in the discussion of baseball, because I deemed them stronger on the subject, specialized sources should be used more heavily in specialized discussions. As you feel the article too heavily weighted in the one section that deals with his baseball involvement, I've cut that section back a good deal, and also removed some matter from the lead. Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that. If there was more written on his racing involvement, I would have included it, but it's a product of the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOZ

[edit]

Placeholder, have started, should finish tomorrow. JennyOz (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wehwalt, an interesting read thanks. I have a few questions and suggestions...

I noticed in this archive intro above that you mention him being of the Gilded Age but not in the article - intentional?

Yeah, he really bridges the Gilded and Progressive Eras, and given his stand over Brownsville (not as strong as Foraker's but still laudable) deserves to be seen as more than a senator beholden to corporations.

lede

  • first president of baseball's National League and because of that, was later National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1937 - missing 'inducted to the'?
Oops yes, thanks.

Early life and career

  • passengers of the Mayflower more - italics on ship
OK
  • founder both of the Aetna Life Insurance Company - if using caps, why not full name in link per lede?
OK
I looked at the list you cite. It could be, but the service doesn't match up and also that regiment enlisted for three years. The name of the commanding officer doesn't seem to match either. Both his bio and the ANB describe it as 13th New York Regiment.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • went on ninety day's active service - days'
OK.
  • "while Morgan Bulkeley joined" and "William Bulkeley saw no" and "1862, Morgan Bulkeley joined for" - I think the info would be just as understandable (and maybe flow better) without using the last names here ie just Morgan and William?
Then you're going to have confusion with "Henry Morgan" and the "Morgan store". I'll do if you really think it's worth it but ... I did remove one "Bulkeley" after William.
  • was sent to Suffolk, Virginia and saw - add geocomma
OK
  • Morgan Bulkeley joined for a - maybe add 'then' before "joined" just to emphasise the taking turns?
  • where he would remain another ten years - where he remained?
  • First Connecticut Heavy Artillery - link 1st Connecticut Heavy Artillery Regiment?

Baseball

  • Bulkeley refused to allow his team's scores to be reported where fans not attending the game gathered - a little explanation here? Was that to encourage attendance and therefore gatetakings/team morale? Any examples where they gathered, pubs, surely not in workplaces? It was live scores reporting while match in play? How were "scores to be reported " then, too early for radio reports?
At most ballparks, there was a telegraphist, who would transmit each play, generally to newspaper offices, who would post them outside, often on a mockup of a baseball field. Bulkeley saw this as hurting attendance, and would not sell a seat to a telegraphist and tried to have the police intercept messages dropped off the back of the bleachers to people waiting outside who would then see that it was transmitted. He didn't win this one.
  • The Hartford franchise played only two seasons in the National League - did they get relegated to some other league or fold?
Bulkeley sold them to the owner of the New York Mutuals, who merged them into his own team and they became known as the Hartfords of Brooklyn (where they played). They folded after the 1877 season. I'm trying to keep this focused on Bulkeley.
  • Bulkeley, unable to boost attendance, sold his interest in the team - add year
OK

Businessman and politician - Hartford municipal official

  • common council - not a term I was familiar with, pipe link Municipal council#Bicameralism. (That link would also explain the difference to the following "alderman".)
  • When he ran again in 1880, secured many votes ... Sorry, try as I might, but I can't parse that sentence
  • equal to several day's work - days'

Governor of Connecticut

  • candidate for comptroller, - pipe link Connecticut State Comptroller?
  • In November, Morris was elected - link 1892 Connecticut gubernatorial election?
  • In November, Morris was elected with a clear majority - link should be to 1892 not 1890 election?
  • and Bulkeley left office in January. - add 1893 here
  • However, after the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that Bulkeley was legally governor in January 1892 - ambiguous? Ie the court ruled in Jan 1892, or, "ruled that Bulkeley was legally" means 'ruled that Bulkeley had been legally governor in January 1892'?
  • I tried to check current ref 42 ""The Year Connecticut Elected Nobody Governor". tribunedigital-thecourant." but it's an "Oops" error - I think URL should be this but it won't let me read, only available to subscribers.

Senator (1905–1911)

  • and the father in law of - should be hyphenated father-in-law?
  • H. Roger Grant - link and authorlink?
  • insulting Idaho's Weldon Heyburn on the floor - swap/pipe link to Weldon B. Heyburn

Later years, death and funeral

  • In September, 1911, he was among - comma after September not needed if no day?
  • He died in the evening of November 6, 1922. - add age?

Family, interests and sites

  • wed Fannie Briggs Haughton - ibox, and son just below, have Houghton
  • Although he never owned horses which were raced - I presume that means he did own some horses? Might be better 'Although he never owned racing horses'? (Unless that's an Engvar thing of course)
I'm not sure that horses used in harness racing are referred to as racing horses. I've always heard trotters. He did own horses that were used for transport, either riding or carriage horses.

That's all I could find to ask for clarifications about, and a couple of MOS bits. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've gotten to everything. If I left no response, I just went ahead and did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - glad you understood my comments! I just have four last questions, all pertaining to the one paragraph, that I have added above at my "Governor of Connecticut" heading. JennyOz (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up those things. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those extra tweaks. Very happy to add my s'port (and to now know more about baseball and US politics). JennyOz (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2024 (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) 4 February 2024 [36].

2022–23 Notts County F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a fairly remarkable club season in English football history. In 2022–23, Notts County achieved one of the highest points tallies ever accumulated in the English professional game, lost just three league matches all season, yet not only failed win the league title but also missed automatic promotion. Notts did eventually win promotion via the play-offs, but only after a 96th minute equaliser and 120th minute winner in the semi-final and a penalty shootout win in the final. Phew! I'm a Notts County supporter, but I hope I've been able to treat the subject comprehensively and fairly enough. All comments and feedback gratefully received. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

CommentsSupport by Chris

[edit]
  • "following their relegation in 2019" - wikilink relegation and say what they were relegated from
Done
  • "the Magpies (as Notts County are nicknamed)" - I think this is excessive for the lead. Just refer to them by their proper name in the lead and leave the nicknames (and explanation thereof) for the body
Sentence amended and nickname/explanation moved to background.
  • "featured in season two of Welcome to Wrexham" => "featured in season two of the television programme Welcome to Wrexham"
Done
  • "The season was affected by tragedy" - while this was obviously a sad event, "tragedy" seems like a POV word to me
Sentence amended
  • "A founding member of the EFL in 1888" - write name in full and link on first use in body
Done
  • "Notts County were relegated to non-League" => "Notts County were relegated to non-League football"
Done
  • "The 2022–23 season was the club's fourth consecutive season in the National League" - link NL on first use in body
Done
  • "the fifth tier of the English football league system" - same with league system
Done
  • "against Grimsby Town at Meadow Lane, Nottingham" - make clear that this is Notts' own ground
Done
  • "However, Grimsby would find an equalising goal" => "However, Grimsby found an equalising goal "
Done
  • "Burchnall was replaced as head coach by former Swindon Town manager Luke Williams" - link Williams
Done
  • "all of whom featured in National League North's 2021–22 team of the season" = > "all of whom featured in the National League North's 2021–22 team of the season"
Done
  • "Notts paid undisclosed fees for Gateshead duo Macaulay Langstaff " - link Langstaff
Done
  • "winning National League North's player of the year award" => "winning the National League North's player of the year award"
Done
  • "Connor Lemonheigh-Evans, who joined on loan from Stockport in February" - write the club's name in full and link it
Stockport is already linked earlier in the section when mentioning Kyle Wootton's transfer, do I still need to do this?
No, that's OK, I clearly just missed the earlier link -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ollowing a 1–1 draw at Boston United" - link Boston
Similar to above, Boston are linked in the section above when mentioning Tiernan Brooks' loan.
  • "Notts hosted Chesterfield in their second home match of the season" - link Chesterfield
Done
  • "with a 4–1 win at Halifax Town " => "with a 4–1 win at FC Halifax Town"
Done
  • "caused firstly by Notts County's participation in the FA Trophy" - link FA Trophy
Done
  • "and David Richardson of Sky Sports" - link Sky Sports
Done
  • "Luke Williams told Rory Smith of The New York Times" - link NYT
Done
  • "25-yards from their own goal" - no reason for that hyphen
Removed
  • "Ben Foster was forced into a fine save" - POV?
Amended
  • "as champions or at Wembley" - link Wembley
Done
  • "Notts faced Boreham Wood in the play-off semi-final, the latter having beaten Barnet 2–1 in the quarter-final" - might be worth a few words explaning why BW had to play a quarter-final and Notts did not
Good idea! Explanation added.
  • "when Lee Ndlouv pounced " - his surname is spelt incorrectly
Great spot! Corrected.
  • "Discussing the immediate aftermath of his goal, Jones told Ben Fisher of The Guardian " - link Guardian
Done
  • "The match was 1–1 at full time" => "The score was 1–1 at full time"
Done
  • "but the Spireites lead 2–1 at half time" => "but the Spireites led 2–1 at half time"
Done
  • " included youth team members Madou Cisse and Charlie Gill on bench" => " included youth team members Madou Cisse and Charlie Gill on the bench"
Done
  • What's the basis of the order of players in the table? It seems completely random.....
It took me a few moments to remember why I'd ordered it like that myself, which is probably not a good sign. I think the order is by total starts, is there a guideline on how best to order tables like this?
I don't think there is. In the past I have used squad number order for seasons where those were used and simple alphabetical order otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think I'll reorder alphabetically, likely tomorrow evening now. I will let you know once done. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ChrisTheDude: - table now reordered in alphabetical order. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notts County's season was affected by tragedy" - as above
Amended
  • "Notts County's season-long rivalry with Wrexham was the focus of several episodes of season two of Welcome to Wrexham" - wikilink the show
Done
  • That's what I got. It may seem like a lot but they are all little things which should be quick fixes. Overall the quality of the article id fabulous and it's nice to see another team season article at FAC which isn't about bloody Gillingham ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: - thanks for the kind words and taking the time to go through this. I've now been through and made changes in line with most of the feedback. I just had a couple of queries about a handful before I take any action on those. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
  • You need to add alts to the images
Done
  • In the four tables with "Goalscorers", I'd clarify that these are the Notts County scorers
Done
  • There's a few places where you need to sort your ellipses to meet WP:ELLIPSES, which include using "..." not "…" and adding non-breaking spaces
Done
Out
  • "Several Notts players, who would make first-team appearances for the Magpies": "for the club" would work a little better, I think, but your call
Changed per your suggestion
In
  • Image caption "the 2022–23 seasaon" – spelling mistake
Corrected
National League
  • "24 teams play 46 matches:" I'd add "46 matches each:", just for clarity and to stop the readers stumbling about that
Done

Done to the start of November–January – more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November–January
  • 'involved in a "thrilling encounter"' and "acrobatically": if there's an opinion quote, it needs to say in the text who thought so
Amended to include the journalist for the first quote, I've removed the second.
February–April
  • "fell 0–1 down, but twice they came back to win 3–1": They can't come back twice from 1-0 down. They can come back once, then score a second, but the second isn't "coming back" from anything.
Amended
10 April 2023 - Wrexham v Notts County
  • I have a problem with too much weight being put onto this single game, given it is only one of the 46 they played in the league. It wasn’t a final, so it didn't matter if they won, lost or drew this single game any more than any of the other 45.
    There are 551 words on this one league match, compared to 536 words on the 13 league matches in November–January, which isn't right.
Hi @SchroCat:, many thanks for taking the time to do this, it is very much appreciated. I just wanted to acknowledge that I've seen you're making your way through the article and that I'll begin addressing comments as soon as possible (likely to be Sunday). I was hoping for a bit more advice on the above point so that I can get my thinking cap on about how best to address. I completely understand the point you're making about the result not being more or less important than any other game in the context of a 46-match season, but with how close the teams were, how close it was to the conclusion of the regular season, the stakes and the publicity it got, my feeling is it needs more than a passing mention. With some thought I think I can get the most important points into one paragraph, would this address your concerns here? Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think one small to medium paragraph would be about right. It was obviously a big thing for the club in the season (no other match - either for the club or in non-league football - was received the same sort of publicity, and mention in the NYT for a British non-league club is extraordinary), so there has to be something extra mentioned, but maybe not as much as there is, and maybe not in its own separate section - it may be worth having Feb-March as one section, then a section for April, rather than trying to have it all in Feb-April. (I don't say it must be that way, but I think it's certainly worth considering at least). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've now amended this: I've kept Feb-April in place but it's now four paragraphs and has now no subsections. Let me know if there's any other changes you think are necessary here. I've also addressed your other comments except for the overall section which I shall endeavour to get done either later this evening or tomorrow. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in overall now addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to come - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That section looks and reads much better than it did, thanks. Just two more comments:

February–April
  • "Red Dragons were now tied on 100 points": Don't need "now"
Done
  • "won the title in any National League season before this one": "won the title in any previous National League season" may be smoother to read
Done

That's my lot. I made a few minor tweaks for LQ reasons, but that's all. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, these changes are now done. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

From me. Will read soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first sentence is a tad too long -I'd change ... the fifth tier of the English football league system, their fourth season at this level following their relegation from EFL League Two in 2019. to, " the fifth tier of the English football league system; this was their fourth season at this level following their relegation from EFL League Two in 2019."
Done
  • The team's predicament of not winning automatic promotion despite accumulating 107 points prompted discussion - you don't need to re-state the 107 points, nor would I describe it as a predicament if they (eventually) were promoted. Maybe The issue (of a team having) such a high tally of points that did not result in automatic promotion prompted discussion... or something similar...?
Done

Support Otherwise looks on track Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the help, changes are now done. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]
  • Even though the information is correct, I think note a needs to be sourced as well.
Citation added
  • The following words could be wikilinked: hat-trick (in "seven-minute hat-trick from Langstaff"), free kick ("with a long-range free kick"), The Athletic ("Paul Taylor of The Athletic"), penalties ("on penalties in"), penalties ("Rodrigues penalties")
Done
  • "putting the Magpies 1–0 after" - missing "ahead" here
Done
  • In ref. 136: per MOS:ALLCAPS, "NATIONAL LEAGUE" should be "National League"
Done, there were a few other all caps headlines which I've amended too.
I've left this one for the moment given SchroCat's comments below.
  • "played at Wembley Stadium the following Saturday." - the sentence needs a reference. Also, I would replace "Saturday" with the date of the final, or indicate at which day the semi-final took place (which is currently missing).
Reference added and sentence changed to date (also a slight edit to the second paragraph of the final so the date isn't repeated.

Image and source review

[edit]

Are the kits sourced anywhere? Why is File:Macaulay Langstaff 2018-10-27 1.jpg in that section? File:Macaulay Langstaff 2018-10-27 1.jpg is apparently no longer on Flickr; was it archived somewhere? I wonder why File:Notts County 3 Boreham Wood 2 postmatch pitch invasion.jpg by Eric Idle's Cat lacks an EXIF; did you reprocess the image? File:Notts County world's oldest professional football club sign.jpg needs a tag about the licence of the plate. I guess the ALT text is OK. I believe that newspaper names such as Nottingham Post, The Times, The Guardian and The York Press are usually italicized, I don't recall for sure if things like BBC Sport and The Athletic also need to. "The Non-League Paper" might as well but there I wonder what makes it a reliable source. I don't think we usually put the domain in the website parameter, especially since footballwebpages.co.uk, youtube.com and soccerway.com have the names "Football Web Pages", "YouTube" and "Soccerway". Is The National League a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this. I'll be able to read through properly and respond to comments on Sunday. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Newspapers names have now been italicized. I've checked a couple of articles with FA status and BBC Sport/Sky Sports etc. isn't italicized there so I've left these.
  • I've replaced domain names with the website names as requested.
  • Regarding the reliability of The Non-League Paper, this is a published weekly print and online newspaper hiring professional journalists to cover non-League football. It is one of the most detailed resources available for information about non-League matches.
  • The National League website is the official website of the league Notts County played during this season.
Images to come later today. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, information added. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that in this case, the sign and thus the photo might be copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I will try to find to find a suitable replacement later on today and let you know once I have. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image replaced. 13:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Nottingham Council House from the square.jpg? It seems OK but is also really foggy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fair point, and not one I had really appreciated. It looks like there are other photos of Old Market Square/the Council House available but before I go through them, could I check whether File:Notts County civic reception 2010.jpg would be okay? This is the civic reception following Notts County's previous promotion in 2010, the event which couldn't go ahead in 2023 and is discussed in that section of the article. I've downloaded this from my social media - unfortunately I no longer have the device I took the image with. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would work if you clearly mark in the caption that it's about an earlier Notts County thing and not the 2022-2023 one. Yes, that file lacks an EXIF, but I don't see any other version online. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, image switched and appropriately labelled. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed the new file to a clearer filename (File:Chesterfield vs. Notts County, 11 February 2023.jpg). Otherwise, it seems like this passes, with my caveats about source unfamiliarity and lack of spotcheck. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, this is a first time nominationer situation, so any chance that you could do the spot check and plagiarism review bits? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, spot-checking this version.
  • 2 I am not sure I can see this definition anywhere.
  • 4 I don't see the league explanation in the source.
  • 18 Are there other players that were loaned out?
  • 22 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 37 Which other players?
  • 48 OK
  • 53 Which are the other three draws?
  • 57 Don't see either brace or the Moors thing.
  • 65 OK
  • 69 OK
  • 71 Need a copy of this article.
  • 99 Where does it mention Chesterfield?
  • 104 OK
  • 121 OK
  • 149 Where are the seven appearances mentioned?
  • 160 OK
  • 177 Need a copy of this article.
  • 179 Where does it say third division south?
  • 185 Is this one unitary quote?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2: Reading back, the sentence "Below this structure [the Premier League and EFL] there are dozens of regional leagues, comprising over 600 teams. These leagues and clubs make up the semiprofessional, or nonleague, game." is a bit confusing as the National League obviously isn't a regional league. Let me see if I can find something better.
New reference added (sentence of note also changed to make it fit better). Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4: Very good spot, thanks! I've added a reference for league finishing position earlier in the sentence.
  • 18 (now 19): Yes, the remaining loans are covered in the remainder of the paragraph and cited in notes 21 to 25.
  • 37 (now 38): Similar to above: the remaining loan signings are discussed in the remainder of the paragraph and cited in notes 39 to 43.
  • 53: I've moved this citation [now 54] to make it clear it is the reference for the 2–2 draw with Boreham Wood and not for it being the first of three draws: the second and third draws were the games with Gateshead and Chesterfield mentioned afterwards and referenced separately.
  • 57 (now 58): I've re-jigged the language here. The reference does mention Langstaff scoring a brace but not that it's his third for the season (his previous two are mentioned previously in the paragraph). The result of the Solihull game is in reference 59 immediately following 58 at the end of the same sentence.
  • 71 (now 72): I'm able to read this article by accessing the archived rather than direct link. Does this work for you?
  • 99 (now 100): The Chesterfield postponement is referenced in what's now reference 99, directly before at the end of the same sentence.
  • 149 (now 150): Re-jigged the language here. Although it being Notts County's seventh appearance at Wembley is correct, I can't find a reliable source that specifies as such. I could incorporate citations that Notts played in these games if necessary, but this can also be confirmed from clicking into the relevant article link, so I'm not sure if I need to do this?
  • 177 (now 178): This is a book rather than an article and I'm not sure if it's available online. I can send a screenshot of the relevant change if needed, but I'm not sure how to do this?
  • 179 (now 180): The article says won promotion from Third Division South so I've amended the language here.
  • 185 (now 186): The full sentence is "In context it's enormous, it's a massive moment in the history of the club," Notts County boss Luke Williams told BBC Sport. "We have shut the door on the worst times the club has experienced since its beginning. I'd edited out the first couple of words and "it's a" prior to massive. Is this okay?
Many thanks for taking time to do this and your patience with a first-timer! Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A copy of the pertinent page(s) via the Wikipedia email should suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will get this to you tomorrow at the latest. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email sent. I've included this in the email but am copying here too for clarity: The note you’ve queried is now 179. Just a quick word about the way I’ve referenced that paragraph – note 179 is the reference for the previous record; that a new record was set in 2022/23 (and what the new record was) is referenced in the article mentioned in note 177 – I’ve tried to make this clear in 177 but if you feel there’s a better way of doing it let me know. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK for 178 neé 177. I can't access 72 neé 71 even with an archive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've forwarded screenshots of the article for you. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so 72 neé 71 checks out. Looks like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2024 (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) 4 February 2024 [37].

Doom (2016 video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a universally acclaimed reboot of one of the most legendary game franchises ever, and is itself hailed as one of the best games ever. This is also my comeback to FAC after many months' absence. DOOM, and yours truly, are glad to be back. Rip and tear, comrades, until is done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NegativeMP1

[edit]

Haha, hell yeah. Absolutely awesome that you were actually able to pull this off, I'll take a look at this soon. λ NegativeMP1 07:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I'll do this section by section.

  • "The game also supports an online multiplayer component" I think this would read better if you said something on the lines of the game having online multiplayer.
  • "It was the second best-selling video game in North America and the UK a few weeks after its release" Did it only become the best selling game in those regions after a few weeks, or did it stay the best selling game in those regions for a few weeks?

Gameplay

  • This might sound weird, but I think you have to have a citation that the game is a first-person shooter. I mean, it obviously is, but you still have to source it.
  • "such as the chainsaw and BFG 9000" → "such as a chainsaw and the BFG 9000"
  • "As in the original games, weapons do not need to reload, but can also be augmented with unlocked weapon mods purchased during the campaign." → "As in the original games, weapons do not need to be reloaded, but can be augmented with unlocked weapon mods purchased during the campaign."

Plot

  • I don't think we include plot details that aren't specifically stated in the game. A note specifying the year based on Doom Eternal's lore, however, I believe is acceptable.
    • Tweaked.
  • Other than that this section seems fine.

Development

  • Chronology issues are present here, maybe move the first sentence to after "which had 19 employees at the time of Doom 3's release, struggled to simultaneously develop Rage and Doom 4".
  • I think there's enough relevance to criticism of the Doom 4 prototype to mention that it ended up getting nicknames "Call of DOOM". It's in the sources, too. Maybe something on the lines of "and scripted cinematics; some fans and developers labeled the game as Call of DOOM.[35]"
  • Rest of it seems fine.

Release and marketing

Reception

  • No issues here.

Sequel

  • I recommend searching to see if there's material for some sort of a "Legacy" section since Doom 2016 has a strong relation with the boomer shooter trend.

And that's basically everything I was able to find. Overall a solid article nonetheless. λ NegativeMP1 19:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright that's about everything. Disappointed that there wasn't more boomer shooter info, but I support this candidate. λ NegativeMP1 04:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien (Support)

[edit]

One of my favorites! I just finished replaying this one a few months ago. I'll have a review in the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or I'll just do it now:

Lead

  • "the first major installment in the Doom series since 2004's Doom 3" – This might be a good time to add that it's a reboot or that it's the first entry in the rebooted series.
    • Ahhh, that should have occurred to me before! Done now. —Vami
  • "that have been unleashed by the Union Aerospace Corporation within their energy-mining facility on Mars" – This seems like the reader is supposed to know what the UAC is. Maybe just "unleashed in an energy-mining facility on Mars".
    • Done. —Vami
  • "with reviewers crediting the game for recapturing the spirit of the classic Doom games and first-person shooters of the 1990s" – I only see one reviewer expressing this idea in the body.
    • Axed. —Vami

Gameplay

  • "Doom is a first-person shooter." – Is this all that can be said about what type of game it is? This might be a good place to introduce the idea that it replicates the gameplay of Doom (1993 video game).
    • I do in #Development; following the logic of MOS:VG: "Write for a general audience. Assume that the reader has heard of a video game but has never played one." Thus, I cannot assume they know of/about the original Doom games. —Vami
  • "with unlocked weapon mods purchased during the campaign" – The word "purchased" could be read as microtransactions.
    • Good point. Changed. —Vami
  • "Throughout the campaign are easter egg references to... and Doom and Doom II" – Separating the first two Doom games like this makes it read awkwardly, especially since Doom 3 is listed up front.
    • Changed to "and the original Doom games". —Vami
  • "player-versus-player multiplayer" is redundant.
    • Removed. —Vami
  • "some of which are exclusive to the multiplayer" – Any more information about this? Is there anything about how these weapons play that makes them suitable for one mode but not the other (I mostly ignored the multiplayer so I can't answer that)?
  • "that transform them into demons" – Should we clarify that these demons are the same ones you fight in the campaign?
  • "Doom includes a level creation tool called 'SnapMap'" – Are quotation marks necessary here?
    • Removed. —Vami
  • "with their own structure and game logic" – More detail about what this means would be helpful.
    • I've instead trimmed this out; rereading the sources, I oversold SnapMap a bit. —Vami

Plot

  • "Doom Eternal, is set in 2163, specifying a fourteen-year gap from the events of the 2016 game" – This is confusing. It would be better if there was a way to explicitly say "the game is set around 2149".
    • Done. —Vami
  • This summary makes it seem like Doomguy is loyally working for Hayden until the ending. Could a sentence be added about when Doomguy defies Hayden?
    • Oh, hm. Yeah, can't have that. Rewritten now. —Vami

Development

  • I don't like having "IP" written three times in the same sentence. Is it possible to reword this?
    • I only use IP here, so I've just deleted it. —Vami
  • It's unclear what "rolling reboot" means in this context.
    • Me neither, but that's ok because it's a quote from Stratton. —Vami
  • " id spoke with staff at Bethesda Game Studios because of their experience developing Fallout 3" – Maybe clarify how the development of Fallout 3 and Doom were similar.
    • Mmmmm cut instead. —Vami
  • "push forward combat" is defined twice, once in gameplay and once in development.
    • Cut from #Gameplay. —Vami
  • Footnote C could probably fit as part of the prose somewhere.
    • I tried to fit it in somewhere around the bit about the Glory Kill, but couldn't make it work. If you have suggestions, I'm all ears. —Vami
  • What is "classic weapon pose"?
    • Clarified. —Vami
  • "The soundtrack of Doom" – "Doom's soundtrack" is simpler.
    • Agreed. —Vami
  • "Gordon also included easter eggs in the soundtrack." – Maybe this should end with a colon or semicolon to connect the related sentences. Also, Easter should be capitalized.
    • Done. —Vami

Release and marketing

  • "and on Google Stadia on August 19, 2020" – This doesn't flow well grammatically with the other releases, since it follows an "except".
    • Oops. Corrected. —Vami
  • "which prompted comment but not criticism from several gaming outlets" – This seems slightly WP:ORish unless there are sources saying that there wasn't really any criticism.
  • "and released a non-VR demo of the first level" – I would move this up before VR is mentioned. Having to specify that it's a "non-VR demo" is confusing.
    • Cut instead. —Vami
  • What's the difference between the 2016 Doom VR versus Doom VFR? (also "Doom VFR" has two spaces)
    • VFR is a spinoff; clarified now (and removed the double space). —Vami
  • It's confusing having info about the trailers and testing come after the release dates.
    • I disagree and don't think there's anywhere better to put that content. Previous versions of the article had a very muddled #Release and marketing and I would like to avoid that. —Vami
  • If an image of the original box art is available, I think there's a non-free use argument that it would benefit the article to be able to compare the two.

Reception

  • "second best in the UK behind Uncharted 4" and then "second best in the US behind Uncharted 4" feels a little repetitive, even if they're technically using different measurements.
  • The sentences about PC sales could be combined so they flow better.
    • Done. —Vami

Sequel

  • This section feels really bare. Is there anything to be said about how Doom 2016 led to Doom Eternal, or what aspects were retained/changed?
    • Let me start working on that article since I was intending to anyway. I've seen a couple articles in which id talks about the challenges of following up DOOM. I'll ping you when I have an update about this. —Vami
      • Done. —Vami

References

  • Footnote A is uncited.
    • Fixed. —Vami
  • Does Screen Rant meet FA's expectation of high quality sources? I'm asking for myself as much as anything because I hope to use it in an FAC soon.

Vami IV, ping me if these are all addressed or if you have any questions/comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts:

I think that should be it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion. All of my concerns have been addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

I am a bit uneasy about the number of non-free images here. How many screenshots are needed to significantly expand the understanding of the article topic. File:Screenshot for Doom 2016.jpg and File:A screenshot of the canned Doom 4.jpg have a pretty basic use rationale, too. With File:Doom 2016 reversible cover.jpeg it's important to remember that notability does not automatically convey WP:NFCC#8 compliance; the article isn't about the Twitter vote after all. Source-wise, I presume that Makedonski, Brett is a reputable source? It seems we are mostly using videogame websites and magazines, some with archived URLs and some without. AnandTech seems OKish. The Tech Report is considered a so-so source. What makes CamelWorks reliable? I qualify that this isn't a topic I have deep knowledge about and have to rely heavily on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem removing the Doom 4 screenshot or the alternative cover, but it's customary for video game articles to have a screenshot for the purposes of illustrating the gameplay. All the sources except for the YouTube interviews I pulled from WP:VG's RS search engine; the YouTube interviews (like the CamelWorks one) I used because they are interviews. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 13:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One screenshot is OK. With multiple, it becomes questionable however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doom 4 screenshot removed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Update? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep forgetting to reply to things. Just because something is an interview does not automatically make it a reliable source; do the interviewers frequently make interviews, and do they have a reputation for it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea and I don't think it matters; it's a WP:PRIMARY of Gordon saying, with timestamp for verification, that it took 18 months to write the music for this game. I can delete it if you still object, but my perspective is that the usage of this source for this purpose is fine. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to cut the source and relevant sentence. Re-reading WP:PRIMARY makes me doubt my earlier position; the only thing CamelWorks has a reputation is needlessly long videos on video game lore. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes then, with the caveat about sources I mentioned before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from the Night Watch

[edit]

As promised, I will try to get some comments in by Sunday or earlier. I also have an open FAC for Shovel Knight: Specter of Torment, and would appreciate any comments, but no worries if you are unavailable or busy. The Night Watch (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my first few comments:
  • "Mick Gordon composed the music for the game, with contributions by Richard Devine." You could remove 'for the game' to tighten the prose.
  • You don't need the word "also" in the next sentence.
  • In Gameplay "the player wields an arsenal of weapons inspired by those of Doom and Doom II, such as the chainsaw and BFG 9000, against undead and demonic opponents also inspired by the original Doom games" replace inspired with "influenced"
  • "As in the original games, weapons do not need to be reloaded. Weapons can also be augmented with weapon mods obtained during the campaign." How about: "Weapons do not need to be reloaded, and can also be augmented with various mods obtained during the campaign." It already says the term 'original game' in the preceding sentence and this differentiates the sentence structure a little more.
  • I'm not sure why you need to mention that "Gameplay consists of fast movement and frenetic combat" and then reiterate that statement with "Doom's combat encourages movement and aggression". Keeping both sentences reads a little redundant so I would suggest removing one.
  • "To replenish their health and ammunition, the player must either pick up items or kill enemies. To recover health, id added the "Glory Kill" mechanic…" This structure with "To" at the beginning is repetitive, and could be changed to improve readability.
  • "which can have multiple pathways and open areas for players to explore and find collectibles, secrets, and upgrades to their equipment within." Do some levels not have multiple pathways? If most of them do have these pathways, I would say "which typically have…" instead of "which can"
  • There are still some URLs that could be archived
The Night Watch (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All suggestions enacted. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Second part of comments will be coming on Friday or earlier. The Night Watch (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Id, which had 19 employees at the time of Doom 3's release, struggled to simultaneously develop Rage and Doom 4." What about "The studio had 19 employees…"
  • Done. —Vami
  • "Id and Bethesda, feeling that Doom 4 was out of touch with the original Doom games, decided to restart development"
  • Chopped. —Vami
  • "that revealed that Doom 4 had been renamed to Doom and would be a series reboot"
  • Done. —Vami
  • "To direct Doom, id selected Stratton to be game director and hired Hugo Martin as creative director in August 2013."
  • Cut. —Vami
  • “Id also hired Tiago Sousa, head R&D graphics engineer at Crytek, to lead development of the id Tech 6 engine for Doom." How about "Tiago Sousa, head R&D graphics engineer at Crytek, led development of the id Tech 6 engine for the remake."
  • Suggestion adopted. —Vami
  • "In interviews about the development of Doom…" You could just cut that part entirely and lose none of the meaning. Just say "Stratton highlighted id's desire…"
  • Axed. —Vami
  • I don't think you need a wikilink to tone, most people already know what that is. Same thing with the wikilink for self-awareness.
  • Unlinked both. —Vami
  • "Id placed comparatively less emphasis on Doom's story" maybe "Id placed less emphasis on the story, which was written by…"
  • Done. —Vami
  • "Doom's multiplayer was developed in conjunction with Certain Affinity, but id replaced Certain Affinity to work on the multiplayer" change to "Doom's multiplayer was developed in collaboration with Certain Affinity, though id parted ways with them after launch to work on the Windows-version multiplayer…"
  • Suggestion adopted. —Vami
  • "Gordon designed several chains of effects units through which he passed sub-bass sine waves" you use "Gordon" in the previous sentence, you can say "He designed several…"
  • Done. —Vami
  • "For the main riff of the main menu theme" This is some odd phrasing here, could you try changing it up?
  • I do not follow. This is almost a quotation of Mick Gordon's GDC talk. —Vami
  • "The composition of Doom's soundtrack took place over 18 months", what about "The soundtrack was composed over 18 months"
  • Suggestion adopted. —Vami
  • Ref 89 should have engadget in uppercase
  • Done. —Vami
More comments forthcoming. The Night Watch (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to them. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Review copies of the game were held back until release day, which prompted comment but not criticism from several gaming outlets" You could just say "commentary from gaming outlets"
Pruned. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "PC Games criticized the weapons and weapon loadouts following the closed beta, but praised the mobility" Is the comma necessary?
That's all I have left. The Night Watch (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Support. The Night Watch (talk) 00:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

Elias here. I'm helping a FAC first-timer out with their (co)nomination, so a go at their own video game nom is heavily appreciated, though not obligatory of course. Will be right back with comments

Lead + misc

  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of video games should be italicised in source titles as well, and writing words like "DOOM" in all caps is generally not allowed
  • Not exactly sure if it messes up the clarity of the tenses, but "that have been" can be cut to tighten prose
    • Revised this sentence; I cut "that have been" as you said and also added mention of Hell here. —Vami
  • Some other words that can be cut:
    • "either" from "either pick up..."
      • Ripped. —Vami
    • "within" from "equipment within"
      • Torn. —Vami
    • "in order to" from "in order to solve"
      • Cut. —Vami
        • I still see an "in order to" in "In order to solve an energy crisis on Earth, the UAC" ? - E.
    • "a " from "to a mixed reception"
      • Axed. —Vami
        • also applies here "The VR adaptation received a mixed reception" - E.
    • "decided to" from "decided to use the original Doom games", "decided to use them to create..", and "decided to abandon team deathmatch"
      • Yea verily I hath lain them all low. —Vami
    • second "to" in "to use guitars or to write a metal score"
      • Removed. —Vami
    • Any of the to's in "to instead to make use of synthesizers"
      • Ah, oops. Second one is gone now. —Vami
        • Thanks. oh, additional thing, simplify this to "use synthesizers" - E.
    • "live" from "performed a short medley ... live"
      • Cut. —Vami
  • remove "by" in the "by the general public" ? though i understand If this suggestion's rejected because it could disrupt the mellifluousness of the paragraph

Gameplay

  • Any relevance for including Doom Slayer's fandom name in the article? I can't really imagine "Sans Undertale" being used in the Undertale article, for an analogy
    • Establishes continuity, but not pivotal. Cut. —Vami
  • Concur with the above comment about using "the" for "the chainsaw". Using this article makes sense only if the item was introduced beforehand
    • Suggestion adopted. —Vami
  • Don't know if "multiplayer" can act as a noun

Plot

  • I'm seeing lots of "demons" written in the first two sentence. Is there a way to rewrite them so that the repetition is minimised? You don't have to go super far and have only one instance
  • Nothing else of note

Development

  • Spell "id Software" in full before shortening it in subsequent mentions + link the first instance
    • Oops. Done. —Vami
  • Clarify that you're referring to the doom franchise in "license Doom"
    • Done. —Vami
  • "The studio had 19 employees at the time of Doom 3's release, struggled to simultaneously develop" Pretty sure there is a missing word before "struggled"
    • Rectified. —Vami
  • Some repetition issues with the use of "id"
    • Trimmed. —Vami
  • Move "by Noclip" to before "about the..." to avoid ambiguity with what they did (develop Doom or make the documentary)
    • Done. —Vami
  • "series of first person shooters" the hyphen is missing
    • Added. —Vami
  • "Doom 4 was to feature a f..." feels out of place in the place where it currently is. Perhaps merge it with the first sentence of the paragraph: "Doom 4 was to feature a story written... and was going to be set on Earth. It was described as a..."
    • Split the clause about the documentary into its own sentence to improve readability
      • Both done. —Vami
  • Change to "allegedly being mismanaged" for concision and parallelism
    • Done. —Vami
  • Link schizophrenia
    • Done. —Vami
  • "John Carmack, id's co-founder" --> "co-founder John Carmack"
    • Done. —Vami
  • "On July 11, 2022, Noclip released footage of Doom 4's gameplay as well as material from early in Doom's development" unless the article specifies the content and said content tells us a substantial lot about the development, i am unsure about including this here.
    • Deleted. —Vami
  • "Id" is capitalized
    • My eyes are glassing over at this point. Where are you referring to? —Vami
      • In the article for id Software, the word "id" is written in lowercase even in sentences where it is the first word - E.
  • "incentive" should be "incentivize"
    • Fixed. —Vami
  • The bits about Doom's story can be split into its own paragraph since it tackles a different topic from the previous sentences in the paragraph
    • Wound up doing this accidentally. —Vami
  • "to work on the Windows-version multiplayer and introduced new features" => introduce (no d) new features (?)
    • Done. —Vami
  • "private matches, custom game settings and an enhanced cheat detection system" you use oxford commas in other lists in the article, so use one here as well
    • the two above comments have yet to receive replies - E.
    • Done. —Vami
  • You introduce Gordon's nationality but not Devine's. Be consistent
    • Done. —Vami
  • "over 18 months" shouldnt this be "in 18 months" ?

Release and marketing

  • "Doom was the first game in the franchise to be released without censorship in Germany." fits better after the first sentence of the paragraph IMO
    • Agreed. —Vami
  • ""Pinball FX 3. as well as" self-explanatory
    • Oops. —Vami
  • "drew applause" feels like a weird phrase tonally for an encyclopedia
    • Changed to "which was simultaneously applauded and criticized for its graphic violence". —Vami
  • Add a comma after "three of which had to be purchased"

Reception

Sequel

  • Got no nit to pick here

I think that's all. Sorry for the huge wall of text. Hope my comments are of help. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 12:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a rare set of FAC comments that causes me to tear my nomination apart to make it better. Bravo, and thank you. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Power: All done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami_IV: thank you! this is a relief to hear. i often worry that my reviews might come across as too excessive and nitpicky, so im glad i was of substantial help here. some things still remain to be addressed; check above. i will be happy to support once those are taken care of :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Power: Oh, oops. Addressed now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami_IV: this is more my bad, but there are many more to go. i have stricken all the addressed comments for ease of navigation ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 05:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Vami IV! I am super, super sorry this review took a while. With that, im more than pleased to give my support. saw your project about simon bolivar as mentioned on discord a while back btw; congrats on taking the article to GA :) ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 03:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
aaaaa thank you so much! –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 February 2024 [38].

Hö'elün

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to write a series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire. There is no better person to start with than Hö'elün, the mother of Genghis Khan and thus the progenitor of the House of Borjigin. Her life was tumultuous but very interesting. I hope you enjoy.

This article received a GA review from Grnrchst in October last year. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from mujinga

[edit]
  • A series of articles on the leading women of the Mongol Empire sounds like an excellent project! I'll make some nonexpert prose comments to get the ball rolling on Hö'elün Mujinga (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review
  • "When she grew up to be an "unusually beautiful" young woman" - who is being quoted here?
    • Anne Broadbridge: "She emerged in the historical record as an unusually beautiful young Olqunu’ut woman"
  • "As the couple were travelling back to Chiledu's homelands, they were ambushed by Mongols who were out hawking. They had noticed Hö'elün's beauty and good health" - second they currently refers back to the couple not the Mongols. Also, if the couple are also Mongols it seems strange to say the ambushers were Mongols rather than identifying them by tribe?
    • Hö'elün and Chiledu were not Mongols, who at this point were just one of innumerable tribes on the steppe.
      • can you make that clear then? i was wondering if that was the case, but when you say "According to The Secret History of the Mongols, a mid-13th-century epic poem which retold the formation of the Mongol Empire, Hö'elün was born into the Olkhonud clan of the Qonggirad tribe. The Qonggirad lived along the Greater Khingan mountain range south of the Ergüne river, in modern-day Inner Mongolia, with the Olkhonud living near the source of the Khalkha River.[1]" it's easy (for a nonexpert like me) to infer that they are mongols since "mongol" is mentioned a few times Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had noticed Hö'elün's beauty and good health—the 17th-century Altan Tobchi chronicle notes" - noticed .. notes, suggest changing one
    • Done.
  • "The date is similarly controversial, as historians favour different dates: 1155, 1162 or 1167.[12] The historian Paul Ratchnevsky notes that the date may not have been recorded at all.[13] The boy was named Temüjin, a word of uncertain meaning.[14] Several legends surround Temüjin's birth. " - this is rather stop/start, suggest running some sentences together
    • Done.
  • "When Temüjin married Börte at around the age of fifteen, Hö'elün was gifted a black sable coat, which was immediately used to secure an alliance with Toghrul, khan of the Keraites." - this makes it sound like the coat is doing the work?
    • It was, to a certain extent. It was far more than your average wedding gift. Broadbridge again: [Börte] brought independent wealth into her marriage in the form of a luxurious sable coat, which she gave her mother-in-law as a gift...The coat immediately proved its worth, since Hö’elün let Temüjin use it to establish a political alliance with Ong Khan of the Kereits. Rephrased slightly nevertheless.
  • "During the difficult following years, when the locations and activities of Temüjin's family are near-completely unknown," - if not much is known how do we know they were difficult?
    • Well, we don't know for absolute certain, but Temüjin had been comprehensively defeated and forced to seek exile; it would be very improbable for their lives to be inexplicably easy.
  • "although some have criticised this as poetical melodrama" - some who?
    • Specified.
  • I'm counting six "howevers", which seems like a lot especially considering WP:HOWEVER
    • Reduced to one.
  • lead says " Hö'elün married Münglig, an old retainer of Yesügei, in thanks for his support after a damaging defeat in 1187", body says "After Jamuqa defeated Temüjin at Dalan Balzhut in 1187, many of his followers were repulsed by his cruel treatment of Temüjin's followers. These included Münglig and his sons; their earlier abandonment of the family was ignored and they were welcomed to such an extent that Hö'elün was given to Münglig in her third and final marriage.[31]" so I'm confused as to whether she was forced to marry Münglig or not
    • Don't worry, historians are too. Ratchnevsky says "given to", Broadbridge says "married". I've changed to "married" in both cases as I believe it also encompasses the first meaning.
  • why not roll the lead into one paragraph?
    • I think that would make it slightly too long for my liking, especially as there isn't an image/infobox. Plus, the first paragraph works as an introductory summary at the moment.
  • you mention the House of Borjigin above but not in article?
  • nice work, made a few followup replies Mujinga (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in one of those weird coincidences that make life fun I was telling a friend about Hö'elün and they said they recently listened to a podcast about her (in german) - the link is here. The podcast featured an academic, Veronika Veit, and it recommends some further reading which might be worth checking:
    • Frey-Näf, Barbara: “Compared with the women-folk, menfolk have little business of their own”. Gender division of labour in the history of the Mongols. In: V. Veit (Hg.), The Role of Women in the Altaic World, Harrassowitz, Wiebaden 2007, S. 69-76
    • Lane, George: Daily Life in the Mongol Empire. Hackett, Indianapolis/Cambridge, 2006
    • Taube, Manfred (Übers.): Geheime Geschichte der Mongolen, CH Beck, München 2005
    • Veit, Veronika: Die Stärke der Frau zur Zeit des Mongolischen Weltreiches, in: U. Barkmann, G. Altangerel (Hg.): Familie und gesellschaftlicher Transformationsprozess in der Mongolei, Lit Verlag Münster 2019, S. 107-130.
    • Veit, Veronika: „Mündliche Elemente in der traditionellen mongolischen Historiographie des 13.- 17. Jahrhunderts“, in: W. Heissig (Hrsg.), Fragen der mongolischen Heldendichtung V (= Asiatische Forschungen 120), Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1992, S. 188-191.
      • Ooh yes, the German school (I don't speak the language so I'm always a little behind on developments there).
        • Google Books is preventing me from seeing the last two pages of the Frey-Näf source, but it seems to be fairly general, with no specific references to Hö'elün (I don't want to be general and say "As a woman, she would have..." for SYNTH reasons)
        • Lane is good, but fairly conservative; he doesn't really say anything new.
        • The Taube source appears to be a German translation of the Secret History
        • Annoyingly, as they seemed to be the most promising, I can't find a way to access either of the Veit sources online, and as I'm not in Germany I doubt I'll find them lying around. If you or anyone else reading could send them to me, I'd be very grateful. Until then, I've posted at WP:RX
  • Looking through the different wikipedia pages on her, I started to wonder what the best way to refer to her is. I see Kusma had asked this more eloquently below as well.
  • a few more queries Mujinga (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • giving this another readthrough... retainer is linked in body but not lead. I wonder if retinue is better to link to than Affinity (medieval) but I'm not that fussed, just would like it linked in lead Mujinga (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adjusted.
  • It's "Qonggirad tribe" first then later "Onggirat tribe" Mujinga (talk) 13:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn romanisations.
  • Tatar isn't linked Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    done Mujinga (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • link to Khan (title) and shaman?
    • Linked

Source review

[edit]
Source review

Since I was looking at the sources anyway .. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to link publisher locations such as Cambridge and this needs standardising
    • I've standardised according to MOS:OVERLINK
  • The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century needs publisher and location. Say it's an anonymous author? At the moment the author on the cite looks like "de Rachewiltz 2015". also on "de Rachewiltz 2015, §76–78." shiuldn't it be pp?
    • There is no publisher or location—it is an online-only summary of de Rachewiltz's much longer translation and commentary, released for free online in order to aid Mongolian studies. There are multiple translations available (Cleaves, Onon, de Rachewiltz, and just last year Atwood) so a citation of "de Rachewiltz 2015" is clearer than just "Secret History"; I could change to "Secret History, trans. de Rachewiltz 2015" if that's better?
      • Hmm, tricky. Well someone/something has published it online. The preface says "The pages below represent a shortened version of the three volumes — totaling over 1700 pages — of Igor de Rachewiltz’s similarly-titled work published by Brill in 2004 and 2013". I'd say the publisher here is either Western CEDAR or Western Washington University? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're not the publishers—the document is under a CC by 4.0 license, so they just have as part of their Mongolia and Inner Asia Collection. If anything, the publisher is John C. Street, the editor. Personally, I don't think the parameter has any useful meaning in the context of this, and so I've changed the citation to {{cite web}}.
          • I'm still puzzling over this, I do think that somebody/thing published it since it isn't just a website. Further, would it not be worth marking the author as anonymous? And for the SfnRef your suggestion "Secret History, trans. de Rachewiltz 2015" or "Secret History, ed. John C. Street" would be clearer Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the § refers to the sections, not page numbers, as is conventional for literature such as this (you don't say Shakespeare page 42 or Iliad page 87, you say "Macbeth 2.1.45" or Iliad 22.178–81).
  • page numbers for Brose chapter?
  • what makes https://altaica.ru/ a highquality reliable source?
    • It's not the website, it's the author—Paul Pelliot remains one of the pivotal experts in the study of Mongolia. The website, as far as I can tell, is just a repository for Central Asian linguistic texts.
      • I get it that the source itself is reliable, but I am worried if the website is hosting it illegally. I can't make much out of the website with autotranslate and the "english" link is 404, can you find an about section or similar? Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm fairly certain the work is in the public domain. Pelliot died in 1945, so French copyright law of both then (50 years after death) and now (70 years after death) has expired.
  • page numbers for Ratchnevsky, Paul (1993)?
    • Added.
  • I assume you have done a decent sweep of the sources, but can you say something about that since there must be a lot of sources about genghis that at least mention Hö'elün. stopping here for now Mujinga (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely the vast majority mention her, but few provide any significant detail. The study of the Mongol Empire is itself a young discipline, and so Broadbridge's 2018 "Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire" is itself the first reliable, book-length English-language discussion of women in the empire. A half-chapter dedicated entirely to Hö'elün is by far the most in-depth discussion we have of her. I eagerly anticipate fresh developments in the field, but I don't think this article is incomplete in any way.
  • " Ratchnevsky 1991, pp. 22–3;" should be 22-23
  • is there a reason for the lack of page numbers at " Broadbridge 2018, pp. 45–46; Ratchnevsky 1991." and "Broadbridge 2018, p. 47; May 2018."? Mujinga (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • added some replies, cheers and back to you AirshipJungleman29 Mujinga (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Facts on File can be linked Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few more thoughts added Mujinga (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still checking, just waiting on any additions, cheers Mujinga (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 am I good to conitnue with the source review now after the additions? Mujinga (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you Mujinga. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having another look now Mujinga (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ke Shaomin citation has been discussed below, so that seems fine
  • You said you standardised publishers and location per MOS:OVERLINK, perhaps that needs revisiting again. Per MOS:REFLINK I'm not sure why Great Barrington is linked once and not linked once. Same for Oxford, as compared to Blackwell Publishing which is twice linked
    • Oops, my bad, corrected.
  • To stay consistent, Family and society: the transformation process in Mongolia should be in title case
    • Done
  • is there a translator for Ratchnevsky, Paul (1993)?
  • "The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century (Shorter Version; edited by John C. Street). Translated by de Rachewiltz, Igor. 2015. Retrieved 22 November 2022." - following on from above, Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Using_the_shortened_footnote_template_when_the_author_is_not_known justifies not needing to say the author was annoymous, so that's fine. Re-reading "The pages below represent a shortened version of the three volumes — totaling over 1700 pages — of Igor de Rachewiltz’s similarly-titled work published by Brill in 2004 and 2013", I thought perhaps the solution is to add a note to the citation saying it's a shortened version from the three volumes. That would solve the publisher issue and help people find the source.
  • For Pelliot, yes best to remove the link I'd say Mujinga (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

Support from Vami

[edit]
  • "However, the Tatars recognised their old enemy, and slipped poison into his food." First mention of any enmity between Yesügei and his people (or the Mongols generally?) and the Tatars.
  • "Rashid al-Din and the Shengwu" Who and what?
  • "during his break with Jamuqa" I know who Jamuqa is, but you can't assume that the reader does.

An unexpectedly short review. Bravo on the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Grnrchst

[edit]

I don't really have anything to add that I didn't already say in my GA review. Mujinga has already followed up quite nicely on some of the issues I spotted on my previous passes. You can consider me a support. Fantastic work on this article, I hope the rest of this FAC review proves helpful in improving it further. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

I'm planning to do a full review if I find the time. For the moment, I am curious about a factoid claimed by the German and Chinese Wikipedias, who say that Kublai Khan gave her the posthumous title of Empress Xuanyi 宣懿皇后 (not to be confused with Empress Fu the Elder, apparently, who is sometimes written with the same characters). The source given there is the History of Yuan, a Ming dynasty document in Classical Chinese that I have some trouble deciphering. Have you come across something like this about her posthumous recognition in any of your sources? —Kusma (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Review
Found a modern tertiary source: [39] but it uses "Empress Dowager Xuanyi" (should be 宣懿太后). There are some further scholarly sources given for her article in that biographical encyclopaedia that may or may not be useful, for example [40] (TWL). —Kusma (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't actually read Chinese of any kind, so I rely upon the knowledge of others who do: Folly Mox, is it possible for you to have a look at the above? Posthumous recognition wouldn't surprise me in the slightest, and neither would a mention in the poorly-compiled History of Yuan, which both includes lots of detail and is often confused. I'll have an in-depth look to the best of my abilities tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The de.wp citation is in error. The source for this posthumous name is the New History of Yuan, a 20th century work by Ke Shaomin (zh.wp cites this correctly: it's at juan 104). The subject does not appear in the "Empresses I" chapter of History of Yuan (juan 114), which starts with Börte.
According to stuff I just read ibides, Kublai was the Yuan monarch who adopted the Chinese imperial custom of assigning posthumous names to his deceased ancestors, and also constructed an ancestral temple in the Chinese elite manner. Sources disagree on the exact year.
I haven't read this article, so I don't know if the subject outlived Ghengis Khan's dad, but even if she did any appellation as "Empress Dowager" would have been necessarily anachronistic, so it's not really more accurate than "Empress".
As to posthumous names being shared across multiple figures, the words they were allowed to pick from came from a closed set passed down from one of the ritual classics: either Liji or Zhouli, which circulated together in a compilation since relatively early anyway. In addition to the set being constrained, there were guidelines as to which posthumous name to use based on the character of the recipient and their accomplishments in life.
Often, different posthumous names were proposed by different people, and it was an honour (or occasionally political necessity) to have the emperor choose your proposal, and a chance to curry favour by talking up his dead relatives.
The later dynasties dealt with the closed set of imperial name words by piling a bunch of overblown claptrap on top of them to create original permutations, which is how Qianlong ended up as (*deep breath*) "法天隆運至誠先覺體元立極敷文奮武欽明孝慈神聖純皇帝".
Anyway, I'm not sure if I answered anybody's question, but yes according to the reliable source New History of Yuan, the subject's posthumous name was 宣懿皇后, granted by Kublai Khan. If there's any classical or literary Chinese someone wants help with in this thread, I'm very easily sidetracked from other tasks if it's put in front of me. Folly Mox (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I am happy to see confirmation (my Chinese is getting a bit rusty). It may be worth mentioning in the article, although this "he gave her a posthumous title" now sounds to me mostly to be part of the effort to turn Kublai Khan more into the sinicised Emperor Shizu of Yuan.
While we are on the topic of posthumous honours, there seems to be some modern Mongolian appreciation of her. For example, a statue close to the Equestrian statue of Genghis Khan, see ru:Файл:The Hoelun Monument to Genghis Khan's Mother at the Mother Hoelun Memorial Complex in Tsonjin Boldog 02.JPG. Whatever its significance, it seems to indicate to me that she isn't forgotten in Mongolia. —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image, I might use that. She certainly isn't forgotten in Mongolia—Genghis Khan is the symbol of the country, and so she's certainly well known, but I haven't found any RS talking about her. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the best way to cite the New History of Yuan Folly Mox? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after some snooping, I haven't been able to determine the publisher of the version present online either at Wikisource or at guoxue, but I do note that Zhonghua Shuju don't seem to have published a standard version, and Internet Archive have no copy available. The publisher can probably be omitted.
That said, I'd probably recommend:
{{cite book | script-title= zh:新元史 | title-link= :zh:新元史 | chapter= [[:zh:s:新元史/卷104#后妃|Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts]] | trans-title= New History of Yuan | author-link= Ke Shaomin | date=1920 | last= Ke | first= Shaomin | author-mask= Ke Shaomin | series = [[Twenty-Four Histories#Related works|Twenty-Five Histories]] |language=zh}}
This produces:
Ke Shaomin (1920). "Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts". 新元史 [New History of Yuan]. Twenty-Five Histories (in Chinese).
Pointing |title-link= to zh.wp avoids a redlink to the not yet created article New History of Yuan, but you could omit it entirely, also which produces Ke Shaomin (1920). "Vol. 104: Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts". 新元史 [New History of Yuan]. Twenty-Five Histories (in Chinese).
Using |last= |first= |author-mask= allows the author's name to be displayed in the normal Chinese name order while allowing the work to be cited intuitively with {{sfnp}} like {{sfnp|Ke|1920|loc=vol. 104}} (this can also be accomplished with |author=Ke Shaomin |ref={{sfnref|Ke|1920}}).
I usually just use |chapter= when I'm linking to a public domain Chinese history work at zh.s, but if you're really concerned with metadata it's possible to do with |script-chapter= |trans-chapter=. In this case it's pretty unnecessary because the juan in question will be referred to in most academic citations solely by number. (In fact, you could leave out Biographies 1: Empresses and consorts and no one would care.) "Vol. / volume" has been the en.wp standard translation of 卷 for as long as I can remember, although some English language sources prefer "fascicle" or rarely "roll".
Lastly, yes Kublai establishing a Chinese style ancestral temple and granting his ancestors posthumous names in the Chinese elite fashion was 💯 politicking, which he appears to have been pretty good at. I had a paragraph digressing into this in my initial comment above, which I removed during proofread. Reminder though that "Shizu" was Kublai's own posthumous name. I haven't looked into this period deeply enough in the historical literature to know whether Kublai could have been referred to in life as "Kublai Huangdi" (as Ghengis was) or whether his personal name was already taboo at the time of his accession (seems likelier), and he would have been referred to just as "the emperor" and other honourific synonyms. Folly Mox (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we really want a publisher for the source, I can try to steal a pdf from somewhere, which would also give us a page number, although verification will almost always be processed through an online version. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General review:

  • I am surprised to see Mongolian script that isn't written vertically. I would prefer to see the name in vertical. If that is annoying, perhaps it could go into some box with all her names. (Is there a Mongolian variant of something like {{Infobox Chinese/Manchu}}?)
    • I don't think so; I had a play around with the basic infobox, but couldn't get it to do what I wanted; if you want to have a go feel free
      • I would really like to see her name in vertical somewhere, but I don't have a superb suggestion on how to do it.
  • What is the transliteration system used for Mongolian here and why is it "Hö'elün" in the title and "Ö'elün" in the other transliteration?
    • There is no consistent transliteration system for Mongolian, to the eternal exasperation of myself and every other scholar who has to use words from the language. However, in this case, Hö'elün is by far the most common transliteration in reliable English-language scholarship (the common name is often different in other languages—another quirk of the field). However, I'm fairly certain Ö'elün is closer to the actual pronunciation (Atwood certainly thinks so). It's all a giant mess. (Mujinga also relevant for you) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Crazy thought: it might be easier to understand in Mongolian Cyrillic??
      • Less crazy thought: is it worth giving the Chinese transliteration as it is over at Genghis Khan?
  • "Knowing that her outnumbered husband would certainly be killed, Hö'elün urged Chiledu to flee" I don't fully understand: did she believe her husband would be killed no matter what he did, or did she believe he had a chance to flee? Later it seems he survived? I think I would prefer something like "As her husband was outnumbered and faced certain death if he stayed with her, Hö'elün urged him to flee".
    • Done.
  • Do we know when the legends surrounding Temüjin's birth started to be spread?
    • Nope.
  • Do we know who gave Hö'elün the black sable coat?
    • Clarified
  • A word or two on what Temüjin did between his defeat in 1187 and his coronation in 1206 would be good; an unobservant reader (say, me with not enough sleep) could assume that he spent the entire time in China.
    • I've added a sentence; its brevity is because I don't want to get too bogged down in Temüjin's activities.
  • "she also likely felt that her husband had been over-compensated" what compensation are we talking about here? Who compensated him for what?
    • Clarified

Very interesting article, I'll do another read through soon. —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Kusma; more of your comments are welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliability of the Secret History of the Mongols should be at least touched upon in this article. While most readers will have read the Genghis Khan article, we should not assume that especially in a FA (people might come across the article from the Main Page and not from anything related) so it would be better to try to be as standalone as possible. You could also be explicit about this when you say "She also reportedly raised numerous foundlings as half-siblings for her children, although chronological problems seem to indicate that the most famous, Shigi Qutuqu, was in fact raised by Börte": as I understand it, in the Secret History it is claimed she was the one who raised Shigi Qutuqu, but later historians dismiss this as incompatible with other chronological assumptions.
    • Done and clarified.
  • Is the battle at Dalan Balzhut the same as zh:十三翼之戰=ru:Битва при Далан-Балджутах? Might be worth an {{ill}}?
    • There was actually an existing en:wp article, so I've merged the wikidata items and added a link.
  • "turmoil in Hö'elün's personal life" still confuses me a bit. She is disappointed that her husband gets compensated, and plots against some of her stepsons. Is this politics or a troubled personal life?
    • I have expanded that paragraph.
      • I don't think this is now accurately summarised by the lead section's "Her personal life suffered greatly after Temüjin's 1206 coronation as Genghis Khan". —Kusma (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Expanded.
  • The Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Women I linked to earlier [41] also claims that Genghis Khan gave a lot of credit to his mother for his success, and said "My mother is the cornerstone of the state". I don't know where this quote is from and how it has been mangled i n translation Mongol->Chinese->English, but if something like this could be verified better it might be worth including.
    • The closest I can get is the Secret History, when Genghis is granting a (too-few, according to her) number of followers to Hö'elün, he is depicted as saying: "Mother toiled most in rallying the people", or something.
  • Overall my main (small) concern is how much it helps to read the Genghis Khan article to get background on all kinds of things (transliteration of Mongol, reliability of sources etc.) Some of this background would be good to include here, possibly as footnotes. —Kusma (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images (source comment contained therein)

[edit]

Do we have information on whether the depiction at File:Statue of Hö'elün at Tsonjin Boldog.jpg is a realistic depiction of what Hö'elün looked like? And for File:Mongol Empire c.1207.png, does the book show a similar map, or how does it present its information? The ALT text for the map says what the image is, without actually conveying its information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, as far as I am aware, this is as close to realistic as it gets because we have no literary depictions of her (and those would likely be more unrealistic—the famous 13th-century portrait of Genghis Khan at the top of his page deliberately portrays him as more Chinese than Mongolian).
Most recommendations for ALT text advise against going into too much detail, and you would need a full paragraph to adequately summarize that map. The sources for it show similar maps. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "At the time, the Mongolian plateau was subdivided into a large number of small polities" would be sufficient. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done equivalent Jo-Jo Eumerus. Is all good? Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the "Map of..." part is necessary. The ALT text doesn't need to describe what the image is, but replace its information content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to do both Jo-Jo Eumerus. A screen reader will pick up the caption, but not what type of image it is. A visually impaired reader might think it is a painting of Mongolic tribes c. 1207, without the "Map of..." part. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems fair. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have these sources been mined? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have been looked at Jo-Jo Eumerus; I don't believe the ones I can access can offer anything new. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's all from me, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Borsoka

[edit]
Review
Name and sources
  • Ö’elün: if this is an alternative English form of her name, why is it italicised?
    • I'm fairly certain that's the standard method, using the {{transl}} template, as I did at Genghis Khan.
The MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also the MOS: "transliterations should instead use {{transl}}" (emphasis not mine, from MOS:LANG). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life and initial marriages
  • The event was omitted...: perhaps "Hö'elün's kidnapping was omitted..."?
    • Done.
  • The event was omitted from most official chronicles and only appears in full in the Secret History... Is "in full" necessary? I understand the event is not mentioned at all in other sources.
    • Good catch.
Matriarch and advisor
  • On the other hand, other sources such as Rashid al-Din imply that Yesügei's brothers stood by the widow. It is possible that Hö'elün may have refused to join in levirate marriage with one,... Unclear: why did they stand by her if she possibly had refused to marry one of them?
  • ..., which she felt was a foolish imitation of their ancestors' heroic deeds Is this necessary? What were their ancestors' heroic deeds and how can fratricide associated in any way with heroic deeds?
    • Their ancestors' (Bodonchar and his brothers) heroic deeds were robbing, killing and stealing in order to secure their position. The difference is that they did it together, rather than against each other.
      • Perhaps "their ancestors' martial bravery/martial acts"? For me, both describing robbing, killing and stealing as heroic deeds, and associating the murder of one's own brother with heroic deeds are strange. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Mongols did not have the same concept of heroism as you, Borsoka. To serve your family and interests was a praiseworthy deed; doing so through killing your half-brother was not. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps, but neither Ratchnevsky nor Veit verify the reference to "the ancestors' heroic acts". They both refer to the "words of the ancestors"/"Worten der Alten" cited by Hö'elün "to shower her sons with wild verbal abuse" (Ratchnevsky). Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Borsoka Veit p. 129: "Betrachten wir aber die vertrauten Bilder, die sie benutzte, mit welchen man urprunglich auch die Heldentaten der Vorfahren zu schildern pflegte - also positiv - sp erleben wir in der Schelte die Umkehr der kraftvollen Bilder durch die Mutter Hoelun, einen unerwarteten Paradigmenweschel also."
            • English translation: But if we look at the familiar images that she used, which were originally used to describe the heroic deeds of the ancestors - i.e. positively - then in the scolding we experience the reversal of the powerful images by the mother Hoelun, an unexpected paradigm shift. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Hö'elün was later commemorated by her grandson Kublai Khan, founder of the Yuan Dynasty. Is this necessary?
    • Not particularly. I'd thought to include it as the only "legacy"-type detail, but now removed.

An excellent article. Thank you for it. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • What makes Ke (1920) a high quality RS? And, given WP:RSUEC, what is in Ke that is not available in an English language source?
    • Gog the Mild, see the lengthy discussion in Kusma's comments above. It is solely in the article as a source for a Chinese name, which English sources generally don't bother themselves with.
I understand that. I don't see a discussion of what makes Ke (1920) a high quality RS. If I have missed it, apologies and feel free to point me back to it.
  • In 新元史/卷104 I see several references to Empress Xuan yi (宣懿皇后) but none seem to cover "from her great-grandson Kublai Khan after his foundation of the Yuan Dynasty." Could you point me to the text you are relying on? (In Mandarin for preference.) Thanks.
well, I've cut the "from her great-grandson Kublai Khan after his foundation of the Yuan Dynasty" bit, shortening it to what I know the New History of Yuan actually says. Does that work Gog the Mild? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that the source is a HQ RS, but given the context of what it is used for, I guess I can grit my teeth. Otherwise fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hö'elün married Münglig, an old retainer of Yesügei, in thanks for his support after a damaging defeat in 1187". Should there be a comma after "defeat"?
    • No.
      • In which case, is it known when Hö'elün and Münglig married?
        • Also no. Sorry.
Not to worry, if it's not in the sources, it's not in the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2024 (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_2024&oldid=1211102463"